ESTACADA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2005 – 7:00 PM

CITY HALL

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present:  Cm. Allen Cameron, Cm. Don McGregor, Cm. Tom Sager, Cm. John James, Cm. Art Webber, CP Mike McCallister, CR Denise Carey.

 

Absent:  Cm. Brenda Crosby, Cm. Jeff Copeland.

 

APPROVAL OF JANUARY 27, 2005 MINUTES

 

Cm. Sager moved to approve the January 27, 2005 meeting minutes.  Cm. McGregor seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

Subdivision application #2004-4 - Scott Espedal – Cm. Cameron opened the public hearing and read the statement of evidence.  He asked the Commissioners to declare any ex-parte contact and there was none declared.  He asked if there was any written correspondence to add to the record and CP McCallister stated there was none. 

 

CP McCallister stated that this hearing had been continued because of concerns regarding Carol and Oak View Streets.  CP McCallister and the applicant had been in contact with the potential buyer of the lot where Carol Street is only a 25’ right of way.  This potential buyer is planning to dedicate the right-of-way needed to expand the road to 50’ as soon as he obtains the property.  The current property owner is not interested in any improvements to this area at this time.  CP McCallister stated that the Planning Commission could forward this application to the Council and hope that a solution may be available by the time of that public hearing.

 

Leonard Smith, Engineer representing Scott Espedal - Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Espedal has been in contact with city staff and the potential buyer of the property regarding the widening of Oak View.  Mr. Espedal wants to be a good neighbor but he has reservations on having to do things that are not under his control to be able to develop his property.  He is happy to assist the city towards the final outcome but he has no legal way to develop the property along Oak View that is owned by someone else.  Mr. Smith also stated that the applicant is aware that either the Devey development or Whitesell must be complete before they will have access to their development. 

 

Cm. Cameron opened the floor to those against the application.

 

Jerry Polzin, Carol Street – Mr. Polzin commented that this application should not be approved because this would mean too many households using the Carol Street access.  He does not feel the intersection of Carol and Shafford is adequate for the additional traffic this development would generate.  He stated that the TSP suggests that a local street be 60’ wide and none of these access streets are this wide.  There are two major curves and a slope to this access so he feels this development should proceed out the Whitesell subdivision and down 4th Avenue.  He would like to see the access to Oak View and Carol blocked so traffic would have to go the other way.  Mr. Polzin also suggested that an outlet be built connecting this development to Copeland Road.

 

Cm. McGregor stated that the street being proposed to continue down Oak View is part of the TSP and the Street Master Plan.

 

Gunther Goos, 544 NE Carol – Mr. Goos is not against development but does not think the Carol Street/Shafford Street intersection would be safe with additional traffic using it.  He agrees with Mr. Polzin that traffic should go out to 4th Avenue.

 

Cm. Cameron opened the floor to those in favor of the application.  There were no speakers.

 

Cm. Cameron asked if the applicant had any rebuttal.

 

Leonard Smith, applicant – Mr. Smith certainly understands and respects the testimony he has heard.  He stated that the council has adopted local street standards to allow 50’ rights of way and this proposal meets all city requirements.  Mr. Smith stated that the sharp curve would be helpful to deter people from the area and to certainly slow them down as they use the road.  Mr. Smith stated that the Copeland Road access was not pursued because the slopes required would not meet city standards. 

 

Since there was no further public comment, Cm. Cameron closed the public hearing.

 

Cm. McGregor asked if they could close access to a road.  CP McCallister stated that they could make a reserve strip a condition and this could prohibit access until at some time the access was appropriate. 

 

The Commission discussed having the applicant improve the entire road to 50’.  CP McCallister stated that a condition must be feasible.  In this case, the Commission could require the applicant to improve the portion of the road where the 50’ right of way was available but they could not put a condition in to improve the 25’ section because the applicant does not own the property or have access to the property.  CP McCallister stated that the Commission could recommend denial until this area is improved. 

 

Cm. James stated that he is encouraged that there is a developer willing to go over and beyond what they need to do to fix this problem and he would like to see this project proceed. 

 

Cm. Sager asked what the traffic study shows for the Shafford/Sixth intersection.  Cm. Webber stated that if an average home has 4 departures a day then that would compute to 800 new trips down Carol per day.  He does not feel the road is adequate for this amount of trips. 

 

The Commission discussed placing stop signs or speed bumps to slow traffic. 

 

Cm. Cameron would like a condition that Carol Street has to be fixed before the subdivision plat is recorded. 

 

Public Works Director Chris Randall sated that the water would be adequate through the high level system for this development.  He also stated that SDC credit could be available for any off-site street improvements.

 

Cm Sager moved to deny the application.  The motion died for lack of a second.

 

Cm. James moved to approve the application with an additional condition that the applicant must improve Carol Street.  The motion died for lack of a second.

 

The Commission discussed the portion of the street that can be improved and how that condition would work. 

 

Cm. James moved to approve subdivision application 2004-4 with the conditions in the staff report and with an additional condition to improve Carol Street from the intersection of Ginseng Street to Shafford Street to city standards including curbs and sidewalks.  Cm. McGregor seconded the motion.  Cm. Sager stated he would be voting no because it is so far fetched on what is going to happen with the other property.  Roll Call Vote:  Cm. McGregor-yes, Cm. Cm. James-yes, Cm. Webber-no, Cm. Sager-no, Cm. Cameron-yes.  The motion passed with 3 yes and 2 no.

 

Subdivision application #2004-3 – Ainsworth Partners – Cm. Cameron opened the public hearing and read the statement regarding evidence.  He asked the Commission to declare any ex-parte contact and there was none declared.

 

CP McCallister stated there were no changes in the staff report since July 15th.  The main issues were that the main plan does not accommodate the 7500 sq. ft. lot size or connectivity to surrounding lots.  Staff recommends denial.

 

Don Phillips, representing the applicant, agrees with the staff recommendation of denial.  They had acquired the property over a year ago with the condition that a four-lot subdivision could fit and they realize this is not a reality.  They have met with neighboring property owners but could not come to an agreement because of economic considerations.  Mr. Phillips stated there was no way a four-lot subdivision can fit on this property. 

 

Cm. Cameron asked if there was anyone else wishing to testify.

 

Bill Hilands, 2698 SW Ravens View Drive – Mr. Hilands stated that the biggest problem in this area is the storm water depth.

 

Cm. Cameron closed the public hearing.

 

Cm. Webber moved to deny subdivision application 2004 – 3.  Cm. Sager seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote:  Cm. McGregor-yes, Cm. Sager-yes, Cm. James-yes, Cm. Webber-yes, Cm. Cameron-yes.  The motion passed with 5 yes and 0 no.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.