ESTACADA CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

ESTACADA CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS

475 SE MAIN STREET, ESTACADA, OREGON

MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 2006 - 7:00 PM

 

ALL TO ORDER BY PRESIDING OFFICER                                                                  

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.  Mayor Austin led in the pledge of allegiance.

 

Present:  Cr. Becky Arnold, Cr. Michele Conditt, Cr. Norm Ernst, Cr. Richard Hartwig, Cr. Kay Nelson, Mayor Bob Austin, CM Randy Ealy, CR Denise Carey.

 

Absent:  Cr. Ben Erickson

 

CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY GROUP COMMENTS                                                       

§         August Golden Rake Award – Karen Hardman

 

Mayor Austin announced Karen Hardman as the August Golden Rake Award recipient.  Mayor Austin also presented the council with a certificate of appreciation for the City’s participation in the Relay for Life.  He also informed the council that the city had been recognized for the many year of membership with City County Insurance Services.

 

Dennis Dahrens presented the design plan and preliminary budget for the Estacada Veteran’s Memorial.  He asked that the Council approve the design and budget and to have the city sign the agreement needed for use of the site.  Mayor Austin stated that the Council was in support of the use of the site as long as a few issues were worked out with staff.  CM Ealy stated that the Memorandum of Understanding could be placed on the next council agenda.

 

Phil Lingelbach distributed information regarding the Estacada Hwy sign project funded with Tourism funds.  He asked for help from the City for installation of the signs.  All signs will be placed on private property and all but one owner has given their permission for placing the sign. 

 

CONSENT AGENDA                                                                            

§         Approve July 24, 2006 Council minutes

§         Approve July 24, 2006 Workshop minutes

§         Resolution 2006 – 015 – A Resolution of the City of Estacada, Oregon calling a measure election to submit to the electors of the City the question of annexation of 1 acre into the city limits.

§         Resolution 2006 – 016 – A Resolution of the City of Estacada, Oregon calling a measure election to submit to the electors of the City the question of annexation of 1 acre into the city limits.

§         Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County – 4th St. Realignment

 

Cr. Conditt moved to add the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County to the consent agenda.  Cr. Arnold seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously. 

 

Cr. Arnold moved to approve the consent agenda.  Cr. Conditt seconded the motion.  The motion passed with 5 yes, 0 no and 1 abstention (Hartwig). 

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS                                                                                                 

 

2006-07 Supplemental Budget – Resolution 2006 – 014 – A Resolution adopting and appropriating funds for the supplemental budget for fiscal year 2006-2007.

 

Mayor Austin opened the public hearing. 

 

CR Carey explained that there were a few water and sewer projects not completed in the last budget year and a few that are going to cost more than originally budgeted.  This supplemental budget will add these projects and costs to the current 2006-07 budget.  The council heard a report at their July 10th meeting from Lead Plant Operator Stone regarding the budget changes. 

 

After asking for public input and receiving none, Mayor Austin closed the public hearing.

 

Cr. Arnold moved to adopt Resolution 2006 – 014 – A Resolution adopting and appropriating funds for the supplemental budget for fiscal year 2006-2007.  Cr. Hartwig seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Annexation Application 2006 – 05 – Lance Schlichter – 34E 17D Lot 100 (Wren Road):  DRAFT – Resolution 2006 – 017 – A Resolution of the City of Estacada, Oregon calling a measure election to submit to the electors of the City the question of annexation of 29.47 acres into the city limits.

 

Mayor Austin opened the pubic hearing and asked for council to declare any ex-parte contact or conflict of interest.  Cr. Hartwig stated he had helped the applicant with the application by telling him where to pick it up.  Mayor Austin asked if he had any further knowledge or contact with the applicant and Cr. Hartwig stated he had not.

 

CM McCallister reviewed the Planning Commission decision and recommendation to the City Council of approval with conditions.  CM explained the capacity issue and the unanswered questions of how fast development will occur and when will capacity be depleted.  CM stated that it is feasible to upgrade the plants to increase capacity but the money is not available at this time.  He stated that what the council has to determine tonight is does the capacity exist.  The Planning Commission felt that capacity does exist to be able to annex this property.  

 

Cr. Hartwig asked about the abatement of the house that is on the property.  Will the house have to be removed within the 10 years to comply with the code?  CP McCallister stated the house would have to be moved. 

 

Cr. Conditt asked if the zone is consistent with our zoning and CP stated it was. 

 

Cr. Nelson stated that CP McCallister recommended denial of the annexation based on the capacity issue but the Planning Commission felt otherwise.  CP McCallister stated he does not have a particularly strong professional issue on this one way or the other, he just felt the issue needed to be discussed and addressed.  CP stated that the Curt McLeod, City Engineer, testified that this annexation would be feasible at this time.

 

Cr. Arnold asked about the applicant’s testimony at the Planning Commission meeting stating they had no interest in developing at this time and would not be requiring utilities in the near future.  CP stated this is a question for the applicant. 

 

Mayor Austin stated that the rate of development is hard to predict and only the future will show how fast these subdivisions will develop.  Cr. Conditt feels we need to continue pushing for increased services to be ready for when growth does happen. 

 

Cr. Hartwig stated it has taken the city 100 hears to have 850 water connections and he does not feel this additional need will happen overnight. 

 

Mayor Austin read the statement regarding evidence and the right to appeal. 

 

Lance Schlichter, 2365 Royal Oaks Drive, California, representative of the Schlichter estate, addressed the Council’s questions and concerns.  He stated that they chose to annex now because he felt it might take a few years or tries to get it done.  This application is not a development proposal but he could foresee a couple of sewer hookups.  He does not know what will happen in the future with the land.  If he envisioned a use for the property, he would see a technological industry use. 

 

Those opposing the application:

 

Mark Ellinger, 32310 SE Wren Road, concerned with the rate Estacada is growing and is concerned that he may have to give property for right of way purposes.  He is concerned with increased traffic and the timing of the project.

 

Ruth Lazott, 32000 SE Hinman Road, loves the country and would hate to see the road have to be widened to serve increased traffic.  She loves to walk that road and this would make it harder for her to use it for walking.  She also asked if she would be required to give up their wells and sewer systems to be part of the city.  Mayor Austin stated that this application has nothing to do with her property and they would not be required to hook up to services.

 

Lillain Bellek, 32125 SE Hinman Road, does not like the annexation and asked if only city residents would vote.  Mayor Austin stated that only electors inside the city limits would vote on the annexation issue.

 

Lance Schlichter stated that a road to service his property would not take away any property from any other abutting property owners but only from his property.   

 

Being no further comments from the public, Mayor Austin closed the public hearing. 

 

Cr. Nelson moved to deny the application until the city is sure there is sufficient water and sewer available.  Cr. Hartwig seconded the motion.  There was discussion whether Cr. Hartwig had declared ex-parte contact.  He stated he would be abstaining from the vote and would pull his second of the motion for this reason. 

 

Cr. Conditt moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendation and findings of Annexation application 2006 – 05 to approve with conditions.  Cr. Ernst seconded the motion.  Mayor Austin feels the capacity issue will not need to be addressed in the near future but plans should be made to prepare for the future developments.  Cr. Hartwig stated this annexation will not hurt the city at all and that adjoining properties were currently annexed abutting his property and do not plan to develop at this time.  Cr. Nelson is concerned that an island is being created and may be forced to annex at some time.  Cr. Conditt feels the time to determine capacity is when there is a development application for the property.  Roll call vote:  Cr. Arnold-yes, Cr. Conditt-yes, Cr. Ernst-yes, Cr. Hartwig-abstain, Cr. Nelson-no, Mayor Austin-yes.  The motion passed with 4 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention. 

 

Cr. Conditt moved to adopt Resolution 2006 – 017 – A Resolution of the City of Estacada, Oregon calling a measure election to submit to the electors of the City the questions of annexation of 29.47 acres into the City limits.  Cr. Arnold seconded the motion.  The motion passed with 4 yes, 1 no (Nelson) and 1 abstention (Hartwig). 

 

Planned Development Subdivision Application 2006 – 1 – Park Estacada LLC – 34E 20 Lot 500 (Cemetery Road)

 

Mayor Austin opened the public hearing and asked the council if there was any ex-parte contact or conflicts of interest to declare.  There was none.

 

CP McCallister reviewed the Planning Commission findings and recommendation of approval with conditions.  CP explained a Planned Unit Development and how the lot sizes can range in sizes and be even smaller than required in the underlying zone.  He also explained that at least 20% of the development needs to be open space and meet certain standards.  This application meets this requirement.  Mayor Austin asked if park SDCs would still be collected from these properties.  CP McCallister stated that SDCs would still be collected after verifying that answer with City Engineer McLeod.  The traffic study gave the intersection at Main and 6th as failing and a left turn lane for traffic going west is proposed.  The applicant will have additional information tonight regarding this issue.  CP showed the council the stub streets and how they eventually will connect to other streets including a road proposed through school district property to Cemetery Road.  Mayor Austin stated the school board would meet on Wednesday to decide on this issue. 

 

Mayor Austin read the statement regarding evidence and the right to appeal.

 

Mike Park, applicant, asked Bruce Goldson, Compass Engineering, to answer questions regarding the application.  Mr. Goldson addressed concerns regarding the streets, lot sizes and setbacks.  He asked the council to reconsider the pathway that the Planning Commission requested along the back of lots 225-230.  This path goes is a dead end and there are some topographical conditions that would not make this pathway feasible.  He stated the storm water retention ponds would be used to reduce the flow of water only during peak periods.  They will most likely be dry most of the time.  He distributed and explained a handout regarding the 6th and Main intersection (Exhibit P).  He answered questions from the Council.

 

The Council discussed the request to remove the trail along lots 225-230.  They would like to see the trail continue the length of the property unless absolutely impossible because of topography.  Mr. Goldson stated there would almost have to be stairs to complete the trail.  Cr. Conditt stated she had seen stairs before and would not be in opposition of stairs.

 

Those opposing the application:

 

John Nieder, 24082 S. Dayhill Road, feels the quality of life of the area would be compromised if this development were allowed.  He does not like the decreased setbacks and yard sizes that are proposed in the development.  These make extremely crowded conditions.  He feels that Mr. Park is being greedy by driving up the density of this development.  He asked the council to reject the plan and ask the applicant to go back to the standard lot size and maintain the quality of life. 

 

Bryan Simmons, 829 N. Broadway Street, stated that a pond on school property was filled in but the water is coming back.  He feels this will be a problem with a proposed new road going in near this spot.  He also is concerned with the bus garage being so close to the proposed condominiums because of the noise from the buses in the morning.  He is also concerned about the traffic that will come down Broadway past River Mill School.

 

Mr. Goldson stated that this is a planned unit development and not a regular subdivision.  All the criteria addressed and met in the proposal. 

 

CP McCallister stated the applicant does have to get approval from State Lands and the Corp of Engineers for proposed wetlands.  CP agrees that it may be a good idea to delete the path behind lots 225-230 because the property to the north may not be required to extend the pathway.  CP stated that if Mr. Park were to place a regular subdivision on this property there could potentially be 308 lots with no open space required.  CP stated that a planned unit development allows a trade off because it offers the open space areas. 

 

Cr. Arnold asked if there were any proposed ideas for the commercial property.  Mr. Goldson stated there are no proposals at this time.  She also asked how fast this area would be developed.  Mr. Goldson stated that it would take at least a year to just get the plat recorded to be able to build houses.  Mike Park stated his timeline depends on interest rates and the economy so can’t really give a straight answer at this time.  Mr. Park stated that the elimination of the pond on school property was done by Mr. Park’s contractors but requested by Mr. Call, Superintendent of the school district. 

 

Curt McLeod stated that park SDCs would be collected for each lot.  He also stated that the level E service at 6th and Main is acceptable but should be addressed.  All these improvements are SDC eligible.  He feels the proposed design is acceptable.  Mr. McLeod also stated that Broadway is being proposed to be 28’ paved curb to curb in a 40’ right of way. 

 

PW Director Randall stated that Broadway at 6th is a 40’ paved road curb to curb.  The proposal at this development is 28’ paved curb to curb. 

 

Being no further questions or public comment, Mayor Austin closed the public hearing.

 

Cr. Arnold moved to approve the Planning Commission recommendation and findings of approval with conditions.  Cr. Nelson seconded the motion.  CM wants to be sure the school district is aware of the pond issue when placing the road through their property.  Roll call vote:  Cr. Arnold-yes, Cr. Conditt-yes, Cr. Ernst-yes, Cr. Hartwig-yes, Cr. Nelson-yes, Mayor Austin-yes.  The motion passed with 6 yes and 0 no. 

 

DEPARTMENT & COMMITTEE REPORTS                                                                            

 

City Manager - none

 

Mayor - none

 

COUNCIL BUSINESS                                                                                                        

 

Charter Review – Election Resolution – postponed until the next meeting.

 

Noise Ordinance Discussion – postponed until the next meeting.

 

Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County – 4th St. Realignment – Approved in the consent agenda.

 

CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY GROUP COMMENTS                                                       

 

COUNCIL REPORTS & COMMENTS                                                                          

 

Cr. Nelson stated that a crosswalk is needed across Wade Street near the new library.  CM stated this issue would be addressed by the Infrastructure Committee at their next meeting. 

 

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING                                                                                           

          The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 pm.