ESTACADA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2006 – 7:00 PM

CITY HALL

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order 7:00 pm.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Cm. Sager, Cm. Copeland, Cm. Crosby, Cm. Webber, Chrm. Cameron, CP McCallister, DCR Hovda, and Consultants Jeff Tashman & Tina Moscow.

Absent: Cm. James & Cm. McGregor.

3. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 24, 2006 MINUTES

Consensus was to approve the minutes as presented.

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Draft urban renewal plan addressing blighted areas existing within the City of Estacada. This plan contains projects and financial data necessary to rehabilitate areas to eliminate the conditions of blight. A final public hearing will be held by the City Council on November 13, 2006.

Jeff Tashman, Urban Renewal Consultant, reviewed the draft plan and the steps to proceed. Consultant Tina Moscow, reviewed the goals, objectives and projects as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission asked questions and discussed the proposal. The City Council will hold a public hearing on November 13, 2006.

Tom Nelson, 247 NW Zobrist, doesn’t understand why the City isn’t putting this to a vote of the citizens. Mr. Tashman explained it would be up to the City Council to recommend this to a vote of the citizens. It would be able to be referred to the voters if someone wanted to after the Council adopted the ordinance. Tom asked if the City is afraid to refer it to the voters. Mr. Tashman recommended Mr. Nelson ask the Council this question.

Fred Hertel, 445 SE Currin, Estacada Fire District, expressed the Fire Departments concern with this project. He stated the District opposes this project and will be sending a letter to the Council to this affect.

Al Rademacher, 30735 SE Rivermill Road, asked if there is any part of the plan that focuses on the need for larger commercial lots. Mr. Tashman stated there is not.

Chrm. Cameron closed the public hearing.

Cm. Webber is very apprehensive of the project, and until the town has had an opportunity to learn about it he’ll have to vote no.

Cm. Crosby feels it’s consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and we should move forward.

Cm. Crosby moved to recommend approval of the proposed plan based upon it’s consistency with the Cities Comprehensive Plan. Motion died for lack of a second.

Cm. Copeland moved to not recommend it move on to the City Council. Cm. Weber seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Cm. Crosby – yes, Cm. Copeland – yes, Cm. Sager – yes, Cm. Webber – no, Chrm. Cameron – yes. Motion passed 4-1.

B. Land Partition Application #2006-2. The Applicant, Henny Rademacher, is requesting a two-lot partition of property described as 34E, Section 17, tax lot 2401, which is located near the intersection of Highway 224 & Rivermill Road. The subject property is zoned M-1. This application is subject to the criteria in Section 16.36, 16.104, 16.108, 16.116, 16.120 and 16.132 of the Estacada City Code.

This application was originally submitted as a 2 lot partition, the applicant has now submitted a revision to a 3 lot partition. Therefore, this application will be re-noticed and re-heard at a future date.

C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application #2006-1 & Zone Change Application #2006-1. The applicant, Park-Pihl, LLC (Mike Park & Andy Pihl), are requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from Light Industrial to Commercial residential, and corresponding zone change from M-1 to C-1 for property described as 34E 20BA, tax lots 100, 200, 300 & 400. This application is subject to the criteria in section 16.28 & 16.101 of the Estacada Municipal Code and applicable policies in the City of Estacada Comprehensive Plan. General Location: 34E 20BA, tax lots 100, 200, 300 & 400 – SE corner of Rivermill Road & Highway 224. A recommendation will be forwarded to the Estacada City Council. The City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 11, 2006, beginning at 7:00 pm in the Estacada City Council Chambers, Estacada, Oregon.

Chrm. Cameron opened the public hearing. He read a statement regarding evidence and asked if there were any abstentions or exparte contact – there was none.

CP McCallister reviewed the staff report, which recommends denial.

Mike Park, applicant, feels this town is growing and there are some commercial needs of this community that need to be addressed. The other commercial properties in this area do not have highway access or water/sewer. It’s been 5 years since this issue has been looked at and Estacada has grown dramatically since then. He gave several examples of the towns needs that are not being met.

Andy Pihl, partner with Mr. Park, discussed goal 9 of the planning goals. Apologized for not including a detailed inventory in EOA, so he distributed supplement to this plan. He feels they addressed all of the relevant needs of CP’s report.

Richard Berger, 805 Kingwood Drive, Salem, planner that put together the EOA. He explained the memo that was handed out tonight that addresses each of CP’s concerns with the EOA. He stated that the industrial lands inventory is not detailed enough to make a judgment that if these 11 acres are removed that there will be enough buildable land remaining in the cities inventory to meet the cities short term needs. The analysis does meet the long term needs, and he reviewed the “shovel ready industrial land” that we currently have, which is 35 acres, and he feels that if we remove these 11 acres, it will still leave a significant amount of “shovel ready” industrial land.

Mr. Park answered additional questions and asked the Commission to please consider recommending approval.

Jack Scott, PO Box 1142, Estacada, GM of Eagle Foundary, Chairman of Clackamas County Economic Development, feels that sometimes things are based on outdated land use laws. He also feels that staff may have a different opinion on how to interpret those land use rules. He discussed peak hour traffic and wondered if a worse case scenario is really realistic for this application. He feels this Commission needs to ask itself what is important for Estacada. He thinks with the current growth and planned growth, additional commercial land is necessary to balance this out.

Danny Scott, 20664 Norse Avenue, Eagle Creek, was a part of the comprehensive plan committee in 2005. He discussed a “windshield survey” that was done of each tax lot within the city during that time. He feels Mr. Park is a very responsible developer. He would like to see the City approve this application.

Steve Mueller, 25404 S McQueen Road, Estacada, encouraged the city to approve this request. He thinks the community feels this is where new commercial development needs to go.

Phyllis Brinkley, 26609 SE Hertferd Lane, Eagle Creek, feels we need to think about the growth that is coming. She’d like to see more commercial than industrial. She asked that the Commission recommend approval.

Al Rademacher, doesn’t agree with the statement that there is 20 acres of commercial land available, since nothing is ever developing with it. He feels ODOT has decided highway maintenance is the best use of this property and has declined any offers of selling the property for commercial development. He doesn’t feel there are any transportation issues between the commercial and industrial uses in this area. He feels Mr. Park should be commended for the possibility of creating this many more jobs.

Terry McAuley, PO Box 400, Estacada, feels that this property needs to be rezoned to commercial to meet the needs of the growing community. We need this commercial development to stop taking our money to other towns to meet our needs. He stated this Commission has already recommended that this property be rezoned to commercial; therefore, he cannot understand why they would not follow through with that recommendation.

Tom Stafford, 36522 SE Squaw Mtn. Road, would like the Commission to recommend approval. He doesn’t think having industrial uses line the highway would not be good to look at. He doesn’t agree with the traffic impact discussion.

William Crist, 285 Pierce Street, feels Mr. Park’s commercial development would be an asset to this community and would like to see it approved.

Courtney Lewis, 21919 S Springwater Road, feels if you are interested in traffic you should visit Springwater Road around 5am. He stated that the number of people that the Fire Department is protecting has increased drastically, and those people are all leaving the area for their shopping needs. We need to develop this commercial area to meet our needs.

Cm. Webber asked why lot 5 was not included. Mr. Park stated they just elected to leave it industrial next to the other industrial lots, under different ownership. Mr. Park also stated that they are in agreement with the requirement of a traffic light at Rivermill Road and Highway 224; he feels it’s needed now at times.

Cm. Webber feels that in reviewing the urban renewal plan you need to make decisions to meet the needs. He feels that commercial development only has one place to go and that’s along the highway. The City is always spending all of its energy on this core downtown area and move forward.

Chrm. Cameron closed the public hearing and reopened the Planning Commission meeting.

Cm. Webber moved to recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application #2006-1 and Zone Change Application #2006-1 subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. Cm. Copeland seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Cm. Crosby – no, Cm. Copeland – yes, Cm. Sager – yes, Cm. Webber – yes, Chrm. Cameron – yes. Motion passed 4-1.

5. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.