ESTACADA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 2008 – 7:00 PM

CITY HALL

 

1.         CALL TO ORDER

 

            The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.

 

2.         ROLL CALL

 

Present:  Cm. Cameron, Cm. James, Cm. Ennis, Cm. Sager, Cm. Hnidey, Cm. Piper, Cm. Anderson, CP Hoelscher, CP McCallister, DCR Hovda.

 

3.         APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 20, 2007 MINUTES

 

            Consensus was to approve the minutes as presented.

 

4.         PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

A.     Annexation application #2007-02. The applicant, Martin Karge, is requesting annexation of property described as 34E, 17D, tax lot 2503 into the City limits of Estacada. The application includes a corresponding zone change from RRFF-5: Rural Residential Farm Forest (county designation) to R-1 (low density residential), consistent with the Estacada Comprehensive Plan. The 5 acre parcel is located at 31850 Hinman Road.  The application is subject to the criteria in Section 16.16, 16.101, and 16.124 of the Estacada City Code and applicable policies in the Estacada Comprehensive Plan. 

 

Cm. Cameron opened the public hearing and asked if there was any exparte contact.  Chrm. Cameron read a statement regarding evidence.

 

CP Hoelscher reviewed the staff report, which recommends approval.  He reminded the Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council. 

 

Martin Karge, 17695 S Woodstorm Ct, Oregon City, applicant, new process to him but he agrees with the conditions of approval.

 

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

 

Cm. Anderson moved to recommend approval of Annexation application #2007-02.  Cm. James seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote:  Cm. James – yes, Cm. Ennis – yes, Cm. Anderson – yes; Cm. Sager – no, Cm. Hnidey – yes, Cm. Piper – yes, Chrm. Cameron – yes.  Motion passed 6-1.

 

B.     Annexation application #2007-03. The applicant, Shirley Dunsmuir & neighboring property owners are requesting annexation of property described as 34E, 21D, tax lots 1300, 1400, 1401, 1500, 1502, 1503, 1600, 1700, 1800, 1801 & 2700 into the City limits of Estacada. The application includes a corresponding zone change from RRFF-5: Rural Residential Farm Forest (county designation) to R-1 (low density residential), consistent with the Estacada Comprehensive Plan. The property is located north of Cemetery Road and east of the Estacada city limits.  The application is subject to the criteria in Section 16.16, 16.101, and 16.124 of the Estacada City Code and applicable policies in the Estacada Comprehensive Plan. 

 

Cm. Cameron opened the public hearing and asked if there was any exparte contact.  Chrm. Cameron read a statement regarding evidence.

 

CP Hoelscher reviewed the staff report, which recommends denial because it would create an island.  He reminded the Commission that they are making a recommendation to the City Council. 

 

Shirley Dunsmuir, applicant, PO Box 2247, Estacada, her property does border the city limits.  She thinks everything is ok with the sewer, water and streets.  The only problem is the small piece of property that creates an island.  She’d like to find a way to work around this because they all would like to annex to the City.  She asked if there had been any written objections. 

 

Cm Piper asked if she could change the application to not create an island.  Ms. Dunsmuir stated yes, but eventually the piece would need to come in because it’s within the UGB.  She stated that the most east tax lot were to be removed it would eliminate the island. 

 

Kent Sieda, 17501 SE Forest Hill Drive, Damascus, owns neighboring property that was annexed in 2007.  He thanked the city for annexing his property.  He really supports this application because coming up Foothills & Cemetery Road creates a dead end.  By annexing these properties it provides another route for people to go, out through Lawrence Road. 

 

The Commission discussed the application and her options.  The Commission doesn’t want to create an island.  They would like to see the applicant continue this application to a future meeting and modify her application to not create an island. 

 

The Commission asked Mrs. Dunsmuir which route she would like the Commission to go.  Mrs. Dunsmuir asked how the city will move forward of growing into the UGB without this property. 

 

Cm. Anderson asked if she had approached the island owners.  She has talked to them and they are not interested.  She stated that we probably have had islands in the past and we had to work with them to eliminate them. 

 

Mrs. Dunsmuir stated she would like to postpone the hearing to February 28, 2008 and modify the application to not create an island. 

 

Cm. Piper moved to postpone this application to February 28, 2008.  Cm. Sager seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

C.     Planned Development Subdivision Application #2007-2.   The applicant, Park Estacada LLC (Michael Park), is requesting modifications to the Campanella Estates  Planned Unit Development subdivision that was approved on August 14, 2006. The proposed modifications include adding two additional acres to the development, revisions to the subdivision layout and open space plan, removal of commercial development along Eagle Creek Road and an increase in the number of lots from 265 to a total of 303 lots.   The property is described as 34E, 20, tax lot 104, 500 & 700 and is located on the east side of Eagle Creek Road, approximately 1/8 mile north of its intersection with 10th Avenue. The property is zoned R-1 (low density residential) & C-1 (general commercial).  The application is subject to the criteria in Section 16.16, 16.28  16.52, 16.56, 16.104-16.116 of the Estacada City Code. 

 

Cm. Cameron opened the public hearing and asked if there was any exparte contact.  Cm. Sager stated he has attended the church. Chrm. Cameron read a statement regarding evidence.

 

CP McCallister reviewed the staff report, which recommends denial.  He reviewed the changes between the original application and this one.  

 

Mike Park, applicant turned the microphone over to his engineers.

 

Alex Hurley, AKS Engineering, first change was to eliminate the double frontage lots.  They also combined all the small open spaces and made it into one larger area.  When the re-route the stream to go along Eagle Creek Road it takes away the commercial element.  It really makes the commercial area about 1 ½ areas.  They feel this is a much better and natural route for the creek to go.  He addressed the comment that the application is inconsistent with the cities comprehensive plan – he stated this plan is from 1980 and very outdated and is just a guideline.  He feels they do comply with the development standards in the plan development code.  He feels there would be issues with crime, traffic, etc. if commercial was in front of a large residential area.  He feels they meet all the criteria of the PUD zoning district.  He stated the road intersections are the same distances as was previously approved.  The 300’ discussed in the staff report is not a code requirement, just a TSP recommendation.  He reminded the commission that the tsp is just a guide.  Mr. Hurley handed out exhibit #7 which is their recommended changes to the staff report.  He asked the commission to recommend approval to the city council.

 

Cm. Piper asked about dedication of park space.  CP stated is not required, they can try to dedicate land and the city can decide if they want to accept.  If they do not make a dedication then they have to pay park SDC’s. 

 

Cm. Cameron feels the small lots don’t have much on street parking room if they are having a gathering.  He feels a small parking area at the end of a street might be appropriate. 

 

Cm. James asked about the PUD not having commercial property and if it couldn’t be located elsewhere in the development.  CP agrees that it could be anywhere.  Cm. James feels it is a waste to just throw out the commercial portion.  He feels that is the draw of a PUD, where a resident can walk 2 blocks for a coffee or haircut. 

 

CP discussed the recommended changes to the conditions of approval.  He is ok with the changes except he has to look at the specifics of the corner lot setback – but they are probably ok. 

 

Mike Park, applicant, thinks the commercial strip along the front was the wrong way to do that.  He doesn’t feel a commercial and residential abutting each other is a good idea – there is a lot of noise, traffic.  There is plenty of commercial across the street. 

 

The Commission discussed the main difference between a PUD and a subdivision.  Cm. James stated it is mainly a multiple use and he feels they are now proposing a subdivision.  A PUD creates a little “town within a town”. 

 

Andy Piel, 2354 S Baker Road, Sherwood, employee of Park Corporation, commercial sells for more per square foot than residential.  He feels they are not being greedy by not having commercial.  He feels the business owners aren’t going to want to be buried in the topography and wetlands – they would all want to be on the main street.  They thought through many alternatives and felt this was the best solution. 

 

Cm. Piper would really like to keep the viability of downtown Estacada and is glad there aren’t a bunch of strip malls proposed up there. 

 

The Commission felt that maybe this isn’t the right place based on topography to have commercial uses. 

 

Mr. Hurley feels the coffee shops and similar uses work mostly in high density areas where there is multiple apartments.  These are large lots and these people will want privacy, nice yards, etc. 

 

Chris Cadell, AKS Engineering, feels the point of the PUD is to provide alternatives for properties that have large constraints.  He feels the commercial couldn’t work along the back of the property because of topography.  He stated the PUD section of the code doesn’t require commercial.  They feel providing open space and dealing with the lands natural constraints works best. 

 

Mr. Park stated that at the time the last approval was done the commercial area was not planned for, just left open.  CP stated there was a detailed plan for the residential, but just a general concept for the commercial area with a condition that required them to come back with a detailed plan for the commercial area. 

 

Mr. Cadell stated that when they went to create the detailed plan for the commercial area is when they found the problem with dealing with the constraints of the creek on the property.

 

Cm. James asked what the point is of having this be a PUD and not a subdivision.  Mr. Cadell stated it is to allow for the site constraints and topography issues, creating smaller lots where the topography doesn’t allow for large lots, and open space where the wetlands are. 

 

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

 

Cm. Sager moved to deny Planned Development Subdivision Application #2007-2.  Cm. Ennis seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote:  Cm. James – yes, Cm. Ennis – yes, Cm. Anderson – no; Cm. Sager – yes, Cm. Hnidey – yes, Cm. Piper – no, Chrm. Cameron – no.  Motion passed 4-3.

 

5.         ADJOURNMENT

           

            The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 pm.