City of Happy Valley
Planning Commission Minutes
July 9, 2013
Page 5 of 7
City of Happy Valley
Planning Commission Minutes
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present:
Chair, Walter Barnes Michael Walter, Economic & Community
Vice Chair, Shanin Prusia Development Director
Commissioner, Ken Koblitz Cheryl Whitehead, Planning Assistant
Commissioner, Ted Hartzell
Commissioner, Winston Kurth
Absent - Commissioner, Brian Heath
Absent - Commissioner, Jennifer Brown
Others Present:
(See attached sign-in sheet)
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Barnes called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll call was taken.
I. CITIZEN COMMENT
None
II. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
1. Minutes dated March 26, 2013
Commissioner Koblitz requested that the minutes be updated by altering the following sentence:
“Commissioner Koblitz noted that the land is owned by the military.”
To Read:
“Commissioner Koblitz questioned whether the land is owned by the military”
Commissioner Kurth made a motion to approve the consent agenda, as amended. Commissioner Hartzell seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Barnes, Prusia, Koblitz, Kurth & Hartzell. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
III. CPA-06-13/LDC-07-13 (ZONE CHANGE – 4 PROPERTIES)
The applicants (four property owners along Hagen Road) are proposing to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map (“one-map” system) to change the current plan designation/zoning district for the subject site from Clackamas County Rural Residential – 5-acre minimum lot size to City Medium Density Residential” (R-5).
Chair Barnes read the hearing script in to the record. He asked the Commissioners for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.
None Declared.
Chair Barnes asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Commissioners Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.
None Challenged.
Public testimony opened at 7:08p.m.
Michael Walter, Economic & Community Development Director, gave the following staff report:
· Apologized for the missing exhibit in the packet
· There is a mixture of R-5 and RRFF5 zoning within the area
· This is a past mistake where the zoning should be R-5
· Meets all applicable criteria
· Recommends approval for property owners to have zoning of R-5
· No additional correspondence
Commissioner Koblitz requested that Mr. Walter point out the properties in question on the map. It was pointed out that the properties in yellow are islands and will be annexed to the city in 2015.
Commissioner Kurth asked if the city only responds to property owners as requested. Yes, the city only goes by owner requests. The remaining properties will have the zones changed once the golf course property is developed but at this time is property owner driven.
Michael Walter stated that the only reason for property owners to request this is if building accessory structures due to the setbacks otherwise there is no urgent reason.
Bruce Boeshans
17040 SE Hagen Road
Happy Valley, OR 97086
Mr. Boeshans made the following comments:
· Originally filed this application to receive the R-5 setbacks
· Would like to build a structure to store an RV
· The new setbacks will allow for the building of the new structure
Chair Barnes continued reading the hearing script into the record. Chair Barnes asked the applicant if they would like to waive the seven (7) days allowed to include additional data to the Planning Commission.
The applicant does wish to waive the seven (7) days.
Public testimony closed at 7:17 p.m.
Commissioner Kurth made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-06-13/LDC-07-13 (Zone Change – 4 Properties). Commissioner Koblitz seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Barnes, Prusia, Koblitz, Kurth & Hartzell. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
IV. CPA-07-13/LDC-08-13 (CAREY SHELDON – 11851 SE FOREST CREEK)
The applicant proposes to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map/Zoning Map to change the existing plan designation/zoning district of the subject property from “Mixed Use Commercial” (MUC) to “Single-Family Attached” (SFA).
Chair Barnes read the hearing script in to the record. He asked the Commissioners for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.
None Declared.
Chair Barnes asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Commissioners Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.
None Challenged.
Michael Walter, Economic & Community Development Director, gave the following staff report:
· Subject site was annexed and given the same zoning as the larger properties located to the east of the subject site
· These properties were zoned under the conversion chart
· Not sure why they were given the “Office Commercial” zoning
· The smaller sites previously zoned “Office Commercial” were then rezoned to MUC by the city
· The applicant is requesting to have the zone changed to SFA
· A conceptual development plan was submitted suggesting a triplex
· The site currently has a lack of sidewalks, if approved, then the sidewalk connectivity would be completed
· Future development of the site would allow pedestrian and the west side improvements to be completed
· The site is too small for the current MUC zoning
· Staff recommends approval of the zone change
Commissioners and staff made the following comments:
· Chair Barnes stated that the aerial shows some structures
o These are single family homes
· There will be buffering requirements between the single family properties located to the north and west of the site under any zoning
· The zone has been commercial for years and the single family homes could have had even more of an intrusiveness – this is a downzone and is less intrusive
· There is commercial zoning immediately to the east of the site
· Higher density lands abut the major arterial which is by design
· Commissioner Prusia asked what the County zoning is around the site
o Single Family to the north and Office Apartment to the west
· Between the sound wall and the access there is some remainder zoning left which are good arguments to change to SFA
· No additional correspondence
Public testimony opened at 7:40p.m.
Carey Sheldon
23765 SE Hwy 212
Clackamas, OR 97089
Mr. Sheldon made the following comments:
· This is residual left over land from the widening of Sunnyside road
· Acquired the property approximately six years ago
· Proposing a downzone for a triplex unit
· Chair Barnes asked the applicant if there have been any discussions with the surrounding residents
o No, not with this proposal
· Commissioner Kurth asked if the property was purchased prior to the road widening project
o No, it was purchased after the project
James Phillips
11800 SE Timber Valley Dr
Clackamas, OR 97086
Mr. Phillips made the following comments:
· Have an issue with putting a triplex on this site
· The lot is so small it would be all cement
· Lives at the bottom of the cul-de-sac on Timber Valley DR
· Chair Barnes asked if there are any other duplexes in the immediate area
o No, the closest is approximately two miles away
· Commissioner Kurth asked if he looks down on the site property or if it is visible from his property
o No, he is located below the property only sees it when he walks his dog in that area
Caroline Walters
11777 SE Forest Creek Ct.
Clackamas, OR 97086
Ms. Walters made the following comments:
· Agrees with James Phillips testimony
· Single family is a better option for this site
· Her property is located one property down from the site property
· Concerned what the plans are for the property located across from her property – where will the access be located
o Access would be from 119th
Mr. Sheldon made the following comments:
· There is a duplex at the top of Timber Valley where its meets 122nd which is just around the corner from Mr. Phillips property
· It is a very noisy location and not good for a single family home
Michael Walter made the following comments
· Stated that setbacks are required for all zones – this is a downzone of land which would allow for use suited for the site and complete the pedestrian system along the roadway and also on Forest Creek
· Many places have zone boundary’s that create conflict – this site is minor compared to the lands to the east which is commercial and abuts single family
· Commissioner Prusia asked if it was zoned R10 would the applicant be responsible for sidewalks with equal magnitude
o Yes, along the frontage of the subject site but the conditions of approval would address the public ROW and this would not apply to R10 zoning
o It would be hard to see it downzoned that far
· Commissioner Hartzell asked if setbacks would be addressed during the design review process
o yes
· Commissioner Koblitz asked what the downzone means – what is making the applicant want to downzone
o With the MUC zoning a triplex is allowed but would also have to have some commercial
Mr. Phillips asked exactly where the other duplex is located. He misunderstood what was originally said by the applicant.
Chair Barnes continued reading the hearing script into the record. Chair Barnes asked the applicant if they would like to waive the seven (7) days allowed to include additional data to the Planning Commission.
The applicant does wish to waive the seven (7) days.
Public testimony closed at 8:05 p.m.
Commissioners continued with the following discussion:
· Commissioner Kurth stated that this is a small property and not desirable for a single family or MUC zoning – seems like downzoning is a good option – what will be allowed will be defined at the design review process
· Chair Barnes stated that the Planning Commission is required to make sure that the applications apply to state goals and the city code – the commission must remain neutral if the application applies or is made to comply with conditions, then without discretion, it must be approved
Commissioner Hartzell made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-07-13/LDC-08-13 (Carey Sheldon – 11851 SE Forest Creek). Commissioner Kurth seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Barnes, Koblitz, Kurth & Hartzell. Nay from Commissioner Prusia. The motion was passed with a four (4) to (1) vote.
The Commission requested a short recess at 8:09 p.m.
The meeting began at 8:15 p.m.
V. COMMISSIONERS CONCERNS AND COMMENT
Commissioner Koblitz made the following comments:
· Concerned about the discretionary and clear and objective processes
· “In the public interest” is in the comprehensive plan policy but not in the city code
· Why can’t this be built into the city code as well
· It is unacceptable to not be able to factor in the peoples input at the time of the decision
· People should be able to have their say
· Especially when dozens of people show up in opposition for one application
Michael Walter made the following comments:
· The problem is that everyone has a different opinion of what’s in the best interest of the public
· Land zone is not a democratic process – zoning is done under a republic way by the commissioners who have to weigh the pros, cons and oppositions
· 90% of the zone change requests don’t make it past his desk
· The East HV Comprehensive Plan was not a vote – there are always winners and losers
· Commissioner Koblitz stated that he was the representative on the EHVCP and that process went very well
· Where it is problematic is in the bowl
· Everything from Metro is against R20/R40 zoning
· At the political level they are very pro-development of the superblock
· The City’s direction is to get improvements within the superblock and to do this the City will have to accommodate development at some point
· Between the State, Metro and the City you will rarely find a recommendation for denial on a zone change on low density areas
· The Commission has the ability to vote no and the residents can go to the City Council
· Unless residents want to pay higher taxes for road improvements then it has to be through development
· Cannot have language that loose in the development code
· Discussed in more detail
· The Planning Commission can use the Comprehensive Plan Policies to base their decisions on, which is a lot more subjective, than the development code
· Commissioner Koblitz agrees with Metro and what they are doing just doesn’t think that it has to be applied everywhere and all the time
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Hartzell made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Kurth seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Barnes, Prusia, Koblitz, Kurth & Hartzell. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m.
Prepared and submitted by:
Cheryl Whitehead
Planning Assistant
These minutes were approved at September 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting.