Clatsop County Transportation and Development Services, Land Use Planning Division 800 Exchange Street, Suite 100, Astoria, OR 97103

503-325-8611

1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER (Cary Johnson, Chairperson)

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. ROLL CALL 4. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This is an opportunity for anyone to give a brief

presentation about any land use planning issue or county concern that is not on the agenda.

5. MINUTES

• May 10, 2011 Page 3

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS

• Request by Clatsop County to rezone 5.1 acres of land identified as Tax Map No. 806360000408 along the lower reaches of Plympton Creek from HI, Heavy Industrial, to LW, Lake and Wetland to facilitate the active restoration of Plympton Creek. Staff: Patrick Wingard, Wingard PDS Page 11

• Request by Clatsop County to rezone 18.3 acres of land identified as Tax Map

No. 806360000408 located near the Westport Boat Ramp from HI, Heavy Industrial, to OPR, Open Space, Parks and Recreation in order to facilitate the transfer of property ownership from Georgia-Pacific to Clatsop County, and allow for future improvements to the boat ramp, and allow for development of park and recreation amenities at the site. Staff: Patrick Wingard, Wingard PDS

• Request by Clatsop County to rezone 0.4 acres of land identified as Tax Map No.

806360000408 best described as the Westport Boat Ramp itself from LEW, Lake and Wetland, to OPR, Open Space, Parks and Recreation. Staff: Patrick Wingard, Wingard PDS

• Request by Clatsop County to rezone 0.6 acres of land identified as Tax Map No.

80630000405, best described as the Westport Ferry Landing itself from LW, Lake and Wetland, to AD, Aquatic Development. Staff: Patrick Wingard, Wingard PDS

7. OTHER BUSINESS

• Discussion of the Southwest Coastal Citizens’ Advisory Committee Planning Commissioner: Stephen Malkowski Page 37

CLATSOP COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, June 14, 2011

10:00 a.m.

Judge Guy Boyington Building 857 Commercial

Astoria, Oregon 97103

Clatsop County Transportation and Development Services, Land Use Planning Division 800 Exchange Street, Suite 100, Astoria, OR 97103

503-325-8611

8. ADJOURN

The agenda and staff reports are available for review at www.co.clatsop.or.us (click on Land Use Planning.) NOTE TO MEMBERS: Please contact Transportation and Development (503-325-8611) if you cannot attend the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY: This meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for other accommodations for persons with disabilities should be made at least 48 hours before the meeting by contacting Transportation and Development Services – Land Use Planning Division, 503-325-8611.

1

Minutes of May 10, 2011 1 Clatsop County Planning Commission Regular Session 2

Judge Guy Boyington Building 3 857 Commercial Street 4 Astoria, Oregon 97103 5

6 7

Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 1004. 8 9 Planning Commissioners 10 (PC) Present: PCs absent: Staff Present: 11 Pat O’Grady Clarke Powers, Excused Jennifer Bunch 12 Mike Autio Ed Wegner 13 Marcia Harper-Vellutini Blair Henningsgaard 14 Brian Pogue Julia Decker 15 Cary Johnson 16 Stephen Malkowski 17 18 The election of officers was deferred to a later date. 19 20 Business from the Public: 21 22 Jennifer Bunch, Planner, introduced Bill Johnston, Oregon Dept of Transportation Area 23 Planner, Astoria. Mr. Johnston presented a report on the US 101: Camp Rilea Road to 24 Surf Pines Lane Facility Plan, which is just getting underway. There are some safety and 25 operational issues associated with this stretch of Highway 101 from Patriot Way in the 26 north and Surf Pines Lane in the south. 27 28 Mr. Johnston touched on several issues, including: 29

Included in a facility plan is function of the facility over the long term (20 years), 30 improvements to address safety and mobility issues for all, meeting both ODOT 31 and community needs. 32

The process begins with identifying promising improvements, comparing 33 promising improvements and selecting projects, designing projects and preparing 34 for construction and construction and operation. Mr. Johnston emphasized that 35 advancing to the next step relies on identifying funding. 36

Description of a time table, the decision-making process 37 Existing traffic conditions 38 Future traffic conditions, with volume to capacity ratios 39 Safety issues, including geometric and congestion-related. Mr. Johnston 40

reported that 50% of crashes involved turning movements. 41 Community concerns and environmental considerations 42 Importance of public participation 43 Description of some specific problem areas 44

45 In answer to a question from PC Harper-Vellutini, Mr. Johnston explained that the 20-46 year planning horizon involves the analysis and numbers, but solutions, especially 47 involving minor fixes, could be done sooner rather than later, dependent on funding. 48 49 No other business from the public. 50 51

2

1 Minutes: 2 3 PC Harper-Vellutini moved and PC O’Grady seconded to approve the April 4 12, 2011 meeting minutes as presented. Motion passed, with five (5) in favor. 5 Chairperson Johnson abstained because he was not present at the April 12 6 meeting. 7 8 Public Hearings: 9 10 An appeal by Andrew and Kendall Crosby to reverse R & O #11-03-02, a Director’s 11 Decision to issue a Development Permit to Richard and Catherine Gardner for a new 12 single family dwelling, to replace an existing dwelling. 13 14 No ex parte contacts were reported. One potential conflict of interest was reported by 15 PC Malkowski because he attended the CAC meeting in Arch Cape in an official 16 capacity as a Planning Commissioner on March 16, 2011. PC Malkowski recused 17 himself from participating in the discussion and voting on this issue. 18 19 Julia Decker, Planner, presented the staff report. She entered into the record the audio 20 recording of the SW Citizens Coastal Advisory meeting on March 16, 2011. She 21 described the two criteria under appeal, starting with the Relation of Structure to Site. 22 The Gardners did not request any variance, the setbacks are all met, the 26’ height 23 restriction has been met, and the lot coverage is about 25%, lower than the 40% 24 allowed. In addition, she described similar homes in the neighborhood. 25 26 Ms. Decker went on to discuss the second criterion, Protection of Ocean Views. The 27 Gardners’ plan meets the criterion by minimizing the impact to the greatest extent 28 possible while still developing the subject property within the requirements of the zone. 29 30 Ms. Decker proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation, which included some photos 31 from various perspectives. She stated that the Design Review committee voted 32 unanimously to approve the application for recommendation to the Planning 33 Commission. 34 35 Ms. Decker recommended the appeal be denied to allow the Gardners to proceed with 36 the construction of their home. 37 38 Responding to questions from PC Autio, Ms. Decker stated that she did not know the 39 existing building’s height, but the setbacks for the new house would no longer be 40 encroaching on the Crosbys’ property. 41 42 Following a question from Chairperson Johnson, Ms. Decker stated that the process for 43 a replacement dwelling is the same as for a new dwelling. The old house is a tear-down. 44 45 Public testimony was opened at 1037. 46 47 Public Agency comments: 48 49 John Mersereau, 32042 E Shingle Mill Lane, representing the SW Coastal Citizens 50 Advisory Committee, gave a brief history of the work of the Committee, describing the 51

3

ocean front properties that have an 18’ height restriction, and the other properties that 1 have a 26’ height restriction. He continued, stating that the CAC has run into this same 2 issue many times with past applications, emphasizing the word “minimization” of the 3 view impact. With the 26’ height restriction, the CAC would not recommend a single 4 story house only. Following a question from PC Harper-Vellutini, Mr. Mersereau stated 5 that the Gardners have already done what the CAC would have required to minimize the 6 view impact. 7 8 In answer to a question from PC Autio, Mr. Mersereau stated that the Crosbys did get to 9 voice their objections at the March 16, 2011 meeting. He continued, stating there were 10 no issues with timing. 11 12 Alison Hohengarten, 1148 NW Hill Street, Bend, attorney for Andrew and Kendall 13 Crosby, appellants, stated that there were several things she wanted to talk about, one 14 of which is the overwhelming purpose of the Arch Cape overlay district is to “preserve 15 scenic views” (Ord 80-14 S4.102). She also referenced Ord 80-14 Section 4.106 which 16 states, in part, “blocking of scenic views of existing…dwellings on adjacent lots and other 17 lots that may be impacted shall be minimized.” 18 19 Ms. Hohengarten further stated that on Mr. Gardner’s Application for Design Review, Mr. 20 Gardner claimed that no surrounding property had an ocean view that would be blocked 21 by this project, and that is not the case. She questioned how he could minimize the 22 impact on ocean view when he [Mr. Gardner] stated in his application that no views 23 would be blocked by the project. Ms. Hohengarten entered into the record three (3) large 24 format pictures representing the view from the Crosby home as it currently is and what it 25 would look like after the Gardner home is constructed. 26 27 Ms. Hohengarten continued, stating she would like the timing and process for this 28 application to be considered under the appeal as well. She explained that while the 29 mailed notices met time requirements, the Crosbys didn’t have enough time to respond 30 prior to the staff report being written. She also stated that the Gardners did not come to 31 the neighbors and tell them what they were going to do, emphasizing again that the 32 purpose of the overlay zone is to preserve scenic views and she doesn’t think this 33 criteria has been met. 34 35 PC Pogue asked if the applicant meets the 26’ height restriction, how is it that they have 36 not minimized the impact on neighbors’ views? Ms. Hohengarten reiterated that she 37 doesn’t think minimization has occurred because how can minimization occur if the 38 applicant didn’t acknowledge it on the application. 39 40 Kendall Crosby, 1900 SW River Drive, Portland, appellant, stated that she does think the 41 Gardners have tried to do the right thing; she is questioning the process and not having 42 an opportunity to review with the Gardners prior to the plan being put to paper. She is 43 also concerned about the impact to the value of their home. 44 45 Responding to a question from Chairperson Johnson, Ms. Crosby stated that they do not 46 have a view to the south. In answer to a question from PC Harper-Vellutini, Ms. Crosby 47 stated that they have owned the property about eight (8) years and were not aware of 48 the height restriction when they purchased it. Ms. Crosby continued, stating that she is 49 concerned about the part of the process that she feels was missed. 50 51

4

Andrew Crosby, 1900 SW River Drive, Portland, appellant, asked to speak. Mr. Crosby 1 described his work as a developer for 14 years in Bend and in all that time he did that 2 type of work, his practice was to contact all the neighbors, door to door and talk to them 3 about the project he was working on. He stated that this was an effective method and did 4 not alienate people. He felt that the process was not followed and that the design was 5 created first and the process was used to make it fit. With his many years’ experience 6 working with architects, he feels that it (Gardner home) could be constructed in a 7 different way to minimize view impact, albeit a one-story, shifting the footprint, putting in 8 a flat roof, etc. It may require a variance, but it could be done. 9 10 In response to a question from PC Autio, Mr. Crosby stated that he wasn’t trying to 11 create a new process for the County. It appeared to him that the process should have 12 included hearings and meetings with the neighbors to hash it out before the final plan 13 was drawn, to make sure they [Gardners] did what they could to minimize the view 14 impact. His opinion is this is how these processes are supposed to work. He 15 understands that counties don’t like to ask applicants to change the plan, but believes 16 that this is what government is for in this “hierarchy of administrative law” to protect the 17 broader community. 18 19 Mark Lang, 1580 N Roosevelt Drive, Seaside, attorney for the applicants, Richard and 20 Catherine Gardner, asked to speak. He stated he believed the question before the 21 Planning Commission was whether or not the Gardners complied with the criteria that 22 were in place. He continued, stating that the material laid out by Ms. Decker covered it. 23 He also felt it was compelling that Mrs. Crosby testified that the Gardners have done a 24 lot of things to try to make this thing work. 25 26 Mr. Lang’s interpretation of the process is if there is a view impact, it should be 27 minimized. Nowhere in the process does it say there have to be public meetings and/or 28 hearings. In fact, it would be an unwieldy process and projects would never get done if it 29 was required. He continued, stating that the Gardners have complied with the criterion 30 as required and the process was followed in terms of the view issue. 31 32 Responding to a question from PC Pogue, Mr. Mersereau stated that this application for 33 a new home met all the requirements, setbacks, height etc. the minimization of view 34 impact was discussed at the March 16, 2011 CAC meeting. He continued, stating that 35 he felt those factors were taken into consideration and the proposed building was within 36 reason. 37 38 PCs Pogue and Johnson commented that the Planning Commission puts a lot of weight 39 into what the CAC recommends because they are the ones doing the hard work. Mr. 40 Mersereau stated that this issue comes up all the time, and the CAC takes into account 41 everything that is presented to them. 42 43 Ms. Crosby commented that she feels that the process was not upheld and that they 44 should have been included. 45 46 Ms. Hohengarten stated that the 26’ foot height restriction should not be considered as 47 preservation of the view. 48 49 Mr. Lang responded that the process was followed in this case. The CAC heard all of 50 this information. 51

5

No other proponents or opponents asked to speak. 1 2 Public testimony was closed at 1128. 3 4 Blair Henningsgaard, county counsel, stated that the application must go to the CAC 5 first. They are an advisory committee, and they encompass most of the process. He 6 continued, stating his opinion that due process was given, and the ordinance was 7 followed. 8 9 PC Autio commented that the Crosbys did speak with the Gardners and he thinks the 10 issue may be that the Crosbys don’t like the County’s process. He continued, stating 11 that the CAC did what they were supposed to do. He also found it a bit offensive the 12 implication the Gardners lied on their application by stating no ocean views would be 13 blocked; his opinion is that the ocean view would not be blocked and that’s what the 14 minimization is about. They [Crosbys] will still have a partial view, which is what they’ve 15 got now. 16 17 PC Harper-Vellutini stated that staff did a very good job with the report and that all 18 processes were followed. She’s sorry that it hurts someone’s feelings but she was a 19 little insulted by the implication that processes were not followed. 20 21 PC Pogue commented that if this has gone through the CAC, the Planning Commission 22 trusts their advice strongly. He reviewed the material and didn’t see anything out of the 23 ordinary. 24 25 PC O’Grady commented that any remodel would have an impact. 26 27 Chairperson Johnson has sympathy for the neighbors, but felt that the Gardners have 28 made the effort to minimize the impact. 29 30 PC Pogue moved and PC Harper-Vellutini seconded to deny the appeal and 31 uphold the Director’s Decision. Motion passed with five (5) votes in favor. PC 32 Malkowski abstained. 33 34 At 1137 Chairperson Johnson called for a break. 35 36 The meeting was called back to order at 1150 by Chairperson Johnson. 37 38 Public Hearings, continued: 39 40 The applicant, Stan Egaas, requests a Zoning Map Amendment from Rural Community 41 Multi-Family Residential to Rural Community Commercial. 42 43 No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were reported. 44 45 Jennifer Bunch, Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Egaas had submitted this 46 application in January 2010. When staff started to process the application, they 47 discovered an error in our ordinance which assigned the wrong comprehensive plan 48 designation to the Rural Community Commercial zone, and that needed to be fixed in 49 order for staff to process this application. The error in the text was fixed by Ord.10-01 50 last year, and so the process was started. Ms. Bunch stated that she held off a little 51

6

while because she knew that two more zoning map amendments were coming in and 1 wanted to process them all at the same time. 2 3 Prior to the rural community zoning in 2003, the subject property was zoned RSA-MFR 4 because the property was improved with a single-family dwelling, an allowed use in the 5 MFR zoning. 6 7 In 2004, the property owner demolished the dwelling and applied for permits to establish 8 a commercial use, a drive through espresso stand, on the property. In 2006, it was 9 discovered that staff misinterpreted the zoning on the property and the espresso stand 10 permit should not have been issued. The commercial use on residentially zoned land 11 has been allowed to continue as a non-conforming use. In 2010 Mr. Egaas inquired 12 about expanding his commercial use. Because of delays in the zoning map amendment 13 application, staff issued permits for the construction of the new commercial structure as 14 an accessory use to the adjacent restaurant. 15 16 Ms. Bunch continued with a PowerPoint presentation stating that the zone change is 17 consistent with the eight (8) applicable criteria, and asked the Planning Commission to 18 recommend approval to the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners. 19 20 Following a question from PC Autio, Ms. Bunch explained that the properties 21 immediately behind the Berry Patch Restaurant have been multi-family residential for 22 quite some time. 23 24 Following questions from PC Pogue, Ms. Bunch stated that the only comment received 25 was from ODOT, and that in her opinion, this is the best use of the property. 26 27 No one from the public asked to speak. 28 29 Public testimony was closed at 1158. 30 31 PC Malkowski moved and PC Autio seconded to approve the applicant’s 32 request for a Zoning Map Amendment from Rural Community-Multi-Family 33 Residential to Rural Community Commercial [to the Clatsop County Board of 34 Commissioners]. Motion passed unanimously. 35 36 The applicant, Wilma Devries, requests a Zoning Map Amendment from Rural 37 Community Commercial to Rural Community Commercial-Multifamily Residential. 38 39 No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were reported. 40 41 Ms. Bunch presented the staff report. The applicant submitted the application in January 42 of 2011. At the time of the adoption of the current zoning ordinance in 1980 the property 43 was being used as a boarding house and was zoned Rural Service Area-Multi Family 44 Residential. In 1981, the current owner and applicant applied and received a zone 45 change to Tourist Commercial in order to operate a restaurant. At some point the 46 restaurant ceased to operate and the use converted to a bed and breakfast. With the 47 adoption of the rural community zoning in 2003 the zoning was changed to Rural 48 Community Commercial. The structure is currently being used as a primary residence 49 and 2 or 3 apartments and the applicant wishes to amend the zoning map to ensure the 50 use is conforming and to resolve issues with a mortgage company. 51

7

Ms. Bunch continued with a PowerPoint presentation, describing the eight (8) applicable 1 criteria, and asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the Clatsop 2 County Board of Commissioners. 3 4 In answer to a question from PC Autio, Ms. Bunch stated that unless the applicant wants 5 to make structural changes, there is no issue with the flood plain. If they were to make 6 changes, they would have to comply with the new flood ordinance that was adopted last 7 year. 8 9 Following a question from PC Pogue regarding the down-zoning, Ms. Bunch explained in 10 the northeast community plan, it recommends the existing commercial zone in Westport 11 should be reduced in size that is more appropriate for the community. 12 13 PC Autio and Chairperson Johnson expressed concern about “spot-zoning.” Ms. Bunch 14 replied that the County tends to shy away from spot-zoning. 15 16 No one from the public asked to speak. 17 18 Public testimony was closed at 1211. 19 20 PC Pogue moved and PC Malkowski seconded to adopt the findings of fact 21 contained in the staff report and recommend approval of the Zoning Map 22 Amendment [to the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners]. Motion passed 23 unanimously. 24 25 The applicant, Clatsop County, requests a Zoning Map Amendment from Rural 26 Community Commercial-Multi Family Residential to Rural Community Commercial-Light 27 Industrial for the subject property owned by the Morrisey Living Trust. 28 29 No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were reported. 30 31 Ms. Bunch presented the staff report. This zoning map amendment is a correction. In 32 1980 with the adoption of our current ordinance this property was part of a larger parcel 33 which was the Westport Trailer Park. At that time, the Westport Market was not there. 34 35 The property was zoned RA-1 in 1980. In 1984, in order to facilitate the community 36 sewer system, the rural service area zoning needed to be adopted. This property was 37 undeveloped and part of the trailer park, zoned rural service area, multi-family 38 residential. The next year, the current property owner, Mr. Morrisey, applied for a zone 39 change for a small portion to Tourist Commercial in order to construct the Westport 40 Market. 41 42 In 2003, Clatsop County adopted rural community zoning in several areas of the county 43 and it was during this process this property was mistakenly zoned Rural Community 44 Commercial-Multi Family Residential. This was not discovered until late in 2010 when 45 Mr. Morrisey inquired about the expansion of commercial activities on the property. 46 Since the property is adjacent to a parcel that is already rural Community Commercial-47 Light Industrial zone the request is to correct the zoning and apply the same designation 48 to ensure continuity in zoning patterns in the Westport area. 49 50

8

Ms. Bunch supplemented her report with a PowerPoint presentation. She described the 1 eight (8) criteria that need to be met and recommended the Planning Commission adopt 2 the findings of fact contained in the staff report and recommend approval of the Zoning 3 Map Amendment to the Clatsop County Board of Commissioners. 4 5 As this was a mapping error on Clatsop County’s part, no fees were charged to the 6 Morriseys. This change will allow Westport Market to continue to be a conforming use 7 and also allow expansion and still be a compatible use. 8 9 No one from the public asked to speak. 10 11 Public testimony was closed at 1216. 12 13 PC Malkowski moved and PC Harper-Vellutini seconded to approve the 14 applicant’s request for a Zoning Map Amendment from Rural Community 15 Commercial-Multi Family Residential to Rural Community Commercial-Light 16 Industrial based on the findings in the staff report [to recommend approval to the 17 Clatsop County Board of Commissioners]. Motion passed unanimously. 18 19 As there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 1218. 20 21

Respectfully Submitted, 22 23

24 25

___________________________________ 26 Cary Johnson 27

Chairperson - Planning Commission 28 29 30

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK