Clackamas planning panel unanimously backs rezoning of former mill site on Krop Kropf Road

The Clackamas County Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of files Z0437-25 and Z0438-25, forwarding the rezoning of a developed portion of a former mill site on Krop Kropf Road to the Board of County Commissioners for a de novo hearing scheduled for Aug. 4, 2026.

Martha Fritze, principal planner for Clackamas County, told the commission the site is a single tax lot of just under 21 acres with about 7.5 acres of developed area containing 13 buildings. "Only the mill site portion of the property can be redesignated," Fritze said, and she advised the commission that, under ORS 197.719, the parcel can qualify as an abandoned or diminished mill site if statutory criteria are met. After reviewing aerial photos, past land-use approvals and current on-site uses, staff concluded the mill use is "abandoned for the purpose of this statute" and therefore the site may be redesignated to rural industrial without a goal exception, provided local criteria are also met.

Fritze recommended approval with conditions that would limit future activity to industrial uses allowed in the rural industrial zone and would require transportation-related conditions. She noted a discrepancy between the applicant's traffic-model square footage (87,100 square feet) and the staff tally (92,750 square feet) and said the applicant must submit an addendum so the modeled trip generation reflects the actual building area.

Christian Snuffin, the county engineer who reviewed the applicant's traffic study, told commissioners that the study assessed current trip generation and that "for the PM peak hour, it was 5 trips total." Snuffin and staff said the transportation planning rule requires limiting trip generation so county intersections do not fall below acceptable levels; that is the purpose of the square-footage condition and the required addendum.

Andrew Stamp, attorney for M and S Investments, LLC and the applicant, described the ownership as local and said his clients intend to lease the existing buildings to industrial tenants rather than undertake immediate new construction. Stamp said a Phase I environmental assessment was completed at purchase in 2015 and described the property as "remarkably clean." He also acknowledged the square-footage discrepancy and said the applicant will reconcile the figures before the Board hearing.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about groundwater sensitivity, potential water-quality testing, stream setbacks, on-site wastewater, public notice, and whether the county has previously used ORS 197.719. Fritze said water-quality testing is not a zone-change criterion but that hydrogeologic and other reports would be required for most future industrial developments; she reported roughly 25 neighboring properties were notified and that the local CPO is inactive.

Public testimony was invited but none was offered during the hearing. In deliberations several commissioners said the rezoning aligns zoning with long-standing on-site industrial-type uses and will reduce permitting friction for tenants while preserving non‑developed EFU areas on the parcel. Commissioner Tammy Stevens moved to recommend approval "as recommended by staff"; Commissioner Mike Wilson seconded. The roll-call vote was unanimous.

The planning commission record and staff report will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, which will hold a new hearing on Aug. 4, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The staff conditions to be considered by the board include the revised Condition 4 (which limits allowed uses to industrial uses authorized in the rural industrial district), accessory uses as appropriate, and a requirement that the applicant produce a traffic-study addendum reconciling building square footage before the Board hearing.

The commission asked staff to ensure the Phase I environmental assessment be included in the record; the applicant indicated the Phase I exists and said they expect to provide it. The Planning Commission’s action was advisory only; the Board of County Commissioners will make the final decision.