Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fire District Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission denies Oregon Fire Protection District variance for riverfront addition

City of Oregon Planning Commission · January 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Oregon Planning Commission voted 4-3 on Jan. 21, 2025, to deny a variance sought by the Oregon Fire Protection District to build a nonconforming addition on riverfront property; the commission will forward its recommendation to the City Council.

The City of Oregon Planning Commission voted 4-3 on Jan. 21, 2025, to deny a variance requested by the Oregon Fire Protection District that would have allowed a non-conforming addition to its existing riverfront building and variances to allowable uses in the River Front Commercial District.

Chairman Mark Herman opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. City Manager Darin DeHaan confirmed that required public notices and certified mailings were completed. Mike Knoup provided information on the variance request and explained why the fire district said the addition is needed. After presentation and public comment, Commissioner Jeff Hallock moved to approve the variance; Rick Ryland seconded the motion.

Commission discussion before the vote focused on the construction timetable, educating the public about riverfront zoning, and potential grant funding for the fire district. The recorded vote was: Liz Hiemstra — Nay; Roger Cain — Yea; Rick Ryland — Yea; Jeff Hallock — Yea; Mark Herman — Nay; Karly Spell — Nay; Randy Cropp — Nay. Chair Herman stated the commission's recommendation will be provided to the City Council.

The variance would have applied to PINs 16-03-178-005, 16-03-178-008, and 16-03-178-009 in the River Front Commercial District. The motion to approve failed by a 4-3 margin, resulting in a recommendation to deny the requested variances.