CITY OF HEPPNER

PLANNING COMMISSION

June 2, 2003

ATTENDEES:

Dan Dunnett, Vice-Chairman

Jerry Breazeale, City Manager

Dave Fowler

Debra Kendrick, via phone

Rod Wilson (arrived at 9:05 PM)

Suzanne Jepsen

ABSENT:  Jerry Gentry, Chairman, Bill Green

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:

Dave Campbell

Phil Bach

Wade Smith

Joyce Jackson, Mitchell-Nelson

Cheryl Jarvis-Smith, ODOT

1.  General Business:

      A)  Call to Order:  The meeting was called to order at 7:07 PM, by Vice-Chairman Dunnett.

      B)  Introductions:  Dave Campbell, Heppner resident; Joyce Jackson, Mitchell-Nelson, Cheryl Jarvis Smith, Oregon Department of Transportation, Wade Smith, Heppner Schools, Phil Bach, Heppner resident.

      C)  Announcements.  None.

      D)  Approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission May 5, 2003.  Mrs. Jepsen moved to approve the minutes as written.  Mr. Fowler seconded the motion.  Motion Carried (Ms. Kendrick voted her approval telephonically. 

2.  Public Hearings. 

      A)  Variance Request – Phil Bach.  Request for relief from setback requirements from side (east) property line.  205 Aiken Street, Map No. 2S-26-26CC, Tax Lot 3700.  Mr. Bach is requesting setback relief to construct a garage at 205 Aiken Street.  Mr. Dunnett read the regulatory statement for the variance, Article 6 of the zoning ordinances.  The application is in the proper form.  The purpose is for the construction of a garage within 4 feet of the property line.  Notice has been given to the adjacent property owners and there is no opposing testimony.  Mrs. Jepsen stated that she has physically inspected the property, and that Mrs. Bach had told her the property line is to the rock wall, as opposed to the neighbor’s fence.  She also asked if the existing shed will be torn down.  Mr. Bach stated that he would be tearing down the shed.  Mr. Fowler did a drive-by inspection of the property but has not seen the drawings and site plan.  He reviewed these at this time.  Public Hearing closed. 

      B)  Variance Request – Heppner Elementary School.  Request for a variance to allow a non-conforming sign in a residential zone.  235 E. Stansbury Street, Map No. 2S-26-26CC, Tax lot 2700, 12200,1200.  Mr. Campbell was given notice of the sign installation and had sent a letter opposing the sign.  He is attending the meeting to retract his opposition and is now in favor of the sign.  Public Hearing closed.

3.  Planning Commission Action. 

      A)  Mrs. Jepsen moved to grant Mr. Bach’s variance request for relief from setback requirements from side (east) property line.  205 Aiken Street, Map No. 2S-26-26CC, Tax Lot 3700.  Seconded by Mr. Fowler.  Motion carried (Ms. Kendrick voted her approval telephonically).

      B)  Mr. Fowler moved to grant the variance request to allow a non-conforming sign in a residential zone.  235 E. Stansbury Street, Map No. 2S-26-26CC, Tax Lot 2700,12200,1200.  Seconded by Mrs. Jepsen.  Motion carried (Ms. Kendrick voted her approval telephonically).

4.  New Business.  None listed. 

5.  Old Business.  (A quorum will be required to recommend the TGM Grant, Downtown Development Plan – Ordinance revisions, Transportation System Plan, Comp Plan Revision, to the City Council at a special session on June 23, 2003).

      A)  TGM Grant, Downtown Development Plan – Ordinance revisions, Transportation System Plan, Comp Plan Revisions.  Mr. Breazeale has reviewed the material submitted and in his opinion, it meets the city’s requirements.  He called for questions and discussion of the material.  Public Hearing Opened for discussion of the material submitted.

            (1)  Ms. Jackson, Mitchell-Nelson asked that the Planning Commission recommend the following items for approval by the City Council:

            -  An ordinance to approve the Downtown Development Plan as developed to this point.

            -  An ordinance to adopt revisions to Title 11, City of Heppner Zoning Code.

            -  An ordinance to adopt revisions to the Comprehensive Plan.

            -  An ordinance to adopt the subdivision code revisions.

      Ms. Jackson presented a summation of the major components of each of the items.  Mr. Kuhn asked if the material being presented is additional amendments.  Ms. Jackson stated that it is the most up to date version based on the input from the last hearing along with some clarification.  Mr. Breazeale stated that the downtown development draft is essentially in its final form.  Mr. Kuhn asked to focus on the findings that the Planning Commission is being asked to adopt, the amendment to the comp plan, and the ordinance amendments.  He asked if there was a complete compilation of all of these items.  Ms. Jackson stated that the drafts which have been developed were included in the packet presented to the commission.  Mr. Kuhn asked if the material consisted of changes developed, and other changes previously discussed are not included.  According to Ms. Jackson, changes that are new from the original code are underlined in bold.  Mr. Kuhn has not seen a complete compilation, since the packet does not contain the access requirements.  He would like a full compilation of all the changes.  Some of the material he requested is not in the packet; these were furnished by Ms. Jackson. 

      Mr. Kuhn suggested reviewing the codes first since this is the section that the planning commission is most concerned about.

      Ms. Jackson explained the new definitions not included in the packet, in particular nursing home activity center, and nursing homes—this includes assisted living centers.  Access definitions were explained and Mr. Kuhn asked if the city does have an access definition—he was concerned about the classification and whether we have one.  Ms. Jackson stated that she believed the city had one.  Ms. Jarvis-Smith stated that the TSP provided additional information.

      Chapter 2, Page 9, included a definition of a downtown development district, classification DD.  This is also included in use zones.  There is an additional use zone called historic sites, structures, and objects.  Limited residential zone R1 has an addition titled Residential R1 homes as defined in ORS 197.660(2.).  Mr. Kuhn questioned the historic zone designation.  Ms. Jackson stated that there is a description, but it is not a specific zone.  The function of that designation was originally an additional requirement which included historic sites, structures, and objects.  It also included clear vision areas which were moved to design standards.  Mr. Kuhn asked if we don’t zone historic sites, etc., when would we use them.  Ms. Jarvis-Smith stated that this historic district would be a formal district that is nationally recognized.  Mr. Kuhn stated that we do not have such a district.  This section would give the ability to designate a site if necessary. 

      The sections on the downtown area were discussed.  Most of the material is the same except for the residential definitions.  This included conditional uses permitted in the downtown district as defined in the downtown standards.  The standards for site design include zero setbacks for front walls, primary entrances, and where they should be located.  Also included is off street parking and building heights of no more than 35 feet, and store front design is included along with pedestrian amenities. 

      Special uses within the downtown districts.  This includes public and institutional uses that should comply with this section.  This sections states where and how drive-up facilities are allowed, where off street parking is required to have screening, super block developments and industrial end zone and where parking is to be screened, landscaping requirements between buildings and parking. 

      Chapter 4 is essentially unchanged.  Per Mr. Kuhn, chapter 4 is a non-conforming use section.  This is for buildings or uses that do not comply with the current zoning ordinances.  Changes for the uses of the properties would be submitted to the Planning Commission.  There are no changes in Chapter 5, conditional uses.  The chapter concerning variances remains unchanged.  Chapter 6 concerns variances and remains unchanged.  Chapter 7, Mobile home regulations has no changes.  Chapter 8, Planning Development, is reserved. 

            Chapter 9, Design Standards, contains all of the street access standards and street standards for construction.  According to Mr. Kuhn, this has been discussed in length at previous meetings.  Ms. Jackson asked if there were any questions or issues on the material presented so far.  Mr. Kuhn stated that these are points of access off of streets or highways.  These will be the ordinances for this, and are negotiable within certain parameters.  It won’t change the access points that currently exist, but for a new facility, these standards need to be reviewed to see that they are applied as per the ordinance.  According to Ms. Jarvis-Smith, the state highway accesses have to be submitted to ODOT who has permit authority, and it would in the best interest of folks coming into the community if they could review these standards when developing a site plan.  Mr. Kuhn stated that if the state isn’t going to give access, no matter what the Planning Commission does, it is going to cause a problem.  This document not only applies to a state highway specifically, but also contains regulations for other type of streets.  Mr. Kuhn stated that this section also includes parking requirements which were discussed at prior sessions and incorporated into this document.  Mr. Fowler asked where the changes came from and how it compares to other towns.  According to Ms. Jackson, many of the changes came from the state’s model for communities, but are less restrictive due to the on-street parking available.  These requirements were decided at previous meetings and are where we want to go with the downtown development.  Mr. Kuhn stated that this is the city’s vision as to where it wants to be.  It contains nothing illegal.  His legal review is to go through the document and ensure that everything is in compliance.  He is sure that the City Council will have questions and whether the restrictions will make development more difficult. 

            There is a variance process in the access section of the ordinance.  Mrs. Jepsen stated that she feels it is an awesome responsibility to recommend this document.  Ms. Jarvis-Smith reminded everyone that all previous sessions have been joint Planning/Council sessions.  Mr.Kuhn stated that by and large this document does make some changes in the process and includes items that people wanted in the site plan.  He doesn’t feel this is changing the procedure.  Ms. Jackson stated that mostly what it does is lay out the criteria.  Mrs. Jepsen asked if this document is to be voted on at this meeting.  Ms.  Jackson stated that that was the objective.  Mr. Kuhn stated that the other changes in this document require more traffic-specific information for development.  This is part of the TSP, but most development will require some addressing of traffic.  The City Manager will be responsible for orienting people as far as what they need to know and what to submit to the Planning Commission with respect to traffic impact of a proposed development.  He doesn’t feel this is typical with what other communities are doing. 

      Mr. Kuhn asked Mr. Breazeale for his opinion on the changes in the city zoning code.  It will be a learning curve and clarification of things that have already been discussed.  He feels it works with what we want to do.  In some cases it is more complicated, and in others it is simpler.  It will clarify what can and can’t be done. 

      According to Mr. Kuhn, the most significant things we will see on a day to day basis are the new site plan requirements.

      Mr. Breazeale discussed items 1-10.  Most of these items already exist.  Distance to neighboring public access points, median openings, traffic signals, etc., probably won’t be required on residential plans.  These mainly apply to major developments.  Large developments would be those which would require an additional lane for access.  If a subdivision was going in, all the access ways would be required.  Traffic studies would apply to major developments with major access requirements on a highway.  There are rules for variances for access development.  Parking requirements have already been discussed.  Most of the requirements are stand; drainage is an important issue.  Building elevations are required for development in the downtown development zone.  According to Mr. Kuhn, building elevation requirements are required because of the flood plain regulations.  Mr. Fowler feels a building elevation should be a requirement in both residential and commercial development plans.  Mr. Kuhn does not feel these will change life in Heppner much.  The main changes are in the downtown development and the TSP regarding access.  Ms. Jackson changed the document to state that building elevations are required. 

      Landscaping requirement on lots being developed were discussed and minimum requirements of landscaping to be put in.  There was also discussion of existing vegetation and credit for preserving it.  On large developments they are asking for an engineering study on the landscaping system.  There is also a requirement that landscaping be drought-tolerant plants.  There are other landscaping requirements in setbacks which might be required in commercial/residential requirements.  Mr. Dunnett stated that the section on landscaping should state that invasive plants would be prohibited.  Non-native plants would be allowed on a case-by-case basis.  There are also landscaping requirements for parking lots, screening of parking lots and public right-of-ways.  Another addition was that landscaping should be irrigated and maintained.  Ms. Jackson suggested that the city develop a list of drought tolerant plans, and also a list of invasive plants.

      Access.  The ordinance should implement policies in the Transportation System Plan.  The access between Church and Cannon Streets were discussed.  This is an item that people are going to be concerned about.  Service stations are grandfathered.  It gives the Planning Commission ability to designate all city streets and highways and classify them. 

      The special transportation area would apply from the bridge on May Street to Riverside Avenue.  It recommends connection and driveway design and gives standards for driveway widths, along with recommending some storage areas so that drivers won’t be backing into traffic.  Essentially, if there is an existing access, it would have to be looked at if a new business is going in.  Item 5 gives the city some flexibility in making exceptions to the access.  Internal pedestrian traffic and circulation is discussed.  Requirements for when traffic studies are needed are also discussed in this section.  It also contains information on access variances and when they can be granted and the conditions for granting them.

8:30 PM.  Planning Commission recessed to locate an additional Commission member to complete a quorum.  Mr. Wilson located; meeting reconvened at 9:05 PM.

MOTION:  Mrs. Jepsen moved to recommend adoption by the City Council of the TGM Grant, Downtown Development Plan – Ordinance Revisions, Transportation System Plan, and Comprehensive Plan Revision.  Seconded by Rod Wilson.  Motion carried.  (In favor--Mrs. Jepsen, Mr. Dunnett, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Fowler; Opposed-- none) 

      B)  Planning Commission Issues.  Mrs. Jepsen suggested that City Hall contact all commissioners each month to find out if they will attend the Planning Commission meeting, so that if there is official business to come before the commission schedules can be changed if a quorum is not available.  There is a rule on record that if a commission member misses three consecutive meetings without calling to be excused, they will be dismissed from the commission. 

6.  Information Items

      A)  Correspondence.  None.

      B)  Communications from Commissioners.  None.

Meeting adjourned at 9:12 PM.