Planning Commission 5-05-03

CITY OF HEPPNER

PLANNING COMMISSION

MAY 5, 2003

ATTENDEES:

Mayor, Bob Jepsen

City Manager, Jerry Breazeale

Chairman, Jerry Gentry

City Attorney, Bill Kuhn

Cindi Doherty

Dave Fowler

Suzanne Jepsen

Debra Kendrick

Rod Wilson

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:

Dave Allstott

John Edmundsen

Jerry Holloman

JoyceKay Holloman

Mickey Kindle

Archie Padberg

Pam Schmidt

Wade Smith

Joyce Jackson, Mitchell-Nelson

Cheryl Jarvis-Smith, ODOT

1. General Business:

A) Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:08 PM, by Chairman Gentry.

B) Introductions: Chairman Gentry introduces Joyce Jackson, Mitchell-Nelson, and Cheryl Jarvis Smith, Oregon Department of Transportation, Wade Smith, Heppner Schools.

C) Announcements: None.

D) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting, April 7, 2002. Minutes of the April 7 meeting were reviewed. One correction: Page 1, Para 2A, Line 3, Map No. corrected to read: 2S-26-27DA. Motion to approve the minutes as corrected made by Ms. Kendrick. Seconded by Mrs. Jepsen. Motion carried.

2. Public Hearings.

A) Variance request – Michael Kindle, Request for relief from setback requirements from front (west) and side (north) property lines for construction of a 30’ x 48’ pole building. In an R-2 zone. 367 Linden Way, Map No. 2S-26-syDA, Tax Lot 400.

Discussion: This item was tabled from the April 7, meeting. Commission members have personally visited the property. Mr. Kindle is requesting relief from the setback requirements. Chairman Gentry read the regulation pertaining to granting a variance. The application is in the proper form Notice has been given to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Kindle stated that he is going to keep the cement pad in the original location so that it will be 20 feet from the alley and it will be 3.5 feet on the north side. There were no persons in attendance to protest the variance. Mr. Kindle stated that his property was 32 feet away from the alley. He is asking for a 3.5 foot variance. The variance is on the north side of the property. The concrete slab is 6.5 feet from the property line. A survey of the property determined that he storage shed belonging to the adjacent property owners actually overhangs the Kindle property. Mr. Gentry says that is Mr. Kindle’s problem, unless it affects the Commission’s decision. Mr. Kindle is not asking that this structure be moved, and since it is over the property it cannot be grandfathered. Mr. Gentry advised Mr. Kindle that a building permit is required. Mrs. Jepsen asked how close Mr. Kindle’s structure will be to the other building and Mr. Kindle stated that it will be 6.5 feet. Mr. Wilson asked if the proposed shop building limited access in case of fire. There is room for a fire hose. Ms. Kendrick expressed concern as to whether the shop would be too close to the adjoining property. Mr. Gentry stated that Mr. Kindle will have to construct a one-hour fire wall. Mr. Gentry stated that he would be willing to grant the variance as long as the construction materials are “residential friendly” as in colors, types, etc. It should stipulate the type of roofing and siding to be used.

3. Planning Commission Action.

Motion to approve the variance, with the condition that the construction materials by “neighborhood friendly”, with painted metal siding, and the roofing is non- galvanized material, made by Mrs. Jepsen. Seconded by Ms. Kendrick. Motion Carried.

4. Advance Notice of Proposed Sign Installation.

A) Mr. Wade Smith, Morrow County School District, is attending the meeting to provide advanced notice that the school district intends to install a non-conforming sign at the elementary school, 235 E. Stansbury Street. This request will be presented to the Planning Commission in June 2003. Mr. Breazeale stated that since this is a non-conforming sign there are no rules governing this. Mr. Smith stated that with the new construction, they tore down the existing sign. Pepsi is donating the sign free of charge, and Mr. Smith is requesting permission to install the sign. The sign is currently at the high school Mr. Fowler stated that the sign is very nice and is not an obstruction to vision, and would be a benefit to the school. Mr. Wilson asked why the sign is so high, and Mr. Smith stated that it was for visibility. Mr. Gentry stated that he had no problem with the sign and the Planning Commission is in favor of the sign.

4. New Business. None.

5. Old Business:

A) TGM Grant, Downtown Development Plan – Ordinance Revisions, Transportation System Plan (TSP).

(1) Ms. Joyce Jackson, Mitchell-Nelson, presented additions to the TSP and an updated map for the city. Council members were invited to this meeting. Ms. Jackson wanted to go through the TSP to clarify items that were added, any deletions, and any other items that need to be included. She reviewed the summary of improvement alternative recommendations (enclosure 1). Primary items discussed were installation of a 3-way stop sign at the intersection of Main and May Streets. Intersection of Gilmore and Willow Streets. Mr. Edmundson, whose residence is located on Gilmore Street, stated that he is quite willing to work with the city to determine the amount of site distances since people tend to speed if the distance is too great. He stated that he will be satisfied with whatever is mutually agreed to.

Gateway treatments, item 9, have to do with the proposal for Heppner Highway. A small divider is suggested adjacent to Heritage Plaza. Mr. Breazeale stated that the figures are for thee purposes of future grant opportunities, etc. Mr. Jackson stated that this is also to give a scope of what the projects are.

Item 12 added equestrian facilities.

Item 14 is essentially complete.

Item 15 is based on conducting a survey of traffic entering and leaving the city and destinations of the travelers, and the opportunities to develop carpool facilities.

Item 17 is a path that would go from the highway to a point to the south of Heppner, possibly on Highway 207.

Item 18 is included so that it can be done at some point in the future.

Item 19 is an improvement that will go along with the planned skate park which would provide parking and sidewalks.

Items 20 21 relate to RV parking. One location is suggested on the corner of Willow and Chase Streets with directional signage from the highway. This could be done relatively inexpensively and quickly.

Item 23 relates to developing a parking plan for events, using church parking, and other private parking. This would be for large events with a plan developed and directional locations for this parking. This needs to be done cohesively with signage agreements, etc. Ms. Jackson had suggested a parking coordinator for this, but this was not approved.

Item 27 was for future improvements to Linden Way.

Mr. Edmundson asked to discuss Item 7, since Mr. Smith is attending this meeting and Mr. Edmundson would like to have his opinion about future access to the Junior-Senior High School. This is a concern to provide additional access in case the present road is closed. According to Ms. Jackson, this should include improvements to Water Street. These improvements were suggested so that it would not have to be closed during bad weather. Mr. Edmundson pointed out that the street in front of the school is a business street. His solution is to create a city street that borders the school property which would free up all of the school district property with a standard two-way street in front of the school. This would essentially on the north border of the north boundary of the school district property. Mr. Edmundson feels this plan should be developed and costed out to see if it is worthwhile. He stated that the primary concerns should be the safety of the students. Mr. Gentry asked where Morgan Street stops which is at the top of the Hill. Mr. Wilson suggested that if Morgan was improved to be two-way traffic, it would free up some of the traffic on Water Street. Mr. Kuhn pointed out that this is an issue that has been discussed frequently over the last twenty years. No one has ever made their mind. Mr. Allstott stated that he feels we should work with the school and improve existing sidewalks, etc., to save money.

Mr. Edmundson also asked about changing the urban growth boundary out past the golf course and possibly to the industrial site. Mr. Breazeale stated that we have been approved for the project through the community solutions fund. The state will be doing this so that the city will not have to spend any more money. The west slope of the city would probably stay in the urban growth boundary for north-south access. This will come out in the study . Currently the city limits go way west of town.

Two other items in the previous TSP, were not on the list but listed in the previous TSP. One was the recommendation that the city allow flag lots. The second one was that the property along Heppner Highway be rezoned commercial. This is on page 57 of the TSP and states rezoning commercial property to open space or recreation use. Mr. Breazeale stated that they have talked about this in the past where the ball fields are on Riverside. This doesn’t affect transportation. According to Mr. Jepsen, he wants this item left in. Ms. Jarvis-Smith asked about including a maintenance facility for housing a public transportation bus. This would open up transportation for others besides senior citizens. Ms. Jackson stated that they could add a line item for a transportation facility. She asked if this item could be left open. Mr. Edmundson remarked that the WCVEDG did an informal study that resulted in the fact that there are over 100 people commuting to the north end of the county which could be an issue if gasoline prices increase. This situation has changed from the time the last study was done. Ms. Jackson stated that they would add this as a line item. Ms. Jarvis-Smith stated that it could be added as a line item. She also stated that Wallowa, Baker, and Union Counties have been doing similar studies on this.

One of the other items in the Downtown Development Plan was the Gale Street Bridge, i.e., either replacing it or adding a pedestrian bridge. Mr. Gentry felt a pedestrian bridge should be added.

(2) Downtown Development Plan.

Heppner Highway 207-74 Proposal. The way this is now, is the proposed cross section coming into town. Two 14’ wide drive aisles with a 6’ landscape strip on each side and two 6’ wide sidewalks all the way to the city limits. On the residential side of the street, parking is included. Supposedly, there is 60’ of the right-of-way. Mr. Breazeale stated that he feels that a 14’ travel lane is fairly wide. The problem with the wide lanes is that it encourages more speed. Ms. Jackson said the area near Heritage Plaza with the median allowed for a left turn lane into Hinton Street. Mr. Edmundson wondered if this would affect the body shop and Alpine Concrete. These would probably be accessed only to the traffic heading north. Ms. Jackson wondered if the access could be worked out. Mr. Gentry says it looks good to him and other issues could be worked out, depending on the property lines.

Gateway into the city. They propose to enhance the existing Welcome to Heppner sign. Discussions about entry into the downtown area which include Quaid Street and Campbell Way coming into Main Street.

There is a long list of sidewalks to be approved.

Multi-use paths from the City Park to Hager Park, using existing pedestrian bridges. Mr. Allstott asked about a restroom in Hager Park. According to Mr. Breazeale, it is in the plan and there are people working on it.

Court Street crosswalks. These need to be enhanced and include the possibility of providing a flashing light.

Curb extensions and crosswalks and ADA access at the following:

Across Elder Street at Stansbury with curb extension on the west side of Elder Street adjacent to the elementary school

Across Stansbury Street at Highway 74. (This has been constructed)

Across Elder Street at Quaid Street with curb extension on the west side of Elder Street.

Across Quaid Street and Heppner Highway at the intersection.

Across Hinton and Heppner Highway at their intersection.

Across Linden Way where it intersects with Heppner Highway.

Across Chase Street at the intersection of Center Street.

Across Chase and Willow Streets at their intersection.

Across Cannon and Main Street in front of the skate park site.

Mr. Hollomon stated that the people didn’t want any more bumpouts. Ms. Jackson stated that most of them are at the elementary school. The main reason they were talking about them was so that there would be ADA access. These wouldn’t be built until a project was started. Ms. Holloman stated that RV drivers have problems with the bumpouts. Mr. Gentry stated that part of the plan was to make RV access better. Mr. Holloman stated that the RV traffic is going to get worse. Mr. Gentry stated that his understanding is that the bumpouts are for ADA and to slow down traffic, and it works. John Edmundson had a question reference to the locations of the bumpouts and the incline for wheel chairs being out into the street and the platform that has to be there. He wonders if with the agreement of the owners would allow this to be recessed into the lot itself instead of intruding into the travel way. According to Ms. Jackson this is a possibility.

Ms. Schmidt asked if a private owner wanted to donate part of their parking area for RV parking, could they charge for it. According to Mr. Breazeale, there is no regulation for short term parking.

RV Parking. One of the recommendations was to put in a lot for RV parking. One suggested location was at the corner of Willow and Chase Streets where there is a home for sale and one next to it that looks like it needs to be torn down. According to Mr. Holloman, the house is not for sale. It was also recommended designating certain portions of Center and Chase Streets as designated RV parking spaces. Ms. Holloman objected to have RV parking behind Les Schwab on Chase Street. Another suggestion was where they had originally recommended RV parking which could be developed over time. She doesn’t want to put in bumpouts for the sake of it, only if they are needed for ADA access.

Everyone agrees that the bicycle paths will be multi-use paths along Riverside connecting with Gale Street.

Streetscape features/landscape materials. This would include trees as people feel comfortable with them.

Typical cross sections. Twenty-eight feet with parking on both sides.

Community features. Include a skate park, second story building use, these are pretty much the features identified in the plan.

(3) Code Amendments.

Ms. Jackson asked what items are included that we want deleted or added.

Ms. Jackson reviewed items and there were no objections to the material presented. In the downtown section there was a suggestion to change architectural guidelines. Does the city want to allow them as allowed or not required. Mr. Breazeale wondered if there benefits for having corner entrances. According to Ms. Jackson, it gives a sense of space and Ms. Jarvis-Smith stated that it exposes both sides of the building.

Mr. Wilson suggested wording the section on corner building entrances are encouraged, but not required which was approved by the members present.

The section referring to large building developments should not be in the plan, but included in the TSP so there are standards to work with.

Regulations for off-street/on-street parking were discussed, and procedures for changing parking requirements by the Planning Commission.

School parking was discussed. Most of the surveys showed that there was adequate parking. These changes recommended are reduced from the previous use.

Conditional uses. According to Ms. Jarvis-Smith, if something isn’t in the TSP, it is a conditional use.

Landscaping. This section includes items such as, if plants die, the developer has to replace them, standards for type and size, etc. Guidelines are also included for how the landscaping is distributed.

Site plan review. An additional chapter was created titled Site Plan Review. This states that any time something is being constructed; a site plan review must be done, and states the items that can be approved by the city staff and items that have to be approved by the planning commission. Mr. Kuhn stated that there are going to be new requirements and the city will have to draw the line on when site plans are going to be required and when they are in, the public needs to be made aware of the changes. Per Ms. Jarvis-Smith, this will put more responsibility on the property owners to go into more detail on their site plans. There were no questions on any of the material presented.

Mr. Breazeale stated that the value of the improvement doesn’t justify all the work in some cases. Ms. Jackson stated that unless she hears otherwise, the document will stand as it is, with the exception of the statement about corner entrances.

Mr. Breazeale asked if anything about vehicle length was included in the document. According to Mr. Kuhn, it is a signage issue and ordinances will have to be passed. Ms. Jarvis-Smith stated that ODOT is not receptive to diagonal parking because of the vehicle lengths.

The next discussion on this action will be when it comes before the City Council at the end of June. Mr. Breazeale wondered if this could be extended to the July council meeting. According to Ms. Jarvis-Smith, this is not allowed. Mr. Breazeale wants to have the public hearing at the June Planning Meeting and the Council will adopt the document in June. Mr. Kuhn asked what else needs to be done. Per Ms. Jarvis-Smith, they have to determine if anything more is required. Mr. Kuhn would like a copy of the code amendments so that he can review them.

Meeting adjourned at 9:40 PM.