PRESENT: Planning Commission Chairman: Suzanne Jepsen; Commissioners: Andrew Lacey, Jerry Gentry, Howard Gilliam, Deborah Kendrick, Cyde Estes, Tom Sly; City Manager Gerald Breazeale; City Attorney Bill Kuhn.

ABSENT: None

VISITORS: Mike Burns, Rosemary Burns.

(Unless otherwise noted, AMOTION CARRIED@ indicates all in favor.)

1. General Business

A) Call to order Chairman Jepsen called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM.

B) Introductions - Mike and Rosemary Burns introduced themselves to the Commission.

C) Announcements Chairman Jepsen announced that WCVAL, the Willow Creek Valley Assisted Living Committee, is going to be holding a town hall meeting on Wednesday, September 8, 1999. She informed the Commission that a consultant would be coming to present his concept of a facility that would work for a small community. Two meetings will be held that date, one at 12:30 after the senior meal at the St. Patrick=s Senior Center meal site. There will be another meeting at the senior center at 7:00 PM. She stated that this was an important meeting and she would like everyone to attend.

D) Approval of the minutes of the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting, June 7, 1999. Motion by Andrew Lacey, Seconded by Jerry Gentry, to accept the minutes as submitted. MOTION CARRIED.

2. Public Hearings

Request for a variance granting relief from setback requirements to construct a 24ft. By 30ft. two car garage with shop in a Limited Residential (R1) Zone at 940 E. Fairview Way, Map #2S 26 35AB, Tax Lot #801. Applicant: Michael Burns.

Chairman Jepsen read the description of the request for variance and asked City Manager Breazeale if the application was in proper form. Breazeale answered that it was. She asked if the required notice had been given to the surrounding property owners. Breazeale again answered that it had.

Chairman Jepsen stated that all interested citizens would be given the opportunity to present and rebut evidence. She stated further that all issues concerning the application must be raised before the meeting is closed and a decision made on the issues cannot be raised on appeal. All issues shall be raised in sufficient detail to allow the Planning Commission and all parties in attendance at the hearing an opportunity to respond to each issue. The applicable criteria has been stated in the Zoning Ordinance, Title 11, Chapter 6, and was contained in the notice. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the applicable criteria or other criteria in the ordinance that the person believes applies to the decision. Prior to the conclusion of the hearing any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony regarding the application. The Planning Commission shall grant such request by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for a period of time for additional written evidence or testimony. If a hearing is continued, it shall be at a date at least seven days from the original hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence and testimony. If new written evidence is submitted, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional evidence or testimony for the purpose of responding to the new written evidence. If the record is left open for additional evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days. Any participant may file a written request for an opportunity to respond to the new evidence submitted during the period the record is left open. If such a request is filed the record shall be reopened. Unless waived by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application. The applicant=s final submittal shall be considered part of the record, but not include any new evidence. When the record is re-opened to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, testimony or criteria for decision making which apply to the matter at issue. A final decision on any permit or zone change must be rendered within 120 days from the date of the application is completed, unless the parties agree to mediation. Notice of action taken will be given to the applicant within 10 days following the closing of a hearing. An action or ruling of the Planning Commission authorized by this ordinance may be appealed to the City Council within 15 days after the notice has been mailed. If no appeal is taken within the 15 day period, the decision of the Planning Commission is final.

Chairman Jepsen opened the public hearing for testimony. Andrew Lacey stated that he had communications on the subject with Mr. Brown. Jerry Gentry stated that he would not vote on the subject since he may be doing the construction. Chairman Jepsen asked Commissioner Lacey if he had a conflict of interest with the variance request. Mr. Lacey stated that he did not. Chairman Jepsen asked if any other Commissioners had a conflict of interest. There were no other stated conflicts of interest.

Mr. Burns presented his request for a variance and described the proposed location for the garage. Commissioner Estes asked if the roofing materials for the garage would be the same as for the house. Mr. Burns stated that composition shingles matching the house roof would be used. There was a question about the distance the garage would be from the slope in the rear and whether there was a chance for fire to jump from the grass to the roof. Mr. Burns stated that he did not think that would be a problem as he kept the grass cut down. Commissioner Sly asked if the garage as shown on the site plan would be 8 ft. from the rear property line. Mr. Burns stated that was the case. Councilor Gilliam asked if the garage would be right up against the bank. Mr. Burns stated that it would actually be about four feet from the bank.

There were no persons in attendance to speak against the variance. Chairman Jepsen asked whether there had been any letters in opposition to the variance. City Manager Breazeale stated that none had been received.

Motion by Howard Gilliam to approve the variance, second by Deborah Kendrick. MOTION CARRIED.

3. New Business

Request by Thomas Wolff, Jerry Gentry and David Allstott to improve Thompson Street to less than City of Heppner Street Improvement Standards.

Applicants are requesting to provide a gravel surface on the unimproved Thompson Street for access to their lots. The applicants understand that the City will not accept or maintain streets not constructed to City standards.

Jerry Gentry declared a conflict of interest since he was one of the people involved in the proposed improvements to Thompson Street. Since Mr. Wolff was not present to address the Commission, he stated that he would represent the applicants. (At this time the matter was tabled to give opportunity for Mr. Wolff to arrive at the meeting. The Commission went on to old business prior to revisiting the issue. The discussion is listed here to conform to the agenda..)

(The tape recorder was not working at this point) Jerry Gentry presented the proposal for development of Thompson Street since Mr. Wolff was not present. He stated that they were requesting to develop Thompson Street to access lots in an old platted subdivision. The lots are owned by different people and there was not agreement on how to develop the street. He and David Allstott would like to build a house on two of the lots but did not want to develop Thompson Street to full City street standards as the cost would be prohibitive for service to one house.

Jerry Breazeale had furnished the Commission with a staff report of the issues involved and some potential solutions. He explained that this matter should be considered as a special circumstance due to a number of factors. The lots in question were part of an old existing subdivision which was created when the requirements for street development were less stringent. There is a forty (40) foot right of way for the street where the current standards call for a fifty (50) foot minimum width. The topography is not well suited to a wider street, and utilities are already installed in the right of way. The property is under multiple ownership, and only those properties west of Thompson Street would gain access from Thompson Street. The street has no potential for extension or connection with another street due to topography and existing development.

After considerable discussion, Commissioner Howard Gilliam made a motion to recommend to City Council that the applicants be required to develop Thompson Street to ASkinny Street@ standards with a curb installed on the west side of Thompson Street from Morrow Street to the southern terminus. Storm drainage facilities would be installed to provide adequate drainage of the street. Suitable compacted aggregate base is to be installed in preparation for laying asphalt twenty (20) feet in width. The applicants would be required to sign a nonremonstrance agreement for the formation of a local improvement district that would be formed to complete the paving of the street. A Second was provided by Commissioner Estes.

MOTION CARRIED with Cyde Estes and Jerry Gentry abstaining.

4. Old Business

Technical Advisory Committee meeting for the Transportation System Plan, City of Heppner.

A) Transportation Plan Document. City Manager Breazeale reviewed the final copy as supplied by Kittleson & Associates, Inc. Breazeale stated that there was one item that he felt that was overlooked during preparation of the plan. Figure 16, page 72, shows the proposed pedestrian system. According to Breazeale, there was an identified need to provide a route for pedestrians in the vicinity of the hospital and apartments to the main part of town and the schools. As shown on figure 16, a pedestrian way was shown on Morrow Street. Breazeale stated that he believed that a pedestrian facility on Pioneer Drive would be a better candidate for sidewalks for the hospital and apartments. This street is not as steep as Morrow Street and provides direct access for the apartments. The consensus of the committee was to add Pioneer Drive to the pedestrian system plan.

Additional discussion related to the need to include Deborah Kendrick in the list of participants in the Technical Advisory Committee in the preface of the document. Also discussed was the wording relating to the lack of connectivity of the Lakeview Heights Subdivision to the streets to the north on page 40. It was originally recommended that the wording be changed to state that the City ordinances in effect at the time that the subdivision was approved were insufficient to correct the problems that arise with access and connectivity.

B) Proposed Implementing Ordinances. Breazeale reviewed the proposed implementing ordinances as supplied by the Oregon Department of Transportation. He referred to a letter by City Attorney Bill Kuhn regarding the proposed ordinances and access standards. On questioning by Commissioner Estes, Breazeale explained that acceptance of the proposed ordinances is optional and the wording may be changed. The wording regarding enforcement of access standards can be changed, however access control is a priority of the Oregon Department of Transportation, and they would like to have the language included. Breazeale went on to explain that controlling access is critical to preserving the function of the streets and highways. Local streets are primarily for access to adjacent properties. Collector and arterial streets are primarily for movement of traffic, with collectors serving as a compromise between access and traffic movement. Where too many accesses are provided off a street, it creates numerous conflict points, creates congestion, slows traffic and impairs safety. Breazeale stated that for that reason, the City may have an interest in enforcing access standards. The Planning Commission would have the option of granting variances to allow access where it would be in the best interest of the public to do so. Commissioner Estes asked whether the emphasis of the Transportation System Plan was not transportation and preserving the transportation function of the system. Attorney Bill Kuhn stated that he thought that the wording placed too many requirements on the City to administer accesses to property. He stated that every time that someone wanted to put in a driveway or move a driveway, they would need to get City approval. Commissioner Tom Sly stated that was his concern about naming so many streets as collectors, as it would limit the access along them. Commissioner Cyde Estes stated that she believed that limiting the accesses on the state highway was a good idea. If there were redevelopment on Linden Way, for example, she thought the City would want to get involved to prevent congestion and unnecessary conflicts. Breazeale stated that he did not think that the proposed requirements for a simple driveway to a single family residence should be so complicated that they have to supply a plot plan showing every driveway within 500 ft. For a commercial business he felt that approach would be justified. He felt that there should be some threshold before some of the provisions were required. Breazeale stated that he would like to have a review of accesses for all commercial developments and for developments that would generate more than 25 trips per day. Breazeale stated also that he felt that the requirement for a traffic study for any development that would generate more than 50 trips per day was excessive. Traffic studies are expensive and it would only take a development of five houses to generate that kind of traffic volume. He would be more comfortable with raising the trip generation threshold to 100 trips per day to require a traffic study. The consensus was to make the recommended changes. Commissioner Estes asked about the heavy vehicle trip generation threshold which was suggested at twenty. Breazeale stated that he thought that would be appropriate since that many large trucks would be a significant impact.

Commissioner Estes asked whether the adopting resolution was satisfactory as supplied by the consultants. Breazeale stated that he would like to have more time to review the resolution and redraft the document prior to adoption.

Commissioner Sly referred to City Attorney Bill Kuhn=s comment under item 6 of his letter regarding prohibiting parking within twenty (20) feet of an intersection. Breazeale stated that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has established twenty (20) feet from an intersection as the standard for prohibiting parking. This space is necessary to provide minimum visibility to see approaching vehicles. Bill Kuhn stated that his concern was that this provision was better included in the ordinance dealing with parking regulations rather than under the zoning ordinance.

Breazeale then referred to the memorandum from Matt Hastie with Cogan, Owens, Cogan regarding infill and redevelopment alternatives. One of the recommendations was to allow flag lots to better utilize existing infrastructure and promote infill. He asked how the Commission wanted to address the issue. Currently the subdivision ordinance requires that a lot to be created to have fifty feet of street frontage. With a flag lot the required frontage could be reduced to fifteen or twenty feet to allow a driveway access from a street. By allowing flag lots, odd shaped parcels, or parcels with existing homes, that otherwise had enough square footage to allow a division, but could not meet the street frontage requirements, could be subdivided. According to Breazeale, there were not a lot of existing lots that would qualify, but there were some that could benefit. Commissioner Cyde Estes stated that flag lots could be allowed under the variance process. Attorney Bill Kuhn asked how the Commission felt about the maximum number of lots that could be served by a common driveway. Breazeale stated that in his experience, a flag lot would be allowed only to service one lot, or one division of an existing parcel. Jerry Gentry stated that other options to flag lots should be considered where possible. If it were possible to develop a street, then a flag lot should not be permitted simply because it is less expensive. The consensus of the Commission was to restrict flag lots to infill of existing lots where it was necessary due to restraints caused by lot configuration or to new development where topography was a limiting factor. Such flag lots would only be allowed for the creation of one additional lot and no additional lots could be created from such flag lot. Additional discussion ensued about the relative merits and liabilities of allowing flag lots. Consensus was reached to require that the width of the Apole@ on a flag lot would be a minimum width of twenty (20) feet. The Apole@ would not be included in the calculation of the total lot square footage. The driveway approach would have to be paved with a minimum of two (2) inch asphalt or four (4) inch concrete with adequate base.

In other discussion, City Manager Breazeale stated that perhaps the Commission would like to address the issue of setback requirements. There have been a lot of applications for variance to the existing requirements that have been granted. Rather than having such restrictive requirements that variances are routinely requested and granted, it may be better to modify the requirements. Breazeale stated that many cities have five (5) foot side yard setbacks and five (5) or ten (10) foot rear setbacks. Commissioner Howard Gilliam asked for clarification of what is the purpose of the required setbacks. He felt that the rear setback requirements should be changed. After discussion, it was determined that City Manager Breazeale would draft some language for potential revision of the ordinance and bring that back to the Commission. This would allow for more effective discussion.

Commissioner Gentry asked that there be a more effective method of enforcement for ordinance violations. Currently zoning and building violations are only acted upon when the City receives a complaint. He felt that the City should be more proactive in finding and enforcing violations when they occur. He suggested that the meter reader would be a good source of information on buildings being constructed which may not have received the required zoning permits. City Manager Breazeale stated that he would look into the matter and ask that City personnel be on the alert for new construction.

(At this time the Commission returned to the discussion on item 3 of the agenda, the request by Tom Wolff for development of Thompson Street.)

5. Information Items

A) Correspondence - None

B) Communication from the Commissioners - None

6. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM