MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR FEBRUARY 1, 1999

 

PRESENT: Commissioners Andrew Lacey, Jerry Gentry, Howard Gilliam, Suzanne Jepsen, Deborah Kendrick, Cyde Estes, Tom Sly; City Manager Gerald Breazeale; City Attorney Bill Kuhn; Police Chief Doug Rathbun, John Edmundson, Bob Kahl; Mayor Bob Jepsen, Cindy Penturf, Dixie Verstoppen, Tom Springer, Rick Loid, Cindy Loid

ABSENT: None

(Unless otherwise noted, "MOTION CARRIED" indicates all in favor.)

  1. General Business
    1. Call to order Chairman Jepsen called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM
    2. Introductions Chairman Jepsen asked the members in the audience to state their names for the Commission.
    3. Announcements - None
    4. Approval of the Minutes of the January 4, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion by Andrew Lacey, seconded by Howard Gilliam to approve the minutes as corrected. MOTION CARRIED.
  2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
    1. Continuance of Hearing on Variance request 98-36 Requesting relief from setback requirements on the east side of the property for the construction of a 16’ by 30’ carport to be attached to the residential structure on property located in a General Residential (R-2) Zone at 235 Aiken Street, Map #2S 26 26CC, Tax Lot # 100. Applicant : Richard Loid.

     

    Chairman Jepsen stated that all interested citizens would be given the opportunity to be heard and to present and rebut evidence. Those speaking in favor of the variance would be heard first. Those speaking in opposition to the variance would be heard second. No visiting among the audience would be allowed while testimony is being given. All comments must be addressed to the Commissioners.

    Speaking in favor of the variance was applicant Richard Loid. He stated that the carport was needed to park cars. Commissioner Gentry asked about how the storm water run off would affect adjacent property and how would that be addressed. Mr. Loid stated that the carport would be six (6) feet from the property line and that the water would run down to the street. Gentry stated that from his observation it appeared that the runoff would run directly onto the neighbor’s property. He asked how the water would affect the retaining wall of the neighbor. The other issue as stated by Commissioner Gentry was the location of the propane tank as there is a minimum distance that must be maintained from any structure. Mr. Loid stated that the tank was placed there by the propane company and must be a sufficient distance from the structure. Commissioner Estes asked if the minimum distance would be maintained once the carport is completed. Mr. Loid stated that he thought the propane tank would be far enough away from the structure and that the runoff would not adversely affect the neighbor.

    Commissioner Sly asked whether Mr. Loid had furnished the Commissioners with a copy of the survey that he said had been done. Mr. Loid stated that he had the property surveyed. Commissioner Estes asked whether the structures were surveyed also. The answer was that the structures had not been tied to the survey. The map submitted was drawn by the applicant. Commissioner Estes asked whether the structure was being built to code. Mr. Loid stated that it was.

    Chairman Jepsen asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the variance. No one came forward to testify in favor other than the applicant.

    Chairman Jepsen then opened the hearing for persons wishing to speak in opposition. Tom Springer stated that he was concerned with water from the structure undermining his retaining wall. He stated that he would like to see a new retaining wall built on the property line that would hold the bank up. He also stated that the propane tank was less than ten (10) ft. from his property. Chairman Jepsen asked if he were assured that if the runoff water would not damage his retaining wall or run across his property, would that satisfy his concerns. Mr. Springer stated that if a retaining wall were constructed on the surveyed property line to retain the bank, he would not object. He felt, however, that the retaining wall would have to be over four (4) feet high and would need to be engineered. He also stated that the propane tank was installed before the property was surveyed and is too close to the property now that the line has been established by survey. Upon questioning by Commissioners, it was determined that the existing retaining wall was several feet inside Mr. Springer’s property. Commissioner Gentry asked Mr. Springer if an engineered wall were constructed on the surveyed property line and the water runoff issue were addressed, would he be satisfied. Mr. Springer confirmed that he would be satisfied with that along with the relocation of the propane tank.

    Dixie Verstoppen expressed concern as to fire access with the structure built so close to the property line. She also voiced her concern that the Loids would be able to afford to deal with the runoff issue since their house was up for sale.

    Cindy Penturf stated her concern with the water runoff coming down the road and across the street and onto her property. Jerry Gentry asked how the construction would affect the runoff onto her property. He stated that to him, the runoff would be the same with or without the carport. Commissioner Estes asked for clarification regarding the runoff onto the property of Cindy Penturf. Since the street was sloped in that direction, it would appear that the water would run onto the property from the street. The natural slope of the land directs water in that direction.

    Chair Jepsen asked if there were anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the variance. Hearing none, she asked if there was anyone wishing to offer rebuttal.

    Applicant Loid addressed the Commission and stated that the runoff from all the properties above the Penturf residence ran down the street and onto the Penturf property. He stated that the propane tank was not a problem and could be moved. He stated that a retaining wall would not be a problem either. Commissioner Estes clarified that the wall described could be rather expensive and asked if he knew what such a wall would cost. Commissioner Gentry explained that a retaining wall over four feet high would have to be engineered and submitted to the State. Depending on the length of the wall, it could be quite costly. Applicant Loid said that he thought the runoff could be dealt with.

    Commissioner Gilliam asked if the carport was currently under construction, or had been under construction. Commissioner Gentry stated that it has been framed. Commissioner Sly stated that it was currently covered with plastic and so the runoff would be the same after the construction were completed as it is now. Chairman Jepsen clarified that the construction had been started prior to the request for a variance and prior to receiving a building permit. Cindy Penturf had contacted the Building Codes Division and was informed that they would process the application. Commissioner Gentry stated that he believed that a valid concern had been raised regarding the concentration of water along the property line. He felt that this problem was correctable. Before he could vote in favor of the variance, the applicant would have to bring in a design to present to the Commission to show how the runoff would be addressed. He also stated that he thought it would be a good idea for Mr. Loid to work with his neighbor, Mr. Springer to reach an acceptable solution, and then come in for a variance. Commissioner Estes asked if a retaining wall would be the only solution. She asked if a gutter would have the same effect. Discussion ensued regarding various methods to contain and channel the water. Commissioner Gentry felt that a retaining wall would be the best and most acceptable method to address the problem. Commissioner Gilliam stated that he thought a drainage system from the rear of the property to include the runoff from the carport could handle the runoff and avoid damage to the neighboring property. Commissioner Gentry said it was up to the applicant to present a plan to address the problem and present it to the Commission. Additional discussion regarding existing conditions and potential solutions ensued. Commissioner Estes pointed out that if the structure were redesigned to a smaller dimension so as not to encroach on the setback area, there would be no need for a variance.

    Commissioner Gentry made a motion to deny the variance. Second by Commissioner Lacey. Discussion was called for by Chairman Jepsen. Commissioner Estes stated that if the variance were denied, a new application would be required at additional cost to the applicant. She asked whether it would be better to continue the hearing to give the applicant time to come back with answers to the concerns that had been expressed. City Attorney Kuhn stated that the Commission must reach a decision within 120 days of the date of the application. The applicant would have until April 3rd to present a plan to address the issues if the hearing were continued. Chairman Jepsen called for the vote. MOTION CARRIED.

    B) Request for a Reapplication Hearing Regarding a Variance Request. Applicant: Sharon Jackson. The Applicant did not appear at the meeting. City Manager Breazeale explained that the applicant was requesting guidance from the Planning Commission regarding placing a pre 1988 mobile home on a lot within the City. The applicant had been informed that such siting would not be permitted by ordinance. Rather than file for a variance, the applicant was requesting the Planning Commission to give her some indication of how such an application would be received. Commissioner Gilliam stated that he would not be in favor of granting such a variance. City Attorney Kuhn pointed out that the City code was developed from an aesthetic, safety and structural standpoint. There were substantial differences in construction standards between pre and post 1998 standards for mobile homes. The applicant would have to present evidence that the mobile home would meet the standards and would have to show extraordinary circumstances. It was not known where the lot was located or what the zone was that the mobile home was to be placed in. Since the applicant was not present, no formal action was taken.

  3. New Business -None
  4. Old Business
  5. The RV parked behind the Pettyjohn building was discussed. Police Chief Doug Rathbun stated that the resident had been contacted and informed that he would have to leave the location. Since the resident of the RV was not present at the meeting Chief Rathbun said that he would assume that the RV will either be moved or not lived in.
  6. Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Transportation System Master Plan.

City Manager Breazeale reviewed the first meeting of the TAC where certain concerns were addressed. This meeting was a first exploration of the transportation needs of the City. Since there was not a lot of time to consider the problem areas, or potential problem areas, Breazeale was asking for additional consideration of the issues after the TAC has had time to review the material produced in the earlier meeting. Existing conditions and pedestrian needs had been discussed. The list of concerns from that meeting were reviewed.

Under Pedestrian facilities, City Manager Breazeale stated that the purpose was to define destination points and provide facilities to reach them. Once the routes are defined and the list of needs prepared, they will be included in the Transportation System Plan for future funding. This will enable the City to plan for the needed improvements and obtain funding. For instance, sidewalks on Riverside Avenue should be included if that is the desire of the community. Cyde Estes stated that she felt that bike lanes should be included the length of Gale Street and continue on Riverside Avenue. Sidewalks, according to one resident, are needed on Court Street south of May Street. Reference to the walking trail adjacent to the mobile home park in the minutes from the first meeting held Dec. 8, 1998, should be changed to refer to Willow Creek RV Park, as there is not a mobile home park in the City. Bob Kahl mentioned that the reference to the pedestrian route to the high school should include Water Street as well as Willow View Drive. Cyde Estes asked if it was clear that pathways were needed by the hospital and felt that it should be better defined. It should be stated that there was a need for a pedestrian facility from the top of the hill to the school. John Edmundson noted that there was no mention of creek side trails. Upon discussion it was determined that a connecting facility was needed along the creek from the dam area to the golf course. Equestrian routes were also discussed. Tom Sly asked whether the facilities identified as being needed must only be new facilities, or could be repairs to existing facilities also be included. City Manager Breazeale stated that existing facilities that needed repairs and improvements to meet the needs of the system could also be included.

The second item for discussion was the section on pipeline transportation. John Edmundson pointed out that the discussion was for a pipeline for irrigation from the dam to the lower Willow Creek Valley, not for canals as stated in the minutes. Cyde Estes asked whether a pipeline was ever planned when the project was built. She was under the impression that irrigation releases were made down the creek for withdrawal. John stated that that had been the case, although there may be advantages to piping the water to avoid losses. Bob Kahl stated that with proper piping, the water could be delivered under pressure and eliminate the problems and expense of pumping water from the creek. There was once a plan for an irrigation district that would install a pipeline and deliver the water from the project. The irrigation district was never formed, but future needs may make installation of a pipeline more attractive.

Regarding Traffic Safety and Operations, discussion centered on the reference to truck parking in the diagonal spaces. The current angle requires long vehicles to back out across the centerline into the opposing traffic. There is also a problem of visibility when a truck or van is parked beside another vehicle. Traffic can not be seen until one has made a backing movement out into the street. Breazeale mentioned that the further one gets away from the 90 degree angle, the less vehicles that can be parked. Andrew Lacey mentioned that there were supposed to be parking in front of the Forest Service Office for large trucks. City Manager Breazeale informed the TAC that the long vehicle parking would be marked this spring and the diagonal parking currently in front of the Forest Service Office would be eliminated. The need for RV parking was expressed by Tom Sly and affirmed by others.

The speed of trucks using Court Street was mentioned by Commissioner Estes. With the transfer of logs between the Heppner mill and Pilot Rock there would be more trucks traveling this route. The need for engineering solutions for speed control in the area of Court Street and Stansburry should be included in the plan. Discussion regarding enforcement of speed laws in the area. This could be done immediately as the need requires. Police Chief Rathbun stated that his officers could enforce speed in the area. A few stops would cause the word to spread among log truck drivers.

Commissioner Estes reported that she had gone to the Strategic Planning meeting on Wednesday January 20, to speak on planning issues for the Commission. She was distressed that the road around the high school was not in public ownership. Theoretically the school could close the road and prevent public access. She felt that there should be a plan for having the public acquire the road through the school. The road should also be publicly maintained. The consensus of the TAC was that this should be included in the master plan.

Bob Kahl Mentioned that the reference to the elimination of Terrace Street by the courthouse should include reservation of a pedestrian facility in that location.

 

  1. Information Items

 

    City Manager Breazeale reported that the City had applied for a T-21 grant for improvements to Riverside Avenue including sidewalks. The total project cost is estimated to be $ 337,315. The City has requested $266,000 in Federal grant funds. The project would extend from the existing sidewalks at Hinton Street west to the City limit. The existing street would be widened with curbs on both sides and a sidewalk on the north side and bike lanes. The City will have to come up with a local match of $71,315 which would consist of a donation of right of way valued at $7,915, City administration costs and approximately $50,000 from the Streets and Bridges Fund.

    Commissioner Estes reported that at the Strategic Planning Meeting, she encouraged the group to include the Planning Commission in the process. In her opinion, it is vital that the Planning Commission be part of the process. The Planning Commission will be asked to implement the decisions that are being made and will need to be informed of the needs and desires of the community. She stated that the Commission has acted as a regulatory body and needs to be more proactive. City Manager Breazeale stated that all of the meetings of the Strategic Planning Working Group are open to the public. All Planning Commission members are welcome to attend. Commissioner Tom Sly stated that he was a member of the Strategic Planning Group as was Mayor Jepsen. Commissioner Estes stated that the activities of the group are not well known by the Planning Commission. She felt that the Commission needed to be more involved. City Manager Breazeale stated that he could furnish the Commissioners with meeting notes and copies of the work produced to date.

    Commissioner Gentry wished to clarify the definition of the setback area. There was confusion as to whether the setback referred to the foundation, wall or the overhang such as eves. Attorney Bill Kuhn researched the definition of the setback and to where it is measured. According to ordinance, the overhanging portions of a building such as eves, cornices, etc. may not project more than two (2) feet into the setback area.

    ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 PM

    City of Heppner home page