PLANNING COMMISSION

January 6, 2003

PRESENT:  Deborah Kendrick, Bill Green, Suzanne Jepsen, Jerry Gentry, Bill Kuhn, City Attorney, City Manager Jerry Breazeale, Dan Dunnett, Rod Wilson

MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC:  Cyde Estes, Tom Wolff, John Edmundson

1.  GENERAL BUSINESS

A)  Chairman Deborah Kendrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

B) Approval of the Minutes of November 4, 2002 meeting.  Motion to approve November 4 minutes by Jerry Gentry, seconded by Bill Green.   MOTION CARRIED.

2.  PUBLIC HEARINGS:

None listed.

3.  NEW BUSINESS:

        A)  Wolff Annexation: 

   Manager Breazeale presented the Mr. Wolff’s annexation application with attachments.  Mr. Tom Wolff is attending the meeting to provide additional information and answer questions. 

Mr. Wolff stated that the maps are of property he owns near the cemetery.  The property shown in yellow is his property; the brown is the cemetery; and the green the current subdivision.  The second map shows the city limits which cuts the Wolff property in half.  Mr. Wolff is requesting that portion be annexed into the city limits.  Currently, a portion of his property is already included in the city limits.  According to Mr. Breazeale the application can be approved or denied.  A public hearing will be held at the city council meeting in February.  Publication of a notice is required 20 days in advance. 

Dan Dunnett, Army Corps of Engineers (COE), has been instructed to abstain from voting on this item. 

Mr. Gentry asked if the need for an annexation is similar to a request for variance.  Per Mr. Breazeale it is not exactly the same, and has to be in conformance with our property and city plan and not burden public services more than necessary.  They believe that it meets all the criteria.  It is a part of the zoning authority established for R2 property, whether it is in the city or not.  The main difference is that in order to obtain water and sewer service, the property has to be in the city limits.  Mrs. Estes asked that since the city limits will encompass everything but the cemetery, then why didn’t we include the cemetery?  Mr. Breazeale has discussed this, and if the cemetery board is interested in including the cemetery in the city, it would be very easy to do.  According to Mrs. Estes, that property is exempt and there is no effect on the taxes one way or the other.  Mr. Gentry asked whether the cemetery has city water.  According to Mr. Breazeale it does.  According to Mr. Kuhn, one of the reasons they didn’t include the cemetery for annexation is that it is illegal.  It would have to come before the cemetery board and he didn’t see where it made any difference since there are no residences.  Mrs. Kendrick opened the floor for questions. Mr. Gentry stated that he had no questions, but for the record, as part of the planning commission he likes to see development instead of stopping it as they have in the past.  The comment was made that the property is very awkward the way it is now; if Mr. Wolff designates lots, it is conceivable that part of a house be in the city and part out.  Mr. Green asked if access would be from the existing subdivision.  According to Mr. Wolff, he has access through his land that adjoins that property.  Access isn’t an issue.  Mr. Gentry wondered if this property has zero access, would that influence our decision.  According to Mr. Breazeale, we probably are going to need to discuss this since transportation is an important component of providing services to the property.  If it isn’t accessible, it is not in the property owners’ interest to annex it.  Mrs. Estes added that access is especially important for fire protection. 

In response to a question from Mr. Gentry on the size of the parcel of land Mr. Wolff is requesting to annex.  Mr. Wolff informed the commission that the total size of his parcel is 2.2 acres, and approximately .4 of the parcel or 1 acre.  Mr. Gentry questioned whether the planning commission should be informed on the potential use of the property prior to recommendation to the city council for annexation.  According to Mr. Gentry, clarification is needed on the following:  1.  Mr. Wolff wants to construct a residence, the lot is not big enough to build a house on ; 2.  He wants to build a residence but not on the subdivision line.  According to Mr. Breazeale, the planning commission has recommended that we contact the Corps of Engineers to get the road right of way that serves the RV park and then goes to the cemetery grove.  They are in the process of negotiating with the Corps to acquire that right of way or at least an easement.  For the purposes of the annexation it doesn’t affect whether or not the property can annex, come into the city and pay city taxes, etc.  Mr. Wolff understands that that may or may not happen and he has other alternatives to pursue.  However, without the annexation, he cannot get water or city sewer.  Mr. Gentry stated that the planning commission needs to be educated on what is the right thing to do, and that they have complete information in order to make a decision.  He needs to know what they are considering up front.  Mrs. Estes stated that from her perspective, they can annex this property into the city.  Then, before access/building issues are dealt with, Mr. Wolff will have to see this planning commission again if he’s talking lot line, partitions, or re-plat of the subdivision.  Mr. Kuhn has explained to Mr. Wolff the problems with the Corps and the length of time it might take to get it.  Mr. Gentry moved that we recommend to the city council that they approve the annexation of Tom Wolff’s property in Willow Creek Heights.  Seconded by Bill Green.  MOTION CARRIED. 

            Mr. Wolff requested time to outline his plans for the property to the commission:  If the COE will give the city a permanent easement to use that as a city street, it is their hope to move the barricade at the edge of the cemetery road to a new location.  It will not be a through street according to their plan and then city sewer/water, phone, and utilities will be extended at his cost onto the piece.  He does have an individual interested in purchasing a 150x150 lot and constructing a stick-built home.  Mrs. Jepson asked if this person would have access through Chase Street?  Mr. Wolff answered that they would.  Mrs. Jepson wondered if they would barricade it here (map), and why not leave it open?  Mr. Wolff stated that in speaking with the City Manager and residents of Chase Street, they don’t believe that Chase Street can support that kind of traffic which would likely happen if it was open.  Mr. Breazeale stated that the COE has had some concerns about through traffic and they would like to limit it.  If there was an emergency, i.e., Willow Creek Road was closed, our emergency services have keys to the gates and can open the gates and let traffic through.  Mr. Wolff stated that by placing that barricade here(map)—it would still leave the access road to the dam itself off any public access.  It would be between the barricade at the far end of the RV park and the barricade that runs to the dam itself.  Once the annexation issue is passed, they are looking at creating two parcels, maximum of two houses.  Mr. Dunnett questioned the access from the Chase Street side which has a barricade, and through the barricade following the existing road it goes into the RV park, correct?  The access is that you are going to create a new road going into the subdivision.  Mr. Gentry stated that he would like to applaud Mr. Wolff for his efforts in trying to further the development of the community.  Mr. Wolff stated that there has been some conjecture on the status of the place where vehicles drive at the face of the cemetery from approximately Larry Mills’ driveway to big piles of dirt that the cemetery has, and they have found that there is a 20 foot wide deeded city street abutting the residences, i.e., Mitchells, Arbogasts.  The 50 foot wide right of way that is actually part of the cemetery has words in the cemetery plat to the effect of “hereby dedicate the streets and alleys shown on this plat to the use of the public forever.”  That was from the original plat and subsequently it was re-platted for an amendment:  “Do hereby dedicate the streets and alleys as shown for the use of the public without reservation.”  He doesn’t anticipate that being a hurdle.  Mrs. Jepson asked if there would be any improvement to that road at all?  Mr. Wolff stated that there would be an improvement to that road by dividing it into no more than three lots and it is his understanding that they can stay away from the subject of the ordinance.  However, it would be graveled and when the dirt is removed put down some base rock to bring it up to whatever level is necessary.  The core road itself is a pretty good road, other than where they cut the water line across it and has never been repaired and they would re-rock that and gravel it.  Mrs. Jepson asked if he would do anything to the road that runs along the cemetery.  According to Mr. Wolff, that is paved to the second drive-out where the dirt piles are and he would put some base and surface rock so it would hold up in rough weather, and they would be responsible for that.  Mrs. Estes said that the town needs 50 feet of street frontage to do a minor partition there.  It has to become a street. 

B)  Naming of City Streets.

Mr. John Edmundson appeared before the commission on a related matter:  The street next to the cemetery is not named, and is sometimes referred to as Upper Chase Street.  Mr. Edmundson has submitted a letter to the Mayor posing that that segment of street continuing along the side of the Wolff property be named Bruce Kelley Street in recognition of one of the two gentlemen who is a historically significant figure in the 1903 Heppner Flood.  Bruce Kelley and Les Matlock were the two men from Heppner who rode horses down the Willow Creek valley to warn the citizens of Lexington and Ione of the advancing flood.  In connection with our flood commemoration Mr. Edmundson feels that having a Bruce Kelley Street makes good sense.  In a related matter, incidental to this, there is a Matlock Street and he has suggested that it be named Les Matlock Street.  However, that would be a matter for the City Council.  He wondered if Mr. Wolff, as the property holder fronting this street, was in agreement with this.  Mr. Wolff stated that Bruce Kelley Way was agreeable.  Mr. Edmundson has mentioned this as a comment of information due to his position on the flood commemoration committee. 

4.  OLD BUSINESS.

     A)   TGM Grant, Downtown Development Plan – Existing Conditions Report and work session.  Set date for joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.

The latest information provided to the commission from the Mitchell Nelson group study was discussed.  A map was provided showing existing conditions and a map of Heppner showing flood overlay, existing buildings, street layouts, and existing parking.  A sidewalk and parking map showing existing parking, formal on-street parking, informal on-street parking, formal off-street parking, and informal off-street parking was included.  The map also shows where sidewalks are anticipated to be needed or could be used, stream corridor, city limit line, all the building footprints, and stop signs.  On the very bottom of the legend, it states steep slope edge of development and that is pretty much what we find where the streets dead-end right at the base of the hill, Baltimore Street is the one that goes the furthest to the west and extends quite a bit up the hill.  On Water Street, they got real ambitious.  Some of the questions they have are essentially about down town.  We have one commercial zoning right now with two commercial areas, downtown and highway 207/74 by the swimming pool.  These properties are zoned commercial.  The study questioned whether there should be different criteria for the two areas.  The study asks if we want the same type of development on the strip on the highway as down town.  Mrs. Kendrick wondered what response Mitchell-Nelson would like.  Mr. Breazeale felt that they would like a consensus from the planning commission.  The whole process depends on the citizens of Heppner and what they want.  If there is no input, it has little value.  Per Mr. Breazeale, he sees two separate zones on the highway portion.  Ms. Kendrick felt that having the same parking requirements on the highway portion of the commercial zone is not realistic and that we need two different zones. 

The other was “Should the following requirements for a downtown district be applied only to Main Street frontages”; this is referring to the side streets such as Gale Street, and connecting streets.  Should there be a different requirement for Main Street frontages than for secondary streets.  The consensus was that there should not since it would destroy the character of the town. With reference to some of the businesses that front on two streets, front on Main Street, but also have frontage on Chase Street, if the code said that you would have no parking between the street and the building, what would that do to parking.  According to Mrs. Estes, we have to allow for parking somewhere.  Ms. Kendrick stated that that if they decided to build on Chase Street, then they would apply with that building-to-the-front line.  But if they fronted on both streets, then they could use the street off Main Street as their parking.  According to Mrs. Estes, it has to be that way because that the only place we have parking is behind the buildings.  Mrs Estes stated that she thought one of intents was to have them write that up and change our ordinance so that they provided something that was realistic for our community for offsite parking.  Mitchel-Nelson is doing that and including it in the two different proposals they are presenting to the public.  We have essentially said no, we don’t want parking in front of the buildings. 

Blank walls on Main Street.  Per Mrs. Estes, we don’t want that.  There would be some architectural requirements for having window space or some kind of interest.  Store fronts face whatever street they are on as opposed to an end of the building.  Parking requirements can be fulfilled offsite with on-street parking adjacent to the property.  Mr. Breazeale felt they want to allow some of the on-street parking to count in the requirements for parking.  Per Mrs. Estes, they have to write into this plan shared parking lots since we can’t meet our own standards for parking down town.  She wondered how far they were going to go down the street in the block for shared parking.  Many people park at the grocery store and walk to the bank and other businesses.  Per Mr. Breazeale, the parking study was not completed before this report was done.  The study was done the last week before Christmas, so should capture the commercial trade in a high-activity period, but does not take into consideration the traffic from hunters, etc., during hunting season.  It should have a pretty accurate picture of our parking situation.  The study included the streets in the downtown area that have formal or informal parking.  Mr. Kuhn questioned whether they are going to consider parking for employees since many employees park on Main street.  A lot of the problems result from occupied parking spots.  The suggestion of parking meters was considered and discarded. 

Side setback on the building sites.  Heppner currently doesn’t have side setbacks.  Will the city consider developing public parking for RVs and general use?  The old gas station at the corner of Main and Center Street was discussed.  The general opinion was that we don’t want a prime corner lot in our town taken up by a parking lot, which is not the highest and best used.  One of the items discussed was that if the city were to say that we were going to allow off site parking, rather than build parking by your business, you can buy space off site at a city lot.  Mrs. Kendrick would like to see the city develop some of the areas that the RVs naturally park in such as by the auto parts store and the back of Dennis’s building, since they pull into the grocery store and pull around and park.  That street edge is in bad condition and if it was paved on the shoulder and striped it would be perfect for parking.  There are also spots at the Forest Service .  There is nothing we are going to do with the influx of people into the downtown area during hunting season.  Mr. Gentry commented that the planning for the county/state ATV facility at the reload site is continuing forward and so instead of having RVs during a couple of months of hunting season, there is a good prospect of having RV parking needs for a much longer period of time when the trails open in that facility in April and continuing on until they are closed by snow in October or November so it is important to give thought to RV parking.  Mrs. Kendrick says there is some on Willow and Center.  Mr. Breazeale asked if the city would consider developing a parking lot for RV and general use, but not at the gas stations.  Mrs. Kendrick is talking about developing parking for RVs, but not a public parking lot.  Mr. Breazeale asked the question if you were developing a business on Main Street and you were thinking of using on-site parking at considerable cost, or public parking a block a way, what are the alternatives.  He is thinking of the old apartments on Chase Street and May Street that are for sale.  Per Mrs. Estes, the point is that the old apartment buildings need to come down and it is not realistic at this time that a commercial or residential structure would be put back in that place.  It would make a lovely parking lot.  Mr. Breazeale says that he is bringing this up because several people have been looking at purchasing the property to refurbish.  However,  they looked at the building requirements and decided not to purchase the property.  Several individuals expressed concern about the city purchasing the property.  This is not a consideration, unless there was a grant for it.  Mr. Gentry stated that there is potential planning for a snow park on Coal Mine Hill and if that should happen, there would be a considerable need for RV parking.  It is incumbent on the City to consider planning for future RV parking.   Members of the commission felt it would help down town businesses if parking was available for RVs coming in to Heppner, and thought properties should be identified for RV parking.  Suggested sites were on Chase/Center Street and by the bank.  Mrs. Estes asked if the reload yard was going to be developed as a camping spot, and was told that it is going to be an extensive one.  The RV parking down town that is being discussed is temporary vs overnight. 

            Old Swimming Pool Development.  The development of the old swimming pool into a skate park/youth center was discussed as to whether it should include a building, or simply picnic tables, etc.  Putting in a building would be problematic due to flood plain or flood way issues.  Mrs. Kendrick stated that a building would not be necessary.  Proposed structure was discussed as far as putting the skate park in the old pool or using a flat space.  This has been discussed with the City’s insurance carrier and he was in favor of using the old pool so that access for handicapped individuals as spectators could be provided.  Heppner’s youth are in favor of using the property as a skate board single use, vs. multi-use.  Use of the old tennis court and gym space was discussed.  Some of this property is already projected for use.

            Development of Court Street market property at Court and Main.  Parking for the Court House is not needed, since it was felt that most people would not need it. 

            Apartments on Chase Street.  The consensus was that the property should be used for parking or green space.  Owners are out-of town.  The property is vacant at this time. 

            B)  Mr. John Edmundson presented his proposal for application for a grant to repair creekside trails adjacent to the city parks.  This trail needs to be terminated or rehabilitated.  The State Parks does have available funds for grant applications for trail rehabilitation.  He will do the first rough draft on the efforts on the creekside trail.  He and Mr. Breazeale have walked the route and discussed the various things that can be done to make it a decent route to improve pedestrian circulation within the community, and provide access to the creek for fishing.  The deadline is the first week in February.  It is not a complicated grant application and is doable.  He is interested in seeing what could be accomplished to restore the paths to safety and use by the general public.  Mr. Breazeale asked for a description of the area to be improved.  Mr. Edmundson stated that it is on city owned property adjacent to Hager Park between the drift fence on Hager Park and the creek itself.  There is a stretch where the fence has been moved to the North that is just grassy property and development would be reasonably easy with the movement of sprinkler heads, some pigtails out to bench locations.  The next stretch is adjacent to the museum and the city park.  They would like to route from the north end of Chase Street and in property that is owned by Cindy Brosnan and then the motel and RV owns the next piece.  There is space there but there are a couple of challenges.  The space next to the Brosnan property is very steep and is eroding and sloughing and they may want to approach the water control district and the COE to put in rock ripwrap or medians that would control the erosion and also create a slope that would not be such a safety hazard.  The next interesting challenge is whether to do an under or overpass for the pedestrian way that goes from the school down pass the museum into main street.  Mr. Breazeale feels that a better location of the pathway along the museum and along side the city park is on the park side of the stone wall vs. building up the embankment to the creek.  There are some deteriorated railroad ties, vegetation that needs treatment, and he is planning to put together some plans for a level 48 inch wide pathway that would give wheelchair access.  Mr. Breazeale feels this would make a transportation route as well as access to the creek for fishing.  The trail itself would be a nice walking trail and those that would want to get off and go fishing in the creek would be able to do so.  Mrs. Estes stated that for wheel chair access the path would have to be paved.  She also questioned if funds are available from the city to maintain these trails.  According to Mr. Breazeale the city has streamlined the maintenance procedures and there are also funds from the gasoline tax that have been designated to off-street trail systems which could be used according to the grant match. 

            Skinny Streets.  Mr. Breazeale presented two drawings for parking treatment in a commercial area for the commission’s consideration.  They are looking at 60 foot right of way with angled parking on one side and parallel parking on the other side, such as that on Willow Street and could create a number of extra spaces if the side streets were developed in that way.  It does create more congestion and confusion, but creates more parking spaces.  The other is the skinny street residential standard which has been discussed but never adopted.  Mrs. Estes said they don’t want skinny streets down town.  She is not in favor of creating more skinny streets at this time.  Mr. Breazeale stated that unless we have it in our standards, it doesn’t get considered which is something we want to think about as an option for low volume residential areas.  Mrs. Estes thinks it should be incorporated if the standards are restricted.  Mr. Breazeale also presented the downtown option for diagonal parking, such as that beside Murrays.  Mr. Breazeale stated that it is allowed, but is nowhere in our development standards as an option.  It is strictly up to the City Council now which would be something that we would like to consider.  We are not going to build new streets downtown.  How do we maximize the parking in the downtown area.  Would not work for RVs.  They have also talked about doing it down by the Methodist Church which is parallel in both directions, i.e., angled parking on one side of the street.  Mrs. Estes is in favor of this if it is an option based on approval.

            C)  Joint City Council/Planning Commission date.  Date planned is Tuesday, February 4 in the evening.  City Council approval is required.  The regular Planning Commission meeting could be moved from February 3 to be held February 4 with the combined meeting at 7:00 PM.  Agreed upon by members.  Mrs. Estes has declined to renew her term.  Mike Gorman and Gail Guiterrez have both considered filling her spot.  She will assist the new person if necessary.  Mr. Dunnett is leaving this summer and cannot be considered.  Motion made to elect Jerry Gentry chair and Dan Dunnett vice chair.  Seconded.  MOTIONED CARRIED.

City Council representatives:

January 2003:  Dan Dunnett

February 2003:  Bill Green

March 2003:  Suzanne Jepson

Meeting adjourned at 9:00  PM.