Planning Commission Oct. 04

CITY OF HEPPNER

PLANNING COMMISSION

October 4, 2004

ATTENDEES:

Jerry Gentry, Chairman

Jerry Breazeale, City Manager

Bob Jepsen, Mayor

Suzanne Jepsen

Dave Fowler

Rod Wilson

Dan Dunnett

Bill Kuhn, City Attorney

Absent: Duane Jones

Deborah Kendrick

Members of the Public: Rod Burrows

April Sykes, Heppner Gazette

Dale Bates, CenturyTel

Pam Schmidt

1. General Business:

A) Call to Order: The October 4, 2004 meeting of the City of Heppner Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman, Jerry Gentry, at 7:05 PM.

B) Introductions: The following attendees introduced themselves to the Commission:

Pam Schmidt, Private Citizen, attending concerning UGB

Dale Bates, CenturyTel, Concerned Citizen

April Sykes, Heppner Gazette

Rod Burrows, Project Engineer, CA Simon and Associates, Consulting Engineer for the Communications Building proposed for Windwave Communications.

C) Announcements: Mr. Gentry and Mr. Breazeale announced that this is the first formal commission meeting in the new City Hall.

D) Approval of the May 3, 2004 Planning Commission minutes. Minutes were reviewed by members present with one correction identified. Page 2, first paragraph, last sentence should read: “. . . . . . . . . . feels that the plan is adequate as shown.”

Motion by Mr. Fowler to accept the minutes as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Motion carried.

2. Public Hearings

A) Site Plan Review: Requesting a permit to construct a central office facility located in the Downtown District (DD) Zone at 235 North Street, Map #2S 26 35BB, Tax Lot #7500. Applicant Windwave Communications.

Discussion:

Mr. Gentry stated this request is for a building to be constructed for Windwave Communications. This request is in compliance with the Downtown Development Plan and property owners within 250 feet of the site have been notified for comment. The Planning Commission has the authority to allow or disallow the permit.

Mr. Burrows stated that he is with the consulting firm, CA Simon and Associates, 601 McLaughlin Street, Vancouver, WA. They are the engineering consultant for Windwave Communications, which is a for-profit subsidiary of Inland Development Corporation, which is affiliated with Morrow Development Corporation. For the last three or four years, they have been working with the Port of Morrow and the County and a number of other agencies to develop a fiber optic system to connect all of the towns in Morrow County and several in Umatilla County. This particular facility is proposed for the property on Chase Street to serve as a central office and telecommunications hub for the town of Heppner for the eventual development of a fiber optic system that will serve residences and businesses throughout Heppner. Currently the network serves major government offices. The goal is to extend this to homes and businesses on a for-profit basis. The facility itself will be a concrete block building which would fill most of the lot. They have worked with Mr. Breazeale to comply with the provisions of the Downtown Development Plan. This will include a store-front type of building on Chase Street. There will be a small amount of office space, but the main function of the building will be to house communications equipment. It will be mostly unmanned, but there will be technicians working part time in the building. The majority is electronics.

Mr. Gentry asked Mr. Burrows if he was the engineer for the building and Mr. Burrows stated that he was. Mr. Gentry also asked if there were any setback requirements, and according to Mr. Breazeale, there is no setback required in the commercial zone in the downtown district. Mr. Breazeale has reviewed the ordinance with Windwave and they have met all the requirements, to include pedestrian amenities and required architectural features. Windwave has chosen to include awnings as their pedestrian feature. Mr. Gentry stated that he appreciates the fact that Windwave has presented such a good plan and their meeting with the City to discuss the requirements.

Comments: Mrs. Schmidt stated that she thinks it is great that we are going to have a new building in town. Mr. Bates asked about setback requirements and according to Mr. Breazeale, there are none. There is an approximate setback of approximately 3 ft. on the South and 5 ft. on the North side. Mr. Burrows stated that the propane tank will be set across the street and will meet the setback requirements for propane tanks. This is not included in the application and this is part of the City building codes. Another permit will be required for this.

Mr. Bates asked if there are any provisions for parking and Mr. Burrows stated they will be required to have two parking spaces on the street. There will not be a significant amount of traffic. Mr. Wilson asked how customers would acquire service and Mr. Burrows stated that they would call for an appointment.

In answer to Mrs. Jepsen’s question, Mr. Burrows stated that Windwave will be the owner of the building. According to Mr. Burrows, they are a subsidiary of Inland Development which is based at the Port of Morrow.

Mr. Gentry asked for clarification on the parking and asked about parking for the conference room. Mr. Breazeale stated that according to the Downtown Development Plan, the on-street parking would qualify for the minimum parking requirement. Mr. Gentry asked if there is a provision for more parking. Mr. Breazeale stated that if they were to change their use as approved they would have to go through the planning process. Mr. Gentry stated that they are meeting the requirements for the plan as set. According to Mr. Kuhn, if they were going to have more employees in the building, they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. In answer to Mr. Bates question, they will be still be able to use the conference room without more parking requirements. Mr. Bates had concerns since CenturyTel is next to the building and does not want to restrict parking, but could not have their space blocked by other vehicles. Mr. Breazeale stated that they could not block driveways. Mr. Fowler asked if the intent of this building is for the telecommunications equipment and not for service vehicles. According to Mr. Burrows they are in the process of obtaining property to take care of the service vehicles and storage. Mr. Burrows stated that this will not happen at the location being discussed tonight. The main facility that the company is using at the moment is a several acre lot at the Port of Morrow which will be used for equipment storage.

Mr. Gentry stated that it is clear that this meets the requirement as stated and if that requirement changes, then other alternatives will need to be discussed. Mr. Breazeale stated that another requirement they will have to meet is that the subject property is in the floodplain and they will have to meet the floodplain requirements which requires obtaining a floodplain development permit.

Mr. Dunnett stated that he sees that landscaping is being installed, and according to Mr. Burrows they haven’t made a decision on the type at this time. There are some considerations that need to be discussed further.

Mrs. Jepsen asked if any objections had been received from the mail-outs and Mr. Breazeale stated that they had not. He discussed the pedestrian amenities that are required and Windwave has decided on awnings. Mr. Gentry feels the building will be an asset to the community. Mr. Bates stated that he has concerns on the building itself, but will discuss this further with Mr. Burrows later since his questions are technical and financial.

Public Hearing Closed.

3. Planning Commission Action.

Motion by Mrs. Jepsen to approve the permit. Seconded by Dave Fowler. Motion Carried.

4. New Business. None.

A) Baker/Morrow Land Use Committee, Urban Growth Boundary Adjustments, grant from the Oregon Community Solutions Team. Progress Report. Mr. Breazeale stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting, they discussed this issue and it was put on hold by the land use committee. At that time, they decided that there was not enough short term land supply in the area that could be developed. Theoretically, there is a long term supply, but much of this is not practical for development. When the downtown area was surveyed, most of the land was in the floodway. Much of the land around the city does not have access for development. Some of the property is too high to get water to it. It was decided that the City needs more land for short term development for both commercial and residential efforts since companies have looked at the area for overnight lodging and other development, but there is no land available. This is one of the reasons for moving the UGB expansion forward. DLCD has accepted this theory and the director is more proactive for more development. Up to this point, the State has paid for the costs of this. The City’s match was staff time. To date, the State has spent about $50,000.

The City has sent out a mailing to property owners in the area being considered, which is the property between the North City limits and the old mill site. Much of this land is owned by Mac Hoskins and he is not interested in selling this land and will continue to use it for farming. A number of responses to the mailing have been received and the subject area has been narrowed down to the area shown on the map which Mr. Breazeale presented to the Commission. On September 8, Mr. Breazeale presented this to the respective property owners and they were asked to identify their property and let the City know whether they wanted to included in the UGB or not. A couple of property owners did not want to be included. He tried to redraw the map to exclude those properties that did want to be included. The Golf Course did not want to be included in the UGB. After that that discussion, Mr. Breazeale re-drew the boundary excluding the golf course. This took everyone on the West side of the property out except the Schmidt property and some ODFW property. Mr. Gentry asked if the people understood the benefits of being included in the UGB. Mrs. Schmidt stated that she had met with Carla McLane and stated that Mrs. McLane stated there are a lot of requirements to get zoning for properties not in the UGB. Mrs. Schmidt stated that it appears that everyone’s primary fear is that they are going to be annexed into the City. The Golf Course did not state why they wanted excluded. Mrs. McLane had stated that if the golf course wanted to expand it would be difficult if they were not in the UGB.

Mr. Gentry inquired as to why the golf course was allowed to have City water and Mr. Breazeale explained that he was not here at the time, but the City offered to allow them to use domestic drinking water when they started using effluent for irrigation. According to Mr. Breazeale, the City has not tried to influence property owners either way. Mrs. Schmidt stated that she agrees with this, but that there was some negative influence from the Court House. Mrs. McLane had told Mrs. Schmidt that even if properties were included in the UGB, the property owners could continue what they are doing with their property but zoning would be available if they decided to do something else. Mr. Kuhn stated that in order for someone to get into the UGB in the future, it would be a long and expensive process.

In answer to Mrs. Sykes’ question regarding why this effort was initiated. Mr. Breazeale explained that the city had met with the property owners to see where the interest was. The City’s concern was creating an “island” in the middle of the UGB if some of the property owners did not want to be included. Mr. Gentry stated that basically this opportunity for these property owners is a one-time opportunity. Otherwise it would be a long, expensive process. Mr. Breazeale stated that at this point, the City does not want to include anyone who did not want to be included. According to Mr. Breazeale, this would be one avenue for growth for the City through economic development.

Mr. Gentry stated that he has not personally had any contact from individuals, but he did receive a petition in opposition to the UGB expansion through the mail. Apparently, one of the property owners, Mrs. Patton, had initiated the petition. Mr. Gentry read his copy of the petition which was mailed to the members of the Planning Commission. However, not all addressees on the petition received copies. Mrs. Schmidt asked if this was a decision that needed to be made right away and Mr. Breazeale stated it did not, but the City had sent out another mailing last Friday (October 1). After reviewing the petition, Mr. Breazeale stated that with the exception of Mrs. Patton, the rest of the property owners who signed the petition had retracted their decision and asked to be included in the UGB. Mrs. Schmidt stated that she felt the UGB expansion was a good idea.

Mr. Breazeale stated that the next step in the process would be an intergovernmental agreement with Morrow County to finance a study on this and would cost each entity approximately $850.00. With the level of opposition that has been expressed to County Commissioners and Council members, there is a very good chance they will decide not to move forward. At the last meeting, the Council had not made a decision to move forward. Mr. Breazeale‘s next step is to contact the property owners one more time and present his findings to the Council next week. Mr. Gentry stated that he appreciates Mr. Breazeale’s efforts. He feels that this issue is hard to understand without complete information, but he feels that the City cannot do this on its own, and is not sure what we can do. Mrs. Schmidt suggested more factual information and architects drawings of what the area could look like if developed. She wonders if this could be kept status quo in case something changes in the future. Mr. Breazeale stated that we have the report that supports the development; and we have a DLCD which is looking favorably on this type of expansion. However, we don’t know what is going to happen down the road. We don’t know if future City Councils would authorize any money, and we don’t know if the County would be supportive at that point, either. Mrs. Schmidt asked if those that do want to be included in the UGB could go ahead and move forward. Mr. Breazeale stated that he would suggest going to the City Council with this request.

Mr. Gentry inquired about what the Planning Commission could do at this point. Mr. Breazeale stated that this portion of the meeting is a status report since the Planning Commission had made an earlier recommendation to move forward. Mr. Wilson questioned whether the existing floodplain went through the golf course, and Mr. Breazeale affirmed that it does. Mr. Wilson also wondered if that included all the adjacent properties on that side of the highway. Mr. Breazeale stated that not all of them were included in the floodplain, but that with the revision, some of those properties would not be included. Mr. Breazeale stated that the adjustment of the floodplain area which includes the golf course would open up more land and some areas in town. Mr. Wilson stated that he wondered if this was a concern for some of the property owners. According to Mr. Breazeale, one of the property owners who objected to being included in the UGB does not have property in the floodplain.

B) City Purchase of former Klamath 1^st Federal Building. Mr. Breazeale reported that the purchase of the building has been completed and City Hall offices have moved to the new building. Mr. Breazeale stated that there have been favorable comments from the public regarding the fact that there is plenty of space. The area for the City Council meetings allows plenty of space without the crowding experienced in the old building. Mr. Gentry expressed his appreciation for Mr. Breazeale’s efforts in effecting this move.

C) Floodplain Reduction. Mr. Breazeale reported that FEMA had agreed to re-study the floodplain in Heppner, as well as in Lexington and Ione. Surveys have been done, to include ground control and over flights to tie in the elevation studies. This will all be digitized using GPS and the maps provided will be an excellent product. The good news is that it appears that we should know in November what it is going to look like as far as boundaries on the new floodplain. However, nothing will be done until January 2006 when the final maps are delivered. Until we actually receive the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) nothing will change as far as planning for new buildings. All indications are that there will be a significant reduction in the floodplain.

6. Information Items:

A) Letter, Department of Land Conservation and Development, September 20, 2004, Subject: Community Assistance Visit – National Flood Insurance Program. Mr. Breazeale explained that at the same time that we are re-designating the floodplain, we are trying to effect a reduction in flood insurance rates. The Community Rating System through FEMA is an insurance program to evaluate the community to ensure that proper procedures are being followed to reduce the likelihood of claims for flood damage. Once the evaluation is completed by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) we are pretty much guaranteed a 10% reduction in insurance premiums. City-wide it should be a substantial reduction. However, the reduction to the policy-holders will not be the complete 10%. Insurance agents will be able to provide details.

B) Communications from Commissioners.

1) Mr. Wilson expressed his concerns on the Gardner’s retail space becoming empty. According to Mr. Breazeale, the Economic Development Group has been working to bring businesses to Heppner. The empty space is a concern to the group. Mr. Gentry voiced concerns since the larger businesses out of town make it difficult for small individual businesses to compete with them. He stated that efforts are going on all the time to get businesses to locate in Heppner. Mr. Breazeale stated that the Economic Develop Group can assist new businesses in locating funding, grants, etc. Mr. Jepsen expressed his opinion that a big concern is being able to keep the hospital in Heppner.

Meeting adjourned at 8:26 PM.