Chairman Saylor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commissioners Erz, Ferguson, Rebman, Sheffield, Fialka, and Caplinger were present.  Commissioners Ottmar and Quick were absent.

Minutes

Commissioner Erz moved to approve the minutes of the February 9, 2011 regular meeting. Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion.  The minutes were approved with Commissioner Fialka abstaining.

HEARINGS

A. Hearing/Request for Annexation – 403 E. Theater Lane/Steve White of Copper Basin Inc.

Chairman Saylor announced the planning commission is holding a hearing to consider a request for annexation of approximately 1 acre of land located at 403 E. Theater Lane.  The property is also described as 4N 28 02BC, Tax Lot 1600.  Copper Basin Inc. owns the property and wishes to annex it to the city to connect to municipal sewer services to replace a failed septic system.

Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interest

Chairman Saylor asked if any commissioner wished to declare a potential conflict of interest.  Hearing none, Chairman Saylor opened the hearing at 7:01 pm.

Hearing Guidelines

Chairman Saylor read the following guidelines:

1. The applicable substantive criteria relied upon by the City in rendering the decision to annex the property are contained in §150.05 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.
2. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described above or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person believes apply to the decision.
3. Failure to raise an issue by the close of the record at or following the hearing, in person or by letter, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or the city council based on that issue.
4. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to that issue precludes appeal to LUBA or the city council based on that issue.
5. Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the local government or its designee to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court
6. Prior to the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application.  The planning commission shall grant such a request by continuing the public hearing pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(B) or leaving the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony pursuant to ORS 197.763(6)(C).

For this hearing, the process begins with the staff report, followed by testimony from the applicants and any other supporters of the application.  This will be followed by opponents to the application.  Finally, a rebuttal by the applicant will be allowed.  The public hearing portion of the procedure will then be closed, and the planning commission will consider the information and testimony received, adopt findings of fact, and make a recommendation to the city council on annexation.

Staff Report

City Planner Spencer stated that Steve White of Copper Basin Inc. has submitted a request for annexation of approximately 1 acre of land located at 403 E Theater Lane.  The property is described as 4N 28 02BC Tax Lot 1600.  Copper Basin Inc owns the property and proposes to annex it to the city to connect to municipal sewer services to replace a failed septic system.  The property lies within the urban portion of the urban growth boundary and has a comprehensive plan map designation of Medium Density Residential (M) which corresponds to a Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning designation.  Mr. White proposes to annex the property with an R-3 zoning.

Staff recommends the findings of fact, as may be amended, be adopted on annexation and zoning designation; and that the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council that the land be annexed with a Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning designation.

CRITERIA

§150.05 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances establishes the criteria for annexation to the City of Hermiston. 

• The proposal is consistent with all state annexation law requirements.
• The property is contained within the urban portion of the urban growth boundary as identified in the comprehensive plan
• The proposed zoning is consistent with the underlying comprehensive plan land use designation

Commissioner Erz asked if there were any road agreements signed.  City Planner Spencer said that street improvement agreements would be triggered by home improvements of 30% or more.

Commissioner Sheffield verified that the city sewer line was readily available for connection by the home owner.

Hearing no further questions, Chairman Saylor opened the floor for testimony.

Testimony

Proponents: None present.

Opponents:  None present.

Hearing no testimony, Chairman Saylor closed the hearing at 7:05 pm.

PROPOSED FINDINGS

Subject to the comments and considerations of the public hearing, the following draft findings are presented:

ANNEXATION

1. The City has received consent to annexation from the property owner for approximately 1 acre of land.
2. Notice of public hearing was published in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the planning commission hearing.  Notices were also posted in four public places in the city for a like period.  No comments or remonstrances have been received at this date as a result of the publication or posting.
3. Affected agencies were notified.  No comments were received.
4. A public hearing of the planning commission was held on March 9, 2011.  No comments were received at the hearing.
5. The proposal is consistent with all applicable state annexation requirements.
6. Since the property is contiguous to the existing city limits, the annexation is in accord with Comprehensive Plan Policy 4 which promotes compact urban development within and adjacent to existing urban areas to insure efficient utilization of land resources and facilitates economic provision of urban facilities and services.
7. The annexation is consistent with the requirements of Comprehensive Plan Policy 5 relating to annexation.
8. The property is located within the urban portion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) as identified on the comprehensive plan map.
9. The annexation and existing commercial development are consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies and map designations.
10. This annexation will not have an adverse impact on the area because it is developed in a similar and compatible manner to adjacent properties.
11. Sewer and water are available to service this property in NE 4th Street and E Theater Lane.

ZONING DESIGNATION

1. The comprehensive plan map designates the area as Medium Density Residential.  No error in the plan has been identified in regard to this area.
2. The proposed Multi-Family Residential (R-3) zoning designation corresponds with the underlying comprehensive plan designation.

Chairman Saylor asked for a motion.  Commissioner Rebman moved and Commissioner Sheffield seconded the motion to accept the draft findings as amended.  Motion passed.  Commissioner Erz moved and Commissioner Fialka seconded the motion to recommend annexation to the City Council.  Motion passed.

B. Hearing/Request for Conditional Use – 1035 SE 9th Street/ Church of Jesus Christ LDS

Chairman Saylor announced that a hearing was scheduled to consider a conditional use permit to construct a new 21,043 square foot meetinghouse and a 300 square foot storage building.  The property is located at 1035 SE 9th Street and the applicant is Scott Robison on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interest

Chairman Saylor asked if any commissioner wished to declare a potential conflict of interest.  Commissioner Fialka stated for the record that he does live in the area but that would not effect his decision.  Also, he had ex parte contact with two people.  Chairman Saylor opened the hearing at 7:07 p.m.

Hearing Guidelines

Chairman Saylor read the following guidelines:

The planning commission is holding a hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit.  The request must be approved by the planning commission subject to the criteria established in '157.208 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.  The applicant wishes to construct a meetinghouse and a storage building on property located at 1035 SE 9th Street.  The applicant is Scott Robison for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1. The applicable substantive criteria relied upon by the City in rendering the decision to grant the conditional use permit are contained in '157.208 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.
2. Testimony and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described above or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person believes apply to the decision.
3. Failure to raise an issue by the close of the record at or following the hearing, in person or by letter, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or the city council based on that issue.
4. Failure to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to that issue precludes appeal to LUBA or the city council based on that issue.
5. Failure to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the local government or its designee to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
6. Prior to the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application.  The planning commission shall grant such a request by continuing the public hearing pursuant to ORS 197.763(6) (B) or leaving the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony pursuant to ORS 197.763(6) (C).

For this hearing, the process begins with the staff report, followed by testimony from the applicants and any other supporters of the application.  This will be followed by opponents to the application.  Finally, a rebuttal by the applicant will be allowed.  The public hearing portion of the procedure will then be closed, and the planning commission will consider the information and testimony received and may render a decision.

Staff Report

City Planner Spencer stated that the proposal is to create approximately 21,000 square foot worship facility, a 300 square foot outbuilding, and paved parking.  The site is about 6.63 acres located at the intersection of SE 9th Street and E. view Drive.  This proposal was originally submitted to the City in 2001.  The planning commission did not approve the request citing concerns with traffic and inadequate status of the Maxwell Canal Bridge.

The applicant appealed the planning commission’s denial to the city council who approved the request and placed numerous conditions on the applicant, including participating in the reconstruction of the Maxwell Canal Bridge.

In the intervening years the church was not built and the City replaced the old bridge with a new box culvert.

The proposal tonight is a modified version of the 2001 proposal which reduces the overall size of the building by 3,000 square feet.  The proposal also reduces the overall number of seats and parking spaces required resulting in a small overall impact from the 2001 proposal.

SE 9th Street, E. View Drive, and E. Evelyn Avenue are all local residential streets.  These streets then provide connectivity to E. Highland, Highway 395, and SE Columbia Drive which are all classified as collectors or arterial streets.  In general, trips generated by a church such as the one proposed generate trips at off-peak times.

One of the concerns raised by ah adjacent property owner was the design of the southern driveway onto SE 9th Street was too close to the E. view Drive intersection.  Staff reviewed the TSP spacing standards and agreed, thus requiring the applicant to move the southern driveway at least 50 feet from the E. View Drive intersection.

Concerns were also raised about pedestrian safety.  Staff is requiring sidewalks to be installed along both property frontages as well as additional right-of-way dedication for E. View Drive.

In the rear of the property no street improvements are suggested at this time; however, additional right-of-way is required for future streets if development requires it.

Commissioner Fialka questioned the last line of draft finding #15.  After some discussion, the line was deleted.

Hearing no further questions, Chairman Saylor opened the floor for testimony.

Testimony

Proponents:

George Stecker, 122 Warren Acres Road, Yakima, Washington; stated that the church uses a formula of need and in 2001 the church had not reached the point of need; therefore, they did not go forward.  Although the Church did get two 1-year extensions, they still had not met the need quotient. Parking was designed for extra visitors during conferences. The steeple is not lit – no bells, chimes, or lights. Commissioner Fialka asked if headlights would hit the windows of the homes across the road and Commissioner Sheffield asked if the parking lot lights would constantly be on and contained on-site.  Chairman Saylor commented that sometimes it is better to have some light on all the time.  Mr. Stecker stated that the lights would be on a programmable time-clock and that appropriate lighting would be used.

Jeff Snell, 82578 C Street, Hermiston; stated that the current building is busting at the seams. The Church is sensitive to traffic concerns; the church would be used mainly on Sundays and on Wednesdays for youth group meetings.

Mike Atkinson, 29735 S. Bridge Road; stated that he was amazed at Hermiston’s community spirit and was in support of this proposal and others like it.  He believes in religious diversity.

Gary Reynolds, 875 SE Bankers Drive; stated that the one of the congregations meets in Umatilla and is excited about a new church.  Also, he felt that they would not infringe on E. View Drive.

Greg Smith, Legislative Assembly, Salem, Oregon; stated that he felt the preparation for this hearing has been very thorough by both the planning department and the planning commission.  He went on to say that it is his job to grow economies and one indicator is the growth of houses of worship.

Joan Hill, 1080 SE 9th Street; stated that she supports the building of the church but did have some concerns and suggestions.  Her house is across the street from the proposed southern driveway.  Not concerned about headlights; rather, with the increase in traffic.  There is already a lot of traffic flowing to and from the government buildings and BMCC.  Ms. Hill suggested that the access be moved to E. View Drive and that a 4-way stop sign be added to the SE 9th and E. View Drive intersection.  Currently, traffic flow is uninterrupted from Highland to Port. City Planner Spencer stated he would present the 4-wat stop idea to the Streets Superintendent.  There would be a problem with moving access to E. View Drive since only half of the street will be paved.

Opponents:

Vernon Weber, 1100 SE 10th Street; expressed his concerns as follows:

• City needs to take care of the light on the water tower as being too visible
• Should cold roll the other half of E. View Drive to prevent chipping/cracking
• Traffic will increase but the BMCC expansion is the major culprit
• The roof line should be peaked – more esthetic than a flat roof
• Chain-link fence would interfere with weed eradication

Mr. Weber also asked questions regarding ownership of SE 9th and E. View Drive plus questions regarding the ditch and irrigation piping along SE 9th.  City Planner Spencer advised that SE 9th is a city street while E. View Drive is a county road.  Also, he stated that the Church would have to work with the Irrigation District and the road along the ditch is an easement.

Mr. Stecker and Mr. Snell addressed some of the issues raised.  The Church was not able to get the topographic measurements for the opposite side of E. View Drive as the property owner would not allow access to the property.  The Church will definitely install a fence along the ditch.  A concrete mow area will probably be used.  The 4-way stop idea would not be opposed but separate ingress/egress would be.  Headlights shining in the neighbor’s windows should not be a problem as most Sunday meetings end before dark.

Mr. Stecker raised a question about the reimbursement system used for the required public improvements.  City Planner Spencer advised that the Hermiston City Council handles that via resolution or ordinance.  Usually, a 10-year  timeline is applied.

Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Saylor closed the hearing at 8:16 pm.

DRAFT FINDINGS

The applicant has prepared findings of fact in support of the application.  These findings rely heavily on the findings of fact adopted by the city council in 2001.  As noted earlier in this report, the original request was approved by the city council upon appeal.  In approving the conditional use permit, the city council directed the city’s land use counsel to prepare findings in support of the request.  Staff and the applicant have reviewed the 2001 findings and determined that they are still applicable to the request with some minor modifications.

THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE

1. The Church previously (in 2001) applied for and was granted a Conditional Use Permit to build a church building on this site.  The 2001 application was initially denied by the Planning Commission, was appealed to the City Council and approved on September 10, 2001.  The original CUP was valid for one year.  As allowed, two one-year extensions were applied for and granted.  The conditional use permit expired as the Church was not prepared to begin construction within the specified time.

2. HZO 157.208(A) requires the proposed Church to be in conformity with the comprehensive plan and zoning code.  HZO 157.025(B)(2) states that a church facility is a use permitted conditionally in the R-1 zoning district.  The zoning code (The HZO) implements the City’s comprehensive plan and, therefore, if the proposed Church satisfies the standards of the zoning code for the conditionally permitted use, then the proposal is also consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan.  The City Council found (2001) that the proposed Church meets all the standards for a conditionally permitted use in the zoning district as explained below, and that the proposal therefore meets this approval criterion.

3. The Applicant proposes to develop a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Stake Center building on the subject property.  The City Council interpreted (2001) its own code’s term “Church,” as listed as a conditional use in the R-1 zoning district as referring to a building for worship and that the activities proposed for the Church fall well within that definition.  Specifically, the proposal for the worship of God in the proposed building, including incidental activities proposed for the Church’s youth and adults designed to bring each youth and adult member closer to God, are activities for the worship of God in the proposed building within the City’s definition of the term “Church.”

4. The proposed Church will be less than 35’ in height (approximately 32’).  The Church will include a steeple and spire atop the proposed building, said steeple and spire is approximately 39’-3” high.  The steeple and spire is a religious symbol of the Church designed to lift the thoughts and eyes of members toward God; it is viewed by members as a symbol to aid them in honoring God, and as a means to identify the Church as a beacon.  The City Council found (2001) that the proposed steeple and spire is a religious symbol of the Church and symbolizes Church doctrine.  The proposed steeple and spire is an important component of the Church and its members’ free exercise of the Latter-Day Saints religion.  The City Council found (2001) under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution concerning free exercise of religion and symbolic expression, the “hybrid” First Amendment claim explained in the Applicants correspondence (2001) with the City, as well as under parallel Oregon Constitutional provisions protecting religious freedom and symbolic expression, that imposing a governmental restriction limiting the proposed height of the steeple and spire proposed to be located atop the Church, would fail to meet the federal tests explained above and fail to meet the Oregon constitutional tests, as well.

THE PROPERTY IS ADEQUATE IN SIZE AND SHAPE TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

5. HZO 157.208(B) requires that the subject property is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. The subject 6.63 acre parcel is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed 21,043 square foot new Church facility, together with all the zoning requirements.  The approximate 300 square foot exterior accessory storage building also fits within the requirements.  The portion of this property immediately surrounding the proposed development is 157,533 square feet.  The total building coverage proposed is less than 13.5 % of this lesser area.  Paragraph 157.025 (F) allows a maximum of 30% lot coverage by the building(s).

6. Under the city’s church standard for parking, one space is required for each 8 feet of bench space.  Using this metric, 59 spaces would be required.  The proposed revised site plan shows 252 parking spaces (revised from 300 in 2001) for the proposed Church.  The parking provided in the site plan exceeds the HZO minimum parking requirements for a Church of the size proposed.  Parking will be adequately accommodated on the subject property.  The Council also noted (2001) that the Stake Center Churches are standardized.  They are designed to accommodate a particular number of people and particular kinds of religious activities and services.  The Church stated its history with its well-established design is that 252 parking spaces is adequate to accommodate parking needs on site and the Council so found (2001)that 252 parking spaces (reduced from 300 in 2001) is adequate under applicable City standards.

PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE OF ADEQUATE SIZE AND QUALITY TO SERVE THE PROPOSED USE

7. The applicant worked with the city’s water engineers to analyze the water service capacity for this location.  The engineer’s report determined that both the existing 8 inch water line and 12 inch water lines in SE 9th Street can support the development with no additional improvements or cause detriment to existing users.

8. HZO 157.208(C) requires a determination that public facilities are of an adequate size and quality to serve the proposed Church.  The City Council found (2001) that all required public facilities:  water service, sewer service, storm water, and transportation facilities, are available to serve the proposed Church.  Storm water falling on impervious Church surfaces will be drained and managed on the subject property.  Storm water will be managed from the impervious street surfaces in a manner consistent with City urban local street standards.  It is feasible for all of those public facilities systems, including storm water, to adequately serve the proposed Church through the imposition of the reasonable conditions of approval listed below.  Specifically, the Church will be required as conditions of approval to install storm drainage, ribbon curbs, swales, sidewalks, street paving, make certain street improvement and service utilities to serve the site, as explained below.  Such public utilities and facilities must be installed to comply with City standards and must also be approved by the city engineer.  In establishing the adequacy of public transportation facilities, reference is made to City Plan Policy 21 which states:

The City of Hermiston will Protect and Enhance the Quality of Life in Residential Neighborhoods.”

The purpose of this policy is as follows:

“City officials recognize the importance of promoting livable, safe and quiet neighborhoods.  This can be accomplished by minimizing the intrusion of heavy traffic on neighborhood streets; avoiding conflicts relating to incompatible design, noise and other factors associated with higher intensity uses; encouraging the rehabilitation of housing stock, and updating public serving facilities in older neighborhoods.”

9. This policy is implemented through a number of specific strategies.  Regarding transportation facilities, this policy is implemented through the following: “(The City) has designated neighborhood streets as local access streets, rather than arterials or collectors, on the streets classification map

10. S.E. 9th Street as well as E. Monkman (to be renamed E. View Drive) are neighborhood streets or, as referred to in the most recent (2003) TSP update, urban local streets.  The required improvements to S. E. 9th Street and E. Monkman (E. View Drive) as noted in this decision as conditions of approval, will be consistent with these designations of both streets.  The City Council also noted (2001) that these local streets are well-served by larger streets and a highway having collector and arterial classifications.  Specifically, Highway 395 is very close by and serves the local streets at issue here.  Moreover, Highland is designated as a minor arterial street and it directly intersects S.E. 9th Street.  Port is designated as a minor collector street and it also directly intersects with S.E. 9th Street.  The subject property is well served by appropriately classified public streets and highways.  Moreover, the proposed Church will not generate “heavy traffic” with the meaning of the purpose section of the City’s plan policy.  Heavy traffic in this context was interpreted (2001)by the City Council to mean traffic generated by a proposal that creates sustained large traffic volumes over the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods during the weekday. These a.m. and p.m. peak periods are between 7-9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m. during the Monday through Friday week.  The Church does not generate sustained large numbers of traffic trips during this period.  In fact, the Church will generate almost no traffic during these a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods.

11. One access to the proposed Church is via Highway 395 to Port Street (a minor collector street) and then a few blocks on S.E. 9th Street to the subject property.  From Highway 395 to Port Street and the portion of S.E. 9th Street to the subject property, is built to appropriate city standards.  AT the subject property, S.E. 9th Street is narrower in the sense that it does not precisely match the portion of S.E. 9th Street to the south, lacking curb, gutter, sidewalks or bike lanes.  The Church’s frontage with S.E. 9th Street through the Maxwell Ditch crossing will be improved to City urban local street standards to continue the improvements in the south portion of S.E. 9th Street, according to current City standards, in order to provide appropriate public transportation facilities to serve the Church.

12. S.E. 9th Street is a two-way traffic urban local street.  S.E. 9th Street is an urban local street and, for the traditional local residential street, the City’s 1999 Transportation System plan update states that as paved width of 24 feet is adequate.  Here, the part of S.E. 9th Street south of the Maxwell Ditch fronting the subject property, will be developed to urban local street standards.  This portion of S.E. 9th Street is likely to be wider than the portion of S.E. 9th Street north of the Maxwell Ditch, in order to match the width at the southern part of S.E. 9th Street (that connects to Port) which is already improved to appropriate urban local street standards.  In this regard, the paved width of the portion of S.E. 9th Street that is generally south of the subject property is 36-44 feet.  The exact paved urban local street width which will be required for the subject property’s frontage on S.E. 9th Street shall be determined by the city engineer consistent with the City’s TSP and 1999 TSP update, and the portion of S.E. 9th Street south of the subject property.  The portion of S.E. 9th Street north of the Maxwell Ditch crossing to Highland, has a paved width of at least 25 feet, in excess of the 10-12 feet of paved width for each travel lane required for an urban local street.  There are other churches in residential areas with similar paved street area.

13. There was opponent testimony in 2001 that children play in the streets and, therefore, uses allowing additional traffic should be prohibited.  There was also opponent testimony (2001) that children walking to school on S.E. 9th Street may be adversely affected by Church traffic.  The City Council found that streets, including urban local traffic streets in the area, are designed to carry vehicular and bicycle traffic and are not designed for child’s play.

14. Staff explained (2001) at the Planning Commission hearing that development of the subject property with the allowable R-1 zoning district residential uses would likely generate greater numbers of traffic trips during school periods and peak hours than those generated by the Church during these time periods and the permitted R-1 uses are likely to generate more trips during the course of a week than the Church.  Specifically, the subject property could be developed with about 23 dwelling units.  At an average of 4-5 trips per day per household for each of these dwelling units, this would mean that in developing the subject property with residential uses permitted outright, 644 to 805 additional trips per week on an average would be generated.  These trips would be distributed over the p.m. and a.m. peak periods as residents would be assumed to have trips for school and work.  The Church employs no full or part time staff, other than the maintenance and grounds keepers who keep up the Church.  The activities of the Church do not mirror the traffic patterns of residential dwellings as it has little or no a.m. or p.m. peak hour usage.  The Church’s principal usage of the street system is on Sundays and on occasional Saturdays, as well as later evening hours during the week (usually 6:30 P.m. until 9:30 p.m.).  The times when Church members are using the street system to get to and from the Church are not the a.m. or p.m. peak hour times for school or work trips for residential uses.  The Applicant testified (2001) that its members in the area who live in the residential subdivisions nearby are encouraged to walk to services and that many in fact do walk and that many members carpool to services.  The City Council found (2001) that the total trips during a week that can be expected from the proposed Church are likely to be roughly similar to the total weekly trips that would be expected from the residential uses of the subject property that are permitted outright.  The difference being that the Church trips will be principally “off peak”.  The City Council found (2001) that the trip distribution from the Church is very compatible with the trip distribution in residential areas.  Accordingly, during the important time frame when there is the most likely residential congestion and school children present – the a.m. and p.m. peak hour during the work and school week – the subject property will have fewer trips as that which would be generated by development of the subject property with the residential uses permitted outright on the subject property.

15. The proposal will add sidewalks to the subject property’s frontage on S.E. 9th Street.  Moreover, there are sidewalks in the residential neighborhood on the developed portions of existing E. View Drive to the west.

16. The design speed for S.E. 9th Street and also for E. Monkman (to be designated as E. View Drive), as well as for the existing and improved portions of E. View Drive to the west, is 25 miles per hour.  The greatest traffic generation for the proposed Church will be for Sunday services.  School children are not in school on Sundays.  As noted, other Church activities during the week predominately occur in the evenings when children are not walking to school or generally are not otherwise about.  Church members who walk to services from the residential subdivisions in the area, have sidewalks to walk on in those residential subdivisions.  The land lying along the portion of S.E. 9th Street north of the Maxwell ditch crossing to Highland is mostly undeveloped.  This part of S.E. 9th Street north of the Maxwell Ditch crossing has a paved width of 25 feet.  While S.E. 9th Street north of the Maxwell ditch is not fully improved to urban standards with sidewalks and bike lanes, there are no particular impacts from the proposed Church, that in the City Council’s judgment (2001), justify a requirement for the Church to install such enhancements off-site, on property north of the Maxwell ditch crossing, that the Church does not even own.  S.E. 9th Street, both south and north of the Maxwell ditch crossing, will function adequately under the Church proposal, with the improvements required herein as conditions of approval.  The City notes that its HZO standard requiring that public facilities and services are of adequate size and quality to serve the proposed use does not require perfection.  The adequacy of the size of the street – here S.E. 9th Street as well as the portion of 9th Street north of the Maxwell ditch crossing, is of an adequate size, being larger than the minimum requirement for urban local streets.  Moreover, it is of an adequate quality to serve the proposal for reasons discussed above.  The S.E. 9th Street quality is consistent with other City streets.  The City Council found (2001) that the proposal is adequately served with public facilities and services, including transportation facilities, with the proposed conditions of approval and that no additional transportation improvements are necessary to enable transportation facilities to adequately accommodate the proposed Church or provide for reasonable compatibility with surrounding properties.  Reasonable compatibility is discussed below.

17. There was opponent testimony (2001) that E. View Drive (to the west of the subject property running through a residential subdivision) should not be used as a “main thoroughfare” and that people drive unsafely on E. View Drive.  This portion of E. View is built to City urban local street standards.  It has sidewalks and a design speed of 25 miles per hour.  It is designed as an urban local street.  Its grade and curves are within City design parameters.  People will be presumed to obey the law and there is no design reason to incentivize people to drive unsafely on E. View Drive, such as turning restrictions.  The proposal will add few, if any, trips to E. View Drive during a.m. or p.m. peak hours.  The proposal will not cause E. View Drive to be used beyond its capacity.  While E. View Drive may be used by Church goers, the City Council found (2001) that such use is within the parameters of what the size and quality of this street is capable of accommodating.  Strong access to the subject property is from Highway 395 to Port to S.E. 9th Street, as well as from Highland.  While there is likely to be some use of E. View Drive to reach the subject property, the City Council interpreted (2001) its own code to determine that the size and quality of this portion of E. View Drive is adequate to accommodate such traffic for the proposed Church.  Moreover, the City Council interpreted (2001) its own Code to determine that the Church traffic likely to use E. View Drive at this location is well within the parameters of use that would reasonably be expected by the residents of this street if the subject property were developed with the permitted residential use.  The City Council found (2001) the Church members’ use of the City’s street networks as a whole, is within the amount of overall weekly traffic trip generation that would be reasonably proximate to the weekly uses of such streets that would be expected with the permitted outright residential use of the subject property.  Also, the Church’s traffic on E. View Drive will have less impact on the neighborhood as it occurs principally during “off peak” times, as explained elsewhere in these findings.  Therefore, as explained elsewhere, the City Council interpreted (2001) its own Code to mean that such use of E. View Drive at this location will be reasonably compatible with the “surrounding properties.”  Surrounding properties in this context are those developed parcels adjacent to or across the street or ditch from the subject property.  However, the City Council noted (2001), in the alternative, that reasonable compatibility is also found between the proposed Church and the neighborhood generally, for the reasons explained herein.

18. The Applicant will also be required as a condition of approval to make ½ street improvements to E. Monkman (to be renamed E. View Drive).  E. Monkman (E. View) is located on the southern border of the subject property and intersects with S.E. 9th Street.  E. Monkman (E. View) is currently a dirt road with few developed properties.  While it is unlikely that E. Monkman (E. View) will be greatly used by the Church in the short term, as the City grows and as E. Monkman (E. View Drive) is eventually improved, it is likely that people, including members of the Church, will use E. Monkman (E. View) in the future.  Therefore, an adequate street system is assured over the long term if each property owner who develops its property having frontage on E. Monkman (E. View), including the Applicant, develop its frontage with ½ street improvements to the far edge of its development or participate in paying for such improvements by paying for them through a reimbursement district or a combination of both.  The Applicant agreed (2001) to provide, and will be required to provide, ½ urban local street improvements on E. Monkman (E. View Drive)for the full frontage of the developed portion of its property and, as noted, may establish a reimbursement agreement or district with the City to facilitate the Applicant being reimbursed by property owners who own property benefitting from the sewer and water improvements on E. Monkman (E. View) to contribute their equitable share of the costs of establishing the improvements.  The Applicant stated (2001) its willingness to make the required ½ street improvements at the subject property’s frontage on E. Monkman (E. View), so long as the City is willing to establish a reimbursement agreement or district from which the Applicant can recover its costs of construction of the water and sewer lines on such portion of E. Monkman (E. View) from the developing properties on E. Monkman (E. View) that are benefitted by such improvements.  The City codes allow establishing a reimbursement agreement or district to enable the Applicant to recoup an equitable portion of the costs of installing the sewer and water lines on E. Monkman (E. View Drive).

THE PROPOSED USE WILL PROVE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES

19. The City Council interpreted (2001) this standard to require reasonable compatibility with surrounding developed properties.  Such surrounding developed properties are those which are adjacent to or across the street or irrigation ditch, from the subject property.  Reasonable compatibility is not an absolute standard, but rather assumes a certain tolerance to impacts associated with the development of previously undeveloped properties within the city limits, such as the subject property.  Reasonable compatibility acknowledges the development of undeveloped urban property has impacts.  Reasonable compatibility asks whether those impacts can be mitigated to be commensurate with the expectations of a reasonable urban city dweller, given the planning and zoning of the area, as well as the developed landscape.

Here, the surrounding developed properties that are adjacent or across the street from the subject property are residences on the west side of S.E. 9th Street and on East View Drive, to the west.  The residence on the corner of S.E. 9th Street and E. View Drive faces East View Drive, not S.E. 9th Street.  Adjacent property to the north across Maxwell ditch is a large parcel with a residence on it.  The11 acre parcel to the south has a residence fronting on S.E. 10th Street.  The property adjacent to the east also is a large parcel with a dwelling on it.  These properties are designated or planned for either R4 or R1.  The proposal is reasonably compatible with these surrounding properties.  The City also notes that no neighbor at the City Council  hearing (2001), even those beyond the surrounding property noted above, objected to the reasonable compatibility of the proposed Church, other than to object to traffic concerns as noted, including the objection in the context of the size and nature of the congregation served.  That there are adequate transportation facilities to serve the proposed Church under this decision, including the conditions of approval, means that the proposed Church will not have unreasonable traffic impacts on the surrounding properties and that with regard to traffic, the proposal will prove to be reasonably compatible with such surrounding properties.

In written correspondence (2001) from an opponent to the Planning Commission, there was a statement that the author did not wish to have a Church or any other kind of non-residential building in his neighborhood.  The Council appreciated (2001) the opponent’s concern, but did not wish to establish a City precedent foreclosing a church, school or any other kind of community service type use that is conditionally permitted in a zoning district from being located near or in a neighborhood.  Unless there is some specific City determination that such a use cannot be made reasonably compatible with surrounding properties under reasonable conditions of approval (ORS 197.522), as that HZO standard is defined by the City, such uses will and must be allowed.  City Council also noted (2001) that it has determined it to be inappropriate to limit the size of the congregation to be served by the religious mission of the Church at the proposed location or the kinds of religious services to be provided there by the Church.  There is simply no reason for the City government to impose such governmental restrictions on the size or religious activities that will occur within the proposed Church.  The proposed Church structure of combining the services of various wards, meeting at different times in one Stake Center Church is also an efficient use of land, furthering planning goals for a compact urban form.

The Applicant’s Church properties are maintained by professional groundskeepers.  The materials used for construction of the proposed Church and its style are designed to favorably blend with residential neighborhoods.  The appearance of the proposed Church will be an asset to the surrounding properties.  While the subject property is currently in grasses and weeds, under the proposal, it will be manicured with a Church.

The Church seeks to locate its facilities in residential neighborhoods in order to celebrate, and provide a beacon to families, encouraging families to join together to worship in and with the Church.  The Church testified that a family-centric focus is part of its religious doctrine.  The Church has years of experience with locating Church facilities in residential areas and has stated its strong policy to be and intention of being a good neighbor, available to the community as well as the occupants of surrounding properties for worship.  The City noted (2001) it is an American tradition that Churches are established in residential areas so that they are available to and a part of the family environment.  In this regard the City noted (2001) that its Comprehensive Plan (II-8) demonstrates that community service uses, such as churches, are often established in the City’s R-1 zoning district.  In fact, the City’s Comprehensive plan makes clear that there are more community service uses in the City’s R-1 zoning district than in any other zoning district in the City.

20. Some opponents objected (2001) to the proposed Church on the basis that the congregation served is too large and its religious activities too many.  The City Council found (2001) that the proposal is for a Church and that the proposed Church will serve religious purposes according to the tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The City Council found (2001) there is no compelling rationale for the City to limit the size of the congregation served by the Church or the kinds of religious services that Church provides to its membership at the proposed location.  The only potential issue regarding the size of the congregation is under the City’s approval criteria requiring provision of adequate public facilities and services.  The only identified (2001) public facility or service that was inadequate was the Maxwell ditch crossing of SE 9th Street.  This crossing has been replaced by the City with a concrete box culvert since the time of the original CUP approval and is no longer a deficiency.  The roads in the area can adequately accommodate the proposed Church with the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval regarding improvements to SE 9th Street and E. Monkman (also known as E. View Drive.  ORS 197.522

21. In the time since the approval of the original Conditional Use Permit, another church building was constructed on the east side of S.E. 9th Street, between the subject property and Highland.  This church has operated without any complaints from surrounding properties.

22. The Church design proposal uses exterior materials common to residential construction, i.e., sloping shingled roof areas, masonry and stucco-type wall surfaces, etc.  The building shape and mass is designed to reduce visual impact via low side walls and sloping roof areas.

23. Exterior lighting is shielded from horizontal exposure and directed downward.

Draft Conditions

1. The Applicant shall improve the subject property’s frontage on S.E. 9th Street to urban local street standards, which will include grading, street storm drainage, ribbon curb, sidewalk, infill street paving, and service utilities.  All public improvements shall be designed by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer prior to construction.
2. The Applicant shall improve the north half of E. Monkman (E. View Drive) with ½ street improvements, at and along the subject property’s frontage, to urban local street standards, which means grading, street storm drainage, ribbon curb, a sidewalk and street paving and service utilities.  The Applicant may enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City or form a Reimbursement District in order to be reimbursed for an equitable share of the costs of the sewer and water improvements from the owner or developer of the vacant parcel on the south side of E. Monkman (E. View Drive) identified as Map 4N2814AD, Tax Lot 900, an 11 acre parcel when it is developed or redeveloped, as well as the development or redevelopment of other parcels the City determines are benefitted by these sewer and water improvements.  All public improvements shall be designed by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer prior to construction.
3. The Applicant shall extend sewer and water lines along the subject property’s frontage on E. Monkman (E. View Drive).  Regarding the E. Monkman (E. View Drive) sewer and water improvements, as noted above, the Applicant may enter into a Reimbursement Agreement with the City or form a Reimbursement District in order to be reimbursed an equitable share of the costs of the E. Monkman (E. View Drive) improvements from the owner or developer of the vacant parcel on the south side of E. Monkman (E. View Drive) identified as Map 4N2814AD, tax lot 900, an 11 acre parcel when it is developed or redeveloped, as well as the development or redevelopment of other parcels the City determines are benefitted by these when such other properties develop.  All public improvements shall be designed by a registered professional civil engineer and approved by the city engineer prior to construction.
4. As required by HZO 157.164(E), all of the costs of the above public facilities’ installation shall be borne by the Applicant, except as authorized to be reimbursed to the Applicant under the terms of a reimbursement agreement or reimbursement district.  The public facilities required to be extended or installed above, shall be logically extended or installed (to the extent of the development site) in such a way as to not impair their ability to be ultimately utilized in the development of adjacent properties.
5. All areas on the subject property used for the standing or maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved.
6. Landscaping shall be installed as shown on the site plan.
7. The Applicant shall construct a fence separating the subject property from the Maxwell ditch.
8. The proposed northerly driveway to S.E. 9th Street satisfies the HZO requirement for sight distance separation of ten feet (10’) for driveways.
9. Street lights shall be installed at the Applicant’s cost along the frontage of S.E. 9th Street at intervals established by City standards.  Once installed, the City will be responsible for the monthly service charges, maintenance, repair and replacement of such street lights.
10. The above conditions shall be satisfied and approved by the City prior to the Applicant receiving a certificate of occupancy.
11. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Applicant must sign a transferable developer’s agreement regarding the installation of the public facilities noted above.  All such improvements shall be required to comply with City standards and shall receive final approval from the city engineer.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall dedicate fifteen (15) feet of land along the subject property’s east property line for a future north/south street.  Also prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall dedicate to the City five (5) feet of its land along the subject property’s frontage on E. Monkman ( E. View Drive) for the purposes of public right-of-way.
13. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Applicant shall sign a transferable street improvement agreement agreeing to install grading, storm drainage, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street paving, and all service utilities along the entire east frontage of the subject property for a future north-south street (S.E. 9th Drive).
14. Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Applicant shall work with and receive certification from the Hermiston Irrigation District.
15. All storm water drainage shall be retained on site.
16. Approval of the conditional use permit will not waive the Applicant’s responsibility to comply with all building, fire and other code requirements of the City of Hermiston.

Commissioner Ferguson made a motion to approve the findings of fact as amended.  Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion.  The motion passed as amended with the removal of school bus availability in finding #15 as requested by Commissioner Fialka.

Commissioner Erz moved and Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion to approve the conditional use subject to the amended draft conditions.  Motion passed with the removal of the 6-foot chain-link fencing requirement in condition #7.

Planner Comments and Unscheduled Communications

No April 13th regular planning commission meeting but the commissioners will meet Tuesday, April 5th with Marty Stiven to review the progress on the downtown revitalization.

Its official, Hermiston is now the largest (population wise) town in Umatilla and in eastern Oregon.  Someone should contact George Ruby so the sign in Troutdale can be changed from showing the number of miles to Pendleton to showing the number of miles to Hermiston!

Roy and Venita’s restaurant changed hands.  Supposedly, a family from Florence will open a seafood restaurant.

City Planner Spencer will speak with the building department regarding concerns that the taco wagon on E. Main Street now has an enclosed seating area.  Umatilla County is stepping up control of and limitations placed on taco wagons.

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 pm.