Chairman Saylor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commissioners Sheffield, Erz, Ferguson, Rebman, Fialka, and Caplinger were present.  City Attorney Gary Luisi was in attendance as well.  Commissioners Quick and Ottmar were absent. 

Minutes

Commissioner Rebman moved to approve the minutes of the October 12, 2011 regular meeting. Commissioner Erz seconded the motion.  Motion passed and the minutes were approved. 

Hearing

Hearing/Request for a Conditional Use Permit/Dutch Bros Coffee

Chairman Saylor announced that the planning commission is holding a hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit where the applicant seeks construct a drive-up/walk-up coffee kiosk.  The property is located at 1930 N. 1st Street.  The applicant is Marc Lee for Dutch Bros Coffee.

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

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 build a drive-up and walk-up coffee kiosk.  The property, owned by Darren  Dickerhoof, is located at 1930 N 1st Street, just south of Big 5.  The applicant is Marc Lee for Dutch Bros Coffee.

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 Marc Lee has submitted a request for a conditional use permit to place a drive-up coffee vending operation on property located at 1930 N First Street.  The property is presently vacant and is zoned Outlying Commercial (C-2).  Per §157.041(B)(4) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances, a drive-up establishment providing services to customers waiting in cars is a conditional use in the C-2 zone.

The applicant proposes to construct a 367 square foot drive up Dutch Bros coffee operation.  The proposed building is the first phase of commercial development on the property with potential additional retail space in the future.  The applicant proposes to utilize the existing driveway constructed by Big 5 Sporting Goods for access to N First Street.  This driveway was approved by ODOT and constructed at the time Big 5 was built.  The driveway splits the two parcels and was intended from the beginning to provide access to the Dutch Bros parcel.  When ODOT originally approved the access, trip generations were calculated based on traffic generated by Big 5 and a drive-up coffee operation.  Based on the attached email from ODOT, no further access issues will require addressing at this time.  All necessary easements are in place to allow Big 5 and Dutch Bros to share this driveway approach.  The applicant’s paving plan is designed to provide shared access to Cycletown to the south in accordance with 157.150 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.  However, at this time Cycletown does not wish to share parking lot space with the applicant.  The parking lot design is adequate to provide shared access in the future should Cycletown decide a different access plan is needed.

All properties within 300 feet of the proposal were provided a direct mailing of the proposal and notice was published in the Hermiston Herald 14 days prior to the hearing.  Staff did not receive any comments as a result of the noticing.  Staff did receive comments as a result of the posted sign.

Requirements

§157.208 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances provides the method and approval criteria necessary for approving or denying a conditional use.  The specific findings required by this section are:

1. The proposal is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and zoning code.
2. 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.
3. Public facilities are of adequate size and quality to serve the proposed use.
4. The proposed use will prove reasonably compatible with surrounding properties.

The planning commission may impose, in addition to those standards and requirements expressly specified by the zoning code, any additional conditions they consider necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or the city as a whole.  These conditions may include increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions; limiting the height of buildings; controlling the location and number of off-street parking and loading spaces required; limiting the number, size and location of signs; requiring screening and landscaping to protect adjacent property and any other condition deemed necessary by the commission.

It is not necessary to restate other ordinances and statutory requirements of the conditional use as part of the proceedings.  The granting or denial of a conditional use will not affect the requirements of the City of Hermiston to comply with building, plumbing and electrical codes, other ordinances, statutory or regulatory compliance issues. 

Draft Findings

The applicant has prepared five pages of findings addressing the criteria listed above.  These findings are attached to the report.  Subject to the comments and considerations of the public hearing, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt the findings of fact as prepared by the applicant.

Draft Conditions

1. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 155 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances relating to sign placement.  In accordance with §155.18(C), a sandwich board or “A” frame sign is prohibited.
2. All areas for the standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved prior to occupancy as shown on the site plan.
3. All storm water shall be retained on site as shown on the site plan.
4. The applicant shall work with and receive certification from the Hermiston Irrigation District prior to issuance of a building permit.

Commissioner Erz asked if there was any plan to extend the easement any further.  City Planner Spencer indicated no and that neighboring lots currently use the easement.

Commissioner Fialka asked if Big 5 had sidewalks along Hwy 395.  City Planner indicated that sidewalks do exist along the Big 5 frontage.

Testimony

Proponents:  Marc Lee, 1106 Frontier Court, La Grande, OR, is the current owner of the La Grande Dutch Bros Coffee location.  He gave a brief history of Dutch Bros’ start and indicated that Dutch Bros is an Oregon company which gives 1% of sales back to the community, making it a good asset to the community.

Opponents: None present.

Commissioner Sheffield wanted to know if any other Dutch Bros had as much useable space as this proposed location.  Mr. Lee indicated that he didn’t think so.  He also added that since this location is not a parking lot, he will be able to clean and beautify the parcel.  Additionally, Mr. Lee stated that Big 5 dictates the type of business that occupies that parcel.

Commissioner Caplinger inquired about expected traffic volume during busy times.  Mr. Lee stated that in La Grande, the busiest time was between 6 and 9am and by 10am they would have roughly 250 cars through the drive-thru.  He felt that keeping the access away from the intersection was a good idea by ODOT.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Saylor closed the hearing at 7:20 pm.

Staff Recommendation

Staff has reviewed the proposed coffee operation and conditional use application.  The proposal is a use permitted conditionally in the C-2 zone and there is adequate access and parking to accommodate the use at this location. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission grant the conditional use permit subject to the draft conditions and any other conditions the planning commission finds are necessary for the operation of the facility.

Chairman Saylor asked for a motion.  Commissioner Erz moved and Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion to adopt the findings of fact as prepared by the applicant.

Motion passed.

Commissioner Erz moved and Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion to grant the conditional use permit subject to the draft conditions as written.  Motion passed.

Unfinished Business

City Planner Spencer stated that Russ Greene has submitted an application for a replat of property located at 1036 SW Banker Drive.  The property consists of one 42,000 square foot lot which is presently vacant.  The applicant proposes to divide the existing lot into two 21,000 square foot lots.  The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1) and is described as 4N 28 14AB Tax Lot 2700.  The property owner is Russell Greene.

The criteria that are applicable to the decision to accept the proposed replat are contained in §154.15 through §154.46, §154.60 through §154.66 and §157.025 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances. 

Chapter 154: Subdivisions

Design Standards

The proposed replat complies with all relevant design standards in the subdivision code.  Based upon testimony presented in October, staff presents additional findings regarding the design standards in Chapter 154.

§154.15 Relation to adjoining street system

No new streets are proposed as part of the replat.  The existing property is a corner lot with frontage on two streets.  No additional streets are required to provide access for the two lots.

§154.16 Street and Alley Width

As noted above, no new streets are proposed as part of this replat.  The property lies at the southwest intersection of SE 8th Street and SE Banker Drive.  Both of these streets have a right-of-way width of 50 feet matching the width for local residential streets.

154.17 Easements

The property is bound by easements put in place as part of the original plat for Giddens Estates.  These easements include a 40 foot canal easement along the south property line and a 15 foot utility easement along all street frontages.  These easements remain in place after subdividing.

§154.18 Blocks

The property sits at the intersection of two residential streets and is less than 600 feet along any street frontage.  Block length limitations and street spacing requirements do not apply.

§154.19 Lots

This section requires that lots provide satisfactory building sites which are properly related to the character of surrounding development.  The applicant has provided two 21,000 square foot lots.  Directly north of the site is an 18,000 square foot lot containing a single family dwelling.  There are lots to the west and east which are between 0.8 and 1.35 acres, all either vacant or containing a single family dwelling.  Directly adjacent to the south is a lot of 25,000 square feet containing a single family dwelling.  Additionally, within 500 feet of the site are lots ranging in size from as small as 9,000 square feet to 16,000 and 20,000 square feet.  The proposed lot sizes are well within the range of lot sizes found within the surrounding neighborhood.

Each lot is at least 60 feet wide at the building lines and not more than three times as deep as the lot width. 

§154.20 Character of Development

The planning commission shall confer with the developer regarding the type and character of development that will be permitted.  At the October 12 meeting, the applicant indicated that he intends to live on one parcel and sell the other parcel for single family development.  Both dwellings will be constructed on-site and be of similar character to existing neighboring dwellings.

At the October 12 meeting testimony was present by neighboring property owners that the development was intended to provide “estate lots” of larger size than elsewhere in the city and that there was a shortage of oversize lots available for building.  The city’s policies regarding residential development as described in the comprehensive plan is that the city will provide an adequate supply of land for all types and densities of residential development.  In the case of the subject property, the minimum parcel size is 9,000 square feet which translates to approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre.  With two residential lots, each of 21,000 square feet, the city is providing single family lots which are below the density allows in the zone, still creating two oversized lots to meet the needs of upper income residential buyers.

Testimony was also presented that manufactured dwellings are not compatible with the existing development.  The applicant stated on October 12 that he does not intend to place manufactured dwellings on the property and the existing deed restrictions prohibit manufactured dwellings.  These deed restrictions can be enforced through civil court action and Section 14 of the covenants states that an injunction may be obtained to enforce covenant provisions.  As a matter of reference, ORS 197.312(1) specifically bars a city from prohibiting the placement of manufactured dwellings in any residential zone.

§154.21 Parks, School Sites and the Like

The comprehensive plan does not indicate a need for a park, school or other public amenity at this location.

§154.22 Access Management

Each lot is of sufficient width to allow the placement of driveways in accordance with the access management standards for local residential streets. 

Minimum Improvements Required

§154.60 Permanent Markers

Permanent markers shall be set as shown on the final plat in accordance with ORS 92.050 through 92.080.

154.61 General Improvements

The site is adjacent to SW Banker Drive and SW 8th Street which are existing improved streets.  At the time a dwelling is constructed on the proposed Lot 2, SW 8th will be brought up to urban standards with curbs and sidewalk to match the existing improvements.

§154.62 Water Lines. 

Both lots are served by existing municipal water lines.

§154.63 Sanitary Sewer System. 

Both lots are served by existing municipal sanitary sewer lines.

Preliminary Plat

Staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and determined the submission of a preliminary plat is not required in accordance with §154.35(B) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.

Final Plat

Per §154.46 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances, the final plat shall show:

1. The boundary lines of the area being subdivided, with accurate distances and bearings.  Shown as required
2. The lines of all proposed streets and alleys with their width and names.  Shown as required
3. The accurate outline of any portions of the property intended to be dedicated or granted for public use.  Shown as required
4. The line of departure of one street from another.  Shown as required
5. The lines of all adjoining property and the lines of adjoining streets and alleys with their widths and names.  Shown as required
6. All lot lines together with an identification system for all lots and blocks.  Shown as required
7. The location of all building lines and easements provided for public use, services or utilities.  Shown as required
8. All dimensions, both linear and angular, necessary for locating the boundaries of the subdivision, lots, streets, alleys, easements, and other areas for public or private use.  Linear dimensions are to be given to the nearest 1/10 of a foot.  Shown as required
9. All necessary curve data.  Shown as required
10. The location of all survey monuments and bench marks together with their descriptions.  Shown as required
11. The name of the subdivision, the scale of the plat, points of the compass, and the name of the owners or subdivider.  Shown as required
12. The certificate of the surveyor attesting to the accuracy of the survey and the correct location of all monuments shown.  Shown as required.
13. Private restrictions and trusteeships and their periods of existence.  Should these restrictions or trusteeships be of such length as to make their lettering on the plat impracticable and thus necessitate the preparation of a separate instrument, reference to such instrument shall be made on the plat.  No restrictions are proposed and none are referenced on the plat
14. Acknowledgment of the owner or owners to the plat and restrictions, including dedication to public use of all streets, alleys, parks or other open spaces shown thereon, and the granting of easements required.  Shown as required. 
15. Certificates of approval for endorsement by the city council and certificate indicating its submission to the planning commission, together with approval for endorsement by other local, county and/or state authority as required by Oregon statutes.  Shown as required

Chapter 157: Zoning

§157.025 Single Family Residential Zone (R-1)

The proposed replat encompasses approximately 42,000 square feet.  Parcel 1 is 21,000 square feet and Parcel 2 is 21,000 square feet.  Both parcels exceed the minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet in the R-1 zone.  Additionally, both parcels exceed the minimum lot width of 60 feet and the minimum lot depth of 80 feet.

Staff Recommendation

Staff has reviewed the proposed partition plat and found that it is prepared in accordance with all requirements of the Code of Ordinances.  Notably, there are no code provisions or comprehensive plan policies which require the provision of oversized lots and the lots meet all of the minimum dimensional requirements in the R-1 zone.  Staff recommends the planning commission approve the final replat subject to the following condition:

1. The applicant shall work with and receive certification from the Hermiston Irrigation District prior to obtaining final signatures from the city.

Public Participation

Russell Greene, 1455 SW 10th Street; pointed out that the smaller properties are valued more than the larger lots. 

Attorney Dorothy Cofield, 9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 450, Portland; spoke on behalf of Mr. greene’s proposed replat.  She indicated that the Gidden Estates CCRs dictate minimum house size, not minimum lot size and that a half acre lot does not and would not depreciate an adjoining larger lot nor depreciate the character of Giddens Estate, as a whole, since an 1800 square foot single family home with a 2-car garage can easily fit on the proposed 21,000 square foot lot.

Chairman saylor asked for a motion.  Commissioner Ferguson moved and Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion to approve the final replat subject to the one condition as written.  Motion passed.

Planner Comments and Unscheduled Communications

City Planner Spencer reminded the Commissioners of the December joint session and the January Task Force Community Forum.

City Planner Spencer stated that he now has a GIS tax lot base map which has become very useful to him and to the police.  This tool was the result of the periodic review process.

Commissioners discussed the missing bamboo plants, planters, and contract for concrete work around City Hall.

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.