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

Minutes

Commissioner Erz moved to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2011 regular meeting. Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. 

HEARING

Hearing/Request for a Variance/140 S. 1st Place/PGG, Inc.

Chairman Saylor announced that the planning commission is holding a hearing to consider a variance from Ordinance §157.040(E)(1) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances which establishes that all storage must be within an enclosed building “unless conducted as part of a special event and authorized by the City Council.”  The applicant is Pendleton Grain Growers, Inc.

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 7:03 pm.

Hearing Guidelines

Chairman Saylor paraphrased the following guidelines since only a representative of PGG was in attendance.  Everyone was in agreement.

1. The applicable substantive criteria relied upon by the City in rendering the decision to authorize a variance are contained in §157.225(A)(1) 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 Pendleton Grain Growers has submitted an application for a variance for property located at 140 S First Street.  The applicant seeks a variance from §157.040(E)(1) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances which establishes that all storage must be within an enclosed building in the C-1 zone.  If the variance is granted, the applicant will use the property for storage of fencing and agricultural materials.  The property is described as 4N 28 10DA Tax Lots 9100, 9200, 9300 and 9400 and is zoned Central Commercial (C-1).

In the C-1 zone the prohibition on outside storage applies to all businesses, however, the city council may grant a temporary exception as part of a special event.  PGG approached the city with a request to allow temporary storage on the property in question due to the termination of their lease with Union Pacific for storage on railroad right-of-way near the site.  Union Pacific required PGG to vacate the property by July 10 and it was not possible for the city to process a variance request before that date.  Therefore, the city council granted PGG a 90 day exception to pursue storage options for their existing facilities.

Per §157.225(A) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances, the planning commission may grant variances where it can be shown that, owing to special and unusual circumstances, literal interpretation of the zoning code would cause an undue or unnecessary hardship.

Criteria

The specific criteria relied upon by the planning commission are contained in §157.225(A)(1) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.  In granting a variance, the applicant must demonstrate that all of the following criteria have been met:

1. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions apply to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size, shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control.
2. The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant substantially the same as possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity.
3. The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinance, be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to the objectives of any development patterns or policy.
4. It is impossible to maintain the zoning ordinance and at the same time, build, erect or use the structure.
5. The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of the zoning ordinance which will alleviate the hardship.

It is not necessary to restate other ordinances and statutory requirements of the variance as part of the proceedings.  The granting or denial of the variance 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

Exceptional or extraordinary conditions apply to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size, shape, topography or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control.

1. The applicant is no longer able to store fencing outside on railroad right-of-way as they have done for several decades due to changes in the lease terms on their storage area.
2. The property proposed for variance is the closest vacant site to the existing retail store.
3. The site is flat, unused and well-suited to storage of fencing and agricultural materials.

The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicant that is substantially the same as is possessed by owners of other property in the same zone or vicinity.

4. The applicant has utilized outside storage in the vicinity of their retail store at 200 S First Street for several decades.
5. Changing circumstances have rendered it difficult or impossible for the existing business to continue to operate at its current location and maintain the existing business plan.

The authorization of the variance shall not be materially detrimental to the purposes of the zoning ordinance, be injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in which the property is located, or be otherwise detrimental to the objectives of any development pattern or policy.

6. The proposed variance relocates a use which has been in the vicinity for several decades.
7. The authorization of a variance does not by implication allow any other C-1 business to utilize outside storage.  Any other business which proposes outside storage must approach the planning commission and demonstrate a hardship which would render their business otherwise unable to operate.

It is impossible to maintain the zoning ordinance requirements and at the same time build, erect or use the structure.

8. The applicant no longer has access to the outside storage previously utilized directly across the street from their retail store. 
9. It is cost prohibitive to build an enclosed warehouse of sufficient volume to house all bulky fencing and materials while continuing to operate a retail outlet.

The variance requested is the minimum variance from the provisions and standards of the zoning ordinance which will alleviate the hardship.

10. The proposed location is in close vicinity to the location where the applicant previously stored the same materials.
11. The new location is an improvement on the previous storage location as it is less visible from Highway 395.

Commissioner Ferguson wanted to know why this is an issue.  City Planner Spencer explained that the C-1 zone was intended for Main Street businesses like clothes shops or other shops without outdoor storage.  It would not be an issue in a C-2 zone.

Commissioner Erz verified that the variance, if granted, would not have an expiration date.  So Commission Rebman wanted to know what happens if PGG moved.  Since the variance applies to the site, couldn’t someone else use the variance.  City Planner Spencer suggested that a condition of approval be added stating that the variance would only apply to PGG at this site and if PGG moved from this site, the variance would no longer be in effect.  Commissioner Ottmar asked about Bi-Mart’s use of outdoor space for plant sales and such.  City Planner Spencer said that as long as they stay within 3 feet of the building and under the awning it’s okay.  Additionally, a nonconforming use which has been ongoing without a year long break, can continue indefinitely. 

Commissioner Sheffield wondered if a 10-year time limit should be place on the variance since the City of Hermiston is in the beginning phase of creating a main street atmosphere in its downtown commercial zone.  City Planner Spencer felt that any time limit that extended for more than 1 year would be hard to remember.

Hearing no further questions, Chairman Saylor closed the hearing at 7:09pm. 

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends that the planning commission approve the variance request subject to the findings of fact.

Chairman Saylor asked for a motion.  Commissioner Rebman motioned to approve the draft conditions as written.  Commissioner Erz seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Commissioner Erz motioned to approve the variance subject to the findings and subject to PGG remaining at that site; otherwise, the variance would be vacated.  Commissioner Ottmar seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

New Business

Replat/Portion of 4N2811BC Tax Lot 4500 behind Building Dept. & Library/ City

City Planner Spencer stated that the City of Hermiston has submitted an application for a replat of property located at the former Armand Larive Middle School on E Ridgeway Ave.  The property is approximately 2.1 acres with Lot 1 encompassing approximately 1.87 acres and Lot 2 encompassing approximately 13,400 square feet.  The property is zoned Central Commercial (C-1) and is described as a portion of 4N 28 11BC Tax Lot 4500.  The property owner is the Hermiston School District.

The City of Hermiston and Hermiston School District are working towards a property swap that will be beneficial to both parties.  The school district owns the property directly behind the Hermiston library which contains a paved parking lot.  The city owns a portion of the practice field directly adjacent to the football field at the high school.  With the demolition of Armand Larive Jr High on E Ridgeway, the parking lots for the school are no longer needed by the school district and will serve as parking for the library and building department which have no off-street parking.  Conversely, the practice field at the high school is property that provides little benefit to the city due to existing long term lease obligations, but is immensely beneficial to the school district’s athletic programs.

The Armand Larive parking lots were combined with the property on the north side of E Ridgeway in the 1930s when the school was originally constructed.  Therefore it is necessary for the parking lot to be replatted away from the remaining school district property in order to create a transferable lot.  The planning commission will consider the replat on August 10.  The city is acting as the applicant for the replat.  The practice field is a single lot and does not require additional land use actions prior to transference. 

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 §157.040 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances. 

Chapter 154: Subdivisions

Design Standards

The proposed replat complies with all relevant design standards in the subdivision code.

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 E Ridgeway Ave and NE 2nd Street.  The streets adjacent to the lots were vacated by the city in the 1930s and are technically private property.  As part of the proposed replat the school district will re-dedicate these streets to the public with the right-of-way following the existing street improvements.  There will be no additional improvements required for either street.

§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

§157.040 Central Commercial Zone (C-1)

The proposed replat encompasses approximately 2.1 acres.  Parcel 1 is 1.87 acres and Parcel 2 is 13,400 square feet.  There is no minimum lot size in the C-1 zone.  Additionally, both parcels exceed the minimum lot width of 60 feet and the minimum lot depth of 80 feet.  Following approval of the replat, the school district will retain ownership of Lot 1 and the city will acquire ownership of Lot 2.

Commissioner Rebman felt that the addition of 30 parking spaces should also be utilized for additional municipal parking.

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.  Staff recommends the planning commission approve the final replat.

Chairman Saylor asked for a motion.  Commissioner Sheffield motioned to approve the replat as written.  Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Planner Comments and Unscheduled Communications

City Planner Spencer announced that continued discussion on proposed Ordinance No. 2176 which was scheduled for September 14th would have to be postponed until further notice.  A traffic study by ODOT is needed; however, funding for that study is not readily available.  The downtown overlay is still scheduled for September’s meeting.

Questions about both Applebee’s and Fred Meyers have been popping up.  City Planner Spencer advised the group that the City has informed both entities that Hermiston has available land and the need for each type of business.  The Commissioners continued with a discussion of the pros and cons of big box stores.

Commissioner Ottmar started a discussion on the taco wagons which included mobility, permanent seating, and licensing. 

Chairman Saylor wanted to know if there was any activity on the new fair and conference center.  City Planner Spencer said that the only activity was on the part of the steering committee as they still need to raise money.  Commissioner Sheffield stated that people do not want to pay more taxes.  Commissioner Ottmar wanted to know what happened to the purposed amphitheater at the end of Elm Avenue.  City Planner Spencer stated that the fair/conference center plan superseded the amphitheater plan.

Commissioner Sheffield mentioned that the wheat harvest has been the best since the 1950’s; coming in at around 190 bushels per acre.

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 pm.