Chairman Saylor called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Commissioners Ferguson, Rebman, Erz, Sheffield, Caplinger, and Fialka were present.  Commissioners Quick and Ottmar were absent.  Also present were Marty Stiven of Stiven Planning & Development and Mike Robinson of Perkins Coie LLP.

Minutes

Commissioner Erz moved to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2011 regular meeting. Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion.  The minutes were approved. 

Hearing

Hearing/Request for a Conditional Use Permit/Hermiston School District 8R

Chairman Saylor announced that the planning commission is holding a hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit where the applicant seeks to add an additional modular building to be utilized as a centralize school board meeting room for public attendance.  The property is located at 502 W. Standard Avenue.  The applicant is the Hermiston School District 8R.

Declaration of Potential Conflict of Interest

Chairman Saylor asked if any commissioner wished to declare a potential conflict of interest.  Commissioner Ferguson declared a potential conflict of interest as his wife is a teacher with the school district.  Commissioner Ferguson removed himself from the panel.  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 add an additional modular building to be utilized as a centralize school board meeting room for public attendance.  The property is located at 502 W. Standard Avenue.  The applicant is the Hermiston School District 8R.

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 Hermiston School District has submitted a conditional use application to place and additional modular office buildings at the existing Rocky Heights Elementary School/school district office campus.  The property is described as 4N 28 10B Tax Lot 100 and is located at 502 W Standard Avenue.  As established in §157.026(B)(1) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances, a school and its accessory uses are a conditional use in the Duplex Residential (R-2) zone.  Any expansion of a conditional use must be approved by the planning commission subject to the procedures for a conditional use permit.

The school district proposes to add an additional modular office to the three existing modular administrative office buildings.

All properties within 300 feet of the site were provided a direct mailing of the proposal.  Staff received several inquiries, but did not receive any objections as a result of that mailing.

Requirements

§157.208 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances provides the approval criteria necessary for granting or denying a conditional use permit.  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 ordinance, 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 a 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

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

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

1. The property presently contains a school, athletic fields and five modular buildings.
2. The property is zoned Duplex Residential (R-2).
3. Per §157.026(B)(1) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances, a school and its accessory uses are a conditional use in the R-2 zone.
4. The new modular structure encompasses approximately 2,688 square feet. 
5. The total lot area is 21.12 acres or 919,000 square feet.
6. The new modular structures will cover less than one percent of the entire lot.  The overall lot coverage of the school and existing modular classrooms is 46,000 square feet which is 5% and less than the 35% lot coverage allowed in the R-2 zone.
7. The proposed modular building exceeds the minimum setbacks for the R-2 zone.

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

8. The overall property size is 21.12 acres.
9. An additional 2,688 square feet of modular structures will cover less than 1% of the total lot area.
10. This small lot coverage will not impact the school’s ability to provide required open space recreational facilities for students nor will it impact the school’s ability to provide additional parking for these offices.
11. The proposed 2,688 square feet of office space will require 8 new parking spaces.  As a condition of approval, the city will require 8 new paved parking spaces to service these structures.

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

12. There are existing water and sewer lines in W Standard Avenue and NW 7th Street.  These lines are adequate to service the existing school and the new office facilities will not place additional burdens on these lines.

THE PROPOSED USE WILL PROVE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES

13. The property has been utilized as a school and currently has two existing modular buildings on site.  The proposed new modules will be similar in character to the existing uses on site.

Draft Conditions

1. The applicant shall install 8 paved parking spaces to adequate provide parking at a ratio of one space per 333 square feet of office area.

Chairman Saylor asked if there were any comments or questions before opening testimony.

There were none.

Testimony

Proponents: Brian Romeike, Facilities Director Hermiston School District, stated that a centrally located modular was needed for public school board meetings.  Actually, a 240 square foot modular currently sits on the intended space.  The District wishes to replace that modular with a 2,688 square foot modular.

Commissioner Sheffield asked if the District was going to upgrade Rocky Heights in light of the three new schools.  Mr. Romeike said only a few cosmetic changes will be performed.

Opponents:     None were present.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Saylor closed the hearing at 7:08 pm.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the findings, as may be amended, be adopted and the conditional use be granted, based upon the findings of fact and subject to the draft conditions.

Commissioner Sheffield motioned to accept the findings as written and approve the conditional use request.  Commissioner Rebman seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Unfinished Business

HEARING (continued from July 13, 2011)

Consider the adoption of Ordinance No. 2175 which creates a new Downtown Commercial overlay zone and designates the boundary of that zone.  (The hearing for Ordinance No. 2176 has been continued into the future as a traffic study has not been completed.)

The city has been working towards completion of periodic review work tasks since September of 2010.  The city and Stiven Planning have prepared a downtown commercial overlay zone as part of the Goal 9 economic development work.  The planning commission opened a public hearing on this zone on July 13.  After several issues were raised during the hearing, the planning commission left the hearing open and directed staff to review the code and re-present the ordinance at the September 14 meeting.

The issues raised at the hearing are presented as follows with the staff recommendation accompanying each concern:

• Should the boundary extend to 7th Street or end at 4th Street? 
  The area between Highway 395 and 4th Street has historically been considered the core of the downtown commercial area.  However, the area extending from 4th to 7th Street presents the greatest opportunity to benefit from future redevelopment.  There are more residences in this portion and more redevelopable land.  Based on testimony presented in July and planning commission discussion at that meeting staff recommends the planning commission maintain the proposed boundaries extending to 7th Street.

• Will allowing adjacent on-street parking to count towards minimum parking be adequate to ease redevelopment burdens? 
  There was testimony both in favor and opposed to utilizing on-street parking as presented.  The consensus of the planning commission was that additional on-street parking should be counted towards minimum parking requirements.  Staff has amended the ordinance to count all parking within an existing block on the same side of the street towards minimum parking.  In most cases, this will result in 8-10 shared parking spaces between users.

• Will parking be allowed between a house and a street when a residential use converts to commercial use? 
  There was considerable discussion on this issue with opinions expressed both in favor and opposed to allowing front yard parking.  With the expansion of on-street parking to include the entire adjacent block, few businesses entering downtown will need to provide more than one or two additional off-street parking spaces.  By keeping parking restricted to the back or alley portion of lots, more space is allocated in the front for landscaping, display of wares, or outside seating, all of which contribute to the overall goal of the DCO creating a more walkable and visually stimulating downtown core.  Staff recommends that the planning commission continue to maintain the prohibition on front yard parking.

• Is the directive that drive-ups “should” be designed to not obstruct a sidewalk too vague? 
  Staff agrees that “should” is too vague for a code provision and recommends that this be changed to “shall” in the final ordinance.

• Will properties benefiting under the previous parking lot LIDs be protected? 
  Staff has added a provision specifically stating that properties delineated in Ordinances 587 and 1080 continue to retain those benefits.

• If a house is remodeled or expanded residentially, will it trigger all of the development standards, causing the homeowner to relocate an existing driveway? 
  Requiring a relocation of an existing driveway, with the appurtenant restoration of driveway cuts and removal of existing paving poses an undue hardship to homeowners maintaining existing, legal dwellings.  Staff recommends that an exemption be written into the code exempting remodels of existing dwellings from having to eliminate parking between the street and the building entrance.

• Should parking between a street and the building entrance be eliminated or is it necessary for a business to always have parking in front of a building? 
  This is an issue the planning commission discussed heavily at the July 13 meeting.  The outcome of the public and planning commission discussion is that the intent of the overlay is to create a unique area with development standards not applied elsewhere.  Creating a street oriented, pedestrian friendly streetscape is one of the key design concepts of the downtown overlay.  Staff recommends that this standard be maintained.

• The code prohibits parking between a street and a building entrance and prohibits parking between an alley and building entrance.  How will this impact shared development where two separate businesses share a building and each access a street or alley? 
  Although this is a rare occurrence, there are places where this already arises in the downtown.  It is not fair to prohibit parking from both streets and alleys, especially given the limited lot sizes in the downtown.  Staff recommends that the code be amended to prohibit parking only between the street and building entrance and alley parking be allowed.

The downtown overlay proposed for adoption have been reviewed by the planning commission through several public meetings as well as presented to the general public in an open house on May 17, 2011 and a public hearing on July 13, 2011.  The policies and codes have been modified to reflect the comments received at these meetings. 

One item which was discussed in the public testimony at the July 13 meeting was that participants in the original parking LIDs were not exempt from future parking but were instead granted one or two parking spaces in the municipal lots.  Staff researched this issue in the intervening time.  At no point in the minutes from 1966 or 1977 when the LID hearings were held was the allocation of specific parking spaces discussed by the city council.  At several points the city council pointed out that the parking lots were specifically for the benefit of the city as a whole and open for everyone to use.  Additionally, there was testimony in 1966 from a property owner who did not want to be included in the LID and the council response was that if they chose to opt out of the district, they would have to provide off-street parking in the future when their property developed commercially.  The ordinances 587 and 1080 specifically list each property which was assessed as part of the LIDs.  These ordinances do not make mention of a certain number of parking spaces being allocated to each user.

The downtown Commercial Overlay ordinance as amended is attached to this report and has been previously presented to the planning commission.  It is not necessary to do a lengthy summary of periodic review in this report.  However, findings of fact in support of the amendments are presented here for review by the planning commission.

Findings of Fact – Ordinance No. 2175

Goal 1 and Policy 1.  Citizen Involvement.  The City will insure that citizens have an adequate opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process. 

1. Notice of the planning commission hearing was published in the Hermiston Herald at least 20 days prior to the hearing in accordance with §157.226 of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.
2. Testimony was received as a result of the publication of the notice.
3. The planning commission held a public hearing on July 13, 2011 and September 14, 2011 in accordance with §157.266(F) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.
4. The city council held a public hearing on September 26, 2011 in accordance with §157.266(F) of the Hermiston Code of Ordinances.
5. A public workshop was held by the planning commission on May 11, 2011 where testimony was received by the planning commission.
6. An open house was held on May 17, 2011 where the public was invited to attend and review the proposed amendments.
7. A letter of support on behalf of the downtown merchants was submitted to staff and the planning commission supporting the creation of the DCO.

Goal 2 and Policy 3.  Intergovernmental Coordination.  The City of Hermiston will facilitate intergovernmental coordination so that decisions affecting local, state, and federal planning and development actions in the Hermiston area are rendered in an efficient and consistent manner.

8. The amendment is the result of a periodic review order issued by the Department of Land Conservation and Development and was developed in cooperation with DLCD staff.
9. A notice of public hearing was provided to all affected agencies by direct mail.  No comments were received as a result of that mailing.
10. All proposed amendments were sent to the Periodic Review Assistance Team consisting of staff from a variety of state agencies.

Policy 2.  Planning Process.  The City of Hermiston will monitor and update periodically its comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances to respond to changing conditions.

11. Policy 2 requires the City to monitor the comprehensive plan and periodically undertake major revisions to accommodate the changes in growth patterns and insure adequate buildable land for a 20 year demand.
12. In 2007 the state of Oregon mandated that the city begin a periodic review of the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. 
13. City staff and contractors conducted public design workshops for downtown design with downtown merchants in 2008.  The results of those workshops were used as the basis of the DCO zone.

Policy 15.  Energy Conservation.  The city of Hermiston will encourage the conservation of energy resources wherever possible through careful land use planning, community education, and adoption of conservation oriented policies.

14. Creation of the DCO zone allows for residential uses to be built on the upper floors of commercial uses.  This will create a mixed use zone where residential users will be within easy walking distance to banking, retail, grocery and restaurant uses.  Use of vehicles will not be required to obtain many basic services.

Policy 19.  Commercial Development.  The City of Hermiston will assure the availability of a sufficient supply of commercial land to accommodate 20-year projected need and strive to achieve the balanced distribution of commercial activities in neighborhoods, downtown and along outlying highways.

15. The downtown commercial core is a mixed use neighborhood with many legacy single-family dwellings as well as commercial businesses.  However, the underlying base zoning is Central Commercial which does not allow single-family dwellings.
16. The downtown commercial overlay is an attempt to remove barriers to redeveloping the existing single-family homes into conforming commercial uses.
17. By allowing multi-family residential on upper floors of commercial buildings, the downtown commercial overlay will retain the existing mixed-use character while increasing the commercial density and creating more pedestrian users.
18. The EOA demonstrates that the City of Hermiston services as a regional retail hub, serving an area much broader than the City proper.  While this is the case for retail segments such as General Merchandise and Building Materials, the local area is under-represented in key retail segments such as apparel, which are often associated with downtown locations.  The EOA identifies downtown and specialty retail trade as a specific commercial development pattern (pg. 34). 
    • Downtown-Small retailers tend to seek ground floor downtown sites. Users tend to be specialty retail, restaurants, bars and similar uses. Site sizes are dictated by existing development patterns or as a result of a large user or speculative development project.
    • The EOA also identifies downtown office demand as a specific office development pattern (pg. 33).
    • Implementing actions associated with this policy include:
    • The Downtown- These small user companies absorb the smaller spaces downtown that are too small or have limitations for larger users. Site sizes downtown are predetermined by existing development patterns and to a lesser extent by redevelopment.
    • The Downtown Overlay Zone is intended to provide an appropriate setting to encourage and accommodate these unique types of commercial need. 
19. The City’s Comprehensive Plan actively identifies downtown Hermiston’s commercial core as an area of policy emphasis.  The following is extracted from Policy 19 of the Comprehensive Plan, which addresses commercial development:
    • In addition to ensuring an adequate supply of commercially-zoned land, location of commercial activities is also important.  By encouraging small neighborhood shops in residential areas, the City can improve access for the elderly and disabled and reduce dependence on the automobile. 
    • Maintaining the vitality of downtown Hermiston, the community’s historic commercial center, is an important goal. 

• City may, with adequate public process, undertake economic development and capital improvement projects in the downtown core, or other areas of commercial focus, in partnership with businesses and/or merchants associations.  Potential improvements might include updating building facades, planting trees, providing street furniture (such as benches, water fountains and bicycle racks) and improving lighting and parking.  With the assistance of the Hermiston Heritage Association, encourage merchants to highlight the downtown's historic past by placing plaques on historic buildings describing their original use and date of construction, and to display historic memorabilia in their windows.

Policy 20.  Housing Availability and Affordability.  The City of Hermiston will encourage the home building industry to provide a variety of housing opportunities in sufficient quantities at affordable prices to meet the housing needs of its residents.  Provision of an adequate supply of housing for low and moderate income families is a top priority.

20. Creating provisions for housing on upper floors of commercial buildings in the DCO increases the land available for residential uses above and beyond that which is specifically designated for residential uses.
21. The smaller nature of upper story residential units will provide small scale affordable housing.

Marty Stiven of Stiven of Stiven Planning & Development stated a major issue from the last meeting concerned off-street parking, specifically the front yard when a residence converted to a commercial enterprise.  They would not be able to use the front yard for parking but would be able to use the driveway to circulate to the back for parking.

Marty Stiven also clarified whether properties east of 4th Street could use the municipal lots to satisfy off-street parking needs.  Solution: only businesses west of NE 4th Street may utilize off-street parking credits for both municipal lots and on-street parking located along the block face adjacent to the development.  Businesses east of NE 4th Street may utilize off-street parking credit for on-street parking adjacent to the development.  A business on a corner lot would have two block faces adjacent to its location.

Commissioner Fialka requested clarification of the joint use parking regulation.

Marty Stiven continued her clarification of other provisions.  Attorney Mike Robinson aided the Council, Marty Stiven, and City Planner Spencer on appropriate wording for various passages of Ordinance No. 2175 and the Council’s motions.

Testimony

Proponents: Mary Corp, 912 W. Alder Avenue, property/landowner on Main Street, stated that she has been a regular participant in all of the meetings since 2008.  Ms. Corp feels that a downtown creates a sense of ownership

Commissioner Sheffield asked Ms. Corp if she felt that if approved, would this ordinance help with grant writing.  She indicated that an updated Code would help the City move forward and receive funding through grant writing thus creating a unified downtown.

Commissioner Sheffield wanted to know if Ms. Corp has heard of any themes that the downtown business owners might be interested in using.  She said that “water” was a theme mentioned since in many ways, water impacts our community.

Opponents: None present.

With no further questions, Chairman Saylor closed the hearing at 7:47 pm.

Recommended Planning Commission Action

Staff recommends that the planning commission review the proposed adoption documents for periodic review.  Subject to the testimony received at the public hearing, the planning commission may wish to modify the documents and/or direct staff to write additional code language.  If the proposed amendments are acceptable as written, staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council that the documents be adopted.

Commissioner Erz moved to adopt the findings as written with a recommendation to adopt additional findings as needed along with the transportation rule.  Commissioner Fialka seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Commissioner Caplinger moved that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 2175 and any additional amendments.  Commissioner Erz seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Planner Comments and Unscheduled Communications

There were no planner comments.

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 pm.