Planning Commission Minutes

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers March 6, 2014 7:00 p.m. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Pendleton Planning Commission was held March 6, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers with Commissioners Tyson Furstenberg, Ryan DeGrofft, Lou Porter, Scott Fairley, and Don Butcher present. Commissioners Maureen McCormmach and Terry Clarke were absent. Staff members present were City Planner Evan MacKenzie and Julie Chase. COMMUNITY DISCUSSION: None. No audience present. CONSENT AGENDA: The consent agenda was approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS: a. RP13-06(Carlson): Tentative replat approval to remove one residential lot by creating one large lot from two residential lots. Subject property is located at 3701 SW George Place identified as Tax Lots 1000 and 1100 Assessor’s Map 2N32 16BB, Umatilla County. (continued) This application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Deliberation between Commission and Staff: The Commission asked why the language in the staff report reads: “The proposed development must comply with applicable provisions contained in Chapter 10 of the General Ordinances of the City of Pendleton, and the City of Pendleton Comprehensive Plan.” The Commission seeks a manner in which an applicant has the ability to define if their request complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission rationalizes that the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the public in a user-friendly, understandable manner in order for applicants to prove that their request complies with it. The Comprehensive Plan is available online; however, the document is pieced into multiple pdf’s and tech memos. Staff applauds this desire. However the tech memos received from the consultant for Periodic Review do not coordinate into the old Comprehensive Plan, partly because the old plan is not structured by goal.

GOALS: #1: Citizen Involvement #2: Land Use Planning #3: Agricultural Lands #4: Forest Lands #5: Nat’l Resources, Historic, Open Spaces #6: Air, Water, Land Resources Quality #7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards #8: Recreational Needs #9: Economic Development #10: Housing #11: Public Facilities & Services #12: Transportation #13: Energy Conservation #14: Urbanization

Only Phase One has been acknowledged. Phase Two has been adopted locally but not acknowledged by the State. This acknowledgment continues to wait for the recognition of our Wetland Inventory. This includes the Opportunity Area language. To put the information (Plan + tech memos) into one cohesive document will be extremely difficult since there is no structured flow within the Plan. Public Works Director Patterson is working on a Public Facilities Plan, which will fit nicely into a Goal Element of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Transportation System Plan (TSP) is also a goal element of Goal #12. The tech memos could be inserted within the most applicable goal, but would not have logical flow. Restructuring or adoption of a Comprehensive Plan organized by goal, which was the City’s understanding of the consultants product requirement rather than tech memos, would be beneficial to staff and citizens alike. The 1985 Plan was never constructed in this manner. Adding or amending into the existing plan makes it difficult to achieve rational comprehension. The Commission requests staff to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 6, 2014 Page 1 of 4 place on the website a dedicated page with a single document and remove draft copies and support documents. The current website, as it is arranged, is too difficult for citizens to cipher for compliance of an application. Staff can update the information with the Phase One adopted language. Discussion is made on the Phase Two language that cannot be added into the Comprehensive Plan until acknowledged by the State. The Commission asks if it is sensible to require applicants to comply with the Comprehensive Plan if it is not available. The City of Pendleton relies upon meeting the General Ordinances to satisfy the Comprehensive Plan. This is why staff reports include this language, “Generally, unless otherwise noted, if a request is found to be consistent with the General Ordinances it is considered consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” General Ordinances refer to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The Commission accepts this rationalization, but not if the applicant is required to comply with the Comp Plan. Staff clarified that the applicant was required to meet the density standards of the Zoning Ordinance (General Ordinances). The Commission suggested removing the statement, “The proposed development must comply with the City of Pendleton Comprehensive Plan,” so as not to put an undue burden on the applicants. Staff concludes that if the applicant could have shown that it met the Zoning Ordinance; staff would have ruled that it met the Comprehensive Plan. The density standard was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance; hence, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and was documented in a tech memo. The Commission asked if we could stop saying “Comp Plan” and use only the General Ordinances. Staff will check with DLCD representative Grant Young on this request.

To Reiterate, the Commission requests staff reports to read: “The proposed development must comply with applicable provisions contained in (applicable chapter) of the General Ordinances of the City of Pendleton, and the City of Pendleton Comprehensive Plan.”

The Comprehensive Plan is the umbrella that defines the policies of the City. It does not act as an implementation document. There are no standards or criteria within the Comp Plan. The General Ordinances are the implementation documents. The Zoning Ordinance contains criteria, as does the Subdivision Ordinance. It is these ordinances that regulate development. Commission asks for understanding as to why an applicant must comply with a non-regulatory document. The Comprehensive Plan requires (shall have) the City to have various types of development (low, medium, high density with a target density), which is a general statement, but is not specific to criteria that an application must meet to demonstrate that the request fits within the City’s general density requirements. [For Example -- In layman terms: the City shall have at a minimum three residential density zones: low (1 sfd per acre), medium (2 sfd’s per ½ acre), and small (3+ sfd’s per ¼ acre) per housing unit within the city as a whole ---Comprehensive Plan language. A subdivision shall meet at a minimum of 1 sfd per 10,000sqft in the R-1 Zone or 2 sfd’s per 7,000sqft in the R-2 Zone or 3 sfd’s per 4,000sqft --- Subdivision Ordinance language.] If an application is consistent with a zoning ordinance, it would be consistent with a comprehensive plan.

The standards are reflected in the tech memos. The ordinance adopting the tech memos acts as an amendment to the Comp Plan. Any alteration to the tech memo’s constitutes an amendment as well. The Commission accepts this amendment but not the requirement to “comply with the Comprehensive Plan.”

The Commission asked if it is possible for an application to be in compliance with the General Ordinances but not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff replied that since our current Comprehensive Plan has not been fully updated, there may be parts of the Comp Plan that are out of compliance with State Law and the General Ordinances. This is why Periodic Review is required. Staff will alter the language of complying with the Comp Plan in staff reports if DLCD is amenable to same.

The Commission requests a self-help aid to understanding the Comp Plan available on the web and for public use. Staff is uncertain if staff can create this aid. Staff recommends the Commission visit the City of Tigard’s comprehensive plan document. This the model that Pendleton anticipated from the

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 6, 2014 Page 2 of 4 consultants, but not received. Staff is nervous about creating in-house a Plan similar to the Tigard plan because it is a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Commission requests staff research on who and how to make the Comp Plan user-friendly, like Tigard’s, so that the Commission can recommend the Council find funding for this improvement.

Staff reports will no longer allude to discretionary determination of meeting criteria if the application clearly does not. Staff report findings will read, “does not meet criteria.” If the Commission can demonstrate that there are findings (through testimony at the meeting, for example) to the contrary of the staff report, then the Commission can overturn the staff’s finding.

The Commission Chairman requests to invite a speaker (Jim ??? – LOC) that would give a seminar on training the Commission in proactive planning. The Commission is interested in having this invite and including surrounding cities commissions, councils, and public as well. Schedule is dependent upon length of seminar. Staff will research availability and cost of such seminar(s). Webinars’ are also an option. b. AMD13-04 (City of Pendleton): Repeal of existing ordinances, and creation of a single Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 3485) for development-related standards and criteria. Continuation of discussion on zoning issues only. Deliberation: Current packet contains Section 8. Black font is existing language, colored font is recommended language.  8.2 Solar Access: change accepted.  8.3 This language alerts staff that there are overlay zones that may have special parking requirements that would supersede this standard: change accepted.  8.3.1 There is no established bike space requirement in current language. The Commission deliberated on requiring bike parking in high slope/elevation areas as it would discourage the use of biking. Other areas may have high density commercial uses, and questions the placement of bike racks within the furniture aisle of the public sidewalk. A Change of Use for an existing facility would not require adding bike spaces. Comparison of the impact was made using Wal- Mart as an example: change not accepted.  8.3.2 Off-Street Loading: current language excluded the loading capacity of day care facilities. The State regulates when a childcare facility is allowed to have a loading area or restricted to walking a child to the door: change not accepted.  8.3.3 This language demonstrates best practice for parking lots. It encompasses a safety area where pedestrians can cross along a sidewalk area rather than behind the vehicles: change accepted.  8.3.4 (14, 15) It has error of Section 119, which is no longer a valid section. This language is erroneously color-fonted.  8.3.4 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. This language provides guidelines for those parking lots that will contain charging stations. It recommends the preservation of these special parking spaces by discouraging their use by non-electric vehicles. A – “Any dedicated parking . . .. C – “Where provided, spaces should be standard size parking stalls but signed in a way . . ..: change to be refined.  8.3.5 E This language, proposed by Public Works and Engineering, solidifies the encouragement of driveways that will not allow for vehicles to park over a sidewalk: change accepted.  8.3.7 – 3.8.11 – 8.4 (all) Staff continues to work on this language. Staff thought it would be beneficial to put all cargo container language in one section regardless of zone. The Commission recommended the same, consistent use of terminology and removal of the second sentence of

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 6, 2014 Page 3 of 4 8.3.7. Staff will readdress this topic: change to be refined.  8.X – CPTED is a recommendation not a mandate. This language addresses neighborhoods that would allow the passage of a person between each neighborhood but not allow a vehicle. A burglar could run from one cul-de-sac to another, but the police would have to drive the street layout, which provides a greater chance for the burglar to escape capture. The Commission requested a change of “CPTED standards and principles shall be considered but not required . . .”: change accepted.

Land Divisions is the next section. The Commission requested to get the current proposals caught up before the introduction of a new section. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None

The Commission asked when they can collectively talk about issues and not violate public meeting laws. Only during a public hearing can the Commission collectively discuss issues. Requesting information from staff does not constitute ex parte communication. If email contact is made one-on-one, this contact is okay. But if an email is sent to all commissioners, then this qualifies as meeting outside a hearing, ex parte contact. The Commission questioned whether this only applies to quasi-judicial decisions. Staff clarifies that if the communication is limited to when and where meeting and what is on the agenda (but not a discussion of the agenda item), then the contact is okay. Anytime communication occurs that would constitute a quorum present, would be considered ex parte contact if occurring outside a public meeting. It is not the topic but the number of commissioners present that determine violation of the public meeting law. Emails between commission members (3+) would violate public meeting law. To be ethically consistent, a private party where 3+ commissioners are invited to attend would constitute a quorum and therefore require a notice in the paper. The Commission can be at a meeting, close the meeting and announce to the audience that the Commission is adjourning to the “Prodigal Son/GP” and meet the public meetings law requirement. The Commission should never, ever discuss a pending matter outside of the Council Chambers. REPORT OF THE CITY PLANNER: The Commission found the Findings handout to be a good learning tool. Most appeals are won on procedural grounds. If the Commission failed to perform their duty in making rational findings and conclusions, the Commission decision will be overturned by a higher body (LUBA). By demonstrating consistent logic in making decisions, it eliminates the impression of random decisions. When the public question decisions because it appears a special-right-without-merit was given/not given, staff can support the decision if the procedure for the grant/denial was logical. The Commission should be able to draw a reasonable line between the request and the decision made. Training resources are available at City Hall. The question of whether rounding should be consistent continues.

The meeting adjourned at 8:24 p.m.

Chairman Scott Fairley Date Approved

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – March 6, 2014 Page 4 of 4