Planning Commission Meeting

July 20, 2005

Chairman Alan Blair called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm in the Council room of City Hall, 1655 First Street, Baker City, Oregon.  Commission members present included Blair, Wayne Burnside, Rob Ellingson, Wes Elder, Sharon Rudi and Ken Rockwell.  Laurie Woodworth was absent.  Also present was City Attorney Tim Collins and Community Development Director Jennifer Watkins.

Chairman Blair asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of June 15, 2005.  Rob Ellingson mentioned that in the fourth paragraph of page 4 the draft minutes incorrectly state that his motion regarding auto-oriented uses in the central-commercial zone incorrectly stated that vehicle repair would be allowed as an outside use.  In fact his motion had been that vehicle repair would continue to be used inside.  Upon the MOTION of Ellingson, seconded by Sharon, and the unanimous vote, the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 15, 2005 were APPROVED with one correction to paragraph four of page four.

Chairman Blair then called for further discussion of the proposed Interchange Area Management Plan.  Patrick Knight, ODOT reviewed the changes that had been suggested by the project consultants since the last public hearing.  These changes were as follows:

• The potential realignment of the airport frontage road along Hudson Lane would no longer be considered as a project by the Plan, but instead there would simply be language that said when vehicle usage reached 1,000 ADT, the entire area would be studied further for possible changes.  Mr. Knight stated that the consultants had always felt that this project was a long way off and this change would simply clarify that nothing would be done without a comprehensive study of the entire area when development occurred.
• The Best Frontage Road realignment has been clarified in the second draft to correct an error in the first draft.
• The IAMP now explains more fully the deviation process for allowing access points to be closer together than might otherwise be allowed.  Mr. Rockwell inquired what types of conditions would warrant the deviation.  Tom Kuhlman, Region 5 Traffic Engineer, stated that the deviation for a right-in-right-out access point needs little justification other than it must be at least 750 feet from another access.  Less than that would need a study showing what the particular project is and what type of traffic they might generate.  The concern of ODOT is always to balance the impact of the access point with the expense of constructing an alternative.  Mr. Ellingson asked if Best Frontage Road as it currently exists would have to be realigned to gain a right-in-right-out access however Mr. Knight stated that if it were realigned to 1,320 feet from the Freeway off-ramp, then it would be a full-movement intersection.  It could probably be a right-in-right-out access point in its current place.  Mr. Rockwell stated that he felt the plan needed to take into account the wishes of the property owners in that area not to cul-de-sac the current Best Frontage Road and thereby prevent its access onto Highway 86.  He would like to see something in the body of the plan to make it clear that a right-in-right-out could be granted at that location.  Mr. Kuhlman stated that it important to keep in mind that the IAMP is an overall plan and refinement studies would be done as particular projects were proposed. 
• The intersection of Cedar and Old Trail Road would be left as it is with a caveat similar to the Hudson Lane provision that once the ADT gets to be 1,000 it would be the subject of further study. 

Mr. Knight stated that the intent of the Plan is that all of the proposed improvements are driven by development in the area.  Ms. Rudi asked if it was clear that the realignment of Hudson Lane was “off the table”, Mr. Knight stated that it was. 

Mr. Blair asked what action was being requested of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Knight stated that his team was taking the matter to the County Planning Commission on July 28th and it would ultimately be up to both City and County Planning Commissions to recommend the Plan or something similar to the governing bodies. 

Mr. Rockwell stated that he had some concern about the term “access control” as it was used in the document and he asked for further explanation.  Mr. Kuhlman stated that basically “access control” was a term deriving from the fact that every property has a right of access to the adjoining highway.  At times ODOT has purchase this right and therefore controls further access to the road.  They will often purchase the rights but allow people to apply for an access point in the future with no guarantees that it will be granted.  Projects around interchanges are important because they generally involve large traffic volumes and dangerous intersections.  He is unsure how much have purchased at the interchanges that are the subject of this plan. 

Chairman Blair stated that he thinks the changes proposed to the Commission are steps in the right direction.  Mr. Rockwell stated that he was pleased that State confirmed that there would be no major realignment of Old Trail Road or Hudson Lane without further study.  Mr. Blair stated that his thoughts at the moment were to table the matter at the City level and await the County Planning Commission’s action at its meeting next week.  Mr. Rockwell stated that he for one would like to receive the comments from the persons who were present at this meeting since they were all interested stake holders.  Ms. Watkins noted that the plan changes had just been passed out at this meeting and that it might be appropriate to simply allow the public time to read and digest the changes before asking for testimony.  Mr. Blair stated that people were present at the meeting he would receive testimony regarding the changes to the proposed plan.

Greg Sackos, 1425 Campbell, questioned whether the public had really been involved in the plan at this point.  He said that he was asking for a chance to sit down and work with the consultants and ODOT on the final plan and not simply have a PowerPoint presentation.  He knows from his own experience that it is very difficult to get access from ODOT to a State highway and does not wish to see those rights given up. He noted that in his development along Campbell Street inside Baker City he had been forced to release five existing access points to one.  He asked Mr. Kuhlman how far along Cedar Street south of the 302 Interchange that ODOT had control.  Mr. Kuhlman said it was some distance however he was unsure how far.  He will check on that matter.  Mr. Sackos concluded by stating that the plan as it existed was far from acceptable and he would like a chance to really delve into the final plan at a work session rather than a public presentation.  

Mr. Rockwell noted that it was his understanding that some member of the Sackos family had said that a right-in-right-out access point at the current location of Best Frontage Road would be okay.  He asked Greg Sackos if that was his understanding as well.  Mr. Sackos said that it might be however he had no real chance to study the issue.  In reply to a question from Mr. Ellingson he stated that his attorney had made five efforts to contact both ODOT and the project consultants, Cogan, Owens, Cogan, in the last month but had no response.

Bill McCauley, Oregon Trails West RV, questioned the proposed driveway standards in the plan and wondered where his driveway would be located if the property across the street were developed.  Mr. Ellingson stated that it was his understanding that the State was only talking about narrowing his driveway from its current width of almost 200 feet but that it would still be present in its current location.  Mr. McCauley said that he has observed other RV parks and a standard two-car driveway of 20-25 feet is simply not big enough.

Karen Yeakley, 42687 Hudson Road, furnished the Commission with a handout of her concerns and comments.  These dealt primarily with a request that Hudson Lane not be referred to in the plan without the phrase “dead-end” attached to it.  She also thought the study should be concerned with Interchange 304 (Campbell Street) and not just 302 and finally that the consultants and ODOT should realize that the Oregon planning system has built-in laws to protect EFU property such as that which surrounds Hudson Lane.

Mr. Rockwell asked if Ms. Yeakley was satisfied with the language in the plan stating that no project would be considered on Hudson Lane until further study was done.  Ms. Yeakley stated that she was not since something might still be done in the future.  She feels that Best Frontage Road and Airport Road are adequate and will remain so no matter how much development occurs.  She also stated that she does not believe one set of rules fits all in the state with regards to access spacing.  Ms. Rudi suggested that area residents get together and form a group so that they could speak with one voice.  She also encouraged them to consider possible solutions as well as simply criticizing the proposed plan. 

Don Beck, 42633 Hudson Lane, also furnished the Commission with written testimony on the proposed revisions.  He noted that he and other residents had given their opinion at the first hearing and had been ignored.  He also pointed out that even if right-in-right-out access were granted for Best Frontage Road, people would probably turn right onto Highway 86 and then look for the first place to turn around.  That place is Hudson Lane.  He noted that the plan also said that while projects listed in the plan could be done in a staged fashion, it was noted that the first improvements could be called for as soon as ODOT develops its property on Highway 86 for highway offices.  This could be as early as tomorrow.

Clyde Brooks, 4050 Cedar, is concerned with the widening of the Cedar/Hughes Lane intersection.  His wife runs a day care at their house at that address and they are concerned that additional land will need to be purchased which would impact their front yard.

Jon Croghan, 1025 Madison, stated that he would like to see access to the airport protected.  His suggestion that he had given before had not been heeded. 

Melody Brooks, 4050 Cedar, also testified that if additional land had to be taken for expansion of the Cedar/Hughes Lane intersection, she suggested that it be acquired from the Grange property north of their house.

There was no further testimony and Chairman Blair asked if there was any discussion among Commission members.  He noted that the matter in any event would be back before the Planning Commission at the August 17, 2005 meeting and the Commission would receive further public comment at that time.  He also urged persons to get together as a group to work with ODOT and the consulting firm.

Mr. Ellingson then MOVED to table the matter until the August 17, 2005 meeting.  This motion was seconded by Mr. Rockwell and carried with unanimous vote of the members present. 

Chairman Blair then called for a recess.

The Commission then proceeded to discuss Planning Commission Case 05-ZT-05, the proposed amendment to the Central Commercial section of the Development Code dealing with auto-oriented uses.  Mr. Collins stated that he had developed language based on the discussion the Commission had at its June meeting.  This language would clarify that all auto-oriented uses are conditional uses in the downtown area, but that only servicing and repair of these automobiles would have to be done in an enclosed building.  Mr. Rockwell questioned whether the discussion last meeting was that certain of the uses would be allowed outright.  Ms. Watkins briefly read the notes from the last meeting which showed that there were no outright uses for automobile-oriented businesses.  Repairs and servicing must be done within an enclosed building while vehicle storage would be allowed outside.  Mr. Ellingson suggested that the portion of the proposed language is the new code which states that “construction equipment” was permitted in the downtown area even if within an enclosed building should be deleted. He felt that it was just not the proper place for it. The Commission also wished to make it clear that storage of vehicles could be allowed outside an enclosed building.  The CONSENSUS was that it would be difficult to define “storage” as distinct from simply “displaying” the vehicles for sale.

Sharon Rudi then MOVED to send the proposed ordinance amendment to the City Council with the deletion of “construction equipment” and the clarification that storage of vehicles may be allowed outside an enclosed building.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Ellingson and CARRIED with a unanimous vote of the members present.

The next item of business was consideration of possible changes in the Development Code to residential uses in the Central Commercial Zone.  Mr. Collins noted that the minutes of the previous meeting indicated that Pamela Van Duyn had suggested a change to the Central-Commercial Zone and since that meeting had requested that these changes be included in the package to be sent to the City Council along with the auto-oriented use change.  Mr. Collins stated that he had explained to Ms. Van Duyn that the 45 day notice sent to DLDC said nothing about residential uses and he did not feel it adequate to allow the matter to be legally discussed at a public hearing at this meeting.  Though Ms. Van Duyn was not present at this meeting, Mr. Collins requested the Planning Commission instruct him to send a notice to Salem to inform them that the City was considering changing its residential code in the central commercial area.  Items to be discussed might be continued stress on the multi-use nature of residential properties and also the use of existing single family homes as residences.  Mr. Collins stated that in the course of considering Ms. Van Duyn’s comments, he had occasion to do a formal opinion on what constitutes a discontinuance of use for non-conforming uses.  He stated that the weight of authority in other jurisdictions is that mere vacancy does not constitute a change of use therefore if a home were to be vacant for more than one year while it was in the process of being remodeled or sold, it would not lose its non-conforming use status.

Ken Rockwell then MOVED to instruct the staff to start the process of notification of the State for a proposed change to the central-commercial zone residential standards along the lines discussed at this meeting.  Rob Ellingson seconded the motion and it CARRIED with a unanimous vote.

Mr. Blair then called for discussion of the Resort Street Plan.  Ms. Watkins told the Commission the Council was asking for prioritization of the Resort Street projects from the Planning Commission.  These portions of the Resort Street project include the Leo Adler Memorial Pathway extension, the parking lot, the construction of a central business district park, Court Street Park and Resort Streetscape improvements.  Mr. Ellingson stated that he had no problem with the ranking furnished the Commission by previous discussions.  This would mean the pathway would be first with the parking lot second, Central Park third, Court Street Park fourth, and the Resort Street improvements fifth.  Mr. Rockwell stated that he felt the parking lot should be the first priority since the City has contractually committed itself to building it.  The pathway is a nice amenity to town but the parking lot is, in his mind, more urgent.  Chairman Blair stated that he really viewed the priorities one, two and three all as one project.  In other words he has trouble separating the pathway from the parking lot and the Central Park itself.  Ms. Watkins noted that this indeed is how the City has approached funding for the projects.  Their grant applications have typically included more than one of the first three elements in each request.  The City has received commitments for $840,000 for the pathway and $470,000 more for the park and parking lot.  In addition, the City has committed $145,000 from the current budget for the park and parking lot.  Finally, the City is in the process of finalizing a grant request for $500,000 additional for the Resort Street improvements.  The two largest grants all contain language allowing them to be used for any of the first three priorities. 

Mr. Rockwell suggested that perhaps the Commission would like to consider the routing of the pathway before deciding which priority to give it.  Ms. Watkins stated that she did not feel that it was appropriate at this time since any final design would necessarily depend on which properties might be acquired and engineering necessities.  Mr. Blair stated that he thought the Commission should lump the first three priorities together because of the intermingling of the grant funds that have been committed for these projects and then list the Resort Street streetscape improvements as the fourth priority and the Court Street Park as fifth.  It was the CONSENSUS of the Commission that this be the recommendation to the City Council.

Ms. Watkins stated that as the design goes along for the various elements the projects would in all likelihood be returned back to the Planning Commission.  In the meantime acquisition of properties would proceed. 

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 pm.