Planning Commission Meeting

May 18, 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, Laurie Woodworth, Rob Ellingson, Wes Elder, Sharon Rudi and Ken Rockwell.  Also present was City Attorney Tim Collins.

Upon the MOTION of Mr. Ellingson, seconded by Mr. Woodworth, and the unanimous vote, the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 2005 were APPROVED as submitted.

Chairman Blair then called for the Public Hearing on Planning Commission Case Number 05-VAR-06, a request for a variance from Carl & Janice Hilberg, 1820 Pear, for permission to construct and accessory building in the front yard of the residence at that address.  Chairman Blair asked if there were any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts to declare.  There was none although all members indicated that they had viewed the property and were familiar with its location. 

Mr. and Mrs. Hilberg testified that their property was approximately 1.3 acres in size, and that, when they purchased it in the summer of 2004, the manufactured home on the property was already located to the extreme rear of the lot.  They assumed it was placed there so that it would have more of a view to the west.  The land rises gradually to the east.  Because they have several old vehicles and tractors which they wish to restore, they wish to construct a 28’ x 48’ accessory building on their property.  Because of the topography and the existing layout of the house, it is not possible to put such a building in the side or rear yard as required by ordinance.  The building would be constructed with metal siding to match the house and would not be an eyesore.  Because of the large size of their lot, the accessory building would not intrude on any neighbor’s view. 

The Hilberg’s had considered constructing the building to the south side of their residence however that land is sloped and, because of the need to access the building on more than one side, it could not be constructed in that location.  Further, utilities are quite accessible to the level spot that they had picked out in the front yard.  That particular location would allow access on three sides versus only one side if it were placed to the side of the house.  They were also concerned about some trees that have grown on the side of the house that would have to be removed and drainage issues that may result from cutting back into the hillside to place the accessory structure there.  They plan to locate the building with the long side facing Pear.  There would be two garage doors on that side and one more on the north side.  Mr. Blair asked if it would be possible to move the structure further south in order to move it further away from in front of the house.  Mr. Hilberg stated that he understands the gas utility line that serves his residence runs only five feet south of the proposed location and that perhaps the power line is also in the same area.  Mr. Ellingson noted, however, that home gas lines are quite easy to move and this shouldn’t be a detriment to putting the building further south.  Mr. Blair suggested also that the building possibly should be rotated 90° so that the 28’ side exposure would be toward Pear.  This would also lessen the impact of the structure to persons viewing the property from the front.  Ms. Rudi inquired whether they had considered building this shop at the time they purchased the property and, if so, if they related that fact to their realtor.  The Hilberg’s stated that they had and that they had not been told anything that would prevent them from building it.  In response to a question from Mr. Woodworth they indicated that they have no current plans to sell the front portion of the property even though it would make a legal building site.  They didn’t want to have a neighboring residence right in front of their house.

After further examination of photographs of the site, it was determined that the power line serving the residence would not be a problem because it is locate well behind the proposed shop.

There was no further testimony either for or against the application and the Public Hearing was then closed.

Chairman Blair stated that the Commission first needed to decide if a true “hardship” existed which prevented the applicants from using their property in the same manner as other persons in the neighborhood.  More specifically, should the Hilberg’s use the fact that the home was built in a particular portion of the property when they bought it as part of this “hardship”.  Mr. Ellingson pointed out that it is not truly impossible to construct an accessory building in the side yard of the residence.  There is no guarantee in the ordinance that everyone will be able to build a building 28’ x 48’ in size.  Mr. Rockwell stated that he understood the ordinance to be intended to deal with the lot itself rather than where the house is located.  In this immediate area, however, other lots are located with a north/south orientation rather than east/west as it the applicant’s.  If that were the case with this lot, then the Valley street side would be the front and there would be ample room in the side yard to build the accessory structure.

Chairman Blair stated that in his opinion it was certainly too difficult to build the accessory structure desired by the applicants in their existing side yard.  Mr. Burnside agreed with that position as did Ms. Rudi.  Mr. Blair also felt that by turning the structure 90° it would lessen the impact on the front yard and would thereby meet the criteria that the actual variance be the least necessary. 

Mr. Woodworth asked if the Hilberg’s could incorporate the old shed which is currently located in the further north in the front yard into the existing building and thereby remove one of the accessory structures.  The Hilberg’s stated that structure was quite substantial with a permanent concrete foundation and a metal roof and they would not like to get rid of it.

Chairman Blair then MOVED that the Commission find that a “hardship” exists due to both the “as-built” environment on the lot and the topography of the site and that they variance should be granted provided the building be located west of the tree in front of the house, 20 feet from the south property line, and rotated 90° so that the narrow side faces the front.  The motion was seconded by Mr. Burnside and CARRIED with Rockwell, Rudi, Blair, Burnside and Woodworth in favor, Elder and Ellingson opposed.

Under other business, Mr. Collins noted that the Commission had been furnished with summaries of comments received at two public hearings on the proposed central park project.  He asked that they review they and be prepared for a hearing on the matter at the next Commission meeting in June.  

Chairman Blair noted that he had called a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission to be held jointly with the County Planning Commission to discuss the Interchange Area Management Plan.  The meeting will be May 26, 2005 at 7pm in the County Courthouse.  Mr. Rockwell stated that he had been present at earlier meetings of the task force working on the IAMP and that the real problem is with the 302 Interchange.  On both sides there are intersecting roads located right next to the freeway entrance and exit ramps.  The State standards are no intersections within ¼ mile of the interchange.  The consultant hired by ODOT for the project has been trying to work out alternative road locations which would alleviate the concerns of ODOT.  Of course, these new locations generate additional concerns on behalf of property owners in the area. 

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 pm.