BAKER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Call to Order and Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Alan Blair. Roll call was answered by Commissioners Alan Blair, Laurie Woodworth, Wayne Burnside, Rob Ellingson, Sharon Rudi and Ken Rockwell. Commissioner Wes Elder was absent. Also present were City Manager Steve Bogart and Community Development Director Jennifer Watkins.
Approval of Minutes of May 18, 2005. At this time, the Commission reviewed the minutes of the May 18, 2005, meeting. Upon the MOTION by Mr. Ellingson, seconded by Ms. Rudi, with all in favor, the minutes of the previous meeting were APPROVED.
Public Hearing on Planning Commission Case No. 05-CUP-07. The Commission then began a public hearing on a Conditional Use application submitted by Marcie and Sam Haines, 15368 Neil Peck Lane, Haines, Oregon. The permit would allow the use of the residence at 1830 Second Street, Baker City, Oregon as a professional office. The home currently resides in the high-density Residential zone. The applicants wish to have a financial management office at this location. An off-street parking lot of 3000 square feet would also be constructed to the south of the existing home.
At 7:05 p.m., Mr. Blair opened the public hearing. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by members of the Commission.
The staff report submitted by City Attorney Tim Collins outlined the location of the property as well as the criteria for a decision that relate to this application. He indicated in his report that the proposed use of the property seemed to be one that would not adversely affect the surrounding areas. Mr. Collins recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Applicants Marcie and Sam Haines approached the Commission. After stating that they felt this would be a positive development for the area with little negative impact, the Haines closed their statements.
Ms. Rudi asked how many parking spaces would be built. Ms. Haines replied that there will be between four and six spaces constructed and paved. In response to another question from Ms. Rudi, Ms. Haines stated that they will leave as much of the existing landscaping – including trees – as possible. Mr. Rockwell asked why such a large parking lot is necessary. Ms. Haines indicated that the size seemed to fit well with the lot. When finished, it will look like a driveway for the carriage house, she added. The larger size lot will also allow people to turn around in the parking lot before pulling onto Second Street, said Mr. Haines. Blair then asked about the stormwater drainage for the parking lot, to which Mr. Haines explained that it would be a sump to a dry well system. Mr. Rockwell asked if the applicants have any landscaping plans for the area. Mr. Haines stated that the 8-10 feet between the parking lot and sidewalk would remain very much the same with the addition of a wrought iron fence. Shrubs will be planted along the south end of the parking lot to provide a screen for the neighboring home.
There was no further testimony either for or against the application and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.
Upon the MOTION by Ellingson, seconded by Rockwell, with all in favor, the Conditional Use Permit for Sam and Marcie Haines was APPROVED with no additional conditions.
Public Hearing on Planning Commission Case No. 05-ZT-05. The next item of business was a request to amend the City’s development code for the Central-Commercial Zone to allow the expanded use of outdoor auto sales.
Blair opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. The memo submitted from City Attorney Collins explained that a complaint had been filed regarding the use of property by Baker Garage. Property had been acquired by Baker Garage owners, cleared and then used as an auto sales lot. According to the current Development Code, this is an illegal use as it indicates auto-oriented uses must be confined to an enclosed structure. In his memo, Mr. Collins stated that he felt this was an oversight in the Development Code. He suggested changing the Development Code to allow auto-oriented uses in the Central Commercial zone.
Testimony in favor of the code change was then taken.
A letter from Chet Smith, 1545 Washington, Baker City in support of allowing auto-oriented uses in the Central Commercial zone was received.
With no further testimony in favor, testimony in opposition was taken.
Scotty Haskell, 2315 First Street, Baker City asked if there was a valid reason for an enclosed building and if so, why was it no longer valid? She indicated that Mr. Collins should have known what was in the code he wrote. She is not opposed to new and used cars parking on private property. However, she is opposed to cars parking on public property, or the streets. She concluded by saying that Mr. Collins was inaccurate when he said that Gentry Ford has displayed vehicles on open lots for decades, as Gentry Ford has only been in business in Baker City for a few years.
Mr. Blair responded that the Planning Commission worked for many months on the Development Code as it is today. The issue before the Commission tonight is an unintended consequence of the code. The particular paragraph in question was not discussed. He explained that the Commission used a “model” code and changed it to fit the community. The only discussion regarding this issue involved the repair of cars, which Commissioners did not want outdoors. He told Ms. Haskell that the oversight was the fault of the entire Commission, not Mr. Collins.
Beverly Calder, 1246 Dewey Avenue, Baker City stated that the way cars are sold has changed. She supports a conditional use permit process instead of an outright use. This would protect the Central Commercial zone, which encompasses the historic district, and allow for public input on a case by case basis.
Pam Van Duyn, 14545 Angel Lane, Baker City, spoke on behalf of Historic Baker City. She explained that throughout the Central Commercial zone there is an ethic that has been established to promote storefront character and connect neighborhoods. She encouraged the Commission to be consistent with all items that relate to auto-oriented uses. The historic district is a tremendous asset and should be considered when talking about open car lots. Ms. Van Duyn indicated that the HBC Board had taken a position supporting the enclosure of auto-oriented uses as stated in the current code. If the Commission feels that this is too onerous, she would support a conditional use process and is sure that the HBC Board would as well.
On a different note, Ms. Van Duyn introduced another issue relevant to the Central Commercial zone. Purely residential uses are not allowed if they are vacant after one year. Additionally, residential use on the ground floor is not allowed at all. This would indicate that some properties downtown are in violation of the code. She asked the Commission to look at this matter as well.
Richard Harris, 2890 Second Street, Baker City, read a statement for the record. He questioned whether or not this issue would be considered if it did not involve City Councilor Randy Daugherty. He stated that “in the more progressive cities, the car lots are generally located well away from (the) central area.” He did not feel that auto sales lots are appropriate for the historic district. Mr. Harris stated that he is strongly in favor of a conditional use permit requirement for such uses.
Gary Dielman, 1515 Fourth Street, Baker City, also read a statement for the record. He began with a historical account of car dealerships in Baker City and their location. Many such businesses were located in the current Central Commercial zone. He continued that many communities have seen car sales move out of the downtown area and locate next to freeways or on the edges of town. That, he feels, is where these types of businesses belong. Mr. Dielman is opposed to allowing new and expanding car sales in the historic district.
There was no further testimony either for or against the proposed action and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m.
Mr. Rockwell agreed with most of the testimony heard. He stated that the Commission should have a conditional use permit process at a minimum for both dealerships and vehicle storage areas while dropping the requirement to have an enclosed structure. He felt that historic use is a matter of perspective. Auto dealerships historically have been located in this zone and he doesn’t consider them a detriment. However, he would not want to see it as an outright use.
Mr. Ellingson agreed, adding that the Commission may want to consider all other motor vehicles as well.
Mr. Blair stated that car dealerships were prominently displayed in the downtown area historically. However, he is also in favor of a conditional use permit process and the removal of the enclosed structure requirement. Ms. Rudi, Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Burnside all agreed.
Mr. Blair asked what the Commission should do with the current situation. Should they allow Baker Garage owners some time to use the lot until the new change is adopted and they have a chance to apply for a permit? In response to a question from the Commission, Ms. Watkins explained that an ordinance would need to be prepared to make the suggested changes. It could be brought back to the Commission if needed. The City Council would then need to approve the ordinance. Mr. Blair agreed that he would like to see the ordinance and allow Baker Garage temporary use of the property until they were able to complete the Conditional Use process. He suggested a deadline of October 1, 2005 for this use.
Mr. Ellingson made a MOTION to have staff bring an ordinance back to the Commission at the next meeting that changes the Development Code to allow auto-oriented uses with a Conditional Use Permit and removes the requirement for these uses to be within an enclosed structure, including the items for vehicle storage and repair. Additionally, Mr. Ellingson moved that Baker Garage be allowed to use the recently purchased property until they were able to file a Conditional Use application or October 1, 2005, whichever is earliest. The motion was seconded by Rockwell and, with all in favor, the motion CARRIED.
Mr. Rockwell also asked staff to look into residential use, other kinds of motor vehicle uses and storage of vehicles on public property, such as streets and sidewalks.
Public Meeting on the Interchange Area Management Plan. The Commission then discussed the draft Interchange Area Management Plan. Mr. Blair indicated that if the discussion on this item was lengthy, the Resort Street Area Management Plan may be tabled until the next meeting.
The Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) was commissioned by ODOT after the Baker City Council adopted it as a priority project. The State hired consultants Cogan Owens Cogan to complete the IAMP.
Kirstin Green of Cogan, Owens, Cogan and Jennifer Danziger of David Evans & Associations made a presentation to the Commission about the IAMP. Ms. Green explained that the purpose of the IAMP is to take a look at existing traffic and land use patterns and propose possible measures to ensure that the interchanges function well over the next 20 years and beyond. The interchanges the IAMP encompasses are 302 and 306. Because 304 is highly developed, it is not being considered at this time. The idea is to accommodate such development as is allowed around each interchange while safely managing the traffic increases incurred by those developments.
Ms. Green covered the study areas around each interchange, the objectives of the plan, the membership of the Project Management Team, the outreach to date, compliance with state and local goals and guidelines, the zoning around each interchange, population and employment forecasts used in the IAMP and the findings. When discussing the population and employment forecasts, Ms. Green emphasized that an aggressive stance was taken in order to develop a plan to accommodate what could happen in the area surroundings the interchanges. Even with this aggressive approach, however, there is still more room for growth in both areas as allowed by current zoning.
Ms. Danziger then covered issues such as access spacing, current and forecasted traffic volumes and safety issues. She explained that the Oregon Highway Plan dictates access spacing of ¼-mile from each interchange in this area. The proposed IAMP tries to utilize this spacing standard in its recommendations.
Ms. Danziger continued by explaining the recommendations brought forth in the IAMP. She explained that a number of proposals were reviewed and included in the IAMP, but only some of the proposals were actually recommended. All recommended changes take place around Interchange 302. Interchange 306 currently meets standards and is expected to in the future. The proposed changes are:
Several of these recommendations would only be implemented when traffic counts warrant a change as a result of development in the area. These include items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The other items would be implemented within the next five to ten years.
Ms. Green then presented six suggested policies that would also be included in the IAMP. These policies are:
At this time, the Commission asked questions of the consultants and ODOT representative Patrick Knight.
Ms. Rudi asked who will monitor the traffic to trigger implementation of the proposed changes. Mr. Knight replied that traffic impact studies would be done for developments estimated to create 200 trips per day or more. In this way, traffic increases could be monitored. The trigger proposed in the draft to initiate development is 1000 trips per day.
In response to a question from Mr. Blair, Mr. Knight stated that the ¼-mile separation lends to safety and capacity of the system. This distance is a national standard and allows for suitable sight distances.
Ms. Danziger explained that is important to control the number of access points so people can identify where cars are coming from. This prevents congestion.
In response to a question from Mr. Woodworth, Ms. Danziger indicated that there are a few projects that they recommend in the short term. For instance, they recommend that a financial and engineering plan be developed for the Best Frontage Road right away. This way, if development were to occur, the plan would be ready to go immediately while giving property owners some surety about what will happen around them. Additionally, Ms. Danziger stated that the turn lanes on Cedar Street are also recommended to happen in the short term. Mr. Knight added that there is a tremendous potential for development that, if begun, would trigger the implementation of certain projects. Because the projects are based on individual triggers, they could be completed separately as needed.
Ms. Danziger explained that a number of projects are included in the entire plan as a reference to what has been discussed during this process. Ultimately, it was decided that a number of these projects should not proceed, such as creating a 55 mph curve at Cedar Street and Interchange 302 or extending Main Street north.
Mr. Rockwell asked about a right-in, right-out turning option at Best Frontage Road and OR 86. Mr. Knight replied that the right-in, right-out option would need to be at least 750 feet from the interchange in order to have a deceleration lane. This would place it further east than the current Best Frontage/OR 86 intersection.
At this time, the Commission took public comment on the draft plan.
Greg Sackos, 1425 Campbell Street, Baker City, asked for further opportunity to review the plan and present testimony. He indicated that he was unable to attend the public workshops and has not had time to review the entire document in detail. Additionally, the policies that were presented at tonight’s meeting haven’t been widely publicized and need to be understood by the public. Specifically, Mr. Sackos stated that requiring traffic impact studies for developments that would create 200 cars per day seemed onerous. He’d like to see that number increased. He recommended that the Commission take their time to think about the plan and allow for greater understanding of the impacts.
David and Karen Yeakley, 42687 Hudson Road, Baker City, read a statement for the record. In the statement, they indicate their opposition to the alternatives proposed for Best Frontage Road and Airport Road for the following reasons:
Don and Charlotte Beck, 42663 Hudson Road, Baker City, read statements for the record. In their statements, they indicate their opposition to the alternatives proposed for Best Frontage Road and Airport Road. The listed multiple reasons for their opposition, many of which were encompassed by previous testimony. They felt that the proposed plan was based on speculation of future development that was not realistic. Additionally, the Becks testified that the proposed alternatives created unsafe conditions for residents and wildlife with contamination from traffic. The alternatives also create safety problems with the addition of more sharp corners and the decrease of line of sight, according to the Becks. Mr. Beck also indicated that the proposed plan violates the Oregon Highway Design Manual codes. His written statement reflects those portions of the Manual he felt were in conflict with the plan.
Bill McCauley, Oregon Trails West RV, 42534 N Cedar, Baker City, asked about the width of his driveway and the suggestion to narrow it from 192 feet to 40 feet. Ms. Danziger replied that most driveways are defined so that there is only one place to pull in and out. The width of 40 feet was not written in stone and could be changed, she added. Mr. McCauley stated that he has large vehicles that use his facility and would like for it to stay 192 feet wide. Mr. Rockwell asked if there could be a compromise, to which Mr. McCauley replied no.
Alex Sackos, 15214 Goodrich Creek Lane, Baker City, explained that he owns property southeast of the interchange. He said that he does not want his property to be divided in order to accommodate the proposed alignment change for Best Frontage Road. He is opposed to the proposed alternative.
Craig Ward, 19271 Hughes Lane, Baker City, asked about two options that were not mentioned in the presentation. Ms. Rudi explained that these options were in the plan as historical information only and were not recommended for consideration.
Jon Croghan, 1025 Madison, Baker City, stated that he likes a different option that is not being recommended. This alternative is to widen Oregon 86 to three lanes. He suggested leaving the other roads as they are. Mr. Croghan also indicated that a speed study has been done on the area in question. Any changes need to be reasonable. He felt that the projected growth rate is not realistic. Ms. Danziger responded by explaining that the IAMP looks at “potential” build-out instead of “projected.” She continued that the option Mr. Croghan supports has been divided into three left turn lane projects.
Mark Sackos, 1425 Campbell Street, Baker City, indicated that he is very interested in what happens at interchange 302 as he owns a substantial amount of property in the area. He expressed his concern about the haste of the proceedings. There has not been enough time for the property owners and community to evaluate the plans. He asked the Commission to allow more time for review and discussion.
George Risdal, 43070 Hudson Road, Baker City, said that he did not feel that the IAMP was being developed with assistance from property owners in the area, as had been stated in a recent flyer. He is very much opposed to the realignment of Airport/Hudson Road.
Nancy Johnson, Olympia, Washington, agreed with previous testimony about the time line of the IAMP adoption. She felt that more time is needed and available, as no development is currently proposed in the area.
Lynn Burroughs, 42879 Hudson Road, Baker City, said that the projections were unrealistic. In response to her question, Ms. Green indicated that copies of the IAMP draft were available on the City’s web site, www.bakercity.com, at City Hall and the County Courthouse.
John and Donna Cummings, 42749 Hudson Road, Baker City, indicated their opposition to the IAMP.
Clay and Chris Gyllenberg, 42746 Hudson Road, Baker City, stated that they are also in opposition to the IAMP. They wondered why this project is even being considered with no development in the area at this time.
Kent Bailey, 3670 Cedar Street, Baker City, said that after listening to the testimony tonight, the best course of action would be to table this discussion. He agrees that more time is needed to review the plan.
Phil Burroughs, 42879 Hudson Road, Baker City, asked if the Best Frontage Road extension south to interchange 304 is being considered. This solution would perhaps solve some of the problems that are being discussed.
At this time, no further public testimony was taken by the Commission.
Mr. Blair stated that this is a significant change that is not urgent at this time. Ms. Rudi agreed. She added that she is concerned about the proposals, though they have been narrowed down significantly since the first draft. However, she feels that there still needs to be some refinement of the IAMP before it’s adopted.
Mr. Rockwell said that the consultants have come up with the best solutions they can at this time, but that they are not agreeable to the property owners in the area. One thing that doesn’t seem to be understood is that the projects will not be completed unless traffic increases as a result of development in the area. If no development occurs, the projects won’t occur with the exception of proposed safety changes such as the Cedar/Hughes intersection. He agreed that the Commission and the public need more time to review the draft.
The other Commissioners agreed with this. Mr. Ellingson asked the consultants if they would be available for questions from the public. Ms. Green replied that they are accessible to anyone who wants to discuss the project.
Mr. Ellingson made a MOTION to table this discussion until the following meeting, which was seconded by Mr. Burnside. Mr. Blair stated that the next meeting may or may not include a public hearing. Ms. Rudi said that she understands what the State is trying to do for the community. She felt that the entire community should consider what could potentially happen in the area.
With all in favor, the motion to table CARRIED.
Public Meeting on Resort Street Plan. This item was TABLED until the next meeting.
Adjourn. With no other business to discuss, the meeting was ADJOURNED at 10:25 p.m.