PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 16, 2005
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Acting Chairman Rob Ellingson. Members present included Mr. Ellingson, Laurie Woodworth, Ken Rockwell, and Wes Elder. Sharon Rudi, Wayne Burnside and Chairman Blair were absent. Also present was City Attorney Tim Collins and City Building Inspector Roy Merriman.
Upon the MOTION of Elder, seconded by Rockwell, and a unanimous vote of the members present, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 2005 were approved as presented.
The first item of business was a discussion of the Baker City Development Code provision that limits the height of accessory structures in the residential zones to 14 feet. Gary Johansson, 1603 10th St., stated that he hoped to build a 30’ x 40’ accessory building on his property and that he wanted a 14’ sidewall and a 4-12 pitch roof. This would mean the average height of the gable (the criteria in the City ordinance for measuring building height) would be 16.5’. He stated that his RV that he wishes to keep in the building is 11’6” high and therefore he needs a 12’ high door. Mr. Ellingson asked why Mr. Johansson was planning on a 4-12 roof when a shallower one would make the building less tall. Mr. Johansson stated that he wanted this pitch to make sure that snow slides off the roof and also he thinks it’s the normal type of design for buildings of this nature.
Mr. Merriman stated that the pitch of a roof is purely aesthetic since the trusses will be designed for the strength needed. Flat roof buildings are more likely to leak but he did not feel that would be a problem with any of the pitch roofs being discussed. Mr. Ellingson stated that he continues to struggle with the issue of large accessory buildings being constructed in densely populated residential areas. They could certainly have the possibility of impacting the property values of surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Merriman then explained to Mr. Johansson and the Commission how trusses could be designed to allow the 12’ door that Mr. Johansson feels he needs and still remain within the 14’ maximum height limitation. This is possible even without resorting to sliding doors or a coil door set-up. Mr. Ellingson encouraged Mr. Johansson to redesign his building to bring the height within the present ordinance limitation. It was noted that in the ordinance, change would necessarily take at least four months and that by redesigning the building Mr. Johansson could construct it prior to that time.
Richard Gushman, 835 ½ D Street, stated that he would also like to build an accessory building taller than the 14 foot limitation. In his situation the property, which he purchased last fall, already has a 24’ x 40’ shop constructed on it. The roof has a 4-12 pitch and there is a 10 foot door. His pick-up camper combination is 11’10.5” tall and he has been forced to store it at his previous residence in Washington because he can not get it inside the existing accessory building. He would like to add on to the front of the existing building and put in a 14 foot door to be safe. With the 4-12 pitch roof and matching the design of the original building his structure would be 18 feet high. Because this building is only 24’ wide, the scissor truss method which would enable Mr. Johansson to lawfully construct his building, would not assist Mr. Gushman as much.
In further discussion on Mr. Gushman’s accessory building it was noted that if the building were connected to his home then the height limitations would not apply. He stated that he was not sure how connecting the accessory structure to his house and then adding on to it would affect the side and rear yard requirements in his zone. He was encouraged to contact Mr. Collins at City Hall to see if there was another way around this problem. Mr. Gushman also reported that he was presently able to keep his camper inside a shorter building by taking it off the pick-up outside the building and placing it on a small dolly. He then wheels it into the structure for storage. When he wishes to use it he simply wheels it out and places it back on the pick-up. While possible, it is inconvenient and he wishes to be able to bring it inside while it’s still on the pick-up.
Alan Blair arrived at this time however Acting Chairman Ellingson continued to chair the meeting.
Mr. Blair stated that his research shows that approximately 15% of the 5th Wheel market is so called “deluxe” RV’s and that these are approaching 13’ in height. Average motor homes are presently 11’8” to 11’10” however an increasing portion of that market is going to 12’6”. He had recently spoken to a large RV dealer who stated that the RV’s which kept the air conditioning under the main living space were not working out well and they will need to go back on top, thus increasing the height of the RV. These dealers recommend a 14’ door which would not be possible under current ordinance unless the roof was completely flat.
Howard Britton, 3480 Place Street, stated that he was testifying on behalf of the realtor community. He stated that they had unanimously taken the position that the height restriction should be removed. He stated that he had, on a number of occasions, spoken to people who wished to relocate to Baker City but found that they could not build an accessory structure big enough to accommodate their RV. These people do not wish to keep the RV’s on a storage lot because there is little, if any, covered parking for them. H e stated that the Commission could look at Dan Marks’ house at 2608 5th Street to see the example of a 20’ x 40’ accessory building with 16’ sidewalls and a 3-12 roof. It has a 14’ door. The overall height of the structure, as measured by the City’s Development Code, would be 18 ½ feet, well in excess of the present restriction of 14 feet. He does not think that this building looks obtrusive and should not bother any neighbors. He did suggest that perhaps the pitch of the roof could be restricted to keep overall height down.
Mr. Blair asked Mr. Merriman what the minimum practical pitch of a roof would be. Mr. Merriman stated that with the metal roof, he sees no problem with a 2-12 pitch roof. He has constructed 1-12 pitch roofs for commercial buildings and thinks they work fine as well.
Mr. Rockwell brought up the idea of requiring a larger setback for taller buildings. Mr. Britton stated that this might work however it would be hard to save since lots of the older, developed lots in town are fairly small and accessory buildings usually have to be located with minimum setbacks. He suggested that perhaps the Commission should institute a Conditional Use Permit process so that each application could be considered on its own merits. Mr. Blair suggested that the Commission might wish to institute additional setbacks of perhaps one foot taller building allowed for each two feet additional setback. He stated that basically the Commission can either recommend to the Council that the maximum height be raised, that it be left alone, that it be raised with additional setbacks, or that it be raised with some sort of Conditional Use Permit process. He reminded the Commission that the RV industry reports a larger market share for “deluxe” RV’s that are close to or even over 12’ tall.
Mr. Woodworth stated that it did not appear to him that the Commission could make a rule that would fit all cases so he suggested that the Planning Commission lay out a basic rule and be willing to look at special cases. Mr. Rockwell agreed that it could be an appropriate course of action however he would like to add the setback addition as a further requirement to this.
While the Commission was unable to agree on a particular course of action, it was the CONSENSUS that a modification needs to be made to the present 14’ standard. Mr. Rockwell suggested that perhaps the matter could be put over until the next meeting so that the Commission could consider the various alternatives.
Mr. Johansson stated that he wanted to put up his building now and he did not wish to wait another month. It was pointed out that it would take four months at a minimum to change the law and that Mr. Merriman had already indicated methods of construction that Mr. Johansson could use to construct his needed building. Mr. Johansson stated that he understood those alternatives however he wants to construct the building the way he had originally designed it.
Mr. Ellingson stated that perhaps the Commission should simply recommend a 16’ maximum height or, in the alternative, a Conditional Use Permit process. It was the CONSENSUS of the Commission that staff be instructed to prepare two alternative ordinances dealing with the situation. The first of these would retain the maximum height at 14’ however it would allow a Conditional Use Permit in appropriate circumstances for accessory structures up to 18’ tall. The alternative ordinance would simply be to raise the height to 16 feet. Mr. Collins was asked to send out the appropriate notice to DLCD so that a public hearing could be held on these two ordinances at the April meeting.
The second item of business was discussion of Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVR). Due to the lateness of the hour, this matter was tabled until the March meeting. Mr. Collins was asked to bring a proposed ordinance change to that meeting allowing STVR provided a Conditional Use Permit is first obtained (much like bed and breakfasts). Certain standards would be required in any case such as the necessity of a license, contact people who can respond promptly to any problem and further that the scale of the home be consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood.
There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 pm.