PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

January 19, 2005

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chairman Alan Blair.  Members present included Sharon Rudi, Laurie Woodworth, Wayne Burnside, Ken Rockwell, Rob Ellingson Wes Elder and Chairman Blair.   Also present was City Attorney Tim Collins

Upon the MOTION of Ellingson, seconded by Rudi, and a unanimous vote, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2004 were approved as presented.

Chairman Alan Blair then called for the Public Hearing on case number 04-CUP-13, a request by Steve Jones for permission to remodel the old Churchill School building at 17th and Broadway for use as government offices.  Mr. Blair then read a statement outlining the procedure to be followed at the meeting and also asked if there were any ex-parte contacts or conflicts of interest to disclose.  All members of the Commission indicated that they had viewed the property and that they were familiar with its location in the neighborhood.  Sharon Rudi stated that she represented Mr. Jones on another project and therefore she would abstain from taking any part in this particular application.

City Attorney Collins then read the Staff Report outlining the application and the criteria to be used for the Conditional Use Permit.  It was noted that “government offices” are allowed in the Medium-Density Residential zone provided a Conditional Use Permit is first obtained. Mr. Ellingson pointed out that the Staff Report stated the nearest industrial land is five blocks to the west when in fact it is to the east.  Mr. Rockwell asked if there were any right-of-way problems that Mr. Collins knew of regarding 16th, 17th, or Broadway streets bordering the property.  Mr. Collins stated there were no problems with the streets, however there is a platted, but unopened alley that bisects the property (and building).  The School District has picked up the necessary forms from the City to commence an alley vacation procedure.

Steve Jones, 765 View Court, Baker City, Oregon, stated that he has an agreement with Baker School District 5J to purchase the Churchill School and is attempting to respond to a “Hot Sheet” put out by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services for proposals to lease 19,000 square feet of office space to a variety of state agencies.  Churchill School was built at least seventy years ago and has been vacant for the last two years.  The School District concurs in Mr. Jones’ request.  Mr. Rockwell asked if the property to be purchased includes the HeadStart program property adjoining to the south.  Mr. Jones stated that it would not.  The proposed parking lot for his office building would be approximately 100 feet or so from the HeadStart boundary.  Mr. Ellingson inquired as to whether Mr. Jones had plans for expansion of the Churchill School building.  Mr. Jones stated that while there is an additional 8,000 or 9,000 square feet of space in the basement it is not really usable because of limited headroom.  Expansion could occur to the south into the present parking lot area; however he has no plans to do so.  Mr. Jones stated that he would be able to expand the parking lot further south if that should occur.  Access to the parking lot will be from 16th Street and he plans no access from 17th Street at all.  His plan is to clean up the Broadway Street side and the 17th Street side of the building with fences and landscaping.

Chairman Blair asked if Mr. Jones had planned anything like daycare facilities for the office workers at the site.  Mr. Jones stated that he was only thinking about a small playground near the parking lot and had no plans at all for a regular daycare facility.  Mr. Ellingson inquired whether the building had been evaluated by an industrial hygienist.  Mr. Jones stated that School District 5J has done a number of such studies in the recent past and these show that the building is actually fairly clean.  The only asbestos disclosed is from 9”x9” tile which he will remove.

In response to a question from Chairman Blair, Jones stated that he is proposing access from 16th Street because it will be easier to access the main entrance to the building (which he will move to the rear) from the parking lot on that side.  This is also the area that has the handicap access availability.  The gymnasium may be left the way it is now however he is not sure what the state would require for that space.  There will probably be approximately 60 employees and DAS has requested 19,000 square feet of office space with 72 parking spaces.  The lease would be for a ten year period with options to renew. 

Mr. Woodworth asked if there were any other exits from the site.  Mr. Jones stated that there would be two pedestrian fire exits on the west side of the building itself, but no vehicular exits from the property to the west. 

Mr. Rockwell stated that he was concerned about the appearance of the west side of the building and inquired how much setback there was on that side from the property line.  Mr. Jones stated that he has not had it surveyed however from the aerial photos it looks like there is little side yard on that side.  He had not planned to put a sidewalk in on that side however would do so if requested.  Mr. Rockwell stated that it is difficult to reconcile this large building with the single family dwelling residential neighborhood in which it is located. It would help if the landscaping, fencing, and sidewalk for the office building could be made as similar as possible to the existing neighborhood.  Mr. Jones stated that he was thinking of putting a small fence inside the sidewalk on Broadway to close that side off.  He had not yet decided how he might create the same effect on 17th Street.  He will be removing the tennis court fence and replacing it with a modest size one. 

Mr. Rockwell then questioned the proposed parking lot lighting.  Mr. Jones stated that he did not plan to have any except perhaps some on the back side of the building as security.  It was noted that parking lot lighting could be an important issue in the residential neighborhood and that it should, at any event, be directed away from nearby properties.  Also in a response to a question from Rockwell, Jones stated that he planned nothing except a minimal sign and this would probably be located on the 16th and Broadway corner of the property.  His plan is to redo all the windows in the building and to re-roof the shingled part of the south side.  The gymnasium roof may or may not be repaired.  He would not however change the outward appearance of the structure by adding additional windows on the west side unless so required by the state.

There was no further proponent testimony and Chairman Blair then asked if there were any objections to the application. 

Bill Harvey, 14529 South Rock Creek Lane, stated that he was opposed to the application as presented.  He said that when addressing a change of zoning the Commission must look at need and that there are a number of other buildings in town which could potentially meet the requirements set forth by the Department of Administrative Services.  Mr. Harvey quoted from language in the Development Code that mentions strengthening the downtown area as the commercial core of the city.  He stated that he would consider allowing an office building in a residential zone as being a drastic change and would be the same as simply throwing out the code entirely. He stated that changing this building’s use to an office building would also be quite a change for the neighborhood since there were only 10-12 cars there in the past and this would add significant traffic to the neighborhood.  Further, these streets are not priority snow removal streets and this could cause difficulty in the winter.  Mr. Harvey also showed the Commission a copy of the zoning map which shows that commercial zones are located elsewhere in the city and that this location is some distance away from any of them.  He has checked with the state and no lease has been signed and any further consideration is conditional upon this permit.  The intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance (Development Code) is to draw business and offices to the central core for easier access.  Further, 17th Street is across the tracks from the main center of town and Broadway has no bike lanes or striped lanes for easy pedestrian or bicycle access.  He felt the City should keep commercial use concentrated and should reject this application for a special favor to make a drastic change to the code.  Mr. Ellingson asked if any of the owners of the vacant buildings listed by Mr. Harvey had submitted a proposal to the State.  Mr. Harvey stated that he did not know if they had.  Chairman Blair stated that it looked to him as if a number of these were smaller than requested by the State.  He wondered if they could be modified.  Mr. Harvey stated that at least six of them that he knew of could be modified by adding space to meet the request.  In response to a question from Mr. Ellingson, Mr. Harvey stated that he personally had also submitted a request for the State on a “build to suit” basis, but that they had informed him that they would consider existing buildings first.  He felt that this was unfair on their part.  Mr. Rockwell pointed out that the application before the Commission is not to build a 19,000 square foot office building, but to determine whether or not the existing building could be used for that purpose.  He asked Mr. Harvey if he didn’t consider that different from a new building.  Mr. Harvey stated that he didn’t consider it to be any different and that the City should require that other buildings be occupied first. 

City Attorney Collins reminded the Commission that government offices were an allowed use in the medium-density residential zone and simply require a Conditional Use Permit first.  The applicant is not requesting a zone change and public need and availability of other sites are not part of the criteria.  The criteria are basically involved with the impact of this particular use on the setting on which it is located.  Mr. Harvey’s remarks about traffic in the neighborhood and the impact on them are completely relevant; however a discussion of alternative sites does not fit standards of the ordinance. 

Bev Calder, 1246 Dewey Avenue, stated that she was not really opposed to the application; however she would like the Commission to keep their focus on concentrating commercial uses downtown.  Ms. Calder stated that in the past the State has directed that their offices look for space in the downtown area and that this has been done in Baker City before and has led to a great deal of investment in our community.  She stated that the DAS offices that would be located in the building are businesses that meet the needs of the poorest of our citizens and that locating it out on 17th and Broadway is not the best place to put it for public access.  The State request put out by a Salem office is not necessarily in keeping with our community’s values.  She agreed with Mr. Harvey that Broadway is not the best place to walk or bike and she thought the offices should remain downtown.

Mr. Ellingson asked the applicant, Steve Jones, if the State had told him of other sites they are considering.  Mr. Jones stated that to his knowledge the State is still considering his site at Churchill School, office space in Baker Towers and the Forestry Building on 10th Street.  His understanding however; is that the Forestry Building would have to be greatly enlarged to offer enough space and that Baker Towers has a lack of parking.  The owners of the three properties have been invited to Salem on January 20th to discuss the matter in person with DAS.

Pam Van Duyn, 14545 Angel Lane, stated that she understood that the criteria put before the Commission should be limited to the impact of the building on the neighborhood.  Keeping this in mind, she would be concerned about the increase in traffic that this use would generate. The last traffic count that the City has is from 1995.  She suggested that an updated study be done.  It is true that the site was a location of an elementary school for many decades however she views a neighborhood school as completely different from a State office building.  She does believe in adaptive reuse of historic structures however she thinks this one might be better served by being remodeled into residential units.

There was no further testimony and Chairman Blair closed the Public Hearing.

Laurie Woodworth stated that he was worried that the Commission may be missing some things by deciding the issue tonight.  He wanted to take a further look at whether or not it would be a good idea to expand the commercial areas of town.  He would like to hold off on a decision so that he could do some more research.  Mr. Burnside said that he appreciated the comments from all persons who had testified and he also wished extra time to discuss it.  It was noted that the task of the Planning Commission in a quasi-judicial hearing is to decide the matter based on the testimony and evidence produced at the hearing.  The Commission could, if it wished, reopen the hearing or continue it until a later date for more information however the evidence that would be used for the decision must all be brought out in the public so that both parties would have a chance to respond to it.  Mr. Rockwell stated that this may be not the best the decision by the State with regard to where to locate their office space however it is not the Planning Commission’s job to oversee that decision.  Rather it is their task to mitigate any impact that this use of the building would have on the neighborhood.  Mr. Ellingson stated that while he agreed generally with testimony from the audience, he also sees a need to use the building and keep it from simply deteriorating.  He did not think that the use as office space would have any particular impact on the neighborhood especially when compared to its previous use as a school.  Mr. Rockwell pointed out that no one from the neighborhood appeared at the Public Hearing to testify against the application or submitted written testimony.  Mr. Blair stated that he was somewhat concerned with using 16th Street as an entrance rather than the collector street 17th Street.  He did note thought that most traffic would only occur two times a day with workers coming to work in the morning and leaving in the evening.  There was certainly more foot traffic when the site was used as a school in the recent past and no problems were particularly noted.  Mr. Burnside inquired if the lease with the State was a sure thing or if it was still speculative.  Mr. Collins stated that from the application, it appears that Mr. Jones needs the Conditional Use Permit to continue his proposal to the State, but that nothing has been signed.

As the consensus of the Commission seemed to be that, with the proper conditions, this application could be approved, Chairman Blair then asked for discussion of those conditions.

The Commission generally felt that the Conditional Use Permit should be specific to the request put forth by the Department of Administrative Services in this particular “Hot Sheet”.  They also felt that any parking lot or security lighting should be installed so as not to shine directly on any neighbors and it should be hooded in such a fashion to shine downward.  The parking lot lighting should be on only during business hours except for necessary building security lighting.  The Commission felt that the 17th Street side of the building should be beautified and made more accessible.  To this end, the members decided to require installation of a sidewalk along the entire west side of the property with live plant landscaping from the sidewalk to the building and to whatever fence is installed to replace the tennis court fence.  Sidewalks should also be installed on the 16th Street side of the building from the existing sidewalk south to the north edge of the parking lot.  The parking lot fence on the 17th Street side of the building must be no more than four feet high and have a pedestrian gate located there for access.

The Commission also felt that the permit should be conditioned on full compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and the Uniform Building Code with regard to adequate water flows for fire protection.  Finally, the Commission decided that the application should be further conditioned on the provision that 72 off-street parking spaces be provided with parking lot landscaping as required by ordinance.

Mr. Burnside then MOVED to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions discussed.  Mr. Rockwell seconded the motion and it CARRIED with Blair, Burnside, Woodworth, Ellingson and Rockwell in favor, Elder opposed and Rudi abstaining.  Mr. Collins stated that he would prepare a draft decision for review by the Commission in the near future and that if they wished a further meeting to go over the actual language of the conditions, they should contact Chairman Blair.

The next item of discussion was implementation of a proposal from the 2001 Downtown Baker City Plan update that diagonal parking be installed on the east side of First Street from Place to Church and also on the east side of Resort from Broadway north to the north side of the King’s parking lot.

Pam Van Duyn, speaking as a member of the Board of Directors of HBC, stated that the plan itself had been adopted by the City Council in 2001 and that her organization was now recommending implementation of certain elements of the plan.  They feel that adding diagonal striping would add a number of additional parking spaces downtown at a minimal cost.  The overall plan called for diagonal parking on certain side streets as well, however HBC is requesting that the City start with an incremental approach to see how the public accepts the diagonal parking.  Presently Resort Street has diagonal parking for much of its length and, because of the width of the street; the parking is striped at a 60° angle.  If this particular angle were continued for the diagonal parking north of Broadway, it would increase parking spaces by 12 spaces per block.  The width of First Street from Place north is eight feet less than Resort and therefore the plan recommends a “softer” angle for that parking (45°).  Use of this design would increase allowable parking spaces from 10 per block to 16 per block.  Historic Baker City, Inc. has been in touch with many of the business owners along the streets in question and the large majority of owners are in favor of the change.

Chairman Blair stated that he understands the crown on First Street is quite high and he questioned whether a car would be able to back up that crown from a diagonal parking space when the road is snow covered.  He also noted that the City typically plows snow to the center of First Street and therefore there would be a berm blocking this backing maneuver.  Ms. Van Duyn stated that she knows of other communities with diagonal parking on many of their streets that are in snowy climes and they seem to manage okay.  Mr. Blair stated that as a boy growing up in Baker City he remembers many times having to push cars back out into the street from their diagonal parking space.  Ms. Van Duyn stated that the City may not be able to plow the snow to the center of the street with diagonal parking and may have to remove it more often however that would simply be a necessary cost of providing parking spaces downtown.  Mr. Woodworth mentioned that there has been a good deal of progress on the chemicals that can be applied to streets to prevent accumulation of snow and maybe this would be necessary.  Mr. Elder asked if there had been any studies of the existing diagonal parking on Resort Street to see if more accidents were reported.  Bev Calder, 1246 Dewey, stated that in fact studies show that diagonal parking lowers accident rates because drivers are more careful when both driving down the street and backing out.  Ms. Van Duyn stated that the plan called for the first stall of each block to be handicap parking only and the last one to be for compact cars.  This would assist in providing clear vision space at the corners.  Mr. Blair asked if the plan also addressed employee parking.  Ms. Van Duyn stated that the plan did address employee parking and HBC encourages all its members to have their employees park somewhere other than in the prime commercial neighborhood.  They have received good compliance with this request thus far.  Mr. Burnside noted that people will adapt to whatever parking is installed and he felt it ought to be given at least a trial period. 

Ms. Rudi then made a MOTION that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the plan for diagonal parking on First Street and Resort Street as set forth in the “Plan of Historic Baker City 2001” be implemented.  This motion was seconded by Mr. Burnside and APPROVED with a unanimous vote.

Under other business it was decided to table further discussion of short term vacation rentals until the next meeting due to the lateness of the hour.  Mr. Rockwell suggested that in the meantime Commission members might wish to give the matter some thought and perhaps email such considerations to other members so that the discussion might proceed in a more focused fashion at the next meeting.  He has recently sent out his thoughts on the matter which are basically that any short term vacation rental approved, whether it be through a conditional use process or as an outright use, should be similar to the outright uses already allowed in that neighborhood.  For example, if it is a low density neighborhood then the proposed vacation rental should cater to single families and not larger numbers of vacationers.  In the more dense zones, perhaps a more intense usage could be allowed.  Chairman Blair agreed that the matter should be tabled and asked that it be placed first on the next agenda.

There was no further business and the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm.