March 16, 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 Mr. Blair, Rob Ellingson, Laurie Woodworth, Ken Rockwell, Wayne Burnside, Sharon Rudi and Wes Elder. Also present were City Attorney Tim Collins and Community Development Director Jennifer Watkins.

Chairman Blair then asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 2005. Mr. Ellingson pointed out that on page one a reference to “Jerry” Johansson should be “Gary” Johansson and on page 3 a reference to a fact that RV’s are approaching “15 feet in height” should be “13 feet in height”. With these corrections Ellingson made a MOTION to approve the amended minutes. Mr. Elder seconded the motion and it CARRIED with a unanimous vote in favor.

Mr. Blair then opened discussion on the Resort Street area Improvement Plan. He noted that while the Commission was to receive input on the various elements of the plan, discussion of the “Sample Room” located on a portion of the property involved is not on the agenda and the Commission would not receive testimony on that item. He stated that the function of the Commission is to recommend to the City Council approval of the overall layout of the plan including its transportation and safety elements. The disposition of the “Sample Room” is properly left to the City Council.

Jennifer Watkins, Community Development Director, then reviewed the details of the four elements of the Resort Street Plan. These are construction of the Leo Adler Memorial Parkway from its present terminus at Madison south along the Powder River to the resumption of the parkway at Washington, widening of Resort Street sidewalks and installation of lights and street trees, construction of a parking lot and central park in the area between Resort Street and the Powder River opposite of Court, and, finally, construction of the Court Street Plaza on the block of Court Street located between Main and Resort.

Ms. Watkins explained that the City was seeking a grant of approximately $850,000 to assist in the construction of the parkway along the river. The funding would also assist in acquiring certain property to expand the area available for the park and parking in the central downtown area. She expected to hear if the grant was successful in the near future. The streetscape improvements along Resort Street would include a spur from the Resort Street sidewalk to the Leo Adler Memorial Parkway south of Kings. This will provide another access point from the parkway to the downtown community. The wider sidewalks would allow for shared bicycle/pedestrian uses for the sidewalk.

The actual design of the parking lot and central park has not been finalized since the City is still in the process of acquiring property and it is unclear at this time which land will be available for development. The City has committed itself to construct at least 150 parking spaces in this area and in order to do this while maintaining an adequate area for green space, it will be necessary to acquire slightly more property. The Court Street Plaza would entail the closing of Court Street between Main and Resort and installation of features such as an information kiosk.

Mr. Rockwell asked the status of the north-south alleyway through the park. Ms. Watkins stated that the alley would provide pedestrian access to the park from both Washington and Valley. Mr. Rockwell also asked if the City thought it would be able to acquire the parcels of land that were necessary to construct the parkway along the river. Ms. Watkins stated that Tabor Clarke, Chairman of the Leo Adler Memorial Parkway Committee, has been working on this for sometime and has met with positive reaction from the various property owners. Virtually all owners have been contacted and no particularly negative reaction has been exhibited. Mr. Rockwell stated that he was concerned that the final design of the park would provide adequate and safe access to the lot from Washington as well as Resort.

Mr. Blair stated that he was somewhat concerned that expanding the Resort Street sidewalk would cause a narrowing of the street and make the present diagonal parking there less safe. Mr. Rockwell noted that it might be possible for the diagonal parking to be changed back to parallel since at least 150 off-street parking spaces will be added. Mr. Rockwell agreed that diagonal parking on a narrower street would cause some problems. He questioned how the City could handle snow plowing since they wouldn’t be able to plow it to the center of the street as has been previously done. Mr. Collins stated that the City had already made plans to pick up the snow after each snow event. Mr. Rockwell questioned why we would need a shared bike/pedestrian sidewalk when we already have the parkway. Ms. Watkins stated that the cost to add the additional sidewalk width was minimal compared to the overall cost of the project and planning for the sidewalk gives the City alternative projects if funding is not there for both. The plan also talks about bulb-outs on the sidewalk to make the crossing distance less and thereby enhance pedestrian safety. Mr. Rockwell noted that some elements of the park plan, notably a river access feature, may be adversely affected by the development of ice jams along the river in the winter.

In answer to a question from Mr. Ellingson, Ms. Watkins perceived the role of the Planning Commission to review the elements of the plan thus far presented by Jon Bertram of Planmakers, Inc., and to receive public comment on these elements. Mr. Ellingson asked if the buildings that are presently along Resort Street would stay there or if the City planned to purchase these and remove. Ms. Watkins stated that the buildings that now remain on Resort would stay.

Mr. Blair then called for public testimony. Jim Van Duyn, 2195 Main Street, stated that because of his training as an architect, he felt he had some expertise to offer in urban design. He noted that the Commission stated that the plan is conceptual at this point however he noted that once designs are written down, they tend to take on a life of their own and become hard to change. He cautioned the Commission about taking all of the elements on the conceptual plan as being fixed in stone. The purpose of meetings such as this one is to provide comments that may lead to design changes. He noted that the public has had very little input on the plan to date. He was one of approximately 75 people who were present last June at a meeting to discuss the Resort Street project. The project designer Jon Bertram was present there and mentioned that the plans would be revised to take into account some of the comments. Mr. Van Duyn stated that in spite of that, they had not been. Mr. Van Duyn is also concerned that the City be held to the same design standards that private development is. This is particularly true in the area of parking lot development.

Speaking as an individual, he is aware that both Baker County Unlimited (BCU) and Historic Baker City, Inc., (HBC) have given letters to the City to forward to the Oregon Transportation Commission in support of the City’s grant request. These letters however, were conditioned on public input being allowed. He does not feel that has happened yet in this case. He does not feel that HBC or any other organization has been involved though he did admit that some elements of the plan were clearly drawn from previous downtown development plans.

Mr. Van Duyn stated that he was concerned that the land between Resort and the Powder River is limited and that too much has been proposed as a parking lot. He felt that only so much that is necessary to support the convention center proposed by the owners of the Geiser Grand hotel should be put in and that the City should look at other areas in the downtown region to supply additional parking. He also felt that the plans were in error in calling for the removal of some of the houses on the north side of Valley. He felt that expanding the parking lot in this direction would adversely affect that neighborhood and that the City should be developing more urban area housing and not less. Most cities that he is aware of are trying to get more housing near downtown and the plan before the Commission has the opposite effect. He noted that the park should have a design all its own once its dimensions are known and that they should not be thrown in as simply an afterthought. The City further must recognize that restrooms and landscaping are maintenance costs and it will need to provide for them in the future.

Mr. Van Duyn then furnished the Commission with a drawing that he had made of an alternative plan for the park and parking area. He has worked with Greg Sackos in the past and Mr. Sackos, owner of property along Resort in this area has previously approached the City to trade some of his land in this area for other City property. While that trade never came about he is confident that Mr. Sackos would still be willing to consider it. This would allow the construction of a connecting portal between the Court Street Plaza and the park itself. As a consultant for the owners of the Geiser Grand, he recognizes that the 150 parking spaces which the City has committed to need to be in the immediate area of the hotel and this space is, for all practical purposes, where they must be located. Neighboring streets will necessarily receive a good portion of the traffic generated by the conference center and the diagonal parking on Main Street may not be feasible. His plan shows a visitor center in the area of the “Sample Room” and he felt it may be possible to convert that building into such a center.

Ms. Rudi asked if he was suggesting residential properties be developed along the river. Mr. Van Duyn said that no, he recommends that it remain as a park however it could be left in a natural state to reduce maintenance demands. Ms. Rudi pointed out that only one house on Valley is really substantial. The ones to the west of that home are very dilapidated and she did not feel they were worth saving. Mr. Blair stated that he thought that stakeholders in the project should hold there own meetings and come back to the Commission when they had settled on ideas to suggest. Mr. Van Duyn stated that he felt the City had an obligation to hold hearings in this matter and to develop public ideas.

Mr. Rockwell questioned whether the project architect, Jon Bertram, would help revise the plan. Ms. Watkins stated that he was committed to do so and he had hoped to be present at this meeting however he was unable to do so. She has all of the comments from the June meeting and has presented them to Mr. Bertram. Ms. Watkins stated that she would be glad to arrange at least one and maybe more workshops on the park project in the very near future.

Ed Moses, 1720 Auburn, stated that he supported Mr. Van Duyn’s ideas for more input. His main concern is that the City doesn’t just use the entire area as a parking lot. He feels that Dwight and Barbara Sidway have done an excellent job in restoring the Geiser Grand Hotel however he feels that it would be enhanced by additional green space along the river rather than simply a parking lot.

Andrew Bryan, 1915 Main, stated that he echoed the concern about public input and he agrees that as much residential property as possible should be maintained on Valley. In his business as a downtown coffee shop owner, he sees a number of tourists and he has to remind many of them that a river runs right through the middle of Baker City.

Scotty Haskell, 1490 Resort, stated that she supports the request for public input and also mentioned that she thought the Court Street Plaza would be a bad idea. She did not feel that the weather in Baker City was conducive to open plaza activities.

Mike Braymen, 2320 Estes, stated that he liked the concept of both park and the parkway. He has been to conventions in other cities and felt that a corridor leading from the convention site to a peaceful pathway along the river was important.

Gary Dielman, 1515 Fourth Street, stated that it was interesting that it was almost exactly 100 years ago that the City Council had discussions about where to place the first City Park. They ultimately located it on the present site of Geiser-Pollman Park and the City has not added any green space since. He likes the idea to improve the Resort Street area as it will serve to beautify what has been more of an alley in the past.

Tom Kulog, 1813 Main Street, asked if there were any ongoing discussions with property owners in the area. Ms. Watkins stated that they had some previous discussion, but nothing firm since they did not know if they were going to receive a grant from the State for this development. When they hear for sure they can undertake such discussions. Mr. Rockwell asked if Mr. Kulog had any comments on other parts of the plan. Mr. Kulog stated that he felt that the central park and parking lot were the primary elements of the plan and should be done first.

Mr. Bryan noted that he had worked on an earlier committee for downtown development and that it had worked on routing the parkway along Resort. He thinks that it would be a good idea.

Sharon Rudi stated that in her three terms on the Planning Commission, she has consistently heard cries from business owners that the City needs to draw people to the center of town. She thinks that the City Council and the Planning Commission want the same thing as the persons who have testified at this meeting. Parking then is a necessity if people are to be attracted to downtown. She stated that this is not an adversarial process and that everyone very much wants the same thing for its community. Mr. Blair stated that it was obvious to him that more input was needed and Ms. Watkins reiterated her willingness for the City staff to hold workshops.

Suzanne Moses, 1729 Auburn, stated that this entire development is a great project that belongs to everyone not just the ones who live nearby. When she thinks of other cities that she is attracted to, she noted that they all have some sort of peaceful green space near the downtown area and that there needs to be a connection between the space along the river and the downtown commercial district.

Brandy Ulrey, 2510 Indiana, agreed that more opportunity for public input is needed and that the process that started last June had waned. It needs to start again. She also stated that there may be some safety issues with narrowing Resort Street because it is still used for deliveries to businesses whose storefronts are on Main. She is opposed to closing Court Street for this reason. She agreed that perhaps it could be narrowed some with streetscape features; however, it needs to remain open. If it was narrowed and parking removed, they would lose eight spaces next to their business however this would not bother her if the parking lot toward the river were developed and employees and business owners could use those spaces.

Bev Calder, 1426 Dewey, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to be heard. She stated that Mr. Bertram was told not to include the June comments in any revision and that he was eager to come back and listen to more public input. Ms. Calder noted that the City needs to get more people involved, especially owners along Resort since she understood that part of funding for the project might be a local improvement district. If the property owners along Resort are going to pay for the project obviously their voices should be heard. She agrees that the residential property should be kept along Valley as well.

Ms. Calder stated that she felt the connection to downtown from the LAMP just immediately south of the Kings store is a major plus and in fact she is not sure if the pathway has to continue along the river since bicycle and pedestrian traffic can come over to the downtown area along this connection. She also felt that Court Street, if it were to remain open, could perhaps be considered a “shared street” using a concept that allows both pedestrians and vehicles to use the street.

There was no more testimony at this time and Mr. Blair asked Commission members what their wishes were in this matter. Mr. Burnside asked if there was any particular timeline for the project. Ms. Watkins stated that there was no huge rush and that the City could and should take the time to do it right. The park and parking area probably will be first although fundraising for the other things will probably go on at the same time. If the ODOT grant is achieved, the City would have funding to proceed with both parkway development and property acquisition. Mr. Ellingson asked when the City would be obligated to provide the parking. Ms. Watkins stated that it would be at the same time that the conference center is opened. This would late 2006 or early 2007.

Mr. Bryan asked how all of the ideas that are put forth by the public are going to be put into the final design. Mr. Collins stated that the City Council has the ultimate decision making authority for the project.

Mr. Blair summarized the hearing at that point stating that it was the CONSENSUS of the Commission to ask the staff to hold more public hearings on this matter and then to return to the Commission when plans are more developed.

Mr. Blair then called for the hearing on Planning Commission Case No. 05-AV-01, a request to vacate a portion of the alley located in the block bounded by 16th and 17th Street on the east and west and Broadway and Court on the north and south. Mr. Collins then gave a staff report detailing the application by Baker School District 5J to vacate the alley in the north half of this block. The area involved has been developed as the Churchill School property since at least the 1930’s. The alley has never been developed and in fact runs right under Churchill School. Mr. Collins also mentioned that the petition to vacate the alley had been accompanied by approvals by all public utilities as well as affected City departments. The criteria for street or alley vacation are set forth in city statute and basically involve a determination that the right-of-way is not needed for further public use.

There was no proponent or opponent testimony and the only comments received from Chuck Goodman, 3080 D Street, who stated that he owns a rental property immediately south of the school tennis court on 17th. He was present at the meeting to make sure that the alley was not vacated south of the school district property. He was assured that it would not be, and if fact, could not be vacated without his specific approval.

There was no other testimony and Chairman Blair closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Rockwell stated that based on the testimony received and the criteria of the ordinance, he would make a MOTION to recommend to the City Council that the alley in the north half of the block bounded by 16th and 17th Street on the east and west and Broadway and Court on the north and south should be vacated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ellingson and CARRIED with a unanimous vote.
The final matter of business was further consideration of the issue of short-term vacation rentals and properties in Baker City and their regulation. Mr. Collins summarized previous discussions of the Commission in this matter and asked them to confirm that such rentals would be a conditional use in one or more residential zones of the City. Mr. Ellingson stated that as far as he was concerned, they could be in any zone of the City but should have a conditional use permit first just as bed and breakfasts establishments. Ms. Rudi stated that she felt the matter was truly a non-issue at present however there may be some such homes in the future. Mr. Collins stated that his original suggestion was that property owners have to notify the City of a local person who can be present at the property within four hours if there should be any problem. Mr. Ellingson stated that he felt this should be two hours. Mr. Blair agreed stating that he would also like to see the name of the local contact person be placed in some fashion on the building so that emergency personnel responding to the site would know who to contact. It was the CONSENSUS of the Commission that the owner of any vacation rental should be required to put the name and address of a responsible party in a window of the building where it can be seen from the outside. Also the responsible person must be able to respond to the site within two hours. The previous suggestion had been that the scale, building materials and colors of the building be consistent with the neighborhood and not be used to draw attention to the structure. The Commission agreed that this language should be modified to say that these items “should” not be used to draw attention to the structure. After these changes were noted, Mr. Blair asked Mr. Collins to furnish the Commission with the regulations on short-term vacation rentals placed in ordinance form. If there are no comments from Commission members, the staff should feel free to take the matter before the City Council with their recommendation.

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