Agenda - 11/26/2007
CITY OF WOODBURN
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 26,2007 -7:00 P.M.
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1
RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II
PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III
JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV
FRANK lONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V
EUDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VI
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET
1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. The Mayor's Christmas Tree Lighting will be held on December 2,
2007 in the Downtown Plaza. There will be a reception at the
Settlemier House from 1 :00 to 4:00 pm with a tree lighting
ceremony at 5:30 followed by a candlelight procession from
the Settlemier House to the Downtown Plaza for the City's Tree
Lighting Ceremony. Dance Dance Dance and holiday musical
performers will provide entertainment, local vendors will be
selling food items, Santa will arrive, and the City Christmas Tree
will be lit at 6:30 p.m.
B. A Workshop on the Housing Code will be held on December 10
at 6 pm in the Council Chambers.
Appointments:
None.
4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Proda motions:
None.
Presentations:
None.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce
uHabrti interpretes ~isponibles para aquellas personas que no bablan Ingles, previo acuer~o. Comunlquese
al (503) 980-248s. u
November 26, 2007
Council Agenda
Page i
6. COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items
for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.
8. CONSENT AGENDA -Items listed on the consent agenda are considered
routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed
for discussion at the request of a Council member.
A. Woodburn City Council minutes of October 22, 2007 1
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes.
B. Woodburn Public Library minutes of October 17, 2007 8
Recommended Action: Accept the minutes.
C. Woodburn Planning Commission draft minutes of November 8, 16
2007
Recommended Action: Accept the minutes.
D. Claims for November 2007 21
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
E. Planning Project Tracking Sheet dated November 20, 2007 27
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
F. Building Activity for October 2007 31
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
G. Police Department Statistics for October 2007 32
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
H. Code Enforcement Statistics for October 2007 38
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
I. Community Services Department Statistics for October 2007 40
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
J. Tree Standards 41
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
November 26, 2007
Council Agenda
Page ii
9. TABLED BUSINESS
None.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Supplemental Budget 52
Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing, receive
public comment, and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate its decision.
B. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision in Cases VAR 59
2007-01 and DR 2006-17
Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing on the
appeal and affirm the decision of the Woodburn Planning
Commission.
11. GENERAL BUSINESS - Members of the public wishing to comment on items of
general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City
Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda.
Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative.
A. Council Bill 2686 - Ordinance amending Ordinance 2399 (the 129
Business Registration Ordinance) to eliminate the exemption for
producers of farm products (continued from October 8, 2007)
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
B. Council Bill 2691 - Resolution initiating consideration of 132
legislative amendments to the Woodburn Development
Ordinance for the year 2008
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution.
C. Front Street Project Status Update 143
Recommended Action: Receive a status update on the Front
Street reconstruction project, and provide staff with direction as
appropriate,
12. NEW BUSINESS
November 26, 2007
Council Agenda
Page iii
13. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These
are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that
may be called up by the City Council.
A. Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review 2007-09, 150
Variance 2007 -06, and Street Exception 2007 -07 located at 2775
N. Front Street
14. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
15. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
16. ADJOURNMENT
November 26, 2007
Council Agenda
Page iv
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, OCTOBER 22, 2007.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
0010 ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Figley
Bjelland
Cox
Lonergan
McCallum
Nichols
Sifuentez
Present
Present
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell,
Acting Public Works Manager Rohman, Community Development Director Allen,
Community Services Director Row, Finance Director Gillespie, City Recorder Tennant
Mayor Figley stated for the record that Councilor Cox was on vacation.
0028 ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Special Election - November 6,2007: Woodburn City Hall is a designated ballot
drop site for Marion County. Voters can deposit their ballots into the drop box during
regular business hours, however, the City Hall lobby will remain open on November (ih
until 8:00 p.m..
B) City Hall and the Library will be closed on Monday, November 12,2007, in
observance of Veteran's Day. The Aquatic Center will remain open for public use.
C) Workshop on Traffic Impact Fees will be held on Thursday, November 151\ 7:00
p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers.
D) Woodburn Police Department District Meetings will be held on the following dates
/ times:
District 2 - November 81h, 6:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers
District 3 - November 141h, 6:30 p.m., Woodburn Police Department Community Room
District 1 - November 291h, 9:45 a.m., Senior Estates Coffee Hour
An additional District 1 meeting will be scheduled in early December in the West
W oodbum area once a meeting location has been confirmed.
Mayor Figley stated that these meetings relate to advances the Police Department is
making in police efficiency and community policing. Chief Russell will be discussing
this issue in more detail at a later date.
Page I - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
1
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
0080 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Don Judson, Interim Chamber Executive Director, stated that November 1, 2007 will be
the 5th Annual Crystal Apple Awards event at the Woodburn Armory honoring excellence
in local education from the Woodburn School District, North Marion School District,
Gervais School District, St. Luke's, and Lord High School. This year there is a record
number of65 nominees. West Coast Bank originally, and continues to be, the primary
sponsor and he encouraged the public to attend this annual event.
In regards to the business license issue discussed at the last meeting, there has been some
movement on the resolution of this matter which will be back before the Council for
consideration at their next meeting.
0143 LETTER FROM BRUCE THOMAS. RECREATION AND PARKS BOARD
PRESIDENT.
Mr. Thomas thanked the Recreation Services Manager Patterson and Community
Services Director Row for their work in organizing the Front Street Playground
Reconstruction project and, on build day, their consistent hard work in getting the project
completed.
Mayor Figley also mentioned that Mr. Thomas was also at the park on build day and, like
many other volunteers, worked very hard that day. She stated that he also deserves credit
for his part in getting the playground project to its fruition.
0168 CONSENT AGENDA.
A) approve the Council Meeting minutes of October 8, 2007;
B) accept the draft Recreation and Park Board minutes of October 9, 2007;
C) accept the draft Planning Commission minutes of October 11,2007;
D) receive the Planning Activity report dated October 18, 2007;
E) receive the Police Department Statistics report for September 2007;
F) receive the Code Enforcement Statistics report for September 2007; and
G) accept the Highway 214/ Settlemier Avenue / Boones Ferry Road project update.
Acting Public Works Director Rohman stated that staff had originally hoped for a
September 2007 bid award but that has been delayed because ODOT went back and did
an environmental prospectus in addition to some plan changes. The City's consultants
did not get their plan changes back to ODOT in time for the December 2007 bid award
and the next available bid date is January 17,2008 with bid award by the end of February
2008, construction beginning in March 2008, and project completion by June 2008. Staff
will be working with the residents in that area regarding the project once it is closer to
being awarded since the plan specifications call for most of the work to be done in the
evening hours due to the high traffic volume during the day. It was also noted that this
project is two years behind in getting started.
Councilor McCallum thanked the Police Department for compiling the Code
Enforcement statistics and stated that ofthe 180 complaints there were approximately 66
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
2
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
animal complaints. He questioned what type of animal complaints were more likely to be
reported by residents.
Chief Russell stated that the complaints were most likely split between barking dogs,
animals at large, and animal care check. In regards to dog licensing, the City does
enforce the Marion County dog license law in those cases where Code Enforcement has
picked up a animal and whoever picks up the animal must obtain a Marion County dog
license upon release of the animal.
NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion
passed unanimously.
0415 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2689 - RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSIGNMENT OF A
CABLE FRANCHISE FROM WILLAMETTE BROADBAND. LLC TO
WAVEDIVISION VII. LLC.
Council Bill No. 2689 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read
the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
David Hankin, representing Wave Broadband, provided background infonnation on the
company which began in 2002. Corporate offices are located in Kirkland, Washington,
but company offices are also located in the San Francisco Bay area and Sacramento area.
They are cllrrently expanding to the Willamette Valley and services will be provided to
26 cities and counties in Oregon. They will be either providing new or upgrading
services to local residents such as various levels of high speed internet services, HDTV
programming, video on demand, and competitive telephone service. These services will
be put together either in packages or can be purchased separately.
Councilor Bjelland stated that one of the major issues for local residents involves
providing HDTV programming and he questioned when this programming will be made
available to residents.
Mr. Hankin stated that it may take up to one year to get all of the upgrades in place.
Councilor McCallum questioned if channel selection will be increased once the
acquisition takes place.
Mr. Hankin stated that their company does look at the channel line-ups and, if possible,
add channels at no additional cost to the consumer. In regards to customer service, they
will continue to have the customer service center at the Woodburn office but customers
can also contact the Kirkland, W A office as a back-up to the local office. When they do
take over the business from Willamette Broadband, there will be no immediate rate
increase to the customers.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared
Council Bill No. 2689 duly passed.
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
3
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
0722 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2690 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 103 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF COLLECTING A CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX AS
PROVIDED BY STATE LAW.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2690. The bill was read by title only
since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Lonergan questioned if the agreement regarding sharing school facilities had
been agreed to by the School District.
Administrator Brown provided background information on this new excise tax stated that
the City is allowed to be reimbursed for providing the collection service up to 1 % of the
amount oftotal allowable construction tax to be collected on the School District's behalf
which is a negligible amount annually based on a five-year projection (approximately
$3,500 annually). Staff felt that an agreement which would allow use of school
gymnasiums facilities at no charge to the City's youth basketball league, an annual
contribution to the Aquatic Center, and opening of playgrounds and recreational space to
the public at the end of the school day until dusk at certain schools within the City. The
City will be locking down the school playground facilities when they close the City parks
each evening. The School District does have a concern regarding unsupervised school
facilities and the potential for vandalism since they will not be as secure as they would
nonnally be. Police Department will also swing by the facilities while on patrol to deter
illegal activities. Staffs goal is to make better use of recreation fields and playground
areas for the recreational programs and for general public use. It was noted that
Washington School is not on the list of schools to be opened up for recreational uses
since the layout of the facility does not lend itself well for site distances or after hours
supervision. It is his understanding that the School Board is in favor of the agreement.
Councilor Lonergan felt that this is an excellent agreement for sharing facilities and
commended the School District and staff in reaching this agreement.
In regards to literature regarding the School Construction Tax, Administrator Brown
stated that it is the School District's responsibility to develop literature that City staff
would be distributing to developers. He anticipates some difficulty with builders
considering that the City fees are too high since they will look at all fees paid whether it
goes to the City or School District.
Councilor McCallum questioned if there was a provision in the agreement that would,
other than school functions, give the City priority over facility use.
Administrator Brown stated that school programs will take priority and the City will need
to reserve indoor space two weeks in advance.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared
Council Bill No. 2690 duly passed.
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
4
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
1047 BURLINGHAM PARK GRANT AGREEMENT.
Staff recommended the acceptance of the grant agreement which will provide $30,000 in
state funding towards the Burlingham Park Playground Replacement project.
NICHOLS/LONERGAN... authorize City Administrator to enter into a Local
Government Grant Agreement with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department for the
$30,000 grant awarded for the Burlingham Park Playground Replacement Project. The
motion passed unanimously.
1060 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL AWARD.
Staffrecomrnended the acceptance of the proposal from CH2M Hill to conduct five pilot
projects to evaluate and analyze if the technologies are capable of meeting the emerging
TMDL requirements for the City's wastewater plant.
NICHOLS/MCCALLUM.. Accept the proposal of CH2M Hill Inc. To conduct a pilot
study to analyze technologies to comply with Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
requirements for the City's wastewater treatment plant and authorize the City
Administrator to sign an agreement for professional services. The motion passed
unanimously.
1088 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - FULL ON-PREMISES SALES: CINCO de
MAYO TAOUERIA. 450 N. First Street.
An application was submitted by Roberto Caballero DBA Cinco de Mayo Taqueria for a
full on-premises sales liquor license which permits beer, wine, cider and hard alcohol for
on-premises consumption only.
SIFUENTEZ/BJELLAND... liquor license be awarded to Cinco de Mayo Taqueria.
Councilor McCallum questioned the number of businesses that have full on-premises
sales liquor licenses in the downtown area.
Chief Russell stated that there is at least one other business in the downtown area that has
a full on-premises sales liquor license.
Councilor McCallum stated that he has mixed emotions on allowing downtown
establishments to have a liquor license due to past difficulties involving alcohol use.
Councilor Lonergan agreed with Councilor McCallum and questioned if the City could
recommend a beer and wine license in lieu of the full on-premise sales license.
Chief Russell stated that the Council can only make a recommendation on the type of
liquor license applied for by the applicant.
Councilor Lonergan questioned the crime rate in the downtown area and the impact hard
liquor has on the crime rate.
Chief Russell stated that the downtown area has a higher grouping of certain types of
crime but there are also a lot more street businesses in that area versus other parts of the
City. He also stated that alcohol does contribute to crimes but making the distinction
between hard liquor and other alcohol such as beer and wine is not possible since any
alcohol has an affect on a person.
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
5
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
Councilor Nichols stated that he has a hard time with alcohol sales and consumption
since even today a recent news article related to a young boy calling 9-1-1 for help while
his mother was driving under the influence of alcohol. He is not in favor of
recommending approval of the license since he has seen or heard of too many incidents of
people being killed or injured for life as a result of alcohol consumption.
Councilor McCallum stated that part of the issue relates to making improvements to the
downtown area which includes keeping the livability standard high. He can appreciate
the restaurant business at that location but he would personally like to keep the hard
liquor out if at all possible.
Chief Russell stated that there is a requirement to serve food at anytime when there is a
full on-premises sales license. The applicant has followed all of the guidelines
established under Council Resolution and has voluntarily agreed to the compliance plan,
however, it is a policy decision on the part of the Council regarding the recommendation.
Councilor Lonergan expressed his appreciation to Chief Russell for obtaining the
voluntary compliance plan, however, karaoke entertainment leads to dancing which may
lead to more alcohol consumption and potential problems. He expressed his desire to
have recommend the license with a trial period attached even with the compliance plan.
Mayor Figley stated that downtown has a history of alcohol related problems and, as a
local jurisdiction, the City has little or no latitude under OLCC rules. The applicants
seem to be going into this business in good faith knowing that there have been problems
in the past.
Councilor McCallum stated that it is difficult to find any restaurants in Woodburn that do
not serve alcohol and the area of downtown Woodburn has unique problems that need to
be considered.
Councilor Sifuentez stated that she had picked up English and Spanish speaking tapes on
OLCC serving rules at the League of Oregon Cities conference which she will provide to
Chief Russell.
On roll call vote, the motion passed 3-2 with Councilors Nichols and Lonergan voting
nay.
1453 CANCELLATION OF NOVEMBER 12. 2007 COUNCIL MEETING.
MCCALLUM/SIFUENTEZ... cancel the November 12,2007 City Council meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
1463 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS.
A) Planning Commision Action on Cases V AR 2007-01, DR 2006-17, and EXCP
2007-02 (East Lincoln Street Multi-Family Dwelling Project). The Planning
Commission approved the design review with conditions, approved the exception to
street right-of-way and improvements, and denied the variance request and required
construction of an architectural wall.
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
6
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
OCTOBER 22, 2007
TAPE
READING
B) Community Development Director action on Case DR 2007-08 (1220 N. Pacific
Highway). Approval was given for a replacement pole sign at AI's Garden Center which
would limit the height and size of the sign, require a construction permit, and establish a
period of validity of the authorization.
Councilor McCallum questioned the architectural wall issue on the East Lincoln Street
multi-family dwelling project.
Community Development Director Allen stated that the Planning Commission decision
was to require an architectural walls on those optional areas that are discretionary
decisions by the Commission with the walls being 6 to 7 feet in height and made of
concrete masonry with two different colors or two different textures.
Councilor Bjelland questioned if an architectural wall can be wood if it is two different
colors or two different textures.
Director Allen stated that the architectural wall cannot be wood.
No action was taken by the Council to bring these land use actions up for review.
1600 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
Community Services Director Row stated that the City is a recipient of an Automated
External Defibrillator (AED) which was donated to the Aquatic Center. Assistant
Aquatics Manager Willcox and her family have been members of a faternal order called
the Knights of Pythias for many years and she had become aware of their program to
donate 8 AED's statewide over the year. The City has an AED but it is an older model
and this newer model is more compatible with the current technology and meets new
CPR standards with the use of AED's. He stated that the contribution is valued at
approximately $2,000.00. In regards to the use of School District facilities, he stated that
he has been discussing this issue with School District personnel and feels that staff is
making a lot of progress to insure that local youth and adults have opportunities for their
recreation and development. Councilor McCallum expressed his appreciation for the
work being done by staff since the School District and the City have been partners for
many years and this relationship needs to continue as both agencies experience growth.
1700 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor McCallum extended his congratulations to Councilor Nichols and his wife who
will soon be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary.
Mayor Figley also congratulated the Mr. & Mrs. Nichols on their SOh anniversary.
1735 ADJOURNMENT.
MCCALLUM/NICHOLS... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m..
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, October 22, 2007
7
SB
MINUTES
MONTHLY MEETING OF WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
DATE
October 17,2007
ROLL CALL:
Mary Chadwick - Absent
Neal Hawes - Present
Phyllis McKean - Present
Willis Grafe - Present
Nancy Kirksey - Present
Caitlin Brown - Present
STAFF PRESENT:
Jim Row, Community Services Director
Anna Stavinoha, Library Manager
GUESTS:
None.
SECRETARY'S REPORT:
President Nancy Kirksey called the meeting to order at
7:00 pm.
Jim Row welcomed Caitlin Brown, the Board's new
student member. She met with Jim last week to
familiarize herself with Library Board policies and
procedures. She was given a Library Board notebook as
well, copies of which were handed out and discussed by
the Board members during tonight's meeting.
The minutes of July 11, 2007 were read aloud and
approved.
CALL TO ORDER:
WELCOME:
CORRESPON DENCE:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
Monthly Statistics: Attendance was higher during the
summer, due in part to the Summer Reading program.
The Reference statistics remain stable.
Food for Fines: The library held a two week "Food for
Fines" program, which enables patrons to donate food to
the Aware Food Bank in lieu of fines. The library had a
good response. In future, the library might increase the
amount of fines deducted when food is donated, since
food has increased so much in price.
11/5/2007
PAGE 1
8
Adult Program: Dr Alison Stenger came and spoke at City
Hall about the archeological site at the Woodburn High
School. She gave an update on the current status of the
dig.
On October 28 at 2 pm, Dr. Richard Morris, a professor
emeritus from the University of Oregon, will give a talk
about traditional Russian culture.
Anna reported that the library is gearing up to help an
influx of kids with homework, now that school is well
underway.
Presentation:_ Deeda Chamberlain, Youth Services
Librarian, came before the Board to give an update on
what's been happening in the Children's Room. She
gave out handouts detailing the 2007 Summer Reading
program highlights and the 2007-08 Youth Services goals
to the Board members. The Summer Reading program
this year was very successful. Youth Services ran two
programs; one for children up to 12 years old, and the
second one for teens. Both programs had a mystery
theme, entitled "You Never Know". Prizes were given out
for reading, which are always a popular motivator. This
year, the SR program was lengthened by 2 weeks, since
Deeda noticed a lot of interest generated towards the
end of Summer Reading. It takes people awhile to get
the word of what was happening, and of course, the
prizes given were an incentive. This year's Summer
Reading increased participation by 39% over the year
before; a total of 698 children signed up, as well as 67
teens. This is a significant increase over last year. An
effort was made to sign up the summer school kids. In
previous years, the kids have set their own goals during
the Summer Reading program, but this year, the staff set
a goal for kids to read 10 hours through the summer. They
felt it was very important to establish reading as
something a person can do every day. All children,
especially those in the lower income brackets, need easy
access to books. Anther thing done differently this year
was that the staff dressed up as detectives and did a
production skit at the schools. Since the Summer
Reading program had a mystery theme, there were
puzzles available for each child, with the possibility of
winning a small prize. It was a fair amount of work for the
staff, but very rewarding.
11/5/2007
PAGE 2
9
Story times continued over the summer. Deeda
handed out post-program evaluation forms for the first
time. She mostly received generic answers, but plans to
update the form next year, aimed at receiving more
detailed answers.
Next year's Summer Reading theme will be "Catch the
Reading Bug" and the teen theme "Metamorphosis @ the
Library". They'll be revisiting the insect theme, which has
lots of fun activities and programs to interest kids.
September was Library Card Sign-up Month. There
were library bags left over from the previous year's animal
Summer Reading program, and staff gave these away to
children signing up for their very first library card. They'll
probably do the same again next year. Deeda's goal is
to get children into the library and reading at the
youngest possible age.
The focus for children's programs the past few years
has been on literacy. Research now shows that what is
being done during Library story times actually makes a
difference in how children learn and how their brains
develop. Infant story time is not very well attended yet,
but staff is persevering. They're connecting with some
community groups that serve infants and young children,
and asking them to get the word out about the library's
infant story time.
Another YS program being offered on a continuing,
monthly basis is the READ (Reading Educational
Assistance Dogs) Dogs. These are teams of owners and
registered therapy dogs who have received additional
training in listening to children read out loud. It was
observed that when children read aloud to animals, they
become less anxious and more relaxed, and it's another
way for them to practice all-important reading aloud
skills.
A future goal is to do more programming to parents, in
an effort to continue giving out information about the
important of early literacy and to show them ways to
support their children's early literacy development.
Literacy infused programming is another goal, which is
when you slip in short reading and writing lessons into art
and craft programs.
Deeda showed the Board several photo albums,
which contain pictures of the various children and teen
program and events at the library. She takes these
11/5/2007
PAGE 3
10
albums with her when she goes to visit the schools, since
pictures are worth a thousand words.
The question was raised whether babies and toddlers
are allowed to turn pages during their story times, or if the
program solely involves reading aloud to them. Deeda
and staff model how to read and take care of books,
and then also have a time during each program when
infants and toddlers handle board books, and begin to
learn reading and handling skills.
Some Hispanic women do bring their babies to Toddler
story time, though not as many as staff would like. It isn't
done bi-lingual at the present time. The baby story time
is billed as bi-lingual, and Connie and Deeda take turns,
doing Spanish finger plays and songs are done in both
English and Spanish.
Deeda invited the Library Board member to come and
visit Youth Services anytime and see what they're doing.
Volunteer of the Month: Lola Speratos is the Volunteer of
the Month for October. Lola has been a volunteer at the
library since 1996. She has been honored as the
Volunteer of the Month on several occasions, and for
good reason. She consistently averages 35-40 hours a
month as a library volunteer. Over the years, she's
become responsible for mending library materials, as well
as preparing books to be processed for circulation.
Recently, she's has suffered a few health problems which
have kept her away from the library, and she's been
sorely missed. She's a cherished member of our library
volunteer staff. Congratulations, Lola!
Staff Update: There are three new on-call reference
librarians on staff; Josie Dix, Alicia Yokoyama and also
Donna Melendez, who has returned after a few months
of retirement. Josie and Alicia have Youth Service
experience, and will be working on the YS desk as well as
the Reference desk.
Friends of the Librarv: Neal reported that the Friends did
not meet during the summer. There was one meeting in
September, during which the new statuary donated by
Carol Cox in the atrium was discussed. Nancy Kirksey
elevated the statue, and there is a plaque in front of the
statue dedicated to Richard Cox, and listing his birth and
11/5/2007
PAGE 4
11
death. Carol came by today, and approved the final
set-up.
Music in the Park is complete for the year. The turnout
was as good as the previous year, despite such bad
weather during the second concert that it had to be held
in the City Hall Council Chambers. Willis Grafe's son, who
owns PDX Audio, provided the lighting and the sound
system and technical expertise for the concert series, and
did a great job. It is hoped that he will consent to
providing his services again next year.
Friends Book Sale: The Friends held a book sale on Oct.
12-13th, and made a little less than our previous sale, due
to less promotion than usual. The Friends were able to
clear out a lot of old inventory, and sent books down to
the YMCA for their annual book sale. Willis Grafe noted
that they were very grateful for the Friends' donation. The
Friends also deaned out some fiction that had been on
the shelves for the last 2-3 book sales. The next meeting
of the Friends is on the first Monday in December at 2:30
pm, at which time they'll be appointing a nominating
committee to find new Friends Board officials, since the
President, Vice-President, Treasurer and Secretary
positions are all expiring soon.
The Friends made a contribution towards the teens
and the children's Summer Reading program.
There was some discussion at the last Friends meeting
about the possibility of helping to purchase a new library
reader board. The old reader board has been damaged
by vandals and weather, and despite the efforts to repair
it, the reader board is very difficult and cumbersome for
staff to use effectively. It was decided to research more
information, since no one had any real idea of how much
a reader board would cost. In addition, there's a
question as to the type of reader board needed. If it is to
be electric and up in the air, like the one at Woodburn
High School, it would need computer lines run out to it.
There's not yet enough information to make a decision,
so that topic was tabled until the next meeting, with the
idea that Sandy will ask someone to do further research.
OLD BUSINESS:
11/5/2007
PAGE 5
12
A. Board Opening Update: Our student position is
now filled. There is one more at-large adult
position to be filled, and Mary Tennant is working
on that in hopes of getting someone appointed
before the next Library Board meeting. The mayor
has been working hard on filling the Park Board
appointment. Neal Hawes' term expires before
our next meeting, so he'll need to give some
thought as to whether he wants to reapply for that
position soon. If he's interested in seeking
reappointment, he can let the mayor know. She
takes all reappointments before the City Council
at the end of the year.
B. Library Survey: The library sent out more than 6,000
surveys with the City's utility bills a few months ago,
and received more than 500 back, mostly the
English version. They sent out both English and
Spanish versions, with various questions about
demographics and what services they desire from
the library, and to rate their satisfaction level. The
demographic questions will help us identify what
sort of people responded. All of this information is
being entered into a database by a library
volunteer, and ultimately, the library hopes to
extrapolate a great deal of useful information out
of it. The database is dose to being completed,
and there should be more to report by the next
meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
Library Board notebooks were distributed to each
member. They contain information that would be useful
to the Board, and give each person a place to keep the
agenda and minutes from each meeting. The updated
Library Board Ordinance is induded, as well as the Library
Exclusion Ordinance. The Exdusion Ordinance has been
useful on at least three occasions. It's an escalating
exclusion, so that each infraction is met with a longer
period of time where the offending person is excluded
11/5/2007
PAGE 6
13
from the library. The ordinance creating the library board
was handed out, and Jim requested that the Board
members go ahead and put it in their notebooks as well.
Jim called the members' attention to the booklet, The
Handbook for Trustees of Oregon State Libraries. This is
published by the Oregon State Library, and contains
some state rules as to how the Library Board is meant to
operate, as well as some general principles for Library
Board practices. The handbooks also talks about
different sorts of library agencies. Jim encouraged the
Board members to read it.
The notebook also includes library by-laws, brought forth
by John Brown and revised in November 2006 during that
Library Board meeting. At that time, the Library Board
approved changing from monthly meetings to quarterly
meetings, but it wasn I t dear whether they had also voted
to approve the by-laws as a whole. Jim asked the Board
if they'd approved the by-laws, and got the response
that the by-laws were given as information, rather than
approval. The City had decided on the updated by-
laws, and then had provided the Board with them.
They're consistent with the Library Ordinance.
Neal Hawes made a motion that these by-laws should be
accepted by the Library Board, which was seconded
and unanimously accepted. The by-laws will be subject
to review, and updated periodically.
Key Cards: Nancy Kirksey showed the Board the recently
promoted key library cards. Anna reported that in the
last two months, patrons have gone from purchasing an
average of 2 cards a month to 40 cards. They're meant
to hang on a key ring, and so are easily produced to
check out books.
Communication: Willis raised a question about the role of
the Library Board and their ability to communicate
directly with Anna. According to Jim, the official role of
the Library Board is to advise the Director of Community
Services and the City Council with respect to Library
operations, programs, policies, and procedures.
Communication with Jim naturally in dudes Anna, who is
responsible for the day to day operations of the library.
Nancy pointed out that the City Council is the final arbiter
of all City matters.
11/5/2007
PAGE 7
14
Next meetinq: The next meeting of the Woodburn Library
Board will be held on Wednesday, January 9th.
BUSINESS TO/FROM THE None.
CITY COUNCIL AND/OR
MAYOR:
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Vicki Musser
11/5/2007
PAGE 8
15
sc
ROLL CALL
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MIN
November 8, 2007
CONVENED the Planning Commission met in a regular session at:
Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding.
Commissioner Hutchison led the salute to the flag.
Chairperson Lima questioned members of the Planning CortI .
such as family, financial, or business relationship with any. ~.,
project in question. If such a potential conflict exists, he,
question believes he or she is without actual bias or .
from the Planning Commission during the case. The,!'
from those present.
Chairperson Lima announced: agenda is available at
cases one at a time according to the order listed in the a9
procedure outlined on the public hearing procedure board. .......
requested to come to the podium and give their name and addre "
from other than the podium will not be f~~9i~(;}~..
,;;:,,:,:~' ">;:\~:f1l;{:;:;;:.'-~ "~,"f '; ,
om. We will consider
'11 follow the hearing
. shing to speak are.
'viduals speaking
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
\:
Lima
Bandelo
GrosJacqu
Vancil
igorieff
,hison
d~)f1gs
,:"tf
'~'~,J
MINUTES
'i0:~:.
. ""'," ""',-,
/",;""";,;:;"~",,,,,_~ i>". ';',' ~ ',., ~
&.~o~~rn Planflinqf:ommission Meeting Minutes of October 11. 2007.
>> ..... t)oren'1~slOner GrosJaCQue~ moved to accept the minutes. Commissioner GriQorieff
/)7""' secoric:t~tft$~.~tion, whicft,dnanimously carried.
BUSINESS FROMTHSAUDIENCE
None.
COMMUNICATIONS
A. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 10, 2007
B. .. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2007
C. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2007
No comments.
Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 2007
16
Page 1 of 5
A.
Design Review 1007-09, Variance 2007-06 and Exception 20Q1~
2775 N. Front St - Grating Pacific, applicant
;:~
PUBLIC HEARING
The applicant requests a Design Review for a 15,000 squ
existing 27,500 square foot industrial building. The app'
to the Street Right-of-Way and Improvement Requirem '.
the current right-of-way width of 60 feet in lieu of pf
Woodburn Transportation System Plan, and (2). tcr
does not include the required sidewalks, landS<ta,
or the center turn lane. The applicant also requ .
requirements of the WOO. .
Associate Planner Dolenc read the applicable ORS.
Chairperson Lima asked if anyone had a conflict, exparte coh
Associate Planner Dolenc commenc
The subject property is outlined on f ,. I Pi . The e isting building on the
property to the south is an industrial '/\ br't() property to the east.
The property is zoned Light Industrial 1,ari~borderstl1~ e Urban Growth
Boundary area is zoned Urban Transitiol"lff; ., ,t" (UTF)L~ eXls III rea and the UGB is
designated Industrial in the Comprehensiv '"jf1e existing facility is 27,500 square feet
and the proposed addition would be 15,00 "
The existing building:
west wall and ext .
the staff report.,,;
The Exception,
designat~~' ,.
TransportatR
applicant's req
remonstrance ag
a result of the street
~II sign. The expansion will remove the
~~t. This is the Design Review portion of
QfeSSeS the existing street. Front Street is
"11 requirements for the Woodburn
ensive than what is currently provided. The
ed to retain the existing configuration. There is a non-
,~~ce for future improvement. That agreement would be updated as
r>tfQ'; e.
jf:'~~,~. ' Ji:':", ' ;~""
The d~gram dePl~d the are..Any..~rtion of the property less than 260 ft. from the right of
way is considereqc'apo,~ion of the bOundary street. The city's proportionality analysis is based
on the definition ofPboi!ndary street" while the applicant's analysis was based on traffic counts.
'. The conclusion was ttlaf170 feet would be the proportionate share for the property. A condition
of approval reflects the. proportionate share of the proposed use.
The applicant requested (,:i Variance to the landscaping requirement. Applying the Woodburn
Development Ordinan~with the submitted landscape plan, the front yard would require 3,000
plant units. In the rear yard setback, 757 plant units are required and 168 are provided. On the
east side yard 138 are required and the area is paved and no area is available for landscaping.
The undeveloped ,area is covered with blackberry shrubs. The west side is possible to meet the
required WDO landscaping.
Associate Planner Dolenc concluded his presentation and was available for questions.
Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 2007 Page 2 of 5
17
Chairperson lima closed the hearing to dis
ception to the
Chairperson lima asked the Planning Commission members, if they haq
Planning Division staff.
Chairperson lima invited the applicant for testimony.
; -'::: __ :" ~~,.i
Bill Pease, BMGP Engineers, applicant. He stated that the Ron ~cf ;':" son, Presfdeni,:
Pacific and Jim Carr, the local manager are present in the aucfj ce.? '<"
Pease stated that he wanted to discuss Condition of APPJ1
providing a full right of way and full street improvement, .
right of way and improvement requirements. After attai~
providing a full right of way and full street improvem~, "
Pease stated that he discussed the Conditions of A
the Conditions of Approval listed.
Chairperson lima asked Associate Planner Dolenc to claritYCOrt~(.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated thatW'tn
street right of way, it satisfies the CQ
Chairperson lima invited proponent.
;<,j;g~t.,
Chairperson lima invited opponents of thEta '.
O(Je.
t the Planning Commission members.
on the landscaping and building.
ROLL C
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson\
Comrni~~ioner
Commls~io"'.r
Cornm'~'C)....r .
C9fhmission... .
Cc>mmissioner
)/1;;--
,
<;";,
'~
yes
A
yes
yes
yes
yes
A
'''j/
~}
ITEMS FOR ACTION
A. Final Order - Design Review 2007-09, Variance 2007-06, Exception 2007-07
Commissioner GrosJacaues made a motion to accept the Final Order for Design Review 2006-
17, Variance 2007-01, Exception 2007-02, seconded by Commissioner Vancil, motion passed.
Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 2007
18
Page 3 of 5
B. Work Session - Woodburn Development Ordinance update.
Community Development Director Allen stated that the Woodburn Devefof)rneotOrdinance
(WOO) requires that the WOO be reviewed annually. Included in the paCk~ti$:1:l;'thitof items for
discussion. . ',; { .
The previous WOO update was adopted in July, 2007. The focus g~~, which incltfcJ
citizen, a Planning Commission member, and a City Council bar, worked with sta
develop some concepts and make recommendations to the.f 'ng Commission that w
forwarded to City Council for adoption. ., .<"\'
The list of items include: transportation, zoning district$~~' gulationsa
there is a new regulation and before it goes into effett;< .. e is a notifi~
such as property owners. .... 'if
egulations. When
to all those affected
Chairperson Lima refer
be streamlined througb
has compiled. This is for
n.
Included in the list are concepts that were previously dl
informational purposes. Discussion is on the list of topicsf,'
Commissioner Vancil asked about the review and grant of Varian
Variance is to the street right of way . . topqlfyJng the decision of t
administrative decision."
~Qst common type of
to be an
Communit Develo ment Director AI
variances by type. The last update of t
list. There have been discussions with sta
the application.
sed changes and where an application will
lien stated that ther$ are some differences in each project
I basis for each~r)lication. There are different impacts
. ',when defining the minimum safe
November 26,2007 or will review for more staff research.
Commissioner HutchiSort'a~~if.the Planning Commission should review and recommend the
IisttQ City CQurlGiI. He statedthatthe sign ordinance standards need to be modified.
'"
; .," <.~
. ...
Community Devetooment Director' AJfem stated that a priority list could be noted. Staff will review
ttie process, but not the content on the sign.
There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission with regards to specific signs in the
City.
Community Development Director Allen discussed with the Planning Commission about the
DeSign Review process, shared parking requirements, compliance of the WDO, residential
occupancy limitations, particular tree species, cross-section requirements, Transportation
System Plan (TSP) standards and impacts, vision clearance safety, lack of sidewalks, and the 1-
5 overlay and concurrency.
Assistant City Attornev Stewart stated that the 1-5 overlay and concurrency could be lengthy
Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 2007 Page 4 of 5
19
processes.
Chairperson Lima inquired about the letter submitted.
Community Development Director Allen stated that the Woodburn rasia'
Council meeting were concerned with the historic downtown are~f' " 'Le.
": {;:~,.':~:;~0,;;srJ
Commissioner Griaorieff inquired about the health status of th.'i)istdrical trees on Settle~,~
Avenue. .
Community Development Director Allen stated that thes
Development Department, but they seem to be gener
C. Cancel November 22, 2007 Planning COIl't
Commissioner GrosJacaues made a motion to cance
Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Vanci ,
DISCUSSION ITEMS
There was discussion amongst thePf
subdivisions, permitted land uses, de.
enforcement involvement.
members on topics such as:
, .~ c1ean~up, and code
REPORTS
A.
Planning Project Tracking Sheet No
07. No comments were made.
B. Building reportf6i:'
.,:;"" :~'
: < 'So., -.:,~ ~.".
;'"" i '''~, ....;. ::::":';;'"
C. ember 2, 2007. No comments were
BUSINESS;F
None.
ComtnisSloner Grosjacau8SfTR)ved to adjourn the meeting Commissioner Hutchison
secondedt~e'fl"!otion, which unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 pm.
-'\,
APPROVED
CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON
Date
ATTEST
Jim Anen
Community Development Director
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Date
Planning Commission Meeting November 8, 2007
20
Page 5 of 5
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y o F WOO D B URN PAGE
DATE 11/14/07 AP0460
TIME 16,40,44 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
CHECK n CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
====================================================================================================================================
BANK ACCOUNT, AP A/P Accounts Payable
90574 10/31/2007 EAGLE WEB PRESS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00
90575 10/31/2007 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 861.30 861.30 .00
90577 10/05/2007 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #45 RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 857.25 857.25 .00
90578 10/05/2007 ANNE ROSALES RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 65.00 65.00 .00
90579 10/05/2007 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 72.55 72 .55 .00
90580 10/05/2007 AVERY & ASSOCIATES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 2,500.00 2,500.00 .00
90581 10/05/2007 BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH L RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 12,495.00 12,495.00 .00
90582 10/05/2007 BONNEAU PRODUCTS CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 96.50 96.50 .00
90583 10/05/2007 BOONES FERRY ELECTRIC INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 4,053.99 4,053.99 .00
90584 10/05/2007 BRIAN MILES RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 399.99 399.99 .00
90585 10/05/2007 CANBY TELECOM RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 19.95 19.95 .00
90586 10/05/2007 CCCJTC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 60.00 60.00 .00
90587 10/05/2007 CITY OF CANBY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 10,084.00 10,084.00 .00
90588 10/05/2007 COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 440.00 440.00 .00
90589 10/05/2007 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 386.52 386.52 .00
90590 10/05/2007 D & D CONCRETE & UTILITIE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 49,841.75 49,841.75 .00
90591 10/05/2007 DATAVISION COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 148.74 148.74 .00
90592 10/05/2007 DP NORTHWEST INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 440.00 440.00 .00
90593 10/05/2007 ELIDA SIFUENTEZ RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 97.90 97.90 .00
90594 10/05/2007 EUGENE HILTON HOTEL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 332.61 332.61 .00
90595 10/05/2007 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 405.75 405.75 .00
90596 10/05/2007 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 7,043.70 7,043.70 .00
90597 10/05/2007 FRANK M MASON RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 65.00 65.00 .00
90598 10/05/2007 GRAINGER INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 52.06 52.06 .00
90599 10/05/2007 INGRAM DIST GROUP RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,733.14 1,733.14 .00
90600 10/05/2007 ISOLUTIONS CONSULTING INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 3,321.88 3,321.88 .00
90601 10/05/2007 ITT FLYGT CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 3,132.20 3,132.20 .00
90602 10/05/2007 J. THAYER COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 306.55 306.55 .00
N 90603 10/05/2007 KEITH'S SPORTING GOODS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 920.00 920.00 .00
.- 90604 10/05/2007 KJM PROGRAM & CONSTRUCTIO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 288.00 288.00 .00
90605 10/05/2007 LAWRENCE COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 200.00 200.00 .00
90606 10/05/2007 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 176.55 176.55 .00
90607 10/05/2007 MARION COUNTY CLERK RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 77.00 77.00 .00
90608 10/05/2007 MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 393.71 393.71 .00
90609 10/05/2007 MOORE MEDICAL LLC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 449.40 449.40 .00
90611 10/05/2007 NEOPOST RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 85.97 85.97 .00
90612 10/05/2007 NET ASSETS CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 430.00 430.00 .00
90613 10/05/2007 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 661.92 661.92 .00
90614 10/05/2007 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 4,132.70 4,132.70 .00
90615 10/05/2007 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 697.48 697.48 .00
90616 10/05/2007 OFFICE DEPOT RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 83.55 83.55 .00
90617 10/05/2007 OREGON COAST AQUARIUM RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 198.75 198.75 .00
90618 10/05/2007 OREGON TRANSIT ASSOC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 125.00 125.00 .00
90619 10/05/2007 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 21.40 21.40 .00
90620 10/05/2007 PACIFIC SOFTWARE ASSOC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 339.00 339.00 .00
90622 10/05/2007 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 36,773.59 36,773.59 .00
90623 10/05/2007 QWEST RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 165.22 165.22 .00
90624 10/05/2007 QWEST RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 790.00 790.00 .00
90626 10/05/2007 SEASHORE INN RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 258.33 258.33 .00
90627 10/05/2007 SPRINT RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 131.41 131.41 .00
90628 10/05/2007 GALE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 157.23 157.23 .00
90629 10/05/2007 THORSEN'S SURROGATE AGENC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 25.00 25.00 .00
co
tj
WOODBURN LIVE
DATE 11/14/07
TIME 16,40,44
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME
C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N
STATUS
CHECK REGISTER
STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT
RECONCILED AMT
PAGE
AP0460
VEEOT
2
============~============~===============~==========================================================================================
DIFFERENCE
~
~
90630
90631
90632
90633
90634
90635
90636
90637
90638
90639
90640
90641
90642
90643
90644
90645
90646
90647
90648
90649
90650
90652
90654
90656
90657
90658
90659
90660
90661
90662
90663
90664
90665
90666
90667
90668
90669
90670
90672
90673
90674
90675
90676
90677
90678
90679
90680
90681
90682
90683
90684
90685
90686
10/05/2007 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO
10/05/2007 U.S. BANK
10/05/2007 VHPS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABL
10/05/2007 WESTERN POWER & EQUIPMENT
10/05/2007 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT
10/05/2007 WOODBURN SCHOOL DIST 103C
10/05/2007 YES GRAPHICS
10/31/2007 LOCAL GOVT EMPLOYERS TRUS
10/31/2007 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN
10/12/2007 ACE CHEMICAL TOILETS
10/12/2007 ADVANCED RV PAINTING & RE
10/12/2007 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #45
10/12/2007 ALLWOOD INDUSTRIES INC
10/12/2007 ALPHA PROVEN ECOLOGICAL
10/12/2007 ALTON W CHUNG
10/12/2007 AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSN
10/12/2007 APPLE BOOKS
10/12/2007 ARAMARK UNIFORM NATIONAL
10/12/2007 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I
10/12/2007 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
10/12/2007 BATTERIES NORTHWEST
10/12/2007 CENTER POINT LARGE PRINT
10/12/2007 SALEM SENIOR CENTER
10/12/2007 COGENT SYSTEMS INC
10/12/2007 COLVIN SAND INC
10/12/2007 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION
10/12/2007 COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS
10/12/2007 COOKE STATIONERY COMPANY
10/12/2007 CRISIS CHAPLAINCY SERVICE
10/12/2007 DEBORAH YOUMANS
10/12/2007 DEPT OF CONSUMER AND BUSI
10/12/2007 DIRECT LABOR INC
10/12/2007 DP NORTHWEST INC
10/12/2007 EASYSTREET ONLINE SERVICE
10/12/2007 FRY'S ELECTRONICS
10/12/2007 GEL CO CONSTRUCTION
10/12/2007 GOLDEN CREST HOMES
10/12/2007 HARPER,HOUF,PETERSON,RIGH
10/12/2007 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
10/12/2007 INGRAM DIST GROUP
10/12/2007 J. THAYER COMPANY
10/12/2007 JET HEATING INC
10/12/2007 J L ENTERPRISES NW INC
10/12/2007 JOHN BROWN
10/12/2007 KEY CREATIONS
10/12/2007 LANDA WATER CLEANING SYST
10/12/2007 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
10/12/2007 LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT
10/12/2007 LAZERQUICK INC
10/12/2007 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
10/12/2007 LENON IMPLEMENT CO
10/12/2007 MARSH-MCBIRNEY-BACH COMPA
10/12/2007 MOLALLA COMMUNICATIONS
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
3,689.62
3,691.34
206.58
1,205.56
42.00
240.00
1,493.67
8.96
806.40
799.50
980.20
2,314.15
4,000.00
89.00
275.00
633.00
811.20
39.98
130.75
134.88
147.90
35.94
99.00
32,000.00
160.00
160.00
240.00
194.48
375.00
1,148.25
35.64
1,160.00
150.00
168.00
297.29
94,136.61
49.40
6,227.09
1,460.15
427.14
752.41
489.75
255.00
1,121.72
174.55
375.00
181.60
1,731.25
817.00
295.00
4.69
114.95
149.70
3,689.62
3,691.34
206.58
1,205.56
42.00
240.00
1,493.67
8.96
806.40
799.50
980.20
2,314.15
4,000.00
89.00
275.00
633.00
811.20
39.98
130.75
134.88
147.90
35.94
99.00
32,000.00
160.00
160.00
240.00
194.48
375.00
1,148.25
35.64
1,160.00
150.00
168.00
297.29
94,136.61
49.40
6,227.09
1,460.15
427.14
752.41
489.75
255.00
1,121.72
174 . 55
375.00
181.60
1,731.25
817.00
295.00
4.69
114.95
149.70
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
WOODBURN LIVE
DATE 11/14/07
TIME 16,40;44
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME
C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N
STATUS
CHECK REGISTER
STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT
RECONCILED AMT
PAGE
AP0460
VEEOT
==;;=~==============================================================================================================================
DIFFERENCE
t.;)
~
90687
90688
90689
90690
90691
90692
90694
90695
90696
90697
90699
90700
90701
90702
90704
90705
90706
90707
90708
90709
90710
90711
90712
90713
90714
90715
90716
90717
90718
90719
90720
90721
90722
90723
90724
90725
90726
90727
90728
90729
90730
90731
90732
90733
90734
90735
90736
90737
90742
90743
90744
90745
90748
10/12/2007 NATIONAL REC & PARK ASSO
10/12/2007 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS
10/12/2007 ONE CALL CONCEPTS INC
10/12/2007 OR DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
10/12/2007 OR DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE
10/12/2007 OR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
10/12/2007 OREGON STATE BAR
10/12/2007 OREGON STATE POLICE
10/12/2007 OREGONIAN PUBLISHING CO
10/12/2007 OVS
10/12/2007 PACIFIC HABITAT SERVICES
10/12/2007 PAVEMENT STENCIL CO
10/12/2007 PETRO CARD
10/12/2007 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
10/12/2007 PROTEK CHEMICAL INC
10/12/2007 PUMPTECH INC
10/12/2007 QWEST
10/12/2007 QWEST
10/12/2007 RADIX CORPORATION
10/12/2007 RED WING SHOE STORE
10/12/2007 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES
10/12/2007 ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORP
10/12/2007 RMT EQUIPMENT
10/12/2007 ROD'S HANDYMAN SERVICE IN
10/12/2007 ROSE QUARTER GROUP SALES
10/12/2007 S&S WORLDWIDE INC
10/12/2007 SASE COMPANY INC
10/12/2007 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRING
10/12/2007 SILVERFLEET SYSTEMS
10/12/2007 SONITROL
10/12/2007 REXEL
10/12/2007 TESTAMERICA ANALYTICAL TE
10/12/2007 GALE
10/12/2007 TIM'S DIESEL
10/12/2007 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO
10/12/2007 UNIVAR USA INC
10/12/2007 ROO EQUIPMENT CO
10/12/2007 WENDELL B AMSTUTZ
10/12/2007 WILFREDO CHAVEZ
10/12/2007 WILLAMETTE VALLEY SECURIT
10/12/2007 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT
10/12/2007 WOODBURN RADIATOR & GLASS
10/12/2007 YODER MILLS INC
10/31/2007 AMERICAN GROUND WATER TRU
10/31/2007 NORTHWEST ARMORY
10/31/2007 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN
10/26/2007 A & A PEST CONTROL INC
10/26/2007 A-I COUPLING & HOSE
10/26/2007 ALL-WAYS EXCAVATING USA L
10/26/2007 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC
10/26/2007 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOC
10/26/2007 ANIXTER INC
10/26/2007 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
11/07/2007
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
105.00
17.42
96.60
1,451.67
24.50
401.75
58.00
70.00
1,537.97
10.00
595.00
757.15
6,575.69
42,258.39
45.00
2,038.25
47.08
1,344.71
204.00
237.97
51.15
1,936.76
39,120.00
275.00
300.00
854.88
841.38
226.69
2,655.91
11 0.00
240.00
1,004.58
54.32
3,649.18
506.75
333.45
474.29
65.00
29.26
59.85
349.64
25.00
302.94
210.00
300.00
1,150.65
196.00
17.65
3,118.00
37.11
140.00
409.28
1,244.27
105.00
17.42
96.60
1,451.67
24.50
401.75
58.00
70.00
1,537.97
10.00
595.00
757.15
6,575.69
42,258.39
45.00
2.038.25
47.08
1,344.71
204.00
237.97
51.15
1,936.76
39,120.00
275.00
300.00
854.88
841. 38
226.69
2,655.91
110.00
240.00
1,004.58
54.32
3,649.18
506.75
333.45
474.29
65.00
29.26
59.85
34 9.64
25.00
302 . 94
210.00
300.00
1,150.65
196.00
17.65
3,118.00
37.11
140.00
409.28
1,244.27
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y o F WOO D B URN PAGE 4
DATE 11/14/07 AP0460
TIME 16,40:44 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
~~================================~=================================================================================================
90749 10/26/2007 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 46.76 46.76 .00
90750 10/26/2007 ASSOCIATED BUSINESS SYSTE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 56.72 56.72 .00
90751 10/26/2007 AT & T RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 104.02 104.02 .00
90752 10/26/2007 AUTO ADDITIONS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 284.00 284.00 .00
90754 10/26/2007 BATTERIES NORTHWEST RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 76.95 76.95 .00
90755 10/26/2007 BEULAH JORDAN RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 35.00 35.00 .00
90756 10/26/2007 BI-MART CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 508.08 508.08 .00
90757 10/26/2007 BOBCAT OF WILLAMETTE VALL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 42.52 42.52 .00
90758 10/26/2007 BOLl TECHNICAL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 750.00 750.00 .00
90759 10/26/2007 BRATWEAR RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 898.00 898.00 .00
90761 10/26/2007 CANBY FORD INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 287.01 287.01 .00
90764 10/26/2007 CARUS CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 931.52 931. 52 .00
90765 10/26/2007 CASCADE POOLS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 272.46 272.46 .00
90768 10/26/2007 CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 651.00 651. 00 .00
90769 10/26/2007 CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 636.62 636.62 .00
90770 10/26/2007 CIS: CITY-CTY INS SERVS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 6.68 6.68 .00
90772 10/26/2007 COASTAL FARM HOME SUPPLY RECONCI LED 11/07/2007 YES 909.21 909.21 .00
90773 10/26/2007 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,568.88 1,568.88 .00
90775 10/26/2007 COLLEGIATE PACIFIC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 879.89 879.89 .00
90776 10/26/2007 COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 70.00 70.00 .00
90777 10/26/2007 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 57.04 57.04 .00
90779 10/26/2007 COOL TEMP RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 452.50 452.50 .00
90780 10/26/2007 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 97.38 97.38 .00
90781 10/26/2007 DAVISON AUTO PARTS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 797.90 797.90 .00
90785 10/26/2007 DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUA RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 10,975.00 10,975.00 .00
90786 10/26/2007 DHS HEALTH SERVICES RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 140.00 140.00 .00
90787 10/26/2007 DP NORTHWEST INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 592.50 592.50 .00
90788 10/26/2007 DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 72.96 72.96 .00
90791 10/26/2007 ENDRESS & HAUSER INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,703.83 1,703.83 .00
N 90793 10/26/2007 ERNIE GRAHAM OIL INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 774.67 774.67 .00
~ 90794 10/26/2007 ESCHELON TELECOM INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 7,904.00 7,904.00 .00
90796 10/26/2007 FASTENAL COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 69.37 69.37 .00
90797 10/26/2007 FCS GROUP RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 2,910.00 2,910.00 .00
90798 10/26/2007 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 4,713.25 4,713.25 .00
90799 10/26/2007 FOOD SERVICES OF AMERICA RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 272.73 272.73 .00
90801 10/26/2007 G.W. HARDWARE CENTER RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 890.09 890.09 .00
90802 10/26/2007 GALL'S INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 34.61 34.61 .00
90803 10/26/2007 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 215.89 215.89 .00
90805 10/26/2007 GRAINGER INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 651.55 651.55 .00
90806 10/26/2007 HACH CHEMICAL CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 205.85 205.85 .00
90808 10/26/2007 HOME DEPOT GECF RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 531.41 531. 41 .00
90809 10/26/2007 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 668.69 668.69 .00
90811 10/26/2007 INDUSTRIAL FINISHES & SYS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 145.85 145.85 .00
90812 10/26/2007 INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 30.13 30.13 .00
90813 10/26/2007 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS WHS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 104.71 104.71 .00
90814 10/26/2007 J. THAYER COMPANY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 2,132.56 2,132.56 .00
90815 10/26/2007 JANICE CLAY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 33.64 33 .64 .00
90818 10/26/2007 JASON MILLICAN RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 221.11 221.11 .00
90819 10/26/2007 JERRY JANSZEN RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 11.00 11.00 .00
90823 10/26/2007 JOHN PILAFIAN WINDOW CLEA RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 19.50 19.50 .00
90825 10/26/2007 KEITH'S SPORTING GOODS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 730.00 730.00 .00
90826 10/26/2007 KENNEDY JENKS CONSULT INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 3,169.31 3,169.31 .00
90827 10/26/2007 KEY EQUIPMENT FINANCE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 163.00 163.00 .00
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y o F WOO D B URN PAGE 5
DATE 11/14/07 AP0460
TIME 16:40:44 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
==~==~============~====================================~============================================================================
90828 10/26/2007 L&L BUILDING SUPPLIES RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 984.30 984.30 .00
90830 10/26/2007 LANDMARK FORD RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 640.12 640.12 .00
90831 10/26/2007 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,441.66 1,441.66 .00
90836 10/26/2007 MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 467.10 467.10 .00
90837 10/26/2007 MARY TENNANT RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 165.78 165.78 .00
90840 10/26/2007 MICHAEL FREDERICK RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 25.00 25.00 .00
90842 10/26/2007 MONIQUE HULLING.ADAMS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 33.00 33.00 .00
90846 10/26/2007 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 10,900.00 10,900.00 .00
90848 10/26/2007 NEW SOUND RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 113.39 113.39 .00
90849 10/26/2007 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 3,273.48 3,273.48 .00
90851 10/26/2007 NOR COM RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 26,374.09 26,374.09 .00
90852 10/26/2007 NORLIFT OF OREGON INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 156.54 156.54 .00
90853 10/26/2007 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,231.62 1,231.62 .00
90854 10/26/2007 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 2,709.45 2,709.45 .00
90855 10/26/2007 OFFICE DEPOT RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 57.97 57.97 .00
90856 10/26/2007 OR ASSOC OF WATER UTILITI RECONCILED 11 /07/2007 YES 850.00 850.00 .00
90857 10/26/2007 OR ASSOC OF WATER UTILITI RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 245.00 245.00 .00
90858 10/26/2007 OREGON DEPT OF CORRECTION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 4,815.00 4,815.00 .00
90860 10/26/2007 OREGON TURF & TREE FARMS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 110.00 110.00 .00
90862 10/26/2007 PACE ENGINEERS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 722.50 722.50 .00
90863 10/26/2007 PACIFIC SOFTWARE ASSOC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 664.00 664.00 .00
90865 10/26/2007 PEAK SOFTWARE SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 985.00 985.00 .00
90867 10/26/2007 PETROCARD RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 4,933.49 4,933.49 .00
90868 10/26/2007 PNCWA WEST CENTRAL SECTIO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 500.00 500.00 .00
90869 10/26/2007 POWER SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 131.98 131. 98 .00
90870 10/26/2007 POWERTECH GROUP INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 560.00 560.00 .00
90871 10/26/2007 PUMP TECH SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 90.23 90.23 .00
90872 10/26/2007 QUARTERMASTER RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 424.08 424.08 .00
90873 10/26/2007 QWEST RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,288.65 1,288.65 .00
t.) 90874 10/26/2007 RECORDED BOOKS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 6.95 6.95 .00
UI 90875 10/26/2007 RED WING SHOE STORE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 348.46 348.46 .00
90876 10/26/2007 RINKER MATERIALS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 2,014.80 2,014.80 .00
90877 10/26/2007 RUSSIAN PUBLISHING HOUSE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 773.90 77 3 .90 .00
90878 10/26/2007 S.O.S. LOCK SERVICE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 42.00 42.00 .00
90879 10/26/2007 SAFFRON SUPPLY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,538.68 1,538.68 .00
90881 10/26/2007 SANDRA KINNEY RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 45.67 45.67 .00
90883 10/26/2007 CRYSTAL AND SIERRA SPRING RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 325.55 325.55 .00
90884 10/26/2007 SLATER COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 724.99 724.99 .00
90889 10/26/2007 TEK SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 1,840.00 1,840.00 .00
90890 10/26/2007 TESTAMERICA ANALYTICAL TE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 5,514.13 5,514.13 .00
90891 10/26/2007 THE RUG RAT'S RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 490.00 490.00 .00
90893 10/26/2007 TIGARD SAND & GRAVEL LLC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 344.25 344.25 .00
90894 10/26/2007 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 702.45 702.45 .00
90899 10/26/2007 U.S. BANK RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 522.72 522.72 .00
90900 10/26/2007 VALLEY PACIFIC FLORAL RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 97.80 97.80 .00
90901 10/26/2007 VEE OTT RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 96.14 96.14 .00
90902 10/26/2007 WATERSHED INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 505.57 505.57 .00
90903 10/26/2007 WDBRN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 475.00 475.00 .00
90905 10/26/2007 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 595.46 595.46 .00
90907 10/26/2007 WESTERN ALLIED SYSTEMS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 621.04 621.04 .00
90908 10/26/2007 WESTERN BUS SALES INC RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 13.50 13.50 .00
90910 10/26/2007 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 213.38 213.38 .00
90911 10/26/2007 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED 11/07/2007 YES 6,088.68 6,088.68 .00
WOODBURN LIVE
DATE 11/14/07
TIME 16,40,44
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME
C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N
STATUS
CHECK REGISTER
STATUS DATE UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT
RECONCILED AMT
PAGE
AP0460
VEEOT
6
DIFFERENCE
====================================================================================================================================
.00
90913 10/31/2007 PETTY CASH
BANK AP TOTAL, 265 CHECKS
RECONCILED 265 CHECKS
NOT RECONCILED CHECKS
VOIDED CHECKS
UPDATED 265 CHECKS
NOT UPDATED CHECKS
lI.)
0\
RECONCILED
572,299.20
.00
.00
572,299.20
.00
572,299.20
11/07/2007 YES 171.32 171.32 .00
572,299.20
Project Applicant Description
SiteLocation:
DR 2006- Welkin 8 unit Multi-family
17,VAR 2006- Engineering Development on Vacant
17, EXCP Parcel
2007-02, VAR 1037 Lincoln SI.
2007-01.
APPEAL
DR 2007- Butch Remove existing 2311 sf
05,VAR 07-04 Price/Bend Oil gas station canopy and
(Stop N Go) replace with new 1520 sf
canopy.
100 Arney Rd.
DR 2007- William R. Design Review, 15.000
09.EXCP 2007- Pease (Grating square feet expansion:
07. VAR 2007- Pacific) Street Exception to Front
05 SI.; Variance to the front
yard setback.
2775 N Front Street
~
""IR 2007- Mark Grenz. Multiple-family dwellings
12,VAR 2007- P.E. / Multitech 845 East Lincoln Street
07, EXCP
2007-08
FPUD 2007- Bryan Final approval of PUD -
02,ANX 97-08, Cavaness Boones Crossing III.
ZC 97-12. CU Type I
97 -03, PUD 97- Dahlia Street and Brown
03, VAR 97-12 Street
LA 2007 -02. City of Legislative Amendment
Woodburn Period Review Remand
City of Woodburn
Status:
Date
Received
120 Day Planner
Date
Deemed
Complete
Referrals
Facilities
Meeting
Mail Notice Notice to
for PC Paper
Post Stf Rpt Due PC Hearing PC Final
Property Admin Dec. Order
Appeal
Deadline
Appeal
10/12/2006 07/20/2007 11/17/2007 Don Dolenc 10/16/2006 04/27/2007 09/07/2007
09/11/2007 09/21/2007 09/27/2007 10/11/2007 10/23/2007
Received
06/13/2007 11/16/2007 03/15/2008 Don Dolenc
11/23/2007
12/13/2007
Approved-Appeal 08/24/2007 10/17/2007 02/14/2008 Don Dolenc 08/29/2007
Period
10/19/2007
10/11/2007 11/0212007 1110812007 11/08/2007 11/20/2007
Received
11/13/2007
Received
0711212007
Don Dolenc
Received
Jim Allen
C>>
::-J?
Project Applicant SiteLocation: Description Status: Date Received 180-Expiration: Planner
DR 2007-06 Axis Design Group A&E, 3001 W. Newberg Hwy Upgrade to facility and build a vestibule. Additional signage to site. Incomplete 06/19/2007 12116/2007 Don DoIenc
LLC (Miles Chevrolet)
DR 2007-10 King's May Management 770 N. Pacific Hwy Site upgrade, install new fire hydran~ landscaping & restripe parking Incomplete 10/04/2007 04/01/2008 Sam Gollah
for new furniture store.
1- i1 John Baker (Cuppy's Drive- 987 Lawson Avenue Type II design review for a new commercial structure Incomplete 10/05/2007 04/0212008 Don DoIenc
Thru)
PUD 2006-01ZC 2006-01, CU Boones Crossing, LLC - Parcels 1, 2 & 3 of Partition Modifications to Boones Crossing PUD Incomplete 10/31/2006 04129/2007 Jim Allen
2006-04, CPC 2007-01 Mike Hanks Plat 2006-55
ZA 2007-03 Mastery Learning Institute 591 Gatch St. Modification to the conditions of approval with a Zoning Adjustment Incomplete 08127/2007 02/23/2008 Sam Gollah
Activity Report - October 19 thru November 20
Folder Name Applicant Project SiteLocation Description Date Rec'd: App Complete: Planner:
BL 2007-159 Steve Skotko Sieve Skutko Contractor General Construction and Remodeling 10/24/2007 11/0212007 Don Dolene
Construction
BL 2007-160 Lauranilla Maile Maile's Day Care 1284 Dahlia St. Child Day Care 10/26/2007 11/05/2007 Sam Gollah
Corpuz
BL 2007-161 Sara Williams Sara Williams, OB 3002 Staey Allison Optometrist 10/29/2007 11/16/2007 Don Dolene
Way
BL 2007-162 Brandon/Olga Sole Proprieter ABN 2311 Country Club Rd. Fitness Center 10/30'2007
Singleterry
BL 2007-165 Juana Reyna Amigo Express 975 N. Pacific Hwy Money wiring, personal servicwes, etc. 11/01/2007 11/16/2007 Don Dolenc
Chavez
BL 2007-163 Planned Furniture Planned Furniture 9 Moody Rd Bldg 0 Promotional Furniture Sales 11/0212007 10/16/2007 Don Dolenc
Promotions Inc. Promotions Ste 18 - Contractor
BL 2007-167 Rebecca Jill Allen Allen Thermal 958 Corby St. Manufacture sterilizers, laboratory 11/05/2007 11/16/2007 Don Dolenc
Processin Equip type. - Home Occupation
BL 2007-166 Richard Bjelland Bjelland Consulting 888 Wilson St. Consulting 11/07/2007 11/16/2007 Don Dolenc
1IJ BL 2007-167 Ben Cunningham Romeo's VIP Club 595 Pacific Hwy Bldg Modeling Svs and consulting 11/13/2007
\0 A Ste 120
BL2007-168 Ben Cunningham Romeo's Storefront 595 Pacific Hwy Bldg Women's clothing and novelty items. 11/13/2007
A Ste 130
BL 2007-169 Brandon Gough Cabi Factory Store 1001 Arney Rd Ste Women's Clothing Outlet Store 11/13/2007
824
BL 2007-170 Aaron Michael AMH Appraisal, Inc. 2816 Roanoke St. Real estate appraisal. 11/15/2007
Head
BL 2007-171 Daniel Johnson Dos Arbolitos Musica 1585 N. Pacific Hwy Music store & music retail. 11/1512007
Avila Latina y Mas Ste B
PAPP 2007-16 Leeka Architects Woodburn Crossing Hwy 214 & Evergreen Re-development of existing shopping 11/1512007
& Planners Shopping Center Rd. center in 2 or 3 phases, four fee-
(Woodburn standing new structures and a strip
Crossing) retail center, and demolition of existing
buildings.
SIGN 2007-25 Security Signs Goodwill Industries 948 North Pacific One monument sign, 7 wall signs, and 11/01/2007 11/0112007 Don Dolenc
Highway 2 flags
"
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
BL = Business License EXT = Extension SIGN = Sign Permit TMKT = Temporary Marketing Penn it TSP = Temporary Sign Permit PAPP = Pre-Application me = Fence Permit
Folder Name Applicant Project SiteLocation Description Date Rec'd: App Complete: Planner:
SIGN 2007-26 Matt Boyington - Casa Mexico 990 N. Pacific Hwy lIuminated wall sign. 11/08/2007
Oregon Sign
Installations
TMKT 2007-09 Craig Realty Woodburn Company 1001 Arney Road, 60'x40' tent for overflow seating at a 10/24/2007 10/24/2007 Don Dolenc
Group Stores suites 622/624 charity shopping event
TSP 2007-31 John Baker Cuppy's 987 Lawson Avenue Temporary sign 30 square feet 11/08/2007 11/0812007 Don Dolenc
TSP2007-32 Antonio Perfecto Pacific Auto Sales 200 North Pacific This is a 2-15 day temporary permit 11/09/2007 11/0912007 Sam Gollah
Highway 99 application. This application expires on
Decmber 10, 2007
TSP 2007-33 Kristy Kummer Woodburn Company 1001 Arney Rd. (3) 15-day periods for a 400 sf banner 11/14/2007
(Woodburn Co Stores
Stores)
CIJ
o
~e~~~ .f?-~
".~ .~ -
Tuesd(IY, November 10,1007
BL = Business License EXT = Extension SIGN = Sign Permit TMKT = Temporary Marketing Permit TSP = Temporary Sign Permit PAPP = Pre-Application FNC = Fence Pemlit
SF
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
November 1, 2007
To:
Jim Allen, Community Development Director
From:
Building Division
Subject: Building Activity for October 2007
2005 2006 2007
No. Dollar No. Dollar No. Dollar
Amount Amount Amount
Single-F amily Residential 5 $770,796 5 $1 ;267,683 17 $3,414,368
Multi-Family Residential 0 .. $0 0 $0 0 $0
Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Residential Adds & Alts 8 $83,467 6 $96,092 4 $42,774
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 1 $171,875
Commercial 10 $282,300 10 $180,724 10 $108,943
Signs and Fences 2 $2,390 9 $100,474 1 $4,000
Manufactured Homes 2 $135,000 1 $50,000 2 $115,000
TOTALS 27 $1,273,953 31 $1,694,973 35 $3,856,960
Fiscal Year to Date (July $13,242,427 $6,913,241 $13,714,057
1- June 30)
I:\Community Development\Building\Building Activity\BldgAct-2007\Bldg Acti'31- Memos\activity - October 2007.doc
~
WOODBURN
SG
A~'~
l.corporatcd 1889
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Scott Russell, Chief of Police V
SUBJECT: Police Department Statistics - October 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the Report
BACKGROUND:
The attached report lists year to date reported offenses and arrests displayed by
month.
DISCUSSION:
The statistics have been gathered from the Police Departments Records
Management System. The Previous year's crime statistics are also displayed for
comparison purposes.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
City Attorney
Agenda Item Review: City Administrato
~
32
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 11/20/2007 PL6850
TIME: 7:47:01 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2007 SCOTTRU
ORIjj: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 0 0 2 6 4 2 4 3 4 2 27
AGGRAVATED MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANIMAL ORDINANCES 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 2 6 14
ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ASSAULT SIMPLE 12 5 14 15 11 14 19 11 9 15 125
ATTEMPTED MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
BOMB THREAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIBERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BURGLARY BUSINESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BURGLARY - OTHER STRUCTURE 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 1 9 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 16
CHILD ADBANDOMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CHILD NEGLECT 2 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 11
CITY ORDINANCE 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
CRIME DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON 4 4 1 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 17
CURFEW 0 2 7 0 7 1 2 1 0 2 22
CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CUSTODY DETOX 2 1 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 11
CUSTODY - MENTAL 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7
CUSTODY - PROTECITVE 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 4 5 6 15 7 8 11 4 5 11 76
DOCUMENTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DRINKING IN PUBLIC 0 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE 12 11 18 6 7 10 15 22 10 2 113
DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 25 19 22 19 28 30 21 14 10 25 213
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
DWS/REVOKED - FELONY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(,.) DWS/REVOKED-MISDEMEANOR 5 7 4 4 3 4 6 3 4 3 43
ELUDE 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 8
(,.) EMBEZZLEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
EXTORTION/BLACKMAIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE 5 8 7 1 2 3 5 4 2 5 42
FAMILY-OTHER 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
FORCIBLE RAPE 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4
FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 6 1 3 3 8 13 2 6 1 6 49
FRAUD - ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
FRAUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRETENSES 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 5 11
FRAUD CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
FRAUD IMPERSONATION 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 1 11
FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FRAUD OF SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
FRAUD WIRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-',AUD-OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
'; lTIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY 28 46 40 42 30 33 48 41 30 22 360
fkNISHING 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 12
. AbLING - GAMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:AMBLING - OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.',RBAGE LITTERING 3 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 10
,j 1 T AND RUN FELONY 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3
<lIT AND RUN-MISDEMEANOR 1 0 2 2 5 3 3 4 2 1 23
ILLEGAL ALIEN INS HOLD 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE 2
DATE: 11/20/2007 PL6850
TIME: 7:47:01 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2007 SCOTTRU
ORIlI : OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT 2 0 4 3 2 3 4 3 2 1 24
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 4
KIDNAP FOR RANSOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
KIDNAP - HI-JACK,TERRORIST 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
KIDNAP - HOSTAGE/SHIELD OR REMOVAL/DELAY WITNESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LICENSING ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LIQUOR LAW-OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MINOR IN POSSESSION 3 1 33 0 3 6 11 11 10 0 78
MINOR ON PREMISES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 8
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE - TRAFFIC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NON CRIMINAL DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OTHER 12 14 B 10 13 12 10 13 5 4 101
PROPERTY - FOUND LOST MISLAID 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PROSTITUTION - COMPEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
PROSTITUTION - PROMOTE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RECKLESS DRIVING 2 2 4 2 3 2 3 5 4 0 27
ROBBERY BANK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY - BUSINESS 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 4
ROBBERY - CAR JACKING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C/o) ROBBERY - CONY. STORE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY - HIGHWAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ROBBERY - OTHER 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 4
ROBBERY RESIDENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY SERVICE STATION 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
RUNAWAY 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 B
SEX CRIME - CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME EXPOSER 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 4
SEX CRIME - FORCIBLE SODOMY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME INCEST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
SEX CRIME MOLEST (PHYSICAL) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 6
SEX CRIME - NON FORCE SODOMY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - NON-FORCE RAPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - OBSCENE PHONE CALL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
STALKER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
STOLEN PROPERTY - RECEIVING,BUYING,POSSESSING 1 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 11
SUICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THEFT BICYCLE 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
THEFT BUILDING 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
THEFT COIN OP MACHINE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THEFT FROM MOTOR VEHICLE 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7
THEFT MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE 3
DATE: 11/20/2007 PL6850
TIME: 7:47:01 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2007 SCOTTRU
ORI#: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL
-------------~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----
THEFT OTHER 1 0 3 5 2 1 0 0 0 2 14
THEFT - PICKPOCKET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THEFT - PURSE SNATCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THEFT SHOPLIFT 3 1 7 13 9 27 11 17 6 4 98
TRAFFIC ORDINANCES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 33 38 54 21 23 33 30 54 21 18 325
TRESPASS 13 12 9 7 8 6 7 7 1 2 72
VANDALISM 0 0 9 0 1 6 3 3 3 0 25
VEHICLE RECOVERD FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
WARRANT ARREST FOR OUR AGENCY 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4
WEAPON CARRY CONCEALED 2 3 3 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 14
WEAPON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
WEAPON - OTHER 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
WEAPON POSSESS ILLEGAL 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 13 25
WEAPON SHOOTING IN PROHIBITED AREA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
WILLFUL MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
ZONING ORDINANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
---- - --- ---- - -- --- .--------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------
2007 TOTAL: 194 213 291 201 205 235 242 250 151 163 0 0 2145
2006 TOTAL: 213 218 322 253 223 226 267 226 192 248 0 0 2366
2005 TOTAL: 129 149 144 234 241 231 237 250 206 167 0 0 2006
~
en
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE 1
DATE: 11/20/2007 PL6860
TIME: 7:47:09 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2007 SCOTTRU
ORIlI: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES
DATE USED: OFFENSE DATE
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT TOTAL
---------- - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 0 1 4 2 3 1 5 5 3 3 27
ANIMAL ORDINANCES 2 3 1 5 12 15 6 6 5 6 61
ARSON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
ASSAULT SIMPLE 12 7 12 12 7 14 18 11 15 16 124
ATTEMPTED MURDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
BURGLARY - BUSINESS 3 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 4 0 18
BURGLARY - OTHER STRUCTURE 2 4 3 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 18
BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 7 10 6 2 6 5 9 7 5 4 61
CHILD NEGLECT 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 0 1 2 12
CITY ORDINANCE 4 5 8 0 4 6 1 1 0 2 31
CRIME DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON 36 26 27 13 15 11 11 20 32 10 201
CURFEW 0 1 5 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 12
CUSTODY DETOX 2 1 0 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 11
CUSTODY - MENTAL 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 8
CUSTODY PROTECITVE 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 3 3 5 7 5 5 10 4 5 6 53
DOCUMENTATION 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
DRINKING IN PUBLIC 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE 12 11 17 7 7 10 14 21 10 2 111
DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 27 20 19 16 14 19 15 10 11 37 188
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
DWS/REVOKED-MISDEMEANOR 5 7 2 4 3 4 6 3 3 3 40
ELUDE 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 9
EMBEZZLEMENT 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
EXTORTION/BLACKMAIL 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
(,.) FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE 4 8 6 1 2 3 5 3 2 4 38
FAMILY-OTHER 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0\ FORCIBLE RAPE 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5
FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 8 4 5 6 15 16 3 11 3 7 78
FRAUD ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 4
FRAUD BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRETENSES 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 5 11
FRAUD - CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 5 3 2 17
FRAUD IMPERSONATION 0 2 1 0 0 1 4 2 7 1 18
FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
FRAUD - OF SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
FUGITIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY 27 44 36 38 30 32 38 41 30 20 336
FURNISHING 2 0 5 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 13
GARBAGE LITTERING 2 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 9
HIT AND RUN FELONY 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 5
HIT AND RUN-MISDEMEANOR 8 6 10 8 16 15 16 19 19 12 129
INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 2 4 14
KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 5
KIDNAP - HI-JACK,TERRORIST 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
LICENSING ORDINANCES 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 8
MINOR IN POSSESSION 3 1 5 0 2 3 2 6 4 0 26
MISCELLANEOUS 33 13 5 9 11 2 7 7 6 5 98
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 7 14 12 6 4 5 5 3 5 7 68
OTHER 16 12 8 9 11 9 6 13 6 5 95
PROPERTY - FOUND LOST MISLAID 23 22 23 18 16 20 20 23 18 16 199
PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 6
woodburn police Dept.
DATE: 11/20/2007
TIME: 7:47:09
ORIj: OR0240500 WPD
DATE USED: OFFENSE DATE
MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU OCTOBER 2007
RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JLY
AUG
SEP
OCT
PAGE 2
PL6860
SCOTTRU
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
~
-..t
PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCES
RECKLESS DRIVING
ROBBERY BUSINESS
ROBBERY HIGHWAY
ROBBERY - OTHER
RUNAWAY
SEX CRIME CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY
SEX CRIME - EXPOSER
SEX CRIME FORCIBLE SODOMY
SEX CRIME INCEST
SEX CRIME MOLEST (PHYSICAL)
SEX CRIME NON-FORCE RAPE
SEX CRIME - OTHER
SEX CRIME - PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL
SEX CRIME - SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT
STALKER
STOLEN PROPERTY - RECEIVING,BUYING,POSSESSING
SUICIDE
THEFT BICYCLE
THEFT BUILDING
THEFT COIN OP MACHINE
THEFT - FROM MOTOR VEHICLE
THEFT MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES
THEFT OTHER
THEFT PICKPOCKET
THEFT PURSE SNATCH
THEFT - SHOPLIFT
TRAFFIC ORDINANCES
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
TRESPASS
VANDALISM
VEHICLE RECOVERD FOR OTHER AGENCY
WARRANT ARREST FOR OUR AGENCY
WEAPON - CARRY CONCEALED
WEAPON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION
WEAPON - OTHER
WEAPON POSSESS ILLEGAL
WILLFUL MURDER
ZONING ORDINANCE
o
o
1
1
o
3
4
2
o
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
3
2
1
21
8
13
o
o
5
o
11
6
31
3
o
2
o
o
2
o
o
o
17
2
o
o
1
4
o
o
1
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
1
1
2
o
o
34
5
9
o
o
3
1
20
11
49
5
1
2
1
2
o
o
1
o
14
3
o
o
1
4
o
o
o
o
3
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
3
o
27
16
14
o
1
6
o
26
9
103
1
o
3
o
o
1
o
5
o
10
2
o
1
o
4
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
6
o
14
6
18
o
o
9
1
12
9
41
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
5
1
13
2
o
o
1
6
o
1
o
o
3
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
1
4
o
20
5
12
o
o
9
2
9
10
50
o
2
1
o
o
3
o
4
o
23
2
2
o
2
5
o
o
o
o
6
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
2
o
24
3
9
o
o
25
1
11
6
51
4
o
2
o
o
o
1
1
o
3
3
o
o
1
4
o
o
o
o
3
o
o
o
1
o
1
o
4
3
o
16
3
19
o
o
12
1
25
7
45
3
3
o
o
o
3
o
1
o
6
6
o
o
1
4
1
o
o
1
3
o
1
o
o
o
1
o
2
2
o
33
5
17
o
1
15
2
29
7
50
o
o
2
o
o
2
o
o
o
2
4
1
o
1
6
o
o
o
o
3
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
2
2
o
40
4
18
2
o
8
3
9
4
40
4
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
11
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
2
1
1
1
o
14
4
10
o
2
5
5
12
2
32
2
o
1
1
o
4
o
o
1
90
25
4
1
11
52
3
2
1
1
26
1
1
1
2
1
7
3
15
25
1
243
59
139
2
4
97
16
164
71
492
23
6
13
2
2
15
1
17
TOTAL:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3839
376
416
488
327
360
398
383
429
365
297
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
2007 TOTAL:
2006 TOTAL:
2005 TOTAL:
376
444
429
416
432
386
488
499
377
327
464
359
360
411
508
398
379
481
383
428
429
429
349
412
365
323
371
297
366
364
o
o
o
o
o
o
3839
4095
4116
SH
A~'~
~
WOODBURN
I.corporated 1889
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Scott Russell, Chief of Police V
SUBJECT:
Code Enforcement Statistics - October 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the Report
BACKGROUND:
The attached reports list the Code Enforcement Incidents for the month of
October 2007.
DISCUSSION:
The statistics have been gathered from the Police Departments Records
Management System. Code Enforcement Statistics are displayed to show the
amount of incidents handled by Code Enforcement for the month of Octoqer
2Q07.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
None
Agenda Item Review: City Administrato
City Attorney
Finance
'7"n
Code Enforcement Statisitcs October 2007
Incident Type
Abandon Vehicles
Abate Nusiance
Animal Complaints
Business License Check
Tall Grass
Ordinance Violation
Area Check
FIR
Other
Total of All Incidents
Total
15
17
63
2
o
50
7
4
11
169
39
SI
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATISTICS
OCTOBER 2007
Recreation Services Division
Oct-06 Oct-07 2006 YTO 2007 YTO
Revenue: $3,418.00 $8,319.00 $43,390.00 $55,145.41
Exoenditures: $33,211.00 $23,860.65 $149,744.00 $139,443.82
Proaram Attendance:
Youth Sports: 0 238 601 476
Adult Sports: 768 16 1,268 1,265
Youth Programs: 0 0 2,300 1,610
Adult Programs: 20 0 476 5
Teen Programs: 0 712 0 1,927
After School Club: 2,768 2,482 5,292 5,178
Special Events: 0 0 4,195 9,500
TOTAL: 3,556 3,448 14,132 19,961
Aquatics Division
Oct-06 Oct-07 2006 YTO 2007 YTO
Revenue: $8,206.63 $5,745.59 $54,051.37 $60,341.52
Exoenditures: $44,080.65 $46,418.02 $182,711.49 $194,559.45
Cost Recoverv: 19% 12% 30% 31%
Attendance: 3,447 2,491 18,378 18,575
Lesson Enrollment:
Group: 44 71 487 600
Adults: 0 0 3 6
Private: 4 5 5 30
4th Grade: 96 80 174 155
TOTAL: 144 156 669 791
Library Division
Oct-06 Oct-07 2006 YTO 2007 YTO
Revenue: $2,567.99 $1,711.60 $20,416.92 $22,868.52
Exoenditures: $76,297.99 $82,559.68 $309,767.42 $311,515.77
Librarv Attendance: 18,024 15,724 69,383 63,292
Librarv Circulation: 10,985 11,416 42,437 46,255
Adult Proaram Count: 0 2 9 10
Adult Attendance: 0 110 6,115 3,700
Youth Service Proaram Count: 34 30 101 97
Youth Service Attendance: 619 484 2,264 2,144
Database Usaae: 1,282 1,525 2,844 3,307
Adult Comouter Usaae: 4,764 4,762 17,930 17,966
Youth Services Comouter Usaae: 956 847 3,599 3,505
New Adds: 460 504 1,306 2,058
Volunteer Hours Worked: 1 O~TOBER 2081 662 400
40
~..~~
m: .
" , . ',.."...... '-
. .' . '.
w..OODBVRN
1.,",poraItJ /889
SJ
~~
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Tree Standards
RECOMMEN DATION:
Receive report.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council amended Ordinance 1908, which regulates the maintenance,
removal, and placement of street trees in Woodburn, at its September 10, 2007
meeting. The ordinance was effective November 1,2007.
DISCUSSION:
The Street Tree Ordinance requires a permit before a property owner can
remove or plant a Street Tree. It also requires that all Street Trees shall be
planted in conformance with street tree planting regulations that shall be
adopted, enforced, and administered by the Public Works Director. Copies of
those regulations must be on file in the Recorder's, Public Works, and
Community Development offices and at the Public Library.
The November 1, 2007 effective date was established to allow City Public Works
and Community Development staff adequate time, beginning in September, to
develop the forms needed to process permit requests, and street tree planting
regulations that are consistent with the Woodburn Development Ordinance.
Attached, for your information, are the permits, and tree planting regulations
that were adopted by the Public Works Department.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrato
City Attorney
Finance
41
CITY OF WOODBURN
STREET TREE PLANTING REGULATIONS
The purpose of these regulations is to establish a set of workable specification standards
and guidelines for activities related to the planting and maintenance of street trees. It is the
City's intention to work cooperatively with property owners toward a common goal of
protecting the urban forest, while making every effort to maintain the integrity of existing trees.
SECTION 1: STREET TREE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS:
PURPOSE: To ensure quality tree materials are used and that new plantings are acceptably
established in their new environment to maximize the tree's longevity and to minimize future
maintenance. Also to ensure new street trees will continue to thrive in their new
environment.
A. TREE MATERIALS:
1. Trees shall be healthy and vigorous with normal, well-developed branches and
root systems, free from decay, defects, sunscald injuries, and abrasions of the
bark, insect pests, and all forms of infestations or objectionable disfigurements.
2. Balled and burlapped trees shall have solid balls of size at least meeting the
American Nursery Association Standard. The balls shall be securely wrapped
with burlap or canvas, tightly bound with rope, wire, or twine. Plastic wrapping
material is not permitted. Root balls shall not be allowed to dry out at any time
from the nursery to final planting.
3. A minimum of 2 inch caliper tree is required of all stock planted as street trees.
4. All street trees shall be of an approved species and variety from the Woodburn
Development Ordinance (WOO). The approved species from the WOO are
found in Appendix A. Trees should not be excessively pruned at, or directly
before, the time of planting.
1
42
5. All broken, weak and interfering (rubbing) branches shall be properly removed
after the tree has been planted. Pruning cuts shall be properly made so that
the branch collar and/or branch bark ridge are not cut. All other sound and
healthy branches should be left intact to provide a maximum leaf surface to
manufacture food for crown and root growth
6. Tree material originating within the state shall have the Oregon inspection
certificate attached or must be verifiable that they originate from Oregon. A
certificate of inspection shall accompany nursery stock imported from other
states from the place of origin as required by Oregon law.
B. PLANTING METHODS:
1. All planting work shall be performed using sound horticultural practices. Street
tree planting will be in accordance with the planting detail included as Appendix
B for new construction or Appendix C for street tree replacement
2. No street tree shall be planted without first obtaining a Street Tree Permit from
the Public Works Department. For new developments street tree placement
will be evaluated by Community Development Department as part of landscape
plan review. For new development that involves street and infrastructure
improvements the Right of Way Permit for that work will also cover street tree
installation. Permits are available at the Public Works Department.
3. The following spacing standards shall be adhered to:
a. Five (5) feet from the beginning of curb radius on the approach to an
intersection and five (5) feet from the end of curb radius on the exit side.
b. Ten (10) feet from street light standards and power poles.
c. Five (5) feet from the edge of driveway approaches (measured from the
curbside, not sidewalk side), water meters, electrical or telephone or cable
communication boxes.
4. Trees shall be set plumb. Every planting pit shall be at least 50% wider and at
least the depth of the soil ball. All trees shall be set so that, after settlement,
they are at the same level as when growing in the nursery. Planting pits are to
be backfilled with the same soil that is excavated from them. Topsoil and
subgrade soil shall be loosened and mixed before backfilling. The planting
holes shall be excavated so that the sides taper outward into the soil; the
sides of the planting holes shall be roughened, not smoothly sculpted, which
shall allow roots to penetrate more easily into the surrounding soil. Topsoil
shall be gently firmed around the plant to hold it in place and to eliminate air
pockets. When pits are approximately two-thirds (2/3) full, they are to be
2
43
thoroughly watered to also eliminate air pockets. After this initial watering,
topsoil is to be installed to the top of pit and watered. Excess soil shall be
removed from the site after planting is completed.
5. Plants are to be thoroughly and properly watered immediately after planting.
Puddled soil conditions and over-watering are to be avoided.
6. Balled and burlapped trees may be placed with the wrapping in place if all
materials are untreated and biodegradable. When burlap is left around trees,
any string shall be removed and the burlap folded down from the top half of the
root ball.
7. All tree wrap shall be removed from trunks immediately after planting by the
contractor.
8. No plant pit shall be dug or approved until all underground utilities have been
marked. Utility locates may be obtained by calling 1-800-332-2344.
9. Tree spacing for new development proposals must conform to the "Minimum
Street Tree Planting Densities" as required in the WOO Section 3.106.03. At
any time minimum distances have been altered without previous approval, the
Contractor or property owner will be responsible to move the tree.
10. Planting sites shall be approximately 3-feet by 3-feet. Planting sites will be
mulched with approximately 4 inches of wood chips, fibrous bark, or com posted
wood debris after planting is completed. The trunk of the tree should be left
uncovered and mulch should not come in contact with the trunk flare.
11. Wherever possible a watering berm shall be constructed around every tree. The
berm shall be removed after one year.
12. Trees shall be staked only if they are to be exposed to strong wind gusts.
Replacement trees in established residential neighborhoods should not be
staked. If staked the tree will be secured to the stakes with a rubber or other,
adjustable, chain-lock "tree tie," no less that 1" wide and secured at no less
than two points along the tree. If used, stakes shall be removed at the end of
the one year establishment period.
13. Trees will be protected at all times during handling, shipping, storage, and
planting. Trees shall be protected from windburn during transit, extreme weather
conditions, and drying of roots or root balls. Any trees showing substantial
damage will be rejected and replaced by the Contractor or property owner at
their own expense.
3
44
14. Root barriers are required for all new and replacement street tree plantings.
Placement shall be in accordance with the tree planting detail.
15.AII plant pits that may cause hazards at any time to pedestrians or vehicles
shall be adequately barricaded with qualified warning devices as per Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, City of Woodburn, and Oregon OSHA
standards.
c. TREE ESTABLISHMENT:
1. The "tree establishment" shall be understood to be part of the planting work to
assure satisfactory growth of the planted materials.
2. Prior to the beginning of the establishment period, all trees which are dead,
partially dead or which do not otherwise meet specifications shall be
removed and replaced with healthy trees. All trees in place after this
replacement will be classified as the "original planting" and will be subject to
establishment.
3. The "tree establishment period" will begin when the "original planting" and all
landscape construction has been completed and approved.
4. Trees shall be planted only between September 15 and May 15 unless
otherwise approved. The establishment period shall begin on the date of initial
planting and shall extend for a one-year period from that date.
5. Where street trees are required with new construction, during the establishment
period and until the final inspection, the contractor or responsible party, shall be
responsible for care of the tree to maintain a vigorous growing condition by
weeding, watering, cultivating, repairing and adjusting tree stakes, spraying for
pest control, removal of dead trees, removal of trees not showing vigorous
growth, and replacement of missing trees.
6. Where street trees are included with new construction, the cost of furnishing and
replacing trees, and caring for the trees as specified, shall be understood to be a
mandatory element of that construction project. The contractor or responsible
party will record each period of watering, replacement of stakes or trees, and
any and all work done in maintaining the vigor of trees. Work shall be recorded
in writing by the contractor and provided at the request of the City.
7. During the establishment period, periodic inspections will be conducted to
monitor the new street trees. At these inspections, corrective work needed to
be done will be determined and written notification, listing corrective work, will be
4
45
provided to the contractor as soon as possible. All corrective work shall be
completed within 15 calendar days after written notification has been provided to
the contractor, except that tree replacements shall be made only during the
appropriate planting season unless otherwise approved. The fifteen calendar
days will not include those days that the City determines conditions make it
impractical for the work to be performed.
8. For new construction at the end of the establishment period, the contractor shall
provide an information packet with information covering tree care and ownership
responsibilities to each property owner with street trees.
SECTION 2: TREE REMOVAL. PRUNING. AND PROTECTION:
PURPOSE: To develop and preserve tree structure and health. These guidelines are
presented as working guidelines, recognizing that trees are individually unique in
structure, form, and growth response - not only between, but also within species and
cultivars. Pruning activities should be chosen and/or modified depending on the
species, the landscape site, intended function of the tree, the present age and
condition of the tree, and desired extent of pruning. Pruning is also done to provide
traffic and pedestrian clearance. Utility companies with overhead lines prune as
necessary to remove foliage that endangers their utility and threatens uninterrupted
service.
A. TREE REMOVAL:
1. All street tree removal shall be in conformance with the City of Woodburn
Ordinance 2424 and shall require a street tree removal permit that shall be
obtained from the Public Works Department. Property owners have
responsibility for street trees adjacent to their property.
B. GENERAL PRUNING:
1. Safety of pedestrians and vehicles must be maintained at all times and is the
responsibility of the person or persons pruning the street trees.
2. Street and sidewalk surfaces and all utilities in the area of the trimming must
be protected from damage. Repair or replacement to these facilities will be
the responsibility of the person or persons responsible for the maintenance
of the tree.
5
46
3. A tree pruned by the crown reduction method appears more natural and
lasts longer if confined to relatively small thinning cuts. This is the preferred
method of crown reduction.
4. Drop crotch pruning is used for crown reduction when the small pruning cuts
method is not practical. It is accomplished by the removal of the central
leader (in the case where the tree has a central leader) to a lower upright
limb. This method is used by utility providers for clearance of overhead
lines. This method is used only where there are no other alternatives.
5. The leader of a central-leader tree to a large lateral shall not be pruned.
Limbs shall be pruned to lighten the end weight where such
overburdening appears likely to cause breakage of limbs two (2)
inches or more in diameter. This shall require a twenty (20) to thirty
(30) percent reduction in height and width in some types of trees
6. All pruning cuts shall be made without leaving a prominent stub. Pruning
cuts shall be made in a manner that favors the earliest possible covering
of the wound with callous tissue growth. This requires that the wound
created by the pruning cut be as small as practicable; the cut must be
reasonably flush with the branch bark ridge and the cambium tissues at the
edge of the cut must be alive and healthy. Extremely large flush pruning
cuts which produce large wounds and weaken the tree at the point of the
pruning cut shall not be made.
7. Topping of any street tree is prohibited. Under special circumstances, the Public
Works Director or designee may grant permission or suggest alternatives, due to
damage by storm or other causes where trees are severely damaged or interfere
with utilities or other obstructions in the area.
8. Any tree beneath or over an overhead-energized conductor shall be
inspected by the appropriate utility before any pruning work begins or is
approved.
9. All pruning work within 10 feet of an overhead-energized conductor shall be
assumed by the appropriate utility.
10. The use of climbing spurs or spike shoes shall not be permitted for
climbing or working in trees.
6
47
C. PRUNING FOR REQUIRED CLEARANCE:
1. All pruning for required clearances shall be in conformance with the City of
Woodburn Ordinance 2424. Property owners have responsibility for street trees
adjacent to their property.
2. Where inappropriate trees are planted under overhead utility lines and where
the excessive size of the trees requires frequent and substantial pruning, City
permission may be sought to remove and replace the trees with specific
species approved for planting under overhead utilities.
D. TREE PROTECTION:
Purpose: This section is intended to aid in the protection and preservation of trees
while maintaining existing facilities or new construction activities and to provide
technical assistance by describing methods for tree protection during these
activities. The following requirements are mandatory for street trees and are highly
recommended for all other trees.
1. Removal of soil or excavation under the drip line of any street tree shall be
restricted to the minimum amount necessary for proper accomplishment of the
proposed construction.
2. Use retaining walls with discontinuous footings to maintain natural grade as far
as possible from trees. Excavate to finish grade by hand, cut exposed roots with
a saw to avoid wrenching and shattering from equipment. Spoil beyond cut face
can be removed by equipment sitting outside the dripline of the tree.
3. Woody vegetation to be removed adjacent to trees should be cut at ground
level and not pulled out by equipment to avoid root injury to such trees.
4. Utility trench locations will be coordinated with installation contractors. Utility
trenches will be consolidated wherever possible. Excavate trenches by hand in
areas with roots larger than 2 inches in diameter. Tunnel under woody roots
larger than 4 inches in diameter rather than cutting them. If necessary, equipment
should operate on double, overlapping, thick plywood sheets within the drip line.
5. Prune to height requirements prior to construction. Consider maximum height
requirements of construction equipment and emergency vehicles over roads. All
pruning must be done by or under the direction of a Certified Arborist or licensed
tree service, not construction personnel.
7
48
6. During construction activity fence trees to keep traffic and storage from within the
drip line of trees. Provide a storage yard and traffic areas for construction
activities away from trees. Protect soil surface from compaction.
7. All trees on which vines are growing shall have said vines removed. Vine
tendrils shall be removed in a manner which shall not injure trees or cause
scarring of low branches and tree trunks.
8. Dumping of waste from job sites is prohibited around the base of the tree(s).
9. Maintain the original ground level around trees.
10. When root cutting for sidewalk replacement, no more that three roots of greater
than 3 inches in diameter from any given tree will be removed without
consultation with the Public Works Department. Removal of more roots may
require written approval of a Certified Arborist.
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Appendix C -
WOO Tree Guidelines
Tree Planting Detail - New Construction
Tree Planting Detail - Street Tree Replacement
8
49
Permit Number
~
WOODBU~N
1.,orporAt,d 1889
Date
APPLICATION & PERMIT TO
REMOVE A STREET TREE
The undersigned hereby makes application to remove a street tree. A report by a Certified Arborist as
defined by Ordinance 2424 is attached to this application.
LOCATION:
REASON FOR REMOVAL:
NAME OF APPLICANT:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
APPROVAL
PERMIT APPROVED BY:
Date
The applicant agrees to abide by all standards, rules, regulations, ordinances, and policies of the City
of Woodburn. This approved permit is valid for 180 days from date of issuance. There may be subsidy
assistance available from the City for this tree removal. Following conditions apply:
. All stumps must be removed below ground level
. A replacement tree (minimum caliper of 2 inChes) of a species that will reach approximate
height of surrounding trees at maturity. Replacement tree may not be from prohibited list
from Woodburn Development Ordinance provided with this permit.
. Replacement tree shall be planted in accordance with attached Woodburn Street Tree
Planting Regulations.
DENIAL
PERMIT DENIED BY:
Date
Denial based upon attached findings. The denial of this application may be appealed to the City of
Woodburn Council within 10 days of the denial of the permit. The appeal should be in writing and sent
to the City Administrator, City of Woodburn, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, OR 97071. The City
Council will hear and determine the appeal, based upon information provided by the permit applicant
and the Public Works Director.
50
Permit Number
~
WOODBURN
Incorporatcd 1889
Date
APPLICATION & PERMIT TO
PLANT A STREET TREE
The undersigned hereby makes application to plant street tree(s). A sketch showing the proposed
location is attached to this application.
LOCATION:
REASON FOR STREET TREE PLANTING:
NAME OF APPLICANT:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
APPROVAL
PERMIT APPROVED BY:
Date
The applicant agrees to abide by all standards, rules, regulations, ordinances, and pOlicies of the City
of Woodburn. This approved permit is valid for 180 days from date of issuance. Following conditions
apply:
· The street tree (minimum caliper of 2 inches) must be of a species that will reach approximate
height of surrounding trees at maturity. Street tree must be from approved list in the
Woodburn Development Ordinance provided with this permit.
· Street tree shall be planted in accordance with attached Woodburn Street Tree Planting
Regulations.
DENIAL
PERMIT DENIED BY:
Date
Denial based upon attached findings. The denial of this application may be appealed to the City of
Woodburn Council within 10 days of the denial of the permit. The appeal should be in writing and sent
to the City Administrator, City of Woodburn, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, OR 97071. The City
Council will hear and determine the appeal, based upon information provided by the permit applicant
and the Public Works Director.
51
fj ,\
~~~4~
W~N
lu,."...,.J f~~9
lOA
~~
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Ben Gillespie, Finance Director ~
SUBJECT: Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Budget
RECOMMENDATION:
Council direct staff to return an ordinance reflecting the Council's decision
following the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Several items require the Council's immediate budget consideration and should
not be delayed until the mid-year budget revision in January. Several less
pressing budget matters have been included in this proposed budget revision,
because staff is aware of the issues and there is no reason to wait until the mid
year review.
DISCUSSION:
GENERAL FUND
Because of a growing workload, the Municipal Court's workforce has become
strained. To meet the demand management proposes increasing one
employee from 19 hours per week to 30 hours per week at a cost of $14,415 for
the remainder of the year. (1 )
Community Services has secured grants and donations from the Police Activities
League ($4,5OO for the Teen program), Woodburn Together ($1,000 for PAL
Adventures teen field trips), Gervais School District ($700 for a summer day camp
intern), Silverton Hospital ($500 for Walt's Run), and KaBoom ($5oo for We Play
Training). New revenue from these sources totals $7,200. (2)
Agenda Item Review: City Administrato
City Attorney
Finance
52
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 2
.
.
Because Library staff was new to Woodburn's budget process, they under-
budgeted the Library baseline budget by $5,450. Management requests that
that amount be restored. (3)
When the Police moved into the new location, Gervais Telephone agreed to
provide a fiber connection for voice and data between City Hall and the new
police facility. They were willing to do this free of charge, because they were
negotiating with the City for a video franchise. When Gervais Telephone
dropped their plans to offer video in Woodburn, they could no longer offer to
maintain dark fiber for the City's use fee of charge. They asked for and
received approval from the PUC to charge the City $800 per month for limited
bandwidth. Staff then approached Willamette Broadband about an earlier
proposal to build a fiber connection. They were willing to do it for the price
agreed to 13 months earlier. Their price plus a 4% contingency is $22,000. When
completed, the City will own the fiber. The bandwidth will be several times what
Gervais had offered, and there will be no monthly charges. The money will be
transferred to the General CIP Fund and spent from there. (4)
GENERAL CIP FUND
With a grant from KaBoom for $12,500 and a donation from the Burlingham Trust
for a like amount, the City bought and erected new playground equipment at
Front Street Park. The KaBoom grant was budgeted, but at the time the budget
was adopted there was no indentified source for the matching funds. The
budget should be increased $12,500 for the donation from the Trust. The total
cost of the playground was $25,000. (5)
The community center preliminary design being done by Carlton/Hart was
budgeted in 2006/07. The work was not completed last year. To fund
completion of the project Beginning Fund Balance is increased by $5,200 and
Capital is increased the same amount. (6)
Two projects were induded in the Parks CI P, but were inadvertently omitted
from the line item budget. The Parks Master Plan Update and the Greenway
should be added to the budget at this time.
The Master Plan Update ($70,000) is funded entirely from SDC's. That amount
should be transferred from the Parks SDC Fund to the General CIP Fund and
expended from there. (7)
53
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 3
.
.
The Greenway construction is funded by a $210,000 grant from Oregon State
Parks, and $255,000 from SDC's. The entire cost of the project, $465,000, should
be added to Capital in the General CIP Fund. Revenue in the General CIP Fund
should be increased by $210,000 for the grant and $255,000 for a transfer from
the Parks SDC Fund. (8)
The Burlingham Park Playground was scheduled for construction in 2008/09.
However, the $30,000 grant to build it was secured from Oregon State Parks this
year. The total cost of the project is covered by the grant. (9)
When the Police moved into the new location, Gervais Telephone agreed to
provide a fiber connection for voice and data between City Hall and the new
police facility. They were willing to do this free of charge, because they were
negotiating with the City for a video franchise. When Gervais Telephone
dropped their plans to offer video in Woodburn, they could no longer offer to
maintain dark fiber for the City's use fee of charge. They asked for and
received approval from the PUC to charge the City $800 per month for limited
bandwidth. Staff then approached Willamette Broadband about an earlier
proposal to build a fiber connection. They were willing to do it for the price
agreed to 13 months earlier. Their price plus a 4% contingency is $22,000. When
completed, the City will own the fiber. The bandwidth will be several times what
Gervais had offered, and there will be no monthly charges. The money will be
transferred to the General CIP Fund and spent from there. (4)
PARKS SDC FUND
The Master Plan Update ($70,000) is funded entirely from SDC's. That amount
should be transferred from the Parks SDC Fund to the General CIP Fund and
expended from there. (7)
The Greenway construction is funded by a $210,000 grant from Oregon State
Parks, and $255,000 from SDC's. The entire cost of the project, $465,000, should
be added to Capital in the General CIP Fund. Revenue in the General CIP Fund
should be increased by $210,000 for the grant and $255,000 for a transfer from
the Parks SDC Fund. (8)
IS FUND
Police communications were susceptible to a break In the fiber connection
between their facility and City Hall. If the fiber were damaged, Police cars
would lose their network connection. Other agencies that use the City's records
54
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 4
.
.
management system, also, would be unable to connect to our network. The
Police Facility would lose Intemet service. That could be temporarily restored,
but only with manual intervention. By adding a $4,000 switch in City Hall, we
have made the Police Facility self-sufficient. If the fiber between City Hall and
the Police Facility is cut, Police communications will not be interrupted. The
purchase is funded in the IS Fund by reducing Contingencies. (9)
By replacing a partial T1 telephone line to City Hall with a full T1, the City was
able to increase the number of lines available for simultaneous outside calls from
18 to 23. It also allows for caller ID, and, most importantly, Norcom will be able
to identify the origin of an emergency call to the handset, rather than simply to
City Hall. The cost of installation is $7,000, which is funded by reducing
Contingencies in the IS Fund. Qwest was offering favorable pricing for the
upgrade, so the monthly fee for the full T1 will be slightly less that the cost of the
partial T1. (10)
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
The City has received a Federal grant to purchase a replacement Dial-a-Ride
van. The grant is for $49,500, and the balance of the purchase cost, $55,000, is
already budgeted. (11)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Here is a summary of the financial impact:
BEGINNING
FUND Transfers CONTIN-
FUND No. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENSES In/(Out) GENCIES
General 001 7,200 27,065 -22,000 -41,865
General CIP 358 5,200 252,500 604,700 347,000
Parks sec 364 -325,000 -325,000
IS 568 11,000 -11,000
Equip.
Replacement 591 49,500 -49,500
Total 5,200 259,700 692,265 0 -427,365
In the General Fund revenue is increased by $7,200. Expenditures are increased
by $27,065, and transfers to other funds are increased by $22,000. Contin-
gencies are decreased by $41 ,865. This leaves Contingencies at $939,303 or
9.1 % of the expenditure budget. When the audit is complete, actual Beginning
55
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 5
.
.
Fund Balance will be posted. That figure is now anticipated to be $200,000
greater than the amount budgeted. This will serve to increase Contingencies as
well. When that occurs, Contingencies will be greater than 10%.
In the General CIP Fund Beginning Fund Balance is increased $5,200 to reflect
the cany over of funds for a project not completed in the 2006/07. Beginning
Fund Balance will be adjusted to actual when the audit is finished. Revenue is
increased by $252,500. Transfers from other funds are increased by $347,000,
and expenditures are increased by $604,700. Contingencies are not affected.
In the Parks SDC Fund transfers to other funds is increased $325,000, and
Contingencies are decreased a like amount.
In the Information Services Fund expenditures are increased by $11,000, and
Contingencies are decreased by the same amount.
In the Equipment Replacement Fund expenditures are increased by $49,500,
and Contingencies are decreased by $49,500.
56
CITY of WOODBURN
NOVEMBER BUDGET REVISION
2007/08
Description Account Expenditures Revenue
GENERAL FUND
Court--Salaries 001 181 1811 5111 8,060
Court-FICA 001 181 1811 5212 700
Court-Medical Dental 001 181 1811 5213 4,655
Court--Retirement 001 181 1811 5214 1,000
Contingencies 001 901 9971 5921 -14,415
Increase Court hours (1)
CS-Rec--Part-time Salaries 001 421 7423 5112 6,200
CS Ree-Services 001 421 74235419.403 1,000
Donations--Parks 001 000 3671 2,700
PAL Grant 001 000 3671.102 4,500
Various Parks grants (2)
CS Library 001 311 3199 5311 200
CS Library 001 311 3199 5313 250
CS Library 001 311 3199 5315 5,000
Contingencies 001 901 9971 5921 -5,450
Restore Library Baseline (3)
Transfers out 001 199 9711 5811.358 22,000
Contingencies 001 901 9971 5921 -22,000
Dark fiber to Police (4)
GENERAL CIP FUND
Capital 358 121 9531 5639.017 12,500
Burlingham Trust 358 000 3671.108 12,500
Front Street Park (5)
Capital 358 121 9531 5623.011 5,200
Beginning Fund Balance 358 000 3081 5,200
Community Center Design (6)
Capital 358 121 9531 5637.010 70,000
Transfers in 358 000 3971.364 70,000
Master Plan (7)
Capital 358 121 9531 5637.009 465,000
Grant 358 000 3341 210,000
Transfers in 358 000 3971.364 255,000
Greenway (8)
57
Capital 358 121 9531 5639.033 30,000
Donations 358 000 3341 30,000
Burlingham Park Playground (9)
Capital 358 121 9531 5644.032 22,000
Transfers in 358 000 3971.001 22,000
Dark fiber to Police (4)
PARKS SDC FUND
Transfers out 364 491 9711 5811.358 70,000
Contingencies 364 901 9971 5921 -70,000
Master Plan Update (7)
Transfers out 364 491 9711 5811.358 255,000
Contingencies 364 901 9971 5921 -255,000
Greenway (8)
IS FUND
Finance IS-Capital 568 151 1521 5645.031 4,000
Contingencies 568 901 9971 5921 -4,000
Router to Police (9)
Finance IS-Capital 568 151 1521 5644 7,000
Contingencies 568 901 9971 5921 -7,000
Replace T-1's (10)
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
Transit-Capital 591 671 9211 5649 55,000
Transit-Capital 591 671 9211 5649 -5,500
Federal Grant Direct 591 000 3332 49,500
Para-transit van (11)
Grand Total 661,400 661,400
58
~"'"
. .
, ", ...'.,....-.
WQQDBU~N
lHcarporarfa 18S9
1J/1I~_1 L. lOB
,~~
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
VIA: Jim Allen, Community Development Director ~
FROM: Donald Dolenc, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision in Cases VAR 2007-
01 and DR 2006-17
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing on the appeal and affirm the decision of the
Woodburn Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting of September 27, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on cases V AR 2007-01, DR 2006-17, and EXCP 2007-02. These cases
related to a proposed multiple-family dwelling project on East Lincoln Street.
The Commission approved the design review with conditions, approved the
exception to street right-of-way and improvements. The Commission denied the
variance request and required construction of an architectural wall.
The applicant appeals the Commission's denial of the variance, together with
related aspects of the design review.
DISCUSSION:
Proceed with a de novo public hearing on the appeal. A complete discussion
of the appeal is attached.
FINANCIAL IMP ACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrato~~
City Attorney
Finance
59
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Staff report of November 16, 2007 for public hearing on November 26,2007
DR 2006-17
V AR 2007-01
Appellant:
Welkin Engineering
7165 SW Fir Loop #204
Tigard, OR 97223
Property Owner:
Tim Murphy and Gerard Stascausky
III SW 5th Ave. 4200 Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Subject Property:
1037 E. Lincoln Street, tax lot 051W08CC061 100
Nature of the Applic:ation: The owner's representative appeals the Planning Commission's
approval of a design review for an 8-unit multiple-family dwelling and denial of a variance from
WDO 2.1 04.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7 requiring construction of an architectural wall.
Table of Contents
Notice and Procedure... ........................................................................................................................ 1
Approval Criteria........ ........... ................................... ........................................................................... 2
General Provisions. ...................... ................... ................................... .................................................. 3
Medium Density Residential (RM) District Standards ........................................................................ 4
Variances........ ...................................................... .......................................... ......................................7
Staff Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 11
Attachments and Exhibits.................................................................................................................. 11
1 Notice and Procedure
2
3 Condition of the Property: The subject property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and
4 is designated Residential More than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The
5 property is 0.73 acres in area and is currently vacant. No wetlands or floodplains exist on the site.
6 Properties on the north side of E. Lincoln Street are generally zoned Medium Density Residential
7 (RM) and are designated Residential More than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report. doc Page
1 of 12
60
1
2
3
4
S
6
Properties on the south side of E. Lincoln Street are zoned Residential Single Family (RS) and are
designated Residential Less than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
The properties immediately to the south, southwest, and southeast (fronting on East Lincoln Street)
are developed with single-family dwellings. The Washington Elementary School site abuts most of
the west property line, on property zoned Public and Semi-Public (P/SP). A multiple-dwelling
development abuts the property to the north. The property to the east is vacant.
The properties to the southeast and southwest (993 and 1035 East Lincoln) share a driveway with
the subject property. This is reflected on partition plat 2001-56.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
Previous Land Use Decisions: The subject property was created by partition plat 2001-56, which
was approved by planning case PAR 2000-04 under the former Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. No
other land use decisions have been made on the subject property.
Nature of these proceedings: The cases heard by the Planning Commission included an Exception
to Street Right of Way and Improvements (case EXCP 2007-02.) The Planning Commission
approved the street exception subject to conditions. The appellant has not appealed that decision, so
it is not germane to this case and is not discussed in this staff report.
The decision of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board is appealable to the City
Council for a de novo public hearing. The City Council decision is the City's rmal decision
and is appealable to LUBA within 21 days after it becomes final. [WDO 4.101.06.C]
[T]he appeal hearing is confined to the issues raised in the notice of appeal. [WDO
4.1 02.01.C. 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
40
Since the Council hears this appeal de novo, it can consider new testimony and evidence. However,
its deliberations are limited in scope to the issues raised in the notice of appeal- in this case,
aspects of the architectural wall and fence.
Public Notice: Public hearing notices were posted on the property on September 11,2007. Public
hearing notices were mailed to the parties specified in WOO 4.102.01.C on October 29, 2007. No
comments have been received in favor of the cases and none have been received in opposition. No
public hearing notices were returned by the Postal Service as unclaimed or undeliverable.
Approval Criteria
Oregon Revised Statutes 197.763 requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each
hearing. The applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) are:
41
42
1.1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
1.101 Structure
1.102 Definitions
2.1 LAND USE ZONING
2.104 Medium Density Residential (RM)
I:\Community Development\P1anning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Cornmons\Appeal report. doc Page
20fl2
61
I 4.1
2 4.101
3 4.102
4 5.1
5 S.1 03
6
7
8 General Provisions
9
10 The provisions of the WOO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to promote
II the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind
12 of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the WOO.
13 [WDO 1.101.02.A]
14 All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-officials), of the City vested with
IS authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and require conformance with
16 the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which
17 violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO
18 1.101.04]
ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES
Decision Making Procedures
Review, Interpretation and Enforcement
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Type III Application Requirements
19 Findings: The councilors and planning commissioners are officials of the City and are collectively
20 vested with authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff are employees of the City and
21 are vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals.
22 Conclusions: The councilors, planning commissioners and planning division staff must adhere to
23 and require conformance with the WOO, and must not grant approval for any development or use
24 which violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WOO.
25
26
27 A notice of intent to appeal any Type II or Type III decision must be received in writing by
28 the Community Development Director within twelve (12) days from the date notice of the
29 challenged decision is mailed to those entitled to notice. Late filing of any appeal shall be a
30 jurisdictional defect and will result in the automatic rejection of any appeal so flied. [WDO
31 4.102.01.B.l]
32 Finding: The notice of intent to appeal was received four days after the Notice of Decision was
33 mailed.
34 Conclusion: The appeal was timely filed.
35
36
37 The following must be included as part of the notice of appeal:
38 a. The Community Development file number and date the decision to be appealed was
39 rendered;
40 b. The name, mailing address and daytime telephone number for each appellant;
41 c. A statement of how each appellant has standing to appeal;
42 d. A statement of the grounds for the appeal; and
43 e. The appropriate appeal fee. Failure to include the appeal fee for the costs of appeal
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
3 of 12
62
I and transcript fee within the appeal period is a jurisdictional defect and will result in
2 the automatic rejection of any appeal so flied. IF an appellant prevails at hearing or
3 on appeal, the transcript fee shall be refunded. (WDO 4.102.01.B.2]
4 Findings: The appellant's submittal included all the elements required by WDO 4.102.01.B.2 except
5 the transcript fee. The City fee schedule does not include a transcript fee.
6 Conclusions: The City cannot charge a fee which is not listed in the fee schedule. The appellant's
7 submittal meets the requirements of WOO 4.102.0 1.B.2.
8
9
10 AU City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval
11 reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that aU
12 applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV decisions EXCEPT
13 annexation. AD conditions of approval shaD be clear and objective or if the condition requires
14 discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.Al
15 Conclusion: The Council may impose conditions of approval if it grants the instant appeal.
16
17
18 WDO 2.104 Medium Density Residential (RM) District Standards
19
20 "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard
21 abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a
22 garage (or carport in the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a wall." [WDO
23 2.104.06.D.1.b.l]
24 Findings: The grading plan shows a 6 foot architectural wall 24 feet long adjacent to the north
25 exterior parking spaces. The grading plan shows a 6 foot architectural wall 11 feet long adjacent to
26 the south exterior parking spaces. No other parking spaces are within required setbacks.
27 Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 2.1 04.06.D.l.b.l at the north exterior
28 parking spaces. The south exterior parking spaces are not adjacent to an architectural wall along
29 their entire length and do not comply with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.l.b.l. The south exterior parking
30 spaces should be screened with an architectural wall along their entire length.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
4 of 12
63
Aerial photo of the subject property. Areas where a wall is required by Table 2.1.7 are
shown in solid red. Wall that is discretionary in Table 2.1.7 is shown in dashed yellow.
1 Development in aD RM zone, except for a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be
2 subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.7. [WDO 2.104.06.D.2.al
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro e Wall
Existing single family or duplex Solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
dwellin no less than 6 feet or eater than 7 feet in hei t.
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing Wall requirements shall be determined in conjunction with
medium densi residential unit the a licable Desi Review rocess.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
5 of 12
64
v.... {""IllMe A.- ,........ om,....
........ ...
.....
.
.
I
.
........ ,
.
.
.
t .
.
Jl&a"e 6... VIsIoa ae..... Am
A vision clearance area shall contain no plants,
fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent
obstruction exceeding 30 inches in height
(measured from the top of the curb or, where no
curb exists, from the established street centerline
grade], EXCEPT as follows:
1. Trees, provided branches and foliage are
removed to a height of 7 feet above grade;
2. Telephone, power and cable television poles;
3. Telephone and utility boxes less than ten inches
at the widest dimension; and
4. Traffic control signs and devices. (WDO
3.103.10.E]
1
2 Appellant's statement to the Council: "South walls (flag pole) The applicants would accept the
3 interpretation of the Commission's decision provided by staff - i.e. that the walls need be 6-foot
4 high with respect to the finished grade of the site. Furthermore, the applicants would enlarge the
5 driveways to 20-feet wide and provide a 30-inch high wall (wi respect to finished grade ofthe site)
6 within the vision triangles, which is required by Code. All walls would comply with the appearance
7 standards for architectural walls.
8 West wall The applicants' intention is to contest the grounds on which the Planning Commission
9 based its discretionary decision to require a full6-foot architectural wall. The Commission's intent
10 was to preclude access to the school site through the project site from the surrounding
II neighborhood. The applicants feel that such impacts are unlikely to be caused by their project, as
12 development would provide no better access than is currently available, and so the project should
13 not be required to bear the cost of mitigating the impacts. Moreover, the mitigation that is being
14 required seems out of proportion to the problem, which could be solved with a much less expensive
15 barrier (e.g. wood, vinyl, chain link, hedge, or shorter wall) that would go atop the retaining wall.
16 North wall As with the west wall, the applicants contest the grounds for the decision. The
17 difference here is that there is already an existing chain link. fence that seems sufficient to deter
18 access into the adjoining housing project-which one could reason was deemed sufficient at the time
19 that that project was approved. What is it about this project that prompts the need for a new wall?
20 East wall Because of the one-size-fits-all requirement in the Code, an architectural wall is called for
21 in this case to mitigate against a use that does not presently exist, and is unlikely to exist in the
22 future (Le. a new single-family house on the vacant rear portion of the RM-zoned lot). To address
23 the Commission's concerns about deterioration of wood fencing, the proposed sound-attenuating
24 wood fence could be made more stout with deeper posts and stronger-gauge hardware. Materials
25 and/or colors could be selected that would slow its deterioration. Of course, CCR's will be in place
26 to ensure maintenance. Vinyl fencing might also be an option, with an even longer lifespan.
27 In summary, the applicants would still build the 6-foot architectural wall adjacent to parking spaces,
28 around the southern open space area, and along the flag pole as described above. With the variance
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
6 of 12
65
I
2
and this appeal, the applicants are seeking approval only for an alternative-type barrier around the
remainder of the site, where the need and expense of an architectural wall seems unjustified."
Findings: A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater
than 7 feet in height, is required where the property abuts lots developed with single-family
dwellings (933, 1035, and 1129 East Lincoln Street, to the southwest, south, and east), in
accordance with Table 2.1.7, except at the access points to the abutting lots and their associated
vision clearance areas. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall along the northern 215
feet of the west property line, where the lot abuts school property in the P /SP zone, in accordance
with WOO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall
along the north property line, where the lot abuts an existing medium density residential
development in the RM zone, in accordance with WOO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The
appellant has requested a variance from the wall requirement along the west, north, and east
property boundaries. The appellant proposes architectural walls on top of the retaining walls along
the flagpole portion of the lot. The submittal does not address the requirement that the walls have
an anti-graffiti surface.
Conclusions: The appellant shall provide architectural walls at all property lines, in accordance with
WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The height of the architectural walls shall be governed by
WDO 3.103.10.E within vision clearance areas.
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
Wall, Architectural: A wall that incorporates at least two colors and/or textures. [WDO 1.102]
Findings: The submittal did not include a detailed description of the of the proposed architectural
walls. Architectural walls are intended to buffer adjacent properties from the subject property - not
to buffer the subject property from adjacent properties. The appellant has not included the
requirement for at least two colors and/or textures as an element of the appeal.
Conclusions: All architectural walls should incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the
side facing away from the subject property. The appellant should submit details of the proposed
architectural walls demonstrating compliance with the requirement ofWDO 1.102 that architectural
walls incorporate at least two colors and/or textures. Retaining walls should have the same
appearance as architectural walls.
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
31
38
WDO 5.103.11
Variances
The purpose of a variance is to allow a deviation from a WDO development standard
EXCEPT a standard regarding use, where strict adherence to the standard and variance to a
standards will not unreasonably impact the adjacent existing or potential uses or
development. [WDO S.103.11.A]
Appellant's statement to the Planning Commission: "Like most cities, the City of Wood bum is
seeking to promote livability within its incorporated areas. To help achieve this goal, the City is
requiring new development provide certain design amenities. Specifically, section
2.104.06(D)(2)(a) and Table 2.1.7 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO) require new
development in the RM zone to provide a "solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
39
40
41
42
43
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
7 of 12
66
I no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height" to serve as a buffer between it and surrounding
2 development. The WDO distinguishes an architectural wall as "a wall that incorporates at least two
3 colors and/or textures".
4 The proposed development is an infill project of 8 attached dwelling units on a 0.73 acre flag lot,
5 with a perimeter of 879.8 feet. The application of WDO standards in Table 2.1.7 translates into
6 664.9 feet, or 75.6% of the entire perimeter being required to have an architectural wall. At $65 per
7 linear foot, building this wall would cost $43,218.50.
8 The applicants assert that the functionality of this wall (Le. screening and buffering, as opposed to
9 its design attributes) can be provided with a 6-foot high wood fence at approximately $20 per linear
10 foot, or ~ the cost of an architectural wall. The incremental difference between $20/foot and
II $65/foot for the buffer thus represents an exaction for design amenities, a benefit imposed on the
12 applicant by the City intended for enjoyment of the public which is at most only marginally related
13 to the impacts of the development. Under Do/an v. City ofTigard, 512 US 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309
14 (1994), such exactions must be "roughly proportionate" to impacts.
15 This variance request will demonstrate that strict application of the standards in Table 2.1.7 of the
16 WDO results in a public benefit that is considerably misaligned with the size, scale and situation of
17 this development. Based on this analysis the applicant requests that a variance to the standards in
18 Table 2.1.7 be granted to allow the project to be built as proposed in the application, because
19 applying the current standards would result in a disproportionate burden for public amenities to be
20 borne by this small development."
21 Findings: Wood fences provide a visual barrier equivalent to brick or block walls. Wood fences do
22 not provide a noise barrier equivalent to brick or block walls. Brick or block walls maintain their
23 appearance without regular repainting, and are more durable and resistant to damage than wood
24 fences. The required anti-graffiti surface makes brick or block walls more resistant to vandalism.
25 The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is an accepted development standard in the
26 community. The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is imposed in specific circumstances
27 where a development could reasonably be anticipated to generate visual and noise impacts on
28 adjacent properties. An architectural wall is the appropriate method to reduce impacts created by
29 the development. The WDO requirement for an architectural wall is not a method to create a public
30 amenity. The appellant's statement did not address "the adjacent existing or potential uses or
31 development."
32 Conclusions: The requested variance would allow a deviation from a WDO development standard,
33 but not a standard regarding use. The requested variance would impact the adjacent existing or
34 potential uses or development by allowing the substitution of a less capable barrier to visual and
35 noise impacts.
36 Criteria. A determination of whether the criteria set forth are satisfied necessarily involves
37 the balandng of competing and confficting interest. The factors that are listed to be
38 considered are not criteria and are not intended to be an exclusive list. The factors to be
39 considered are used as a guide in deliberations on the application. (WDO S.103.11.C]
40 The variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure,
41 which would cause the property to be unbuildable by application of the WDO. Factors to
42 consider in determining whether hardship exists, include:
I:\Comrnunity Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
8 of 12
67
I a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no control related to the piece
2 of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but
3 not limited to lot size, shape, topography.
4 b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties can be made of the property
S without the variance.
6 c. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. [WDO
7 5.103.11.C.l)
8 Appellant's statement to the Planning Commission: "The site in question is a 'flag lot' behind
9 existing single-family houses in an area zoned for multifamily infill development. On either side of
10 the flag pole portion of the property are single-family houses. Behind this row of houses lies the
II portion of the property on which the residential units would be developed. This site and surrounding
12 parcels consist of vacant fields of wild grasses not visible from any public street, by reason of
13 topography and existing development. The rear of the site backs up to the back of a school building
14 and parking associated with the multifamily development to the north. Thus at present, the only real
IS visual and auditory impacts this development has on surrounding properties exists in relation to the
16 single-family houses adjacent to the flag pole.
17 The applicant proposes to build architectural walls in the following locations (refer to Grading Plan
18 for specifics): 1) adjacent to the parking stalls closest to the property line; 2) at the back of the site
19 adjacent to the school building; and 3) along the 'flag pole' where retaining walls are needed for
20 grading purposes. Along the flag pole the walls would extend no more than 3-feet above grade
21 (outside of vision triangles) to reduce the 'tunnel' effect. In other places where the architectural wall
22 is required, the applicant proposes building a 6- foot high wood fence. This buffer would be further
23 enhanced by landscaping required under WDO section 3.106 (refer to Landscaping Plan).
24 The enhanced design represented by the architectural wall would thus be provided by the developer
2S along the visible portion of the site's boundary where its public benefit component could be
26 presumed to exist. The public benefit would then be fully supplied, and no unrnet need would exist.
27 Requiring anything beyond this would result in an exaction of public benefits that exceed impacts
28 corresponding to the size, scale and situation of this development."
29 Findings: No physical circumstances such as lot size or topography distinguish the subject property
30 from other land in the RM zone. Other flag lots in the RM zone are subject to the same
31 requirements. Reasonable use similar to other properties in the RM zone can be made of the subject
32 property without the variance. Multiple-family dwellings are identified as a use that carries impacts
33 to existing development. Other uses also have been identified as creating impacts, and similar
34 WOO provisions require construction of an architectural wall. An architectural wall is the
3S appropriate method to reduce impacts created by the development, and is not a method to create a
36 public amenity. The appellant's statement does not address whether reasonable use similar to other
37 properties can be made of the property without the variance or whether the hardship was created by
38 the person requesting the variance.
39 Conclusion: The requirement of WOO 5.1 03.11.C.l that the property be '"unbuildable by
40 application of the WOO" without the requested variance is not met.
41
42
43 Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
9 of 12
68
1 properties. Factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the
2 variance materiaRy injurious include but are not limited to:
3 a. Physical impacts such development will have because of the variance, such as
4 visual, noise, traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards.
5 b. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. [WDO
6 5.103.11.C.2]
7 Appellant's statement to the Planning Commission: "No actions are envisioned that could cause
8 lasting material injury to adjacent parcels."
9 Findings: The variance would not create or exacerbate traffic, drainage, erosion or landslide
10 hazards. The variance would affect adjacent properties by allowing the substitution of a less
11 capable barrier to visual and noise impacts.
12 Conclusions: The requested variance could impact but may not be materially injurious to adjacent
13 properties. The requested variance may meet the standard ofWDO 5.103.11.C.2.
14
15
16 Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic
17 land forms or parks will not be adversely affected because of the variance. [WDO
18 5.103.11.C.3]
19 Appellant's statement to the Planning Commission: "No actions are envisioned that could cause
20 lasting material injury to adjacent parcels."
21 Findings: The property does not abut drainageways, dramatic land forms or parks. The property
22 abuts school property to the west. The variance would affect the adjacent school property by
23 allowing the substitution of a less capable barrier to visual and noise impacts.
24 Conclusions: Traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms, and parks would not be adversely affected
25 because of the variance. The variance may not have a materially adverse affect on the adjacent
26 school property. The requested variance may meet the standard ofWDO 5.103.11.C.3.
27
28
29 The variance is the minimum deviation necessary to make reasonable economic use of the
30 property. [WDO 5.103.11.C.4]
31 Appellant's statement: "The proposed plan represents a minimal deviation, and would allow
32 reasonable economic use to be made of the property."
33 Findings: The appellant provided cost estimates showing that the variance will result in a savings of
34 $29,920.50, but did not address how the cost savings was necessary to make reasonable economic
35 use of the property.
36 Conclusion: The requested variance has not been shown to be "necessary to make reasonable
37 economic use of the property" and therefore does not meet the standard ofWDO 5.103.11.C.4.
38
39
40 The variance does not conflict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. [WDO 5.103.11.C.5)
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
10 of 12
69
1 Appellant's statement to the Planning Commission: "This variance request does not conflict with
2 the Comprehensive Plan, because it does not deviate from or otherwise diminish the goals or
3 objectives contained therein. It only seeks to allocate costs of achieving those goals on a more
4 proportionate basis."
5 Findings: The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and is designated Residential
6 More than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposed use of the property is
7 a medium density multiple-family residential development. Abutting properties are zoned Medium
8 Density Residential (RM) and Public and Semi-Public (P/SP), and are designated Residential More
9 than 12 Units per Acre and Open Space and Parks on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
10 Conclusions: The variance does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the standard
11 of WOO 5.103.11.C.5.
12
13 Staff Recommendations
14
15 The Planning Division recommends disapproval of case V AR 2007-01. The Planning Division
16 recommends approval of case DR 2006-17 subject to the following conditions of approval:
17 1. The appellant shall provide architectural walls at all property lines, in accordance with
18 WOO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The height of the architectural walls shall be
19 governed by WOO 3.103.1O.E within vision clearance areas.
20 2. All architectUral walls shall incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the side
21 facing away from the subject property.*
22 3. The appellant shall have an anti-graffiti surface.
23 4. Retaining walls shall have the same appearance as architectural walls. *
24 5. All conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission that are not modified by
25 the Council's action are affirmed and remain in effect.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
*
The appellant's submittal conforms to these conditions of approval. They are included only to
reiterate the relevant standards.
Attachments and Exhibits
Attachment "A"
Attachment "B"
Attachment "C"
Attachment "D"
Attachment "E"
Attachment "F"
Attachment "G"
Attachment "H"
Attachment "I"
Zoning Map
Comprehensive Plan Map
Placeholder
Placeholder
Placeholder
Placeholder
Notice of Decision
Appellant's narrative of October 19,2007
Appellant's communication of October 26,2007
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report.doc Page
11 of 12
70
1
2 Exhibit "A"
3 Exhibit "B"
4 Exhibit "c"
5 Exhibit "D"
6 Exhibit "E"
7 Exhibit "F"
8 Exhibit "G"
9 Exhibit "H"
10 Exhibit "I"
11 Exhibit" J"
12 Exhibit "K"
13 Exhibit "L"
14
15 Exhibit "M"
16 Exhibit "N"
17 Exhibit "0"
18 Exhibit "p"
19 Exhibit "Q"
Placeholder.
Site plan dated June 6, 2007 by Welkin Engineering, numbered Sheet 2.
Placeholder.
Placeholder .
Grading plan dated June 6, 2007 by Welkin Engineering, numbered Sheet 5.
Placeholder.
Placeholder.
Placeholder.
Placeholder.
Appellant's narrative for the Planning Commission hearing.
Placeholder.
Appellant's proposed limit of architectural wall (exhibit presented at the hearing
before the Planning Commission.)
Placeholder.
Placeholder.
Placeholder.
Drive Aisle Walls as Stipulated by Code date stamped October 19, 2007.
Drive Aisle Walls as Requested by Variance date stamped October 19, 2007.
Note: Attachments and Exhibits noted as placeholders are not relevant to the appeal and are not
included in this packet, but are used to keep the labeling consistent with that of the Planning
Commission staff report.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007 -01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Appeal report. doc Page
12 of 12
71
~:'''' t;:",' _
~ 'f':<i~':~;":<;f"
.> .,....,', ,,;e.;,- 1165
Z .,'m':: -- "i; :=--
m., , '"1\' ;:a,
(I) ",":-1 . ~'/i'J.." 0 1245
...., )~' ~ .. ,I"': .~'. I~ 0
>"m><$"':~,,,,:, z
' ~ .." r-
.'., 'j';; m 1251
. '1' ~
. , ,} (I)
-.of
778 775
777 845
788
855
858
859
862 889 880 885
~
868 891
890 ~ :J
904
940
;o~
en
1100
1150
1162
1049
1170
1123
P
-\
....\
)>
()
~
m
L
--I
)>
PA
.i"""'\
<I{.,. '.' ......'....~..
.~
'f'> ;.' +.',
3
9
~
~
-\
ry
. ~-_/
WOODBURN
( ) R \. ( . ( ) 01
Incorporated 1889
NOTICE OF DECISION
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN: Denial ofVarianco 2007-01. Approval with conditions of Design
Review 2006-17 and Exception 2007-02.
DAn OF DECISION: September 27, 2007
APPLICANT: Welkin Engineering
7165 SW Fir Loop #204
Tigard, OR 97223
PROPERTY OWNER: Tim Murphy and Gerard Stascausky
111 SW 5th Ave. 42 Floor
Portland, OR 97204
LOCATION 01' SUBJEct PROPERTY: 1037 E. Lincoln Street, tax lot 051W08CC061100
SUMMARY 01' DECISION: Tho Planning Commission denied the applicant's request for a
variance from WOO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7 requiring construction of an architectural
wall. The Planning Commission approved with conditions the applicant's request for a design
review for 8-unit multiple-family dwellings and an exception to street right-of-way and
improvement requirements for East Lincoln Street.
EXPIRATION: The final decision on the variance, design review, and street exception shall
expire within one year of the date of the final decision pursuant to Section 4.102.03.D of the
Woodburn Development Ordinance unless:
1. A building permit to exercise the right granted by the decision has been issued;
2. The activity approved in the decision has commenced; or
3. A time extension, Sectloll4.101.04, has been approved.
APPEAL R1GH'fS: The decision of the Woodburn Planning Commission is final unless
appealed to the Woodburn City Council. An appeal stays a decision until the conclusion of the
appeals process. A notice of intent to appeal must be received in writing, with the appropriate
appeal fee, by the Community Development Director within 12 days from the date this notice
was mailed. Appeals must comply with the requirements of Section 4.102.01 of the Woodburn
Development Ordinance.
Community DcvelopmCDt DepartmCDt
~70 M""'gD""'Y 51ft". Wood"",,,, OrtgDtI 97071
PIr.;0:t-982-;46 · Fax 503-982-;244
ATTACHMENT G
- . -. - - ' . - ~ ... ' .
74
A copy of the decision is available for inspection at no cost and a copy will be provided at a
reasonable cost at Woodbum City Hall, Community Development Department, 270 Montgomery
Street, Woodburn, OR 97071. If you have any questions or need additional information
regarding appeals, please contact Donald Dolenc at (503) 980-2431.
Dated and mailed this 15th day of October, 2007
JlIl
Donald Dolenc, Associate Planner
75
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
DR. 1006-17
V AR.1007-Ot
EXCP 1007-01
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, a request was made by Welkin Engineering on behalf of Tim Murphy and Gerard
Stascausky, for a design review for an 8-unit multiple-family dwelling, & variance from WOO
2.104.06.0.2.& and Table 2.1.7 requiring construction of an architectural wall, and an exception
to street right-of-way and improvements on East Lincoln Street and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of September 271b,
2007 and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony presented by
staf( the applicant, and other interested persons in a public hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to deny case V All 2007-01 and to approve cases
DR. 2006-17 and EXCP 2007-02 subject to conditions of approval, and instructed staff to prepare
findings and conclusions,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission denies case V All 2007-01 based on the findings and conclusions
contained in Exhibit '*'A." The Planning Commission approves cases DR. 2006-17 and EXCP
2007-02 based on the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to the
conditions of approval contained in Exhibits "B" and "C," which the Planning Commission finds
reasonable. Exhibits "A," "B," and "e" are attached hereto and by reference are incorporated
herein.
. Appov~: ~~
Claudio Lima, Chairp n
10(,,107
Date .
l:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR. 2006-17 V AR 2007-01
EXCP 2001-02 Lincoln Commons\Final Order.doc
76
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREeON
PLANNING COMMISSION
DR 2006-17
V AR. 2007-01
EXCP 2007-02
Exhibit A
I General Provisions
2
3 The provlsloDl of the WOO shaD be considered the mllllmum repladont adopted to promote
. the public health, safety and leneral welfare; and shaD apply UDifonnly to eacb cue or IdDd
5 of use, structure or land ulllett varied or otherwise conclldoned u aUowed ID the WOO.
6 (WDO 1.101.02.A1
7 AD ofBclalt, departments, employees (lDcludbll contractor-omclals), of tbe City vested with
I authority to Issue permits or IJ'1UIt approvallshaD adbere to and require conformaDce with
9 the WOO, aDd shaD Issue no permit or lP'aDt approval for any development or use whlcb
10 violates or fallt to comply with conclldonl or staDdarllt Imposed to carry out the WOO. (WOO
11 1.101.041
12 Findings: The planning commissioners are officials of the City and are collectively vested with
13 authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff are employees of the City and are vested
14 with authority to issue permits or grant approvals.
15 Conclusions: The planning commissioners and planning division staff must adhere to and require
16 confonnance with the WOO, and must not grant approval for any development or use which
17 violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the woo.
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE
Secdoll Decision I II III IV V Appeal
5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft OR. .
MORE
11 The Plannml Commission shaD render aU Type III declslons.(Woo 4.101.10.CI
19 AD City decislon-makinl bodies have the authority to Impose conditions of approval
20 reasonably related to Impacts caused by tbe development or deslped to ensure that aU
21 appDcable approval staDdarelt are, or can be, met oa Type II, III and IV declslonl EXCEPT
22 annexation. An conditions of approval sban be clear and objective or if the conclldoa requires
23 discretion sban provide for a subsequent opportunity for a pubUc hearina.lWDO 4.101.15.A1
24 Findings: Design Reviews for Structures 1000 Square Feet or More are Type III decisions. The
25 Planning Commission is the City decision-making body with authority to render type III decisions.
I:\Cornmunity Oevelopment\Planning\2oo6\Design Review\OR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Cornmons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 1 of 28
77
1 Conclusions: The Planning Commission has "the authority to impose conditions of approval
2 reasonably related to impacts caused by the development." If a condition of approval requires
3 discretion, the Commission may require a public hearing on the matter.
4
5 Under a eonsoHdated review, aD appHeaUoD sbaD be processed foUowlDa the procedures
6 appBeable for the highest type decllloD requested. It II the express poKey of tbe City that
7 development review not be sepleDted Into discrete partsm a maDDer that precludes a
. comprehensive review of the entln development and ita eumulatlvelmpacts.(WDO 4.101.01)
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE
S Deelsloa I II 111 IV V Appeal
5.103.02 Design lleview for AU Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR .
MORE
5.103.12 Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement .
It . ents
5.103.11 Variance .
I) Finding: Variances, Design Reviews for Structures 1000 Square Feet or More, and Exceptions to
10 Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements are Type III decisions.
11 Conclusions: Under WDO 4.101.02, the applications are consolidated as a Type III decision.
12 Considering the applications together allows a comprehensive review of the entire development and
13 its cumulative impacts.
14
15
16 WDO 1.104 Medium Density Residential (JlM) Dtstrtet Standards
17
18 Then shaU be DO minimum lot area or clImensloDl for multiple family residential dweUlnp
19 units or Uvlolwtsm the RM zone. (WOO 1.104, Table 1.1.5.8)
20 The number of multiple family resideDtIal dweUlnlunits OD a lot shaD be replated by:
21 1. MulmulD resideDtlal cleDSlty, Dot exeeedlnl the foBowlnl staDdardl:
n L Multiple family dweUlnp: 16 dweUlnI galts per Det buUdable acre. (WOO 1.104,
23 Table1.1.5.q
24 Finding: The proposed density is 11.3 DUA.
25 Conclusion: The proposed density complies with WOO 2.104, Table 2.1.S.C.l.a.
26
27
21 The number of multiple family resldendal dwelUnl units OD a lot sbaD be replated by:
29 1. CompUance with the appUeable OpeD space aDd site design staDdards aDd guldellnes of
30 Sectlou1.104.01.C.[WDO 1.104, Table1.1.5.C)
31 Findings: The proposed development either complies with the applicable open space and site design
32 standards of Sections 2.104.07 .C, or can be brought into conformity with appropriate conditions of
33 approval. The proposed development does not comply with all open space and site design
l:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\OR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 2 of 28
78
\
'1
3
4
5
6
7
I
guidelines of Sections 2.104.07.C. Compliance with the guidelines may require redesign of the
project or a reduction in the number of dwelling units.
Conclusion: The Commission has the discretion to approve the development even if it does not
comply with all open space and site design guidelines of Sections 2.104.07 .Ct or to require
compliance with any or all. such guidelines.
9
The mulmu.. helpt of bundlDp sbaD not exceed 35 reet. [WOO 2.104.06.C)
Finding: The elevation drawings show the building height as approximately 23 feet.
Conclusion: The proposed buildings comply with WOO 2.104.06.C.
10
tl
\1
13
14
The setback abuttIDaa street sban be a mInImu.. of 20 reet plus any Special Setback, S.ctloll
J.I0J.OJ. (WOO 2.104.06.D.l.a)
Finding: The site plan shows that the buildings are set back at least 120 feet from B. Lincoln Street.
Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WOO 2.104.06.D.l.a.
15
16
17
11
19
20
21
"Off street parldDa and storaae shaD be prohibited withlD a required setback or any yard
abuttln, a street EXCEPr for parklal and maneuveriDl witbID a driveway leadlnt to a
garaae (or carport ID the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a walL" (WOO
2.104.06.D.l.b.l)
Findings: The grading plan shows a 6 foot architectural wal124 feet long adjacent to the north
exterior parking spaces. The grading plan shows a 6 foot architectural wall II feet long adjacent to
the south exterior parking spaces. No other parking spaces are within required setbacks.
Conclusions: The proposed development complies with WOO 2.104.06.D.l.b.1 at the north exterior
parking spaces. The south exterior parking spaces are not adjacent to an architectural wall along
their entire length and do not comply with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.l.b.l. The south exterior parking
spaces should be screened with an architectural wall along their entire length.
22
23
24
25
26
27
21
29 Findings: The elevation drawings show the building height as approximately 23 feet. The site plan
30 shows the buildings to be set back at least 30 feet from all property lines.
II Conclusion: The proposed development complies with the interior setback requirements of WOO
32 2.104.06.0.2.a and Table 2.1.7.
33
34
l:\Community Dcvelopment\Planning\2006\Design Rcview\DR 2006.17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 3 of 28
79
1
2
3
4
The entrlBee to . gara.e shaD be set baek a mlnlmam of 20 feet from the elosest ed.e of a
shared drlveway.lWDO 2.104.06.D.l.b.2)
Finding: The site plan shows that the garage entrances are set back from the shared driveway
approximately 28 feet.
Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.I.b.2.
5
6
7
.
9
Maldple density resldendal buDdlDp shaD be subject to the deslp stanclarda or auldellD. of
S.cdoll 3.1'1.0$. (WOO 2.104.07.C.l)
Findings: WOO 2.104.07 .C.l contains a scrivener's error, and should read either "Multiple family
residential buildings" or "Medium density residential buildings." The proposed project consists of
multiple-family residential buildings in a medium den."ty residential development.
Conclusion: As the proposed project consists of multiple-family residential buildings in a medium
deruity residential development, either interpretation leads to the conclusion that the development is
"subject to the design standards or guidelines of S.ctIolI 3.1'1.0$."
10
1\
11
13
14
15
16
17
II
19
20
CommoD nfuy eoDecdoD facWd.. shaD be screened OD aD sid.. by aD architectural bloek
waD aDd soUd pte, both wldI aD aDd-graffiti surfaee, a mlnlmUID of six feet and a m.'dmum
of seven feet In height. (WOO 2.104.07.1'.3)
Findings: The site plan does not show common refuse collection facilities. The WOO does not
require common refuse collection facilities. only that they be screened if they are provided.
Conclusion: Individual refuse collection facilities should be required as a condition of approval, or
common refuse collection facilities provided and screened in accordance with WOO 2.104.07.F.3.
21
21
23
24
25
26
27 WDO 5.tO)..} Varlanees
21
29 The purpose of a variance II to aDow a clevIadoD from a WDO development standard
30 EXCEFl' a studard reprdlna use, where strict adhereDu to the standard and variance to .
31 standards wUlaot UDnasODably Impact the adJaeent exlstlna or potendal Diet or
31 developmeDt.(WDO 5.103.11.A)
33 Findings: Wood fences provide a visual barrier equivalent to brick or block walls. Wood fences do
34 not provide a noise barrier equivalent to brick or block walls. Brick or block walls maintain their
35 appearance without regular repainting. and are more durable and resistant to damage than wood
36 fences. The required anti-graffiti surface makes brick or block walls more resistant to vandalism.
37 The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is an accepted development standard in the
31 community. The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is imposed in specific circumstances
39 where a development could reasonably be anticipated to generate visual and noise impacts on
40 adjacent properties. An architectural wall is the appropriate method to reduce impacts created by
41 the development The WOO requirement for an architectural wall is not a method to create a public
42 amenity. The applicant's statement did not address "the adjacent existing or potential uses or
43 development." The applicant's submittal did not include drawings or a detailed description of the
1:\Community Developmem\Ptanning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 4 of 28
80
, proposed wood fence. The applicants submittal did not include any information regarding the
1 functionality of the proposed wood fence.
3 Conclusions: The requested variance would allow a deviation from a WOO development standard,
. but not a standard regarding use. The requested variance would impact the adjacent existing or
5 potential uses or development by allowing the substitution of a less capable barrier to visual and
6 noise impacts. the applicant's assertion that "the functionality of this wall (i.e. screening and
1 buffering, as opposed to its design attributes) can be provided with a 6-foot high wood fence" is
8 unsupported by any evidence in the submittal. The applicant should submit drawings and a detailed
9 description of the proposed wood fence to the Commission, together with information supporting
'0 the assertion that the proposed wood fence can provide the functionality of the required
, , architectural wall.
'1
13
I. Development III aD RM zone, except for a smp family dwelUDland duplex dwelllD. shaD be
" subject to the setback and buffer requlrementl ofT.ble1.1.1. (WDO 2.104.06.D.1._)
TABLE 1.1.1Interlor Yard and Buffer Standardt for RM Zones
Abuttln Pro WaD
Existing single family or duplex Solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
dwellin no less than 6 feet or ater than 7 feet in hei t.
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing Wall requirements shall be determined in conjunction with
medium densi residential unit the Ucable Desi Review cess.
v......,.._ A.-..... Ie onw.a)
.........
.....
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,. .
.......
.
.
.
A vision dearance area shaD contain no plants,
fence, wall, structure, or temporary or permanent
obstruction exceedlnl30 Inches In height
(measured from the top of the curb or, where no
curb exists, from the established street ceDterllne
grade), EXCEPT .. fonowl:
1. Trees, provided bnmches and foUale are
removed to a helpt of 7 feet above grade;
2. TelephoDe, power and cable televlsioD poles;
3. TelephoDe and utiUty boxeI lesl than ten Inches
at the widest dimension; and
4. Trafftc control sipI and devices. (WDO
3.103.10.E)
flpnUVlslo.~Ane
16 Findings: A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-gmftiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater
11 than 7 feet in height, is required where the property abuts lots developed with single-family
\8 dwellings (933, 1035, and 1129 East Lincoln Street, to the southwest, south, and east), in
19 accordance with Table 2.1.7, except at the access points to the abutting lots and their associated
20 vision clearance areas. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall along the northern 215
21 reet of the west property line, where the tot abuts school property in the P/SP zone, in accordance
21 with WOO 2. 1 04.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall
23 along the north property line, where the lot abuts an existing medium density residential
1:\Community Developmcnt\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Comrnons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 5 of 28
81
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
.
9
10
11
11
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
development in the RM zone, in accordance with WOO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The
applicant has requested a variance from the wall requirement except at the northernmost exterior
parking space and the easterly 11 feet of the southernmost exterior parking space. The applicant
also proposes 30" architectural walls on top of the retaining walls along the tlagpole portion of the
lot. The submittal contains no detail of the proposed architectural walls. The submittal does not
address the requirement that the walls have an anti-graffiti surface.
Conclusions: The applicant has not demonstrated that the retaining wall on the westerly 13 feet of
the southernmost exterior parking space or the proposed 30" architectural walls on top of the
retaining walls along the flagpole portion of the lot meet the standard of being "no less than 6 feet
or greater than 7 feet in height" as required by WOO 2.1 04.06.D.2.& and Table 2.1.7. The applicant
should demonstrate compliance with the wall height requirement ofWDO 2.104.06.D.2.& and Table
2.1.7.
21
23
24
25
26
21
21
29
30
31
31
Wall, Architectural: A waD that IDcorporatet at least two colon and/or textures. (WOO I.I02)
Findings: The submittal did not include drawings or a detailed description of the of the proposed
architectural walls. Architectural walls are intended to butter adjacent properties from the subject
property - not to buffer the subject property from adjacent properties. The grading plan shows
retaining walls along portions of the north, west, and south property lines, and the flagpole portion
of the lot. The grading plan shows 30" architectural walls on top of the retaining walls on either
side of the flagpole portion of the lot.
Conclusions: AU architectural walls should incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the
side facing away from the subject property. The applicant should submit details of the proposed
architectural walls demonstrating compliance with the requirement ofwDO 1.102 that architectural
walls incorpotate at least two colors and/or textures. Retaining walls should have the same '
appearance as architectural walls.
3:l
34
35
36
37
31
39
40
41
41
CriterlL A determlDatloD of whether the criteria set forth are satisfted neeessarUy Involves
the balaaclna of competlal ad confllctlna Interest. The laeton that are Usted to be
considered are Dot criteria ad are not Intended to be an exclusive Ust. The facton to be
considered are used as. plde ID deUberatioDl OD the appUcadon. (WOO 5.103.ll.C]
The variance Is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relatlna to the land or structure,
which would cause the property to be unbuUdable by appUcadon of the WDO. Faeton to
consider In determinlDa whether hardship exists, IDclude:
.. Physical circumstances over which the appDcant has no control relateel to the piece
of property Involved that dlstlnplsh it from other land In the zone, IncludJaI but
Dot Umlted to lot size, shape, topogaphy.
b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties can be made of the property
without the variance.
c. Whether the hardship was created by the penon requestln. the variance. (WDO
5.103.1l.C.l)
43 Findings: No physical circumstances such as tot size or topography distinguish the subject property
44 from other land in the It.~ zone. Other flag lots in the RM zone are subject to the same
1:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 6 of 28
82
1
1
1
4
5
6
7
I
9
to
II
t1
U
t4
15
16
17
II
19
requirements. Reasonable use similar to other properties in the RM zone can be made of the subject
property without the variance. Multiple-family dwellings are identified as a use that carries impacts
to existing development. Other uses also have been identified as creating impacts, and similar
WOO provisions require construction of an architectural wall. An architectural wall is the
appropriate method to reduce impacts created by the development, and is not a method to create a
public amenity. The applicant.s statement does not address whether reasonable use similar to other
properties can be made of the property without the variance or whether the hardship was created by
the person requesting the variance.
Conclusion: The requirement ofWDO S.IOl.lt.C.t that the property be 'tunbuildabte by
application of the WOO" without the requested variance is not met.
20
21
22
Development consistent with the reqaest wUl Dot be materlaDy injurious to adjacent
properties. Faeton to be eODlidered in determlnlDl whether development eODllsteDt with the
variance materlaUy InJurlouslDelade but an not Umlted to:
.. Physleallmpaeta laell development wm have beeaase of the variance, lucll ..
visual, DOIse, traffic and dralnale, erosion and lanclsUde hazarclt.
b. IDcrementallmpacta occarrln... a result of the proposed variance. [WOO
5.103.11.C.%)
Findings: The variance would not create or exacerbate traffic, drainage. erosion or landslide
hazards. The variance would affect adjacent properties by allowing the substitution of a less
capable barrier to visual and noise impacts.
Conclusions: The requested variance could impact but may not be materially injurious to adjacent
properties. The requested variance may meet the standard ofWDO 5.103.11.C.2.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
ExJstinl physical aDd DaturalsystelDl, such 81 but Dot Umited to trame, drainage, dramadc
laDd forOll or parks will not be advenely affected because of the variance. [WDO
5.103.11.C.3)
Findings: Tbe property does not abut drainageways. dramatic land fonna or parks. The property
abuts school property to the west. The variance would affect the adjacent school property by
allowing the substitution of a less capable barrier to visual and noise impacts.
Conclusions: Traffic, drainage. dramatic land forms, and parks would not be adversely affected
because of the variance. Tbe variance may not have a materially adverse affect on the adjacent
school property. The requested variance may meet the standard ofWDO 5.103.11.C.3.
.
30
31
32
JJ
34
35
36
J7
31
39
The variance Is the minimum denadon necessary to make reasonable economic ase of the
property.(WDO 5.103.11.C.4)
Findings: The applicant provided cost estimates showing that the variance will result in a savings of
529,920.50. but did not address how the cost savings was necessary to make reasonable economic
use of the property.
-40
41
U
l:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 7 of 28
83
l
1
)
..
5
Conclusion: The requested variance has not been shown to be "necessary to make reasonable
economic use of the property" and therefore does not meet the standard of WOO S.103.11.C.4.
6
1
I
9
lO
The varlanee do. not eonmet with the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan. [WDO S.103.11.CoS}
Findings: The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (aM) and is designated Residential
More than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The proposed use of the property is
a medium density multiple-family residential development. Abutting properties are zoned Medium
Density Residential (aM) and Public and Semi-Public (P/SP), and are designated Residential More
than 12 Units per Acre and Open Space and Parks on the Comprehensive Plan Map.
Conclusions: The variance does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the standard
ofWDO S.103.1t.C.S.
11
11
13
l4
l5
l6
l7
18
WOO 3.1QJ.
Street StaDdar~
AD pubBe streett ullder the Jurisdiction 01 the City of Woodburn sbaD comply wltIa the
.ppBeable crOllsectlon deslll' standards noted In Seetlon 3.101.03 and eOllstruetion
speelfleadollS of the PubUc Works Department. [WDO 3.101.01.C.l)
Street, Boundary: That portlOD, or portloal, of a street right of way abutting a subject
property wbere exlsbl or proposed development Is loeated wltblD 160 feet of tbe subject
rl&llt of way. (Figure 6.11) (WOO 1.101)
The full right of way for the subject street elalllflcatioD, Seetlon 3.101.03, sbaD be required for
a eoaneeblltreet seameat wltbout aa approved exception or varlanu. (WDO 3.101.01.D.l.a]
The full street lmprovemeDt for the subject street elassifleatioD, Seetloa 3.101.03, sbaD be
provided lor a eODnectlnl street segment witbout an approved exception or variance. [WDO
3.101.01.D.l.b)
The full right 01 way for the subject street elassiflcation, Section 3.101.03, sbaD be required for
a boundary street without an approved exceptioD or vadoee. (WOO 3.101.01.D.1.a)
The fun street lmprovement for the subject street elusiflcation, SeetloD 3.101.03, sbaD be
provided for a boundary street without aD approved exceptioa or variance. [WOO
3.101.01.D.1.bl
19
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
21
29
30
31
I:\Community Development\Ptanning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 8 of 28
84
, ' ..J
.i
".' ~1.
..: .
,: .
\~ " ".. ., .
. ...... - / '. ~
.~..,"I: ;- .. I I ......
Flpn 6.12 Connectln.. Boundary and Internal Streets
1
1
3
4
Findings: East Lincoln Street is the Boundary Street for the subject parcel, as defined in WOO
1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. East Lincoln Street is the Connecting Street for the subject parcel,
as defined in WOO 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. The Connecting Street segment extends to the
intersection with Carol Street. '
Conclusions: The applicant must provide the full right of way and the full street improvements
required by the Transportation System Plan or obtain an exception to street right of way and
improvement requirements, in accordance with WOO 3.101.02.0.
,
6
7
I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
The street right of way and Improvement crosl-sec:donalstaDdardl required for development
are depicted la Figure 7-1 and Table 7-1 of the WoodburD TransportadoD System Pia...
These standards are based OD the functloDal classiftcatloD of each street as shoWD la Flpre 7-
1 of the Woodbuna TransportadoD System PlaD. The street right-of-way aDd lmprovemeDt
standards mbalmlze the amount of pavemeDt aDd right-of-way required for each street
classiRcation coutstent with the operatioDal needs of each facUlty, lDcludlna requirements for
pedestrians, bicycles, and pubUc facUldes. (WDO 3.101.03.A]
1:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 9 of 28
85
SERVice
COLLECTOR
STREET ..
.Q
~ \ITIIIY ~)
...- ..
~
,.
....
Ufr__
UIe
I&'
"...,
UIe
, fI" ,.
fI === '='
.
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
Detail from Figur; 7-2 of the Transportation Systems Plan
Findings: East Lincoln Street is classified as a Service Collector in the Woodburn Transportation
System Plan (WTSP.) The required cross-section for a Service Collector is a 72 foot ofrigbt-of-
way, 36 foot improved driving surface (two 12 foot traffic lanes and a 12 foot center tum lane), 6
foot bike lanes, 6 foot landscape strips and 6 foot sidewalks on both sides. The existing cross-
section is a SO foot right-of-way, 34 foot improved driving surface (two 17 foot traffic lanes), no
planter strip, and a 4-S foot sidewalk on the north side of the street. East Lincoln Street is posted
"No Parking" on the south side, but not on the north side.
Conclusions: The existing cross-section of East Lincoln Street does not meet the requirements for a
Service Collector. The applicant must provide the full right of way and the full street improvements
required by the Transportation System Plan or obtain an exception to street right of way and
improvement requirements, in accordance with WOO 3.1 01.02.D.
1
9
10
II
l1
l3
l4
IS
l6
17
II
The street fronta,. of a subject property shaD be improved with either property line
sidewalks and street trees or curb lIDe sidewalks. The Improvement shaD be determined at
the time of subdlvilloll, PUD or des11ll reviewal applleable. Sldewalka and treea shaD be
installed by the property owner to the standarda of Sectloll J.10111114 J.I06. (WDO
1.104.07.F.l1
Finding: The applicant bas requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
Lincoln Street.
Conclusions: The current Design Review triggers the provision that "improvement shall be
detennined at the time of ... design review." If the requested exception to street right-of-way and
improvements is not granted, the property owner would be required to provide all improvements
required by the Transportation System Plan. If granted, the exception would identify the applicant's
proportionate share of required street improvements based on the impacts of the proposed
development, and could be conditioned on execution of a non-remonstrance agreement to provide
the improvements when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by
other property ownen and the availability of public funding.
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
17
21
29
30
31
32
33
Street Trees. Within the pubUc street right of way abuttlnl a developmeDt, street trees shaD
be planted to City standards prior to Onal occupancy.
L Acceptable Types of Trees. See Sledoll 4.10J for a description of acceptable aDd
l:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-11 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2001-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 10 of 28
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
I
9
10
It
12
l3
14
IS
16
11
II
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
21
29
30
unacceptable trees for thll purpose, classified by size and species.
b. Tree DeDllty. Trees shaD be planted at the foDowlnllDtenall wtthlD the right of way,
subject to Clear VlsloD Area standarell, S.ctloII J.ltJJ.lt1 anll S.ctloll 6.103:
1) '01ll' (4) smaD trees per 100 feet of street frontale;
1) Three (3) medlum trees per 100 feet of street froDtaae; or
3) Two (1) tarae trees per 100 feet of street froDtalLIWDO 3.106.03.A.l)
Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
Lincoln Street.
Conclusions: If the requested exception to street right-of-way and improvements is not granted, the
property owner would be required to provide street trees as required by WOO 3.1 06.03.A.l. If
granted, the exception could be conditioned on a non-remonstrance agreement to provide street
trees when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by other property
owners and the availability of public funding.
Sidewalks shoulllshtlll be located at the property Une aloDI streeD with street trees, Section
3.106.IWDO 3.107.05.C.6)
Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
Lincoln Street.
Conclusions: If the requested exception to street right-of-way and improvements is not granted, the
property owner would be required to provide sidewalks as required by WDO 3.107.0S.C.6. If
granted, the exception could be conditioned on a non-remonstrance agreement to provide sidewalks
when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely.
WDO 5.103.11 Exception to Street Rlaht of Way and Improvement
Requirements
3\
32
33
34
35
36
37
31
The purpose of aD. exceptloD II to aRow a devladoD from a WDO developmeDt staDdard cited
in SeetlOD 3.101.02. (WOO 5.103.11)
AppUcadoD RequlremeDtI. AD appUcadoD shaD IDclude a completed City appUcadoD form,
ftlIDl fee, deeds, DotUlcadoD area map aDd labels, writteD Darratlve statemeDt reprdlnl
compUaace with criteria, locadoD map aad the foRowlDl adclldoDal exhlblD:
1. Street aDd Utlllty PlaD u appUcable;
1. Site PIaD; aDd
3. A "roup proportloDaUty" report prepared by a quaUfted civil or traffic eapeer
adclresslnl the approval criterlL (WDO 5.103.11.B)
Finding: The applicant's submittal included the required elements.
Conclusions: If granted, the Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements
would satisfy the guideline of WOO 3.101. Also, if granted, the Exception would identify the level
of improvements the property owner would be responsible for. A non-remonstrance agreement for
public improvements could be required as part of the Exception. If the exception is not granted, the
39
40
"I
"2
1;\Conununity Devclopmem\Ptanning\2006\Design Revicw\DR 2006-11 V AR 2oo7-Ot EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Conunons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 11 of 28
87
\
1
1
4
5
6
7
.
9
\0
II
\1
13
\4
\5
\6
17
1I
\9
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
21
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
property owner would be required to construct East Lincoln Street to the cross-section specified in
the Transportation System Plan.
Assumptions underlying the Planning Division's proportionality analysis include:
. All vacant lots in the RM zone and lots currently developed with single-family dwellings will be
redeveloped to the same density proposed by the applicant (11.3 DUA.) This is less than the 16
DUA permitted in the RM zone.
. All lots in the ItS zone larger than 12,000 square feet will be partitioned into confonning
(minimum 6,000 square foot) lots and developed with single-family dwellings.
. Properties owned by churches are not redeveloped for residential use.
. All lots dedicate additional right-of-way for East Lincoln Street upon redevelopment.
The Planning Division's analysis examined aU available data for traffic on East Lincoln Street:
. City traffic count west of Gatch Street conducted in 2000: 4,839 AnT
. City traffic count east of Gatch Street conducted in 2002: 373 ADT
. City traffic count west of Colby Street conducted in 2003: 246 ADT
. ODOT traffic model estimates of 3,4S5 and 3,696 ADT
. No counts have been conductec1 on East Lincoln Street since 2003.
. The Public Works Department reports that the 2002 and 2003 traffic counts are out of scale with
the other data and should be disregarded.
The Planning Division examined four scenarios:
. Method 1 attributed all improvements to the increase in average daily trips for each lot,
distributing the cost over 50S additional daily trips. The proposed development would generate
10.6% of the additional traffic generated by redevelopment.
. Method 2 attributed improvements to the increase in average daily trips for each lot as a
proportion of all traffic - the S05 daily trips generated by redevelopment plus the existing trip
count - distributing the cost over the total daily trips. Method 2a uses the 2000 trip count of
4,839, while methods 2b and 2c use ODOT's traffic model figures of 3,455 and 3,696 ACT. The
proposed development would generate between 1.0 and 1.40/. of the total future traffic.
. Method 3 attributed all improvements to the proportion of <<*:h lot's boundary on Lincoln Street
as defined in Section 1.102 and Figure 6.12, distributing the cost over 2,589 feet of half-street
frontage. The proposed development represents 4.94110 of the boundary street frontage.
. Method 4 attributed all improvements to the proportion of each redevelopable lot's boundary on
Lincoln Street as defined in Section 1.102 and Figure 6.12, distributing the cost over 1,841 feet
of redevelopable half-street frontage. The proposed development represents 6.2% of the
boundary street :frontage.
Finding: The proposed development will cause a level of impacts amounting to between 1.0 and
10.6 percent of the feCluired street improvements to East Lincoln Street between the subject property
and Carol Street. The proposed development represents 4.9% of the boundary street frontage as
defined in WOO 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12.
Conclusions: The proposed development's proportionate share of boundary street improvements is
4.9% of the reconstruction between the subject property and Carol Street.
37
31
39
40
41
41
43
44
(:\Cornmunity Dcvelopment\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-11 V AR 2001-01 EXCP 2001-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 12 of 28
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
11
19
20
21
21
23
24
25
26
27
21
29
30
31
31
33
34
35
36
37
31
39
The estimated extent, on . quantltadve basll, to which the rlpts of way and Improvements
wID be used by penolll served by the buRdlDl or development, whether the use II for safety or
cODvemence. (WOO 5.103.12.C.l1
Findings: Persons served by the development are expected to generate approximately S4 vehicular
trips per day. Neither conventional traffic counts nor the lTB Trip Generation Manual account for
non-vehicular traffic. The sidewalk required by the Transportation System Plan is for safety. The
landscape strip required by the Transportation System Plan i. for convenience and is a standard of
aesthetics promulgated and accepted by the community. The right-of-way dedication and specified
improvements are needed to provide vehicle and non-motorized transportation facilities throughout
the street corridor.
Conclusions: R.esidents of the development will necessarily use East Lincoln Street for both their
vehicular and non-motorized traffic needs.
The estimated level, on a quamdtadve bas'" of rlptl of way and Improvements needed to
meet the estimated extent of use by penonl served by the buDdlDlor development. (WDO
5.103.11.C.2)
Findings: The center turn lane required by the Transportation Systems Plan would facilitate left
turns into and out of the driveway - movements that occur in approximately half of the S4 daily
trips estimated to be generated by the project. Provision of a bicycle lane and wider sidewalk than
currently exists will facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian use of East Lincoln Street by the residents
of the development The proportion of improvements to East Lincoln Street that could be attributed
to the subject property ranges from 1.0% to 10.6% depending on the method of analysis used. The
subject property represents 4.9% of the boundary street frontage as defined in WOO 1.102 and
Figure 6.12.
Conclusion: All improvements required by the Transportation Systems Plan would be utilized by
and are needed to meet the vehicular and non-motorized transportation needs of residenti of the
development. It is appropriate to require the property owner to participate in the cost of providing
all improvements required by the Transportation System Plan for East Lincoln Street. It is
appropriate that the subject property should bear a portion of those costs commensurate with the
property's boundary street frontage as defined in WOO 1.102 and Figure 6.12 - 4.9%. The
property owner should enter into a nonremonstrance agreement to participate in the cost of
reconstructing East Lincoln Street to the standards of the Transportation Systems Plan when such
reconstruction becomes timely.
40
41
42
43
The estimated Impact, Oil a quantitadve basis, of the buDdlnl or developmellt OD the public
infrastructure system of which the rights of way and lmprovemellts wiD be a part. (WDO
5.103.11.C.3)
Findings: Lincoln Street connects to Highway 99E on the east and Front Street and Settlemier
Avenue on the west. The impact of the proposed development on the larger public infrastructure
system is estimated to be small in comparison to the impact of off-site development on that larger
public infrastructure.
l:'.Community Dcvelopment\Planning\2006\Design Rcview\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Comrnons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 13 of 28
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
Conclusions: The larger public infrastructure system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
traffic generated by the proposed development. The incremental impact of the proposed
development on the larger public infrastIucture system would be adequately addressed through
assessment of System Development Charges in the building permit process.
9
10
The estimated level, Oil a quaatltatlve basil, of rlptl of way aad ImprovemeDtI Deeded to
midgate the estlmatecllmpact 011 the pubBe IDfrastnleture system.lWDO 5.103.11.C.4)
Finding: The larger public infrastructure system has sufficient capac:ity to accommodate the traffic
generated by the proposed development.
Conclusion: The incremental impact of the proposed development on the larger public infrastructure
system would be adequately addressed through assessment of System Development Charges in the
building permit process.
\l
11
13
14
IS
16
17
II
19
WheD a lesser staadud, subject to Sectloa 3.101.02P, Is Justifled bued OD the nature aad
extent of thelmpactt of the proposed developmeDt, aD esceptioB to reduce a street rlpt of
way or crOll SdOD requirement may be approved. No esceptloD may be granted from
appDeable conltruetloD specUlcation.. (WDO 5.103.11.D)
Finding: The applicant has not requested an exception from construction specifications, but rather
an exception to the street cross section requirement.
Conclusion: An exception to reduce a street right of way or cross section requirement is not
precluded by WOO S.103.12.0.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
21
29
30
To assure a safe and functional street with capacity to meet curreat demaadl aad to uaure
safety for vehlclet, bieycUsts aDd pedatrla..., u weD as other forms of noa-vehlcular trafftc,
there are minimum standards for right of way aDd Improvemeat that mUlt be pro~ded.
nevlatloll from these minimum standarell may only be couldereel by . varlaaee procedure,
Section !.103.11. (WDO 5.103.11.E)
Findings: The existing street cross-section consists of two 17 foot travel lanes with a 4-S foot
sidewalk on the north side of the street, and provides sufficient capacity to meet current demands
for vehicular and (on the north side of the street) pedestrian traffic. Future upgrading to improve
pedestri~ bicycle, and other fonns of non-vehicular traffic may be accomplished through a non-
remonstrance agreement.
Conclusions: The property owner should either construct the improvements required by the
Transportation Systems Plan or execute a non-remonstrance agreement to provide the necessary
improvements when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by other
property owners and the availability of public funding.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
31
39
40
41
42 WDO 3.104 Access Standards
43
44 Residential Driveways Servin. Any Number of Multiple Family Dwelllnl Uaits
I:\Community Dcvelopment\Planning\2oo6\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons \Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 14 of28
90
,
2
3
4
5
1. Paved Driveway Wldtb:
b. Two-way driveway:
1) Width: 10 feet, miDlmas. "No parklnl" restrictloDI sbaD be posted by the
owner.lWDO 3.104.0S.D)
Finding: The site plan shows a 20 foot two-way drive aisle posted "no parking."
Conclusion: The two-way drive aisle complies with WOO 3.104.05.D.I.b.l.
6
7
a
9
Raellul of Curb Flare: 15 reet mlDImum. (WDO 3.104.0S.D.ll
Finding: The site plan does not callout the curb radius, but at the indicated scale it appears to be
approximately 5 feet-less than the 25 foot minimum radius required by WOO 3.104.05.0.2.
Conclusion: The development must provide curb returns with a radius of at least 25 feet, in
accordance with WOO 3.104.05.0.2.
'0
"
'1
13
'4
15
16
17
Flal Lot Driveway Aecesl Width. 14 foot wide, a. either aD irrevocable easement or a strip of
laDd ill fee ownenhlp. [WDO 3.104.05.D.3)
Finding: The site plan shows a 30 foot access as part of the subject parcel.
Conclusion: The site plan complies with WOO 3.104.05.0.3.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Throat length of. driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loadinlspaee to
the outside edge of right of way for a:
b. Driveway aecessing Major and Minor ArterialStreets: 50 feet mlD,lmum, with greater
improvement as may be required by a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). (WDO
3.104.05.0.4)
Findings: East Lincoln Street is designated as a Service Collector in the Transportation System Plan
and is defined as a major street under WOO 1.102. The site plan shows a throat length of over 60
feet to the first driveway on adjacent property that also uses the flagpole access.
Conclusion: The site plan complies with WOO 3.1 04.05.D.4.b.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 WDO 3.105 Off Street Parkinl and Loadinl Standards
34
35 Off Street Vehicle Parkinl Requirements.
36 1. Off street vehicle parkin. spaces shaD be provided in amounts not less than tbose set
37 fortb in Tabl.3.1.1.
38 1. Off street vehicle parkin. spaces sbaD not exceed 1.0 times tbe amount required In
39 Tabl, 3.1.1. (WOO 3.105.01.1)
TABLE 3.1.1
Off Street Parkin Ratio Standards
Parkin. Ratio - spaces per activity unit or
s uare feet of ss floor area sti fa
Use
1:\Community Dcvelopment\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 1 S of 28
91
, 2. Three or mote dwelling units per structure I 2.01 dwelling unit I
I Finding: The proposed development is 8 dwelling units. This yields a total parking requirement of
1 16 parking spaces. The building plans show one space in each garage. The site plan shows one
3 parking space outside each garage and four additional exterior parking spaces. The parking
4 complies with WOO 3.10S.01.E (with the exception of the accessible space requirement.) The use
5 of stacked or tandem parking can be problematic, although the additional exterior parking spaces
6 will mitigate the inconveniences associated with visitor parking and access to the garage when the
7 exterior parking space is occupied.
. Conclusions: The proposed parking meets the requirements of WOO 3.10S.01.E.l and 2. Each
9 parking space outside a garage should be reserved for the exclusive use of the dwelling unit served
10 by the garage. A sign should be posted on each garage door indicating this reserved status.
"
11
13 The Dumber of disabled peno. vehlele parklnaspaees shaD be provided to the standanll of
14 the state SuUdlaa Code aad appHable federal stanclardl. The number of disabled penon
15 vehlele parklnaSpacH shaD be Included .. part of total required vehlele parklna spaen.
16 (WDO 3.105.01.1.3)
17
II
Total Parkin In Lot
ulred Minimum Number of Accessible S aces
1 to2S
19 [ORS 447.133(1)(a)1
20 In addldoD, one In every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shan be van accessible.
21 (ORS 441.133(1)(b))
22 Off street parkIDa for disabled penons shaD be deslped to the standards of the state BuUdlna
23 Code and appBeable federal standards. (WDO 3.105.01.HA.el
24 A van accessible parklna space shaD be at least nine feet wide and shaD have an adjacent
25 aeeell aisle that II at least elpt feet wlde.(ORS 441.133(1)(b))
26 Accessible parkIDa spaen shaD be at least DIne feet wide and shaD have an adjacent aeeesl
27 aisle that il at least sis feet wlde.[ORS 447.133(1)(e)1
21 A sip shan be posted for each accessible parklna space. The sip shaD be clearly visible to a
29 person parldnlla the space, shan be marked with thelnternadonal Symbol of Aeeesl and
30 shaH indicate that the spaces are reserved for penoDI with disabled penon parklna permits.
31 Van accessible parkin. space. shaD have an addldonal sip marked "Van Accessible"
32 mounted below the sip. (ORS 447.133(1)(e))
33 Findings: For the required 16 total off-street parking spaces, the proposed development requires one
34 van-accessible space. The site plan does not show an accessible space. The additional exterior
35 spaces could be reconfigured to provide the required van-accessible space and accessibility aisle.
(:\Community Dcvelopment\Planning\2oo6\Dcsign Rcview\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 16 of 28
92
1 Conclusion: The proposed development must provide one van-accessible space and accessibility
1 aisle, in accordance with WOO 3.10S.01.E.3, WOO 3.10S.01.H.4.c, Section 1104 of the Oregon
3 Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233.
4
5
6 Fifty perceat of the required parking shollltllslrllll be covered by prales.(WDO 3.107 .OS.C.4)
7 Finding: One parking space for each unit (of the two spaces required) is in a garage.
s Conclusions: The proposed off-street parking meets the guideline of WOO 3.107.0S.C.4. The
9 additional exterior parking spaces are not required and therefore are not subject to WOO
10 3.107.0S.C.4.
11
11
13 Off street 10adID. spaces shan comply with the dlmeDsioDalstaDdarda aDd amoull Dot lesl
14 thaD thol. set fort1l1a T"b,. 3.1.3. (WDO 3.10S.01.G.l)
TABLE 3.1.3 LaadiD. Space ReaulremeDlI
MlDlmum SIz. of Spac.
Us. MlDlmum No. Width LeDgth Height
of SDaces
Medium Density Dwellings
0-9 Units 0 -- -- -
15 Findings: For the proposed 8 dwelling units, no loading space is required. The site plan does not
16 show a loading space.
17 Conclusion: The application complies with WOO 3.105.01.0.1.
18
19
20 TUrD arounds shan be required within the off street parldna area(l) aDdlor at specific
21 clrculadoD features, to Department of PubUc Works requlremeDD based OD the review of the
21 Fire District. [WOO 3.10S.01.G.51
13 Findings: The applicant has requested that the Department of Public Works and the Fire District
24 modify this requirement. The Fire District and the Building Division have previously
15 communicated conditions of approval for this modification to the applicant.
26 Conclusions: The buildings shall be sprinkled with a fun NFP A 13 (not an NFP A 13-0) sprinkler
27 system. Each building shall have its own Post Indicator Valve. A tire alann system complying
28 with NFP A 72 which is monitored by a central station shall be provided. The sprinkler riser room
29 shall have a Knox box for tire department access. The required tire hydrant shall be located at the
30 entrance to the access road along with the required FOC (Fire Department Connection.) The
31 hydrant shall be located within five and twenty feet of the FOC. The 20 foot access road shall be
J2 marked and posted "No Parking" on both sides of the access. A flow test shall be conducted to
J3 determine the tire flow that can be achieved. A minimum fire flow of one thousand five hundred
34 gallons per minute (1500 gpm) shall be provided.
35 Findings: The building plans and site plan do not show sprinkler riser rooms. Sprinkler riser rooms
36 are required by the tire and building codes.
1:\Community Dcvclopment\Planning\2oo6\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 17 of 28
93
1
1
1
4
S
6
1
,
9
10
Conclusions: The lllplicant must either provide sprinkler riser rooms within the proposed building
footprint or amend the site plan to depict external sprinkler riser rooms. External sprinkler riser
rooms must comply with setback requirements.
,
Off street vehicle parklna spaces and maneuverbaa area, EXCEPI' those for slDale family
aDd duples dwelllBp and those for disabled penon., with.. off street parklna are. sbaD be
destped In compUuce with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off street parklna Spllees pro\'lded
subject to Table 3.1.4 shaD be detlped 10 that DO backlna or manellverbaa with" a pllbUe
street rlptorway It requlred.(WDO 3.105.01.8.4.a)
TABLE 3.1.4
AIsle Type
Width (Measured from
the midpoint of the
double stripe)
2-Way
Allie
Width
StaB
Depth
Curb
LeDatb
II Findings: The site plan shows the parking spaces as 10 feet wide and 24 feet long. The site plan
12 shows a 20 foot wide drive aisle. No backing or maneuvering is required within a public street
13 right of way. Figures 6.7 and 6.8 depict private driveways to tlag lots.
14 Conclusions: The parking spaces comply with WOO 3.105.01.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. The 20 foot
15 drive aisle does not comply with WOO 3.105.01.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. As the subject property is a
16 flag lot, a 24 foot wide drive aisle is not required. The 20 feet of improved surface shown in Figure
11 6.8 is appropriate for the proposed development.
II
\9
20 Oft'street parkin. u.d maneuvering area shaU have directional markings and slgnl to
21 control vehlcle movement. (WOO 3.105.01.8.5)
22 Finding: The site plan indicates that the driveway will be posted "no parking." The Fire District
23 indicates that, in addition, the pavement must be marked "no parking" to comply with WOO
24 3.105.01.0.5 (see discussion above.)
2S Conclusions: The proposed "no parking" signs comply with WOO 3.105.01.H.5. The property
26 owner should provide pavement marking indicating "no parking" along the driveway, in accordance
27 with WOO 3.10S.01.H.5 and WOO 3.105.01.H.5.
2.
29
30 Off street parking spaeel sball be deOneated by double paraUel Ones OD eacb side of a space.
31 The total width of the lines shan deOneate a separatloD of 1 feet. (WDO 3.105.01.8.6)
32 Findings: The site plan shows the additional exterior parking spaces to be delineated by double
33 para1lellines. All other exterior parking spaces are physically separated from other spaces.
34 Conclusions: The exterior parking spaces that are physically separated from other spaces do not
35 require striping. The development complies with WOO 3.105.01.H.6.
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 18 of 28
94
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
All outdoor 8ptlDI shall be designed so at Dot to shine or reflect lato aD)' adJaceDt
resldeDdaD)' zODed or used property, aDd shall Dot calt . &lare ODto movlaa vehldes OD aDY
pubUc street. (WDO 3.105.01.8.81
Findings: One of the proposed luminaires is 17 feet from one adjacent house and 45 feet from
another. The photometric plan does not show illuminance levels on the adjacent residential
properties or call for shielding of the luminaires.
Conclusions: The submittal does not provide a basis to conclude that the proposed illuminatiOD will
not "shine or retlect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used property." The applicant has not
demonstrated complianas with WOO 3.10S.01.H.8. The applicant should submit a revised
photometric plan or details ofluminaire shielding demonstrating compliance with WOO
3.10S.01.H.8 to the Planning Division prior to issuance of any building permit.
19
20
All usn required to provide 10 or more off street parldal spaces shaD provide a bicycle rack
wtthbl SO feet of the mala eDtraac.. The Dumber of required rack spaces shaD be ODe plUI ODe
per tea vehicle parldal spaces, with a ma1[lmum of 10 rack spaces. (WOO 3.105.01.8.101
Findings: The development requires 16 off-street parking spaces. This yields a requirement ofthrec
bicycle rack spaces. The site plan does not show any bicycle rack.
Conclusion: The applicant must provide at least three bicycle rack spaces, in accordance with WOO
3.10S.01.H.10.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WDO 3.106
Landse.plne Standards
The subject property shan be laDdscaped to the staDdards of Sections 3.106 Gntl3.107.03.
(WDO 1.104.07.1'.1)
The provisloDI of this SectiOD shaD apply:
A. To the site area for an Dew structures aDd related parklnl EXCLUDING single-
famUy aDd duplex dweUlnp aDd accessory structures. (WDO 3.106.01)
Findings: The proposed development consists of new structures and related parking. The structures
are not single-family or duplex dwellings.
Conclusion: The development is subject to WOO 3.106 under WOO 2.104.07.F.2 and 3.106.01.A.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
31
Development In aD &'\1 zone, except for a slnale family dweUlnI aDd duplex dwelUna, shaD be
subject to the setback and buffer requlremeDu of Table 1.1.7.(WDO 1.104.06.D.%.al
TABLE 1.1.7
AbuttiD Pro e
Existing single family or duplex
dwellin
Interior Yard aDd Buffer Standards for &'1 ZODel
Landsca In
All interior yards shall be fully landscaped subject to Section
3.106.
1:\Community Development\Ptanning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 19 of 28
95
Interior Yard and Buffer Standarda for RM Zones
Landsca In
All interior yards shall be fully landscaped subject to Sectloll
3.106.
TABLE 1.1.7
Abuttln Pro
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing
medium densi residential unit
1
1
Finding: The property abuts existing singlo-family dwellings to the south, southwest, and southeast,
property zoned PISP to the west, and an existing medium density residential to the north.
Conclusion: All interior yards must be fully landscaped subject to Section 3.106, in accordance with
Table 2.1.7.
)
4
5
6
7
AD required landscapedareushaD be permanently IrrIpted. (WOO 3.106.01.B)
Findings: The utility plan shows sprinkler lines for individual units and common areas, and calls out
metering and control requirements.
Conclusion: The proposed irrigation meets the requirements ofWDO 3.106.02.B.
1
9
10
It
11
13
14
15
The property oWller shaD be responsible for malatalDlna an landseaplalla aood condition so
as to preseDt a healthy aDd orderly appearance. UDhealthy aDd dead plants shall be removed
and replaced III conformance with the orlamallandscape plan. (WDO 3.106.02.E)
Finding: This is an ongoing requirement
Conclusion: This requirement will be enforced on current and future property ownen.
16
17
18
19
20
21
21
23
FroDt Yard and Yard Abuttlnaa Street.
a. LaDdleaplna DeDsity for aD llsesla the RM zoneL All front yards and yards abllttlna
a street shaD be landscaped at a deDsity of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 10 sq. It. (WDO
3.106.03.A.Z)
Finding: The front yard (most of which is designated as the southern common open space) contains
139 plant units and approximately 2,449 square feet of area not used for parking or site access and
vehicular circulation, or 1.14 plant units per 20 square feet. A total of 123 plant units is required to
provide 1 plant unit per 20 square feet.
Conclusions: The front yard meets the standard of WOO 3.1 06.03.A.2.a.
14
25
26
27
21
l:\Community Devclopment\Planning\2006\Dcsign Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 20 of 28
96
""" ......
.
_..~..~..-..~..
_:.---
... <fl.""'.
..-..--
I1pn u Stthdra aM Yu.II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yarcl, Buffer: AD yard improved with landscaplDa and/or sereeDiDI to appUeable standards
of the WOO that II located betweeD two land 111. of clifferiDl character to minimize potential
eODmets and to provide a more aesthetic envlrODment. (WDO 1.1021
Findings: The property abuts lots developed with single-family dwellings (933, 1035, and 1129 East
Lincoln Street) to the southwest, south, and east. The property abuts an existing multiple-family
development to the north. The property abuts school property in the PISP zone along the northern
215 feet of the west property line.
Conclusion: Yards abutting lots developed with single-family dwellings or school property are
buffer yards.
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
AU bllffer yards shaD be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 10 sq. It.
EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abllttlnl a wan which are paved and which may be llsed
for parklna or site access aDd vehicular elrculatloD. (WDO 3.106.03.8)
Finding: The west side yard extends from the east property line to the east building wall, in
accordance with Figure 6.3. The west side yard abuts school property. The west side yard contains
approximately 185 plant units and approximately 2,654 square feet of area not '\1sed for parking or
site access and vehicular circulation", or 1.39 plant units per 20 square feet. A total of 133 plant
units is required to provide 1 plant unit per 20 square feet.
Conclusion: The west side yard is a buffer yard. The west side yard meets the standard of WOO
3. \ 06.03 .B.
Finding: The east side yard extends from the east property line to the east building wall, in
accordance with Figure 6.3. The east side yard abuts a lot developed with a single-family dwelling
(1129 East Lincoln Street) The east side yard contains 197 plant units and 5,392 square feet, or
0.73 plant units per 20 square feet. A total of270 plant units is required to provide 1 plant unit per
20 square feet.
Conclusion: The east side yard is a buffer yard. An additional 73 plant units must be planted in the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1:\Conununity Deve\opment\Planning\2006\Dcsign Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Conunons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 2\ of 28
97
1
)
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
tl
11
13
14
IS
east side yard in order to meet the standard ofWDO 3.106.03 .B.
Finding: The property abuts an existing multiplo-family development to the north.
Conclusions: The rear yard (on the north) does not abut a land use of differing character. The rear
yard is not a buffer'yard and is not subject to WOO 3.106.03.B.
Finding: The property abuts an existing singlo-family dwelling to the south (l035 East Lincoln
Street.) The front yard contains 139 plant units and approximately 2,449 square feet of area not
'~ed for parking or site access and vehicular circulation", or 1.14 plant units per 20 square feet.
Conclusion: The front yard is a butTer yard. The front yard meets the standard of WOO 3.106.03.B.
16
17
18
19
AD UDpaved 1..4 wlthla off street parldn. area, and wltbla 20 feet of the paved ed.. of off
street parldDllDdlor dreuladoD lmprovemeD.tI, shaD be laD.dseaped .. the foRowID,
proportloDl:
L RM ... zon..: Landscaped area(l) equivalent to 20-/. of the paved surface area for off
street parldal and elreulatloD.(WDO 3.106.03.C.l1
Finding: The landscaping plan shows that all unpaved land within the off street parking area, and
within 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and circulation improvements (except for the
area occupied by buildings) is landscaped. This constitutes more than 2()o~ of the paved surface
area for off street parking and circulation.
Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard ofWDO 3.106.03.C.1.
20
21
22
23
24
25
The density of landseaplna required ID and adjacent to off street parkinaaD.d elrClllatloD
facUitles, EXCLUDING reqlllred trees, shaD be ODe (1) plant UDit per 10 square feet. (WDO
3.106.03.C.1)
Finding: The area of adjacent to off street parking and circulation facilities contains approximately
2,947 square feet. The relevant area contains approximately 252 plant units (excluding the two
trees required to satisfy WOO 3.106.03.C.3), for a plant density of approximately 1.7 plant units
per 20 square feet.
Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard ofWDO 3.1 06.03.C.2.
26
27
21
29
30
31
32
))
34
35
36
37
38
Trees, Section 6.103, shaD be planted wlthlD and abllttlna off street parklnl faeUltl.. Ia a
pattern that IIID proportioD to the dlstrlblldoD of the parklnl spaces, at the foUowln1
densitles:
L 1 small tree per 5 parldnl spaces;
b. 1 medium tree per 10 parldnl spaces; or
e. 1 large tree per 14 parldnl spaees.lWDO 3.106.03.C.3)
Findings: The site plan shows twelve external off-street parking spaces. The equivalent of two
medium trees is required by WOO 3.1 06.03.C.3. The landscaping plan shows 9 Acer platanoides
"Drummondli" abutting the parking area This cultivar of Norway maple is reported to grow 35-40
feet high, and would be classified as a medium tree in WDO 6.103.
39
40
4'
42
l:\Community Development\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons \Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 22 of 28
98
1
1
)
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard ofWDO 3.106.03.C.3.
Mllltl-Purpose Lanueapln.. Trees and other required landscaplnlloeatecl OD private
property wlthla a required setback abuttlal a street or aa interior lot Un, that" withlD 10
feet of th, paved swface of off street parklnland elreuladoD facWdel, may also be counted lD
ealeulatIDs required lanueaplnl for off street parklnsaad elreuladoD areal. (WOO
3.106.03.C.4)
AD eommOD area shaD be lanclseaped with at least three (3) plaDt 11mb per SO square feet.
(WOO 3.106.03.D)
Findings: The north common area contains 2,418 square feet and is landscaped with 128 plant units,
which equates to 2.6 plant units per SO square feet. A total of 145 plant units is required to provide
3 plant units per SO square feet. The south common area contains 2,306 square feet and is
landscaped with 123 plant units, which equates to 2.7 plant units per so square feet. A total of 138
plant units is required to provide 3 plant units per SO square feet.
Conclusions: An additional 17 plant units must be provided in the north common area to meet the
standard of WOO 3.106.03.0. An additional 15 plant units must be provided in the south common
area to meet the standard ofWDO 3.106.03.0.
24
25
The eDtlre yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas sllbJeet to more Intensive landscaping
requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant llDit (PU) per SO
square feet prior to flaal OCCllpaDey. (WOO 3.106.03.E)
Finding: The entire yan! area of the property is subject to more intensive landscaping requirements
(1 plant unit per 20 square feet) under WDO 3.106.03.A.2.a and WOO 3.106.03.B.
Conclusion:' No portion of the property is subject to the provisions ofWDO 3.106.03.E.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
ConservatloR of Slplfleant Trees
A. AppUc:ablUty. The provislonl of this SectloR apply to the removal of any slgnifleant
tree and the replaeemeRt requlremeats for slpiflcant tree removal. A "significant
tree" II any exlstlaa. healthy tree 24 inches or more In diameter, measured 12 baehes
above grollnd leveL (WDO 3.106.04)
Finding: The landscaping plan does not show any existing trees on the site. No significant trees
were observed during a site inspection.
Conclusion: The provisions of WOO 3.106.04 do not apply to the subject property.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The required number of plant uaits shan be met by a combination of plant materials Usted In
Table 3.1.5, so that eighty (80) perceDt of the area to be laadseaped Is covered wlthba three
yearL Required plant llnits need not be allocated uniformly throup out specified
landscaping areas, but may be grouped for visual effect. (WDO 3.106.05.A1
[:\Community Dcvelopmcnt\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 23 of 28
99
I PU
1 PU
so . ft.
1
2
)
4
5
6
7
Applicant's statement: "All shrubs and ground cover will be sized so as to attain 8001'0 of ground
coverage within 3 years."
8
9
Landscaped are.. that are not covered by plant materiallshaD be covered by . layer of bark
mulela or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordlaary crushed ..vel, a mlnlmllm of Z loch.. In
depth. [WOO 3.106.05.B)
Finding: The landscaping plan does not show any landscaped areas that is not covered by plant
materials.
Conclusion: The site plan meets the guideline ofWDO 3.106.05.8.
10
II
12
13
14
A six-Inch concrete cllrb shan be provided between a landscaped area and a parkina area or
aceesl way. (WDO 3.106.05.C)
Finding: The site plan calls out a six-inch concrete curb along the driveway. The site plan also
shows apparent wheel stops between the exterior parking spaces and landscaped areas. The site
plan does not show curbing north of the northernmost exterior parking space, or south of the
southernmost exterior parking space.
Conclusion: The curb along the driveway and the apparent wheel stops meet the standard ofWDO
3.106.0S.C. The lack of a curb north of the northernmost exterior parking space, or south of the
southernmost exterior parking space does not meet the standard ofWDO 3.1 06.0S.C. The applicant
should provide a six-inch concrete curb between the landscaped areas and parking areas or access
ways at the northernmost exterior parking space and the southernmost exterior parking space, in
accordance with WOO 3. 106.0 S.C.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WDO 3.107
Architectural Deslp Guidelines and Standards
Guidelines and Standards for l'ledlum Density Residential Bundlnl'
A. AppUcabiUty. Punuant to SeedoD 1.102, "Medium Density Residential Bundlna"
means any buUdln1 where the predominant use Is multiple family, nurslnl care or
assisted care residentiaL
1:\Community Devclopment\Ptanning\2006\Dcsign Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 24 of 28
100
I
1
)
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
II
12
13
14
1. For a Type 11 or III review, the criteria Section 3.107.0S.B shaD be read..
"should" and shaD be appUed.. pideUnes.IWDO 3.107.0S1
Common open space and raclUdes consist or the site area and facUlties not devoted to
dweDlnp, parklna..treets, driveway. or storace area. that are avaOable for use by aD
residents of a development.lWDO 3.107.0S.B.1.a)
Requlred yardsetbaekl shouldlshall be Iaeluded u common open space.lWDO 3.107.0S.B.l.bl
Finding: Required front and rear yards are included as common open space. The east side yard is
private open space.
Conclusion: The site plan meets the guideline of WOO 3.107 .0S.B.I.b.
15
16
17
A JIIlftbnum of 30 percent of the net site area of each medium density residential development
should/shall be permanently desipated for 1111 at common OpeD space and faelUdes. (WDO
3.107.05.B.l.c.l)
Findings: The applicant submitted a Common Open Space Exhibit at the public hearing, which was .
admitted as Exhibit L and accepted by the Commission. The exhibit shows 19,246 square feet of
common open space, which equals 61.1 % of the site area
Conclusion: The development meets the guideline ofWDO 3.107 .0S.B.I.c.l.
18
19
20
21
22
The common area shouldlshallinelude at least ODe open space eODtaln1n11000 sq. ft., with a
minimum width of 36 feet. (WDO 3.107.05.B.l.e.l)
Finding: The northern common open space contains approximately 2,418 square feet and measures
approximately 31 feet by 72 feet. The southern common open space contains approximately 2,306
square feet and measures approximately 30 feet by 72 feet.
Conclusion: The common open spaces meet the guidelines ofWDO 3.107.0S.B.1.c.2.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
33
34
35
"Recreation Area aDd Facilities. Facilities to accommodate children'. and/or adult
recreadoD, meetlna or edueatioD activities should/shd be provided at a ratio of 36 sq. ft. of
olltdoor, or 11 sq. ft. of indoor, common area per dwelllna1lDlt or UviDa unit. The mlalmum
Improved common area for thlI pllrpose should/shall be 710 1q1lare feet of olltdoor or 140 sq.
ft. indoor space. The space for slleh improvements may be counted as part of the common
area reqllired by Sectloll J.IIJ1.IJ$.&1.c.2). at a 1:1 ratio for olltdoor space and 3:1 ratio for
indoor space. (WOO 3.107.05.B.l.c.3)
Findings: For the proposed 8 dwelling uni~ a total of288 square feet of outdoor, or 96 square feet
of indoor recreation, meeting or education areas and facilities should be provided. The applicant
submitted a Common Open Space Exhibit at the public hearing, which was admitted as Exhibit L
and accepted by the Commission. The recreational- parking space would satisfy the requirement
for recreational facilities if improved with a basketball hoop. Alternatives to a basketball hoop
could be approved by staff.
36
37
31
39
~
-II
l:\Conununity Development\Planning\2oo6\Dcsign Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Conunons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 25 of28
101
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
tl
12
tJ
14
15
16
Conclusion: The 1,338 square feet of recreational- parking space, improved with a basketball hoop
or approved alternate facility, meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.B.1.c.3.
MecUllDl density clwelUnl units sited OD th. flnlshed lI'ade, or wltbla 5 feet of the ttnlshed
ande, slaouWsllall have 96 sqllare feet of seml-enelosed, private OpeD space, with DO
dlmensioale.. thu 6 feet.IWDO 3.107.05.8.1...11
Findings: The site plan shows each unit as having a 12 foot by 10 foot pervious patio and a lawn
area, totaling 600 01 660 square feet. The site plan shows lines that represent a 6- foot high fence.
The private courtyards are separated by shrubbery and the 6 foot fence.
Conclusion: The private open spaces meet the guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.B.1.c.2.
17
11
19
Grouad level private OpeD space sllould/slld be visually and physically separated from
CODUnOD open space throup the use of perimeter landseaplDlor feDelDlo WOO
3.107 .05.1U.a.l)
Finding: The landscaping plan shows the two relevant patios to be separated from the common open
spaces by shrubbery. The site plan shows lines that represent a 6-foot high fence between the patios
and the common open spaces.
Conclusion: The separation between the private open spaces and the common open spaces meets the
guidelines of WOO 3.107.05.8.2.a.2.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Medium density residential buUdlnp should/shall have no dimension areater than ISO feet.
[WOO 3.107.OS.C.l.a)
Finding: The maximum building dimension is approximately 80 feet.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.C.l.a.
26
27
28
29
30
31
Every two attaebed medium density residential dweUlna units should/shaH be offset by at least
4 feet lD depth.[WDO 3.107 .OS.C.l.b)
Finding: The site plan shows a 4 foot offset at the midpoint of each 4-unit building, .
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.C.l.b.
32
11
34
35
36
31
Adjacent medium density residential buUdlnp located withlD 21 feet of a property Une,
should/shaH vary the setback at least 4 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.C.l.e)
Finding: The site plan shows the buildings to be located approximately 30 feet from the north, east,
and south property lines, and approximately 50 feet from the west property line.
Conclusion: The guideline of WOO 3.107 .05.C.l.c does not apply.
38
39
40
41
U
l:\Community Developmcnt\P\anning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 26 of 28
102
,
2
)
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
It
12
13
14
15
16
A Oat roof, or the ridge of a sloplnl roof, for. medium density resldendal buDdin,
should/shaD not exceed a horlzontallenath of 100 feet.lWDO 3.107.0S.C.l.dl
Finding: The maximum length of a ridgeline is approximately 40 feet.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WOO 3.107 .0S.C.I.d.
Medium density resldendal buRdinp should/shaD incorporate a porch or recessed entry for
each arouDd level dweUlnlllDit. Covered porehet and eDtI'let should averale at least 30 feet
square per unit, with no dlmeDlloD lesl th.. 6 feet.lWDO 3.107.0S.C.l.e)
Finding: The building plans show each unit having a covered porch containing approximately 100
square feet and having a minimum dimension of approximately 8~ feet.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.0S.C.1.e.
17
18
19
20
AD habitable roolDl, except bath roolDl, facin,a required froDt yard should/shall Iaeorporat.
wladowl.lWDO 3.107.OS.C.l.f)
Finding: The building plans show windows only on the east and west facades. The front yard is to
the south of the buildings. As this is a tlaglot, the front yard abuts (for the majority of its length)
the rear yard of a single-family dwelling. The proposed development could provide windows in
rooms facing south on the southern building. The applicant's narrative did not address this issue.
Conclusion: The property owner should provide windows in rooms facing south on the southern
building, in accordance with the guideline ofWDO 3.107.0S.C.1.f.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Stair cues prov1dlna access above the first Boor level should/shan not be visible from a street.
lWDO 3.107.05.C.l.al
Finding: The building plans show that the stair cases providing access above the first floor are
internal.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107 .OS.C.l.g.
27
28
29
30
31
32
3J
34
The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade shoultllshan be:
1) Either sidla.. brick or stucco. PlaiD cODerete, corrupted metal, plywood and sheet
presl board should/shan not be llsed as exterior Rnbb material. (WDO 3.107.05.C.1.a)
Finding: The elevation drawing shows the predominant exterior finish to be lap siding. Cultured
stone and architectural shakes are also used.
Conclusion: The buildinp meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.0S.C.2.a.1.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
"The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade should/shall be:
1) Either white, tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or shaded with a
minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown. "F1ollreseent," "daY-alo," or any
l:\Conununity Devetopmem\Ptanning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006- t 7 V AR 2007-0 t EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 27 of 28
103
2
3
slmDar brlpt color should/shall not be used OD the facade." lWDO 3.107.05.C.1.a)
Finding: The color elevation drawings and the applicant's statement show the predominant color to
be anny green.
Conclusion: The color scheme of the buildings meets the guidelines ofWDO 3.107.0S.C.2.a.2,
except that the predominant color is not a shade of "blac::k or brown," and has not been shown to be
"tinted with a minimum of 1 0 parts per 1 00 of white." The development should utilize paint or
other ex.terior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade that is either white, tinted with a minimum
of 10 parts per 100 ofwhitc, or shaded with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown, in
accordance with the guideline of WOO 3.107 .OS.C.2...
4
5
6
7
.
9
10
11
11
1)
14
The rooftnl material for medlllm density dweUlnp should/shall be either compolidoa
shlnal"; clay or coacrete tOe; metal; or cedar shlnat.. or shakn. CompolidOD shlnat..
should/shall be architectural style with. eertlfted performance of at leut 15 ye..... (WOO
3.107.05.C.1.b)
Finding: The elevation drawing shows composition shingles as the roofing material.
Conclusion: The property owner should utilize either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile;
metal; or cedar shingles or shakes as a roofing material. Composition shingles should be
architectural style with a certified performance of at least 25 years, in accordance with the
guidelines ofWDO 3.107.05.C.2.b.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Internal pedestrian system 10 medium density residential developments should/shall
conDed to other areas of the site, to other buUdlna entrances and to adjaeeDt streets. (WDO
3.107 .05.C.3.a)
Finding: The site plan shows a sidewalk fronting all units, and extending to the sidewalk on Lincoln
Street.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107 .OS.C.3...
25
26
27
1:\Community Development\Ptanning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 28 of 28
104
1
2
:I
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2)
24
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREeON
PLANNING COMMISSION
DR 2006-17
EXCP 2007-01
Exhibit B
Cases DR 2006-17 and EXCP 2007-02 are approved subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with
all provisions of the WOO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of
approval, or public hearing. The term "substantial accordance" shall not be interpreted
as relieving the property owner from complying with any requirement of the WOO.
The term "substantial accordance" shall not be interpreted to mean that City staft"have
the authority to waive or vary any development standard set forth in the WOO.
2. The property shall be developed in substantial confonnity to the site, utility,
landscaping, grading, and lighting plans dated June 6, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibits
"A" though "0," except as modified by these conditions of approval.
3. The buildings shall be constructed in substantial conformity to the floor plans and
elevations dated October 11, 2006.
4. The buildings shall not exceed 35 feet in height, in accordance with WDO 2.1 04.06.C..
5. The buildings shall be set back at least 30 feet from all interior property lines, in
accOrdance with WOO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7..
6. The garage entrances shall be set back from the shared driveway at least 20 feet, in
accordance with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.l.b.2..
7. Individual refuse collection facilities shall be required, or common refuse collection
facilities provided and screened in accordance with WOO 2.104.07.F.3.
8. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the wall height requirement ofWDO
2.104.06.0.2.a and Table 2.1.7 for the retaining wall on the westerly 13 feet of the
southernmost exterior parking space and the proposed 30" architectural walls on top of
the retaining walls along the flagpole portion of the lot
9. The south exterior parking spaces shall be screened with an architectural wall along
their entire length, in accordance with WOO 2.1 04.06.D.1.b.1.
10. All architectural walls shall incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the side
facing away from the subject property.
· The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
25
26
27
28
1:\Community Deve10pment\Planning\2oo6\Dcsign Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit a.doc Page 1 of S
105
1 11. The applicant shall submit details of the proposed architectural walls demonstrating
1 compliance with the requirement ofWDO 1.102 that architectural walls incorporate at
) least two colors and/or textures and the requirements of Table 2.1.7 that the wall have
4 an anti-graffiti surface and be no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height
5 12. Iletaining walls shall have the same appearance as architectural walls.
6 13. The property owner shall provide a 20 foot two-way drive aisle posted "no parking," in
7 accordance with WOO 3.104.0S.D.1.b.1..
. 14. The development shall provide curb returns with a radius of at least 2S feet, in
9 accordance with WOO 3.104.0S.D.2.
10 1 S. The property owner shall provide a throat length of at least SO feet to each driveway on
Il adjacent property that uses the flagpole access, in accordance with WOO
11 3.l04.0S.D.4.b..
'3 16. Each parkinl space outside a garage shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the
14 dwelling unit served by the garage. A sign shall be posted OD each garage door
'5 indicating this reserved status.
16 17. The proposed development shall provide one van-accessible space and accessibility
17 aisle, in accordance with WOO 3.l0S.01.B.3, WOO 3.10S.01.H.4.c, Section 1104 of the
18 Oregon Structural Specialty Code and OIlS 447.233.
19 18. Exterior parking spaces shall be reconfigured to provide the required van-accessible
20 space and accessibility aisle.
21 19. All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional requirements of WOO
22 3.10S.01.H.4 and Table 3.1.4.*
23 20. The buildings shall be sprinkled with a full NFP A 13 (not an NFP A 13-0) sprinkler
24 systCDL
25 21. Each building shall have its own Post Indicator Valve.
26 22. A fire alarm system complying with NFP A 72 which is monitored by a central station
27 shall be provided.
21 23. The sprinkler riser room shall have a Knox box for fire department access.
29 24. The required fire hydrant shall be located at the entrance to the access road along with
30 the required FOC (Fire Department Connection.)*
31 2S. The hydrant shall be located within five and twenty feet of the FDC..
32 26. The 20 foot access road shall be marked and posted "No Parking" on both sides of the
33 access.
* The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimwn standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
l:\Community Developmcnl\Planning\2oo6\Dcsign Rcview\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 2 of 5
106
1
1
)
4
5
6
7
.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
11
18
19
20
21
27. A tlow test shall be conducted to determine the fire flow that can be achieved. A
minimum fire now of one thousand five hundred gallons per minute (1500 gpm) shall
be provided.
28. The applicant shall either provide sprinkler riser rooms within the proposed building
footprint or amend the site plan to depict external sprinkler riser rooms. External
sprinkler riser rooms shall comply with setback requirements.
29. The property owner shall post the driveway "no parking," in accordance with WOO
3.105.01.0.5 and WOO 3.105.01.H.5..
30. The property owner shall provide pavement marking indicating "no parking" along the
driveway, in accordance with WOO 3.105.01.0.5 and WOO 3.105.01.H.5.
31. The applicant shall submit a revised photometric plan or details of luminaire shielding
demonstrating compliance with WOO 3.1 05.01.H.8 to the Planning Division prior to
issuance of any building permit
32. The applicant shall provide at least three bicycle rack spaces, in accordance with WOO
3.105.01.H.10.
33. The landscaping shall comply with the requirements ofWDO 3.106.
34. All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated, in accordance with WOO
3.106.02.8..
35. The property owner shall maintain all landscaping in good condition. Unhealthy and
dead plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape
pl~ in accordance with WOO 3.106.02.8..
36. The west side yard shall be planted with at least 133 plant units of landscaping material,
in accordance with WOO 3.106.03.B..
37. An additional 73 plant units must be planted in the east side yard in order to meet the
standard ofWDO 3.106.03.B. The east side yard shall be planted with at least 270 plant
units of landscaping material.
38. The front yard shall be planted with at least 123 plant units oflandscaping material, in
accordance with WOO 3.106.03.A.2.a.*
39. All unpaved land within the off street parking area, and within 20 feet of the paved edge
of off street parking and circulation improvements shall be landscaped in accordance
with WOO 3.1 06.03.C.l. *
40. The density oflandscaping required in and adjacent to off street parking and circulation
facilities, excluding required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 square feet, in
accordance with WOO 3.106.03.C.2. *
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
J)
34
· The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
l:\Community Oevelopment\Planning\2oo6\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit a.doc Page 3 of S
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
11
18
19
20
21
41. Trees sball be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities in a pattern that is
in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, in accordance with WOO
3.106.03.C.3..
42. An additional 17 plant units shall be provided in the north common area to meet the
standard ofWDO 3.106.03.D. The north common area shall be planted with at least
145 plant units oflandscapina material.
43. An additional 1 5 plant units shall be provided in the south common area to meet the
standard of WOO 3.106.03.D. The south common area shall be planted with at least 138
plant units oflandscaping material.
44. All shrub, and ground cover shall be sized so as to attain 8oo/, of ground coverago
within three years, in accordance with WOO 3.106.0S.A..
45. A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking
area or access way. The applicant shall provide a six-inch concreto curb between tho
land~tped areas and parking areas or access ways at the northernmost exterior parking
space and tho southernmost exterior parking space, in accordance with WOO
3.106.0S.C.
46. The property owner shall dedicate an additional 12 feet to right-of-way for East Lincoln
Street.
47. The property owner shall provide the street improvements required by the
Transportation System Plan for East Lincoln Street or obtain an exception to street right
of way and improvement requirements, in accordance with WOO 3.101.02.D.
48. The property owner shall execute a nonremonstrance agreement to participate in the
cost of reconstructing East Lincoln Street to the standards of the Transportation Systems
Plan when such reconstruction becomes timely.
49. Required front and rear yards shall be included as common open space, in accordance
with the guideline ofWDO 3.107.05.B.l.b.*
50. The common area shall include at least one open space containing 2000 sq. ft., with a
minimum width of36 feet, in accordance with the guidelines ofWDO
3.107.0S.B.l.c.2.*
51. The property owner shall provide 288 square feet of outdoor, or 96 square feet of indoor
recreation, meeting or education areas and facilities, to meet the guideline of WOO
3.107 .OS .B.I.c.3. Provision of a basketball hoop at the north end of the driveway shall
satisfy this condition.
52. The property owner shall provide each dwelling unit on or within S feet of the finished
grade with 96 square feet of semi-enclosed, private open space, with no dimension less
than 6 feet, to meet the guidelines ofWDO 3.107.05.B.I.c.2. *
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
31
33
34
35
36
. The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the Woodburn
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
I :\Community Oevclopment\Planning\2006\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Common.s\Final Order Exhibit a.doc Page 4 of S
108
,
2
)
4
5
6
7
.
9
10
11
11
1)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
53. Ground level private open space shall be visually and physically separated from
common open space through the use of perimeter landscaping or fencing, to meet the
guidelines of WOO 3.1 07 .OS.B.2.a.2..
54. The property owner shall provide windows in rooms facing south on the southern
building. in accordance with the guideline of WOO 3.107.0S.C.l.f.
55. The buildings shall have no dimension greater than 150 feet, to meet the guideline of
WOO 3.107.0S.C.l.a..
56. Every two attached medium density residential dwelling units Ishall be offset by at least
4 feet in depth, to meet the guideline of the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.b..
57. Adjacent medium density residential buildinp located within 28 feet of a property line,
shall vary the setback at least 4 feet, to meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.0S.C.l.c..
58. The ridge of a sloping roof, for a medium density residential building shall not exceed a
horizontal length of 100 feet, to meet the guideline of WOO 3.107.05.C.1.d..
59. The buildings shall incorporate a porch or recessed entry for each ground level dwelling
unit. Covered porches and entries shall averagc at least 30 feet square per unit, with no
dimension less than 6 feet, to meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.0S.C.1.e..
60. Stair cases providing access above the first floor level shall not be visible from a street,
to meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107.0S.C.1.g..
61. The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade shall be either siding, brick or
stucco. Plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood and sheet press board shall not be
used as exterior finish material, to meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107 .OS.C.2.a. ·
62. The roofing material shall be either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile; metal;
or cedar shingles or shakes. Composition shingles shall be archite<:tural style with a
certified perfonnance of at least 25 years, to meet the guideline of WDO
3.107.05.C.2.b..
63. The internal pedestrian system shall connect to other areas of the site, to other building
entrances and to adjacent streets, to meet the guideline ofWDO 3.107 .OS.C.3.a..
64. The development should utilize paint or other exterior finish for at least 90 percent of
the facade that is either white, tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or
shaded with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown, in accordance with the
guidelincofWOO 3.107.0S.C.2.a.
6S. The property owner shall utilize either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile;
metal; or cedar shingles or shakes as a roofing material. Composition shingles shall be
architectural style with a certified perfonnance of at least 2S years, in accordance with
the guidelines of WOO 3.107.0S.C.2.b.
. The development as proposed meets these conditions of approval. These conditions are
included to reiterate mandatory minimum standards required by the W oodbum
Development Ordinance or adopted by the Planning Commission.
I:\Community Developmenl\Planning\2oo6\Design Review\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-01 EXCP 2007-02
Lincoln Commons\Final Order Exhibit B.doc Page 5 of S
109
Exhibit C
Aerial photo of subject property. Wall required (except at vision clearance areas) by Table 2.1.7
is shown in solid red. Wall that is discretionary in Table 2.1.7, but required by the Commission,
is shown in dashed yellow.
110
October 19, 2007
.. ,.., ")<1"'<".,,"
. ;",-:::' ;'::.:;C~fi.:,': :"'::<~'~}:""\
'f ~:} !, ",' .. 't.
.;t,.~ Wl I ...:._;J.(;.:b.
WEL.KI....
{WE '~
Mr. Jim Allen
Community Development Director
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
W oodhurn, Oregon 97071
E ~ G I.... E E R I .... G, P. C.
"."~ ''{I'"
~~'~ ~.
. ~; :.;,~~~~, i , '.: :~:
. """;1'''< t,' ".... '. \;<i'
.< ;:::~;;,~._:.)~~.:
* RECID *
Re: Appeal of Decision on Lincoln Commons
OCT 1 9 2007
WOODBURN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT OEPT.
Dear Mr. Allen:
This letter is our notice of intent to appeal the decision by the Woodburn Planning Commission
on September 27, 2007, involving Variance 2007 -01 and Design Review 2006-17.
Welkin Engineering, P .C. will be acting as agent for the property owners/applicants. Primary
contact is Terry Anthony, 7165 SW Fir Loop Suite 204, Tigard, Oregon 97223. Terry can be
reached at 503-598-1866. Tim Murphy and Gerard Stascausky arc the property owners and
applicants for Variance 2007-01 and Design Review 2006-17. The applicants can be reached at
111 SW 5th Ave. 4200 Floor, Portland, Oregon 97204. Daytime phone number for the applicants
is 503-790-7782.
RECITATION OF FACTS
The Woodburn Development Code (ref. Table 2.1.7) indicates that architectural walls are
required for new developments in the RM zone that arc adjacent to existing single family
dwellings, and are discretionary where adjacent to P/SP zone and existing medium density
residential units.
The site to be developed is 0.73 acre and ~oned RM. Eight townhouses are planned. It is adjacent
to existing single family dwellings on its east side (1035 and 1129 Lincoln St.) and the southern
portion of its west side (933 Lincoln St.). It is adjacent to a P/SP zoned parcel on the northern
portion of its west side, and adjacent to an existing medium density residential development on
its northern side. Its southern boundary fronts on Lincoln Street at Bryan (see attached site plan).
The applicants submitted a Variance application pertaining to the wall requirement related to the
adjacent, existing single-family dwellings. The Variance requested that a wood fence be allowed
7165 SW FIR LOop, SUITE 204, TIGARD, OR 97223
(503) 59B-1 B66, F'AX (503) 59B-1 B6B
ATTACHMENT H
111
in lieu of the architectural wall except where it screens the parking stalls and access drive, and
that the height of the walls be reduced to 30" above existing grade on the flag pole portion. For
purposes of design review, the application showed no wall on the west side adjacent to the P/SP
zoned property, where the wall is discretionary.
The Staff Report recommended rejection of the Variance because it did not comply with the
standards in the WOO. Despite findings that concluded no certainty of impacts (noise or other)
resulting from the proposed development, the Staff Report based its recommendation on the
argument that a fence was not on par with a wall in regards to mitigating noise impacts. The Staff
Report also recommended that an architectural wall be required where discretionary, because it
was 44appropriate"- no other reasons were given. (Refer to Staff Report for arguments and
Exhibit C of the Decision for locations of required walls.)
-
At the hearing, Welkin submitted an exhibit showing a 6-foot sound-attenuating wood fence that
could be used on the site (see attached detail). The applicant also proposed that this fence could
be put up on top of the retaining wall (full6-foot height if necessary) on the west side where
adjacent to the P/SP zoned property. There is an existing chain link fence on the northern side of
the property adjacent to the existing medium density residential development. Welkin explained
that the sound-attenuating wood fence, along with required landscaping, should be adequate to
mitigate noise adjacent to the rear portion of the existing single family lot to the east (1129
Lincoln St.). This portion of the existing single-family lot is undeveloped, i.e. no house or other
activity is presently occurring in that area, meaning there is no current use to mitigate noise for.
Furthennore, while the adjacent property (1129 Lincoln St.) has an existing single- family house,
the lot is zoned RM and so the likely scenario is that future development would be another
multifamily complex. Welkin further explained that a 30" high wall along either side of the flag
pole should be adequate to deflect noise from adjacent houses (933 and 1035 Lincoln St.)
resulting from vehicular traffic going into the site, while reducing the 'tunnel' effect of the walls.
There is no other noise-producing activity along the flag pole other than vehicular traffic. The
Welkin requested that the existing chain link fence or the sound-attenuating wood fence be
considered acceptable for the northern side of the property, because while the adjacent is use is
technically part of the medium density residential development, it is in actuality the back-side of
a Head Start school and related parking lot. No dwelling units are within 100 feet of the proposed
development.
With regard to the west and north walls (i.e. the discretionary portion), rather than addressing the
noise issue the Planning Commission's deliberations focused on the need to reduce the ability of
youths to cut through the property to access the school. The Commission felt that in this regard a
wall would be more effective than a fence, and would present less of an eyesore over time. With
regard to the east wall (i.e. the required wall adjacent to the vacant rear portion of the existing
single-family house at 1129 Lincoln St.), the Commission felt that the wall should still be
required because 'someday' the owner might want to tear down the house near the street and
71 6S SW FIR Loop, SUITE 204, TIGARO, OR 97223
(503) 59B-1 B66, FAX (503) 59B-1 S6B
112
build one further back on the vacant portion of the property. The issue of the 30" walls along the
flag pole was not scrutinized except to clarify what the applicants wanted and to establish that
there would be some tunnel effect. The Commission then approved motions requiring minimum
6-foot walls in all cases.
REASON FOR APPEAL
This appeal is based on the reasons given by the Planning Commission for requiring the
architectural walls in all cases, which the applicants feels do not correlate with the presence
and/or magnitude of presumed impacts from this development. The applicant notes that the
reasons given by the Commission do not include noise abatement of current uses, which was
discussed in the Staff Report as the primary purpose of the wall and which the Code seems
designed to address. Instead, the Commission's basis for requiring the wall had mainly to do with
precluding noise impacts to a hypothetical (and given the RM zoning, unlikely) future single
family dwelling, and reducing youths' access to the school property (as yet undeveloped), which
is an impact NOT associated with this development. Impacts that are a direct result of the
presence of a school, should be mitigated by the school. By analogy, a developer would not be
asked to build a wall to preclude persons from cutting across his property to get to a convenience
store; rather the developer could choose to accept this risk (if store is existing) or the owner of
the convenience store would be responsible for the impacts of his clientele (if store is proposed).
Moreover, the Commission felt that a wood fence or chain link fence (as proposed by the
applicants) was inferior to a block wall in prohibiting access, but provided no basis for such an
assertion.
With regard to the walls along the flag pole, the applicants note that the proposed access road
requires a cut in the bank and retaining walls on either side. Placing a 6-foot wall on top of this
retaining wall so that it provides a 6-foot barrier on either side means that the overall height of
the walls (from the perspective of a car entering off of Lincoln Street) will be 8 feet on the west
side and 10 feet on the east side (height of retaining wall + height of architectural wall-see
attached wall profile exhibits). Furthermore, as explained in the original application, the
applicants feel requiring a 6-foot wall at the comer where the flag pole ends and the parking
begins will present a safety issue as cars backing out of the parking space will not be able to see
cars coming up the access drive until they are almost behind them. The applicants feel that in
these cases a 30" wall on the east side and a 54" wall on the west side (so that finished walls
appear even) on top of the proposed retaining wall is more appropriate for safety and aesthetic
reasons, and will adequately mitigate noise from vehicular traffic. As requested by staff and the
Commission, retaining walls will have the same appearance as architectural walls.
The mass of architectural walls required is of concern to the applicants because it will be
detrimental to the aesthetics of the complex (a wall around the entire complex feels confining,
and seals off this project visually from the neighborhood), and because it would add substantial
cost to the project (local builders Clem Fleck Masonry and Woodburn Masonry Inc. provided
estimates equivalent to $78 - $102 per linear foot, total of875 feet = $68,250 - $89,250).
7165 SW F'IA Loop, SUITE 204, TIGAAD, 0 R 97223
(503) 59B-1 B66, F"AX (503) 59B-1 B6B
113
The applicants request that the City Council find that the provision of a 6-foot sound-attenuating
wood fence around the property such as that shown in the exhibit, with the exception of the walls
along the flag pole which would be 30"-54" architectural walls on top of retaining walls, is
sufficient to mitigate for (non-specific) impacts from this development on current uses o/the
adjacent properties, and modify the Decision made by the Planning Commission with respect to
Variance 2007-01 and Design Review 2006-17.
Please contact me with any questions regarding this appeal. Thank you.
~~
Terry Antho
Welkin Engi eenng, P .C.
C: Tim Murphy/Gerard Stascausky
attachments
7165 SW FIR Lccp, SUITE 204, TIGARC, OR 97223
(503) 59B-1 B66, FAX (503) 59B-1 B6S
114
PlAN
J 38X14Omm (2-lC6j WOOD TOP PUlE
2-J8X14Omm (2-x 6j WOOD ~
k SEaJRED TO 140X14Omm (6-x 6j POS
WItH METAL HANGERS
~ = = = = = = _ = ~14OX14Omm (e". e; WOOO POST
L- 25X14Omm (,-x 6-) VERllCAL BOARDS
AT 140mm (6") O.C.
-
.
.
-
e
~ ElEVATION
o
...
24-38mm (8' -0.) C.C. MAX,
t-
25mm (1") CHAMFER
i
....
38X14O (2"x6") WOOD TOP PLATE
2-J8X14Omm (2.x6j WOOD SlJPPORTS
SECURED TO 140lC14Omm Wx6j POST
'MlH METAL HANGERS
14OX14-Omm (6"x6") WOOD POST
25lC14Omm (1-d.) VER11CAL BOARDS
AT 140mm (6-) O.C.
2-38X14Omm (2-dj WOOD SIJ~TS
SECURED TO 140X14Omm (S.x6j POST
'MTH METAL HANGERS
FINISHED GRADE
-
~
. ,
o in
I _
~ ~
e ~
gs ~
GO
...
""
.
-
Eb'
E I
. .
... I')
l>>_
25Npa (3000psl) CONCRETE
FOOTING. SlOPE TOP Of'
FOOTING AS SHO'"
~'MBER SOUND ATTENUATION
SPECIFIC A TIONS:
,. AU. WOOD TO BE NO. 1 GRADE CEDAR AND FREE OF EXCESSIVE CHIPS. CRACKS. WARPS OR KNOTS.
UNLESS NOlED OtHERWISE ON DRAWING.
2. AU. FASTENERS TO BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED
3. AU. WOOD TO BE COATED WITH TWO COATS OF SOlID STAIN. CCl.OUR TO BE APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
-^- \~"'G"'D .A-
':,.( It t: 1..(
OCT 1 9 2007
\,\',')'}Q8'Jnr,~ G:JMMUN:1Y
r~' I~ i (;:.'.' :-;.J 1)~iT
(iJ
115
LINCOLN COMMONS
WOODBURN, OREGON
f:t REC'D *:
OCT 1 9 2007
WOOOBUPN COMMUNITY
C>EVtLG:J;;~:i\IT DEPl
"'-
....U'NII, MlID,.. ,
~,J':I':: I
" ...
.. ....
t
11I1.,
I
.., .,..
;
--
f"lri'nQ ~T'fP)
-r - - - - - - - - - - rw;;;...;:..-..- --
I =::=':1.
I I ~"ft.
I I_-
I I L.. ~7"'::T
I I
I
I
1-____.
,
I
...
1I. ....
,
j'
i".,(
1l110l
".-
".-
-- ------- -- ~---
,
.,00(........_ I
'lCOO' -1".:ot:;:..c-.',,^ 10 '=,If I
""""'f ..-...,
_ ",<..<"{,;su.:(..nollr
- ,
I
---------L
<.t<"'~
't;:;T-------.'j-,.-_~~sr LlNCOL ------J_
~ I --., ~STREEr
II) I ",,-- - '-
~ ( r----
~ --
Q, ---------
CG I --
I --
---
---
---
I I
I, ll~~
___ _ ... .---- _ _ ___ _ 0IIItA"
.---- . ---------
--
,(It ~. DdlMCI
-[-l-i-----i
.-1-.... I
I ~'.-1111
I
L_
~...
---- - - ---.
SITE PlAN
10
. ,M.~"_
. _""__,",,"Ill .....__....
WE ,--,.~.....
'....0111__
....MIIt..._
,-~....'..
.
LINCOlN COMMONS
I
~ It .
r1l . J
: i I
..
.
-.116
Mr. Jim Allen
Community Development Director
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn. Oregon 97071
r""t.;ll~"~~~"
...-.~.~~n-~"','l-'"
L.".J.. ..',,:\;::~, ,
1"""< WW" 1:, L:KE' N '\"~';,
' , . ,
. '
~\ .~ ' '; ~ .~"~~
e:~~~1 N It E ,R I#N ....... a .
-!;. : .
.' .,~ . . ,. .', ,,'
"-;.;,; ,,-t'L.,,:: ~,.,',,:;f:(;:"
'" :J:',:~...' ..lJ:~~,' "
October 26. 2007
Re: Appeal of Decision on Lincoln Commons
f:r REC'O *
OCT 2 8 2007
Dear Mr. Allen:
WOODBURN ~OMWiU!l\1Y
DE'JELOP~I\t.~lr OEi'T.
The purpose of this letter is to clarify some of the issues regarding our appeal of the
decision by the Woodburn Planning Commission on September 27. 2007. involving
Variance 2007-01 and Design Review 2006-17 (the original appeal letter was submitted
on October 19). This letter was prompted by our follow-up phone conversation on
October 25.
South walls (flaa Dole)
The applicants would accept the interpretation of the Commission's decision provided
by staff-i.e. that the walls need be 6-foot high with respect to the finished grade of the
site. Furthermore. the applicants would enlarge the driveways to 20-feet wide and
provide a 30-inch high wall (wI respect to finished grade of the site) within the vision
triangles, which is required by Code. All walls would comply with the appearance
standards for architectural walls.
West wall
The applicants' intention is to contest the grounds on which the Planning Commission
based its discretionary decision to require a full 6-foot architectural wall. The
Commission's intent was to preclude access to the school site through the project site
from the surrounding neighborhood. The applicants feel that such impacts are unlikely
to be caused by their project. as development would provide no better access than is
currently available, and so the project should not be required to bear the cost of
mitigating the impacts. Moreover. the mitigation that is being required seems out of
proportion to the problem, which could be solved with a much less expensive barrier
(e.g. wood, vinyl. chain link. hedge. or shorter wall) that would go atop the retaining
wall.
North wall
As with the west wall, the applicants contest the grounds for the decision. The
7165 SW Fir Loop, Suite 204. Tigard. OR 97223
{503} 598-1866. fax (503) 598-1868
ATTACHMENT I
117
difference here is that there is already an existing chain link fence that seems sufficient
to deter access into the adjoining housing project-which one could reason was
deemed sufficient at the time that that project was approved. What is it about this
project that prompts the need for a new wall?
East wall
Because of the one-size-fits-all requirement in the Code, an architectural wall is called
for in this case to mitigate against a use that does not presently exist, and is unlikely to
exist in the future (Le. a new single-family house on the vacant rear portion of the RM-
zoned lot). To address the Commission's concems about deterioration of wood fencing,
the proposed sound-attenuating wood fence could be made more stout with deeper
posts and stronger-gauge hardware. Materials and/or colors could be selected that
would slow its deterioration. Of course, CCR's will be in place to ensure maintenance.
Vinyl fencing might also be an option, with an even longer lifespan.
In summary, the applicants would still build the 6-foot architectural wall adjacent to
parking spaces, around the southern open space area, and along the flag pole as
described above. With the variance and this appeal, the applicants are seeking
approval only for an alternative-type barrier around the remainder of the site, where the
need and expense of an architectural wall seems unjustified.
Terry Anthony
Welkin Engineering, P.C.
C: Tim Murphy/Gerard Stascausky
attachments
7165 SW Fir loop, Suite 204, Tigard, OR 97223
(503) 598-1866, fax (503) 598-1868
118
LINCOLN COMMONS
WOODBURN, OREGON
.. 'OGO
IAOtI'[CMAL AHO/OIt
:~~'aLr:l.-:.
,0"""
.. ,...
I
2ft (1-.)
I
2000' ORl'o{ ,iu'il.[
P0-:'1(D '1<40 P,t,~,(IliG'
3(;100' 3E'!At;tI.
"NO UTIlITl [,t,S(y(NT
NO CUll
..
a
P(R'MJlI$
PAno (l"tP)
L--____.
-r - - - - - - - - - -r':.~1:-;- --
I ACCCIIIIOMCS .m
I I~~
i i~:--a
.. ,...
r
t./
: !'~'I)::.;
n. 1101
...:zoo
.. ....
I
I I ~"~
I I ..".. ....---
_----- QI(I)lCAT!C:W
------ -------------
,t19ON tAu.HCUS
rOft !lft OlfWMC[
6 -';..t:If"'L" J
-";J Ii'} ,~. Clt,;".., ',,," H) ~I"
,~',':~~_~ w:-':"~.'~""
J I
: ---------L
(,. :,..c
EAST ------J
-'. ". LINCOLN
- .. . STREET
-
---
-r-1-i-----i
~. - . I I'
I SCAIL: 1. - 2t1 I
I....Q I
~-,....._-
/j I ..
e:1
CI)
~
~
85
- '- L.
f/r' -
; -----
--------
I ----.
I ---_
---
...,,,
-
-.-
I/l H - u
:t
m :: . - u
m LINCOLN COMMONS
-l I :
'"
Exhibit "B"
SITE PLAN
D
(I) ,.a'.n.'."
."........INQ ..............INO
"......,'.1._......
~~~1r,1D
'''tl<Ul~'_
'..or.lWUl_'_
. l _..
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
t..-- - - ----.
\
\
I
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\ 1\.6..00
\
I
\
I
I
\
I
\
~.:.~c-~-- \ --
~ EAST ~-_-l
_ ________u~/NCO~N_STREET
Ut-lCOLt-I CO\lJ\\IJ\Ot-lS
WOOOBURN,ORE-GON
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
/
L
r&T-'::: ~
... ....
CO.l,t.C1\OM 9/f1ll.L
rQllf'oJ).,....:f
,----------\------
\ ~ r&T~~
\ \.- ". .-' .
\.- \ ~
\ .J~~ .
\ \ ....", I
\ . -:tr:S:. .
, \ \ l'
J~--__~~ ~\
--c1f?1~-1
I _ \ :
~ ,.' I
\ ..., :: >d \ ' ~ 'i
, .' !
~. ", r ".' ~\
'~!)~.r.-----.i \ ~
'I;:;"~" ...,,~ 1\'\ ....~
/ ~
r- --
-- ,-
---------
I --
,
\
Exh\b\t "E"
GfVJ)\NG PVJ'l
~_,,":..-u
LlNCO\..N COMMONS
.. ..
. ..
.-
.~
~
~
O. ,~.,~"."B
..~,_~C:"I"O .~\........I"O
1'.......'''~- ...--
. T......OA.n1S
...I....}).-.'..
,,*,~\"-''''
---
LINCOLN COMMONS
An 8-Lot Multi-family Development in the
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Date:
October ii, 2006
Revised April 3, 2007
Applicant I Own...:
Tim Murphy & Gerard Stascausky
111 SW 5tti Avenue, 42"" Floor
Portland, Oregon 97204
Contactl Planners and Engineers:
Ed Christensen, P.E.
Welkin Engineering P .C.
7165 SW Fir Loop, Suite 204
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Phone: (503) 598-1868
Fax: (503) 598-1868
ekC@welklnengineering.net
Lot of Record:
A O.73-acre parcel In the SW % Section 8, Township 5 S, Range 1 W
Tax lot 6100 Tax Map 5S 1W osec
Location:
1037 East Uncoln Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97074
Zoning:
RM
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Residential >12 Units/Acre
Page 1
* REC'O *
APR 0 5 2007
WOOOBURN COMMUNllY
OEVELOPMENT OEPT.
t )( \-\ \ ?:::>\l ~
121
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to build 8 townhomes on 0.73 acres of vacant land in the RM zone.
An existing driveway would be improved to provide access to these units, and public utilities
extended to service them. There are no natural features of the site that warrant
preservation.
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CRITERIA-DESIGN REVIEW
Preliminary design approval is contingent on demonstration of confonnity with the following:
WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Section 2.104 Medium Density Residential (RM)
Section 3.101 Street Standards
Section 3.102 Utilities and Easements
Section 3.103 Setbacks, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally
Section 3.104 Access
Section 3.105 Off-Street Parking and Loading
Sectfon 3.106 Landscaping Standards
Section 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards
Section 3.110 Signs
Section 5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR MORE
2.104 Medium Densltv Resldentla, (RM\ Zone
This project will create 8 new multiple family dwelling units, which are a pennltted
use In the RM zone. Certain allowed accessory uses as identified in 2.104.05 are
anticipated. This project complies with standards set forth in Tables 2.1.5 and 2.1.7
(as modified by variance). Units have footprints of 840 SF each (42' long x 20' wide)
Inciuding single-car garage, and lot coverage Is under 30%. Architectural designs
submitted with this application show a building height of 27.7 feel
3.101 Streets
ThIs site will connect onto Lincoln Street by way of a 20-foot wide paved driveway
and adjacent sidewalk (refer to Access section below for details).This driveway is not
proposed to become a public or private street. Rather, it is a dead-end route which
has the sole purpose of permitting access to garages and adjacent parking areas.
Twelve (12) feet of additional right-of-way will be dedicated to the City to bring the
Lincoln Street right-of-way up to 74 feet, as requested. A variance is requested by
the applicant to permit improvements to be made at the existing frontage in order. to
better match existing conditions.
Page 2
122
~tle. an~ Easement,
Water, sanitary sewer and private utilities will be brought into the site from Uncaln
Street On-site stonnwater will be captured In a catch basin in the private driveway
and directed to existing facilities in Uncoln Street Water to be 6-lnch main with 1-
Inch serke to each unit; sanitary to be 8-inOO main wi1h 4-lnch service to each unit.
Stonnwater main to be 8-lnOO PVC. One additional hydrant and one FCC are
proposed to be located at the point of access onto Uncoln Street, per Fire
Department recommendation. Fire sprinklers will be provided In each unit. A
dedication of an addltlonal12 feet for the special setback requirement has been
induded In the design.
.
~193 s.~ ODen SDac. an~ l2J ,tand_".. G.n.ralJx
this design adheres to the required setbacks, except with regard to off-street
parking. A 6-foot architectural wall is proposed adjacent to these parking stalls and
along the1ag pole' (outside of vision triangles).
~., 04 Access
Ingress/egress Into the site would be via a single 20-foot wide paved, two-way
driveway In a 30-1oot wide access wayfflag pole'. A 4-1oot sidewalk will run adjacent
to the drive als'e, providing access to the units and open space areas. The entire
length of the driveway will be signed "No Parking- In accordance with Fire
Department recommendations. An existing easement provides for continued access
to parcels on either side. this design deviates from the requirement that the principal
access way be perpendicular to the street setback line, as confonnlng to this
provision would eliminate our ability to provide continuous sidewalks aiong the
access way.
3.105 Off-street Darklna
Two partdng spaces are provided for each residential unit as follows: one space in a
garage, and one dedicated outdoor parking space in front of the garage (-driveway").
Four additional spaces are provided for guest parklng-two at either end of the site.
All outdoor spaces are a minimum of 12 feet wide and 20 feet long. Where outdoor
parking spaces other than driveways are adjacent they are separated by parallel
lines with a 2-foot separation. Off.street parking occurs within the yard setback, but
is behind a 6-foot architectural wall.
3.1 08landsc8Dlna Standards
Landscaped areas total 14,766 SF,lncluding 2,274 SF of sidewalks and 12,492 SF
of planted areas. landscaped areas amount to 46% of gross site area (31,878 SF)
or 68% of the net site area (21,488 SF), and compares to 10,392 SF of paved
driveway for paridng and circulation. Planted areas will consist of grass,
groundcovers, shrubs and trees, and will be irrigated with a combination of bubblers
and sprinklers. Trees to be either maple or prunus species. All shrubs and ground
cover wlR be sized so as to attain 80% of ground coverage within 3 years; the
remaining area wiR be covered with bark mulch or decorative rock to a depth of 2
inches. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping in open
space areas. The attached plans show 633 plant units, which computes to a ratio of
Page 3
123
just over 1.0 plant units per 20 square feet of planted area. The following table
breaks down the plant units by type:
Plant Type # plants P.U. Total P.U.
Eoulva/ent
Grass or 7800 SF 1 for every 158
groundcover 50 SF
8m & Med 205 1 205
Shrubs
Lg Shrubs 65 2 130
Sm Trees 11 4 44
Med Trees 12 8 98
Lg Trees 2 10 20
TOTAL 851
A proposed Plant List is attached to facilitate design review. Additional detail with
specific locations, sizing and spacing of plants will be provided with application for
building pennits. .
3.107 Archlt.~ural D..lan Guld~lIn.. and Standard,
Buildings have a total footprint of 6,720 SF. each unit will have a 600 SF or 660 SF
private courtyard on the east side (rear) of the unit, separated by a 6-foot high fence.
Courtyards will Initially be planted (as shown on site plan) and provided with
Irrtgatlon, but thereafter shall be maintained by the occupant. Together, buildings
and courtyards comprise 55% of the net site area. Other landscaped open space
areas total 9,726 SF, or 45% of the net site area.
Buildings are offset and Incorporate a number of features Intended to enhance
'streef appearance and mitigate for mass and bulk (refer to attached elevations),
such as individual front porches. Materials will Include faux stone, hardl-plank and
cedar shingles. Windows will have grills. The proposed color scheme Incorporates
earth tones. The primary exterior color is anny green. Doors and trim to be painted a
muted brownish-gold In dark and light shades respectively.
Residential buildings are linked to the street by way of their Individual driveways and
a 4-foot concrete sidewalk. The sidewalk has a curb along the access way (I.e. flag
pole) but otherwise Is at-grade to facilitate vehicular access to garages and parking
pads. Outdoor lighting will be provided as per the WOO's design standards.
3.110 Slans
Slgnage for this complex will be placed on the south face of the sourthemmost
architectural wall, using materials and color schemes similar to that of the units
themselves. There will be no freestanding signs or monuments.
Page 4
124
list of Exhibits:
Submitted October 11. 2006
Uniform application
Location Map
Aerial Map
Deed
Mailing List and Certification
2 copies of mailing labels
Mailing II~ certification map
Colors & Materials Board
Submitted ADril4. 2007
Uniform application (supplemental)
Project Narrative (revised)
Exception Request for Street Improvements
Variance Request for Buffer Standards
Half-size plan sets (revised)
To be submitted uoon determination of ComDleteness
Full-size sheets (revised)
1. Title Sheet with Aertal
2. Site Plan
3. Utilities Plan
4. Landscape Plan
5. Grading Plan
6. lighting Plan
7. Building Elevations
8. Building Floor Plans
125
~ IN" "en rc I"\GL
t:=-r~. wet.~t
Aerial photo of subject property . Wall required
by Table 2.1.7 is shown in solid red. Wall that is
discretionary in Table 2.1.7 is shown in dashed
yellow. Wall per WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.1 is not
shown.
fro r# s--" ll~
Of Ck'c:;.\.... WA
Detail of the grading plan. Proposed 6'
architectural wall is shown in red. Proposed 30"
architectural walls on top of retaining walls are
shown in green. Retaining walls are shown in
cyan.
1 Development in an RM zone, except for a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be
2 subject to the setback aDd butter requirements of Table 2.1.7. [WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a)
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro e Wall
Existing single family or duplex Solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
dwellin no less than 6 feet or ater than 7 feet in hei 1.
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing Wall requirements shall be determined in conjunction with
medium densi residential unit the a licable Desi Review racess.
~)<t\'O\ T L
I:\Community Development\Planning\2006\DR 2006-17 V AR 2007-0 I EXCP 2007-02 Lincoln Commons\
Staff report Page 9 of 39
126
E.
UNCOlN
STREET
E.
UNCOlN
STREET
LINCOLN COMMONS
(DRIVE AISLE WALLS AS STIPULATED BY CODE)
EHO -.. Rlll
ORMWA~ ...sIOH
_E
72" HtCH ARCHfT[CTURAl WAll ON
TOP or RETAINING WAll
r,:c' T~ I
..-'
RETAINfN<; WAll (HEIGHT VARIES)
DRIVE AISLE WEST WAlL PROFILE
(FROM _ AI8lE _'ACING WEST)
END WAll FOIl
ORlVEWA~ VISION
fRlAHCl(
1l'!(AI( roil
DRIVEWAY rOR
EXI';nNG HOUSE
_:;..;_l-~ J _ ~ 1; ..:.. ~~.~ :~;.~~. ",L.;._.:...~u';"_____
TOP or RETAlNlNC "All
IS AT FINISHED GRADE
ON THE ADJACENT
PAIlCELS
EHO ~ FOR
_~ 'IlSION
TRIAHCl.E
ENO WAll. rOR
12" HIGH ARCHITECTURAl WAll ON DRIVEWAY VISION
TOP or RETAINING "All TRIANGlE
DRIVE AISLE EAST WAll PROFILE
(FROM DOOM! AISl.I!"'" rACING EAST)
~
7 N
~
8fl(AK rOR
QqMWAY rOR
EXISTING tiOUSE
TOP OF ~ET""'ING ........
IS AT FINISHED GRADE
ON mE ADJACENT
PARCELS
* REC'O ..t:r
OCT 1 9 Z007
Wf)Gf)3'",p~1 ~:'~'~I.J~:;TY
r ",: ~ '-.:; C'. 'f.
Exhibit "P"
L
UNCOLI<
STREET
E.
UNCOLI<
STREET
END MJ. f"OlI
_V\IISlOIl
TRIANGLE
I
DID MJ. f"OlI
_V_
TIlWIGl(
LINCOLN COMMONS
(DRIVE AISLE WALLS AS REQUESTED BY VARIANCE)
54" HIGH .r.RCHfttC1\IRN WAU. ON'
TOP OF RONNING WAlL
U' _ (WtM
,." MJ. 0I'lI0N ON
TOP 01' RET-..G WAU.)
DRIVE AISLE WEST WAll PROFILE
(..- _ AIIlEAHO FIlCINCl WEST)
MIN, 30" HIGH ARCHfTECTUIW.
WAU ON TOP Of RETAINING WAU.
TOP OF RETAININC WAlL
IS AT FlNISHED CRADE
ON THE ADJAC(N1'
PARCtlS
END WALL FOR
DIl1VEWAV YI5lON
Tfl1ANGL[
END WAU. FOR
Of!MWAV lI1S"'"
TR1AHGlE
I
t .;.. 1.. :. .
--
FJNISH[D _
ALONG ORM NSlE
DRIVE AISlE EAST WAll PROFILE
~_AIIlE/lHJF_EAST)
TOP 01' RETAINING WAU.
IS AT FlNISH(D GIlADE
ON THE ADJAC(N1'
PARCELS
IlREN< f'OR
OIll\lEWAV roR
EXISTING HOOSE
00
('it
~
IlREN< roR
OIlMWAV FOI'
ElCISl1NG HOuSE
1:r r,EC'D *
OCT 1 9 2007
v.II')Of)n~.Q'1 r;')'.~~~ll~;ry
;_' ~., 'J': ~.;( C _....r.
Exhibit "Q"
~
WQ.ODBURN
IMC.,,,.,,,,,.laa,
~~lA
.
.
November 26, 2007
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Counc~l&
John C. Brown, City Administratoe:f'V
TO:
SUBJECT:
Business Registration Ordinance Amendments
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached amendment to the
City's Business Registration Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
Following a discussion on the outcome of the City's code enforcement case
against AI's Garden Center, City Council directed staff at its September 24,2007
meeting to draft an amendment to the business registration ordinance
eliminating the farm products exemption. A draft amendment was presented to
the Council on October 8, 2007 for consideration. The Council continued its
consideration of the amendment for 30 days, at the request of the Chamber of
Commerce.
DISCUSSION:
This item was scheduled for the Council's first meeting in November. That
meeting was cancelled in recognition of the Veteran's Day holiday. There is no
change in status since your October 8,2007 meeting. Although it was Council's
and staff's understanding that the garden center would pay its business
registration fee, as of November 20, 2007 no fee was paid.
It has been the Council's position that the farm exemption in the business
registration ordinance applies to those businesses that sell only farm products,
grow all of the product they sell, and employ only members of the same family.
AI's Garden Center meets none of these criteria because the business sells non-
farm products, not all the plant material sold is grown by the family, and
because it employs unrelated workers.
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrator ~ City Attorney ~)
Finance&
129
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 2
.
.
The judge pro-tem that heard this case in Municipal Court felt that the
exemption language was not drafted narrowly enough to support the City's
interpretation. In ongoing discussions with the Council, however, it is clear the
interpretation of the ordinance applied to the garden center is consistent with
the Council's policy preferences. It was also clear the Council felt the garden
center should obtain a business license. The Council's September 24, 2007
comments suggest no change in position.
Two options exist if the Council intends that AI's be subject to the business
registration ordinance. The farm exemption can be redrafted in a way that
eliminates the Court's concerns, or the exemption can be eliminated. The
second option is recommended, as it appears there is no need for the
exemption and any redrafted language could still be subject to a future judicial
interpretation that is not in accord with the Council's intent. According to City
records, no other business has ever invoked the farm products exemption to
avoid paying a business registration fee. As the City Attorney indicated to you in
October, farmers' markets or similar activities will not be adversely affected by
this change, as they can be allowed to operate under a special events permit.
Attached, for your further consideration, is a copy of an ordinance amending
the business registration ordinance to eliminate the farm products exemption.
Your approval of the attached ordinance is respectfully recommended.
130
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2399 (THE BUSINESS REGISTRATION
ORDINANCE) TO ELIMINATE THE EXEMPTION FOR PRODUCERS OF FARM PRODUCTS
WHEREAS, at its September 24, 2007 meeting, the City Council directed the City
Attorney to draft an amendment to the business registration ordinance
eliminating the farm products exemption; and
WHEREAS, this amendment to the ordinance has been drafted and is ready for
City Council consideration; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance 2399, Section 4F is hereby repealed.
Approved as to form:
~tO
City Attorney
If} lz-ll tJ 0 1-
Datb '
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
131
~....,..,-----,
L . ' ,
Wd:ODBURN
I.,.".,."d 1'"
~ ~llB
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Jim Allen, Community Development Director 0f
SUBJECT: Potential WOO Legislative Amendments for the Year 2008
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution initiating consideration of certain legislative
amendments (listed on Exhibit "A") to the Woodburn Development Ordinance
(WDO) for the year 2ooS.
BACKGROUND:
The Woodburn Development Ordinance, Section 1.101.0S, requires that the
Community Development Director maintain a list of potential administrative
modifications to the WDO and report these annually to the City Council.
Section 4.101.17 of the WDO requires that the City Council initiate the
consideration of any legislative amendments to the WDO. The list attached to
the resolution contains potential administrative modifications and also policy-
based WDO changes for future discussion
DISCUSSION:
By passing the resolution, the City Council will initiate review of these topics by
staff, the previously established Focus Group, the Planning Commission, and City
Council. The Planning Commission discussed these topics on November S, 2007
and provided some additional input. The list is long and does not prioritize the
topics. Some potential changes are "housekeeping amendments." Other
modifications will require serious policy discussion. Proposed legislative
amendments (which require a formal process) will be brought to the City
Council as staff, the Focus Group, and Planning Commission are able to make
recommendations on specific topics.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact from initiating 0 ideration of the amendments.
Agenda Item Review:
City Attorney
Finance-
132
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE
WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE YEAR 2008
WHEREAS, Section 1.101.08 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO)
requires the Community Development Director to maintain a list of potential
administrative modifications to the WOO and report these to the City Council on an
annual basis; and
WHEREAS, during the year 2008, the City Council wants to have the City consider
these administrative modifications, together with additional policy-based
amendments to be discussed with the Focus Group, Planning Commission and City
Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 4.101 .17 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance requires the
City Council to initiate the consideration of any potential legislative amendments to
the WDO by resolution; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 4.101.17 of the WOO, the City Council, for the
year 2008, initiates review of the potential legislative amendments to the WOO
outlined in Exhibit "A", which is attached to this resolution.
Approved as to form: 7J, ~~
City Attorney
It} 21)Z00 +-
.. r
Date
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
133
Exhibit "An
WOO LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS FOR 2008
DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES
PROPOSEQ,V:;,
CHANG.;:'
1. Revise
Conservation
of Significant
Tree section
of the WOO
I-'
~
~
2. Downtown
Development
Plan
3. Wrought iron
fence being
required on
outright
permitted
commercial
uses instead
ISSUI; TO BE
ADDRESSED "
Address the
issues of how to
prevent removal
of significant
trees and
creating a tree
mitigation fund
or giving the
replacement
trees to the City
to plant.
There is not a
trigger for
requiring
wrought iron
fencing on
commercial sites
as Dart of the
CQDELOCATION PROPOSEQ~ODE CHANGE
",', ",:",; ,';' "',-:" ,,,' i:-,-" ; "
Section 3.106.04, 3.106.04 Conservation of Significant Trees
Page 3.1-42 A. Applicability.
The provisions of this Section apply to the removal of any significant tree and the replacement requirements for significant tree removal. A
"significant tree" is any existing, healthy tree 24 inches or more in diameter, measured 12 inches above ground level.
B. Limitations on Tree Removal.
A City sianificant tree removal permit shall be reE\lJired tG.remo.:e any authorize removal of a sianificant tree, subject to the following
EXCEPTIONS standards:
Three or fewer significant trees may be removed from a lot zoned RS, R1 S or P/SP that is less than 0.5 acres in area within any
calendar year '.dtt:lolJt a permit;
One significant tree may be removed from a lot:
Zoned RS, R1S or P/SP which is greater than 0.5 acres; or
Zoned other than RS, R1S, or P/SP within any calendar year '.vithol.:lt a permit.
A sianiflcant tree that is diseased or dangerous tFee-may be removed '.vithol.:lt a permit in an emergency upon submission of a
reoort to the Community Development Department from a certified arborist documentina the disease or danaer that reauires
removal of a sianificant tree. A sianiflcant tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to removal of the tree.
C. Tree Replacement Requirement.
The iSSI.:IGRC8 removal of a significant tree removal permit requires the property owner to replace each tree removed with two new trees on the
same property. Each new tree shall be at least 2 inches in caliper. A tree required by the development standards of the underlying
zone, Section 3.1T, or as a condition of permit approval shall qualify as a replacement tree.
In-Lieu-of Mitiaation Fee. If no suitable location for the reauired replacement trees exists on the property where the tree(s)
to be removed is located. the applicant may replace each sianiflcant tree(s) and pay a mitiaation fee for each reauired
replacement tree that is not established. The applicant shall pay the mitiaation fee into the City's tree fund for an amount of
money of the replacement tree(s) that would otherwise be reauired. The amount of the mitlaation fee shall be established by
the City Council In the Master Fee Schedule. based on the averaae value of a 2-inch tree available from local nurseries plus
plantlna costs. The applicant shall sian a document approved by the City Attorney that authorizes the City of Woodburn to
determine the annronriate location for nlantina trees financed throuah the In Lieu-of Mitination Fee funds.
Pending consultant recommendation
,
"
,
1.
2.
a.
b.
3.
D.
3.107
Create a design guideline that recommends wrought iron fencing versus chain link fencing for fencing in a street yard.
Would other types of fencing be appropriate?
PAGE 1
~~OPQS~Q'*\"
CHANGE:0~'c' '
of just
conditional
uses
4. Architectural
wall
.. I$SUi TO BE .
ADDRESSEO"i
design review
process.
1.102
'.
COOELQ(;ATION. PRQPOSEg(~OOE CHAN.GE .
.' :::/ '" ~:':,' <':.;~?"l::~;<:-": d ,"" 1.::/>;;.~~, :," ..
5. Local street What is the Section 3.101
width appropriate TSP
width for local
streets?
Cross-reference
.... to on-street
~ parking
en requirements to
parking
standards in
Section 3.105.
6. Street
Exceotion
7. Street What is the Section 3.101
classifications appropriate TSP
cross-section for
streets?
8. Vision Clarify vision Section 3.103
Clearance clearance Figure 6.4
standard.
Create standard
for DOC where
many buildings
on comer lots
are located in
the vision
clearance area.
.
.
.
.
The current definition of an Architectural wall is, "A wall that incorporates at least two colors and/or textures." Under this definition, an
architectural wall could be a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall with one side of the CMU split-face. The split face could be alternated on a
few blocks and meet the standards of the current definition for two textures (smooth and split face).
Alternate definition: "A wall that incorporates at least two colors and Ief two textures. An architectural wall may not be plain poured
concrete or plain concrete masonry unit for more than twelve Dercent (12%) of the wall area. An architectural wall may not be arey
concrete or arey eMU for more than twelve percent (12%) of the wall area. An architectural wall shall meet the texture and color
reQuirements on the face away from the Droposed development. Retalnina walls should/shall meet the texture and color
reQuirements of architectural walls in or abuttlna residential districts." This would allow a 6-foot CMU architectural wall to incorporate
one course (11%) of plain grev block as an accent.
The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development ordered this concept to be addressed as a Periodic Review remand work
item. This concept would require concurrent amendments to the Woodburn Transportation System Plan for consistency. Additional Periodic
Review remand issues include: 1) Local street connectivity for a maximum of 600-foot block length; 2) local street right of way and street
width; and 3) Planned transit services.
Also 3.101.03.B
B. The following additional standards for Local Residential Streets:
1. Local Residential Street with Parking One Side:
a. Required common, onsite parking over and above the parking requirements under other provisions of the
WDO: One (1) space per dwelling unit, located no further than 250 feet from the subject lot.
2. Local Residential without Parking:
a. Required common, onsite parking over and above the parking requirements under other provisions of the
WDO: Two (2) spaces per dwelling unit lot, located no further than 250 feet from the subject lot.
Simplified process for street exception: Existing street meets minimum safety standard; owner signs non-remonstrance agreement. Need to
define "minimum safety standard." Limit circumstances for aoolicability. Establish traffic aeneration threshold for simplified process.
Numerous existing streets constructed prior to the current WOO do not comply with the cross-section requirements for street width, sidewalk
width, or landscape width. Many of these substandard streets have functioned satisfactorily for decades. Were existing streets intended to be
excluded from these improvement standards? Currently, new development along an existing substandard street must reconstruct the street or
obtain an exception to the street cross-section standard. Were the street cross-sections intended only for new construction?
3.103.10 Vision Clearance Area (See Figure 6.4)
A: Generally.
A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and a driveway} or a street and an alley in which
visual obstructions are limited for safety purposes.
B. Street Dri'le'Nay IAtersection.
A vision CleaF3ACe area at tt-le intersection of a street and a driveway shall be the ar-ea deliAeated as follo.....s:
1. .^, line extemfing teA feet from the intersectioR along the street right of way.A line extendiAg ten feet from the
inteFSec:tioA along the gise of the sriv8\"/ay.
2. ^ tt-lire liRe that creates a triangular visioR c:leaF3nce area by connecting tt-le enss of the lines describes in SeGtirm
3.103.10.8.1. SAd 2.
r"' ...,..__, AII_..
PAGE 2
....
Co\)
0\
PROPOSED ISSUE TO BE CODE LOCATION PROPOSED CODE CHANGE
CHANGE:' ADDRESSED .. i < '> <<
The visioR clearance area for street to alley intersections shall be formed as ill SeGtien 3.103.10.8. with legs of 10 feet :Jlong
the interseCiting street and alley rights of ",,'ay.
D. Street Street Intersection.
The visioR Cleaf3RCe area fer street te street intersections shallee formes as in SeGtien 3.103.1Q.8. with legs of 30 feet along
the intersecting street rights of way.
B. Extent.
1. At the intersection of two streets. the vision clearance area is defined bv a combination of the followina lines:
two lot lines adlacent to a street which intersect in fact or bv extraoolation. and a line drawn across the
corner of the lot so as to loin the nonintersectina ends of the two lot lines at a distance of thirty (30) feet from
the point of their intersection.
2. At the intersection of a street and an alley or driveway. the vision clearance area is defined by a combination
of the followina lines: two lot lines adlacent to the street and the alley or driveway which intersect in fact or
bv extraoolation. and a line drawn across the corner of the lot so as to join the nonintersecting ends of the
two lot lines at a distance of ten (10) feet from the ooint of their intersection.
3. Within the DOC zone. the curb face of the street shall be used to define the vision clearance area.
4. If a street is sublect to a Soecial Setback under Section 3.103.05. the Soecial Setback shall be used to define
the vision clearance area.
e~. Prohibited Development.
A vision clearance area shall contain no plants, fence; wall, structure, sign. oarking soace. loading soace. or temporary or
permanent obstruction exceeding 30 inches in height [measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the
established street centerline grade], EXCEPT as follows:
1. Trees, provided branches and foliage are removed to a height of 7 feet above grade;
2. Telephone, power and cable television poles;
3. Telephone and utility boxes less than ten inches at the widest dimension; and
4. Traffic control signs and devices.
D. Authoritv to Modify
The Community Develooment Director. with the written concurrence of the Public Works Director. shall have the
authority to modify the standards for a vision clearance area uoon finding that the waiver is aoorooriate due to one-
wav traffic natterns.
9. Update use Update Table Section 6.104 This table lists the uses authorized by each zoning district. This table also identifies process for such use (permitted, special permitted use,
table 6.104 conditional use, etc.). The table has not been updated since the WOO was initially adopted and has numerous changes due to new chapters
being added. This type of table can be useful in determining where a use is allowed within the City in one source location. Update table,
delete chaoters, except develooment standards?
10. Legal Definition 1.102 "Lor is defined as a lot in a subdivision. "Parcel" is defined as a parcel in a partition. Other properties are described by metes and bounds
prooertv description and do not fall into either category of "lot" or "parcel".
11. Update 2.101, possible Should North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), be updated to use the current version of the system? The NAICS is a product
NAICS changes to of Office of Management and Budget's Economic Classification Policy Committee. The City has adopted the 1997 version and the NAICS has
classification individual zoning been updated twice since then, in 2002 and 2007.
cross- districts
references for
uses
12. CodifY ORS 227.186 Notice to property owners of hearing on certain zone change; form of notice;
PAGE 3
~
(;)
~
P~O'C)~!I)> ISS"'I1TO ~e} COPI lOCATION ~ROp'o~epCODECHANG.
CHANGE;.'\/, ", ADDRESSED' t',;., ' ,'.' ,
.- "", ">;"f
notification
requirements
for "Measure
56- rezoning
13. Use Section 6.104,
Classification Pages 6.104-1 to
s in the WOO. 27
Update the
list to include
all uses
14. Complete Section 3. The following uses and activities are prohibited within the ReWOD:
series for 2.113.04.A.3 a. New residential, commercial, industrial, or public/semi-public construction;
existing I!:...Expansion of existing buildings or structures;
language that bsLExpansion of areas of pre-existing non-native ornamental landscaping such as lawn, gardens, etc.;
was included GSLOumping, piling, or disposal of refuse, yard debris, or other material.
in subsection
"a" by adding
subsection "b"
and relabeling
successive
subsections
15. Manufactured 2.203.16.F F. Energy Efficiency.
dwelling The manufactured home shall be certified by the manufacturer to have an exterior thermal envelope meeting performance standards wAAm
construction reduGe levels equivalent to the performance standards required of single-family dwellings constructed under the state 8uilding Code as
standards defined in ORS Chapter 455.
16. Duplex in RM 2.104.06.8, Table Conflicting language needs clarification. RM zone requires 8,000 square foot lot size for a duplex and requires that lots in the RM comply with
zone 2.1.5,2.102.06.8, Table 2.1.1. Table 2.1.1 requires a duplex on a corner lot to have a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet.
minimum lot Table 2.1.1
size
17. "Plant Unit" 1.102, 3.106 The current definition is, "the quantity of specified plant materials necessary for 20 square feet of surface area." The standard in 3.106.03.E
definition requires one plant unit per 50 square feet, creating a conflicting standard from the definition.
18. Organization 1.101.02.C Should new provision be added to clarify terms?
and Structure 1. The term "shall" is mandatory.
2. The term "should" is discretionary.
3. The term "maY" is permissive.
4. The term "standard" indicates a mandatory reauirement. The decision-maker shall reauire conformance with it standard
unless a variance. zonina adlustment. exception. or other relief has been aranted.
5. The term "auideline" indicates a norm that Is accepted In the community. The decision-maker shall reauire conformance
with a auldeUne unless it finds that the auldeline is unwarranted. unnecessary, duplicative. or unreasonable under the
particular circumstances. or that the intent of the auideUne has been substantially met.
Also defined is "approval standard" in WOO 1.102.
PAGE 4
....
~
00
PROPOSEq ISSUI! TO BE. . COQ' LOCAnQM PROPO~ED COQE CHANGE
CHANG!> ,...... ADDRESSED. . ~"'-' ; .C'" r''',.o: .:.: <:\('):{ . .
19. "Yard 2.102.06.0.1, "Yard" is defined, but is generally open area on a property that contains a building.
Setback" term 2.102.06.0.2, etc. "Setback" is defined, but is generally the minimum distance between a property line and a building.
and "Setback" Amend ordinance to eliminate "Yard Setback" and use the term "Setback" when meaning the minimum required distance for the improvement
term from a property line.
20. Use uniform Table 2.1.7 Interior Setback:
terminology 24 ft. from any portion of I primary building 16 ft. or less in height.
30 ft. from any portion of a primary building 16.1 ft. to 28 ft. in height.
36 ft. from any portion of a primary building 28.1 ft. to 35 ft. in height.
24 ft. from any portion of maiR a primary building 16 ft. or less in heigh~
30 ft. from any portion of a maiR primary building more than 16J. ft. ona leES than to 28 ft. in heigh~
36 ft. from any portion of a maiR primary building mere than 28.1 ft. ana leaa than to 35 ft. in height.
21. Incorrect 5.104.01.0.2.g Reasonable Facility and Service Needs. The proposed industrial or commercial use of the territory does not require the expansion of
homophone infrastructure, additional service capacity, or incentives that are in excess of the costs normally b9m borne by the community for
development;
22. Create 2.203.16.G and I G. Garage or Carport.
consistent The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport of like materials. An attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport shall be
language required where such is consistent with the f)Fec:lominate predominant construction of immediately surrounding dwellings.
I. Predominant Material and Predominate Predominant Construction.
As used in Section 2.203.16, "predominant material" and "predominant construction" shall be the material used on the majority of the
dwellings in the review area. If there is no majority of dwellings using the same material, then the material used on the largest plurality
of dwellings in the review area shall be the predominant material.
23. Correct cross- 2.201.06.0.1.a.1.b O. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards.
reference 1. Front Yard Setback and Setback Abutting a Street:
a. Dimensions:
1} The minimum setback abutting a street, or front property line shall be 20 feet plus any Special Setback,
Section 3.103.05, EXCEPT:
a} For flag lot that provides a minimum setback of 12 feet in all yards; or
b} When the existing pattern of development requires the application of Section 2.102.06.CD.1.a.2).
2} When the lots abutting a vacant property are already developed and front the same street, the minimum
setback abutting the street for the subject property shall equal the average setback of the existing, abutting
residential buildings, plus or minus 5 feet, but in no case shall be less than 10 feet.
24. Clarify cross- 2.104.06.0.2.b 2. Interior Side and Interior Rear Yard Setbacks
reference a. Development in an RM zone, except for a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be subject to the setback and
buffer requirements of Table 2.1.7.
b. A single family dW~::t~ or duplex dwelling in the RM zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer improvement standards
in Section 2.102.0 .
25. Use 2.104.07.C.1 C. Architectural Design Guidelines and Open Space Standards.
consistent 1. Ml:lltiple density residential buil(;jings Multiple family dwellinas shall be subject to the design standards or guidelines of
language Section 3.107.05.
26. Correct 2.109.06 A. Lot Standards.
syntax and
PAGE 5
....
~
\0
PROP.QSED ..ISS""E t9 Be:~,. QODE LOCATIOtol PItOPQ$Eq~DE CHANGe .
~ , ,.
CHANGe::". , oi> ......,.. AODRESSEI)~ :i . $H..; ,c.': ,(>'; , /";/Pt",::\~;;._/~:,.' ,~::::kd,;:F:~:74~(:~{;;- :> ,;,:,.,,; . "" :
.--
make uniform Lots in I the IP zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.15.
with other
provisions
27. Correct 1.105.03.C C. Review and Tentativell Approval of Plats and Planned Unit Developments.
syntax The Commission shall have the duty and power to review and tentatively approve plats, replats and planned unit developments of
land laid out in lots, including the streets, alleys, and other portions of the same intended to be dedicated for public or private use
within the City of Woodburn, subject to review or appeal to the City Council.
28. Correct 2.116.05 2.116.05 Administration
reference to Section 2.116 delineates responsibilities of the City and ODOT to monitor and evaluate vehicle trip generation impacts on the 1-5
document interchange from development approved under this section.
that does not A. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
exist A TIA is required for all land use applications subject to the provisions of Section 2.116. The standards for preparif!g a TIA
ar:e Kllmd if! Exhibit a, Trof!sportatiOR Impact /\nalysi6 Reql:lir-emeAts. The TIA must meet City and ODOT administrative rule
(OAR Chapter 734, Division 51) requirements and shall include an evaluation and recommendation of feasible transportation
demand management (TOM) measures that will minimize peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development.
B. OOOT Coordination
For a land use application subject to the provisions of Section 2.116:
l. The City shall not deem the land use application complete unless it includes a TIA prepared in accordance with
Exhibit Q, TIA Requirements.
2. The City shall provide written notification to OOOT when the application is deemed complete. This notice shall
include an invitation to OOOT to participate in the City's facilities review meeting.
3. OOOT shall have at least 20 days to provide written comments to the City, measured from the date the completion
notice was mailed. If OOOT does not provide written comments during this 20-day period, the City's decision may be
issued without consideration of ODOT comments.
PAGE 6
PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO BE CONSIDERED
PROPOSEr);;.;\:,.,./
'CHANGti~/;'}",';...:
1. Concurrency
2. Big Box
Regulations
3. Sign
Ordinance
4. Neighborhood
Conservation
Overlay
District
5. Residential
occupancy
limitations
6. Tree Species
t-l
~
o
7. Decision
Expiration
8. Variance
purpose
9. Landscaping
10. Flag pole
setbacks
IS$UE TO 86.!( CODE LOCATION P,ROPOSED,CODE CHANGE
AD[lI~ES$EI1" :, ,'> ./,;{': .; .... ~~;'T0$; . ':';'0:';- .
Should sign
ordinance be
revised?
Should NCOD
area be
expanded?
Should street
tree species be
reviewed?
Was the intent to
allow
development
authorizations to
be valid for a
specific period,
with final
establishment
within additional
time limits?
Should decision
time lines be
evaluated?
Should
landscaping
credit be allowed
for hardscape?
Should a flag
pole meet
structure
setbacks?
2.112
6.103
4.102.03
Example:
Salem- 2 years
5.103.11
3.106
.....
,'.
.
Citizen request for modification of the area that includes the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts to include area west of Settlemier
Avenue and from Thorn Street to Parr Road on the east side of Settlemier Avenue.
Tree species that are not on the list are regularly suggested by developers during the review process.
Should fountains, ornamental fences or walls, boulders, brick or concrete pavers, planters, benches, or other art be credited for equivalent
landscaping points?
Limit the percentage of hardscape (landscape amenities) that can be used to qualify for plant unit point credit.
Apply in residential Possibly similar to zoning district height exception but consider for setbacks.
zones only?
PAGE 7
PRopq,eQ:f#i :.. ..... . Issue TO 8$3,.&
CHANGetf)'>'" '"::ADDRESSED~':i'
11. Add clause to Should
automatically annexation
apply include
specified application of
zoning zoning?
districts upon
annexation
12. Design
Review
I-'
~
I-'
13. Provide 10-
day Notice
prior to public
hearing
14. Provide
Notice of
hearing to
owners within
100 feet of
subject
property
15. Park planning
16. Parking for
drive-through
establishment
s
17. Home
Occupations
18. Bed and
breakfast
19. Non-
What should
trigger design
review?
Should the
parking
standards be for
drive-through
businesses?
Should home
occupations be
allowed in
dwellings other
than single-
family?
Should a bed
and breakfast be
allowed other
than in the
NCOD?
Should the
.COOE L~C);~TJO" P~C?P:~SEQ ~~OE CHANGE.' ',' , . .::. . . .' ., ".'
~ P. "." ~ . . .. "" .,'L ":'. ........ . l' ,. .'f....::-:>', .... .... . .., . . ." '.. ..:
Add WOO 5.104.01.F: 1. All land annexed to the City shall be automaticallv zoned as follows unless an application to rezone
the property to another zone has been submitted:
a. RS. If the comprehensive plan deslanatlon Is low density residential.
b. RM. if the comprehensive plan deslanatlon Is medium density residential.
c. CG. If the comprehensive plan deslanatlon is commercial.
d. IL. If the comprehensive plan desianatlon Is industrial.
e. P/SP. if the comprehensive plan designation Is open space and parks or public use.
2. If the annexed nrooertv abuts any overlav zone that overlav shall also aDDlv to the annexed land.
What factors should be considered during differing changes on a property? fayade changes? new construction? Additions? interior
remodels? size limits? zoning districts? Uses?
5.101,5.102,
5.103
4.101.09
4.101.11
4.101.09
3.105
2.203.12
Residential zones
1.104
Community Services Department to complete evaluation of possible changes for parks master plans - Centennial, Legion, and Settlemier
Parks.
Businesses such as coffee drive-through sops are typically required to establish parking spaces consistent with a restaurant (10 spaces plus 1
I 200 square feet of building.
Home occupations denied in apartments in 2005 - 3; in 2006 - 4.
Can parameters be established that would authorize certain home occupations to occur in dwellings other than single-family dwellings?
Section 1.104.05 also cross-references Design Review 5.102 and 5.103.
PAGE 8
....
~
lI)
PROPOSED>",.",}, J$SUETO Be' CODE ~OCATIQN ,f!tOPOSE9 ~QDE CHANGe: . ,
., ~
CHANGE~".}:;':'" : 'ADORESSEDY' .' ,: , .' " ,:J"j;; "',/'.';".{.:'.,.. ';'/;".' .
conforming concepts of a
uses and non-conforming
non- use and non-
conforming conforming
structures. structure be
separately
addressed?
PAGE 9
~
WQ.Q.:!2~VRN
lnc(lrpcral.:J 188'1
lie
~~
.
.
November 26, 2007
TO:
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John C. Brown, City Administrator~?
SUBJECT:
Front Street Project Status Update
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council receive a status update on the Front Street
reconstruction project, and provide staff with direction as appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council held a workshop last November to discuss the Front Street
project. Staff advised the Council of changes to the scope of the project that
significantly increased original cost estimates. Those changes increased the
estimated project costs at that time from $2.3 million to $4.1 million. Changes in
scope included reconstructing sidewalk Downtown; repaving and sidewalk
replacement on side streets resulting from utility under-grounding in those
locations; additional distances to be undergrounded on side streets due to
PGE's system configuration; and changes in grade near the Hardcastle
intersection due to soil conditions. Increased cost estimates also reflected the
effect of inflation on original cost estimates.
Staff proposed increasing the amount of funding from sources including urban
renewal monies, STP Exchange monies, gas tax resurfacing funds, and TIF's.
Together, these offset 3/4 of an estimated $4.1 million cost. To fund the
remaining $1 million, staff indicated it would seek grants through the State of
Oregon. Staff also asked the Council to consider requiring PGE to absorb
$300,000 through forced undergrounding. With these adjustments, the project
was under-funded by approximately $200,000. Staff indicated remaining funds
could be taken from urban renewal monies designated for other projects, if
Front Street is completed in phases over two or three years.
Alternatives discussed with Council included eliminating a portion of the project,
increasing revenues, delaying components of the project, or a combination of
these options. The Mayor and the five councilors present agreed to: complete
the entire project, including utility undergrounding; delay project completion
through phasing; and require forced tility undergro n i g. It was e
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator.
City Attorney
Finance
143
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 2
.
.
consensus of those present to set the value of forced utility undergrounding at
$500,000, to balance project revenues and costs. State law allows electric
utilities to pass the costs of forced utility undergrounding on to ratepayers
throughout the City. Assuming an existing $100 per month base electric bill,
$500,000 in forced undergrounding would add approximately 50 cents per
month to a residential billing. Council asked staff to move forward with the
project, including engineering and the forced utility undergrounding process.
In February 2007, the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a local
process for initiating forced utility undergrounding. The Council awarded a
contact for project engineering the following month. At the February meeting,
some of the Council expressed concern regarding the impact of forced
undergrounding on utility rates. Accordingly, staff delayed returning the matter
of forced utility undergrounding to Council, focusing instead on seeking grants,
completing engineering, and on identifying means to reduce project costs or
increase project revenues.
Staff applied for three grants through the State of Oregon and the Council of
Governments. The City was awarded two of those grants: an Immediate
Opportunity Fund grant of $250,000 in July, and a CDBG grant of $300,000 in
August, both from the State of Oregon. Staff also identified approximately
$300,000 in savings that can be achieved by eliminating all work that is not
essential to completing Front Street, including alley improvements between
Front and First Streets and utility undergrounding on Garfield Street and around
the Plaza. Together, grant revenue and expense reductions brought the project
to within $200,000 of balancing. Staff contacted PGE in September, to
determine the company's willingness to absorb some of that amount, in order to
move the project forward.
DISCUSSION and FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Based on two separate discussions, it appears no financial support will be
forthcoming from PGE. On the contrary, PGE indicated undergrounding will
exceed the cost estimates presented to the Council last November.
Engineering was completed last month for the portion of the project between
Harrison Street and the overpass, and verifies PGE's assessment. Revised costs
for the project, including alley improvements are now $5.3 million. The updated
estimate is based on completed engineering, and factors in a twenty percent
increase to 2006 estimates for the section between Cleveland and Harrison
streets for which engineering is not yet complete. Increases reflect escalating
construction costs, and additional material and work necessary to build a road
144
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 3
.
.
through the area of the Hardcastle intersection. A roadway at this section of
Front Street requires over 220 percent of the road base and over 15 percent
more asphalt than a street built on more solid ground. It should be noted that
engineering estimates are "conservative"; given a question regarding a
potential cost, estimates fall to the higher side rather than the lower. On the
other hand, estimates do not include contingencies. In any event, construction
costs can be expected to continue to escalate until this project is awarded and
built.
Given the updated estimates, staff again evaluated potential revenue sources
needed to build the entire project. The following schedule summarizes project
costs, current revenue sources, and potential revenues that can be used to
offset project costs. These costs include alley improvements and
undergrounding on Garfield Street and around the Plaza, which can be
removed as a project alternate.
Front Street Project - November 2007
Funding Sources. Existing
Urban Renewal $2,050,000
Street CIP $250,000
STP Exchange $560,000
Gas Tax $166,000
TIFs $192,894
Revenue Sharing $66,000
CDBG Grant $300,000
1m. 0 . Fund Grant $250,000
Project Costs
Undergrounding
Street - Clev to Harr.
Street - Harr.to 214
$1,952,000
$2,290,000
$1,050,000
Funding Sources-Potential New
TIF Update
Storm SDC
Utility Relocate
Reprogram 07/08 GF Contribution
Reprogram 08/09 GF Contribution
LID for Service Conversions
Balance
$724,000 Balance
$125,000 Balance
$71,000 Balance
$200,000 Balance
$200,000 Balance
$140,000 Balance
The next several paragraphs address potential new revenue sources. Forced
utility undergrounding was not evaluated as an option, but can be used to
replace any other options the Council does not wish to pursue.
145
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 4
.
.
System Development Fees for Traffic System Improvements (TIFs) (+$724,000)
The Front Street project adds capacity, and is eligible for SDC funding. Previous
project funding estimates included approximately $193,000 in TIFs. That estimate
was based on project costs that are now several years out of date. On
November 15, 2007, your Council conducted a workshop regarding revising
SDCs for traffic system improvements. The capital plan presented to you at that
time includes the capacity-adding portion of the Front Street project, and
reflects current cost estimates. The 2007 plan identifies approximately $917,000
in SCD-eligible costs, a $724,000 increase over what was formerly anticipated
from transportation system SDCs (TIFs). This revenue is not affected by the TIF
rate, but will not be available until you revise the Capital Improvement Plan on
which TIFts are based.
Storm Drain SDCs (+$125,000)
$125,000 of the storm drain work that will be completed between Harrison Street
and Highway 214 expands the capacity of the storm drainage system. Although
that portion of the work can be built using Storm Drain SDCs, no funding from
that source was attributed to the project in the past. Use of these fees, in this
amount, is recommended.
Utility Relocation (+$71,000)
Pursuant to its franchise with the City, PGE must relocate its facilities when
directed by the City. The cost of relocation, as it pertains to this project,
represents the value of the remaining useful life in the facilities to be relocated.
Because PGE was required to relocate its facilities on South Front Street
improvement, the City did not pay for remaining useful life associated with
undergrounding on that phase of the project. PGE believes work on North Front
does not qualify as relocation, and has indicated it wants reimbursed for that
portion of the project, which is valued at $71,000. City staff re-evaluated the
work to be done in this segment, and believes a strong argument exists that the
work is relocation, and will press that argument with PGE. Although PGE is not
expected to agree with staff's position, it is hoped that, due to a willingness to
assist the project and because of the relatively insignificant size of the money
involved, PGE will not legally contest it.
146
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 5
.
.
Reoroarammina General Fund Subsidy to the Street Fund
2007-08 (+$200,OOOL 2008-09 ($200,000)
The City Council dedicates General Fund revenues to the Street fund, to
enhance the City's pavement management program. Although the budget
committee and Council have made this subsidy a top priority in budget
development, this policy choice is not considered perpetual, and can be
altered to address other needs. Since 2000, this subsidy has been $200,000 per
year. Much of the subsidy provided to the Street fund in 2006-07 remains
unspent, as the number of projects completed in the 2007 construction season
was limited. The Council can reprogram that money to the Front Street project
without any significant effect on projects to be completed in the 2008
construction season. In the alternative, if the subsidy is not reprogrammed, a
greater number of projects than are listed in the 2007-08 capital budgets may
be able to be completed in 2008, depending on project scope and readiness.
Reprogramming the Street fund subsidy to the Front Street project in 2008-09
year will affect the maintenance program by delaying the delivery of some
projects by a year and taking monies away from our ongoing efforts to improve
the street system.
Locallmorovement District (LID) to Underground Private Services (+$140.000)
The Law allows the City to establish a local improvement district (LID) to pass on
the costs of public improvements to property owners, commensurate with the
benefit the improvements provide to a property. It is the Council's policy
preference to avoid LID financing, if other revenues such as urban renewal and
grants can be used instead. Considering an LID for this project is appropriate, as
all other revenue sources have been explored and used, and funding is still
needed, and because the affected properties are the main beneficiaries of
undergrounding private service connections.
Although the entire Front Street project: street improvements, sidewalks,
landscape, lighting and undergrounding, will benefit adjacent properties, staff
recommends an LID be formed to recover only fifty percent of the costs
associated with the conversion of private utility connections. This cost would be
borne by commercial and residential property owners on Front Street between
Cleveland and the Highway 214 overpass, and is estimated at $1,925 per
residence and $3,375 per business. Property owners can finance these costs for
ten-years. Although no solid figures are available, the value of each affected
property is anticipated to increase well beyond its LID share, because of the
Front Street project and the conversion of private service connections. This
revenue source is not guaranteed. As you are aware, if enough property
147
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 6
.
.
owners remonstrate, the LID will not go forward. The LID is in the property
owner's best financial interest, however, because provisions of the utility
undergrounding ordinance allow the Council to place responsibility for
converting private service connections solely with the property owner.
A recommended alternative to some of the proposed revenue increases is
deferring undergrounding in the alley and connected side streets, and alley
improvements. This would save approximately $300,000, including
approximately $80,000 in undergrounding costs. This alternative is
recommended because of the uncertainty regarding the conversion of service
connections in the alley. PGE has warned staff against difficulties that may be
encountered due to the age of these service connections, and difficulties that
could substantially increase cost estimates for that portion of the project. Rather
than risk a funding shortfall, I believe it is prudent to wait to make alley
improvements until after the rest of the project is completed. That choice
eliminates the need to reprogram General Fund subsidy in 2008-09 and would
reduce the costs associated with alley conversions and the number of private
properties participating in an LID. This would also leave additional funds
available if the City is unsuccessful in requiring PGE to relocate facilities at its
cost, or allow the City to subsidize a greater share of private service connection
conversions.
Additional alternatives include deferring the undergrounding of all, or a portion
of the utility system. These alternatives would save approximately $400,000 and
$1.95 million respectively. Without undergrounding, funding exists to complete
all the rest of the project. As utility undergrounding both adds to the aesthetic
appeal of the improvement and should be done in concert with roadway
improvements, these alternatives are not recommended.
The following list summarizes the revenues staff recommends for use in funding
the remainder of the project (minus improvements in the alley and on Garfield
and around the Plaza).
Funding Sources-Recommended
TIF Update $724,000
Storm SDC $125,000
Utility Relocate $71,000
Reprogram 07/08 GF Contribution $200,000
LID for Service Conversions $100,000
..."''W;<'~~~t.~",'Ww~,~;",t.~~~:~~'';~~'?''i%.a,~";~>,,,,~,:.,,~1tn;;:'.l<~~~'i~1!ia'~JiU
,~',S'LUl,w~~eooi(1?r:lf#~4~~h~tfl~&jfijl~~~1": ~ ~f,' ""yj::'
With these revenues in place, it appears the Front Street project can go forward.
With your authorization, staff will complete engineering for the middle section of
148
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 26, 2007
Page 7
.
.
Front Street, notify PGE we are moving ahead with the project, prepare bid
documents, and award a construction contract. These actions would be
undertaken expeditiously, to minimize the effect of future inflation on the
projects. Staff will also continue to explore other funding opportunities, to help
assure that once it is initiated, this project can be completed.
149
~
WOODBURN
tHe"fI'.'Aft' /889
13A
~~
.
.
November 20, 2007
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Jim Allen, Community Development Director 94
Donald Dolenc, Associate Planner
TO:
VIA:
SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review 2007-09,
Variance 2007-06, and Street Exception 2007-07, located at 2775 N. Front Street
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for
information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development
Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Grating Pacific, requested a Design Review for a 15,000 square
foot expansion to an existing 27,500 square foot industrial building, an Exception
to the Street Right-of-Way and Improvement Requirements for Front Street to (1)
retain the current right-of-way width of 60 feet in lieu of providing 74 feet as
required by the Woodburn Transportation System Plan, and (2) to retain the
existing configuration that does not include the required sidewalks, landscape
strip or bike lane in either direction, or the center turn lane, and a Variance from
the landscaping requirements of the WDO.
On November 8, 2007 the Woodburn Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the cases and approved all three unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ~
150
City Attorney
Finance
bR 20010-11
iJ A-A ')-001- D
I t~i{~~ 1
p"v:>ut:OI ,....+
"/f r;;/!:J ~ h '1
willI</ It
e- "7 ,. tl "- "-0' '1
LINCOLN COMMONS
WOODBURN, OREGON
PLANT SPECIFICATIONS
SMALL SHRUB
.
GROUND COVER
IATIN VARIUAL COMMON UZE , VALUE U"
-, A= plaWl<>.det< 'D,...",,,,,,,u/ij Norwaymapl. 2"cal " 8 P.U perimeter
Calocedru~ IkcurTtn., fJ<'Rericl ince....~r 2"eal , " NEbomrr
Pron". "JI\Ilala 'Kwallllm' llo...-enn!.heJry 2"oal " . """"nlll
shrub, Ab<Jia ,rand,flor. 'Ed_rrI pinkabeha l,al ., , boRlcrhedg<'
eo....hu.
A"'~ indica Ruthcrfordania Ro.eQlIt""azaJea ,,,, , , 5y'"'
hybrid'Ro,'. "'-
Qlln'''
A"'~ Indlea Rutherfordania UBobbinkazalca ;Bal . , ~
~:::~l!
Berberis tlloobugii 'Crim"",Pygmy" Jap..""'barbary ,,,, 51 , plant....
C.",. ..... ~~;"'a'Ful'" =bimalyan 28B1 . . pI.."..,.
Chunae<:yparn oS_ ~?:;;c:: componbronu 2 gal IS , "''''=
billOltic ~..
c........ ~1K11Il r~l il.U....C)1RS. ,,,, , , ""'=
Hydrangea mllCrophylla 'Mari..,;; ~~~lac.ca" ,,,, . , =~"
Vu""a'"
M..... repen' IBenen.] creepinllmahonia , , 22 , plant...
Nandm. domo.lira .M"....'" PlumP_ion .", 21 , ~~
beaven! .......
Nandina domestica 11"...,.,.1 heavrnlybamboo "" " , ~.:.
Nandina dome-OIl.. Firepowe," '''''- 19a1 " , frontpl.m....
heavenl S~"
fIl"tinia fra<eri 18"""rie] Japan<'ocphotlna 3gal 13 , jl(rim~~'
Pi~ri. ,aplU1~. 'WlrjTtCa,~ad,' Whn..C_ad.. 5g81 . , ,,,,,,,,
Pieri.
'"~ mug,o PumiHo dwari mug,o pi". 3ga1 , , pianle,"
Rhododendron Ramap" "- ,.., " , plan,...
-~
Rhododendron 'Ya.b. Prin~...'" YakuPn ,,,, II , ,,,,,,=
""""""""'"
R,be._ ""'iumeum 'Wlme/c,,'j,' f1oweringrorrant ,,,, .. , ooRl....
Spiraea OOug!>>,' IJ<"IUU:1 Dougla.opirea ,,,, '" , pl_...
Syring. VIllg,,"' 'MoMn' Bll1tSkialilar 3g.1 , , """'.
gro,rnl Cornu. ~....den.<i. rg~nencl bmchbcrry 4" pot 150.1 1/50<r """=
P". pnt.....'" .rn;~ed witll ~~=~ "" .""', 1I5Cl1r ,.-
r..""u<,
Amo.taphylo. uvaUJO' gen"';<:1 kinn,k,nlllck 4"1"" lOll!;[ 1150.r bord...,
I
I
I
1 ACER PLATAN~DES B P.U. EACH
2 AZALEA 'B08BI K' 2 P.U. EACH
1 PRUNUS SERRU ATA 4 P.U, EACH
1 AZALEA 'SOBBI K' 2 P.U. EACH
2 RIBES SANGlNE I.l 2 P.U, EACH I
6 CHAl,lAq:'tPARIS 08n.JSA 1 P.U. EACH J
LAWN GRA!lS (TYP.) 1 P.U,/50 SF
1 AZALEA 'BOBBINK' 2 P. , EACH
1 PRUNUS SERRULATA 4 .U. EACH
2 AZALEA 'B08BINK' 2 P.UI EACH
I ACER PLATANOIOES 8 P.~. EACH
2 PHOTlNA FRASERI 2 P'l EACH
5 NANOINA DOMESTlCA PP P.U. EACH
2 HYDRANGEA I.lACROPHYLI;.A 2 P.U. EACH
4 NANOINA DOMESTlCA PP ~ P U. EACH
2 HVORANGEA ~ACROPH~ 2 P.U. EACH
4 NANDINA DOMESTlCA PPj P.U. EACH
1 CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 10 P.U. EACH
6 BERBERI ~UN8(RGII 1 .U. EACH
~ ~::~~A S:;~~~~: P:r.:'~'A~~CH
6 BERBERI THUNBERGII 1 Ju. EACH
1 CUPRESSUS SEI.lPERVlR~S 2 P.U. EACH
~ 6~~:~~~~~~~E~~~sE~~.u. EACH
I
6 BERBERI THUNBERGII 1 P~. EACH
2 NANDINA DOI.lESTlCA PP 1 P,U, EACH
1 PRUNUS SERRULATA 4 U, EACH
I
6 BERBERI ~UN8ERGlI 1 p.L. EACH
2 PHOTlNIA FRASERI 2 P'Uj EACH
1 CALOCEDRUS DECURRENS 10 P.U. EACH
LAWN GRASS (TYP.) 1 P.U'/5 Sf
CORNUS CANADENSIS 1 P.U.;!fO SF
15 BERBERI THUNBERGII 1 P 1. EACH
2 NANOINA DOMESTlCA PP J P.U. EACH
, pRUNUS SERRULATA 4 (. EACH
I
~ g~~~~;:.u~U~~~R~~~~~. 2E~~. EACH
2 PHOTlNIA FRASERI 2 P.~ EACH
, CUPRESSUS SEI.lPERVlR IS 2 P.U. EACH
~ ~;~~~:~ ~~~e;;;~ ~:f'P~~C~ACH
, PRUNUS SERRULATA ... It.U. EACH
6 BERBERI THUNBERGlI I I.u. EACH
1 CUPRESSUS SEt.lPERVlRE1s 2 P.U. EACH
~ ~~~~~~~~~E~~~J;ttr - - .
1 SYRINGA WLGARIS 2 Pt. EACH
2 AZALEA 'B08BINK' 2 P. . EACH
5 NAN DNA DOMESTlCA 1 P . EACH
~ ~;:~I~ ~ciXt:~~A 2 r~:u~~~'6,
.3 PtlOTlNA FRASERI 2 P.U EACH
1 ACER PlATANOIOES B P.t EACH
LAWN GRASS (TYP.) , P.U'; SF
6 CHAt,iAEC'tPARIS OBTUSA P,U. EACH
, ACER PLATANOIDES 8 P,U, tACH
2 AZALEA 'ROSE QUEEN' 2 p.ll. EACH
1 PRUNUS SERRULATA ... P'i EAI><
2 AZAlEA 'ROSE QUEEN' 2 P. , EACH
, SYRINGA WL~RIS 2 P.U. EACH
2 AZALEA 'ROSE QUEEN' 2 P.U. EACH I
1 PRUNUS SERR LATA 4 P.U. EACH
.3 BERBERIS THUIlIBERGlI 1 P.LI. EACH I
, ACER PeA> AN~'OES , P" EAe" I
PLANTING LEGEND
MEDIUM SHRUB
LARGE TREE
6
@
e
~
~.
SMALL TREE
.:5 RHOOOOENORON 'RAI.lAPO' , P.U. EACH
.3 RHODODENDRON 'YAKU' 1 P.U. EACH
4 SPIRAEA OOUGLASlI I P.U. EACH
2 CEDRUS DEODARA 1 P.U. EACH
4 NANOINA DOM. 'FIREPOWER' 1 P.U. EACH
4 I.lAHClNIA REPENS , P.U. EACH
.3 PIERIS JAPONICA 2 P.LI, EACH
2 RlBE:S SANGUINEUl,4 2 P.U. EACH
J ABEllA 'EDWARD GOUCHER' , P.U. EACH -
, ACER PLATANOIOCS 8 P.U. EACH
J A8ELlA 'EDWARD GOUCHER' 1 P U. EACH
, PRUNUS SERRULATA ... P,U, EACH
2 RHOOOQENORON 'RAMAPO' , P.U. EACH
1 RHOOODENDRON 'YAKU' , P,U. EACH
J SPIRAEA DOUGLASII \ P,U, EACH
J NANDINA Dot.l. 'FIREpOWER' , P.U. EACH
... MAHONlA REPENS , P.U. EACH
MEDIUM TREE
1 PRUNUS SERRULATA 4 P.U. EACH
2 RHODODENDRON 'RAMAPO' 1 P.U EACH
1 RHOOOOENDRON 'YAKU' , P.LI. EACH
J SPIRAEA DOUGLASII 1 P.U. EACH
.3 NANDINA OOM. 'FIREPOWER' 1 P,U, EACH
4 I.lAHONIA REPENS 1 P.LI. EACH
J RHOOODENDRON 'RAMAPO' , P .U. EACH
J RHOOODENORON 'YAKU' , P.U. EACH
.... SPIRAEA OOOGLASlI 1 P.U EACH
2 CEDRUS DEODARA , P.U EACH
4 NANDINA DOI.l. 'FIREPOWER' , P.LI. EACH
4 I.lAHONIA REPENS , P.U EACH
.3 PIERIS JAPONICA 2 P,U, EACH
2 RIBES SANGUINEU~ 2 P,U, EACH
J ABEllA, '~~~~R~L;~~~I~~'S ~ ~:~: ~:~~ ==----
.3 ABELtA 'EDWARD GOUCHER' 1 P.U. EACH
2 PINUS t.lUGO 2 P,LI. EACH
1 PRUNUS SERRULATA ... P.LI. EACH
J CHAt.lAEC'tPARIS Ol3TUSA 1 P U. EACH
J RHODODENORON 'RA~APO' 1 P U EACH
3 RHOOOOENDRON 'YAKU' , P.U. EACH
6 SPIRAEA OOUGLASlI , P.U EACH
6 NANDINA ODt.lESTICA 'FIREPOWER' I P.U. EACH
6 I.lAHONIA REP(NS 1 P,U, EACH
2 RIBES SANGlJINEUI.l 2 P.LI. EACH
3 ABELtAl'~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~:~: ~:g:__
J ABELlA 'EDWARD GOUCHER' 1 P.U. EACH
1 RIBES SANGUINEUt.l 2 P.U. EACH
_1_ - - - - ----.J--oI,8ELI.....'~09U~~u._E --
1 ACER PLAT OIDES B P.U. EACH
2 ABEllA 'EDWARD GO ER' 1 P.U. EACH
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UV -URSI , P.U'/SO SF _________ , ...
I 1 ---,...
I I
I
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS U~-URSI , P.U./50 Sf -,:
3 ABELlA, '~~~R~L;T :i~~~~ J ~:~: f~g~ =::-----
J ABWA 'EDWARD G~CHER' 1 P,U, EACH
1 '--':- ""'-~
I J ASEUA 'ED.J GOUCHER' 'P,", EACH
o :Ill .. .. 3 ABEllA' ':~~R tL~~~~&,S ~ ~'.~: ~~~
I SCAlB ," _ 20' AROOSm"'<LO[ U'A-"O 1 P."/50 "
_ _LIj-- - f ~ --=: =---'-7'___,"'--~ _,__~:
'-
UlH
:J:, ,
::HI'
.... . ,
""I G
LINCOLN COMMONS
LANDSCAPING PLAN
o
. 'NG'N""NG
SU"'VEYINB .PL....NNING
7'~ SW F' Loop, SID 2tH
TlgontOR G7223
Tot(503)~l8ll6
Fmc:(503)5lNI-1l1llB
1n~~~nM
,
. .......
-
-
M ..
. ..
3
5
6
la. "Architectural Features not a
Public Amenity"
Specification of architectural details
(colors, textures) implies a public benefit
beyond that of functionality
Walls (except for entrance) would not be
visible from public right of way
8
lb. "Mitigates Noise Impacts"
No existing uses to mitigate for
Future uses that require arch. walls may never
exist
Probable future uses (multifamily units, open
space) would not require arch. Walls
Fence, landscaping, and grade separations
should provide an adequate noise barrier
9
2a. "Wood is a Problem"
Wood fences not prohibited by WOO
Wood fences are common, affordable
Wood fences will be built between rear yards
HOA is required to maintain fencing
Vinyl is an option-lifetime guarantees (sample)
10