Agenda - 04/28/2008C ITY O F W 00 D B U R N KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD ~
RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II
TY COUNCIL AGENDA
C PETERMCCALLUM,COUNCILORWARDIII
[ JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV
FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V
n
APRIL 28~ LOO~ ~~.OO P.M. ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VI
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 27O MONTGOMERY STREET
1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. A City Council workshop regarding the proposed rental housing
ordinance will be held on May 12 at 6:00 pm in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
B. A public hearing regarding Tout Street LID will be held on May
12 at 7:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers.
C. A public hearing regarding Boones Ferry Road LID will be held
on May 12 at 7:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers.
A~pointments:
None.
4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Proclamations:
A. Volunteer Week - April 27 - May 3, 2008
Presentations:
None.
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
None.
"Ha~ra interpretes aisponib~es para aque~~as personas que no G~a6fan ~ng[es, previo acuerao. comuniqilese
a~ (~03) 980-2485...
April 28, 2008 Counci! Agenda Page i
il
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 o Council member.
A. Woodburn City Council minutes of April 14, 2008, regular and 2
executive sessions
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes.
B. Woodburn Recreation and Parks draff minutes of April 8, 2008 19
Recommended Action: Accept the draft minutes.
C. Claims for March 2008 23
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
D. Crime Stats for March 2008 28
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
E. Code Enforcement Statistics for March 2008 33
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
F. Community Services Statistics for March 2008 34
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
G. Planning Project Tracking Sheet dated April 23, 2008 35
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
H. Annual SDC Report
Recommended Action: Receive the report.
9. TABLED BUSINESS
None.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
38
Apri! 28; 2008 Council Agenda Page ii
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 limified by Mayoral prerogative.
A. Council Bill 2716 - Ordinance imposing Trcnsportation System 45
Development Charges based upon an established
methodology; providing processes for alternative calculations;
and requiring that funds be accounted for and used pursuant to
state law; and repealing ordinance 2248
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
B. Council Bill 2717 - Resolution granting the application in DR 87
2007-12, CAR 2007-07, ond EXCP 2007-08, adopting ~ndings
and conclusions, and imposing conditions.
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution.
C. Council Bill 2718 - Resolution approving the law enforcement 127
use of deadly physical force response plan pursuant to SB 111,
Oregon Laws 2007
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution.
D. Council Bill 2719 - Resolution authorizing the transfer of 144
appropriations during fiscal year 2007-OS
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution
12. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These
are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that
may be called up by the City Covncil.
A. Community Development Director's Approval of Zoning 147
Adjustment 2008-03, Located at 1755 Mt. Hood Avenue
13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
15. ADJOURNMENT
April 28, 2008 Counci! Agenda Page iii
4A
PROCLAI tiIATION
VOLUNTEER WEEK - APRIL 27 - MAY 3, 2008
WHEREAS, Woodburn volunteers have undertaken many responsibilities that
promote the general welfare of the City of Woodburn and make a difference in the lives of
its residents; and
WHEREAS, in providing these services, volunteers have demonstrated a spirit of
personal concern and wholehearted willingness to help others; and
WHEREAS, volunteers reflect the commitment of neighbors helping neighbors in
the finest sense of that tradition; and
WHEREAS, these volunteers ask nothing more than the satisfaction of a job well
done; and
WHEREAS, these individuals are most deserving oE appreciation and thanks; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, in gratitude for the dedicated service rendered by
members of this community wishes to recognize all those who have given their time,
energy and talents to help others.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, KATHRYN FIGLEY, Mayor of the City of Woodburn, do
hereby proclaim the week of April 27 through May 3, 2008 to be
VOLUNTEER WjEEK
in the City of Woodburn and encourage government, business, and residents to honor this
observance with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
City of Woodburn to be aFfixed this 23`d day of Apri12008.
.
Kathryn gle a or
City oE oodburn
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, APRIL 14, 2008.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
0025 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Figley Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Cox Present
Councilor Lonergan Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Absent
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City
Administrator Stevens, Community Development Director Allen, Public Works Director
Brown, Police Captain Tennant, Finance Director Gillespie, Community Services
Director Row, Associate Planner polenc, Recorder Tennant
0050 ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Special City Council Meeting will be held on Wednesda}~, Apri123, 2008, 5:30 p.m.,
in the City Hall Council Chambers to consider and adopt standards, criteria, and policy
directives for the hiring of the Woodburn City Administrator. She encouraged members
of the Chamber, business community, and residents to participate in this meeting. The
Mayor and Council will be discussing what they are looking for in our next City
Administrator with recruitment firm consultant Greg Protham. For the record, she added
that pursuant to ORS 192.660, there will be an opportunity for public comment on the
standards, criteria, and policy directives.
B) Wastewater Facility Plan Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, Apri124,
2008, 7:00 p.m., at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
0095 APPOINTMENT: WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN COMMITTEE.
Mayor Figley appointed Rongie Wangerin to serve on the Wastewater Facility Plan
Committee.
MCCALLUM/LONERGAN...appoint Rongie Wangerin to the Committee. The motion
passed unanimously.
0150 PROCLAMATION: El Dia de los Ninos / El Dia de los Libros - APRIL 26 2008.
Mayor Figley read a proclamation declaring Apri126, 2008 as El Dia de los Ninos / El
Dia de los Libros (Day of the Child / Day of the Library) to celebrate children and to
recognize the importance of literacy which is supported by reading programs for children
Page 1- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
at the public library.
0235 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Deb Yager, Chamber President, reviewed the March 2008 statistics for the Chamber
office (5 relocation packets sent out, 344 phone calls, 86 visitors), Visitor's Center (738
visitors from within Oregon, 764 visitors from outside Oregon), and 6,736 e-mail or
website hits. Projects being worked on by the Chamber include: (1) Ambassadors
assisting Woodburn Together with the Flower Basket Program and (2) Woodburn
Business Police Academy is entering into their 4``' week during which time they have
been learning the process in which to support Woodburn Police and the contact between
businesses and police whereby information provided to the police is effective in
prosecution of cases. This police academy program should be the first in the West Coast
area to have set the precedent to start a Business Watch Program and the Chamber is in
full support of this program.
The WAVA Committee will be reviewing the bids and proposals for the brochures to
highlight the area. Next month they will moving forward with the hiring of the WAVA
Coordinator for the volunteers.
0446 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT.
Walt Blomberg, School Superintendent, stated that the District had recently received the
d,-opout report data showing a reduction in the dropout rate from 9.4% in 2005-06 to
5.2°Io in 2006-07. It was noted that 2006-07 was the first year for the small schools at
the high school and the district is hoping that the dropout data is a trend that can be seen
out of the small high schools in that students feel more connected, have better
relationships with adults in those schools and find more reasons to stay in school. The
four-year trend went from 29.9% to 19.4% which is a significant decrease over that time
period.
He stated that more discussions will be held with the community on a School Bond
proposal with upcoming meetings at Senior Estates (4/18) and a community forum at the
high school lectorium (4/29). He also stated that the School District does celebrate the
Day of the Child on April 26`h and they have a full complement of activities at French
Prairie Middle School from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.. These activities involve students
and families in addition to giving local businesses, civic and health organizations an
oppoRunity to make connections with families.
Councilor McCallum stated that many years ago there had been a problem with school
districts uniformity in reporting dropout information and he questioned if there was a
more uniform method now in place to make sure that all districts are doing it the same.
Superintendent Blomberg stated that the District submits data to the State and they put
the data into the same formula and provide the drop out rate to the District.
Councilor McCallum mentioned that he had noticed that small schools in Portland were
not experiencing the same success that Woodburn has seen and he congratulated the
Page 2- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
3
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
District on the rate reduction.
Superintendent Blomberg stated that the small schools in Portland did not experience the
same result as Woodburn and, in most cases, the whole State saw a slight incline in the
dropout rate.
Councilor McCallum stated that Councilor Bjelland, presenter at a recent Marion County
Children and Families Commission meeting, had emphasized as to where families are
going, population is going, and what is important for the future of education in the State
of Oregon. He recommended that Councilor Bjelland be contacted to see he would be
able to make a presentation to the School District's management staff since his focus is
on future planning.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the Superintendent of the Salem-Keizer School District
had attended the session and he has been contacted by them to make a presentation to
their organization.
Councilor Lonergan also congratulated the School District in keeping students in school.
Mayor Figley stated that she has also noticed the increased number of high school
graduates over the years and is looking forward to seeing an increased number of
graduates in 2007-08.
0900 Beverly Koutney, Hubbard, stated that Chemeketa's Center for Learning and Retirement
Program has a number of senior citizens very interested in starting a Senior Center.
Plans are progressing to Incorporate and raise funds to establish a Center for the
programs that are located at multiple areas. The next organizational meeting is scheduled
for April 22, 2008, 4:00 pm, in Room 207 at the Chemeketa building. She stated that
this group would like a City representative to participate especially in fundraising
activities. Two options are being discussed for a facility location but they continue to be
open for other suggested locations. They not only want to establish a Senior Center but
would like to have a Center for the youth which could be a Boys & Girls Club or the
YMCA. Currently, there is a Task Force proceeding with plans to work on fundraising
and establishing a 501( c)(3). At the next meeting, they will be finalizing their vision and
mission statement and formalizing a name. She stated that this should be an area-wide
group rather than just the City and they are keeping the Park & Recreation Board
informed at their monthly meetings.
Mayor Figley stated that the City has studied the possibility of building a stand alone
Center or expanding the Aquatic Center and, in both cases, the costs to build and operate
the facilities are quite staggering. She knows that there is a need for these facilities and
would be willing to work with others to see what can be done.
In the Salem area, Ms. Koutney stated that the North Salem Senior Center is funded by
the City while the South Salem Senior Center is completely volunteer with no City funds
involved. She also mentioned that The Dalles has an even better Center whereby they
have one paid staff inember to manage the Center and everything else is volunteer.
Councilor McCallum questioned if the group is advanced enough to know if the Center
Page 3- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
4
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
would be located in Woodburn or at some other location.
Ms. Koutney stated that Woodburn is the central location but no specific location has
been identified as of yet.
Councilor McCallum suggested that she contact the Police Chief regarding the Weed and
Seed grant since it has funding available for youth programs.
1400 CONSENT AGENDA.
A) approve the Council meeting minutes of March 24, 2008;
B) approve the special Council meeting minutes of March 31, 2008;
C) accept the draft Recreation and Parks Board minutes of March 11, 2008;
D) receive the Planning Project Tracking sheet dated Apri19, 2008; and
E) receive the Building Activity report for March 2008.
MCCALLUM/LONERGAN... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion
passed unanimously.
1455 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY COUNCIL CALL-UP OF PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION IN DE5IGN REVIEW (DR) 2007-12, VARIANCE
(VAR) 2007-07 AND EXCEPTION IEXCP) 2007-08 ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 845 E. LINCOLN STREET.
Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:33 pm.
Mayor Figley stated that she has driven by the site because the Council had recently
addressed another site in the area and wanted to be clear as too which one was being
addressed at this hearing.
Councilor Sifuentez declared that she lives across from the property being discussed and
has spoken to some of the neighbors. She had referred all of them to the Planning
Commission for their hearing and have had very little contact with them other than they
did have some questions but no discussion. She felt that she could make a good decision
when it comes time for a vote.
Councilors McCallum, Lonergan, Bjelland, and Cox all stated that they were familiar
with the site.
City Attorney Shields stated that if anyone had any challenges to the declarations now
would be the time to assert those challenges.
Mayor Figley asked if anyone had any challenges and, since no one came forth with a
challenge, she proceeded with the hearing.
Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197.
Associate Planner polenc presented the staff report and stated that is case involves a
design review case, a variance case, and a street exception. The subject property is zoned
medium-density residential and is designated as residential more than 12 units per acre
on the Comprehensive Plan map. The property is .936 acres in area and currently
occupied by a single family dwelling. The properties on the north side of East Lincoln
Street (same side of street as subject property) are generally zoned medium density
Page 4- Council iVleeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
5
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
residential (RM) with more than 12 units per acre on the Comprehensive Plan map. The
exception is Washington School which is zoned Public and Semi-Public (P/SP).
Properties on the south side of East Lincoln Street are zoned single family residential
(RS). These cases were originally heard by the Planning Commission and they had
approved the cases subject to 77 conditions of approval. The applicant appealed 6 of
those conditions but the appeal was rendered mute when the Council called up these
cases for review on its own initiative. The Planning Commission's decision also became
mute by the call up by the Council. This is a de novo hearing and the Council can
consider all aspects of the cases. Associate Planner polenc stated that the applicant
proposes to develop the site with 15 dwelling units in two buildings with a 6-plex located
closer to East Lincoln Street and a 9-plex to the north of the 6-plex, a driveway into the
development and two driveway isles surrounding the cite, and a central open space area.
He began with addressing the variance case stating that the RM district has a maximum
of 16 dwelling units per acre and, in this case, 14 dwelling units would be allowed on the
property after the right-of-way dedication. The variance is to allow 15 dwelling units and
he proceeded to review the variance criteria within the Woodburn Development
Ordinance (WDO) outlined in the staff report. Of the four criteria to be considered, staff
conclusion was that two of the factors had not been met one of which was that the
property could be developed with up to 14 dwelling units rather the developer's desire for
15 units, and the other factor being that the variance has not been shown to be necessary
to make reasonable economic use of the property. He stated that the Planning
Commission had approved the variance case but the Planning staff had recommended
denial.
2774 In the Street Exception case, the Transportation Plan requires a 72 foot right-of-way
dedication and certain improvements within that right-of-way. The existing cross section
of East Lincoln Street does not meet that cross section in that there is adequate paved
width but not the street trees, sidewalk, and planter strip requirements. The applicant has
agreed to dedicate the additional right-of-way and staff recommends approval of the
Street Exception subject to entering into a non-remonstrance agreement to participate in
any future reconstruction of East Lincoln Street. The applicant did indicate to the
Planning Commission that they would develop the street frontage in front of their
property.
Mayor Figley stated that the development is occurring and there is no outcry for a road
improvement at this time so the non remonstrance agreement is the best way of handling
this issue.
Associate Planner polenc stated that the developer has the option of making the street
improvements at the time of development but it does not make a lot of sense to improve a
small portion of the entire street. The non-remonstrance agreement is the process that
would allow the developer to delay payment of the improvement until it is timely to
reconstruct the street all at one time. It was noted that the applicant did not appeal the
non-remonstrance agreement condition.
Page 5- Council Meeting vtinutes, April 14, 2008
6
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
In the Design Review case, Associate Planner polenc stated that there is a requirement
for a architectural wall between multi-family and single family dwellings and it is
discretionary to require the wall adjacent to the P/SP zone or a medium density
residential unit. However, the applicant has proposed to build a perimeter wall meeting
the requirements for an architectural wall which would then allow parking within the
setbacks. He reviewed the applicant's proposed number of plant units per square foot
which is slightly under the required number and the buffer yard, located between the
property line and the curb, would be in excess of the required standard. Included as a
condition of approval is to increase the number of plant units per square feet in all of the
other yard area to meet the required standard. The perimeter landscaping meets the
required standard. In regards to yard setbacks, he provided the Council with a
discretionary code requirement to include yard setbacks as part of common open space
and landscaping required in common areas. The Planning Commission and staff have
interpreted that the common areas and common open space are different and the common
areas do not include setbacks. The reason behind this interpretation is that the setbacks
have their own landscaping stocking requirements and, if common open space and
common area mean the same, it would eliminate the degradation in requirement and the
all open space would have the same requirement of 3 plant units per 50 square feet. Staff
is requesting that the Council adopt the interpretation that the common areas do not
include the setbacks which would then allow for different stocking requirements within
the proposed development. He proceeded to outline the common open space areas and
common area proposed by the applicant which is less than the code guidelines. The
Council has discretion over this code provision and a finding will be included in the
ordinance based on the Council's decision as to what will be required. To accommodate
the recreation, meeting, and education activities requirement within the open space
provision, the applicant has proposed a picnic table, barbeque pit, and two benches in the
common area. The WDO does not give any guidance as to how to determine the area,
therefore staff requested that the Council make a determination of the area so that it can
be inc(uded in the findings. In regards to design issues relating to the buildings and semi-
private enclosed open space for ground-level units, the applicant has indicated that they
can meet the dimensions required and the condition of approval will require submittal of
new floor plans before the issuance of building permits. It was noted that the code does
require private open space on other than ground floor units. Porch or recessed entries is a
similar requirement and a similar resolution. A major point of appeal is the discretionary
guideline that every two attached medium-density residential dwelling units should/shall
be offset by at least four (4) feet. Staff feels that this guideline could be met if the
driveways were moved and the buffered yards reduce which would involve redesign of
the building and the site. He stated that the building facade is not flat since there are
balconies and entries but it does not have articulation and, from a visual standpoint, it
does breakup a flat wall.
4050 Councilor Bjelland questioned if the offset references the internal alignment since he
Page 6- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
7
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
feels it should only reference the external alignment which makes a building
architecturally attractive.
Associate Planner polenc stated that staff believes that the code provides exterior offsets
as a guideline.
4371 Councilor Cox stated that the only reason for guidelines is visual impact from the outside
to avoid big expanses of flat walls and it will break up the appearance from the outside.
He questioned how the Planning Commission decided on this issue.
Associate Planner polenc stated that the Planning Commission accepted the staff's
condition that would require the articulation. He stated that another guideline of the code
is that 50% of required parking should be covered by garages and, since each dwelling
unit requires two spaces, there should be 1 garage space for each dwelling unit. The
applicant proposes 9 spaces out of 15 (30%). The Planning Commission required the
50% garages and the applicant appealed this discretionary point.
He stated that another design characteristic of the project is that the internal garages all
have external parking spaces directly outside of them and staff feels that there are
inconveniences and problems associated with this configuration but the code does not
prohibit it. Staff feels that it is reasonable to reserve the exterior space for the unit that
has the interior garage and the garage door be posted with the sign that indicates that it is
reserved for that unit. It was noted that the applicant has agreed to this condition.
Lastly, the door of the trash receptacle would be visible from East Lincoln Street and
staff has asked that the applicant rotate the trash receptacle 90° so that it points to the
northwest and the applicant has agreed to the rotation which will not impact the parking.
4755 In summary on the design review case, staff recommended approval of the case subject to
conditions that are contained in the staff report and requested that Council specify any
changes in their motion. Overall, staff recommends denial of the variance, approval of
the Street Exception, and approval of the Design Review subject to the conditions. They
also requested that the Council adopt the interpretation that the common areas do not
include the setbacks and requested guidance on whether the lawn area counts as an
improved facility for the outdoor activities.
4854 Councilor Bjelland requested clarification on the issues before the Council that are
different from what the Planning Commission approved and what issues the applicant
has appealed.
Associate Planner polenc stated that the appeal covered 6 points some of which were
resolved but those left unresolved are as follows: 1) 30% common open space, (2)
articulation, and (3) 50°lo garages. It was also mentioned that the Planning Commission
had approved the variance whereas staff is recommending denial. As a de novo hearing,
staff is presenting the report as they see it under the code requirements and if they are
interpreting something within the code differently, they would like guidance from the
Council on their interpretations and it may be that there are some issues which could also
be brought up for periodic review or legislative amendment.
In regards to the unresolved issues, the Planning Commission agreed with staff on
Fage 7- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
8
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
articulation and garages, and they agreed with the applicant on the common open space.
Councilor McCallum questioned if these units would be condominiums.
Associate Planner polenc stated that the submittal refers to both in that the intent is
condominiums but the applicant referred to renting units until the market conditions
improved. The staff report does not address that issue since there is no difference as far
as a land use action.
Councilor Bjelland questioned if this review was brought up by an appeal from the
applicant or brought up by the Council.
Mayor Figley stated that it was brought up as a Council appeal and she took the initiative
in asking for a motion primarily because there seemed to be some difference of opinion
on areas in addition to those where it was known that the appeal had been filed.
Councilor Cox stated that by the Council calling it up for review made the applicant's
appeal mute and with the Council bringing it up, it opens up the whole process for a
hearing on everything involved in this application.
Community Director Allen stated that had the Council not brought up the issue for
review, it would have been a much more focused hearing on the limited issues that were
raised in the appeal.
5483 Councilor Cox made a suggestion for the City's amendment process that any appeal
would open up everything involved in the application and not just the narrow issue that is
the stated basis for the appeal. He felt that it makes more sense administratively and the
Council may want to change the ordinance to make it clear that the Council is not limited
to looking at the whole issue.
Director Allen stated that there are ways to make it work that way regardless by the
notification that is provided for what the Council is to consider. He will bring this issue
forward as a concept for the next WDO amendment.
Brief discussion was held regarding any appeal being opened up for full or limited
review.
5817 Brandy Dalton, Multi-Tech Engineering representing the applicants, stated that all of the
findings and anything that is part of file is submitted into this record. She stated that the
applicant is requesting approval to construct a 15-unit condo complex where 14-units are
allowed. The applicants have explored many options for the property and found that the
condo development was the most feasible for the site and they wanted to construct
something that was unique and visually appealing for the area. This one additional unit
helps to keep costs therefore allowing the developer to pass the savings onto renters or
buyers. They are aware that this proposal does not meet the letter of the code but believe
it meets the intent of the code by providing adequate setbacks, open space, safe and
convenient circulation and parking on the site, and a variety of housing types in the area.
The applicant is requesting that the Council approve the variance, the design review, and
the right-of-way exception cases. The applicant did appeal the Planning Commission's
decision since, at the Planning Commission meeting, there were 81 conditions of
approval and they requested that conditions 1 through 64 be approved with the three
Page 8- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
9
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
cases. Conditions 65 through 81 were discretionary conditions of approval and they were
never discussed at the hearing. The Planning Commission approved their project as is
and did not talk about agreeing with needed offsets or 50% covered parking so they
believe it was not their intent to include those conditions which pretty much denied the
project. The applicant does agree with all of the conditions of approval except the
following: (1) conditions 9 and lO located in the staff report are the same so they are
requesting that one of those be eliminated, (2) conditions 66 and 68 talk about the 30°Io
open space requirement and the applicant requests that these be eliminated since the
development does provide adequate open space and provides essential open space of
3,300 square feet which exceeds the 2,000 square foot requirement; (3) the applicant
requests elimination of condition 73 requiring the offsets and, rather than constructing
box-type apartments, the condos do have offsets in the roof-lines which provides
dimensions to the structures; and (4) the applicant is requesting elimination of condition
81 which requires garages to be provided for at least 50% of the required parking since
adding more garages would eliminate required parking therefore requiring additional
variances. She stated that the required parking on the site is well-lit and adjacent to
pathways that go into entry ways. In conclusion, she stated that it is their belief that they
have provided findings needed to warrant approval of all three cases and the elimination
of conditions 66, 68, 73, and 81.
6315 Councilor Cox questioned if 15 units would have been allowed if the right-of-way
dedication was not a condition of approval.
Ms. Dalton stated that the applicant would have been allowed the 15 units and no
variance would have been required.
Councilor Bjelland stated that there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not the
50% covered parking issue was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing or
whether that issue came up in preparation of the findings of fact.
Ms. Dalton stated that she could not speak for the Planning Commission but they were
surprised to see that condition in the conditions of approval since the Commission
approved the project as is and this issue was never discussed nor could they find anything
in the minutes on this issue.
Director Allen stated that this was a fairly complicated project with a lot of public
testimony. Typically in the Planning Commission deliberations, they have a discussion
over anything that is of a concern to them including conditions that they want to modify
or eliminate. In this case, they did not eliminate some of these conditions that surprised
the applicant when they received their notice of decision. There was a lot of discussion
on items that would take you down a certain path but the final bridge was not crossed that
would eliminate a condition. There was discussion on the open space area and their
conclusion was that the open space area met that standard but did they did not eliminate
the condition.
Tape 2 Councilor Cox stated that it seems that, in this case, it was may have been an oversight
Page 9- Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
10
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
on the Planning Commission's part in not making their motion carefully enough and, in
return, nobody on staff picked up that fact. Staff is then left with the motion that was
made that did not eliminate those conditions which then shows up in the findings
prepared.
Director Allen stated that Councilor Cox's summation was the case for the open space
but he would not characterize it so much for the 50% garage coverages because there was
not as much of a discussion on that and they just accepted that condition. Based on
action taken to date, the applicant will need to add 6 mare garages if the variance is
approved to allow 15 units. In regards to the articulation issue, there was some
discussion as to whether balconies would provide the articulation but it did not make it
into the motion which was to accept the staff recommendations with a couple of
exceptions. The conditions of approval were in the staff report in a very similar format
that is provided in the Council's staff report.
Ms. Dalton stated that they would lose at least 6 parking spaces if the additional garages
are required. She stated that they did talk to staff and would have been willing to cover
with carports but that is not permitted in the City's code and did not know if a carport
would be the right type of covering for this development.
Councilor Cox stated that, from his personal observation, covered garages are more of
the exception rather than rule in most multi-family developments within the City.
During Council discussion, it was noted that covered garages are an enhancement and
those individuals who want a covered garage will go elsewhere if one is not available at
this site. Additionally, the 50°Io garage coverage is a guideline and not a requirement
under the code.
Councilor Sifuentez questioned as to when the conditions are provided to the applicant.
Associate Planner polenc stated that the decision is mailed to the applicant and they sign
formal acceptance of conditions. They must have signed the acceptance of conditions
before they are issued a building permit.
0480 Associate Planner polenc requested that the condo renderings displayed at this meeting
be entered into the records as Exhibits M-N.
Brad Schnell, applicant, stated that the buildings are oriented so that there is access on
the 9-plex on all four sides of the building and the 6-plex has only entrances on three
sides. The garages will face the east and there will be trees and landscaping along East
Lincoln Street. From an architectural standpoint, they have tried to create a lot of
articulation just in the building design with the various gables and awnings that protrude
over the balconies. They have agreed to make as many of the combinations as they
possibly can without re-engineering the building. He stated that they had looked at four
or five building types for this site and selected the one before the Council primarily
because having the 15-units will keep the price down with their intention being to sell the
units as condos. By taking one unit away, it will incrementally increase the price for the
remaining units just because of fixed costs. He stated that they have made every effort to
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
11
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
meet all of the design standards and landscaping.
0904 No one in the audience spoke either for or against the land use cases before the Council.
Councilor Cox stated that the variance seems to be an approximate 8.5% increase in the
allowable density and he questioned if there was some provision in the code that
variances of less than a certain percentage could be allowed administratively.
Associate Planner polenc stated that the code does contain a provision for zoning
adjustment but density is specifically prohibited in the zoning adjustment process.
Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:55 pm.
1017 Councilor Bjelland stated that he sees four primary issues to deal with: (1) the 30%
common open space, (2) the articulation issue, (3) the 50°Io garage requirement, and (4)
the density of 15-units versus 14-units. He was willing to accept all four of those
variance since it only allows one additional unit and if the right-of-way had not been
required, the developer would have been allowed the 15-units. In regards to articulation,
he feels that the design, with the size of these units, there is a lot of exterior visual appeal
with some offset in the variation in the balconies and roof lines. In regards to the
garages, he has seen numerous condo and apartments without a covered garage for every
one of their units and by having a different mix of units people will have choice as to
what they are willing to purchase. Lastly, this is a small project and feels that the 30%
open space which is adjacent to a lot of open space around the area is sufficient.
Councilor Cox stated that Planning staff inembers were not employed when the WDO
was developed so it is difficult for them to interpret the intent of the ordinance. He
agreed with Councilor Bjelland on the open space issue and agreed that the two
definitions of open space should be made more clear. He felt that, for most purposes, the
setback area should be considered as open space and, with it being a just a guideline, he
did not want to apply it to this project. He also mentioned that staff did provide a
reasonable interpretation considering that they did a careful reading of the code. In
regard to the garages, he agreed with Councilor Bjelland and stated that it might affect
the marketability of a condo without a garage but did not see from a planning point of
view as to how that would detract from the project in terms of its impact on the City. On
the issue of open space, the lawn with the barbeque, table and benches should be counted
as open space since there are features being placed in the area that would draw the
residents to that area. He also felt that the project has plenty of visual appeal and, with it
being a guideline, he is okay with the design as presented. He stated that by requiring
any of the three conditions under discussion will require re-design and shortages in other
areas and the applicant may be back for other variances. He felt that the applicant has
done about as much as they can with what they had to work with. In regards to the
variance, requirements are in place that need to be followed rather than a guideline in
which the Council has some discretion. Even though a 14-unit project similar to this
could be built on this site and the other conditions of the variance such as economic
criteria, ties in with the build ability and there is no data in the record that would show it
Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
12
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
is economically impossible to construct only 14 units other than it would raise the price
of the other units probably more than the percentage of reduction since many of the fixed
costs will remain the same. He stated that he is willing to allow the variance in this
particular case.
Councilor McCallum expressed his opinion that the variance should be denied and even
though it is only one additional unit, the next developer will want the same decision. He
is agreeable with the guidelines because of the size of the project but not in favor of the
variance.
Councilor Lonergan concurred with comments made by Councilor Bjelland and Cox and,
overall, he would agree with the 14 units thereby denying the variance.
Councilor Bjelland stated that his argument on the variance is that the Planning
Commission had approved the 15 units and denying the variance would go against what
the Planning Commission has already approved. He felt that it was more important to
have the minimum level achieved then to be concerned about the maximum level. From
a state-wide planning standpoint, there is pressure to have higher density and, even
though you do not want to see it everywhere, there are areas in which higher density can
be acceptable and he finds this development as acceptable since it is only one additional
unit. Additionally, this development would need to be redesigned if one unit is not
allowed.
Councilor Sifuentez stated that the variance is the area in which she has concerns. The
units look very large and her neighbors feel that the units are large compared to what is in
the neighborhood.
Mayor Figley stated that she has no problem with guideline issues and feels that the
development will fit in with the neighborhood. She expressed concern about the variance
since there does not seem to be a consensus on the number of units.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the development would have been allowed 15 units under
the current configuration of land had it not been a requirement that the applicant give the
City additional right-of-way which reduces the number of units down to 14. In his
opinion, this is a special situation and it is justification to approve the variance.
Councilor Cox agreed that this would not set a precedent since the applicant is being
required to give up land that they could otherwise use for their development. The right-
of-way will have appearance of open space but it may be twenty-five or more years
before Lincoln Street is widened. Under the circumstances, he would not like to see a
complete re-design of the development just for one unit. He had heard that the neighbors
were concerned about the windows on the new units looking into other households but he
does not see that as an issue nor has it been raised at this hearing. This area has mixed
zoning of RS and RM and the Council has to anticipate that the property will be
developed as it is zoned which is multi-family. He did not see where this development
would have much impact within the neighborhood except for the fact that there will be a
building on a lot that was previously a single family dwelling.
Mayor Figley stated that there seems to be some consensus on the guideline
Page 12 - Council ~Ieeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
13
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
interpretations but there does not seem to be a consensus on the variance.
2422 COX/LONERGAN... Council approve this project and all of the findings of staff except
the 3 guideline conditions that staff recommended pertaining to the 30% common open
space question, the articulation question, and 50°Io garage question.
Associate Planner polenc stated that there are two issues on the common open space one
of which is the 30°Io issue and the other issue is whether or not the lawn counts as
improved facility.
Councilor Cox stated that it is his intent in the motion that both aspects of that would be
covered.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
BJELLAND/COX... approve a variance for this project allowing 15 units to be built as
opposed to the 14 units that would be called for under the property after the dedication
for street right-of-way.
Councilor Lonergan questioned as to why the additional 11 feet of right-of-way.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the applicant is being required to dedicate the additional
right-of-way since East Lincoln Street is a collector street which has a requirement of 72
feet of right-of-way whereas the street currently has a 60 foot right-of-way.
Councilor Cox also mentioned that the developer will be required to sign a non-
remonstrance agreement to participate in the process to pay their fair share of any
improvement to the street.
On roll call vote, the motion passed 3-2 with Councilors McCallum and Sifuentez voting
nay.
2888 COXJBJELLAND... Council approve this project subject to conditions in the staff report
except those that have been specifically dealt with in the Council's earlier motions and
including the allowance of the variance as requested, with staff to come back with the
appropriate findings and conclusions in an ordinance for adoption.
Councilor McCallum stated that he would vote in favor of this motion so that the
ordinance can be prepared for final consideration by the Council.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
3125 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2715 - RESOLUTION SETTING AMOUNT OF THE
PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES UNDER
AN EXISTING METHODOLOGY: ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATIVE RATE
REVIEW FEE; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPOSITION OF
THE FEES AND CHARGES.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2715. Recorder Tennant read the two
readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Cox stated that this resolution provides for a modest increase that will bring
the Parks system development charges in line with the increases in construction cost. It
is his understanding that this may be the last year in which the Council may be able to
Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
14
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
adjust the charges and they may need to devote more energy to it the next time it comes
up for review.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared
Council Bill No. 2715 duly passed.
3272 RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE.
Interim City Administrator Russell stated that this issue first came before Council in
December 2007 and staff was directed to convene a stakeholder's meeting which was
done on February 29, 2008. As a result of this meeting, staff received input from the
stakeholders and a brief summary of the meeting has been provided in the agenda packet.
Members of the stakeholder group requested an opportunity address some of the issues
with Council. Staff also has also prepared some recommendations for the proposed
ordinance and would like Council direction on those recommendations before a final
document is presented to the Council for consideration.
Councilor Cox questioned if the stakeholders were told that this matter would be before
the Council at this meeting.
Interim Administrator Russell stated that they were told that they would be advised when
this issue would be brought back to the Council for considerarion whether it be an
ordinance or workshop and they were not advised of the item being on this meeting's
agenda.
Councilor Cox stated that he would be interested in hearing from the stakeholders. He
read the summary of their objections in the staff report, but in his review of the report,
there are only two areas in which staff suggests changes from the last draft.
Interim Administrator Russell stated that from the issues brought up by the stakeholders,
staff suggested two changes in the last draft document thereby still maintaining the
integrity of what the Council had previously asked to be done to the draft ordinance.
These two changes are: (1) language be made clear that any entry on the premises has to
be consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements for entering, and (2) the
owner of the property, if different from the manager, would be notified of any
enforcement process.
Councilor Cox stated that he had gone through the objections in the report and feels that
the Council had considered them previously and he is not anxious to make changes based
on what he sees in the objections raised at the meeting.
Mayor Figley stated that she can see the point of most of the objections with the one she
would argue with is the objection stating that this ordinance is intended for revenue. The
Council has wanted to take this step and, being aware of some of the conditions, she
would follow the Council's decision on this issue.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the Council has periodically received complaints that
citizens do not always have an opportunity to get involved in the process. He would be
willing to have workshop to hear their concerns and find out if there are any additional
issues that surface for consideration.
Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
15
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
Councilor McCallum stated that taking care of people has been an area of complaint but
he would like to see something move forward on this issue within the near future.
It was the consensus of the Council to hold a workshop preferably before a regular
Council meeting.
3936 LIOUOR LICENSE: CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP LIMITED ON-PREMISES
SALES - TAOUERIA GUADALA.TARA ONE. INC.. 995 N. PACIFIC ffiGHWAY
A change of ownership liquor license application for limited on-premises sales was
submitted by Sergio Balverde-Flores and Aydee Moreno-Corona DBA: Taqueria
Guadalajara Authentic Mexican Food.
LONERGAN/5IFUENTEZ... recommend that OLCC approve a liquor license
application change of ownership for limited on-premises sales to Taqueria Guadalajara
One, Inc.. The motion passed unanimously.
3990 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
Interim Administrator Russell reminded the Council of the budget workshop on Saturday,
April 19`~, at 8:30 a.m.. The packets will be distributed to the Committee on Tuesday.
Staff has received a draft Emergency Operations Plan for the City and the County and a
copy is available to the Council if interested in receiving one for review.
Lastly, sponsorship for Relay for Life was obtained and Councilor McCallum will
provide more information on this sponsorship.
4076 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORT.
Councilor McCallum announced that the City is a Platinum sponsor for the annual Relay
for Life which will be held June 20-21, 2008. He reminded the public that this
sponsorship is not taxpayer money and comes from the Mayor, Council, and Department
Heads. He stated that the City has been a longtime sponsor and moved up to a Platinum
level several years ago. This is a great community event facing a major medical problem
but one of the great things about this event is that all factions of the city become united in
trying to help find a cure for cancer.
Mayor Figley stated that this is one of the most positive events that takes place in our
community in addition to being a very positive life affirming event and she is glad to be a
part of it.
Councilor Sifuentez thanked staff for putting the Council Bill Number on the bill itself.
Councilor Cox also expressed his appreciation for putting the page number on the
computer which coincides with the page numbers on the agenda materials.
4300 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority
of ORS 192.660 (2)(h), 192.660 (2)(~, and 192.660 (2)(d).
COX/MCCALLUM...adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited
Page 15 - Council Mc~ting Minutes, April 14, 2008
16
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously.
The Council adjourned into executive session at 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:25 p.m.
4340 Mayor Figley stated that no decisions were made by the Council while in executive
session.
AD.iOURNMENT.
SIFUENTEZ/MCCALLUM.... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m..
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
17
Executive 5ession
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 14, 2008
DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, APRIL 14, 2008.
CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:48 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
ROLL CALL.
Mayor Figley Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Cox Present
Councilor Lonergan Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Absent
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, Assistant City
Administrator Stevens (10:02 p.m.), City Recorder Tennant
Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is
not to be discussed with the public.
The executive session was called under the following statutory authority:
1) To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to
current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h);
2) To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)( fl; and
3) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor
negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(d).
ADJOURNMENT.
The executive session adjourned at 10:22 p.m..
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
Ciry of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1- Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
18
8B
Minutes
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order
The meeting and was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Board Chair Bruce Thomas Present
Board Secretary Rosetta Wangerin Present
Member Vacant Vacant
Member Joseph Nicoletti Present
Member Judy Wesemann Present
Member Eric Morris Present
Member Charlene Williams Absent
DRAFT
Staff present: Jim Row, Community Services Director; Debbie Wadleigh, Aquatic
and Facilities Manager; Stu Spence, Recreation Services Manager; Paulette Zastoupil,
A.A.
Approval of Minutes from March 11, 2008.
Joseph Nicoletti/Rosetta Wangerin - Motion to accept the minutes as written. The
motion passed unanimously.
4. Business from the Audience
Beverly Koutney - 2781 J Street Hubbard, OR 97032
Jan Van - 1366 Rainer Rd. Woodburn, OR 97071
Barbara Campbell - 209 Clackamas Circle Woodburn, OR 97071
They reported on a community meeting in which 24 interested citizens attended to
support and talk about the need for an area seniar center. During the meeting the
group brainstormed creative ways to raise money, several people offered to write
grants, and that all agreed that the services being met in town needs to be brought
together in one location.
Richard Morris - 1210 Judy St. Woodburn, OR 97071
Richard presented a formal letter stating his objection to the development of a paved
walkway in the Greenway south of Wilson Street, and also expressed his desire to
preserve wildlife in the southern most area of the Greenway. I-~e stated that property
owners of the area to the east of the Greenway request that the public meetings be
conducted related to this issue be held before any design or expensive permits for
wetland waivers are requested. A copy of the letter was given to all Board members.
Centennial Park
Jim passed out a concept plan and cost estimates for Centennial Park Final Phase. He
originally intended to submit a State Local Government Grant in April to fund this
final phase. Jim shared that the State permits agencies to have a maximum of two
open grants. The current grants that the City has open - The Mill Creek Greenway
Project, and Burlingham Park Project were not be closed by the April 4`h application
deadline. Jim reported that, through the budget process, he requested SDC funding to
develop a detailed design construction documents for this final phase. Having the
Page 1
19
Minutes
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Centennial Park project "shovel ready" will make it more attractive to the State when
we submit it in the spring of 2009. Jim continued with a detailed explanation of the
concept plan and cost estimates.
6. Senior Center
Nothing was discussed, since it had been covered during the public comment section
of the agenda.
7. Playground Restoration Projects
Jim reported that Burlingham and Hermanson I playground structures will be
replaced on Friday, May 16 with the help of the Woodburn Academy of International
Studies High School and community volunteers. Hermanson playground equipment
will be pulled out and the new equipment will placed further up on higher ground.
The playground structure and climbing boulder will be in natural colors of green and
brown. Stu shared a final design for Burlingham playground in which the equipment
will be bright colors of red, blue and yellow. All existing equipment will be removed
except the swings and the new equipment will be added. He will actively recruit the
business community for an assortment of donations, and other volunteers to help with
the build. All community volunteers are invited to help Friday, May 16 at either
Burlingham or Hermanson playgrounds.
8. Business from the Department
Recreation - Stu Spence
Girl's softball has 27 participants and games will begin in early May. T-Ball signups
are open as well with the season starting April 26th. Currently there are 25 signed up
for 3-4 year olds, and 38 for 5-6 year olds. The Teen Scene is actively recruiting
members for the Weed & Seed Task Force and Park Board to get teen representation.
The Teen Spring Break Trips were; March 21 - Swimming at the Woodburn Aquatic
Center with pizza and March 28 - Bullwinkle's Family Fun Center in Wilsonville.
Average weekly attendance at the teen building is about 100 kids. Stu shared that he
has built a unique partnership with Senior Estates Travel Company officially called
Cruise Holidays. They have scheduled trips to San Antonio, TX at Christmas time
and also San Francisco, CA. The travel company will coardinate sign ups for these
out of state excursions and the recreation deparirnent will receive a commission for
advertising them. The City's Dial A Ride has agreed to use their accessible vans to
transport registered seniors for our future local trips. Spring Break Camp had a great
turn out with 32 kids and 5 staff. The kids enjoyed watching a movie at the
Bungalow Theatre and swimming at the Aquatic Center. Stu thanked Woodburn
School District for the use of French Prairie Middle School and the cafeteria staff for
providing lunch for this new program. Stu also reported that we received a$1000
Woodburn Together grant that would launch a recreation scholarship program. Stu
completed an AmeriCorps Grant application, in which, if granted would provide a
person to open the Settlemier Teen building and assist with all youth programs for
one year. The summer activity guide is being re-designed and printed in color on
heavier paper by Mt. An~el Publishing. It should be mailed to Woodburn residents
by May 1 S`. On April 26` in honor of Arbor Day, at the Library Park there will be a
Pag~:; 2
20
Minutes
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
7:00 p.m.
free tree give-a-way and coloring contest. The Easter Egg Hunt on March 20th was a
great event with 250 kids participating.
Aquatics - Debbie Wadleigh
Debbie answered questions from the audience about the pool's ventilation system.
The poor indoor air quality will be fixed by the installation of a new ventilation
system this fall. Debbie shared that May is National Aquatic Safety Month. Debbie
will have aquatic safety message pens and H20 SafeT Tip flyers to pass out to
customers. The month of May will be filled with ongoing activities for general safety
and special events such as; Check Your Level, Stay On Top Of It and 20% off
coupon for swimming lessons. Swimming lessons attendance is up again this month.
The Earn As You Leam program has had 3 participants during spring break lifeguard
training and 4 participants for water safety instructor. Debbie shared that she now has
a need for part-time cashiers. Debbie has been invited to talk to the Woodburn
International High School on general water safety in conjunction with First Aid and
CPR training.
Debbie reported that copies of copy of the Aquatics Risk Management Assessment
and Recommended Improvements Report and staff was working on a few
improvements listed in the document; mirror in pool area for blind spot, commercial
blood spill containment kit, AED has been installed on the wall and is accessible to
all staff.
Parks and Facilities - Jim Row
Jim earlier reported on the Park Master Plan Update community survey was almost
complete and that we now have 330 responses. The public meeting in the spring will
present the results of the parks and facilities inventory, level of programming, an
analysis of maintenance and operations, and the results of the community survey. A
public meeting will also be conducted on the Mill Creek Greenway Project - offering
the community the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed design.
The Downtown Plaza was constructed in 2005. The final phase involves installation
of the gazebo. Funding was inadequate at the time and we are now working to
complete the project. Completion of the gazebo will improve our ability to hold
events and market it as a venue in the community. The Burlingham Trust has
graciously agreed to provide some funding for this project. Jim shared that the Fourth
of July committee is meeting to plan this year's Fourth of July activities. The City
annually agrees to fund the fireworks and then community volunteers put on the rest
of the event.
12. Future Board Business
None.
13. Board Comments
No comments.
14. Adjournment 8:25 p.m.
Page 3
21
Minutes
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
7:00 p.m.
Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary Paulette Zastoupil, Recording Secretary
Date
Date
Page 4
22
SC
`A~^~t+BHUF.2: L.SVr. C:"," Y "J c~ w L' G^w E U R;Q PA~a ?
~F.'.E 9p 2~id~8 APR4S0
'tFt4E 1<~ #0:5# i:Fi~2C RIiGISTEk VEEOT
{..."~1B~X il C}1~.~.CK C7A'Ea ?AYFiB 1~tAA[E 5'I'ATCD'~a STAT"EkS IIR'T~ Y.~P~+A3'€C7 Cft~EC4C AM~UNT Rt~^CHI:CSF.^nP AM'P
~
~
s
< 'ilTBFERENCB
SAPIK~At:C~~.iN"i'aa ~Af'~I~fR .s...~ACCOaatiks~Fay."AbZa.~ .:~..:s~=~a ..~..m.:........ .~=m,~~m~ ..~a:.:x.~~.=_» .:..
~a
.
.:
.......,.s ..~..>~~.~..~~~.~~
+t2348 1/32/2066 QLf~dC°~C. COLLECI' INC Rfi~QlJ~ZLEI7~~ i/Y5.;26478 Y£S 2U.90 25.40 .DO
~2349 3I32d~6CiB IIJW SHEREit RfiCY3d3CIL@1} 4d1S/4008 Y'ES 103.23 Y03~23 .00
923567 3f3kf2i}G9 L.ZHCC4LiQ NA7SE5~ATAL: L;E'E S.kS BE~QHCYLBI~ i/15/20E18 YES 6.25 6.31 .00
42,}5~ 313kr~2009 Glt7tt~T,mt ~TATZS'}~tAE. LiFL Z74t$ R~B~GOtfCIT:~Ei~ ~/25i2IIQ8 YfiS 3d-37 26.IT .DO
92352 3/31/2008 VALLEY 1MA2LT~ S~RVFC& YA itBN3iCIL~ RIIS12~108 YBS 831.56 832.Sa .06
92353 ,3f31l2dT69 Pf~PAST #3iC SSGSNi'iCI3~ </151~OCt8 YES 2.~i00.Od 2.ODO..f3iF ,.0~
4235< 3~33JZOR8 pARRIN LiUt~5AND RBCL7ItCILBL+ 411Sf~008 YES 5~6.94 52G.~99 .00
92355 3/31('2008 2R~,"H11RY L titILLIAM~ R$~lCEI::~LD 3P1Sf~0~P9 1FES 3~2.49 322.i8 .60
42356 3/~313008 VdlLi,BY' tiiliZLlDit'i BRKYSCB ZI3 RBCCHiCILBr3 #~ISJ2048 YES 785. Si1 ?95.54 .4Q
4235'~ 3Iif120C~8 A E A PES'T ~TFRDL IHC R&C'~ECSLSA 8f1S12009 YES 98.40 96.6D ~60
92350 3!*_3j2a08 ACB iSi~iCAL T02LEP~.B~~ R8GYJ3iC38:F.S1 4125I2Q08 YES 521_DC 523.00 .40
~235~5 }jf#d2608 ~kI.D$R IACKE RECXIidCZLoBD 4fk5d3~U& YSS 180.~0 E8t1.C4 •00
4236t 3II412diP8 ALLI&D WAkSTE SEkVIC&S 1}<S RBGXTNCZLBI't tji5f2089 YES 8,234.BtP 2,234.80 .QU
9Z361 2iZ!l20D8 Jki/11Zt~-CESM C&B~TIT FtHCCCH~FFCIi.+Ei3 #I15/IO~B Y$S 3b5.32 3S6.3Z .OQ
923~b3 3/24I26La~B 112iN$ R~&ALSS 88~t~tC2LHEr 41LSI~OdB Y8S i35.4#r 255.00 .00
92363 3jIlf204:9 AAANARK t:~tIPOR!! 38B~IC$ F RBLC~E3GLL8D <12siZ00~ YES T,25~.4? 2,253,t3 _t~d
923~a9 3Ji412fl~8 ASHtACZE1'8D StTSIIiF.SS SYSTB R~GX3~CFL8D 4/I512B7G5 YE3 99.85 49.85 .Q0
92355 3lAijlt-4H A3 ie T R8'Cnl!IL~II~&D ij2§j~Lt08 Y~S 54,84 54_8Q .G$
JT3S6 3~Y9/2IIC8 31MF~RT~$~ 1SM13~ lA'i'1II.ET2C~5 3tECG7#C~LBD 4,~55/2~aQ@ YSS 1~8.20 i7$.2A .04
92387 3j1i12008 BA2YBRIBS PLUS R~QCZLBSt iJ25/2DD8 YE~ 149.95 1t9.9S .00
92~58 3f&412008 8S-M~IRT COA&QRATI03i RBCL}NCIT.Ed3 4/151Z008 YES 28+i.16 2$~.16 .QO
'~2369 3/Sij~~G~B BZCk-I~ TS$TTEK@ SBRVIC~ RSCCIMCIL833 #l15/3048 Y85 A2.2D 4Z.~T0 .C70
~2374 3J24f~pG8 Cdtt~iHY 'LELECt}8 RHCCKtQ12cED 4/15,~2ffD6 Y$S 19_4fr 14.'95 _d0
92~?I 3iY412oDb LTiit C~Cf77~"T IN~ &8t'ONCILSA i/18/z608 Y£S 1~8~btF 368.60 .4iC
92372 3~2412Q#!8 CEH7HEi A32HT Z~ARGE PRI4BT R£~CCRACIL~l 4/iSI2tiG8 YffS 35.94 35.9A .G[4
923T3 I%14/2008 CS[EMSK~ESA LYJI6iCii7~I~.YY C82,.F. B8Ct7~iC21.ED A(1~a1~Ot38 YES S7~S.?9 575.79 .ti0
SZ374 3j14~2~08 cx~-xz~s, r~rc B.BW~atCIL.BiT i/35J2008 YES i3,982.i13 i3.'81.63 .00
42376 3fi~4C2II~b CTTX fJI+ ~111iH~Y BHCC~C~ILBD 4~ISl'2tiG8 8~S S.Q+k2,i1(~ S.D~t2.~~Q .~fl
93378 3fli/2t2A8 CQ1~ST11t. FXRN ~tB SVPFLY R800btC2L~ iJ151x908 YSS 331..30 2#F~30 .4#1
~2a~~ ala~+~2~aa ctxu~ ~ rt~as.~c ~saz~~rr~ s~ x~t~rc~~ats ~ltsl2~ooe ~ ~~,ac~ ~~a.ao .oo
423&Q 3.ti4;d~408 G'KiliSE&YATZYB [1RTVE S3lST'E?t 1tSL~EAH~ILEt3 i125/2Q09 XES 356.42I 356.6A .DO
9238A 3/1~II3E406 LYYfYIE S2AT"I~Y £~tPAIiY ~C3LSp iI1.5}2408 Y88 173,12 173.41 .00
42362 3f1{12affiB CQlJR'fYliitD 1t7tRRifTT1' HECObiCSLBD 4/15/2~D09 YE$ 415.25 915.25 .40
~2383 371~/ZOftB CRZMTAIAF. I~FORMK:TION SE~{Y It8C412iCIS,Bd'! 4/1S/2i748 Y£$ Z9,~li} 2~.dD .b1f
9238f 3114/200$ Ct7fi8 R~NCI:LS,U i/7S/2041$ YS3 1,1i}C.#0 i,406.QD ,Gti
92395 lllA12068 DAdLY JOUADTAL OF ~ZtC£ R~C,Y~Nf3L8D lI15/2D£38 Yffi8 184.~A 1$Q.00 _ii0
4z3&6 3/1i12~o8 IB~TsTAV'ZSIt~~ L'Cl10lCf~tITGTaONB BSt~}AFCZZSD 9J3SfaQ#39 x8S 2'35.BE 2sS.88 .pt1
92387 3I1sf2008 U7~VZ~ RVTSJ PA8T5 &S~OHC'Ii~EP ili5I2~08 lES 132.63 132.b3 .GO
923$8 3/2i/304& DtJ3,1:7kI{ T&S~~ 5'T'OR8 TT~FC gRCOA1CI3.Ei3 tJ15,~204i8 YEL'S SO.~kt4 5Q.Ofl _00
92389 3f1!/27108 -P NORTRMBST 27P~ R$CL721CIL~R 3f1S/?~Q8 XES 480.flt! 48~0~.[Y0 _OQ
92340 311t/2Q68 ERGI.fi i.'RBST RSSfiitZ x8t"~7DTCILb~ 412SI2t708 XES 339-flti 339.06 .t30
92393 3A14}2448 k'.ii~SYSt'REBT t)iFLIEFB SSRV TN A6f.~iC2Y.ED G1:.~f~008 YES 168-?3~ 3b8~OG .i38
92392 3di4/~~]Q8 &SSCf9 SStSSQtSPTZOIDJ SERV 8$CY~QCYbED idlSl24€38 XES 8,q0 B.GG .OQ
32393 31~{~200~ ~'Y'~..R~Dt€ZN L1?[SPABY RECY}~iCTLED ~fi5/3Ci08 YES 5H1.35 58i_39 .D4
9239+t 3l1iJ2408 ESTA~AEUI {ili, LXlliP),HY ABt,'t'kKCYL80 </2S/2DtR8 YE5 SiB.lia 548.10 .00
3Z75S 3J's4/3d308 ITA3T8$IAL CCJMPA~tY RS{Y3NCSLSit 4/I51~2S34~ Y~5 3b.65 36,86 .~Dld
92~96 31~i1~~~8 #CS G~UP 22IC RHCQt2CZL8ID ~4~3~d2Ct88 YBS 2.I~42.SG 2,3~2,54 .Op
92397 3f14/2a08 FEDEitAL EXPRSSS CtSRP RECYS?iCYLi{D ffiIiSf26t38 Y85 139.0T 139.~T"7 .4f0
32398 311i~2008 P8Y'S ZC3 R$C4HCYLSD ~JI5I29tl8 Y£S 34D.60 34t1,40 .04
9235F 3J1+1J2006 ~a.W. }1F~RI~IAR& CENTLtt REC£ilICZI.SYD 413S,~2tit3~ X~S;S 4Z3.33 42~.33 .40
92iff~3 3/Ii1~OtiB t'+ALS R$COltCTLEt7 dt151~43ti8 "YH~ 151.23 I51.23 ,OLt
97~tF1 3l14/Z048 Cil4LI:`5 2.1iC 1R8CQNC3:L6D 4IiSf20P~8 ~E:S 1i.16 14.2$ .D(S
23
ii+iG.+i#i;SC1F i.I
l+~Pi L. i~ Y m' E~ W L: C LI F! u R.l FAi.iE '~w
J,~~~ ~ (
lrl~f ~~ ~~'~S~
rraas 1z :ao:sa ~~~x a~czsz~z vs~r
tiit~CK it ufB".'Y; BATS PAYEE bfANfi ~fiA`tUS 5T7~'f'iT3 IXATB U'?BATEt~ ~£5~i.8C2C A!f{~~T.&tT REC*3HCSLSD ]~MT i~7PFER~~J'L;.:6
~,5~2StJ< :~~3~d1<1~0~3nGARETHrST81+E2~TSzFUBLE88YNG m~R6:,.'"U?iCI.LEDg •=gQ~{4(25f26t18{ ~YES•~•< •~«m.••~293r10•Q ¢~s=•>•.•5•293~YGR=~.< ......:~......:.~a.
33iv3 3,ftf/1G88 ~'6'LL' GY~TSTR~fiDCR'TAN R7&COH~IL$A 4JISj24@38 YES 3,~03~~6 3.~T03.~6 .Q6
+I24i54 3!Ad(20C78 ~LOA71L ~(?17IP}[S?YT C'(~ Z:Sr'C R&CY]q~7CIL~ 4f25f3t308 Y8S IS0,48 2~(}.38 .tfQ
42405 311~1204& G&OtIB hSA~'3C8~t2Z8 ~GS ?FtC R6CQtBCZ~~ 4/1512~308 Y~S~ 26,i2?.19 2E~.iIT.19 .06
924u7 3114f2608 ii81tt+6YT' PACKARD CCxF[E+ASt;I' RSL.S~tC~.AL.~S7 ~a'1S1'20~9fl YES 2.439.6fk 2,?39.Oii .DD
::ii08 31Y+t1?QU8 HiR3TT~!lA1~i BM1'EitPRISES ~BGflkCILPJT 4115/~E3~8 YES 388.00 388.06 _t!0
923:;~ 3t2d17a38 HXDRO•TSliP lfBC~1ANIC1tL Z~tC R~SCOliC'YS,BU ~115/7t108 YES b~5~6~6 635.0t7 _~D
~~4.13 3dS~4/Zfii49d HY~IIR.iSS~?R'f8 I)I'VS Ait~ TRA'V R8G"atIC~ZLSt~ iI15f~~1~8 YES 10'3.t1'CS .Pa5.1}0 <Cf~
9T4T1 3f1413~08 Z,C.!l.A. RSCDliC~II.~LF i/15/2008 YES 276.Ofi 2?b.t}p ,Q/3
9241Z 3f1A/20F38 I~SUiSb'TRIAL M~Lf1iI1~ING 6 E°A R~CO~@CIL6D #115/20C#8 Y85 254.dp 260.tT6 .04
~2413 3d24f20tf$ Zd2i1[TSTStY112, It$LE7I1H; fit!?pLY 8~t~t3CILffi9 4Ji5J~608 YfiS i3£.24 136.3i .Qtt
~262i 3/1412Qii8 Z2ft3Rx1[ LYBRAR°t &ERYICE~ tT$CQ~i-GILSC i/15I2Dii8 YES 3.524.23~. 3.614.2t .Ot}
4?4Ila 3%1#d2088 2N1'SR2i7-TIOWLL HfSFAi!P3C AiE R8CO1~CI2.&45 4/35dZOD8 Y8S 2t9.D0 2~49.~t1 _40
sza~s al~adzaoe xxzt, :RSSSOC t*o~e esraa~~ ~ R~c~resz.~ ~laslaaos x~s sa.aa so.oo .o~s
~3aa~ 3iz~t~a~a~e z5t~t~rrac~ls ce'~tsu~r~~G s~e.c rt~oarc;z,~ +IiSl2o~e x~s 2s~r.ao zso.ao .oa
+324.YB 3~`11120D8 J. 1`$JIYBR L~QNPANY SEEG~ONCILED 4/15/2008 Y8S A.i31.7S 1.d37.?5 .if~
92iY3 3i1qd20U& JAQC RAiiLZY+H38 R~.YS6iC2LSD ~/15/2Eid8 Y&S 195.1CY i95.iA .CO
92i2€t 3J1a12a~D8 JAV2~ ROlIBRO RBL'~liC3L8D 4f35P200& Y~5 1.I3~.SD 1,A39.5# .flfl
~aa2a 3~I~f2496 JL3BAt PI3.llPIR2i nttar~x c~,~a s~ei~ a/1512008 yrss ~s.~n as.t-o .ar~
923~~ 3f14J7606 RATHT IIRRSSR RSCQNCILfiZb +3J15l260~8 YES 3t,.45 34.45 .£ID
33II23 3J14/2Ufl8 KSSf CSt881UY`EEy#+3 RS~yNGZLS[3 4/1S~/ZOQS Y6S 26.52 24.52 ..OtS
~242A 3f14f~408 !CJ?i PROQRAM ~ CO~tS~UUCTZG itBCY~NGZi.BIs ~4J15I2Q08 YBS 49?.ii i92.i1 ,flG
92425 3jit/2tifl8 R':QHD & SEA17Y R8Ca~1~3L~U 4/15I2p06 YS$~ 1Q0~40 Tn0.00 .00
92425 3J1.4J20Q6 S.4[. BLF3LDYI3G S#TPPi,TES tt&G~LFBiG2L~EU QJ15/26D8 YEs~' iil~.5.99 I#5.98 .ti0
92i~7 3f1af2aQ8 L&AGUS r3F D&Et~iN CITiES R$CQ~tCILB~i t/1SI2LffP8 Y~S 70.OD 7~.b0 .Od/
924~~ 7~14,f20~8 LAYlCC7~l I?EP~L~'F C~'1 RBCC7NC2:LE'4 illSj2~3tl9 YE~"s li.'~9 14.8~9 .S~fl
~~229 3/lid~2iY08 Ir&S SCFit1-8 SIR.B G~M~'8~R REOO~iTCI.[.Yd} 4f1~/Z13II8 Y~3 f59_&2 454_8] .flfl
9243d 311iIxt1Q8 !S & K li~JS'O 1!R&CK2~ ISC R12CSCfl37CIL8iY 4/15/20t1B YB.a 2i5.00 2t5.00 .#0
9243d 3f1~/2008 WSk ~CZBltti`B bP 2OS['T.GAiHP~ R~iCiLBD 4I151~OQ8 Y8S 251.Ofl 251.06 .4D
9243a 3api<d~t308 MARiC~D~ COWTTY 2tOUSS:HG~ RESf.~iCIL89 i#i~l`2008~ YYa$ 25.Q9 ~5.00 _tSi1
~2i35 3f1i.120Q8 MIWRSK7ILL C#V~NDSSH CYARP 'RHCdNCZI~ED Af25f2048 Y83 1b4.51 I64.51 ..00
92936 j}14f2J0$ MSS3! L71iB8 S~i£ RECEId2~IA~t} 9/1Sl.~~OD8 Y'~~ I'23.ttt 213_4'f~ .#0
4263? 3{lif2a48 l~SR S'iJ[~RLY lt.i&C.Ca9CZLE4 4/15f~008~~ X'SS iT5.3i 1T5.1! ,Gfl~
42438 3fIi~2008~ MID-IFZLt.RMST3'~~ UT~LLFTY CtY R:~tJC2.LE~, i1i.S/~2008 YES 53-d~~0 52_08 .GQ.
42~39 ld2if~008 1~t.A,LLA ~tIGl7ZU~iS RSC~9[ZLBm ~(2Sf2Q48 X8S 149,70 3d4=?D .Op
9244~:I 3/I~f2D~48 2~Pt}5? Z#C ~ R8G£MTCZLB'[Y +4/3.5/2068~ YES 3~.7~.8~8~ 3~"T.88 .t14
924#3 31~1#1~848 N~'T 74SSE?S CY}RPURASY43nT RBdCK7H~2L$E1 41~i5d2009~: Y8~ 42fl..00 41ti_0~ ..60
42i~3 3f14f~008 ~ISM iR}RLU SY878lt3 itBCQNCZ7.HI7 t~'15f2DU8 YS5 9lS.~CrO 4A5_#0 .t3~6
52#i4 3¢It/ZffpB #BN~2t~3Y3 RSC'f3tf~2i.8t) 3/15/2008 YES E73~02 A13.D1 ~.O~tY
92#~5 3I2412A06 3iS7CTEL CCkfiitAtICATIChAi& RS~CCYitCiL817 lli5j2A08 Y85 2,292.16 2.292.18 .t30
924~&6 3~~4d.24~08 NC1fARCQ ~f}tiSTA23Cl'I4~T INC R8~043£I3.~'D t/15/2Q48 YES 1GO..CtD 308_Qt~ ,O(~~
929~8 3,+54)20a6 3~EtTH CLSASI`I SL&~8~~ ~? 8~L~3tcTLECr aJ~5/30a8 YES 530,58 514.58 .U9
92Am9 3rrS3/2a:ee Xf3RTEiSTR& €~tSMICitL I33~ R$~t~IB..~} 4I15I2009 XES 897.65 897,85 ,OD
92SSi~ 3i~.41700~i l7t1FtR'41iB~B' 18AT't3RAL.~7l5 8$CY}MCIL$A ill5/2Q08 YS3 2~.3i5,55 d3.~.~i5.6S .04
52:~51 311R/20Si8 tkACP it$CXk~SC2L~l} #/15{20#8 Y8, 1?5.fld} 175.~1Q _DA
92t52 3JYld26Q8 UJ4CP RI3~X11wfCZLE;S 3/15/Z006 YES 16D.D0 YOII.4Q ,GO
424~53 #/1id20Q8 t~ot7$ ~C:AL.L C~FCEPTB~ T3.iC .R~TLED ~f3S/2A08 Y£3 192.55 1.92.15 .fl0
9~454 3~+Itf2fiQ8 QR ~8P2' OF A1~!12~iSTIZA~'YYE RSG~~SIF~ 4fI51~~Q6 Y£S Z,96T.9i 1.95Y.~A .fl0
92ASS 3/14j2t}CB 4&. ~SPT 4P MOTO% VE7d3CEE,,E RBCCkSC2LF1& 4J35f206$ YS'S 33.d}Q 3.3•OC .06
52~i58 3J2iI26fi8 CtR R}TL'~~D.?1Cqt L PAHKS ASS R8£1~d~GZLBD 4/ISf2008 Y~ 4~0.4t4 i?4.GQ .00
9245? 3C2.3/2~OF78 t1R~303T CI'tY TRAV~L i'!!tC ~RECYtNCTI,BLf BJ35j204$ YS$ 231.4tII 331.U~~ .Udf
9~~iS8 3II4j`2Q08 Q~Sti02t ~I1'Y TYtAV&L LNC RECSk~i~IL~ 4f15f2U48 YE3 395.t34 395.OC .flD
9295~~ 3/1.4f30Q8 0~~7 SAQ :RSS~I#TItlT7 $E~3N~~CY°LED 4f15/2048 YE3 P75.310 3.7S.d~6 .0~
24
PRGfi 3
K~~.:~u>:+iS:tk.ti 'i,IVE: i. :; Y ~,= roi U u~ B~.~ R. 4~. APt}460
:7A:E tl~'i&f`~9$
3' ZlfE i 2_ 4 t" ~ S i ~}imi:X 1?SGF $'SETc YHfifYi'
~~i~L.K ^ CH~'C:k: 4ATfi F'+1YEE 11AIdE 5'Tr"~'fUS 5TR3iP5 1'S~T'E i7P~A'F"E~
~~ ':~3~TnR isMt."t3N2
~~
~~~~~~
y REL`JSdC2T=ED AMT~
~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~ DFFFERE9iCS
~
~~••~~,.~..:,~x
52a6s~g 3i141^<6r18~bSf3~CCa~PBSTql4i7MT~~CO17R5£q~~~~ ~RBCCI¢CSL~~.~ S~••4d15j2fr48~ YB~~~ Y98~50
. k~t9~5d ~~
~2251 31b412046 C~~ZEK'iT~F., TR1StI2Ff'~ CO FlIC' RBLYi3'ECZL~S 4J1512Q08 Y8S 88_+32 82.9Y .00
42i62 3J1<126ff6 flltYt31it7 SEiS7fiS P~DI.fiTDN R.B~~ILTaD ~i/Y5120sJ8 YES 31~.26 311.2t} _OU
92~63 31'T4P2098 P'kCT?ZC EfASITAT 5ERW2C&.~ R8~?F~ZI~E7.1 4115{~gff~ YE5 2.19n.i7 2,19@.a? .4~P
~3<aei 3/1~Lr'TU08 P+RCTFIC~ OFFZC£ A~1'i1t?iaN R$CCSHCfLED 9r`19/'2008 Y8S 38,Q2 zg.A2 -aa
9245`s 1lk4120Qb PACIFIC T&17~X COLQ&3 INC RECO22~SLP.i) 911512~fl8 YES &,552.OQ 6.562.it0 .#4
:3?4Fs6 3ili/~Ct48 PBPSF-L^OLA C'LklBAIiY kECUH+t.ZI.6D d/25%~~~~8 Y&S 361.25 3G1...25 -00
52YG^, 3/2i12046 P'SS'ltQ~RR9 3t8CY3.bFCTLBY7 ~/i9~j2QiT~ Y~S 9wb3~.43 9.b35_47. _Ott
92a15& 3~i3.A12008 P-1CW11 CX3liT1)II7F3N'.a SEAUCATI£T R.BC~~ILf~7 #,1I5~J2409 YSS 300.00 3f36.AQ .UO
921~9 3114/Z6Q$ P{?R'f3JWD 4"4N[PRLB$QR R$~lFG'II«b39 if19/1008 YE~ iZI.90 211.90 .0{i
9341p 3j1413Ct48 P~t1&Ti.Tittti GEZiBRXL ELSCrRSC it8C0~iC2L8D 4I75I2408 Y£S 55.420.76 65.920.76 .OII
~B~k71 3e'i4/2IIG8 I+ClR'ZI+14N!? 97iP~6R i SiT~PLY 3tffiCCt~i~'ILBD ~f35/2d~f?8 YE,S YtI.Gi k#1.YSi .00
42a.?2 tdt/2D#$ ?[SBLIC WQRIGS SiJFF'LY SS:C
3 R&C'AtiCILHD 1/25~ZQ4b6 YE~ ?0.00 7Q.00 .6II
924?3 .
311Ar'2Q~9 (?NSST R$C'ClIfTCZI.~7 dlISf24t38 Y~S i21.7$ i~I.78 .#0
sz~aa~c ata<12aoa ~res3' xar~xcx~ alxs/zo€~s Yes ~.s~r~.sa ~.s~a.az .oo
9~4'?5 3/]tf2t388 RAIYIX ~4RF{33Rlri2"2t3N 3tSL`~tCii.~ED dJ2312fl08 YE~ 2Dd.DA 2fl+f.DII .40
9Z4~6 3d3i12Q68 RA2iiw.LG G i.~87tlt ILt~C R.~~'I'I:8T~ iJ151+~~08 YSS 1.076.~J~9 1.07S.OEl .91!
9247a }Jl;l20ti8 RBt'(}RDSD BGOKS ZbtC BBCbNCIL.ED 4J15I2t348 YES 19i.D4 24t.D0 .~1a
92478 3~14j24Q8 &CSGSAS fdfiC~idii$RX L~tPA1~tY R~'~iCiLBtF APISf26d8 YE5 2,<?1.2fi 2,i~2.26 .00
92374 713t~2dC1H 3.0.5. L#7CR 38RVZCE RSLI~PCYi.I£C3 alES/20t~8 Y8S 335~06 335_4d .00
9248{3 3114d24~Od CRYS^!AG A10D SISRRA SPRIAYG H&~tCYLBt? 4f25j20D8 YES~ 380.9i 260.3I .{SO
92~48Y 3}~14/2fi0$ SiC~7 1[ORICS~ OF UR~1 RECt:tt~ZF.E4 ~1f1S/+TCi{!B XE& i2.00 12.t7e .Op
92482 3/14~ZII08 SH,AP-L~9~ 'TOC7I:5~ 1t8CY)iiCYL8i3 #f15I+~008 Y&S 7.98II~55 7.480.55~~ -Q6
92483 3114/2Cif8 S~lI1'RAL G'4?RPO~RAT3~q.ti R~CYLBD t/15J20fl8 YfiS I1Q.00 2YD.04 .0f3
9248i 3114I2008 SPRIli1" HS"{:YJliCIL6~ Af25/2+JU8 YES S~Y.79 SD.79 .Oit
92485 3r'34,t20G8 STAMP-~l+CT~:i~~.C~l TtB~..'GYiCELE'S? 4115/2fl08 YES 28.t}0 28.6Q .QO
4F48G 3f1.aJ~~O$ STA'Y8'a'~l7W°JOi7R1~tAL (D$iiSP,&F RBC~7?tC~dS.SY) ~i125J2At18 Y$5 :lb?_8# ~ 15?>{+t .Ott
926.fi7 .3f14/24~fl T6X SYST94S LIIC AfiCOIiCI.LHi} #fI5j2DD8 1fE8 2.94#.OD 2,9~t4,~{t .04
92488 3JI3f7008 ~86TJ1N8RICX I.XBaStAR+OAi&.~'i k8£C~ICYLSS) •(15I24418 Y89 25°7~7i 257.?} .Od
92d$4 3/14/2€f68 G1NI'YBRSYTY L>F 03R8G0~7 Rfi~CILBC ili5/2#08 YE3~ SO.OLr 54,t30 :fit}
92496 ~3iAt12tip8 Cfi37- ll(7~BILT'TY 9lIASLESS TJ+FC A8C4fiCILB~ 4/SSJ200H YES 5`7.d15 5~.#~ .Oa~
92i41 3/i~/2Qfl8 V11I,2.EY PlkCZFSC Fi~t3RAL AB~~ILSt? #IISII~~B 7t8S 114,80 119.Eit8 .06
92~k92 3~/21~/ZODB Vt[}I.t6lTSSR 90FR'YI71R& 6ECOi}~IL&L't 4/15I2SY08 YSS 254.D0 250~...4Q ,~60
92~93 3IIi,tZ40$ VP 04qi34J7+TTDSCi L?7C iiBi.'1~ICIdySd3 4f15~'20D8 YES 2R.OQO.OLY 24.04C.00 -0~
929$4 311i12DG8 VNR ~TIi7d111L YNC R~Cti~ILEG? ~1d15}2Q4H 3tfi8 3B5.Q9 35Er.Et9 .t#0
92#95 311+ij340~ ii L H pRCIFIC CC9~RP R8t'~7FiC22~ 411512d1a8 Y€S 723=91 ?82.41 .QC
9293& 3lial2008 wt78RSH8a I~1C R~~UiiCSi.ES? atiSf~06fl YSS 288.D~R 268_O6 .94s
33497 3/IA,NZflti8 Y8N CC)1~TITY AC~SS TY ? &~CIt,~E33 4I15/2{YOB Y83 2.S6Q.25 3.5&A.2S .Q0
92t98 3Il0.JZfl#7& NP~HRtd C8AM8B8 QY C~RCS R8CQ1tCYL3BD +t/15J20D8 Y~S IO.Ot~ T0.00 -Q4
92499 3IItjZ4i38 1i~1SLL 8 ANS'PtFTZ H~CON~3t,kiTt 9J15~2406 YES 195,Q0 I9S.~i0 .@0
9TS01~ 3J14J2C34B Wfi3~ .DIST.RS9l7S`~IOH ZATC ffECCMiCFL$.L1 #J15J2Q08 Y~ 203~.2.Lt 20~3.I0 .GC3
9Z50I 3f29f2C1~$ i~tE3'P PAYFI$iT C~T'fBR R8i'.OD~C2I.£D 4tr15j2408 Y$S 3$2.#~ 36i.4.~s -{70
92502 3J14/2afl@ ii&57 8AYlt6N'7" CFS~FIER RBC~id~TLEZ4 9115/20DH Y6~ 165~Oft k66.00 .OQ
925153 3~1.dJ2D08 M83TRRl+i t&'1'IQ3~I i?.TNA3~TCIR% 8 &~A1CS[.8TY 8./35I24SU6 Y~SS 56.~0 50~.490 .d0
925~1 3/I4J2Q4$ i~PAVB BRE)ADBANY3 R~dCIL~BS} tJ25/2408 YES 327.23 33'8,2~ .~0
~2sos~ ~Jxt~zoos rox~ss~nr x~~r~ c~°~st ~tstbsrcxa.~ ~A~sd~mus ~rss ss~.so 2e~.~Q .on
935G6 3f~#I200~ X8R4X C'DR.PS7RATTC)ti R8~2dCiT.EI! '4.315/~~08 YES 947..86 a07~.86 .40
92567 3t$412ti6B YE3 CeRAEEtICS $~CXX+tCSI.ESP ~ff1S/2848 Y'ES 3.S~i2.DLk 3,5~~.~~ -~~
925a8 3,FI#I,20G~ Y&S G~AP~IGfi &HC4NGZL~ 41Y5~2~09 YE8 583.4£~ 38?.4D .00
~~~sc,s ~I~~t~r~~s roraa.~.~ ~~~ass saccsxe~~ atisd~ooa x~s esa.aa ssa.«fl _s~~
425IiI 3/31j20D8 8C.'ATT 3TitJ~IIli &SCCINCZLELi 4115f24i08 XBS 150.60 1~fl.40 .00
925i2 3I33/ZOOH VItLL&7 MIAILZ2k; S1~+JiCB I2a 3YSCYkT~ZLB~ 4JI§J~Q08 YSS 662.89 b52.85 .44
92523 3J21j24Td8 AL$lCI# ~RaiALY'~TC'RL 5.A9~ t:3iC 88C~7C24SU ~./15l2fif08 Y6S 4.07~.50 9,S!'I3.50 -4Q
25
..3t_~F ~~. -. - C: T Y v P ti O-w~ ~ E `-J s2 1; FRGE d
... _. ~A f ? . '~ 8
AF0 3 6 Ck
`Sit~IE i2: 4a7:~+i ~}38CX ft.Ea,:,IST'SR. il$.SOT
C}i:E.i'_X. 1F
D=
• i:~ECA AA?E PAYF:& Bd~AM'£
y STATSfS S;AtL36 RF~Y'n °v'PL!ATBt~. G'Ft~tiC-[ ~MCSIFti: C2$CfRNCIi.zZ3 ~ L`IFP'P.RH+iCE~
5*SI+F a3121I20D8~+91..L AwttsLiC."A!l~C:ANGIF',KS;IAi:(:T x.oYiBL"C'~Y1C3L~"iD^ ..~~m~u-0.fl5ts^0~f3$g Y~~ ~.~a A.¢~II~..':•68.bz~ti•• ~•••.~••.•s~6866~b:~.. ...::.asas.Q.::~~~.
'~<~1~~ 3f23.(20~B !~X£ftIC3tX FZ&8 FROTEC?F~A R.La.'1'NiC3L8A ~3~75t30Ci8 x~5 '20,46 24.4~6 .OD
925i5 3f21/ZCd4~ 1UIERIt'A3i 2,I1lRARY ASSt}~ REL'SaNCYL$I? 4135J2#7DB YES 37.5Q 47.5{1 .II{3
92537 3f23f26Ck8 1~}E8R2Cy115 - SJlL~4 RE~CGA~Zt.£k~ 4A3SI2fr06 4~5 6~0~~5 66D.55 .ff0
4::=: ~~.8 3,~~1.~20~~6 AlfARET~ SM:T'd'Fi ~EC~YICZ1.~ afi8/~~CB YE8 JS.G'~ 3~5.0~3 _4tS
9~S1y B~'21f~0438 ARAISi-RK tINIf~3RA£ SSRYIiE '2 1tEC1~i7fiIL£~r 41;~f20378 YE$ 289,35 249.36 _04
~<3~?;: 3f21.p'ZQflB ASAP S4P'FNIiR.E REtYNiCFL£;3 iJ~15/24~@ YES 1~1,327.52 10.3i7.62 .dSfi
9252F 3t21./2t}Q8. ]1SSOCI:~iTBi7 ST3S.INfiSS SYS'I8 RECO~i~S2,8~~ 4i?.SfZq08 'tES I2d..16 17~$..l.d .CiD
7~5~2~ 3~2312F3i38 HR~X38-A.-1~SS~33' RSCtI41~'ILBfI ir~ISIZflQB YES 9.4D 9.3~ .4~
9Y52i 3121J2008 BaSIC ~IRS PR.C7TECTtP1!k it~C &BC7~CIL~ 9d1~12008 ~.'SS 395~6Q 395.00 .40
925z5 312I12068 BL3~SEITT'537115. tT~S~FQitYI G~~iT itBGtlliCILEII 4~'1SJ3008 YE5 H6,13 85.33 =Ra3
~25~u 31~i13~~8 HMZ B71CKFi.t~ M7t2tNG~N2 ~S A~~'ii:'f~NCii~:D a¢ISy`~{?0~ YSS 75¢~9Lt 75D.t30 .~70
4252z 3i2212QG8 HOdtiE~ PBRRY SLSCfHI~ iDt~ RFCOl7CIt~SD a11512D08 Y'ES 32b~3t 3z6.3i .00
42528 3121/2008 8&SM1tS YfOMB SBCURY7Y RECt11~CILffi7 tlI15'I2~08 Y~~ 32~49 32.99 .00
42539 3/21/ZOflB 8MI RHC'bbTCILED #I1512008 YS~ 203.&4 2Et3.69 .00
92530 3/Z1f2009 G?ZTQL 2't}YO?Ss RBCp~iCIL84 4/i5,P2D08 Y88 QG.95 Q1.35 .06
32532 3/31jtOU& C'345G~tD8 FQ~OLS RHGY~tCILBF3 dJ15,~2'008 YSs d3.bS t3.65 .6t~
J2533 31Z11200f1 C~f fi~NJSR?D~+fi'i IlDC RBCX'biCYLBD lf15,~2088 YE$ 2'~i.92 x?#.92 .Q4
92~34 3J321?Q08 i:P~t3'8R Y07.]ftT 'L.ARfifi PBY/iT RS~iC;T,$T3 4/i5/2t~08 YSs f31.0t3 13I.08 .DO
s2536 3l21l2n69 CKE#183C81`!- C~9~Z8itIT]( CQLL RSt~lliCiLBa i/15I2006 YSS 595.20 595.20 .GII
42538 ]J21/200@ L~87dtX} S~T~ RE4'CPI1C'Y~ 412~a12(148 YES 58.54 5$.50 .OU
92539 3J32j2A0a Dt~r sCH~E'T^S RECJD~I~ZLBTJ ijlSt2ti08 X$£ 35.00 35.4U .#0
925i~t3 3I2~/20i38 CSF dbCYR?f[W~ST IDiC R8CQ3tCXLELY G~ISf.2008 Y8S 44D.OA 140.S1D .04
935A1 3f71/TD08 EtNIRO-CLQAY7 ~&3VIP%6NT RSCf37iCIL8YS +ifYS/2A08 Y£'S 6~S.~G7 6~..i.7 .4D
92S<s 3J21,~26fl~ FRRD~CI$ CEF3Tfi~€1QD 32ECtAt1CTL~} 4/15/~~808 it8a~ ~A_CIO 30.00 ,Oa
+325~k4 3121J.~f18& Ca1-L8~ 128C(ktQCIL6It •I=5/2006 XLS 2.263.70 I.,2fi3.30 .0~0
92545 3/22/2008 tr`#tJ12b~iER iNC RSGYkI~TLffiS 4115120D8 YP,~S 53.29 !33.~9 ..DD
32546 3~22/~4R& It.D. FOIiT.83t~Ci~ SdTC RB'L~ICILBD illS/2tl06 YBS 3.d~96.82 3.Q46.67 .0~0
425t7 3121/2808 kAC1t G~(Ii'lIL CQ RSiGYki~2LED i115/ZOt18 YES F,575,2~ 1.b75.20 .00
92546 3122f2408 HAi:RIA1C3'lEN7~.S~E'stlBi`AI7~4. Y3..i 88Ct'y~tCI:LBD 4125/2Dfl8 Y1BS 483-9~ iH2.36 .00
92~~9 3f~1I2GII8 f#BRTZ CC33tPD&R?Tt~3i SSGYYY~CILEtt ~i125j2CPG8 YES 52.~,9 52.~69 .06
9255SY 3/22/2008 I~GFFI^'IiTi1T, &INtT k TiAC~7BA LZ~ $ECS3t~tGILSD ~/I5~28~k9 Y8S 5~6.i}0 S7b.tii3 _q6
92551 3d2k~(7~Oi#B ZNGA]4M LI.B3Git'X'~ &$Si:YT~KS Af~C?L~iCIL~$1 #/1.5/a'OQ8 Y&S ~3.91 73~.32 .D~O
92553 3J2312~lQ8 FS17L~STTi~S Q~iSt7LTiNG L.LC RBi~ltCiLBi~ 4J35/2Q418 YE3 4Db.25 405.35 .Odi
92553 3j22r209f6 .T. 1'HAX~ ~EP11NY R8CYP27CZLED 4/1~d2008 3[SS 3,OD~.35 I,Q09.25 .6ti
9235A 3j21d3048 SSHRY dJiNB.~~ Rl3CCtAiCi'S.8t7 4/15J206~ Yfs3 6.DiS 6.Oi} .GO
42555 3I~II2DCF~ .TET ~3IlFG SIAC 1t8~17ii~ILBti 4I~5(?408 7~S 3,577.R6 F.~67?.75 .iT{i
9255? 3/3:tI2008 h&Y 8(?u~PiL8f7T PIt1AtF~S RSCt~SLB~ 6/ia/Z4q# Y'£S I.?i.6D 134.b0 .QQ
92558 312Y/2t7C38 I.AB SAi+83°Y St3PPLY k~tCIL813 41i5f2~~6 Y85 225:+It~ 225.96 .DO
92559 3I2I:`70Q6 I.ANGS7AG$ isIflls S8R3rIC8S RELY3AEC2LSY7 6~75512008 YSS ~42.63 A2.63 ,Q0
3~S5ti 312I/2006 IS & Di AtPSY3 itR~C7C2liG INC R8NlICILES} ~&!I5/2008 YBS £2.L7U 62.~343 •~Lk
92Sb2 3}22{2068 !#ARS&-i~BSlt~7€-R7lL8 CQ R~QNCIL~tr f125f2SldB YES }i5.85 1I5:$5 .tP4
9,T56~ 3I21I2468 lCFfl~ Y1lLLBY YOY9TT'H $AkL RSS 326C'4litCiLE~~ A/IS;j2Q08 YHS 2.46b.3S4 2,+k6fi.0II .tbC9
42~56a 3/?If20U8 M!d-tIQtTH HtIS.LZliG-1tDAM5 biISKX~CY~LBA #fI5~2Q08 YSS 32.00 32.OG .ffII
92S&6 3/2IIZQ08 1tS2 Gk4d3P FH~ 5t8~OKCTL~ #}25fZtJSPB Ys~S dDt~.i7W +IDD.{}0 .Dt2
32~68 3123/2008 ~£JEIEEL C*~t@dtAtFCli3`IC~1$ RHC~t~~3~+ AjZSjF~}D8 YES I,739.dT9 1.714.09 .OtF
~2§fi3 3/a1/26t7~8 DtORTlINS iR G80TECH I3FC kSEX3~CTLfi'!3 9J2~I2008 YE5 281.G0 281.t?D .!QO
9257i 3/~i/~Ot7S {SFFIi'S T38FOT HHL'C3HCILEL3 d115f3408 YHa 3bi.93 3Si_93 =0{!
9257~ 3121d2008 QR6aC'sL7N 7X8FT OY Jt3STYCS FFSG'D3iCEY~$SS ~11 2 512 008 Y&S 19~.C~0 145.R4 .00
9257b 3/23/2008 OTS 1iY3t8 i: SNSUIJITIU~t YN~ R8C~IST~I.L€U 4115f2{FOS 1f~$ 45?.I8 453,2$ .Ai}
9257? 3(23j3~68 PE'2'ROCA~D REf^ItRCIIiEI3 $,~1S,;t233~8 "YE$ 5~3A$.b3 '"s,328.53 .00
83578 3lZij20¢8 Pt~P"1"L7il~FD 8NC3ZDt8HRI2%'i Z}iC RS~TC2LED 4115/2iS68 X~f.~ 2.p26.5Q 2.02fi.5A .IIft
9~257~9 3/21j2tl68 ?C6RTLAHIS~ ti~iE'FdA.L $LBCFRIC R&CC3NCILh~ 4I15d24~8 YS$ 1,5pQ.AfS 3,SD0~~.0~0 .Ot3
26
~
.,~,;..)i~i;~ac.N i.~FV'fi C I T Y ~ F Gl v O L~ 5 :i fY N PAG& S
a.~ ;i ~a1c~ axo{s~
TIME i2~ i~i;Sa ~HH~CK RE~:S'£'8~2 VHEOT
'"7Ers; M t~T.E~lf ErATE PAYBS AT!#!fE STA3'US S`TRTiJS i?AT8 UPDkT&iT CHE-C'3C APKDUNT
•
• RHG~7NCILEP leMS
>~•~
•:••~g~g~:• i~ZFFSRSISCE
:
~~~••<.a:.r:
9f58C1• y~3122,i20J~8~KAM &TESS.GY`l~2tl~.'•~•~~~iz9~~ ~~&E~CL34CIi,ED,~ ~..Q~:~4r~151~2~~$~ ~YfiS•~~• ~~~~~
~
50~3Ci•• 54~30 ~~
9i5A3 3/2Y}2009 RY1ll7 fF81tC0 CO REC.YJNCSL~i7' i/1SJ~OQB YES 15.46 25.46 .QO
~:~~ea ~'2~IxoQe 5nxt~sxs~ ~~+F~°rr snrnP:.r c ~~c~rm alssfzaoa xss ~86-s~ ~a~.s~ .00
9'2593 3132/2°~fi8 CRYS?]LL RND SFETxRA SPitZTi~ R'&CpD1CTt,EID i125/10116 Y85 1?8.38 I'7$-3& .d0
~~2s8~Y 3.'21/2a0~8 &ILKS £.`t~i'llL7FT~T.CATldN5 1TFC &ECO?2CILE17 4/~15/200~ YES ~29.10 a~s.ia .oo
42565 Jr'21J26~d SILYSRP'L3ET SYSTEMS 3t8C0l+TCILE83 4/15/200f7 YE3 3.4tQ.D4 3.41Q.06 .00
9~58& 3x'2if2~Q8 8TA1'SSIiAti-Jtk£,tR2t~lL lPEYPSPRP RECONCSL~ i125/26~8 YES bB-4£? S2~4Q ~Ot?
9.Y589 3/21j2008 ?-NffBZt+Ta~. ~ itECODI~Si.&D 4I~SSI2408 Y'ZS i49-4S 2{9.55 .OQ
5~Stig 3i~1/2008 TER83L UTILZTZES TPiC RE~f+i~~'ILE75 4/15f2II68 Y$S 3b.?2. 36.72. .00~
~zs~1 sl'z:l~ooa 2xa~nz~ €~'trz~r~ ~~C xr.~Cns~cxz'~ •Jt5J~asrs ~es ~~€>.~s ss€a.~~ _o~
s~as~ ~ta~/zoas ~c~s~-s avue~v r. eu a~ac xaco~rca~ets ~t~stzo4a xas ~~e.so ~sa.so .ao
~2ss~ ~ta2l~~os u5 ro~~.s. ssavyCS ~scza~ci~ cfa~tav~as x~s 24a_g~ x~,i,oa .au
92594 I/21/20t?8 LlS7ti Mt)HILS3'Y NIRP.I:&SS TF1C RECp~fGFLED +tI75f2~p8 YES ST.63 sa.si .oo
szsss al~a/2aas ~ s a rrociFac cox~ a~csa.~n af~sl2trka ~r~s 4.asu.a~ a,ssa.c~o .am
sass~ 3izzJzooa s+a~.cv enaR-e~as ~c~sxca~.sv alistzvva ~~ z9~.~s ~q~.~a .ao
sass~ ~1221zoos ~asv~ ~arrrcu~arzve ~~~nt a~cc~ucr~ a1}sd~acae ~~s 2e.ss 2e.is .a~
9Z59~ 3/22120t98 tiOC~SRi#8~i SCSSOOS. SYZST 1~3C R8C~3RCZt.HFi iI15/20t}B Y~3 '~<904.06 7,400.iS0 .II~
93b00 3f21f2008 XAN6Z CC~l151'ftt7C1"IfM+i Y~C RE~iCILl~D 41251~fl~38 Y~S 25.4i~ 19.+DQ .60
9.26(~i 3/r112408 YSS C~tJ1PttTCS ii~tC2S~ 9J15j2fl~d8 XHS 4d1.40 ifYi.46 .00
92B02 3/21,C2tl06 C~i'!'RAL ALARN SYS?SMS 'TNC itED~ttC~I.BdS +L/1~/ZitD9 YS3 621,2i 62i_Ii ~QN3
92+605 3/33/2ti4& PET"tY ~ASN RBCYkNCiLBB d115/2009 FES 164.8~ Ib4.81 .~m
92807 3f3i/2iYA8 VltLi,~Y MAILI2iG SLRYI~S TJA ti~N~CTLEp #/1~ij240S YES 978.80 438.80 .CQ
92b26 3J~~~8J~~0{?~8 CASCAIfH~~kSLS R~Ct}4JCTL$~ 3.j25/ZODH~ Y8,':+ 59.U3 5$~.03 .OQ
s~~a7 ~f~a/acoa BRt~xs a~x aa~ x.~~ ~a~rCZ~u ~F25~/za~oe ~~s #oa,~s sv~.a~s .oo
S2bbZ 3f2$,~2~@d~8 ~.L7stTSft$TR2H A1TTD PART~s" irll3 &SCO2tCT~LED 4/TS/3~08 YSS 1?4.Q3 370.+k3 .00
926~71. 7/28~~12009 .7A3PTCE~ LR.AY RF.CY~I.^".ILSP3 9I1.512088 Y8S 9~.65 92.65 ..Q4
4258~ 3/28/202t8 I,~tAt~RK Ft}HD R8C.C7~~CILSQ A/~i5E~808 YSS i~a_59 #8l.-8 .f~~s
92686 3,/~36/2008 LE3~ SCRItTfB TSRE ~C'JEtf1'~'tiR R:~CQAiC~IL£6 4/291~~?08 YES Z.,S~9.I5 5,549~.15 ,Oil
92692 3/26/2~0~ M7lRY T~7 Yt.SCONCZ3+SU i/15/~OGS YE& 94.9# 9i.54 .t10
92?flG ~J2#I2Q08 Qii~7. i~iil~P4~lSN1" C0~IFXNY~ RB~TCI'L8€1 a115J~~Q8 YES 535, 77 S?9.°~2 =Ott
42?13 3/i6J2fle8 FRpC3&J4SS I!!tC R8C17tJCTLL'T3 ili5j20D8 YES B#4.06 949.0#t .4D
sz~~~ 3Faelzoos ~rx ~x~s ascs~t~~r.~ ~lisf2caus xas ~~~.z2 36a.2~ .ao
4213~ 3I3~8/200b~ R[TBIiEtT CiXY.VZlE REC'Q3iC2t,8'J3 if1~.J20ii8 YES 429.64 439.Si .40
32'731 31~38#~1508~ tiX?SRS~ I2IQ S~~C~ZLECt #1i51~~a8 YES 15t~S3 YSR.+53 sDU
42'T33 3/28J2i3D8 It3LL~ilBSTE G9ill8 RA1 CStflSS .&BCC~CILEtT •1Y5/20t18 YS$ 1b5.dQ 265.00 .00
4273T~ 3j38f3.008 MCt0~8'i2RlI PBitTZLTZ~ER REC43LiCSI.~YS i11.5/~200$ YS$ 1,1b~_39 1.256.39 ,.flt7
FtA1~IK R F~~TQfiALo 7f~ L'SIErKS --_ __.,._..__ __.___~. . ____------___...__ ~_ _..__._._._____---
#65,3T2.bi 365,332.61 .GO
R8L?t,'NCZI,ED . . . _ < 24A £9f~t'![3 3G5, a?2.61
NCY1" RECCt`.X~CFS:EU . . . t~'i£CfCS. .QO
vOZD~ . . . . . . . CId$CKS .d0
UPD341'EA - . _ , ~ . ~4? 6dECX5 365.3T1.61
Dt0'Y" UPSi14T~fl . . . . C~ECRS .8~
27
Moodburn Police Dept.
bKrs: a/2z/aooe
T2MS: 8:18:25
ORIy: ORO740500 MPD
DATS US~: OPPBNSS DATB
NONTHLY CRIMINAL OFP@I$SS POR JANUARY TqRU MARCH 2O08
RBSULTS POR ALL OFF~TSSS
CHARGS D63CRIPTION
---------------------------- J~ F~ ~
----------------
AGGit]-VAT~ ASSAULT ------
4 ------
2 - --
3
ANTNAL ORDINJINCSS 4 2 4
~~ 0 0 3
A98AULT 9I!lPLS 15 12 19
ATTSMpTBD MURDBR 0 2 0
BURGLAItY - BII8INSS8 3 1 3
BUR6Ll1ItY - OTHffit 3TRUCTURS 1 1 0
8(AiaLAitY - RSSID~/CS 8 B 2
~1~ ~~'~~ 1 0 0
CITY ORDINANCB 0 1 0
CRIMS DAMACB-NO VANDALI9M OR ARSON 16 20 7
~F~ 0 4 1
NSTODZIIL INTSRPSR~TCS 0 1 0
CUSTODY - DBTOX 0 7 0
CUSTODY - M@ITay 2 1 3
DISORDSRLY CONDUCT 6 5 3
DRIVINf3 IIIiDBR INPLUSNC6 13 I7 1~
DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 12 Z~ ;
DMS/RBVOlCSD-MISDSMSAliOR 1 6 5
BLIIDB 1 1 1
~iBB22L~iffiiT 0 2 0
Pl-IL TO DISPLAY OPBRATORB LIC~iSB 3 1 3
PORCIBLS RAPB 2 0 0
PORpBRY/CO[AITSRPHITING 6 8 1
~v-w - acco[~ir cz,os~ csscx o a o
PRAUD - BY DBCSpTION/P11L3$ PRHT~t88S 2 0 0
PR11UD - CRBDIT CARD/AtTfOMATIC i8LL8R MACHINS 1 3 ]
P871UD - IMP$RSONI-TZON ] 6 2
PUf3ITIVB ARRBgT ppg pNp1'HHR Aa~IC7( 34 33 29
FURNIBHTNO 0 0 2
(i71RHA(iB LITTSRIN6 1 0 1
HIT 11ND RLIDi FBLOMY 1 1 0
HIT AIiD RtAI-MI~8M8ANOR 10 9 11
ILLB(i11I. AL2@i - INS 80LD 1 Z 0
INTIMIDATION /OTHS& CRIMINAL THRBAT 3 2 3
RIDNAP - POR ADDITIONIIL CRIMINAL PUApOgg 1 0 0
MINOR IN P08SSS8ION Z 3 ~
MISCBLL71N8pUS 7 7 5
MOTOR VSHICLB THBPT 6 6
~~~
12
12 4
7
PAOPBRTY - FOIIND I,pgT MI8LAID 6 10 1]
PUBLIC FIBALTH pdp g~pgry ORDINANC88 3 0 1
RHC1CL833 DRIVING 1 2
ROBBBRY - BIlSINSS3
0
1 4
ROBHBRY - CODiV,gTpRg
0
0 0
ROBBBRY - OTNSR
0
0 1
BOBBBRY - g8&VICS STATION
1 1
RIA~IJ-NI-Y
3 0
S 0
5
88X CAIME - CONTRISUTB TO SSX DfiLINQUID~iCy 0 1
3SX CRIlIS - BXPpSB&
1 0
38X CEIM6 - 4WI,g8T (PHYSICAL) 0 0
1 1 1
PAO& 1
PL6860
SCOTTRU
TOTI-I,
9
8
3
41
2
7
]
18
1
1
63
5
1
2
6
14
39
39
12
3
2
7
2
is
a
2
6
10
96
a
2
a
30
3
8
1
ia
19
16
31
ZB
~
~
1
1
1
1
13
1
1
3
8D
28
Waodburn Police Dept. PAGB 2
DATS: 4/Y2/7008 PL6860
TIl~: 8:18:Z5 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFPffiiSSS FOA JANUARY TFD2U MARQi 2008 SCOTTRU
ORI~: OR0260500 WPD RSSULTS FOR ALL OFPHli3SS
DATF U3h'D: OFP~i3E DATB
CHARGB D63CRIPTION
-------------------------------------------- JAN
---
- PS8
- MAR ~u,
STALKBR -
1 ----
-
0 ------------------------------
0 - --- ----------------------
1
8TOL8N PROpHRTY - RECHIVING,HUYING,POSS899IN(i 0 1 0 1
3UICIDS 0 1 0 1
TifEPT - BICSfCLB 2 3 1 6
THSPT - BUILDING 1 0 3 4
THSPT - FRp11 MOTOR VHHICLB 23 77 15 65
TEIHFT - MOTOR VBHICLB PARTS/ACCSSSORIBS 3 0 1 ~
T~FT ' ~ 14 17 5
36
1'HHPT - PICKPOCKST 0 0 1 1
THB.PT - PURBS SNATCH 1 2 0 3
THSPT - 3HOPLIPT 10 8 7 85
TRJIPFIC ORDIN11NC8S 1 Z p 3
TRAFPIC VIOLATIONS 12 18 9 ~ 39
TRBSPA88 4 6 5 15
VANDALISM 39 33 65 137
VBHICLB RSCOVSRD FOR OTHER AG~ICY 1 1 0 2
NSAPON - GRRY CONC~I.6D 0 1 1 2
NB7IPON - POSSS83 ILI.&GAL
- 0
----- - - 5
------ 1
-------- - ---- - ------------- 6
TOTAL:
309
347 -------
280 ------------- - --- -------------
936
------------------- - - -------- - -----------------
Z008 TOTAL: -------
309 -----
347 - -----------------------------------
280 0 0 0 0 0 --- - ---------- - -------- - -----
0 0 0 0 936
2007 TOTAL: 389 416 493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1298
]006 TOT1-L: ~44 132 ~99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1375
29
Woodburn Police Dep[.
DATE: 4/22/2008 pApg 1
TIMH: 8:18s11 MONTHI,y ARgggT9 HY OPP~JS$ FOR JANUARY THRU MARCH 2O08 PL6850
ORI~{: OR0240500 MPD ASSULTS FOR ALL CAARpgg $~~U
CHARGB DSSCRIPTION
------------------- ------ JAN PSB XAR
-
--~--- - - - ---
AGGRAVA'T~ ASBAUt,T
--------+-
----6
-
---------------
3
AGGRAVAT&D NURDgR 0 0
ANIMpL ORDINI1NCSg
3
2 0
~~~ 2
ASSAIILT SIMPLH 0 0 0
ATTSMPTBp ~([)RDgR 20 14 11
BONB THRSAT 0
0 3 0
~IB~Y 0 0
BI]RGI.JIRY - BUSIN8S8 0 0 0
BURGLARY - OTHBR STRUCTURB 1 0 1
BURGL7IRY - RESID8pTC8 1
1 0
0 0
0
CHILD ADBANDONffi~T 0 0
CHILp NBQ,BCT 0
CITY ORDINANCS 1 0 0
42Il~ DAMAOB-NO VANOALISM OR RRSON 0 0 0
~~~ Z y Z
CV9TODIAL INTSRF%RSNCS 0 7 3
CUSTODY - DETOX 0 1 0
CUSTODY - [~ITJ1I, 0 2 0
CUSTODY - PAOTBCITVS ]
0 1
0 3
DISORDERLY CONDUCT ~ 0
DOCUMffi~ITATIO~T 10 8 3
DRIInCING IN PUBLIC 0 0 0
DR7V2N0 UNDSR INPLU6NCS 0 0 0
DRUG LAW VIOLIITIONS 13 12 14
DAIIa pAR1-p$gRDinyIA 16 Z3 3
DMS/RSVOKBp - ggIqNy 0 0 0
DFIS/RSVOKBD-MISDSMSA210R 0 0 0
fiLUDB 1 6 5
SM88EZLBq~iT' 1 1 1
SSCAPS PROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 1 0
SXTORTION/BL7ICIOIAIL 0 0 0
PAIL TO DI8PL11Y OPHRATpR3 LIC6N3G 0 0 0
PAMILY-OTHSR 3 1 3
POACIBLS R1-pg 0 0 0
PORGBRY/COLAiTSRPBITINt3 1 1 0
PRl-UD -]1CCOlAiT CLOSBD CHSCIC 6 5 0
PR1-UD - BY DBCBPTION/PAL38 PRBTffiJS83 0
0 0
0 0
PRAUD - Clt~IT GRD/AUTOMATIC TBLLSR MACHINS
0 0
PR11UD - ZMPBRSONATIOY 1 0
PRAtm - NUT SUPPICIBNT FUlip8 CHgCK 0 1 0
PR11LID - OP 8ffitVICBSIPAL3E PRBTffiJ$SS 0 0 0
PR11UD - WIRS 0 0 0
~~ ~~R 0 0 0
POf3ITIVS JIRBBST POR ANOTygR A(3BlICy 0 0 0
FURNISHIDiC 36 3Z 32
(iAMBLIY(i - (~g 0 0 Z
(~LIN6 - 017I8R 0 0 0
QARHA(3S LITTSRING 0 0 0
HIT AND RUN FBLONY 2 0 1
HIT AND A[Ad-MIgp~1S11Npg 0 0 0
It.i a~,r 11[+IBN - INS HOLD 1 0 1
1 3 0
TOTAL
13
0
~
0
45
3
0
0
Z
1
1
0
1
0
5
10
1
2
7
0
21
0
0
39
42
0
0
12
3
1
0
0
7
0
2
11
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
100
4
0
0
3
0
2
4
30
Woodburn Police Dept. ppag a
DAT33: 4/2]/2008 PL6850
TINS: 8:18:11 MONTHLY ARA&STS BY OFF~iSS FOR JANUARY THRU MARCH Z008 3COTTRll
ORI~: OR0230500 NPD RSBUI.T9 FOR ALL CH11RG83
CHARGE D68CRIPTION JAN PBB MAR
---- - ----------------------------------- - - - ----
INTIMIDATIOIi /OTFIBR CRIMINI-L THREAT -------
3 ------
4 -------------- - --
4
JUSTIFIABLS HOMICIDB 0 0 0
RIDNAP - POR 11DDITIONAL CRININAL PURPOSB I D 0
KIDNAP - POR W1N80M 0 0 0
RIDNAP - HI-JACX,TSRRORIST 0 0 0
RIDNAP - HOSTAGB/SHIBLD OR RS-tOVAL/DBWY WITN883 0 0 0
LIC~i3ING OItDIN~NCfiS 0 0 0
LIQWA LAiI-OTHSR 0 0 0
LIQUOR LIC~18$ VIOLATIONS 0 0 0
MINOR IN P0388SSION 2 3 17
MINOR ON PRSMI86S 0 0 0
MI3C$LLAN~OUS 0 0 0
lIOTOH V~iICLS THEPT 2 0 0
NEGLI6SNT KOMICIDB - TRAPPIC 0 0 0
NSGLI6HNT MANSI.~[X3HT8R 0 0 0
NON CAIMINAL DOM6STIC DIBTURBIINC& 0 0 0
OTHBR 11 9 6
PROP$RTY - POIAPD LO$T MISI.IIID 0 0 0
PROPSRTY RECOVBR POR OTHBR AG@1CY 0 0 0
PROSTITLITION - COMPSL 0 0 0
PROSTITUTIOd~f -~iGAGS IN 0 0 0
PROSTITOTION - PAOMOTS 0 0 0
PUBLIC HBALTH 11ND SAFBTY ORDINIINCHS 0 0 0
R&CKL&SS DRIVIPiG a a 5
ROBBBRY - BANIS 0 0 0
ROBHSRY - BU3INSSS 0 0 0
ROHHBAY - CAR J]-CKING 0 0 0
ROHB~tY - CON17.9TOR6 0 0 0
ROBBBRY - HIQIWIIY 0 0 0
ROHBBRY - OTHBR 0 0 0
ROBHBRY - RBSIDBNCS 0 0 0
ROBHBRY - SSitVICB STATION 1 0 0
RUNAMAY 1 1 2
SSX CRIMB - CONTRIHUT6 TO SEX DSLINQU~TCY 0 0 1
SHX CRIMB - BXPpSBR 1 0 0
S8X CAIMB - PORCIBLS $ODOAIY 0 1 0
SSX CRIMB - INCBBT 1 0 0
SHX CRIMS - MOI,68T (PHYSICAL) 4 1 2
SHX CRIMS - NON POPCB 9pDOMY 0 0 1
SBX CRII~B - NON-FO&CS [tAPB 0 0 0
9BX CRIMB - OBSC@tE PHONB CALL 0 0 0
SSX CRIMB - OTH&R 0 0 0
SB7f CRIlIB - PORNOGR)1pHY/OHSC~~IH MATERIAL 0 0 0
SSX CRIMB - SS7[[A1L 1188AULT itITH AN OBJBCT 0 0 0
STAI.ICBR 0 0 0
31'OL~i PROPBATY - R.SCSIVING,BVYING,POS888SING Z 3 0
SUICIDS 0 0 0
THBPT - BICYCLB 0 0 0
THSPT - BUILDIN6 0 0 0
TEISFT - COIN OP MACHIltB 0 0 0
THEPT - FROM MOTOR V81iICLS 7 0 0
7'~PT - MOTOR VSHICLB PART9/]1CC&SSORIBS 0 0 0
TOTAL
11
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4Z
0
0
Z
0
0
0
Z6
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
1
1
1
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
31
Woodburn Police nept.
DATB: 4/22/2008 PAG3S 3
TIMB: 8:18:11 MONTHLY ARRBgTS BY OPPIDdSS POR JANUARY THRp MARCH 2O08 PL6B50
ORI;: OROZ~O500 WPD R88ULT8 POR l1LL CHARG83 $~~u
CAARGB DB3CBIPTION
--`-- - -------
---
--- ------ JAN F8H tN11R
- - -------`--------- -
T'xt,PT - 01'HBR - --'
-
0 ---
-- ------------------------
THBFT - PICRPOCK&T o 4 0
THBPT - PpRSH SNATCH
0 0
0 0
THSPT - BHOPLIFT 0
TRAPFIC ORDINIIliCSS 7 5 B
TRAPPIC VIOLATIONS 0
21 0 0
TR88PAS3 32 19
VANDALI8M 6 6 4
V~lICLS RSCOVBRD POR OTHBR A(3SNCY 1 4 3
MARRANT ARRSBT POR OU& AG~iCY 0 0 0
M8APON - CAitRY COMCSAL6p 0
0 0
1 0
M811FON - 6X FSLON IN ppgSBSSIODi 1
~~N ~~ 0 0 0
itBAPON - P08SSSS ILLBGAL 0 0 0
M8AP041 - 9Ii00TIN(3 ZN PROHIBIT~ ARSA 0 1 1
WILLPUL MURpgg 0 0 0
ZONING ORDINIIliCB 0 0 0
------ - ------------------ 0 0 0
--
~008 TOTAL: - -- - -
195 - - - -
Z09 --------------------------
164 0 0 0
Z007 TOTAL: 19~ S13 291 0 0 0
2006 TOTAL: 213 218 322 0 0 0
TOTAL
4
0
0
20
0
7Z
16
B
0
0
]
0
0
2
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 568
0 0 0 0 0 0 698
0 0 0 0 0 0 753
32
SE`
WPD Monthly Code Enforcement Statisitcs March 2008
Incident Type Total
Abandon Vehicles 10
Abate Nusiance 29
Animal Complaints 58
Business License Check 1
Tall Grass ~
Ordinance Violation 36
Area Check 0
FIR ~
Other ~
Total of All Incidents 134
33
8F'
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATISTICS
MARCH 2O08
Recreation Services Division
Mar-07 Mar-08
Revenue: $1,467.39 $3,632.16
Expenditures: $35,114.46 $17,539.59
Proqram Attendance:
Youth Sports:
Adult Sports:**
Youth Programs":
Adult Programs:
Teen Programs:
After School Club:
Special Events:
TOTAL:
Aquatics Division
Revenue:
Expenditures:
Cost Recoverv:
Attendance:
Lesson Enrollment:
Group:
Adults:
Private:
4th Grade:
TOTAL:
Library Division
Revenue:
Expenditures:
Librarv Attendance:
Librarv Circulation:
Adult Proaram Count:
Adult Attendance:
Youth Service Propram Count:
Youth Service Attendance:
Database Usaqe:
Adult Computer UsaQe:
Youth Services Computer Usaae:
New Adds:
Volunteer Hours Worked:
2007 YTD 2008 YTD
$68,635.39 $94,694.07
$296,787.56 $248,069.83
2,306 0 8,232 928
514 194 3,709 2,415
621 0 3,854 1,610
0 804 28
354 1,200 3,393
1,730 11,729 14,973
0 250 4,495 9,750
3,441 2,528 34,023 33,097
Mar-07 Mar-OS 2007 YTD 2008 YTD
16,223.45 14,872.06 117,188.23 126,639.59
41,721.42 45,036.46 395,198.52 410,021.16
39% 33% 30% 31%
3,704 4,296 35,644 39,944
71 95 775 984
0 9 3 42
6 2 11 39
0 0 404 431
77 106 1,193 1,496
Mar-07
1,826.39
78,090.83
21, 274
11,716
1
4
41
686
796
4,879
1,051
654
92
Mar-08
17,930.31
83, 003.07
21,196
12,700
0
0
35
763
479
5,098
1,201
643
108
2007 YTD
62, 371.14
704,609.05
158,328
93,505
12
6,248
278
4,921
5,613
40,078
8,069
3,965
1,235
"This is the combined number for Youth Programs, Teen Programs and ASC in 2007
`* This is the combined number for Adult Programs and Adult Sports in 2007
MARCH 2O08
2008 YTD
66,968.98
711,487.63
145,518
103,486
14
3,840
242
4,733
6,609
39,482
7,948
4,536
832
34
Project Applicant Descrip6on Status: Date Deemed 120 Day Planner Referrals Facilities Mail Notice Nofice to Post Stf Rpt Due PC Hearing PC Final Appeal
Received Complete Comp Date Mee6ng for PC Paper Property Admin Dec. Order Deadline
SiteLocation:
DR 2007- Mark Grenz, Muwple-family dwellings Appeai 11/13/2007 01/23/2008 05122/2008 Don Dolenc 12/17/2007 02108/2008 0210812008 02/2112008 02/2812008 0311312008 03125/2008
12,VAR 2007- P.E / Multitech
07, EXCP 845 East Lincoln Street
2007-08
DR 2007- Swtt Beck, Kerr Contractors office Received 12/13/2007 04104/2008 08102/2008 Jim Allen 12/1312007 04I0412008 04/14/2008 04/17/2008 04/2412008
14,VAR 2008- Architect addition.
01, VAR 2008- 395 Shenandoah Ln
02, VAR 2008-
03, EXCP
2008-02
LA 2007-02, City of Legislative Amendment Received 11/2612007 Jim Allen
Woodburn Period Review Remand
City of Woodbum
LA 2007-03, City of Legislafive Amendment Received t 1126/2007 Jim Ailen
Woodbum
270 Montgomery St.
PAR 2008-02, Wilhelm PartiUon of property Received 03112/2008 Don Dolenc 03/14/2008
~
~ Engneenng Inc.
Stacy Allison Way &
Center Street
PAR 2008- John Grigorieff Parttion into 3 IoLs Received 0411 112 0 0 8 Came 0411112008
03,EXCP 2008- Brennecke
04 ~ 220 Park Ave.
ZA 2008-03, Thomas Shared parking Received 03/3112008 Natalie 04102/2008
Bertrand Labossiere
~ ~55 Mt. Hood Ave. _ __ _ _ _
.. . ~ r . M.>, .,, , ...4 - -
~~• ~ , ~ ,: ~
a „~
. ;'; ~~:. „< ~. ~~' ., ~„ ~a. .~,~.. z~, .~.~~ ~2 ~ '~, ,.' '°", ~ '.t.z~ ~.; ,~:~, ~ ";~,.,Y,. -'~ ~-z ~ ,~.;;
~
~
s r .
. . ~,. . ,. ~, «.~, ., ~, ,,. _ .,, , ~ ~~,~'~"~~, _ ~e..a? ~. ~ . '~ .. ~ , " . . -' , . . s, . _ . . ^
P1:
Projecl Applicant
DR 2008-01 EXCP 2008-03 George F. Brice I~I
FAk 200E-D1 Tony Caragol
PUD 2006-01ZC 2006-01, CU Boones Crossing, LLC -
~006-(W, CPC 2007-01 Mike Hanks
W
~
Sitelocation: Desaiption Status: Date Received 120-App Received 180-Expiration: Planner
Hwy 214 8~ Evergreen Rd. Demolition and construction Incomplete 04/11/2008 8/912008 10/08/2008 Don Dolenc
1050 West Hayes St. Partition into 3 lots Incomplete 02/2912008 612812008 0812712008 Don Dolenc
Parcels 1, 2 8 3 of Parti6on ModificaGons to Boones Crossing PUD Incomplete 10131/2006 2/28/2007 0412912007 Jim Allen
PIat2006-55
~~ .. ...«~
~ ~, , ;
~ ~~. . ~,
~... ~ ~
~a;. . _..
.,. . a~,° ~: ;., ; :y , ~ ;°!,
,,, 3 _ u sf.,~. ~ j ~, ~, ~: ~ C _, > .z ~' ~" ~ b er .;:~ ~~ k~,,'. .=...a =,,.. „ ,~ -~°., ~ z ~ ~ ~, „`a i :~E@ M ;1 "; qr«~,~~
. „ ~ ~ ~' ~~: ~ - ~ ;,-.
. . , ~ .. .~, .~ . .. ~~ ~ <.,, n. .. .: , ~
~
.. . .. . .. .. . .. . ... . ":~x~.
Activit~~ Re~ort - Apri110, 2008 through Apri123, 2008
Fnlder Nnme Ap~licant Pr~oject SiteLocation Descrip~ion Date Rec'd: App Comple S/at:~s
Plu~~ner.
BL 2008-036 Juan M. Bautista Eppy's Landscaping 1053 Young St. HM Occupation - landscaping and 04/10/2008 04/14/2008 Approved
Maintenance maintenance services
BL 2008-037 Jack Bigej, AI's Garden Center 1220 N. Pacific Hwy Garden Center 04/11/2008 04/18/2008 Approved
Deanna Bigej,
Darry Ruef
BL 2008-038 Robert G. Estrada Hair Express Salon & 1537 Mt. Hood Ave. Hair Salon 04/14/2008
Barber Ste 105
BL 2008-039 Phung Duc Hyunh BeBe Nails Salon LLC 1537 Mt. Hood Ave. Nail Salon 04/17/2008
Ste 104
BL 2008-040 Kit Hammet Get Er pone 10895 Monitor McKee Power washing and gutter cleaning 04/18/2008 04/18/2008 Approved
Rd - Contractor
BL 2008-042 Evans Glass Inc. Evans Glass inc. 900 Poplar Place S. - Retail sales of windows, doors and 04/21/2008
Contractor siding
BL 2008-041 Gen X Echo B, Inc. Gen X Clothing 1575 t. Hood Ave. Ste. Sales of retail and general clothing 04/21/2008
A
FNC 2008-06 Rudolfo Alaniz Rudolfo Alaniz 1191 Foxglove St. 6' fence on back and side property 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 Approved
~ FNC 2008-07 Carolina Lopez Carolina Lopez 1148 N. 3rd St. Wood fence according to WDO 04/17/2008 04/17/2008 Approved
requirements in height
PAPP 2008-06 John Berghoff - Do It Best Corporation 333 Woodland Ave. A 157,000 sq. ft. addition to the west 04/21/2008
The Moake Park and 5,700 sf addition to the east with
Group inc. loading docks, detention areas and
fencing around propeRy site.
SIGN 2008-09 Salem Sign Co Industrial Welding 1475 Aztec Dr. 65 square foot letter wall sign 04/15/2008
Inc. Supply
TMKT 2008-OS Elias Villegas Chemeketa 120 E. Lincoln St. Cinco de Mayo celebration; May 2nd & 04/15/2008
(Director) Community Coliege 3rd from 9 am to 8 pm; music and
entertainment on main property
TMKT 2008-06 Yolanda Guerreros Yolanda Guerreros 320 N. Pacific Hwy Sales of fresh flowers in vases from May 04/18l2008
9-11
TSP 2008-03 Chris Federici Smart Cash 1860 Newberg Hwy 9 sq. ft lawn sign for 4-15 day periods 04/21/2008
Carrie Brenneck
Don Dolenc
Carrie Brenneck
Don Dolenc
Carrie Brenneck
Don Dolenc
Don Dolenc
Natalie Labossie
Carrie Brenneck
Don Dolenc
Don Dolenc
Carrie Brenneck
Don Dolenc
Wednesday, Apri! 23, 1008 QL - Business License EYT = Extension S1G1~ = Sien Pemiit TIvIKT = Temporary Markcting Permit TSP = Temporary Sign Pernlit PAPP = Pre-Application F;~IC - Pence Penn
~~
~~"~,,~~ ~~.:°~
'~TooDBURN
r,,., ..:~~::r ,,~.~.,
April 28, 2008
~i~~+~/1~ti
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
~ l ~
FROM: Ben Gillespie, Finance Director '
SUBJECT: Annuai SDC Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the report.
BACKGROUND:
ORS 223.31 1 requires "an annual accounting, to be completed by January 1 of
each year, for system development charges showing the totai amount of system
development charge revenves coliected for each system and the projects that
were funded."
A recent request for information from the League of Oregon Cities reminded
staff that we are not current with the requirement. This report is for the fiscal
years from 2003-04 through 2006-07 and brings the City into compliance with the
statute.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Woodburn has five SDC funds:
Parks
Street (also called transportation impact fees or TIF's)
Storm Water
Water
Sewer
Reven~es for the period include SDC collections and interest earnings. The only
expenditures are for SDC eligible projects. Activity for all five systems is
tabulated below:
Agenda ftem Review:
City Administrator
38
City Attorney
Finance
8H
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 28, 2008
Page 2
SDC's Interest Spent on
Collected Earned Projects Net
2003-04 2,576,860 1 17,715 (2,800,559) (105,984)
2004-a5 1,351,950 195,251 (1,852,078~ (304,877)
2005-06 1,423,255 379,430 (1,226,02b) 576,659
2006-07 1,125,502 472,967 (1,334,134- 264,335
TOTAL 6,477,5fi7 1,165,363 (7,212,797) 43Q,133
For the most recent year, SDC's totaled $1,125,502 and interest totaled $472,967.
Expenditures on projects totaled $1,334,134, leaving Ending Fund Balances
totaling $10,041,389. The specifics of those transactions are shown in the
attached schedules.
FINANCIAL fMPACT:
SDC's fund large infrastructure projects that benefit the entire community.
Typically these projects are on a scale that require several years of accumu-
lated SDC's to fund. Fund Balances will grow to substantial amounts before
being spent down on major projects.
39
CITY of WOODBURN
PARKS SDC's (Fund 364)
2003-04
Fund Balance 7/1/2003
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Fund Balance 6/30/2004
'2004-5
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Transfer to GF CIP--Legion Pk Master Plan
Transfer to GF CIP--Community Cntr Planning
Fund Balance 6/30/2005
'2005-06
Resources
SDCs
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Parr Road
Fund Balance 6/30/2006
'2006-07
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Transf to GF CIP--Comp Parks Plan Update
Transf to GF CIP--Community Cntr Design
Fund Balance 6/30/2007
249,271
223,227
4,485 227,712
0
476,983
295,135
12,282 307,417
8,900
28,000 36,900
747,500
80,200
31, 976 112,176
119,985
739,691
88,499
36,936 125,435
15,000
45,000 60,000
805.126
40
CITY of WOODBURN
STREET SDC's (Fund 376)
2003-04
Fund Balance 7/1/2003
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Transfer to Ge'I Fund CIP, repd in 04-05
Boones Ferry Road
Pd to ODoT for I-5 Interchange
Fund Balance 6/30/2004
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Other Revenue
Expenditures
Boones Ferry Road
Fund Balance 6/30/2005
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
South Front Street
Fund Balance 6/30/2006
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Front Street
Fund Balance 6/30/2007
6,084,359
1,151,137
71,466 1,222,603
370, 000
286, 050
2,500,000 3,156,050
4,150,912
2004-05
517,883
107,734
370,000 995,617
96,500
5,050,030
2005-06
506,895
214,794 721,689
55,000
5,716,719
'2006-07
592,088
296,132 888,220
69,174
6,535,765
41
CITY of WOODBURN
STORM SDC's (Fund 377)
2003-04
Fund Balance 7/1/2003
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Professional Services
Land
Fund Balance 6/30/2004
Resources
SDCs
Interest Eamings
Expenditures
Blaine/Bryan/McKinley Storm
Fund Balance 6/30/2005
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Brown/Wilson Storm
Fund Balance 6/30/2006
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Ogle Front Bore
Fund Balance 6/30/2007
909,122
109,671
11,555 121,226
3,797
10,712 14,509
1, 015, 839
2004-05
51,677
19,282 70,959
167,145
919, 653
2005-06
49,086
37,952 87,038
36,243
970,448
2006-07
29,839
43,920 73,759
210,919
833,288
42
CITY of WOODBURN
WATER SDC's (Fund 474)
2003-04
Fund Balance 7/1/2003
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Fund Balance 6/30/2004
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Well 14
Fund Balance 6/30/2005
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Well 14
Debt Service--water plants
Fund Balance 6/30/2006
Resources
SDC's
Interest Earnings
Expenditures
Debt Service--water plants
Fund Balance 6/30/2007
848,142
421,505
13,238 434,742
0
1,282,884
2004-05
197,577
28,903 226,480
168,497
1,340,867
'2005-06
311,247
48,851 360,098
33,298
387,982 421,280
1,279,685
'2006-07
160,723
54,242 214,965
402,501
1,092,149
43
CITY of WOODBURN
SEWER SDC's (Fund 475)
2003-04
Fund Balance 7/1/2003 991,246
Resources
SDC's 671,320
Interest Earnings 16,971 688,291
Expenditures p
Fund Balance 6/30/2004 1,679,537
2004-05
Resources
SDC's 289,g78
Interest Earnings 27,050 316,728
Expenditures
Land for expansion of sewer plant 853,919
Fund Balance 6/30/2005 1,142,345
'2005-06
Resources
SDC's 475,827
Interest Eamings 45,857 521,684
Expenditures
Debt Service--sewer plant 593,518
Fund Balance 6/30/2006 1,070,511
'2006-07
Resources
SDC's 254,353
Interest Earnings 41,737 296,090
Expenditures
Debt Service--sewer plant 591,540
Fund Balance 6/30/2007 775,061
44
11 /~
nr'~--,7.,
~~ '~.~ ~~~~~
~TooDBVRN
~. ,:r,,.,
. -- - _
April 28, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
VIA: Dan Brown, Public Works Directo ~'"-
8~
FROM: Randy Rohman, Pubiic Works Program Manager
SUBJECT: Tronsportation System Development Charge Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached Transportation System Development Charge Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
On February 1 1, 2008 Council conducted a public hearing on an updated
Transportation System Development Charge (SDC} methodology. The public
hearing was continued until March 10, 2008 where additional public comment
was taken. At the conclusion of the continued hearing on March 10, 2008, Staff
was directed to bring back to Council the ordinances and resolutions required
to implement the fee structure in the new methodology.
DISCUSSION:
After review of the new SDC methodology and the existing ordinance, the City
Attorney determined that an entirely new ordinance wos needed to enable
implementation of the new charges. The City Attorney drafted the new
ordinance with the assistance of Public Works. We believe that the new
ordinance enables implementation of the new fees, streamlines the fee
calculation and appeal procedures, and will be easier to administer for the
benefit of Staff and the public.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The current budget did make an allowance for an anticipated modification of
fees.
Agenda ltem Review: City Administrator,~ City AttorneyY ~` `'-~ Finance
45
~~~o
FRONt THE i~VOODBiIRN CITYATTORNE'Y
TO: Mayor and Council
Scott Russell, Interim City Administrator~
, ~~~~
FROM: N. Robert Shields, City Attorney ~~
DATE: April 24, 2008
RE: SDC Ordinance
New Tronsportation SDC Ordinance
After review of the new SDC methodology and the existing Traffic Impact
Fee ordinance, I determined that an entirely new ordinance was needed
to enable implementation of the new SDCs. I drafted the new ordinance
with the assistance of Public Works and provided Council with an
Advance Copy of the ordinance on April 23. I believe that the new
ordinance enables implementation of the new fees, streamlines the fee
calculation and appeal procedures, and complies with the current
statutes and case law. The key points in tl~ie new ordinance are as follows:
^ Both General Findings and Interchange Development Charge (IDC)
Findings were included in order to justify defend the ordinance in a
Court dction, if this becomes necessary
^ Definitions were updated to match the terms used
• Transportation SDCs and the IDC were imposed and will be
implemented through a subsequent Resolution containing a Rate
Schedule
^ New administrative procedures were drafted for Alternative
Calculation of SDC Rates, Credits, and Exemptions and the appea!
process was simplified and consolidated
• The method of applying an inflation adjustment factor is modified.
46
Mayor and Councii
Scott Russell
April 24, 2008
Page 2
^ The alternative payment plan provisions contained in the old
ordinance have be superseded by state !aw and are no
longer necessary
^ The language in the new ordinance regarding authorized
expenditures and accounting for SDCs wds made identical to
the state law requirements. This will make the ordinance both
clearer and easier to administer.
Potential Legal Challenges
There is always the possibility that any ordinance can be challenged. A
challenge is more likely in instances where the ordinance is innovative
andlor has significant monetary implications. In drafting this ordinance, I
carefully evaluated all of the legal arguments submitted by Wallace W.
Lien, the attorney for Capital Development. These arguments are
specifica~ly addressed in the Findings included with the ordinance. While I
am not in a position to predict whether a legal challenge will be filed, l
am confident that I can defend the City Council's action in Court if this
becomes necessary.
47
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
BASED UPON AN ESTABLISHED METHODOLOGY; PROVIDING PROCESSES FOR
ALTERNATIVE CALCULATIONS; AND REQUIRING THAT FUNDS BE ACCOUNTED FOR
AND USED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW; AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 2248
WHEREAS, the City authorized the preparation of the City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study dated March 2008 ("the
Methodology"), which is attached to this Ordinance and incorporated as Exhibit
"A"; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with ORS 223.297-223.314, the City provided
notice and an opportunity to be heard to all persons who requested written
notice; and
WHEREAS, the City provided copies of the Methodology to all persons
requesting one; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 1 1, 2008 to
receive input on the Methodology; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive additional input, the February 1 1, 2008 public
hearing was continued until March 10, 2008 and notice of the hearing was
mailed to all property owners within the Interchange Development Charge
boundary; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to use Transportation System Development
Charges ("Transportation SDCs") as a way to balance the capital funding
needed for improved transportation facilities between existing residents and
future residents of Woodburn; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to impose the Interchange Development
Charge ("the IDC") to equitably fund the improvement of the Woodburn
Interchange; and
WHEREAS, in adopting Transportation SDCs and the IDC, the City intends
to comply with state law and include in this Ordinance all mandatory provisions
required by ORS 223.297- 223.314, NOW, THEREFORE,
Page 1- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO.
48
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. General FindinQS. The City Council makes the following
Generai Findings regarding Transportation SDCs.
A. Development within the City contributes to the need for capacity
increases for roads, multi-modal transportation and related transportation
improvements.
B. Development should pay its fair share for the cost of these
improvements and additions to transportation facilities necessary to
accommodate the capacity needs created by growth.
C. ORS 223.297 et. seq. grants to the City the authority to impose
Transportation SDCs to equitably spread the costs of essential capacity
increasing Capital Improvements.
D. Transportation SDCs are incurred upon application to develop
property for a specific use or at a specific density and are collected by the City
when a building permit is issued. The decision regarding uses, densities, and/or
intensities causes direct and proportional changes in the amount of the incurred
charge.
E. Transportation SDCs are separate from other fees provided by law
or imposed as a condition of development.
F. Transportation SDCs are fees for service because they contemplate
a development's receipt of transportation services based upon the nature of
that development.
G. Transportation SDCs are imposed by this Ordinance not as a tax on
property or on a property owner as a direct consequence of ownership of
property within the meaning of Article XI, Section 1 1 b of the Oregon Constitution
or legislation implementing that section.
Section 2. Findinqs for Interchange Development Charge. The City
Council makes the following Findings regarding the IDC:
A. In 2005, the cost of the needed improvements to the Woodburn
interchange was estimated to be $50 million.
B. Pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreement No. 23,240, which serves
as a funding plan for completion of the Woodburn Interchange modernization,
the City must provide a total of $8 million towards completion of this project.
Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 49
C. The IDC is established under this Ordinance under the authority of
ORS 223.297-223.314.
D. The City Council finds that developing properties within the IDC
boundary will create a greater impact on the Woodburn Interchange than
similarly zoned developing properties located in the City but outside of the IDC
boundary.
E. The City Council finds that developing properties within the IDC
boundary will receive greater benefit by an improved Woodburn Interchange
than similarly zoned developing properties located in the City but outside of the
IDC boundary.
F. Based upon their greater developmental impact on the Woodburn
Interchange and the greater benefit that they will receive when the Woodburn
Interchange is improved, the City Council, consistent with ORS 223.297-223.314,
makes the determination that it is fair and equitable to impose the IDC.
G. The IDC is an "improvement fee" as defined in ORS 223.299 since the
charge to the developer is for costs associated with Capital Improvements yet
to be constructed.
H. An argument was raised before the City Council that the IDC is
unlawful because it "represents the effective establishment of a transportation
special district without undergoing the adoption methods required by ORS
Chapter 267.510 et seq." The City Council finds that this argument is not well
founded in law because the City is asserting no jurisdictional authority outside of
its corporate boundary.
I. Pursuant to ORS Chapter 267.510 et seq , a transportation district ,
like other special districts, exercises jurisdictional authority within the area of its
boundary. By establishing the IDC boundary, the City Council, consistent with
ORS 223.297-223.314, is merely establishing a charge that is collectible within the
City. A Transportation SDC must be paid oniy: (1) if the involved property is
annexed to the City, and (2) if the involved property develops. This is legal and
within the City's jurisdiction.
J. Another argument was raised before the City Council that the IDC
charge is inequitable. As stated above, the City Council finds that this is not the
case because developing properties within the IDC boundary will create a
greater developmental impact and also will receive a greater benefit by an
improved Woodburn Interchange.
Page 3- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 50
K. Finally, an argument was raised before the City Council that the IDC
charge violates constitutional principles. The City Council finds that this
argument is also not well founded in law. In Roger's Machinery v. Washington
Covnty, 181 Or.App 369, 45 P.3d 966 (2002), the Court addressed the argument
that traffic impact fees imposed under ORS 223.297-223.314 constituted an
unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that
the traffic impact fees were not physical exactions and were not subject to
Dolan's heightened scrutiny test, which is used to determine whether a property
development condition constitutes an improper taking under the Fifth
Amendment. The Court stated that no individualized determination was
required before assessing the fee against a particular property in compliance
with the Oregon SDC statutes.
Section 3 Definitions. The following definitions apply:
A. APPLICANT. A person seeking to obtain a Building Permit or to
develop property within the City.
B. BUILDING. Any structure, either temporary or permanent, built for
the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. This
term shall include tents, trailers, mobile homes or any vehicles serving in any way
the function of a building. This term shall not include temporary construction
sheds or trailers erected to assist in construction and maintained during the term
of a Building Permit.
C. BUILDING PERMIT. A permit issued by the Building Department for
the construction, alteration, repair or placement of any Building under the state
building code.
D. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. A plan prepared by the City
pursuant to ORS 223.309.
E. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Public facilities or assets used for
transportation.
F. CITY. The City of Woodburn, Oregon.
G. CREDIT. The amount of money by which the charge for a specific
development may be reduced because of construction of eligible capital
facilities as outlined in this Ordinance.
H. DEVELOPMENT. Any man-made change to improved or
unimproved real estate which has the effect of generating additional weekday
or weekend trips.
Page 4- COUNCIL BtLL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 51
DIRECTOR. The Woodburn Public Works Director or designee.
J. DWELLING UNIT. A Building or a portion of a Building designed for
residential occupancy, consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged,
designed or used as living quarters for one family only.
K. IMPROVEMENT FEE. A fee for costs associated with Capital
Improvements to be constructed after the date the fee is adopted pursuant to
this Ordinance.
L. INTERESTED PERSON. Any person who is a legal resident of the City
of Woodburn as evidenced by registration as a voter in the City, or by other
proof of residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest
in real property which is located within the city limits or is otherwise subject to the
imposition of charges under this Ordinance.
M. OWNER. The owner or owners of record title or the purchaser or
purchasers under a recorded land sale agreement.
N. PERSON. Any natural person, firm, partnership, association or
corporation.
O. QUALIFIED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT. A Capital Improvement that is:
Required as a condition of development approval;
2. Identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and is either:
a. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval; or
b. Located in whole or in part on or contiguaus to
property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built
larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development
project to which the improvement fee is related.
P. REIMBURSEMENT FEE. A fee for costs associated with Capital
Improvements already constructed or under construction when the fee is
adopted pursuant to this Ordinance for which the City determines that capacity
exists.
Q. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ("Transportation
SDC") or SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ("SDC"). An improvement fee and/or
Page S- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO.
52
a reimbursement fee and/or the IDC assessed or collected at the time of
increased ~sage of a Capital tmprovement or issuance of a Building Permit.
System Development Charges are separate from and in addition to any
appiicable tax, assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge
provided by law or imposed as a condition of development.
Section 4. Imposition of Transportation Svstem Development Charqes.
A. Unless otherwise exempted by this Ordinance or state law, a
Transportation SDC is hereby imposed on all Development within the City.
B. Unless otherwise exempted by this Ordinance or state law, an
Interchange Development Charge is hereby imposed on all Development within
the City and located within the Interchange Development Charge boundary.
The interchange Development Charge boundary is depicted on Exhibit B, which
is attached to this Ordinance and incorporated.
Section 5. Methodolo4v.
A. The methodology used to calculate Transportation System
Development Charges and the Interchange Development Charge is set forth in
the "Transportation System Development Charge Study" ("the Methodology")
dated March 2008, which is attached as Exhibit "A" to this Ordinance and
incorporated.
Section 6. System Development Charge Rate Schedule.
A. A Rate Schedule for Transportation System Development Charges
and the Interchange Development Charge shall be adopted by resolution
based on the Methodology attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated into this
Ordinance.
B. The Rate Schedule may on January 1 St of each year, after the first
year that the resolution adopting it is effective, be adjusted by the Director to
account for changes in the costs of acquiring and constructing facilities. The
adjustment factor shall be based on the change in construction costs according
to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington)
Construction Cost Index.
Section 7. Collection.
A. System Development Charges are due and payable at the time
that the City issues the Building Permit. No Building Permit shall be issued for
Development subject to this charge unless the System Development Charge is
Page 6- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO.
53
first paid in full. The Applicant may request that payment be made pursuant to
ORS 223.205-223.785, the Bancroft Bonding Act.
Section 8. Exemptions.
A. The following development is exempt from System Development
Charges:
l. Remodeling or replacement of any single family structure,
including mobile homes.
2. Multifamily structure remodeling or replacement if no
additional Dwelling Units are added.
3. Remodeling or replacement of office, business and
commercial, industriai or institutional structures if such remodeling or
replacement does not result in additional peak hour trips.
Section 9. Credits for Qualified Public Improvements.
A. The City shall grant a credit, not to exceed 100~0 of the applicable
System Development Charges for the construction of any Qualified Public
Improvements.
B. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit to
the Director a proposed plan and estimate of cost far contributions of Qualified
Public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include:
l. A designation of the Development for which the proposed
plan is being submitted.
2. A list of the contemplated Capital Improvements contained
within the plan;
3. An estimate of proposed construction costs certified by a
professional architect or engineer; and
4. A proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed
plan.
C. The Director shall determine if the proposed Qualified Public
Improvement is:
1. Required as a condition of development approval;
Page 7- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 54
2. Identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and is either:
a. Not located on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval; or
b. Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property
that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or
with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project
to which the improvement fee is related
D. The decision of the Director as to whether to accept the proposed
plan of contribution and the value of such contribution shall be in writing and
issued by the Director within 30 days after the Applicant submits the proposed
plan.
E. Any Applicant who submits a proposed plan pursuant to this Section
and desires the immediate issuance of a Building Permit, shall pay the
appiicable System Development Charges. Said payment shail be deemed paid
under "protest" and shall not be construed as a waiver of any review rights. Any
difference between the amount paid and the amount due, as determined by
the Director, shall be refunded to the Applicant. In no event shall a refund by
City under this subsection exceed the amount originally paid by the Applicant.
Section 10. Alternative Calculation for SDC Rate. Credit or Exemption.
A. Pursuant to this Ordinance, an Applicant may request an
alternative SDC calculation, alternative SDC credit determination or alternative
SDC exemption, b~t only under the following circumstances:
l. The Applicant believes the number of vehicle trips resulting
from the development is, or will be, less than the number of trips established in
the Methodology, and for that reason the Applicant's SDC should be lower than
that calculated by the City.
2. The Applicant believes the City improperly excluded from
consideration a Qualified Public Improvement that would qualify for credit, or
the City accepted for credit a Qualified Public Improvement, but undervalued
that improvement and therefore undervalued the credit.
3. The Applicant believes the City improperly rejected a request
for an exemption for which the Applicant believes it is eligible.
B. Alternative SDC Rate Request:
Page 8- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO.
55
1. If an Applicant believes the number of trips resulting from the
Development is less than the number of trips established in the Methodology,
the Applicant must request an alternative SDC rate calculation, under this
Section, within 90 days after Building Permit issuance for the Development. The
City shall not consider such a request filed after 90 days after Building Permit
issuance for the Development. Upon the timely request for an alternative SDC
rate caiculation, the Director shall review the Applicant's calculations and
supporting evidence and make a determination within 30 days of submittal as
to whether the Applicant's request satisfies the requirements of this Section.
2. In support of the Alternative SDC rate request, the Applicant
must provide complete and detailed documentation, including verifiable trip
generation data, analyzed and certified to by a Professional Traffic Engineer.
The Applicant's supporting documentation must rely upon generally accepted
sampling methods, sources of information, cost analysis, traffic and growth
projections and techniques of analysis as a means of s~pporting the proposed
alternative SDC rate. The proposed Alternative SDC Rate calculation shall
include an explanation by a registered engineer explaining with particularity
why the rate established in the City methodology does not accurately reflect
the Development's impact on the City's Capital Improvements
3. The Director shall apply the Alternative SDC Rate if, in the
Director's opinion, the following are found:
a. The evidence and assumptions underiying the
Alternative SDC Rate are reasonable, correct and credible and were gathered
and analyzed by a suitable, competent professional in compliance with
generally accepted engineering principles and methodologies and consistent
with this Section, and
b. The calculation of the proposed Alternative SDC rate
was by a generally accepted methodology, and
c. The proposed alternative SDC rate better or more
realistically reflects the actual traffic impact of the Development than the rate
set forth in the Methodology.
4. If, in the Director's opinion, all of the above criteria are not
met, the Director shall provide to the Applicant by certified mail, return receipt
requested, a written decision explaining the basis for rejecting the proposed
alternative SDC rate.
C. Alternative SDC Credit Request:
Page 9- COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 56
1. If an Applicant has requested an SDC Credit and that request
has either been denied by the City or approved but at a lower value than
desired, the Applicant may request an Alternative SDC Credit calculation, under
this Section. Any request for an Alternative SDC Credit calculation must be filed
with the Director in writing within 10 calendar days of the written decision on the
initial credit request. The City shall not consider such a request filed after 10
calendar days of the written decision on the initial credit request. Upon the
timely request for an Alternative SDC Credit calculation, the Director shall review
the Applicant's calculations and supporting evidence and make a
determination within 30 days of submittal as to whether the Applicant's request
satisfies the requirements of this Section.
2. In support of the Alternative SDC credit request, the Applicant
must provide complete and detailed documentation, including appraisals, cost
analysis or other estimates of value, analyzed and certified to by an appropriate
professional, for the improvements for which the Applicant is seeking credit. The
Applicant's supporting documentation must rely upon generally accepted
sources of information, cost analysis and techniques of analysis as a means of
supporting the proposed Alternative SDC credit.
3. The Director shali grant the Alternative SDC Credit if, in the
Director's opinion, the following are found:
a. The improvement(s) for which the SDC Credit is sought
are Qualified Public Improvement(s), and
b. The evidence and assumptions underlying the
Applicant's Alternative SDC Credit request are reasonable, correct and credible
and were gathered and analyzed by an appropriate, competent professional in
compliance with generally accepted principles and methodologies, and
c. The proposed alternative SDC Credit is based on
realistic, credible valuation or benefit analysis.
4. If, in the Director's opinion, any one or more of the above
criteria is not met, the Director shall deny the request and provide to the
Applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested, a written decision
explaining the basis for rejecting the Alternative SDC Credit proposal.
D. Alternative SDC Exemption Request:
l. If an Applicant has requested a full or partial exemption
under this Ordinance, and that request has been denied, the Applicant may
Page 10 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 57
request an Alternative SDC Exemption under this Section. Any request for an
Alternative SDC Exemption calculation must be filed with the Director in writing
within 10 calendar days of the written decision on the initial credit request. The
City shall not consider such a request filed after 10 calendar days of the written
decision on the initial credit request. Upon the timely request for an Alternative
SDC Exemption, the Director shall review the Applicant's request and supporting
evidence and make a determination within 30 days of submittal as to whether
the Applicant's request satisfies the requirements under this Ordinance for
exemptions.
2. In support ot the Alternative SDC Exemption request, the
Applicant must provide complete and detailed documentation demonstrating
that the Applicant is entitled to one of the exemptions described in this
Ordinance.
3. The Director shall grant the exemption if, in the Director's
opinion, the Applicant has demonstrated with credible, relevant evidence that
it meets the pertinent criteria.
4. If, in the Director's opinion, any one or more of the above
criteria is not met, the Director shall deny the request and provide to the
Applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested, a written decision
explaining the basis for rejecting the Aiternative SDC Exemption proposal.
Section 11. Review of Methodoloav and Rates.
A. This Ordinance and the Methodology shall be reviewed at least
once every five (5) years. The purpose of this review is to evaluate and revise, if
necessary, the rates of the System Development Charges to assure that they do
not exceed the reasonably anticipated costs of the City's Capital
Improvements.
Section 12. Authorized Expenditure of Svstem Development Charges.
A. Reimbursement fees may be spent only on capital improvements
associated with the systems for which the fees are assessed including
expenditures relating to repayment of indebtedness.
B. Improvement fees may be spent only on capacity increasing
capital improvements, including expenditures relating to repayment of debt for
such improvements. An increase in system capacity may be established if a
capital improvement increases the level of performance or service provided by
existing facilities or provides new facilities. The portion of the improvements
funded by improvement fees must be related to the need for increased
Page 1 1-COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 58
capacity to provide service for future users.
C. System development charges may not be expended for costs
associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more
than an incidental part of other capital improvements or for the expenses of the
operation or maintenance of the facilities constructed with system development
charge revenues.
D. Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system
development charge revenues must be included in the Capital Improvement
Plan.
E. System Development Charge revenues may be expended on the
costs of complying with the provisions of ORS 223.297-223.314, including the costs
of developing system development charge methodologies and providing an
annual accounting of system development charge expenditures.
Section 13. Deposit of Svstem Development Char4e Revenues• Annual
Accountinq.
A. System development charge revenues must be deposited in
accounts designated for such moneys. The City shall provide an annual
accounting, to be completed by January 1 of each year, for system
development charges showing the total amo~nt of system development
charge revenues collected for each system and the projects that were funded
in the previous fiscal year.
B. The annual accounting shall include:
1. A list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole
or in part, with system development charge revenues; and
2. The amount of revenue collected by the locat government
from system development charges and attributed to the costs of complying with
the provisions of ORS 223.297-223.314, as described in ORS 223.307.
Section 14. Challenge of Expenditures. In accordance with ORS 223.302,
any interested person may challenge an expenditure of SDC reven~es.
A. Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing, to the Director for
review within two years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the
following information:
Page 12 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 59
l. The name and address of the interested person challenging
the expenditure;
2. The amount of the expenditure, the project, payee or
purpose, and the approximate date on which it was made; and
3. The reason why the expenditure is being chpllenged.
B. If the Director determines that the expenditure was not made in
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and other relevant laws, a
reimbursement of System Development Charges trust account revenues from
other revenue sources shall be made within one year following the
determination that the expenditures were not appropriate.
C. The Director shall make written notification of the results of the
expenditure review to the interested person who requested the review with ten
(10) days of completion of the review.
Section 15. Institution of Leqal Proceedinqs. The City Attorney, acting in
the name of the City, may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of
competent jurisdiction to compel compliance with or restrain by injunction the
violation of any provision of this Ordinance as an additional remedy.
Section 16. Exclusive Review in Marion Countv Circuit Court. All
determinations made under this Ordinance shall be final and subject oniy to Writ
of Review in the Marion County Circuit Court pursuant to ORS Chapter 34.
Section 17. Effect on Monies Previouslv Collected. The provisions of this
Ordinance do not apply to System Development Charges collected prior to its
effective date. SDCs previously collected shall be governed by the law in effect
at the time of collection.
Section 18. Severabilitv. If any clause, section, or provision of this
Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause,
the remaining portion shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such
invalid portion thereof had not been incorporate herein.
Section 19. Re eal. Ordinance 2248 is hereby repealed.
Approved as to form: ~~~~ ~ 2g ~2°`° ~
City Attorney Dat
Page 13 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO.
60
Approved:
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
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Page 14 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2716
ORDINANCE NO. 61
~~A ~' ~ ~w.../ ~ ~~ ~ .. ~~~ ~.~~ .~. ~~
YfT
{`l~l~~.li`a~.>Y1<} I~r~*:.xg :~~.i.:~U ~ a,p...~`)t~i~~r~~~CT
! _e~
._. F .~_ . , . ~... .~A~{'v ~ S . ~ . ~ s f1 .. t,~.~~4 ~l'~t t i ~~
_ .'t _ . t-~ _ ..,..
62
,t ~
~ -~~-~:~~ ~w~.:
~~~~.~~ - ~ .a.
~°;, a~
~r~,
,
~~_,G: _
,,
A~
~
,; .
~~
~'-~;~;~
`-.~~
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development
Charge Study
Table of Contents
Section Description
I. Introduction / Background
lI. System Development Charge Methodology
III. SDC Calculation
IV. IDC Calculation
Technical Analysis
Page
1
2
6
11
Appendix A
~~~>FC:,~ t.Fkit.?~.,'~~
63
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
I. Introduction / Background
In January 2007, the City of Woodburn contracted with Financial Consulting Solutions Group,
Inc. (FCS GROUP) to update its transportation system development charge (SDC) and develop a
separate interchange development charge (IDC). The City of Woodburn is a growing city with a
population nearing 23,000. Its objectives for this study were as follows: first, incorporate the
improvements identified in its latest Transportation System Plan into its SDC, and second,
separately recover an appropriate share of the planned new interchange at Interstate 5 in an IDC.
For the City, these charges - determined in a defensible manner - will serve to accommodate the
demands of growth and urbanizing areas without unduly burdening current residents and
business owners in the community.
We approached the project in three major steps:
Review Current SDC Methodology. In this step, we reviewed the current methodology for
the City's SDC and worked with City staff to identify, analyze, and agree on key policy
issues for the proposed SDC and IDC.
Conduct Technical Analysis. In this step, we worked with City staff to isolate the
recoverable portion of existing and planned facility costs and calculate proposed charges.
The technical analysis is included as Appendix A.
Documentation and Presentation. In this step, we wrote the report describing the
recommended policies and resulting charges, and participated in Council workshop.
':~> F{'~:,~ ~ :; ~'t .) C.,' ~'
64
Ciry of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
System Development Charge Methodology
A system development charge is a one-time fee imposed on new development or some types of
re-development at the time of development. The fee is intended to recover a fair share of the
costs of existing and planned facilities that provide capacity to serve growth.
Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 223.297 - 223.314 defines SDCs and specifies how they shall be
calculated, applied, and accounted for. By statute, a SDC is the sum of two components:
• a reimbursement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements
already constructed or under construction, and
• an improvement fee, designed to recover costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed in the future.
The reimbursement fee methodology must be based on "the value of unused capacity available to
future system users or the cost of the existing facilities", and must further consider prior
contributions by existing users and gifted and grant-funded facilities. The calculation must also
"promote the objective of future system users contributing no more than an equitable share to the
cost of existing facilities." Reimbursement fee proceeds may be spent on any capital
improvements related to the systems for which the SDC applied - e.g., transportation SDCs must
be spent on transportation improvements.
The improvement fee methodology must include only the cost of projected capital improvements
needed to increase system capacity for future users. In other wards, the costs of planned projects
that correct existing deficiencies, or do not otherwise increase capacity for future users, may not
be included in the improvement fee calculation. Improvement fee proceeds may be spent only on
capital improvements, or portions thereof, which increase the capacity of the systems for which
they were applied.
A. Reimbursement Fee Methodology
The calculation of the reimbursement fee, described in detail in Section III, is fairly
straightforward under the approach taken. In short, it is the dollar cost of unused, available,
system capacity divided by the capacity it will serve. The unit of capacity used becomes the basis
of the fee. In addition to the cost or value of the system, Oregon law (ORS 223.304) requires that
the reimbursement fee methodology also incorporate the following:
•"Ratemaking principles employed to finance publicly owned capital improvements", taken to
mean that the fees must be calculated to equitably recover appropriate costs;
•"Prior contributions by existing users", taken to mean that the cost of contributed assets
should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis;
•"Gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons", taken to mean that
gifted or grant-funded assets should not be included in the reimbursement fee basis; and
•"Other relevant factars identified by the local government imposing the fee".
Finally, the methodology must promote the objective of future system users contributing no more
than an equitable share to the cost of existing facilities.
2 ~ap~ i"i,+.7 ~, i L1~i,,~ 4.; d~
65
City of Woodburn
Transportatian System Development Charge Study
March 2008
Construction of the City's existing transportation system has been funded largely from
contributions, general tax sources such as property taxes and state gas taxes, and previously paid
SDCs. Contributed assets clearly may not be included in the fee basis. Regarding general tax
sources, the owner of a developing property can effectively argue that they have already paid for
a share of the existing system through the taxes they have paid over time.
Conversely, a strong argument can be made that the cost of assets funded by previously paid
SDC improvement fees provides a valid reimbursement fee cost basis. If the previously paid
charges have funded facilities that still have unused capacity available far growth, then the cost
of that capacity may be included in the cost basis for new customers to pay for a full share of the
capacity that will serve them. We recommend that the City include in the fee basis the cost of
unused capacity in facilities funded by previously paid improvement fees.
B. Improvement Fee Methodology
The improvement fee calculation, like that of the reimbursement fee, is straightforward. In short,
it is the eligible dollar cost of capacity-increasing capital projects divided by the capacity they
will serve. Again, the unit of capacity used becomes the basis of the fee. The overriding issue to
consider in the improvement fee calculation is the identification and separation of capacity-
increasing capital costs.
We recommend that the City utilize the "capacity" method to allocate costs to the improvement
fee basis. Under the capacity approach, the cost of a given project is allocated to growth
proportionately by the capacity made available for growth. As an example, assume we are
allocating the $1 million cost of adding a lane to an existing road to meet existing demand as
well as the needs of growth. If the new lane provides capacity for 500 trips and 200 meet an
existing deficiency and 300 are for growth, then the allocation to the improvement fee basis
would be 300 / 500 = 60% of $1 million, or $600,000.
C. Calculation Summary
In general, a SDC is calculated by adding the applicable reimbursement fee component to the
applicable improvement fee component. Each separate component is calculated by dividing the
eligible cost by the appropriate measure of growth in capacity. The unit of capacity used
becomes the basis of the charge. A sample calculation is shown below.
Reimbursement Fee Improvement Fee SDC
Eligible cost Eligible cost of planned
of capacity in capacity-increasing
existing facilities capital improvements
Growth in system Growth in system
capaciry demand capacity demand
D. SDC (Improvement Fee) Credits
= SDC ($ / unit)
The law requires that credits be provided against the improvement fee, for the construction of
qualified public improvements. Oregon Revised Statute 223.304 states that, at a minimum,
credits be provided against the improvement fee for
3 ~;>FCa4 t~~~t:~l;~?
+
66
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
"the construction of a qualified public improvement. A`qualified public improvement' means a capital
improvement that is required as a condition of development approval, identified in the plan and list
adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309 and either:
(a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval; or
(b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval
and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development
project to which the improvement fee is related."
The law further states that credits
"may be granted only for the cost of that portion of such improvement that exceeds the local
government's minimum standard facility size or capacity needed to serve the particular development
project or property."
The City's current SDC credit policy exceeds statutory requirements in two ways. First, the
City's stated policy is to limit credits for qualified public improvements to the amount of a
developmenYs SDC, rather than the amount of its "improvement fee." Since the City does
not currently have a reimbursement fee, the City's credit policy is functionally equivalent to
statutory requirements. However, given the proposed SDC, which does have a
reimbursement fee component, the Ciry's credit policy will exceed requirements unless it is
modified.
Second, the City's current policy allows for credits to be granted even in those cases where a
developer constructs an improvement that does not meet statutory qualifications for credit. In
such instances, the policy limits credits to 50% of the SDC.
We recommend that the City revise its credit policy to continue to meet minimum legal
requiremcnts. We believe that it is important for the Ciry to retain as much control as
possible over the prioritization and implementation of its transportation capital plans by
retaining SDC revenues. These plans are created to address total system needs - not just the
needs of growth. Without control over how and when those needs are addressed, the re-
prioritization of projects over time can leave important City needs unmet. To avoid this
outcome, credits should:
^ be for the portion of the actual, estimated, or agreed-upon cost of capacity in excess
of that needed to serve the particular development, up to the amount of the
improvement fee;
^ provide cash reimbursement of credits only when funded by SDCs paid by
subsequent development on the site;
^ be for planned projects only; and
^ be provided only upon completion of a"qualified public improvement"
E. Indexing
Oregon law (ORS 223.304) allows for the periodic indexing of system development charges for
inflation, as long as the index used is
"(A) A relevant measurement of the average change in prices or costs over an identified time period for
materials, labor, real property or a combination of the three;
4 ,«
~~;y Ft;~ (.~ ~~~ ~ i,.; ~s
67
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
(B) Published by a recognized organization or agency that produces the index or data source for
reasons that are independent of the system development charge methodology; and
(C) Incorporated as part of the established methodology or identified and adopted in a separate
ordinance, resolution or order."
We propose that the City of Woodburn index its charges to the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the City of Seattle, and adjust the charges annually as per that
index. There is no comparable index for the Portland area.
5 ~:;> k~(.;'~ C; ~~t .~ ( ; I'
68
Ciry of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
III. SDC Calculation
The Ciry's existing transportation SDC is based on projected trip generation by land use.
Specifically, new development is charged by added average daily trips (ADTs).
Existing Transportation SDC
SDC Component Charge Basis
Reimbursement Fee $ 0 N/A
Improvement Fee $ 343.32 Per Average Daily Trip
Based on the above transportation SDC schedule, a single-family residential home would be
charged a SDC of $3,286 - corresponding to 9.57 average daily trips. Commercial charges vary
by specific land use type.
Both the existing and the proposed charges are based on trip generation statistics provided in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual for each land use type and
development size. However, the proposed charges are based on peak-hour trips (P-HTs), instead
of average daily trips. Peak-hour trips are defined as the average trip rate for the peak hour of
adjacent street traffic, usually during the traditional commuting peak periods of 7 am to 9 am
and/or 4 pm to 6 pm. Transportation engineers commonly use peak-hour trip estimates to assess
transportation performance and determine system needs. Average daily trips, as measures of total
traffic volume, are not generally used to size a system. We recommend that the City move to a
peak-hour basis for its transportation SDC (and proposed new IDC).
Finally, there is documentation presented in the ITE Trip Generation manual that a significant
percentage of trip ends associated with specific land uses are a result of linked, or pass-by, trips.
Accordingly, the proposed charges are adjusted for linked, or pass-by, trips - as shown at the end
of this section.
The calculation of the proposed transportation SDC is summarized below and provided in detail
in Appendix A.
A. Capacity Basis
In order to estimate the number of peak-hour trips to be generated by growth over the planning
period (ending in 2020) - the denominator in both the reimbursement and improvement fee
calculations - the following approach was taken:
• Previous study had found that the City's development generated 71,228 average daily trips in
1999. At the same time, it was forecasted that future development would generate 104,060
average daily trips in 2020. This forecast represented average trip growth of 1.82% per year.
Current trip levels were estimated by applying the average annual growth rate of 1.82% to
the 1999 trip total. This resulted in an estimate of 82,294 average daily trips in 2007.
• Accordingly, Citywide trip growth during the study period was estimated to be 21,766
average daily trips, based on growth from 82,294 in 2007 to 104,060 in 2020.
s ~s~Y FC~~ t : ~~t } ~._: I'
69
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
• The forecast of 2,177 new peak-hour trips within the existing City limits during the study
period was derived from the standard assumption of a 1:10 ratio between peak-hour trips and
average daily trips.
• Additionally, during the study period, a portion of the urban growth area called the
Interchange Management Area (IMA) is expected to be annexed into the City. This area is
expected to generate, and development will be limited to, 2,500 new peak-hour trips.
• Therefore, in total, new development was expected to generate 4,677 peak-hour trips.
B. Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis
In order to estimate the cost of unused capacity in the existing transportation system - the
numerator in the reimbursement fee calculation - it is important to recall that the transportation
infrastructure has been funded largely by general tax sources, leaving unused capacity in SDC-
funded infrastructure eligible for inclusion in the reimbursement fee. The City reported
$2,937,550 of historical transportation SDC (improvement fee only) expenditures from FY 2004
through FY 2006. Current unused capacity was estimated by reducing the SDC expenditure total
for each year proportionally by the population growth that had occurred since that year. The
resulting total of unused capacity in the existing system was $2,459,662.
The City did not have any related grant contributions or outstanding debt principal that would
reduce the existing unused capacity cost eligible for SDC recovery.
C. Reimbursement Fee Calculation
The reimbursement fee was then calculated as the reimbursement fee cost basis, $2,459,662,
divided by forecasted growth in peak-hour trips, 4,677. The result of this calculation was a base
reimbursement fee of $525.95 per peak-hour trip.
D. Improvement Fee Cost Basis
The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity-increasing capital
improvements for inclusion in the improvement fee cost basis.
The City's 2005 Woodburn Transportation System Plan and 2007 Transportation Impact Fee
Project List provided a list of needed capital projects. The sum of this list of project costs in
current dollars was $123,066,269, of which $48,180,311 was identified as the City's cost
share after accounting for participation from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) and other outside sources. Other outside sources included primarily anticipated
developer responsibilities as portions of each project.
• To allocate the project costs to growth, City staff provided either existing and future peak-
hour trip volumes and/or current and future peak-hour roadway capacities for each project.
The capacity-increasing allocation for projects that improved roadway capacity beyond 2020
needs were reduced to account for only the demands of growth to the end of the study period.
• Additionally, previous study had found that 49% of City trip volumes were due to pass-
through trips that neither originate nor end within City limits. Despite the fact that these trips
utilize increased roadway capacity, they are not generated by development within the City.
Accordingly, SDC eligible cost allocations for nearly all projects were reduced by 49% to
~ ~:~>FC.;S c;l~i~l.'I'
70
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
account for pass-through trips - with the exceptions being improvements that would not
provide capacity for pass-through trips (i.e., pedestrian/bicycle facilities and park and ride
improvements).
• Therefore, after accounting for the City's share of improvement costs, each project's
capacity-increasing percentage, and pass-through trips, an initial total of eligible costs for the
improvement fee was $17,557,672.
• Next, in order to account for the use of the increased capacity of the new I-5 interchange by
Citywide development, 50% of the City's cost share for the interchange was added to the
improvement fee. This amounted to $2,750,000 and increased the unadjusted improvement
fee cost total to $20,307,672.
• Finally, the ending FY 2007 improvement fee fund balance, $6,535,765, was deducted to (1)
recognize that the fund balance is available for spending on the project list and (2) prevent
new users from paying for those project costs twice. The resulting net total of $13,771,907
was the improvement fee cost basis.
E. Improvement Fee Calculation
The improvement fee was then calculated as follows. The improvement fee cost basis of
$13,771,907 was divided by total forecasted growth in peak-hour trips, 4,677, to establish the
base improvement fee of $2,944.85 per peak-hour trip.
F. Recommended System Development Charge
The recommended transportation SDC of $3,497 per peak-hour trip is the sum of the
rcimbursement fee and the improvement fee, adjusted by an administrative cost recovery factor
uf 0.75%. The administrative cost recovery factor was derived by dividing projected annual SDC
and IDC accounting and administrative costs, including the amortized cost of this study, by
forecasted annual SDC and IDC revenues. The resulting recommended SDCs for a
comprehensive list of land uses are provided below.
8 =~;>~C.~S~ (:;~~C;t.;~~
71
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
71F I SDC S 3,497 per P-HT
~~
C
d Customer T
y~
Land Use Descripdon Peak-Hour Pasa-By Adjusted
T~F / SDC
Units
o
e Tri a Tri Faetor P-H Ts
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single use.
110 General light Industnal Examples: Pnnting plants, matarial testing laboratories, data processing 0.98 1 I 0.98 S 3,427 KSF
e ui ment assembl ower stadons. ~~~
130 IndusMal Park ~ndustrial Park areas that contain a number of industrial andlor related 0
86
facilities mix of manufacturin sarvice and warehouse . . 1 0.86 s 3,007 KSF
140 Manufacturing Facilities tha[ canvert raw ma[enals inlo finished products. Typically ~ 74
have related office warehouse research and associated functions. ~ 0.74 S 2.588 KSF
Storage Units or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physically '
I
1 S1 Mini-W arehouse separete and aceess through an overhead door or other common 0.26 1 ! 0.26 f 909 KSF
access oint. Exam le: U-Store-H. ~
210 SF Delached Sin le famil detached housin . 1.01 1 1.01 S 3 532 DU
Rental Dwelling Units within the same building. At leasl4 units in the
220 Apartment same building. Examplea: ~uadplexea and all types of apartment 0.62 1 0.62 f 2,168 DU
buildin s.
Residential CondaniniumlTownhouses under single-family ownership.
230 CondolTownhouse Minimum of lwo single famity units in the same building sWcture. 0.52 1 0.52 S 7,818 ~ DU
Trailers or Manufactured homes that are sited on pertnaneM
240 Mobile Home foundations. Typically the parks have community facilifies (laundry, 0.59 1 0.59 ; 2,083 DU
recreation rooms ools . I
Restncted to senior citizens. Contains residen6al units similar to
253 Elderly Housing apaAmen[s or condos. Sometimes in seH-contained villages. May also p ~~ ~ p
~~ s 594 DU
contain medical facilities, dining, and some limited, supporting retail. .
Lodging fadlity lhat may include restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, I
370 Hotel and/or convention facilities. Can include a large motel with these D.59 1 I, 0.59 S 2,063 Room
facilities. '
320 Motel Sleeping accommodations and oRen a rastaurant. Frae on-site parking
and litlle or no meetin ace. ~ 47 ~ 0.47 S 1,644 Room
Cityownad parks, varying widely as to location, typa, and number of ~.
411 ' Local Park facilities, induding boating / swimming facilities, ball fields, and picnic 0.09 1 ~'~, 0.09 S 315 Acre
facilitias. '~
Includes 9. 16, 27, and 36 hole municipal and private country clubs.
430 Golf Course Some have driving ranges and clubhouses with pro shops, reslaurents,
lounges. Many of the muni courses do not include such facilities. z ~4 ~ 2,7q
I S 9,582 Hole
Multi-purpose racreational tacili6es contain two or more of the follovnng ~ ~~~
43S Multipurpose Recreation Facility land uses at one site: mini-goH, batting cages, video arcade, bumper 5.77 1 5.77 S 20,176 Acre
boats o-carts and drivin ran s. I
437 Bowling Alley Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small ~~
loun e restaurant or snack bar. 3 S4 ~
3.54 = 12,379 Lane
Privataly owned with weightliRing and other facilities often including
493 Athletic Club swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, racquet ball, squash, and handball 5.76 1 i SJ6 S 20,143 KSF
court5.
Recreational community centers are facili[ies similar to and including
495 Recreational Community Center YMCAs, oHen including classes, day care, meeting rooms, swimming ~~ ~ ~ 64
pools, tennis racquelball, handball, weightlifting equipment, locker , S 5,735 KSF
rooms & food service.
520 • Elemanta School Public. T icall serves K-6 rades. 028 1 i 0.28 j 979 Student
522 Middle School Publia Serves students that completed elementary and have not yet ~
entered hi schooL p ~ 5 ~
~ 0.15
~ S 525 Student
530 Hi h School Public. Serves students that com leted middle or'unior hi h school. 0.74 1 0.74 j 490 Student
540 JuniodCommuni Colle e Two- ear'uniorcoll esorcommuni colle es. 0.12 1 0.12 S 420 Student
560 Church Contains worship area and may include meeting rooms, classrooms, ~
dinin area and facilities. 0.66 1
0.66 = 2,308 KSF
565 ` Day Care Facility for pre-school children qre primarity during daytime hours. May 13.18 0.33 ~ 4.35 S 15,212 KSF
include classrooms, offces, eafin areas, and play rounds. 0.82 0.33 ' 0.27 S 944 Student
590 Library Public or Pnvate. Contains shelved books, readin rooms or areas,
9
sometlmes meetin rooms.
~~09
~ 7.09 s 2q,794 KSF
591 Lod elFraternal Or anization
9 9 Includes a club house with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and
0
03
1
0
03
s 105
M
b
entertainment areas and meetin rooms. . i
. em
er
Ofice building with multiple tenanls. Mixture of tenants can include
710 General OTfice professional services, hank and Loan institutions, restaurants, snack 1.49 1 i 1.49 ; 5,271 KSF
bars and service relail facililies.
Single tenant office building. Usually contains offices, meeting rooms,
715 Single Tenant Office Building file storage areas, data processing, restaurant or cafetena, and othar 1.73 ~ 1 1 J3 S 6,050 KSF
service functlons.
720 Medical-Dental Office Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically 3 ~2 ~
o reted b one or mo~e ' ate h sicians or dantists. 3.72 S 13,009 KSF
Park or campus-like planrred unit development that coMains office
750 ONice Park buildings and support services such as banks & loan institutions, 1.5 1 1.5 S 5,248 KSF
restaurants sarvice stations.
760 Research & Development Center Single building or complex of buildings davoted to research & ~ 08 ~ ~I ~
pg 777
s 3 KSF
develo ment. Ma contain offices and li ht fabrication facilities. . ,
Group of flex-type or inwbaror 1- 2 story buildings served by a common ,
770 Businass Park roadway system. Tenant space is flexible to accommodate a variery of ~ 29 ~ I ~
uses. Rear of building usually servad by a garaga door. Typically .zg
'~. ; 4,511 KSF
includes a mix of officea retail 8 wholesale.
9 ~;> FC:~:i ~ ; ~~( ~ C: `I~
72
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
ITE Customer Type Land Use Descriptlon Peak~Fiour Pass-By Adjusted TIF / SDC Units
Code Tri s Td Factor P-H Ts
Small, free slanding building that sells hardware, building materials, and
612 Building Materials & Lumber ~umber. May include yard slorage and shed storege areas. The storage 4 49 ~ q.qg s 15,702 KSF
areas are not included in the GLA needed for tnp generation estimates.
813 Discount Super Stora A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery 3.87 0.718 2.78 = 9,722 KSF
de t. under one roof.
Small strip shopping centers containing a vanety of relail shops [hat
814 Specialty Retail typically specialize in apparel, harc! goods, serves such as real estate, 2.71 7 2.71 S 9,477 KSF
investment dance studios florists and small restaurants.
A free-slanding discount store that offars a variety ot customer services,
815 Discount S[ore centralized cashiaring, and a wida range of products under one roof. 5.06 0.475 2.4 S 6,393 KSF
Does not include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-
standin Discount Su erstore.
g16 Hardware/Paint Store Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell paints 4~q 0.450 2.18 S 7,823 KSF
and hardware.
Free-standing building with yard containing planting or landscape slock.
May have large green houses and oifer landscape services. Typically 8
3 1 3
8 S 73
289 KSF
8~7 Nursery/Garden Center have office, storege, and shipping facilities. GLA is Building GLA, not . . ,
ard and stora e GLA.
Integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned,
developed, owned, and me~aged as a unit. Provides enough on-site
820
Shopping Center parking to serve its own parking demand. May include nor~
3.75
0.393
1.47
S 5,147 KSF
merchandising faci~ilies such as office buildings, movie theatres, Leasable
restaurents, post offices, health clubs, and recreation like skafing rinks
and amusements.
841 New Car Sales New Car dealershi with sales, service, arts, and used vehicles 2.64 1 2.64 S 9 232 KSF
848 Tire Store Primary business is tire sales and repair. Generally does not have a 4.15 '~~ 1 4.15 S 14,573 KSF
la e sto2 e or warehouse area. ~
850 Supermarke~ Free-standing grocery store. May also contain ATMs, photo centers, ~0.45 0.265 276 = 9,652 KSF
harmacies video rental areas.
851 Convenience Market Sells convenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and oken Beer & 52.41 0.282 14.8 = 51,756 KSF
W ine. Does not have as um s.
880 Pharma w/o dnve throu h Facilities that fu~ll medical Prescn tions 8.42 0.327 2.75 S 9 817 KSF
881 Pharma w/ dnve throu h Facilities tha[ fulfill medical Presai tions 8.62 0.383 3.3 S 11 540 KSF
890 Fumiture Store Sells fumiture, accessories, and oflen car eUfloor coverin s. 0.46 0.157 0.07 S 245 KSF
971 '
Waik-In Bank Usually a Free-standing 6uilding with a parking IoL Does not have drive- 33.15 0270 ~ 8.95
S 31,298
KSF
u Windows. Ma have ATMS.
9~2 Dnve-In Bank Provides Drive-u and walk-in bank services. Ma have ATMs. 45.74 0.270 12.35 S 43 788 KSF
931 Duality Rastaurant High quality eating establishment with slower turnover rates (more than ~.49 0.288 2.15 j 7,579 KSF
one hour .
932 High Tumover Sit-Down Rest Sit-Down eating establishment with tumovar retes of less ihan one hour. ~Q 9z 0.315 3.44 ; 12,030 KSF
933 • Fast Food w/o DrivaThru Fas[ Food but no drive-throu h window 26.15 0.265 6.94 S Z~ 269 KSF
934 Fast Food With Drive-Thru Fast Food with dnvo-throu h window 34.64 0.265 9.2 S 32172 KSF
CoMains a bar where alcoholic bevarages and snacks are serviced and
936' Dnnking Place possibly some type of entertainment such as music, gamas, or pool 11.34 0.375 3.59 S 72,519 KSF
tables
944 Gas Station Sell gasoline and may also provida vehicle service and repair. Does not ~ 3.86 0.235 3.26 400
S 11 ~ Fueling
hava Convenience Market andJor Car Wash. , Position
i
n
h Selling gas and Conveniencs Market are the pnmary business. May Fueling
9~ Gas/Service Stat
on v
t also coMain facilities for service and repair. Does not include Car 13.38 0.123 1.65 S 5,770 position
Convenience Market Wash.
GaslService Station vnth Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the pnmary Fueling
9~ ~ Convenience Markat, Car Wash business. May also contain facilities for service and repair. 13.33 0.382 5.09 S 17,800 position
947 Self-Service Car Wash alows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalis for tha dmer [0 5.54 1 5.54 S 19,373 Wash
ark and wash. Stall
NOTES:
Source: InstiNte oi TranspoAation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
Peak-Hour Trips: Waekday, peak-hour of adjacent street tra~c. Most often, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
Pass-By Trip Factor reFlects diverted linked Vips in addition to passby irips.
ITE codes identfied with astensks (') include information derived from the ITE manual (e.g., the passby factor is derived from pass-by counts for a similar land use or are as
eslimaled by traffic engineers).
Land Use Units:
KSF = 1,000 gross square faet building area
DU = dwelling unit
Room = num6er of rooms for rent
Fueling Positions = maximum number ot vehicles that can be served simultaneously
Student = number of fulV-time equivalent studeMS anrolled
Hole = number of individual putting holes that are paired with driving tees
Acre = 43,560 square feet of park space
~ane = number of bowling lanes
10 ~:;' FC,~~ ~ , t~t ~ ~..; I>
73
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
IV. IDC Calculation
An interchange development charge (IDC) is simply a separate SDC designated to recover the
cost of the growth-related portion of the City's share of an interchange project. Since the
interchange is a planned, future project, the IDC is made up entirely by an improvement fee. It
was structured similarly to the proposed SDC - applied on a basis of peak-hour trips.
The calculation of the proposed transportation IDC is summarized below and provided in detail
in Appendix A.
A. Capacity Basis
As noted previously, during the study period, the Interchange Management Area (IMA) is
expected to be annexed into the City. By agreement with the State, development in this area will
be limited to the generation of 2,500 new peak-hour trips.
B. IDC Cost Basis
The following approach was taken to determine the cost of capacity-increasing capital
improvements for inclusion in the IDC cost basis.
• The total cost of the interchange project was estimated to be $50,000,000 in 2005. Of that,
the remaining City share of the project cost is $5,500,000.
• As a pro-rata share of the interchange project cost based on trip growth would result in an
IDC cost basis that would be greater than the City's funding responsibility, 100% of the
City's share of the project cost was instead allocated to growth. Accordingly, the initial IDC
cost basis was $5,500,000.
• Since the City will recover half of this cost through its Citywide SDC, the IDC cost basis
became $2,750,000.
C. IDC Calculation
The IDC was then calculated as follows. The IDC cost basis of $2,750,000 was divided by the
total growth in peak-hour trips in the IMA, 2,500, to establish the base IDC of $1,100.00 per
peak-hour trip.
D. Recommended Interchange Development Charge
The recommended IDC of $1,108 per peak-hour trip is the base IDC adjusted by an
administrative cost recovery factor of 0.75%. The administrative cost recovery factor was
derived by dividing projected annual SDC and IDC accounting and administrarive costs,
including the amortized cost of this study, by forecasted annual SDC and IDC revenues. The
resulting recommended IDCs for a comprehensive list of land uses are provided below.
t ~ &R~> FC:1~ ~~ h~ .~ t.; I'
74
City of Woadburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
IDC S 1,108 perP-HT
~~
~ Customer Type Land Uae Dascrl tlon
P Peak-Hour Pasa-By Adjuated
TF / SDC
Unita
• Tri s Tri Factor p-H Ta
Typically less than 500 employees, free standing and single usa. ,
110 Generel Light Industrial 6camples: Pnnting plants, material testing laboratones, data procassing 0.98 1 ~~ 0.98 S 1,088 KSF
e ui mentassembl owerstations.
130 Industrial PaAc Industrial Park areas that co~tain a number of industrial and/or related 0
86 1
facilities mix of manufadurin service and warehause . . 0.86 S 953 KSF
140 Manufactunn
9 Facilities that convert rew materials inro finished produds. Typicaity
have related oKce warehouse research and associatad functions. 0.74 1 , 0.74 S 820 KSF
Storage UnRs or Vaults rented for storage of goods. Units are physicaliy
1S1 Mini-Warehouse separete and access [hrough an ovarhead door or other wmmon 0.26 1 0.26 S 288 KSF
access oint. 6cam le: U-5tore-It.
210 SF Detached Sin le famil detached housin . 1.01 1 1.01 s 1 119 DU
Rental Dvrelling Units within the same building. At least 4 units in the
220 Apartment same building. ~amples: Quadplexes and all types of apartment 0.62 1 0.62 S 687 DU
buildin s. I
Residential Condominium/Townhousas under singlafamily ownership.
230 CondolTownhouse Minimum of two single hamily units in the same building structure. 0.52 1 0.52 S 578 DU
Treilers or Manufactured homes that are sited on pertnanent
240 Mobile Home foundations. Typically the parks have communily facilities (laundry, 0.59 1 I 0.59 = B54 DU
recreation rooms ools .
Restricted to seniar citizens. Contains residential units similar ta
253 Elderl Housin
Y 9 apartments or condos. Sometimes in seH-contained villages. May also
~
~~
~
0
17 j 188 DU
contain medical tacilities, dining, and some limited, supporting retail. ' .
Lodging facility that may include restaurents, lounges, meeting rooms,
310 Hotel andlor convention facilities. Can include a large motel with these 0.59 1 ~ 0.59 s 854 Room
facilities.
320 Motel Sleeping accommodaGons and often a restaurant. Free on-site parlting
and little or no meetin s ace. 0.4~ 1 0.47 f 521 Room
Cityowned parks, varying widely as to location, lype, and number of ~.
411 ` lowl Parh faciliGes, including boating 1 swimming facilities, ball fields, and picnic 0.09 1 ~ 0.09 ; 100 Acre
facilities.
Includes 9, 18, 27, and 36 hole municipal and private country clubs.
430 Golf Course Some have driving renges and clubhouses with pro shops, restaurents, z ~4 1 i 234 s 3
038 I Hole
lounges. Many of tha muni courses do not include such facilities. ~ ,
Multi-purpose recreadonal facilities contain iwo or more of the following '
435 Multipurpose Recreation Facility land uses at one site: mini-golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper 5.77 1 577 j 6,393 Acre
boats o-carts and drivin ran s.
437 Bowlin Alle
9 y Recreational facilities with bowling lanes which may include a small
`
I
loun e restaurent or snack bar. 3.
.xl 1 3.54 S 3,922 Lane
Pnvately owned with weightlifting and other facilities often including
493 Athlafic Club swimming pools, hot tubs, saunas, recquet ball, squash, and handball 5J6 1 ( 5J6 S 6,382 KSF
courts.
Recreational community centers are facilities similar to and including ~~
495 Racreational Communi Center
ty YMCAs, oRen including classes, day care, meefing rooms, swimming
pools, tennis racquetball, handball, weightlrfting aquipment, locker ~'64 ~ 1.64 S i,817 KSF
rooms & tood service. I
520' Elementa School Public. T icall serves K£ 2des. 0.28 1 ' 028 S 310 Student
522 Middle School Publia Servas students that completed elamentary and have not yet ~
enlered hi h school. 0.15 1
0.15 S 766 Student
5J0 Hi h School Public. Serves students that com leted middle or ~unior hi h school. 0.14 1 0.14 s 1 S5 Student
540 JuniorlCommunit Colle e Two- ear'unior colle es or communi colle es. 0.12 1 0.12 S 133 Student
560 Church Contains worship area and may indude meeting rooms, classrooms,
dinin area and facilities. 0.66 1 0.66
~ S 731 KSF
565' Day Care Facility for pre-school children care primanly during day[ime hours. May 13.18 0.33 ~. 4.35 S 4.820 KSF
include classrooms, o~ces, eatin areas, and pla rounds. 0.82 0.33 ~~ 0.27 s 299 Student
590 Libra
ry Public or Private. Contains shelved books, reading rooms or areas, I
sometimes meetin rooms.
7.09
1
7.09 S 7,858 KSF
597 Lod elFraternal O anization
9 ~ Includes a club house with dining and dnnking facilities, recreational and 0
03 '
entertainment areas and meetin rooms.
.
7
0.03 s 33 Member
OTfice building with multiple tenants. Mi~cture of tenants can include
710 Gene~al Offica professional servicas, bank and Loan institu[io~s, restsurants, snack 1.49 1 j 1.49 ; 1,657 KSF
bars and service retail facilitias. !
Single tenan[ oTfica building. Usually contains offices, mee[ing rooms,
715 Single Tenant Offica Builtling fle storage areas, data processing, restauran[ or cafetena, and other 1.73 1 1.73 S 1,917 KSF
sennce functions.
720 Medical-Dental Office Provides diagnosis and outpatient care on a routine basis. Typically 3
7z ~
o erated b one or more nvale h sicians or dentists.
•
~
3J2 s 4,122 KSF
Park or campuslike planned unit development that contains office
750
Office Park
buildings and support services such as banks $ loan institutions,
1.5 ~
1 I
1.5
S 1,662
KSF
restaurants service stations.
760 Research & Develo ment Center
P Singla building or complex of buildings devoted to rasearch 8
~
08
~
1
06
797
S 7
KSF
develo ment. Ma contain offices and li t fabrication facilities. ~ . ,
Group of fiex-type or inwbator t- 2 story buildings served by a common
770 Business Park roadway system. Tenant spaca is Bexible to accommodate a vanety of ~'
uses. Rear of building usually served by a garege door. Typically ~ 29 ~
~. ~.pg
', s 1,429 KSF
includes a mix of oKces retail & wholesale. '
12 •~,> FC:S~ t. ~ ~~~.=~ C.; ~'
75
City of Woodburn
Transportation System Development Charge Study
March 2008
~~ Peak-Hour Pass-By Adjusted
Code Customar Typa Land Use Deseripdon
Tri s
Tri Factor
P-H Ts nF / SDC UniG
Small, free standing building that setls hardware, building materials, and
812 Building Materials 8 Lumber lumber. May induda yard storage and shed storage areas. The s[orage 4 49 ~ 4.49 S 4,975 KSF
areas are not included in the GLA needed for trip generation estimates.
813 Discount Super Store A free-standing discount store that also contains a full service grocery 3.87 0.718 2.78 080
S 3 KSF
d t. under one roof. ,
Small stnp shopping centers cantaining a vanety of retail shops that i
81~ Specialty Retail typically specialize in apparel, hard goods, serves such as real estate, 2.71 1 i 2.71 S 3,003 i KSF
investment dance sludioa florists and small restaurents.
A free-standing discounf store that offers a variety of customar services,
815 Discount Store centralized cashiering, and a wide renge of produds under one roaf. 5.06 0.475 2.4 S 2,659 KSF
Does not include a full service grocery dept. like Land Use 813, Free-
standin Discount Su erstore.
816 Hardware/Paint Slore Typically free-standing buildings with off-street parking that sell pain4s 4.84 0.450 2.18 { 2
415 KSF
and hardware. ,
Freastanding building with yard conWining planting or landscape stock.
677 Nursery/Garden Center May have large green houses and offer landscape sarvicas. Typically 3.8 1 I 3.8 ~ 4
210 KSF
have office, storege, and shipping facilides. GLA is Building GLA, not ,
ard and sto e GLA.
Infagrated group of commeroial establishments lhat is planned,
developed, owned, and managed as a unit. Provides enough on-site
820 Shopping Center parking to serve its own parking demand. May include norr 3.75 0.393 I 1'47 f ~'6zg
merchandising facilities such as oifice buildings, movie theatres, Leas ble
restaurents, post offices, health clubs, and recreation like skating nnks I
~
and amu ments.
841 New Car Sales New Car dealershi with sales, service, arts, and used vehicles 2.64 1 2.64 S 2,925 KSF
848 Tire Store P~mary business is tire sales and repair. Generelly does not have a 4~5 1 i 4.15 s 4
598 KSF
la e stora e or warahouse area. ,
850 Supermarket Free-standing grocery stare. May also contain ATMs, photo centers, ~0.45 0.265 j 2
76 058
S 3 KSF
harmacies video rental areas. . ,
851 Convenience Market Sells wnvenience foods, newspapers, magazines, and often Beer & 52.41 ~ 0.282 14.8 S 16
398 KSF
Wine. Does not have as um s. ,
880 Phartnac wlo drive throu h Facilities fhat fu~ll medical Prescn tions 8.42 0.327 2.75 f 3 047 KSF
881 Phartnac wl drive throu h Facilities that fulfill medical Prescri tions 8.62 0.383 3.3 S 3 656 KSF
890 Furniture Store Sells fumiture, accessories, and often ca eVfloor coverin s. 0.46 0.157 0.07 S 78 KSF
911 ' Walk-In Bank Usually a Free-standing building with a parking lot. Does not have driva 33.15 0.270 8.95 917
S 9 KSF
u windows. Ma have A7Ms. ,
912 Drive-In Bank Provides Drivau and walk-in bank services. Ma have ATMS. 45.74 0270 12.35
~ S 13 684 KSF
931 Quality Restauram High qualiry eating establishment with slower tumover rates (more than 7 49 0.288
2.15
~ S 2
382 KSF
one hour . ,
932 High Tumover Sit-Down Rest. Sit-Down eating establishment with tumover rates of less than one hour. ~0.92 0.315 3.44 S 3,812 KSF
933 ' Fast Food w/o Drive-Thru Fast Food but no drive-fhrou h window 26.15 0.265 6.94 S 7 690 KSF
9J4 Fast Food W ith ~rive-Thru Fast Food wilh drive-throu h window 34.64 0.265 92 S 10 794 KSF
Contains a bar where alcoholic beverages and snadcs are serviced and
936' D~inking Place possibiy some type of entertainmenl such as music, games, or pool 11.34 0.315 3.58 S 3,967 KSF
tables
944 Gas Station Sell gasoline and may also provide vehicie service and repaic Does not ~3.88 0235 3.26 612
S 3 Fueling
have Convenience Market and/a Car Wash. , Position
Gas/Service Station with Selling gas and Convenience Market are the primary business. May ii Fueling
~5 Convenience Market also contain facilities for service and repair. Does not inGude Car 13.38 0.123 ~, 1.65 S 1,828 position
W ash.
~~ Gas/Service Station with Selling gas, Convenience Market, and Car Wash are the primary
b
i
M
l
t
i
f
ili
i
f
13
33 ~'~
i Fueling
Convenience Market, Car Wash us
ness.
ay a
so con
n
ac
t
or service and repair.
a
es . 0.382
5.09 S 5~640 position
947
Self-Service Car Wash Allows manual cleaning of vehicles by providing stalls for the driver to
5.54 ~.
7 5.54
S 8
~~ Wash
ark and wash. ~ Stall
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Tnp Generafion, Seventh Edition.
Peak-Hour Trips: Weekday, peak-hour of adjacent street traffic. Most oiten, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m.
PassBy Trip Factor refieds diverted linked trips in addition to pass-by trips.
ITE codes identifed with astensks (') include infortnation danved from the ITE manual (e.g., the pass-by factor is derived trom pass-by counts for a similar land use or are as
estimated by ireffic engineere).
Land Use Units:
KSF = 1,000 gross square feet building area
DU = dwelling unit
Room = number af rooms for rent
Fueling Positions = maximum number of vehicles that can be served simultaneously
Studant = number of full-time equivalent students enrolled
Hole = number ot individual putling hdas that are paired with driving tees
Acre = 43,560 square feat oi park space
Lane = number of bowling lanas
13 *>~> FC..~4 ~ ~ ~~t. ~ ~,= I'
76
Appendix A
Technical Analysis
Appendix A *m~! .~{.,~ ~_, ~i~. ~ ~. ' ~ ~
77
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Alternative Fee Calculation: 50.0% of Interchange Cost in SDC
Table 1: Citywide SDC
Reimbursement Fee
Cost of Net Unused Capacity
Citywide Growth to End of Planning Period
Reimbursement Fee
Improvement Fee
Capacity Expanding CIP
Citywide Growth to End of Planning Period
Improvement Fee
Total Svstem Develooment Charae
Reimbursement Fee
Improvement Fee
TIF / SDC Subtotal
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery
Total TIF / SDC
Peak-Hour Trips
$ 2,459,662
4,677 Peak-Hour Trips
$ 525.95 per P-HT
$ 13,771,907
4,677 Peak-Hour Trips
$ 2,944.85 per P-HT
$ 525.95 per P-HT
$ 2,944.85 per P-HT
$ 3,470.81 per P-HT
0.75% $ 26.06 per P-HT
S 3.497 ~er P-HT
Table 1: Interchange Development Charge
$ 2,459,662
46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 52.60 per ADT
$ 13,771,907
46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 294.49 per ADT
$ 52.60 per ADT
$ 294.49 per ADT
$ 347.08 per ADT
$ 2.61 per ADT
S 350 per ADT
Improvement Fee Peak-Hour Tri s Avera e Dail Tri s
Capacity Expanding CIP
IMA Growth to End of Planning Period
Interchange Development Charge Subtotal $ 2,750,000
2,500 Peak-Hour Tnps
$ 1,100.00 per P-HT $ 2,750,000
25,000 Average Daily Trips
$ 110.00 per ADT
plus: Administrative Cost Recovery 0.75% $ 8.26 per P-HT $ 0.83 per ADT 0.40%
Total Interchange Development Charge $ 7,108 per P-HT 5 111 per ADT
Total Charge for UGA Development E 4,605 per P-HT s 461 per ADT
Full-Cost SDC - Grants First A I to Existin Needs
Peak-Hour Tri s Avera e Dail Tri s
$ 2,459,662 $ 2,459,662
4,677 Peak-Hour Trips 46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 525.95 per P-HT $ 52.60 per ADT
$ 30,300,364 $ 30,300,364
4,677 Peak-Hour Trips 46,766 Average Daily Trips
$ 6,479.14 per P-HT $ 647.91 per ADT
$ 525.95 per P-HT $ 52.60 per ADT
$ 6.479.14 per P-HT $ 647.91 per ADT
$ 7,005.09 per P-HT $ 700.51 per ADT
$ 28.12 per P-HT $ 2.81 per ADT
S 7,033 per P-HT S 703 per ADT
Peak-Hour Tri s Avera e Dail Tri s
$ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000
2,500 Peak-Hour Trips 25,000 Average Daily Trips
$ 1,100.00 perP-HT $ 110.00 perADT
$ 4.41 per P-HT $ 0.44 per ADT
E 1,104 per P-HT S 710 per ADT
S 8,137 per P-HT ; 873 per ADT
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Mode1042108 FINAL 4/2?J2008
/ t5
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Customer Data: Trip Growth
Table 2
Trip Data
Within Citv Limits # Year Note
Initial Average Daily Trips 71,228 1999 (~)
Future Average Daily Trips 104,060 2020 (~)
Average Annual Daily Trip Growth 1.82% (2)
Current Average Daily Trips 82,294 2007 (3)
Future Average Daily Trips at End of Period 104,060 2020 (3) and (4)
ADT Growth During Study Period 21,766
Peak-Hour Trip Growth During Study Period 2,177 (5)
Within Interchanae Manas~ement Area (IMA
P-HT Growth Within (IMA) 2,500 (6)
Trip Growth Summarv P-HTs ADTs
Citywide Trip Growth, 2007 - 2020 4,677 46,766 (~)
IMA Trip Growth, 2007 - 2020 2,500 25,000 (8)
NOTES
(~ ) Source: Traffic modeling performed by Kittleson and Associates. 1999 TIF Update. Pass-through trips which neither begin nor end within the City are excluded.
~2) Annual compounded rate of growth from 1999-2020.
~3) Based on projected average daily trip growth from 1999-2020.
(4) The 2005 Transportation System Plan establishes "transportation facilities and services adequate to meet the City's transportation needs to the planning horizon year of
2020" (page 1-2).
~5) Peak-hour trips are estimated based on the assumption of a 1:10 ratio with average daily trips.
~6) Limited to 2,500 P-HTs per ODOT agreement. Resulting Citywide ADT growth equals 46,766 ADTs.
~~) Citywide trip growth consists of the existing ADT growth forecast plus the IMA peak-hour trip growth quota, assuming a 1:10 ratio with average daily trips.
~$) Average daily trips are estimated based on the assumption of a 10:1 ratio with peak-hour trips.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Mo~ 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Existing Infrastructure Costs for TIF / SDC
Table 3
Capacity Unused Used
Description Related Capacity Capacity
Historical TIF / SDC Expenditures (1) $ 2,937,550 $ 2,459,662 $ 477,888
less: Net Debt Principal Outstanding $ - $ -
less: Grant Contributions ~_ $ -
Allocable Plant-in-Service $ 2,937,550 $ 2,459,662 $ 477,888
NOTES
(1) Unused Capacity of Assets Funded by TIF / SDC Expenditures. To date, the charge has not had a reimbursement fee component (source: 1999 TIF
Unused Capacity of Assets Funded by TIF / SDC Expenditures
Construction Year FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Improvement Fee Expenditures [Note A]
Percentage For Capacity Increasing Projects $ 2,786,050
100% $ 96,500
100% ~ 55,000
100%
Applicable TIF / SDC Expenditures $ 2,786,050 $ 96,500 $ 55,000
Beginning Trip Total [Note B]
Current Trip Total (FY 2007) [Note B]
Ending Trip Total for Study Period (FY 2020) [Note 7,796
8,229
10,406 7,938
8,229
10,406 8,082
8,229
10,406
% of Capacity Used by Growth to FY 2007 16.6% 11.8% 6.3%
Cost of Unused Capacity $ 2,323,054 $ 85,092 $ 51,516
Note [A]. Source: FY2004 - FY2006 Street SDC report of resources and expenditures (Fund 376).
Note [B]. Source: Peak-hour trips derived from 1999-2020 ADT trip forecast.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Mo~ej 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
u
City of Woodburn
Transportarion Impact Fee SDC Study
71F I SDC Project List: Citywide SDC
Table 4
Peak-Hour Volumes 2 Ca aci 3 Eligible (3) Serving (3) Project
Project Yr of Cost 2002 2007 20Y0 Current Future Capacity Existing Serves °~ Local °h City Initial Project 2007 Project Minimal SDC Full SDC
# Source (1) Estimate Project Title Trips Trips w/ Pro'ect Trips Trips Increasing % Deficiency Growth To Trips (4) Funding (5) Cost (1) Cost (6) Eligible Cost Eli ible Cost
2 b 7SP Proposed TranspoAaUOO Improvaments
_-
~
. ...
. __. _. __
..
-
C)R Nd w tlen~ i;~ irorr west o! &our,htor Way
~ 1-~..;5 TS' ~pOg
~ 7 425 1
535~ -_ __.
!iia~
3 . __ . 48
8% 0 0°ro 2U't~ b 1.v'a 4i~.0`%0 11.400.000 $ 11
758
912 $ 1
171
319 $ 2
92Q298
.o Par:. A.en~y . . . . .
. .
. .
2 .,.05 TSP 1(iu5 Park-and-rue near CR z14i1-5 inturohanye 0 E50 100.0 % 0 0~6 ~ ~°~
" 7.~95 I5.0',y 1,750.OP0 1,805,096 203,073 270,764
. __ _ . _ . .._.__- _ - .-
U r-ur ot Parr Roa 1 lo serJica coilector
"s 2:;.^.STSP 2UG5 P`~`:.
2riri 5(iG .-. _
fi0.0% . _. .... . .. ..
____-
(i?°f: 2_20 _- _
51_.`i,
3i)A9l,
7.50G,OG0 7,736,126
710,176
2,320.838
sWr:uartl>
..... __--
-___ .
- -
Upqrade Burlevilie Road soutl: af liiyhwav 279
4 _.,J~TSr "tuu~ '
~,~ 296
L50G _ _
802%
f1.0`,c ~..~~
51.v4~
~
30.0',<:~
?.SGG,000 7.736,126
949,858
2,320,838
:o m~r,or arterial star.d&rds .
.
.
_... -__-..__.___
___..___
_ - ... -. .
:; [..,..: 75P 2uuo Eal Everyreen Roaa ic P:~n Reatl
_ -_ __ _
~ _ _ _.--
?fi0 i.cGii -
56.3% _ .- _
0 0';6 :, t'~
. . 51 C`;~
_ _- _. 25 U',.~..
_ .
. ___
.. ...;SA80.LG0 3,176,969 227.848 794.242
_ __-__.
G ~~G,S TSP 2005 Exf stu6b to Fvar~reen _
i :.fi0 - _
97.5% __ _ . . _ __. _
G 0's~ 2"v20 51.~'~; 4U Ga~• 3,9M?,000 4,072,788 800,132 1,809,114
_
_ _ -___ .-__- __ .. _.. . __._.
, ..,...,
' ~ TSr' ~605 E;clBen fi own [o Eve•grecn Extensiun
_ - _ __ _ .
~ 0 'sG0
__ __.__
_
. 100.0%
._
,...~..
0.0`%< ""^" St.v'~o
. ___ _ _
25 0'%. -..__ _._ ___ _. __-
47C~+:,000 4,847,972 __ ._._ _-__
678,116 . _ .__~_
1,211,993
_ . _
~ ~^;?y T~~, . S=~rvice class `acvl~ry behveen E~~er;7r_~_n Roaa --___ ___. _- -
____
p 250 700.0 % (i.U% 2^2~ 57.:?"-, 25.ti"~~:; e.260.4GG 2,331,153 297.222 582,788
and Stac AU:sun Orive ex[cnsions
- _ ~
-__
_____ _.
_
3 2Cfi; TSP 2^05 Ext. S!acey i+llixvn Driva tu Parr Roatl 0 "2,00 100.0 % i? G%. 51.:','',S 25A:b 3,950.GOti 4,074,360 519,481 1,018,590
.. 2CGS TSP ~~µ}5 Upgrade ef Cros6y Rnad tu serv;ce w!lectvr 200 500 60.0% O.G~6 2C^^v 51.^°ro 30 0% 3.3f6,000 3,403,895 312,478 1p21,169
standaras
Upgrade Butter,8e Road north of Highway 219
72 <~J5TSP 2005
t~15
100.0%
RAY. "<:i2G
Sti:,,
30A%
q<H7Qp00 5,054,269
773,303
1,516,287
.~mirorartonalstae
aaNs
OR 95E w~danin oetween ~~ncom S~raat and
`:3 20u5T5P ~005 `'~
1
275 t
i73
1.506
237%
GD~t. 202u
51.ti?6
i5A`~6
5
750.000 5
931
030
107
633
717
556
suuth ci limil5 ,
. .
,
, , ,
14 e~u5 TS'r 2005 Ss Street upgrade lc access sUeal sf~r:dartls EU 3~9 82.9% QO"7. 2:2C 51.:%:, 70.0`i> 1 40QDG6 1,444,077 427,158 610,226
A]] northhuund riyM, southD::und IeR.
~~ 2JCv l"SP 2C05 eastbound rghf tum ~ares anA eastt;:;una "d1:'5 2,451 ~ 4.'SG 48.4 % U(i56 ZOZ~ 5t.:i',s tiU.O~o 9G(iAUQ 928,335 137,501 229,168
inrouqh-lane tu Bounes Ferry?Oft 2?A
~5 0~5 TSP ~C~05 Sigiialito Muridian OrivuSlh 5treeVOR214 1A25 1,535 s.000 48.8% O.OP%~ 2~2~ 51.~°io aQ0?~, 500,000 575,742 51,374 128,434
" :i5TSP 2005 Signalir.eParkAvenue;OF2214 14";5 1.589 ~.N25 39.5% O.p"+; 2~2fi 57D°s 40.0°i SOO.OOU 515.742 41.524 703.809
:8 ^_Cv5 TSr ~~:i:5 ~~'~ eastbound right-rum Iane to Pxrr :,25 :SG 50.0% 0.0",0 <..~., 51.~°~> t0U.0'%o 964
380
000 391 99
951 99
951
Roatl/>qt!iemier Road ~ ~ .
. , .
~9 ~~QSTSP ?GG~ Siynal¢eProniO~t?14ramps
. 1,450 1,562 2~50 47.0% ~J.O% 2L~1:; S1.U°o d0.0'%5 60DUOG 618,890
. 59,401 148,W2
.___
__
20 2;.^,5 TSP 2W5 increase service fr~equency on trans~t rouies i i(i 15q _
267% _____.____-_ ___
G U,o 2"2^ - __
t0U.0'ro . _--___
~U9.6'M ____.
_____
780.OW 185,667 _. __..._
49.517 _..
49.511
22 ~~OS TSP ^005 Up,qratle Fror~t Si:eet behveen Hazelnui an~ 200 500 60A% 0 0°a 2u2~~ 51.6',5 70.0 h A
ISO
OGG 4
280
656 916
917 1
309
881
Harr+sun tu minor atlenal stantlards ,
,
,
, , ,
,
Upgrade Boones Ferry and Fmnt to previde
23 2GOSTSF 2005
~0 20G
2.Pb
OA`,b 2024
100.0"w
70A%
975
G00 1
005
698
14
725
21
036
~,~~tinuoossidewaiY.saodbicGelanes ,
,
, , ,
24 2Q~5 Tsr ~pp, A]d loop ramp in so~thwest quatlrant of Oft ~~2~ ~ 966 ,~~~ 39
5% U
07o 2020 ;1
~ 0 40D?~: 1
80Q
000 1
856
670 149
635 374
086
21a/f~cnt Streei ~rterse~Yion ' . . .
~ ,
,
,
, , ,
~~~~ T~ Add snuthbound rigt~Ftum and wastbound lett-
2` S. ~~5
725 1
858
~
2275
18
3%
0.0"a ?02u
5LG`Y
15
0%
520
000 598
260
8
383
55
BB4
iurn Wne to OR S9E%OR 214
_- ___ ,
. .
_.
.
__ _ _ . .
, , ,
__-_ _._. ._-.
20 20G5 75P 2ilG5 Comert lransi~ route to ~:w•o-wsy cpera:~uns __- _____-.___ .____ ..____
i f U 200 ___
.___
45.0% __-
-
D L;~ 2~20 1 W.(13;; 7 W.0°k iBU,UGO 185.667 83,550 83,550
27 2i;;5 TS° 2CC5 U~'streat pa!n~ray alony P.Aill and Gcwse Creek p 200 5f; G`Y, 0 0:%~ coeo 700.0°i, 100:9% 750
000 773
613 386
806 386
806
Corr:do~s ,
. , ,
28 2J::5 TS? ?~j QR 95E widening be•.wzen south uty limRS e,pG 2
7
5iA 44
0% 9
0;'~ 2G2~ 57
OB~ 75
0`Y 2
900
000 2
991
302 100
687 448
695
and south UGB ,
, . . . . .
;
,
, , ,
29 c,.:;5 TSP 'tOC~5 ~~9nefize scuihr.rn B~iCaviile Roa0.~Oft 214 h~G 646 t.9'L'1 66.5% U U°i 2G2u
~ 51.G°4 15.OY~~ 65QtlUU 670
464 34
085 100,570
ir.terseGicn and acl;l noAhbound nght-tum lane , ,
Signalize northem Buttevi'Iz R~ad•'GR "174
30 .~G5 TSP 2rw ~5 intersaction and add southbound right-~um
iane 1.400 100.0% 0.0'=a 2v2C 51.~°~0 15.Oan i 50.000 773,613 59,181 118,042
Jt 2~~Q.5TSP 2G05 Signal~zeClevelanASVEet10R11A 2.OOC 2.5G. 20.0% GA46 2620 57.~'!, 15A?:: 500.600 515,742 7,891 52,606
32 t?^5 ToP 2005 Scuih Artenal beM+een Parr (or Butteviee) ~ ~
pp~ 100
0~ 0
0 0 2G20 StC'.; 70
Oio t1
780
000 12
150
875 4
337
862 198
6
946
Ruad and UR 99E , - . . .
:
,
, ,
, ,
,
's's 26GBTSP e065 Ext/liF+~iHdeot6rnwnto.S'~utnArterial
~ 5 3(~tl 98.3% QD`:6, 2G2~ SiA°~o 3U.U'io iJ80.UUU 1,836,047 276,232 550,812
2~~5 TSP ~~,p~ Sidewalks on ewsting service wileuors,
's5 6 100 2
1°%o O.O o ~C~C 100
C~?'b 70
U?'o 540
000 557
001 8
155 11
651
acc~ss and local streess . ~ . . ,
. , ,
36 2CC~5 TSP 20G5 BicyGe lanec on Garfoid. Hardcastle. Young 30 i00 70.0% 0.0"w 2020 700.0~: 70.0`Y 709.OOQ 722,038 353,799 505,427
38 2~~5 lSP Proposed Ttansit Improvernents 0.0'/ 2~2G 57.G°~o - - -
d1 2~~575!' 2005 ~~"O NcuteS with C}ne-V1ay O, aialians 110 400 72.5% OA% 2C2C 100.0"%0 100.0a: 360
OW 371
334 269
217 289
217
;aNernative 3` ,
, , ,
~i3 2.^.'JS T9P 2U05 ~ft2~9 W'dening from Wootliarny Avenue ro 560 539 1J25 8%
68 G
i~7~ 2^2^ 51
^P, 'ISA^6 GqG 10
9
8a0
160
112 534
548 7
524
017
W331 Ci:V 1!I11if5 ' . . . .
,
,
, , ,
,
OD% 2C20 51.^'le ' ' '
PCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC M~042108 FINAL 4I222008
Peak-Hour Volumes 2 Ca aci 3 Eligible (3) Serving (3) Project
Project Yr of Cost 2002 2007 2020 Current Future Capacity Existing Serves % Local ~ City Initial Projact 2007 Project Minimal SDC Full SDC
A~ Source 1) Estimate Project Title Tri Trips w/ Pro'ect Tri Tri Increasin % Deficienc Grow[h To Tri s 4 Fundin 5 Cost 1 Cost 6 Eli ible Cost Eli ible Cost
-- - -__ __ _. __ -.
a ' ~d:' TIP Cc.t ... 2007 TIF Projad List _ __ _ _
OA`ro ~ G2u
51.040
. . .. -.. -
. .. ...
!-r ~>OG7 TIF List 20U5 Upgra~e Hartison Stre,a~ b~[wec-n Proot and ~~~p y5(i 40
0% (i
i)5S 2^2^ 51
^•;; 70 U"r 9Q0 GUG 928
335 132
566 189
3
0
SeUlemio~ . . . ;, ,
~ , ,
8
d~ ~00? TIF I.- t 2GCO Upgraoe Nwy 211 hom HNy yyE ic eest C:ify 1375 1
481 2200 32]% OA%6 2G2G 51
C°
% 15L°~:
~ 2
4Ci)
000 2
475
560 61
870 371
iimits
~
~ , .
.
, . .
.
,
. , .334
U~x,~raoFFfontS+reetimmtiazzin~dtrVie
4~7 ~.,;0?TiF!~>t 1p05
. . north Gity Lir.i ts
__ _ .-.---._
_.__. . _
~
_ __. ppp ~pp
.
.. - _ 60.0%
.__- __ _.._. 0.0°k 2~2C
__. 51.0°,~;
. _ .
~ 40.J'„~.
-_ 1,500.OU0 1,959,819 239,882 599,704
.> _i.~i7 T!f List 2005 ~V9~ade Hayes Streel Iron, Setrie n,er ~0
~ Eae~yreen Ruad
.._. -_- ___ -__ -
3p0 500
40.0~
U O°~,: Li.L:.,
.ll u?s
30.0';>
1200.G0(i 7,237,780 - - _.
202.006 _ . -
252,507
__
6t d~~0! 1 IF ~ t „v.,., ~~tkJ'ade Fron! Street behveen CievPland and
Harnson -__._
----
-
zyp ~pp
~ 50.0%
u 090 2u2U
51.0'/0
- _ .
80A9a
_
1,200AOii 1,237,780
252.507
315,634
Atld left tum lanas on 8ettleinior at Cle~aeland
,,~ 76fi7 TIP ~ist 2iiU5 Gar6eW and Hamson
I
3f0 60G
50.0% ---
O.U% 2~2~
51. ;°;
70Q0 ;
~-
700,G00 722,038
--~~ --
184,120
184,120
~4 L. i7 71F ~ si 20f5 Hic~Maay 214 Env~ronme~tai Assessment
. ._-.- 1.425 1,535 3,000 ~ 0 0 48.8% 0 0°%„ 202i' S1.p%.~ ~~ ~~ 20.04~ 550.000 876,761 43,668 175,352
--___.-___ ___....- ...... . _-
p0`,S, 2~[J
51.6'.L -__.__
'
' __.
_
1Jpgraoe ot Bwncs Feny fron~i Nazclrut [o
.» 2UG''ilFList 200ti
CrosUr
_ _
~ . . .
?50 45U
66-7%
~0°%. 2:i"<::
Si.;i`"o -.-.. _._
40_Q`.o
2,if7~.GG0 2.100.000 -
285,600 -..._ ..- .
714.000
56 2d1~7 Tlf ~ist ~~pg ~lpyratle of Youny Street to minor ade!ia:
stantlartls
~
__-
"s00 600
_
~
50.0% ~
0 050 202~.'~.
51 D%
100.0?%~ ---
1, IOO.G00 1.100,000
280,500
280,500
?u06 Up~~raue of 6uunzs Pcrryfrc~m Dahli2 ro south
57 2G07 TIF L si
_ Ci Lim<ts
-
__..- .. __.
lp~ 5rr
60.0% __
0.0`b YC1C~ _-_
51 0'.:,
30A'tm
1.300.L60 1,300,000
. ---
159,120
397,800
58 ~iiii,'TIFi.ist 20GS ExtandWoodlan~~nButtev8leRoad
-
._.
U 350 _ . . _
100.0%
__ _
OG% 26~u
57.G'~a
__
30.0;~
1,t00.G00 1,100,000
168,300
___
330,000
59 2+)n7 TIF List 2QOE Upgratle Cooiey road ro coilacmr standards
-- ~~~
150 30G .
50.0% ~
0.05 2C~C
51 A?a -__
60.0"~
900,000 900,000
137,700 _.__. .._
229,500
f>0 20G;' 71F Li,t 2008 Upgrade uf Gauntry Club Cc~ud!o coliector
stanaards
_._ .._._ ...__.._.._ 50 3i)0 83.3M O.b4~;; 202C 51.GY; 11H).0^S
- 3b0.4~110
300.000
727,500 ..
727.500
__. __
6' 2UU' TIF Li.,r 2C~06 Upgrade of Glevcidnd fmm Front to ~ettlein~ar
ta wllecYOr etandarda
- --_. __._ _._.
. ~ ~ . . ...._
Z~i~ <
. __ ~00 ..
-. _..._ __.
. SO.D% .__ ___..
<~~;;
U 0`~~ .. .
~
~t 6,
SOA'S4
90G.OOi7 900,000 _._.___-_.__
183,600
729,500
'2
_. ___
~ _ _-
QO'm 2v2Q .
51.C`9~ ._..
_ _.. ._
'
'
-
G~ ..______ _ . __ _... _ _..
i)D°6: 2026
51 ~90 _-
_ __ _.
_ __-
'
~ oca~
less: Ending FY2007 TIF / SDC Fund Balance (7)
Total FuWre Capital ProjecGS for TIF / SDC Calcula6on
NOTES
68.9h 0.0°~ 2020Avg 52.9% S 48,180,311 S 119,515.000 S 123,066,269 S 17,557,672 S 34,086,129
6 535 765 ' 6 535 765
$ 11.021,907 $ 27,550,364
~ i ~ cwo i ar = rvooaoum i rensportavon System Plan. Proposetl Transporlation and Transil Improvements. In 2005 dollars.
2007 TIF List = TIF Projecl List provided by the Cily in Feb`uary 2007. Capacity-increasing percentages identified for all projects.
TSP states "Wdh these impiovemenls, all intersections are pro~ected to operate acceptably during lhe weekday p.m. peak hour.' Accordingly, tuWre defiaencies fmm the no-build scenario form the 6asis of our capaciry-increasing calcula6on.
(2) The majority of projects were albcated besed on gmwth's shara of lotal future peak-hour tnps at each project bcatbn, as proviAed in fgures (3-7 and SS) and tables (5-1 - aflemative 2 volumes) in the 2005 TSP. Curtent Vips were esGmaletl based on 1.5% annual growth.
Rema W ng projects were aNocated based on growth's share af 1he inaeased capadry providetl 6y each projed.
All allocations to gmwth were reduced to the eztent that any project cortected ao existing deficiency or senetl development beyood 2020.
10% of sidewalk project cosLS ware assumed to increase capatity, projecl costs vnth both bicyde and sidewalk components were evenly split belween tha Iwo, to which the cortespontling growth allocations were applied.
(3) Curtent and post-improvemenf rapaaties, and exis6rg deficiencies and years ot capacity, as estimated by City statf. Reported roadway capacities were converted from averege daily to peak-hour Vips by applying the stanAard 10:1 retio.
(4) The share oi costs correspond'ag to pass-Ihrough tnp rapacdy (49%) is removed fmm the impmvement tee mst basis due to ihe fact that pass-through tnps have been removed Nom ihe average daily tnp forerast.
(5) Non-City funding (i.e., Slata. County, and grant tunding) is identified in the 2005 TSP. Note: City staH reported a Cily share of 40 % for Me "OR 274 wiUening from west of Broughton Way to Park Avenue" project.
The 2007 TIF Project List iden6fied Ne City's cosl share kr certain projeGS (lncluding projects on the 2005 TSP).
(6) Based on 20.ciry average construction cost index (CCI). Source: Engineenng News Review, December 16, 2006 issue.
1999 fi.12679
2000 6,282.76
2001 6.39021
2002 6,562.73
20D3 6,787.66
2004 7.308.30
2005 7,666.87
2008 7,887.62
(7) Source: City staft.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC MqdeV~p42108 FINAL 4/22/2008
OL
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
TIF / SDC Project List: Interchange Management Area
Table 5
Project Project Yr of Cost % Capacity Local % City Initial Project 2007 Project Minimal IDC Fuil IDC
# Source (1) Time Frame Estimate Project Title Increasing (2) Trips %(3) Funding (4) Cost (1i Cost (5) Eligible Cost Eligible Cost
2(i05 T5P Proposed Transportation Improvements _
Reconstruct I-5 interchange antl Improve OR
1 2005 TSP 2005-2U10 2005 213 between Woodland Avenue and Oregon 10UA°o 1d0 0% 107°0 5 SO.OOO.OOU $ 51,574,173 $ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000
Way
--_ __. - -
2 20.9% -
51.0°io - -
Total 100.0%
i"ntal Future Capital Projects for Interchange Development Charge (IDC) Calculation
100.0% E 5,500,000 S 50,000,000 S 51,574,173 S 5,500,000 S 5,500,000
$ 5,500,000 $ 5,500,000
NOTES
(1) 2005 TSP = Woodburn Transportation System Plan. Proposed Transportation and Transit Improvements. In 2005 dollars. List defines time frames as follows: Near Tertn = 0-5 years, Mid-Term = 5-10 years, Long-Term = 10-20 years.
(2) The 2007 TIF Project List identifled the capacity-increasing portion of this project.
(3) As the i-5 interchange improvements are designed to serve development within the Interchange Management Area specifically, pass-through trips do not apply.
(4) The 2007 TIF Project List identified the City funding tolal for this projed. Ciry staff reported that $2.5 million of the Ciry's $8 million projed share had already been completed.
(5) Based on 20-city average construction cost index (CCI). Source: Engineering News Review, December 16, 2006 issue.
Dec. of Year 20-City CCI
1999 6,126.79
2000 6,282.76
2001 6,390.21
2002 6,562.73
2003 6,781.66
2004 7,308.30
?~OS 7,646.87
~ .987.62
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC MoFy91,042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
ZS3
~ity of VNoodburn
i ransportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Administrative Cost Recovery Calculation
Table 6
Net Annual Administrative Cost related to Transportation SDC (1)
Amortization of SDC Study Cost over 5 years (2):
Net Annual Transportation SDC Administrative Cost:
Estimated Annual Proposed SDC Revenues before Admin. Cost:
Citywide TIF / SDC
Interchange Development Charge (IDC)
Estimated Annual Revenue (Minimal SDC)
Estimated Annual Revenue (Full-Cost SDC)
Admin. Cost / Total Annual Transportation SDC Revenues (Min.):
Admin. Cost / Total Annual Transportation SDC Revenues (Full):
NOTES
0.75% on all TIFs / SDCs
0.40% on all TIFs / SDCs
(1) Source: City staff.
(2) Cost of: $ 27,310
at: 3.0°/a
over: 5 years
$ 5,000
$ 5,963
$ 10,963
$ 1,248,582
211,538
$ 1,460,121
$ 2,731,540
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Model 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
84
City of Woodburn
Transportation Impact Fee SDC Study
Comparison of Charge Bases
Table 7
Comparison of Charge Bases: Peak-Hour vs. Average Daily Trips
Citywide within
IMA
Peak-Hour Trip (P-HT) Fee
- ~ 3,497 $ 4,605
Avera e Daily Trip (ADT Fee
$
350
$ -- _
461
Office Specialty Fast Food
Single-Family Apartment Building Retail Restaurant Supermarket
Land Use Home (104 units) (67,500 s.f.) (8,000 s.f.) (3,000 s.f.) (47,400 s.f.)
Pass-By Trip Factor for P-HTs (1) 100°/a 1p0% 100% 100% 50°Io 64%
Generated Peak-Hour Trips per Unit (1 j 1.01 0.62 ' 1.49 2.71 34.64 10.45
Fee based on Peak-HourTrips $ 3,532 $ 225,487 ', $ 351,711 $ 49,280 $ 181,704 $ 70,164
Generated Average Daily Trips per Unit (2) 9.57 6.63 I 11.01 51.67 496.12 111.51
Fee based on ADTs without trip len th factor $ 3,350 $ 241,332 '$ 260,111 $ 94,039 $ 260,463 $ 74,935
Percent of Fee Based on Peak-Hour Trips
94.8% 107.0% 74.0% 190.8% 143.3% 106.8%
Trip Length Factor (2) 1.00 1.00 i 1.p6 0.84 0.50 0.84
Fee based on ADTs with trip length factor $ 3,350 $ 241,332 ~$ 275,718 $ 78,993 $ 130,232 $ 62,945
Percent of Fee Based on Peak-Hour Trips
94.8% 107.0% 78.4% 160.3% 71.7% 89.7%
NOTES
~i ) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, Seventh Edition.
~2) Source: 1999 TIF Study.
FCS GROUP
(425) 867-1802 Trans SDC Mo~el 042108 FINAL 4/22/2008
b
- 1tB
, :~„
-:.~-,e,, '; r ~ ~~
,
`1~TooDBVRN
, ~ ~ .. , < <, , x ., :, ~~'~e,~,,
April 28, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Jim Alien, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Adoption of Resolution Regarding the City Council Call-up of
Planning Commission Decision in Cases Design Review Number DR
2007-12, Variance Number VAR 2007-07, and Exception 2007-OS
(845 East Lincoln Sheet, Multi-Family Dwelling Application)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution approving the land use appiications.
BACKGROUND:
The requested land use application is for design review for a 15-unit multiple-
f~~mily dwelling consisting of two structures, a variance from the Woodburn
Development Ordinance Section 2.104.O6.D and Table 2.1.5 to exceed the
maximum density, and an exception to street right-of-way and improvements
on East Lincoln Street. The City Council called this project up and heard the
cases during the April 14, 2008 public meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The Resolution modifies specific conditions previously identified by the
Woodburn Planning Commission related to open space area requirements,
garage parking spaces, and dwelling unit offsets. The Resolution adopts
modified findings in support of the decision.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No public sector financial impact is anticipated.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ~ ~ City Attomey ~V ~~ Finan
87
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2717
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPLICATION IN DR 2007-12, VAR 2007-07, and
EXCP 2007-08, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPOSING
CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, a request was made by Mark Grenz, P.E., appiicant, on behalf
of Five Keys Homes, LLC, property owner, for a design review for a 15-unit
multiple-family development (case DR 2007-12), a variance from WDO
2.104.O6.B and Table 2.1.5 regarding density ~case VAR 2007-07~, and an
exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East Lincoln Street (case
EXCP 2007-08) and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the cases at
its meeting of February 28, 2008 and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved case numbers DR 2007-12,
VAR 2007-07, and EXCP 2007-08 subject to conditions of approval, and;
WHEREAS, the City Co~~cil called up the cases for review on its own
initiative, and;
WHEREAS, the Council held a de novo public hearing on the cases at its
meeting of April 14, 2008, and;
WHEREAS, the Council considered the written and oral testimony
presented by staff and the applicant, and;
WHEREAS, no other person offered testimony in the matter, and;
WHEREAS, the Council voted to approve case numbers DR 2007-12, VAR
2007-07, and EXCP 2007-08 subject to conditions of approval, and;
WHEREAS, the Council instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The application in DR 2007-12, VAR 2007-07, and EXCP 2007-
08 is hereby granted.
Page 1- CCUNCIL BILL NO. 2717
RESOLUT!ON NO.
Section 2. This decision is based upon evidence in the record before the
Woodburn City Council and is justified by the findings and conclusions which are
attached hereto as Appendix "A" and by this reference are incorporated
herein.
Section 3. Approval of the application is subject #o the conditions
imposed by the Woodburn City Council which are attached hereto as
Appendix "B" and by this reference are incorporated herein.
Approved as to form: ~ `~ / " ~~ `/~~ I~ ~ ~ ~C~ ~
City Attorney 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 2- COUNCIL BIIL NO. 2717
RESOLUTION NO.
89
APPENDIX "A"
Table of Contents
i General Provisions .............................................................................
~ Medium Density Residential (RM) District Standards ......................
3 Variances ...........................................................................................
a Street Standards .................................................................................
s Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements .
~ Access Standards ...............................................................................
~ Off Street Parking and Loading Standards ........................................
s Landscaping Standards ......................................................................
9 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards ................................
~o General Provisions
.................................................. 1
.................................................. 2
.................................................. 7
.................................................. 9
................................................ 12
................................................ 15
................................................ 16
................................................ 19
................................................ 25
iz The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to promote
~ 3 the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind
14 of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the WDO.
15 ~wD~ I.I~I.~Z.f~~
~~ All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-offcials), of the City vested with
» authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and require conformance with
~H the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which
~9 violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO
zo 1101.04]
zi Findings: The City Councilors are officials of the City and are collectively vested with authority to
z~ grant approvals. The planning division staff are employees of the City and are vested with authority
z~ to issue permits or grant approvals.
za Conclusions: The City Councilors and planning division staff must adhere to and require
zs conformance with the WDO, and must not grant approval for any development or use which
~6 violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO.
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE
Section Decision I II III IV V A eal
4.102.02 Call-Up Review by the City Council: Type II or III
Decision ~
z~ All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval
za reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all
z9 applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV decisions EXCEPT
~~~ annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and objective or if the condiNon requires
3 ~ discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.A]
DR 2007-12, V.AR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 1 of 30
90
~ Findings: Call-Up Review by the City Council is a Type N decision. The City Council is the City
z decision-making body with authority to render Type IV decisions.
3 Conclusions: The City Council has "the authority to impose conditions of approval reasonably
4 related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all applicable approval
s standards are, or can be, met." If a condition of approval requires discretion, the Council must
~ require a public hearing on the matter.
s Under a consolidated review, all applications shall be processed following the procedures
9 applicable for the highest type decision requested. It is the express policy of the City that
~o development review not be segmented into discrete parts in a manner that precludes a
>> comprehensive review of the entire development and its cumulative impacts. [WDO 4.101.02]
TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE
Section Decision I II III IV V A eal
4.102.02 Call-Up Review by the City Council: Type II or III
Decision ~
5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR
MORE ~
5.103.12 Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement
Re uirements ~
5.103.11 Variance ~
iz Finding: Variances, Design Reviews for Structures 1000 Square Feet or More, and Exceptions to
~ 3 Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements are Type III decisions. Call-Up Review by the
ia Ciry Council is a Type IV decision.
is Conclusions: Under WDO 4.101.02, the applications are consolidated as a Type IV decision.
~~ Considering the applications together allows a comprehensive review of the entire development and
~ ~ its cumulative impacts.
~x
19
zo WDO 2104 Medium Density Residential (RM) District Standards
zi
zz There shall be no minimum lot area or dimensions for multiple family residential dwellings
z3 units or living units in the RM zone. [WDO 2.104, Table 2.1.5.B]
za The number of multiple family residential dwelling units on a lot shall be regulated by:
zs 1. Maximum residential density, not exceeding the following standards:
z~ a. Multiple family dwellings: 16 dwelling units per net buildable acre. [WDO 2.104,
z~ Table 2.1.5.C)
zs Density per net acre: The number of dwelling units or living units per acre based on the land
z9 area committed to housing and common, private ownership but EXCLUDING public right of
3o way; public easements; irrevocable easements for private streets or access ways; and private
3 i streets in Manufactured Dwelling Parks. [WDO 1.102]
DR ~007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 2 of 30
91
i Findings: The property is currently 0.936 acre in area. After the right-of-way dedication necessary
z for a Service Collector, the property will contain 0.894 acre. The proposal would establish 15
3 dwelling units on the property.
4 Conclusions: The maximum number of dwelling units permitted by right under WDO 2.104, Table
s 2.1.S.C.I.a is 14. The proposed density is 16.8 dwelling units per net buildable acre. The proposed
~ density exceeds that allowed by WDO 2.104, Table 2.1.5.C.l.a. The applicant must reduce the
~ project to no more than 14 dwelling units or obtain a variance from the maximum density standard
a of WDO 2.104, Table 2.1.S.C.I.a.
io
>> Multiple density residential buildings shall be subject to the design standards or guidelines of
l~ Section 3.107.05. (WDO 2.104.0'7.C.1]
i3 Findings: WDO 2.104.07.C.1 contains a scrivener's enor, and should read either "Multiple family
~a residential buildings" or "Medium density residential buildings." The proposed project consists of
~ s multiple family residential buildings in a medium densiry residential development.
~~ Conclusion: As the proposed project consists of multiple family residential buildings in a medium
» densiry residential development, either interpretation leads to the conclusion that the development is
~ s "subject to the design standards or guidelines of Section 3107.05."
~y
zo
z ~ The number of multiple family residential dwelling units on a lot shall be regulated by:
z~ 2. Compliance with the applicable open space and site design standards and guidelines of
z3 Sections 2.104.07.C. [WDO 2104, Table 2.1.5.C]
z~ Finding: Findings specific to the applicable open space and site design standards and guidelines of
Zs Sections 2.104.07.C (which require compliance with Section 3.107.05) are detailed in the analysis
z~ of Section 3.107.05.
z~ Conclusion: The proposed development does not comply with all of the applicable open space and
~x site design standards and guidelines of Sections 2.104.07.C. Compliance with the guidelines may
z9 require redesign of the project or a reduction in the number of dwelling units. The Council has the
3o discretion to approve the development even if it does not comply with all open space and site design
3 i guidelines of Sections 2.104.07.C, or to require compliance with any or all such guidelines.
3~
~? Height, Building: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest
3a point of the coping or flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of
3s the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The height of a stepped or terraced building is
3~ the maximum height of any segment of the building. The reference datum shall be selected by
3? either of the fotlowing, whichever yields the greater height of building: (See Figure 6.1)
3H 1. The elevaNon of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within 5-foot
3Q horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground
ao surface is not more than 10 feet above the lowest grade.
ai 2. An elevation 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground
-~~ surface described in "1" above is more than 10 feet above the lowest grade. [WDO
=~~ 1.102)
a~ The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. [WDO 2.104.06.C]
DR 2~`07- i 2, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 3 of 30
92
~ Findings: The elevation drawings (Exhibits "I" and "J" in the record befare the Council) show the
~ 6-plex building height as 34'-9'/8" and the 9-plex building height as 34'-7'/<".
3 Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 2.104.06.C.
5
6 The setback abutting a street shall be a minimum of 20 feet plus any Special Setback, Section
~ 3.103.05. [WDO 2.104.06.D.1.a]
s Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows that the buildings are
9 set back 20 feet from East Lincoln Street, after the additional right-of-way dedication.
~o Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 2.104.06.D.1.a.
~i
12
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro ert Interior Setback
RS or R1 S zone; or Existing
sin le family or du lex dwellin 36 ft. from any portion of a primary building 28.1 ft. to 35
ft. in hei ht.
RM zone; or Existing medium
densit residential unit 36 ft. from any portion of a main building more than 28 ft.
and less than 35 ft. in hei ht.
~3 A fire escape, balcony, outside stairway, cornice or other unenclosed, unroofed projection
i~ may project not more than five feet into a required interior rear yard setback. [WDO
~ s 3.103.09.B]
ic Planter boxes; steps; uncovered porches; covered but unenclosed porches and patios, not
i~ more thanl6 feet high, a~loor elevation less than four feet above grade and at least 14 feet
~s from the rear lot line, shall be EXEMPT from the minimum rear yard setback. [WDO
~ y 3103.09.C]
zo Findings: The elevation drawings show the building height as approximately 35 feet. The site plan
z i (Exhibit "A" in the record befare the Council) shows the buildings to be set back at least 51 feet
zz from the west property line and approximately 48 feet from the east property line. The site plan
z3 shows the 9-plex to be set back 36 feet from the north property line, with a projection that extends
z-~ approximately 5'/z feet further to the north. The 9-plex floor plan (Exhibit "H" in the record before
zs the Council) shows the projection to be a covered but unenclosed entry.
zb Conclusions: The proposed development complies with the interior setback requirements of WDO
z~ 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7 along the east, west, and north property lines. The northerly
~s projection on the 9-plex is a covered but unenclosed porch on the ground floor and is exempt from
z9 the minimum rear yard setback per WDO 3.103.09.C.
30
Z]
3z Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard
3~ abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a
3a garage (or carport in the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a wall. [WDO
35 2.104.06.D.1.b.1]
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 4 of 30
93
1
z
~
a
>
~
s
9
to
I1
iz
13
14
15
i~
~~
ix
~v
zo
zi
zz
z~
~a
~5
26
z~
Findings: All of the exterior parking spaces are partially located within 36 feet of either the east or
the west property line. The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows a wall
along the east and west property lines.
Conclusions: All of the exterior parking spaces are partially located within either the east or the
west side yard setback. The exteriar parking spaces comply with WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.1 by reason
of the exception for parking adjacent to a wall.
The entrance to a garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the closest edge of a
shared driveway. [WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.2]
Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows that the garage
entrances are set back 20 feet from the shared driveway.
Conclusions: The proposed development complies with WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.2.
Multiple density residential buildings shall be subject to the design standards or guidelines of
Section 3.107.05. [WDO 2.104.07.C.1]
Findings: WDO 2.104.07.C.1 contains a scrivener's error, and should read either "Multiple family
residential buildings" ar"Medium density residential buildings." The proposed project consists of
multiple family residential buildings in a medium densiry residential development.
Conclusion: As the proposed project consists of multiple family residential buildings in a medium
density residential development, either interpretation leads to the conclusion that the development is
"subject to the design standards or guidelines of Section 3.107.05."
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. [WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a]
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro er Wall
Existing single family or duplex
dwellin Solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
no less than 6 feet or reater than 7 feet in hei t.
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing
medium densit residential unit Wall requirements shall be determined in conjunction with
the a licable Desi Review rocess.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2~08-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 5 of 30
94
'4'i~e~t t'~P~-nae~ ~4l~: !S`er~1 t~s [)revrw~~
~*w~x a+r~ ~
.,~" ~. Ms
r~'
~. ~
I ~
8!' ~ p
Y
BO`
~
~~
~ : ~'~' ~
~Igtlije ~.~ ~' I.51o~'~!."tT~II~Ye ~IIYA
~ A vision clearance area shall contain no plants, fence, wall, structure, or temporary or
z permanent obstruction exceeding 30 inches in height [measured from the top of the curb or,
3 where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade], EXCEPT as follows:
a 1. Trees, provided branches and foliage are removed to a height of 7 feet above grade;
s 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]
s Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows a wall along the east,
9 north, and west property lines. The site plan shows the proposed wall ending approximately 10 feet
~ o north of the right-of-way at both the east and west property lines. In an email of February 6, 2008
i~ the applicant stated that the wall would be extended to the front property line.
~ z Conclusions: A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or
~ 3 greater than 7 feet in height, is required where the property abuts lots developed with single-family
ia dwellings (839 East Lincoln Street, to the west), in accordance with Table 2.1.7. It is discretionary
~ s but appropriate to require a wall along the north property line and the northern portion of the east
i h property line, where the lot abuts school property in the P/SP zone, in accordance with WDO
i~ 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. It is discretionary but appropriate to require a wall along the
~ s southern portion of the east property line, where the lot abuts an existing medium density residential
~~ development in the RM zone, in accordance with WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7. The walls
zo must be no more than 30 inches in height (measured from the top of the curb) within vision
~ i clearance areas per WDO 3.103.10.E.
2?
23
za Wall, Architectural: A wall that incorporates at least two colors and/or textures. [WDO 1.102)
zs Findings: The preliminary planting plan (Exhibit "E" in the record before the Council) shows a"6'
z~ high sight obscuring CMU wall (Materials: split face CMU wall with one band of standard smooth
z~ face CMU set 4' above finish grade. Wall includes anti-graffiti sealant.)" Architectural walls are
za intended to buffer adjacent properties from the subject property - not to buffer the subject property
zy from adjacent properties.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 6 of 30
95
i Conclusions: The proposed walls meet the definition of an architectural wall. All architectural
z walls should incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the side facing away from the subject
s property.
4
s Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block
~ wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum
~ of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.104.07.F.3]
s Finding: The preliminary planting plan (Exhibit "E" in the record before the Council) shows "wood
y screen fencing with anti-graffiti sealant."
~ o Conclusions: Wood screen fencing is not a block wall. The common refuse collection facilities do
~~ not comply with WDO 2.104.07.F.3.
i~ Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows that the gate of the
i 3 refuse collection facility would be on the southwest, and would be visible from Lincoln Street.
la Conclusions: The gate of the refuse collection facility would be visible from East Lincoln Street.
~s The Planning Division requests that the Council require the refuse collection facility to be rotated so
~~ that the gate would be on the northwest where it would not be visible from Lincoln Street.
»
~s
~y WDO 5.10311 Variances
zo
z i The purpose of a variance is to allow a deviation from a WDO development standard
zz EXCEPT a standard regarding use, where strict adherence to the standard and variance to a
z3 standards will not unreasonably impact the adjacent existing or potential uses or
za development. [WDO 5.103.11.A]
zs Findings: The application is for a variance to the maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre to
z6 allow 15 dwelling units on a property containing 0.894 acre. The proposed density is 16.8 dwelling
z~ units per net buildable acre.
zH Conclusions: The application is for a variance to a numerical standard and not to a standard
zy regarding use. The application is not precluded by WDO 5.103.11.A.
3p
31
3z Adjustments to the number of permitted dwelling or living units and to the use of property
33 shall be prohibited. [WDO 5102.03.D.11]
3a Findings: The application involves an increase in the number of dwelling units. WDO 5.102.03
35 governs Zoning Adjustments. Zoning Adjustments are small deviations from a standard, and are a
36 Type II land use decision.
3~ Conclusions: A Zoning Adjustment for density is specifically prohibited by WDO 5.102.03.D.1.
3s The variance process is the appropriate process for administrative relief.
39
40
4~ A minimum of 12.8 dwelling units per net acre (after excluding public right-of-way, public
a~ tracts, common tracts, common open space, and land protected by the RCW overlay district)
a3 shalf be required, except for parcels less than one acre in size. [WDO 2.104.06.A]
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 7 of 30
96
~ Findings: The property is currently 0.936 acre in area. Afler the right-of-way dedication necessary
z for a Service Collector, the property will contain 0.894 acre.
3 Conclusion: The net density provision of WDO 2.104.06.A specifically exempts the subject
a property as it is less than one acre in size.
~ Criteria. A determination of whether the criteria set forth are satisfied necessarily involves
s the balancing of competing and conflicting interest. The factors that are listed to be
9 considered are not criteria and are not intended to be an exclusive list. The factors to be
~o considered are used as a guide in deliberations on the application. [WDO 5.103.11.C]
>> The variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure,
~~ which would cause the property to be unbuildable by application of the WDO. Factors to
~~ consider in determining whether hardship exists, include:
~4 a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no control related to the piece
~ s of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but
~~ not limited to lot size, shape, topography.
~ ~ b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properNes can be made of the property
~ x without the variance.
~y c. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. [WDO
zo 5.103.11.C.1]
z~ Findings: Per WDO Table 2.1.5, the maximum multiple family dwelling units allowed within a RM
z2 zone are 16 dwelling units per net buildable acre. The subject property is approximately 0.93 acre
z3 and would allow a maximum of 15 units on the site. According to the Transportation System Plan,
za an additional 11 feet of right-of-way must be dedicated along the south property line adjacent
zs Lincoln Street. This additional 11 feet of right-~f-way dedication reduces the lot size to
zb approximately 0.89 acre and would only allow the construction of 14 units on the site.
z~ Conclusions: The requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way upon development or
zs redevelopment distinguishes the subject property from other land in the RM zone, and is a hardship
z9 relating to the land and not created by the applicant. The criterion of WDO 5.103.11.C.1 is met.
~o
~i
3z Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent
3s properties. Factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the
34 variance materially injurious include but are not limited to:
~s a. Physical impacts such development will have because of the variance, such as
3~ visual, noise, traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. [WDO
3~ 5.103.11.C.2]
3s b. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. [WDO
39 5.10311.C.2]
ao Findings: The variance would not create or exacerbate drainage, erosion or landslide hazards. The
a~ additional dwelling unit would represent a 6.7% increase in the number of dwelling units, and a
az commensurate increase in the noise and traffic impacts on adjacent properties.
a3 Conclusions: The impacts of one additional unit would not be materially injurious to adjacent
.~a properties. The criterion of WDO 5.103.1 l.C. l is met.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 8 of 30
97
,
3 Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic
a land forms or parks will not be adversely affected because of the variance. (WDO
s 5.103.11.C.3]
b Findings: The property does not abut drainageways, dramatic land forms or parks. The variance
~ would increase the traffic on East Lincoln Street by approximately 8.53 average daily trips. The
x current traffic flow is approximately 3,455 to 4,839 average daily trips.
y Conclusions: Although traffic on East Lincoln Street and the larger transportation system would
~o increase, the increase would not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute a materially adverse effect.
i i Drainage, dramatic land forms, and parks would not be adversely affected to any substantial degree
~z because of the variance. The variance meets the standard of WDO 5.103.11.C.3.
~~
~a
~s The variance is the minimum deviation necessary to make reasonable economic use of the
~~ property. [WDO 5103.11.C.4]
i ~ Findings: The variance to increase the number of dwelling units from 14 to 15 units is the absolute
~ s minimum necessary to develop the site as proposed. The applicant has chosen to develop the site as
~ y residential rather than one of the other permitted uses as it is more appropriate to use the site as
zo multi-family.
zi Conclusion: The requested variance meets the standard of WDO 5.103.11.C.4.
zz
~;
z.~ The variance does not contlict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. [WDO 5.103.11.C.5]
z~ Findings regarding criterion 5: The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and is
z~ designated Residential More than 12 Units per Acre on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The
z~ proposed use of the property is a medium density multiple-family residential development.
zs Abutting properties are zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and Public and Semi-Public
?y (P/SP), and are designated Residential More than 12 Units per Acre and Open Space and Parks on
3o the Comprehensive Plan Map.
3~ Conclusions regarding criterion 5: The variance does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
3~ The application meets the standard of WDO 5.103.11.C.5.
33
34
35 WDO 3.101 Street Standards
3h
3~ All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the
~~ applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction
3~ specifications of the Public Works Department. [WDO 3.101.02.C.1]
ao Street, Boundary: That portion, or portions, of a street right of way abutting a subject
ai property where existing or proposed development is located within 260 feet of the subject
~, right of way. (Figure 6.12) [WDO 1.102]
DR 2007-1~, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A"
98
Page 9 of 30
~ The full right of way for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shatl be required for
z a connecting street segment without an approved exception or variance. [WDO 3.101.02.D.1.a]
3 The full street improvement for the subject street classification, 5ection 3.101.03, shall be
a provided for a connecting street segment without an approved exception or variance. [WDO
s 3.101.02.D.1.b]
6 The full right of way for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shall be required for
~ a boundary street without an approved excepNon or variance. [WDO 3.101.02.D.2.a]
s The full street improvement for the subject street classification, Section 3.101.03, shall be
9 provided for a boundary street without an approved exception or variance. [WDO
~0 3.101.02.D.2.b]
~~
~~~
ii Findings: East Lincoln Street is the Boundary Street for the subject parcel, as defined in WDO
~z 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. East Lincoln Street is the Connecting Street for the subject parcel,
~3 as defined in WDO 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. The Connecting Street segment extends to the
ia intersection with Carol Street. The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and
i s improvements.
~h Conclusion: 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
is improvement requirements, in accordance with WDO 3.101.02.D.
19
20
z~ The street right of way and improvement cross-sectional standards required for development
?z are depicted in Figure 7-' ~ nd Table 7-1 of the Woodburn Transportation System Plan.
z~ These standards are basc i the functional classification of each street as shown in Figure 7-
z~ 1 of the Woodburn Tran -ation System Plan. The street right-of-way and improvement
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008- EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 10 of 30
99
Figure 6.12 Connecting, Bo~tuda~~y and Internal Street~
~ standards minimize the amount of pavement and right-of-way required for each street
~ classification consistent with the operational needs of each facility, including requirements for
3 pedestrians, bicycles, and public facilities. [WDO 3101.03.AJ
SERVICE auaucurrm
COLLECTOR ~''
STREET '« ~~.
s
r~-
r# .,.
i.
~' ~ ,iri
_ _ _..
~r _
e' a•
s• is•
co~a ~_.
a• ~~ I
e,
sroE uwo sxcE ~v~ ~t~r nxw ~~ e~~ ww s~
WALK SCAVE LA1E I ~ LANE u~ LANE SCA-E WA~J(
p.,~MMJ ,,. l~„p..., ~
` ROWs77 __... __.I
y,,~ ~ ~
nue~k ururrv
~se~~r
~
s
I
Detail from Figure 7-2 of the Transportation System Plan
s Findings: East Lincoln Street is classified as a Service Collector in the Woodburn Transportation
b System Plan (WTSP.) The required cross-section for a Service Collector is a 72 foot of right-of-
~ way, 36 foot improved driving surface (two 12 foot traffic lanes and a 12 foot center turn lane), 6
a foot bike lanes, 6 foot landscape strips and 6 foot sidewalks on both sides. The existing cross-
y section is a 50 foot right-of-way, 34 foot improved driving surface (two 17 foot traffic lanes), no
~o planter strip, and a 4-5 foot sidewalk on the north side of the street. The school zone for
>> Washington Elementary School affects the western portion of East Lincoln Street. East Lincoln
~z Street is posted "No Parking" on the south side, but not on the north side.
~3 Conclusions: The existing cross-section of East Lincoln Street does not meet the requirements for a
~a Service Collector. The applicant must provide the full right of way and the full street improvements
is required by the Transportation System Plan or obtain an exception to street right of way and
ic~ improvement requirements, in accordance with WDO 3.101.02.D.
»
~x
~y The street frontage of a subject property shall be improved with either property line
zo sidewalks and street trees or curb line sidewalks. The improvement shall be determined at
z~ the time of subdivision, PUD or design review as applicable. Sidewalks and trees shall be
zz installed by the property owner to the standards of Section 3101 and 3106. [WDO
z3 2.104.07.F.1]
za Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
zs Lincoln Street.
z~ Conclusions: The current Design Review triggers the provision that "improvement shall be
z~ determined at the time of ... design review." If the requested exception to street right-of-way and
zx improvements is not granted, the property owner would be required to provide all improvements
z9 required by the Transportation System Plan. If granted, the exception would identify the applicant's
3o proportionate share of required street improvements based on the impacts of the proposed
3 i development, and could be conditioned on execution of a non-remonstrance agreement to provide
3~ the improvements when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by
3~ other property o~:~ners and the availability of public funding.
34
UR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-OS Appendix "A" Page 11 of 30
100
2 Street Trees. Within the public street right of way abutting a development, street trees shall
3 be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy.
a a. Acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable and
s unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species.
~ b. Tree Density. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the right of way,
~ subject to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103:
s 1) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage;
9 2) Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or
~0 3) Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. [WDO 3.106.03.A.1]
>> Findings: The site has 166 feet of frontage on East Lincoln Street. The landscaping plan shows four
~2 large trees (sugar maples) as street trees. The applicant has requested an exception to street right-
~ 3 of-way and improvements.
~4 Conclusions: WDO 3.106.03.A.1 requires the installation of 7 small street trees, 5 medium street
Is trees, or 4 large street trees. Sugar maples qualify as large trees. The proposed development
~6 complies with WDO 3.106.03.A.1.
~~
~x
~9 Sidewalks should/sha[I be located at the property line along streets with street trees, Section
zo 3.106. [WDO 3.107.OS.C.6]
z~ Finding: The applicant has requested an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on East
zz Lincoln Street.
z3 Conclusions: If the requested exception to street right-of-way and improvements is not granted, the
z4 property owner would be required to provide sidewalks as required by WDO 3.107.OS.C.6. If
zs granted, the exception could be conditioned on a non-remonstrance agreement to provide sidewalks
z~ when reconstruction of East Lincoln Street is timely.
Z7
2x
z9 WDO 5.103.12 Exceation to Street Right of Wav and Imarovement
3o Requirements
31
3z The purpose of an exception is to allow a deviation from a WDO development standard cited
33 in Section 3.lOlA2. [WDO 5.103.12]
34 Application Requirements. An application shall include a completed City application form,
3s filing fee, deeds, noHfication area map and labels, written narrative statement regarding
36 compliance with criteria, location map and the following additional exhibits:
3~ 1. Street and Utility Plan as applicable;
3a 2. Site Plan; and
3y 3. A"rough proportionality" report prepared by a qualified civil or traffic engineer
ao addressing the approval criteria. [WDO 5.103.12.B]
a~ Finding: The applicant's submittal included a site plan (which showed East Lincoln Street), a utility
az plan, and a"rough proportionality" report prepared and stamped by a registered engineer.
a3 Conclusions: If granted, the Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements
aa would satisfy the guideline of WDO 3.101. Also, if granted, the Exception would identify the level
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 12 of 30
101
~ of improvements the property owner would be responsible for. A nonremonstrance agreement for
z public improvements could be required as part of the Exception. If the Exception is not granted, the
3 property owner would be required to construct East Lincoln Street to the cross-section specified in
n the Transportation System Plan.
s Findings: The proposed development will cause a level of impacts amounting to between 2.0% and
~ 12.4% of the required street improvements to East Lincoln Street between the subject property and
~ Carol Street. The proposed development represents 4.8% of the boundary street frontage as defined
x in WDO 1.102 and shown in Figure 6.12. The applicant proposes a 2.7% proportion based on
v traffic impacts.
io Conclusion: It is appropriate that the subject property should bear a portion of the cost of
i~ reconstructing East Lincoln Street commensurate with the property's boundary street frontage as
i z defined in WDO 1.102 and Figure 6.12.
~3
~a
~ s The estimated extent, on a quantitative basis, to which the rights of way and improvements
~b will be used by persons served by the building or development, whether the use is for safety or
i~ convenience. [WDO 5.10312.C.1]
~ s Findings: Persons served by the development are expected to generate approximately 128 vehicular
~ 9 trips per day. Neither conventional traffic counts nor the ITE Trip Generation Manual account for
zo non-vehicular traffic. The sidewalk required by the Transportation System Plan is for safety. The
z~ landscape strip required by the Transportation System Plan is for convenience and is a standard of
zz aesthetics promulgated and accepted by the community. The right-of-way dedication and specified
z~ improvements are needed to provide vehicle and non-motorized transportation facilities throughout
za the street corridor.
zs Conclusions: Residents of the development will necessarily use East Lincoln Street for both their
z~ vehicular and non-motorized traffic needs, for safety as well as convenience.
z~
~~
zy The estimated level, on a quantitative basis, of rights of way and improvements needed to
3o meet the estimated extent of use by persons served by the building or development. [WDO
3 ~ 5.103.12.C.2]
3z Findings: The center turn lane required by the Transportation System Plan would facilitate left turns
33 into and out of the driveway - movements that occur in approximately half of the 128 daily trips
3a estimated to be generated by the project. Provision of a bicycle lane and wider sidewalk than
3~ currently exists will facilitate safe bicycle and pedestrian use of East Lincoln Street by the residents
3~ of the development. The proportion of improvements to East Lincoln Street that could be attributed
3~ to the subject property ranges from 2.0% and 12.4% depending on the method of analysis used.
~s The subject property represents 4.8% of the boundary street frontage as defined in WDO 1.102 and
3y Figure 6.12. The subject property will have 166.65 lineal feet of frontage on East Lincoln Street
an after the additional dedication to right-of-way.
a~ Conclusion: All improvements required by the Transportation System Plan would be utilized by and
az are needed to meet the vehicular and non-motorized transportation needs of residents of the
a; development. It is appropriate to require the property owner to participate in the cost of providing
-~a all improvements required by the Transportation System Plan for East Lincoln Street. It is
DR 200', - l 2, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 13 of 30
102
~ appropriate that the subject property should bear a portion of those costs commensurate with the
z property's boundary street frontage as defined in WDO 1.102 and Figure 6.12. The property owner
3 should enter into a nonremonstrance agreement to participate in the cost of reconstructing East
a Lincoln Street to the standards of the Transportation System Plan when such reconstruction
s becomes timely.
~
~
s The estimated impact, on a quantitative basis, of the building or development on the public
y infrastructure system of which the rights of way and improvements will be a part. [WDO
l0 5.103.12.C.3]
>> Findings: Lincoln Street connects to Highway 99E on the east and Front Street and Settlemier
iz Avenue on the west. The impact of the proposed development on the larger public infrastructure
i3 system is estimated to be small in comparison to the impact of off-site development on that larger
14 public infrastructure.
~s Conclusions: The larger public infrastructure system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
~ 6 traffic generated by the proposed development. The incremental impact of the proposed
» development on the larger public infrastructure system would be adequately addressed through
~ s assessment of System Development Charges in the building permit process.
19
20
z~ The estimated level, on a quantitaNve basis, of rights of way and improvements needed to
2~ mitigate the esNmated impact on the public infrastructure system. [WDO 5.103.12.C.4]
z3 Findings: The larger public infrastructure system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic
za generated by the proposed development.
~s Conclusions: The incremental impact of the proposed development on the larger public
z~ infrastructure system would be adequately addressed through assessment of System Development
z~ Charges in the building permit process.
~~
29
3o When a lesser standard, subject to Section 3.101.02.F, is justified based on the nature and
3i extent of the impacts of the proposed development, an exception to reduce a street right of
3~ way or cross section requirement may be approved. No exception may be granted from
3~ applicable construction specifications. [WDO 5.10312.D]
3a Finding: The applicant has not requested an exception from construction specifications, but rather
35 an exception to the street cross section requirement.
3~ Conclusion: An exception to reduce a street right of way or cross section requirement is not
37 precluded by WDO 5.103.12.D.
38
39
ao To assure a safe and functional street with capacity to meet current demands and to assure
a~ safety for vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as other forms of non-vehicular traffic,
a~ there are minimum standards for right of way and improvement that must be provided.
a3 Deviation from these minimum standards may only be considered by a variance procedure,
aa Section 5.103.11. [WDO 5.103.12.E]
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 14 of 30
103
i Findings: The existing street cross-section consists of two 17 foot travel lanes with a 4-5 foot
z sidewalk on the north side of the street. Future upgrading to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and other
3 forms of non-vehicular traffic may be accomplished through a non-remonstrance agreement.
a Conclusions: The existing improvement provides sufficient capacity to meet current demands for
; vehicular and (on the north side of the street) pedestrian traffic. The property owner should either
~ construct the improvements required by the Transportation System Plan or execute a non-
~ remonstrance agreement to provide the necessary improvements when reconstruction of East
s Lincoln Street is timely based on participation by other property owners and the availability of
y public funding.
~a
>>
,z WDO 3.104 Access Standards
13
~a Residential Driveways Serving Any Number of Multiple Family Dwelling Units
~ s 1. Paved Driveway Width:
~ ~ b. Two-way driveway:
~~ 1) Width: 20 feet, min/max. ~~No parking" restrictions shall be posted by the
~ s owner. [WDO 3.104.05.D]
~y Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows 24-foot two-way drive
~o aisle. The applicant's submittal states that "No parking signs will be posted along the driveways as
>> required."
zz Conclusion: The proposed drive aisles meet the requirements of WDO 3.104.OS.D.l.b.1.
23
za
2s Radius of Curb Flare: 25 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.OS.D.2]
z~ Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) does not show a curb radius.
z~ In an email of February 6, 2008 the applicant stated that a 25' curb radius could be provided.
zs Conclusion: The applicant must provide curb returns with a radius of at least 25 feet, in accordance
~9 with WDO 3.104.OS.D.2.
30
31
32 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to
33 the outside edge of right of way for a:
3a a. Driveway accessing a City street, EXCLUDING Major and Minor Arterial Streets:
~s 20 feet minimum, with greater improvement as may be required by a Traffic Impact
36 Analysis (TIA). [WDO 3.104.05.D.4]
3~ Findings: East Lincoln Street is designated as a Service Collector in the Transportation System
3s Plan. The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows one exterior parking space
3y (at the southeast corner of the 6-plex) partially within 20 feet of East Lincoln Street.
ao Conclusions: The site plan does not comply with WDO 3.104.OS.D.4.b. The applicant must
a~ reconfigure the parking to provide a driveway throat length of at least 20 feet, in accordance with
.~~ WDO 3.104.OS.D.4.b, ar obtain a variance.
az
~a
DR ~007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A"
Page 15 of 30
104
~
~
~
a
5
~
~
a
9
~o
~i
~?
13
~a
~s
~~
;
IR
ly
zo
2~
zz
23
za
zs
?6
?7
zx
WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loadin~ Standards
Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements.
1. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than those set
forth in Table 3.1.2.
2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed 2.0 times the amount required in
Table 3.1.2. [WDO 3.105.O1.E]
TABLE 3.1.2 Off Street Parkin Ratio Standards
Use Parking Ratio - spaces per activity unit or
s uare feet of oss floor area sf fa
2. Three or more dwellin units er structure 2.0/ dwellin unit
Findings: The proposed development contains 15 dwelling units. The building plans show one
space in each of 9 garages. The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows 25
exterior parking spaces (24 of which comply with setback standards.)
Conclusions: The development as proposed would require 30 off-street parking spaces. The
proposed parking meets the requirements of WDO 3. l 05.O1.E.
Findings: The use of stacked or tandem parking would entail inconveniences associated with visitor
parking and access to the garage when the exterior parking space is occupied. In an email of
February 6, 2008 the applicant stated that each parking space outside a garage would be reserved for
the exclusive use of the dwelling unit served by the garage.
Conclusions: Each parking space outside a garage should be reserved for the exclusive use of the
dwelling unit served by the garage. A sign should be posted on each garage door indicating this
reserved status.
The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be provided to the standards of
the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. The number of disabled person
vehicle parking spaces shall be included as part of total required vehicle parking spaces.
[WDO 3.105.O1.E.3]
The number of accessible narkin~ snaces shall be:
Total Parkin In Lot Re uired Minimum Number of Accessible S aces
26 to 50 2
zy [ORS 447.233(2)(a)]
3o In addition, one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van accessible.
3 ~ [ORS 447.233(2)(b)]
~2 Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the state Building
3~ Code and applicable federal standards. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.4.cJ
3a A van accessible parking space shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent
3~ access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)]
~~ Accessible parking spaces shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent access
>> aisle that is at least six feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(c)]
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 16 of 30
105
~ A sign shall be posted for each accessible parking space. The sign shall be clearly visible to a
z person parking in the space, shall be marked with the International Symbol of Access and
s shall indicate that the spaces are reserved for persons with disabled person parking permits.
a Van accessible parking spaces shall have an additional sign marked "Van Accessible"
s mounted below the sign. [ORS 447.233(2)(e)]
~ Findings: The development as proposed would require 30 off-street parking spaces. The site plan
~ (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows two van-accessible space that share an
s accessibility aisle. The "handicap ramp access" detail calls for the required signage.
9 Conclusion: The development as proposed requires two accessible spaces, including one van-
~o accessible space. The proposed development complies with WDO 3.1O5.O1.E.3, WDO
>> 3. l 05.01.H.4.c, Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233.
i~
13
~a Fifty percent of the required parking should/shall be covered by garages. [WDO 3.107.05.C.4]
is Findings: The proposed development requires 30 off-street parking spaces. The proposed
l~ development provides nine parking spaces in garages. All units have direct access to the surface
i~ parking areas via 5-foot wide pedestrian walkways connecting to the covered front entrances of
~ s each unit.
i9 Conclusions: Thirty percent of the required parking would be covered by garages. The Council has
zo the discretion to approve a project that does not fully satisfy a design guideline. The proposed
z~ parking plan meets the intent of the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.4.
2~
23
z~ Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less
zs than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. [WDO 3.105.O1.G.1]
TABLE 3.1.3 Loadin S ace Re uirements
Minimum Size of S ace
Use Minimum No.
of S aces Width Length Height
Medium Density Dwellings
10 or more Units
1
12 feet
20 feet
14 feet
z~ Findings: For the proposed 15 dwelling units, one loading space is required. The site plan (Exhibit
r, "A" in the record before the Council) shows one exterior loading space, called out as 12'x20'.
Zs Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 3.105.O1.G.1.
29
3o Turn arounds shall be required within the off street parking area(s) and/or as specific
3~ circulation features, to Department of Public Works requirements based on the review of the
32 Fire District. [WDO 3.104.OS.DS]
~3 Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows a looped driveway.
3~ Conclusions: The proposed development complies with WDO 3.104.OS.D.S.
3~
36
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 17 of 30
106
i Off street vehic(e parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single family
z and duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street parking areas shall be
3 designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off street parking spaces provided
a subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no backing or maneuvering within a public
s street right of way is required. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.4.a]
TABL E 3.1.4 Parkin S ace and Aisle Dimensions (See Fi ure 6.10)
Aisle Type Width (Measured from Curb 1-Way 2-Way Stall
the midpoint of the Length Aisle Aisle Depth
double stripe) Width Width
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) (F)
90° Standard 9.0 feet 9.0 feet 24.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet
Com act 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 22.0 feet 24.0 feet 15.0 feet
~ Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows the standard parking
~ spaces as at least 9 feet wide and 19 feet long, and compact spaces as 7.5 feet wide and 15 feet long.
s The site plan shows 24 foot wide drive aisles. No backing or maneuvering is required within a
y public street right of way.
~o Conclusions: The parking spaces and drive aisles comply with WDO 3.105.O1.H.4 and Table 3.1.4.
u
iz
i~ Off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional marlcings and signs to
ia control vehicle movement. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.5]
~s Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows directional marking in
i~ the driveways.
i~ Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 3.105.O1.H.5.
ix
t9
zo Off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of a space.
z~ The total width of the lines shall delineate a separaNon of 2 feet. [WDO 3.1O5A1.H.6]
zz Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows the exterior parking
z3 spaces to be delineated by double parallel lines.
z~ Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 3.105.O1.H.6.
~~
26
z~ All outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent
za residenNally zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any
z9 public street. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.8]
3o Findings: No photometric plan was submitted for review. The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record
~~ before the Council) shows 2 pole-mounted luminaires, 12 decorative hanging lights, and 11 wall
3z packs. Manufacturer's information on the specified wall packs show that they meet IESNA
33 (Illuminating Engineers Society of North America) standards for cutoff fixtures if mounted
~~ vertically, but may also be tilted up to 45 degrees from nadir for use as a floodlight. No information
3s was provided on shielding of the pole-mounted luminaires or proposed orientation of the wall
3e packs.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 18 of 30
107
~ Conclusions: The submittal does not provide a basis to definitively conclude that the proposed
z illumination will not "shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used property." The
3 applicant should submit a photometric plan or details of luminaire shielding and wall pack
a orientation demonstrating compliance with WDO 3.l OS.Ol.H.8 to the Planning Division prior to
s issuance of any building permit.
~
~
s All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a bicycle rack
9 within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack spaces shall be one plus one
~o per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 rack spaces. [WDO 3.105.O1.H10]
t i Findings: The development as proposed would require 30 off-street parking spaces. This yields a
~z requirement of four bicycle rack spaces. The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the
~3 Council) shows two bicycle racks with 16 rack spaces. T'he bicycle racks are locate in the central
i:~ open space, adjacent to building entrances.
~ s Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 3. l 05.O1.H.10.
i~
v
~s WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards
19
~o The subject property shall be landscaped to the standards of Sections 3.106 and 3.107.03.
z ~ [WDO 2.104.07.F.2]
zz The provisions of this section shall apply:
z3 A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single-
za family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures. [WDO 3.106.01]
zs Findings: The proposed development consists of new structures and related parking. The structures
z~ are not single-family or duplex dwellings.
z~ Conclusion: The development is subject to WDO 3.106 under WDO 2.104.07.F.2 and 3.106.O1.A.
,x
~9
3o Development in an RM zone, except for a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be
3i subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.7. [WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a]
32
33
34
35
36
37
TABLE 2.1.7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones
Abuttin Pro er Landsca in
Existing single family or duplex
dwellin All interior yards shall be fully landscaped subject to Section
3.106.
RM, P/SP zone; or Existing
medium densit residential unit All interior yards shall be fully landscaped subject to Section
3.106.
Finding: The property abuts existing single-family dwellings to the west, property zoned P/SP to the
north, and property zoned P/SP and an existing medium density residential development to the east.
Conclusion: All interior yards must be fully landscaped subject to Section 3.106, in accordance with
Table 2.1.7.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A"
Page 19 of 30
108
z All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated. [WDO 3.106.02.B]
3 Findings: The utility plan and landscaping plan show a 1'/~" irrigation meter. The landscaping plan
a notes that "all landscape areas will be provided with an automatic underground irrigation system."
s Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirements of WDO 3.106.02.B.
6
7
s The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good condition so
9 as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead plants shall be removed
~ o and replaced in conformance with the original landscape plan. [WDO 3.106.02.E]
~~ Finding: This is an ongoing requirement.
i z Conclusion: This requirement will be enforced on current and future property owners.
~ ~ ~~~ ~
,r---------_~.,.
i
F~NT' ~ .~,..,.~.__
~~~
i ~~~~ ~~~
..~.- -~.,~`~.... ~ . -~1~4~+t'P L,irP .. ~
'"a ~ ~r 6 ~~ ~~
~~ ~.~ . ~. ~ . . ~~ a~~
~~I'~ ~F.~ ~3t~~ ~11~'~'~~
~~.~~.~ a
car,~wCaa¢
~ ~~ .. .~.r ~.+.
~ . C~ . ~•
.. ~. , .. . ~ r. :...+~
i 3 Front Yard and Yard Abutting a Street.
~a a. Landscaping Density for all uses in the RM zones. All front yards and yards abutting
~ s a street shall be landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. [WDO
~ 6 3106.03.A.2]
» Findings: The front yard contains approximately 3,934 square feet of area. The landscaping plan
~ a shows the front yard to be stocked with 141 plat units, or 0.72 plant units per 20 square feet. A total
~9 of 197 plant units is required to provide 1 plant unit per 20 square feet.
~o Conclusion: The landscaping proposed far the front yard does not meet the standard of WDO
zi 3.106.03.A.2.a. The property owner shall provide at least 197 plant units in the front yard.
zz Yard, Buffer: An yard improved with landscaping and/or screening to applicable standards
,3 of the WDO that is located between two land uses of differing character to minimize potential
z~ conflicts and to provide a more aestheNc environment. [WDO 1102]
DR 2007-1?, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 20 of 30
109
~ Findings: The property abuts a single-family dwellings to the west, school property in the P/SP zone
z to the north and along a portion of the east lot line, and an existing multiple-family development
3 along the remainder of the east lot line. The south property line is adjacent to lots developed with
a single-family dwellings.
s Conclusion: Yards abutting lots developed with single-family dwellings or school property are
~ buffer yards.
9 All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft.
io EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are paved and which may be used
i~ for parking or site access and vehicular circulation. (WDO 3.106.03.B]
~z Findings: The west and north buffer yards extend from the west and north property lines to the curb.
13 The east buffer yard extends from the east property line to the curb where the east property line
ia abuts school property. The landscape plan shows that the east, north, and west buffer yards contain
is approximately 264 plant units and approximately 3,478 square feet of area that is not "paved and ...
~ b used for parking or site access and vehicular circulation," or 1.52 plant units per 20 square feet. A
i~ total of 174 plant units is required to provide 1 plant unit per 20 square feet in the east, north, and
is west buffer yards.
i9 Conclusions: The east, north, and west buffer yards meet the standard of WDO 3.106.03.B. As the
zo stocking requirement for buffer yards is the same as for yards abutting a street, the south buffer yard
z~ is adequately addressed under WDO 3.106.03.A.2.a, analyzed above.
zz
23
~~ 1~1 ulti-Pu rpose Landscaping. Trees and other required landscaping located on private
,~ property within a required setback abutting a street or an interior lot line that is within 20
~b feet of the paved surface of off street parking and circulation faciliHes, may also be counted in
z~ calculating required landscaping for off street parking and circulaNon areas. [WDO
~s 3106.03.C.4]
29 All unpaved land within off street parking areas, and within 20 feet of the paved edge of off
~o street parlcing and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in the following
3~ proportions:
3z a. RM ... zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 20% of the paved surface area for off
33 street parking and circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.C.1]
ja Findings: In a previous submittal, the applicant indicated that the total square footage for the paved
~s surface area for off street parking and circulation is 17,500 Square feet. Twenty percent of the area
~6 of off street parking and circulation facilities is 3,500 square feet. The buffer yards and the east side
~~ yard contain approximately 4,100 square feet of landscaping, and do not comprise the entire
3s landscaped area within 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and/or circulation
;9 improvements.
-~o Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard of WDO 3.106.03.C.1.
a~
4?
~3 The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off street parking and circulation
-~a facilities, EXCLUDING required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 square feet. [WDO
DR ~G~17-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 21 of 30
110
i 3.106.03.C.2J
z Findings: The buffer yards and the east side yard contain approximately 4,100 square feet of
3 landscaping, and do not comprise the entire landscaped area within 20 feet of the paved edge of off
a street parking and/or circulation improvements. The landscaped area of just the buffer yards and
s east side yard contains 4,129 square feet of area and 327 plant units (excluding the trees required to
~ satisfy WDO 3.106.03.C.3), for a plant density of 1.58 plant units per 20 square feet.
~ Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard of WDO 3106.03.C.2.
9
io Trees, Section 6.103, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking faciGties in a
~~ pattern that is in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the following
iz densities:
~3 a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces;
14 b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or
i s c. 1 large tree per 14 parlcing spaces. [WDO 3.106.03.C.3]
i~ Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows 26 external off-street
i ~ parking spaces. The equivalent of 6 small, 3 medium, or 2 large trees is required by WDO
~s 3.106.03.C.3. The landscaping plan shows 9 Black Tupelo (large trees), 7 Norway maple (medium
~9 trees), 3 Yoshino cherry (medium trees) and three Vine maples (small trees) abutting the parking
zo area.
z~ Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standard of WDO 3.106.03.C.3.
~,
23
Za The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive landscaping
zs requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant unit (PU) per 50
zb square feet prior to final occupancy. [WDO 3.106.03.E]
2; Finding: The portion of the east side yard that abuts the multiple-family development is not subject
za to more intensive landscaping requirements. This portion of the east side yard contains
z9 approximately 5,376 square feet and is landscaped with 71 plant units, which equates to 0.66 plant
3o units per 50 square feet. A total of 108 plant units is required to provide 1 plant unit per 50 square
s~ feet. All other yard areas are subject to more intensive landscaping requirements.
~z Conclusion: The portion of the east side yard that abuts the multiple-family development does not
33 meet the standard of WDO 3.106.03.E.
34
35
3~ All common areas shall 6e landscaped with at least three (3) plant units per 50 square feet.
3~ [WDO 3.106.03.D]
3s Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows that the central
39 common area contains 3,390 square feet. The preliminary planting plan (Exhibit "E" in the record
ao before the Council) shows that the central common area is landscaped with 211 plant units, which
ai equates to 3.11 plant units per 50 square feet. A total of 204 plant units is required to provide 3
az plant units per 50 square feet.
43 Conclusion: The common area meets the standard of WDO 3.106.03.D.
aa Required yard setbacks should/shall be included as common open space. [WDO
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 22 of 30
111
3.107.OS.B.I.b]
z
3
a
5
6
~
s
9
io
11
12
13
ia
IS
16
i~
18
~9
~a
,i
~Z
?3
An ambiguous term in the WDO may be interpreted in the final decision of any Type II, III or
IV application or by a request for a formal interpretation by the City Council. [WDO
4.102.09.A.1]
Findings: WDO 3.107.OS.B.I.b uses the term "common open space" - which is defined in WDO
1.102 as "An area, feature, building or other facility within a development which has been dedicated
in common to the ownership within the development, or to the public, specifically for the purpose
of providing places for recreation, conservation or landscaping, intended for the use of the residents
and property owners of the development." WDO 3.106.03.D uses the term "common areas" -
which is not defined in the WDO. The term "common areas" is ambiguous. The instant design
review is a Type III application. The front yard as defined in Figure 6.3 is more extensive than the
front setback and is subject to a stocking requirement of 1 plant unit per 20 square feet (WDO
3.106.03.A.2); the buffer yards are subject to a stocking requirement of 1 plant unit per 20 square
feet except where paved and used for parking or vehicular circulation (WDO 3.106.03.B); and "the
entire yard area of a property [which is more extensive than the setback area] EXCLUDING areas
subject to more intensive landscaping requirements" is subject to a stocking requirement of 1 plant
unit per 50 square feet (WDO 3.106.03.E.) A gradation in stocking requirements is a rational and
proportionate requirement. If the setbacks are "common areas" the stocking requirement increases
to 3 plant units per 50 square feet. This would obviate the gradation in stocking requirements.
Conclusion: The Council has the statutory authority to interpret the term "common areas" in its final
decision. The Council adopts the interpretation that the "common areas" referred to in WDO
3.106.03.D do not include yards as shown in Figure 6.3.
DR 2007-1?, VAR 2(~08-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 23 of 30
112
Interpretation as applied to the instant case
i Conservation of Significant Trees
z A. Applicability. The provisions of this Section apply to the removal of any significant
3 tree and the replacement requirements for significant tree removal. A"significant
a tree" is any existing, healthy tree 24 inches or more in diameter, measured 12 inches
s above ground level. [WDO 3.106.04]
6 Applicant's statement: "There are 11 trees located throughout the subject property. All the existing
~ trees are located within building envelopes, driveways, and/or parking areas. Therefore, all 11 trees
s are proposed for removal. There are 7 trees that are 24 inches in diameter or greater proposed for
9 removal."
io Findings: Seven trees proposed to be removed qualify as significant trees.
i~ Conclusion: The provisions of WDO 3.106.04 apply to the subject property.
~2
l3
~a The issuance of a significant tree removal permit requires the property owner to replace each
~s tree removed with two new trees on the same property. Each new tree shall be at least 2
16 inches in caliper. A tree required by the development standards of the underlying zone,
~~ Section 3.1., or as a condition of permit approval shall qualify as a replacement tree. [WDO
~s 3106.04.C]
~9 Findings: Seven trees proposed to be removed qualify as significant trees. Fourteen replacement
zo trees of at least 2" caliper are required to meet the standard of WDO 3.106.04.C. The preliminary
2~ planting plan (Exhibit "E" in the record before the Council) shows 19 trees proposed to be planted
zz on the subject property that are called out as 2" caliper.
z3 Conclusion: The landscaping plan meets the requirements of WDO 3.106.04.C.
2a
zs
zb The required number of plant units shall be met by a combinaNon of plant materials listed in
z~ Table 3.1.5, so that eighty (80) percent of the area to be landscaped is covered within three
zs years. Required plant units need not be allocated uniformly through out specified
z9 landscaping areas, but may be grouped for visual effect. [WDO 3.106.05.A]
TABLE 3.1.5 Defnition of a Plant Unit PU
Plant Material Plant Unit PU Value Minimum Size of Plant
1 Si nificant Tree 15 PU 24" Cali er
1 Lar e Tree, Section 6103 10 PU 10' Hei t or 2" Cali er
1 Medium Tree, Section 6.103 8 PU 10' Hei t or 2" Cali er
1 Small Tree, Section 6103 4 PU 10' Hei ht or 2" Cali er
1 Large Deciduous or Evergreen shrub
(at maturit over 4' wide x 4' hi h 2 PU 3 gallon or balled and
burla ed
1 Small to Medium shrub (at maturity
maximum 4' wide x 4' hi h) 1 PU 1 gallon
Lawn or other livin round cover 1 PU 50 s. ft.
~o Findings regarding plant units:
3~ • Weeping Alaska cedar qualifies as a small tree.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 24 of 30
113
i •
z ~
3 •
a •
s •
6 •
~ •
s
y
~o
n
~z
13
14
]5
16
»
~s
i9
zo
2~
~z
23
24
25
~~
z~
~8
~g
30
.
.
•
.
Vine Maple qualifies as a small tree.
Parkway Norway Maple qualifies as a medium tree.
Yoshino Cherry qualifies as a medium tree.
Sugar Maple qualifies as a large tree.
Black Tupelo qualifies as a large tree.
Pink Princess escallonia qualifies as a small shrub.
David Viburnium qualifies as a small shrub.
Crimson Pygmy Barberry qualifies as a small shrub.
Azaleas qualify as small shrubs.
Forest Flame pieris qualifies as a small shrub.
Rhododendron `Unique' qualifies as a small shrub.
Rainbow Drooping leucothoe qualifies as a small shrub.
Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo qualifies as a small shrub.
Dwarf fountain grass qualifies as "other living ground cover."
Massachusetts Kinnikinick qualifies as "other living ground cover."
Bronze bugleweed qualifies as "other living ground cover."
Sod lawn qualifies as "other living ground cover."
Findings: The submittal does not address the requirement that all shrubs and ground cover be sized
to attain 80% ground coverage within 3 years.
Conclusion: The proposed landscaping has not been shown to meet the requirements of WDO
3.106.OS.A. The landscape architect must certify that the plant spacing is such that the shrubs and
ground will attain 80% ground coverage within 3 years.
Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of bark
mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a minimum of 2 inches in
depth. (WDO 3.106.05.B]
Finding: The preliminary planting plan (Exhibit "E" in the record before the Council) calls for bark
mulch in areas that not covered by plant materials.
31
3'
33
34
35
36
3?
38
39
40
41
~~
~,
-,a
Conclusion: The landscaping plan meets the guideline of WDO 3.106.OS.B.
A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking area or
access way. [WDO 3.106.OS.C]
Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) apparently shows a curb along
the driveway and parking areas. The site plan does not call out the height of the curb. In an email
of February 6, 2008 the applicant stated that a 6" curb would be provided.
Conclusion: The proposed development complies with WDO 3.106.OS.C.
WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards
Guideli.ies and Standards for Medium Density Residential Buildings
DR 2U07-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 25 of 30
114
1 A. Applicability. Pursuant to Section 1.102, "Medium Density Residential Building"
z means any building where the predominant use is multiple family, nursing care or
3 assisted care residential.
~ 2. For a Type II or III review, the criteria Section 3.107.OS.B shall be read as
s "should" and shall be applied as guidelines. [WDO 3.107.05]
~
x Common open space and facilities consist of the site area and facilities not devoted to
9 dwellings, parking, streets, driveways or storage areas that are available for use by all
~o residents of a development. [WDO 3.107.OS.B1.a]
~ i Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record befare the Council) does not show the area between
~z the side and rear lot lines and the perimeter wall as common open space.
i3 Conclusion: The area between the side and rear lot lines and the perimeter wall is effectively not
ia "available for use by all residents of a development" and does not qualify as common open space as
~s defined by WDO 3.107.OS.B.I.a. The drive aisles and parking area are "parking, streets, driveways
i~ or storage areas" and do not qualify as common open space as defined by WDO 3.107.OS.B.I.a.
i~
~x A minimum of 30 percent of the net site area of each medium density residential development
~9 should/shall be permanently designated for use as common open space and facilities. [WDO
zo 3.107.OS.B.l.c.1]
z~ Findings: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows a site area of 38,943
z~ square feet and common open space of 9,588 square feet.
z~ C~~nclusions: The development contains approximately 24.6% of the site area as qualifying common
za otsen space. The Council has the discretion to approve a project that does not fully satisfy a design
Zs guideline. The development meets the intent of the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.B.I.c.l.
z~
z~
zs The common area shouldlshall include at least one open space containing 2000 sq. ft., with a
zy minimum width of 36 feet. [WDO" 3.107.05.B.1.c.2]
3o Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows that the central
3~ common open space contains 3,390 square feet and measures approximately 50 feet by 70 feet.
3z Conclusion: The central common open space meets the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.B.l.c2.
33
34
?s Facilities to accommodate children's and/or adult recreation, meeting or education activities
36 should/shall be provided at a ratio of 36 sq. ft. of outdoor, or 12 sq. ft. of indoor, common area
3~ per dwelling unit or living unit. The minimum improved common area for this purpose
3s should/shall be 720 square feet of outdoor or 240 sq. ft. indoor space. The space for such
~9 improvements may be counted as part of the common area required by Section
40 3107.OS.B.l.c.2). at a 1:1 ratio for outdoor space and 3:1 ratio for indoor space. [WDO
ai 3107.OS.B.l.c.3]
4z Findings: At the given ratios, 15 dwelling units yield a requirement of 540 square feet of outdoor, or
a~ 180 square feet of indoar recreation, meeting or education areas and facilities - less than the
.~a minimum 720 square feet of outdoor or 240 sq. ft. indoor space. 'The building plans do not show
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 26 of 30
115
~ indoor facilities. The preliminary planting plan (Exhibit "E" in the record before the Council)
z shows a picnic table, barbeque pit, two benches, and an open lawn area in the central common open
3 space.
a Conclusions: In conjunction with the picnic table, barbeque pit, and benches, the open lawn area is
s considered a facility for recreation. The proposed development meets the guideline of WDO
~ 3.107.OS.B.l.c.3.
9 Medium density dwelling units sited on the finished grade, or within 5 feet of the finished
~o grade, should/shall have 96 square feet of semi-enclosed, private open space, with no
>> dimension less than 6 feet. (WDO 3.107.05.BZ.a.l]
~z Findings: The floor plans (Exhibits "G" and "H" in the record before the Council) show that two
~3 units of the 6-plex and two units of the 9-plex have private open spaces with approximately 81
~a square feet each of area with no dimension less than 6 feet (measuring approximately 11'-0" x 7'-
~s 4".) An additional area of approximately 50 square feet has one dimension less than 6 feet
~b (measuring approximately 10'-0" x 5'-0".) One unit of the 9-plex has a private open space with
~ ~ approximately 60 square feet of area with one dimension less than 6 feet (measuring approximately
ix 12'-0" x 5'-0".) Garages are not "habitable space" or "living space" as defined by the Oregon
~ 9 Residential Specialty Code. The applicant has indicated that they will meet the square footage and
zo dimension requirement of Condition No. 69.
z~ Conclusions: The portions of the open space with any dimension less than 6 feet do not meet the
zz requirements of WDO 3.107.OS.B.l.c.2. The private open spaces as shown on the floor plans
z3 (Exhibits "G" and "H" in the record before the Council) do not meet the guidelines of WDO
za 3.107.OS.B.1.c.2. Units with only a garage on the ground floor are not "dwelling units sited on the
-s finishcd grade." The applicant shall submit revised floor plans to the Planning Division
z6 demonstrating compliance with WDO 3.107.OS.B.I .c.2 before issuance of a building permit.
z~
~s Ground level private open space should/shall be visually and physically separated from
z9 common open space through the use of perimeter landscaping or fencing. [WDO
30 3.107.05.B.2.a.2]
3~ Findings: The building elevations (Exhibits "I" and "J" in the record before the Council) show that
32 the ground level private open spaces are separated from the common open spaces by walls or fences
33 approximately 3 feet in height.
3a Conclusions: The proposed separation between the private open spaces and the common open
3s spaces meets the guideline of WDO 3.107.05.B.2.a.2.
36
37
3a Medium density dwelling units sited more than 5 feet from the finished grade (a balcony)
;9 should/shall have 48 square feet of private open space, with no dimension less than 6 feet.
ao [WDO 3.107.OS.B.2.b)
4~ Findings: The floor plans of the 6-plex (Exhibit "G" in the record befare the Council) show that the
a2 four upper-level units have decks on the second floor. The decks are not dimensioned. At the
~3 apparent scale, two of the decks are approximately 5'-3" deep and 10'-6" wide and contain
4a approximately 55 square feet. The other two decks are approximately 6'-9" deep and 11'-3" wide
DzZ ?007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 27 of 30
116
and contain approximately 76 square feet.
z
3
a
s
~
~
s
y
10
~i
~z
13
~a
u
l6
17
is
l9
20
z~
z2
23
24
25
26
~~
zs
Z9
3 [1
31
3?
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
ai
4_'
43
Findings: The floor plans of the 9-plex (Exhibit "H" in the record before the Council) show that the
six upper-level units have decks on the second floor. The decks are not dimensioned. At the
apparent scale, two of the decks are approximately 5'-3" deep and 10'-6" wide and contain
approximately 55 square feet. Two other decks are approximately 6'-9" deep and 11'-3" wide and
contain approximately 76 square feet. The other two decks are approximately 4'-10" deep and 16'-
6" wide and contain approximately 80 square feet.
Conclusions: The proposed floor plans of both the 6-plex and the 9-plex do not meet the guidelines
of WDO 3.107.OS.B.2.b for all dwelling units. The property owner should provide all upper-level
dwelling units with at least 48 square feet of private open space in a balcony or deck, with no
dimension less than 6 feet.
Medium density residential buildings should/shall have no dimension greater than 150 feet.
[WDO 3.107.OS.C.l.a]
Finding: The floor plans (Exhibits "G" and "H" in the record before the Council) show that the
maximum building dimension is approximately 64 feet.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.a.
Every two attached medium density residential dwelling units should/shall be offset by at least
4 feet in depth. [WDO 3.107.OS.C.l.b)
Finding: The buildings incorporate varied rooflines, balconies, and covered entries.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.b.
Adjacent medium density residential buildings located within 28 feet of a property line,
should/shall vary the setback at least 4 feet. [WDO 3107.OS.C.I.c]
Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) shows the buildings to be
located more than 28 feet from the east and west property lines.
Conclusion: The guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.l.c does not apply.
A flat roof, or the ridge of a sloping roof, for a medium density residential building
shouldlshall not exceed a horizontal length of 100 feet. [WDO 3.107.05.C.1.d]
Finding: The elevation drawings (Exhibit "J" in the record before the Council) show that the
maximum length of a ridgeline is approximately 64 feet.
Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I .d.
Medium density residential buildings should/shall incorporate a porch or recessed entry for
each ground level dwelling unit. Covered porches and entries should average at least 30 feet
square per unit, with no dimension less than 6 feet. [WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.e~
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 28 of 30
117
~ Finding: The floor plans of the 6-plex (Exhibit "G" in the record before the Council) show that the
z ground level units have covered porches with approximately 81 square feet each of area that has no
3 dimension less than 6 feet.
a Findings: The floor plans of the 9-plex (Exhibit "H" in the record before the Council) show that two
s ground level units have covered porches with approximately 81 square feet each of area that has no
~ dimension less than 6 feet. One ground level unit has a covered porch approximately 5'-0" deep
~ and 12'-0" wide and containing approximately 60 square feet
s Conclusions: The 6-plex meets the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.C. l.e. One ground level unit of the
9 9-plex does not meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.e. The property owner should a porch or
io recessed entry for each ground level dwelling unit, consistent with the guidelines of WDO
i ~ 3.107.OS.C.I.e.
iz
t~
~a All habitable rooms, except bath rooms, facing a required front yard shouldlshall incorporate
is windows. (WDO 3.107.05.C1.fJ
~b Finding: The south facade of the 6-plex faces the front yard. Garages are not considered habitable
~~ rooms. The floor plans of the 6-plex (Exhibit "G" in the record before the Council) show that all
~ a habitable rooms on the south face, except bathrooms, have windows.
~9 Conclusion: The development meets the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.f.
zo
zi
zz Stair cases providing access above the first floor level should/shall not be visible from a street.
z3 (WDO 3.107.OS.C.l.g]
za Finding: The floor plans (Exhibits "G" and "H" in the record before the Council) show that the
~s staircases providing access above the first floor are internal.
z~ Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.g.
z~
zs
z9 The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade shouldlshall be:
30 1) Either siding, brick or stucco. Plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood and sheet
3~ press board should/shall not be used as exterior finish material. [WDO 3.107.OS.C.2.a]
3, Finding: The elevation drawings of the 9-plex (Exhibit "J" in the record before the Council) and the
33 perspective rendering (Exhibit "K" in the record before the Council) show the predominant exterior
34 finish to be lap siding, cultured stone, and architectural shakes.
3s Conclusion: The buildings meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.2.a.1.
3~
37
3s The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade should/shall be:
3~ 2) Either white, tinted with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or shaded with a
ao minimum of 10 parts per 100 of black or brown. "Flourescent," "day-glo," or any
a~ similar bright color should/shall not be used on the facade. [WDO 3.107.05.G2.a]
a~ Finding: The color scheme (Exhibit "L" in the record before the Council) shows the predominant
a~ colors to be "Backdrop," "Status bronze," Rugged brown," and "Rockwood clay."
DR ~007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A" Page 29 of 30
118
i
~
3
a
5
b
~
S
9
]0
ll
~2
]3
ta
is
~F
»
Conclusion: The color scheme of the buildings meets the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.C.2.a.2.
The roofing material for medium density dwellings shouldlshall be either composition
shingles; clay or concrete tile; metal; or cedar shingles or shakes. ComposiHon shingles
should/shall be architectural style with a certified performance of at least 25 years. [WDO
3.107.05.C.2.b]
Finding: The building elevations for the 9-plex (Exhibit "J" in the record before the Council) call
out "asphalt shingle roofing."
Conclusion: The proposed roofing material complies with the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.C.2.b.
The internal pedestrian system in medium density residential developments should/shall
connect to other areas of the site, to other building entrances and to adjacent streets. [WDO
3.107.OS.C.3.a]
Finding: The site plan (Exhibit "A" in the record before the Council) 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.a.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "A"
Page 30 of 30
119
APPENDIX "B"
i The Council approves cases DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 subject to the
z following conditions of approval:
> l. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all
-~ provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of
~ approval, or public hearing.
~> 2. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans, attached hereto as
~ Exhibits "A" though "N," except as modified by these conditions of approval.
s 3. The term "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted as relieving the property owner
~~ from complying with any requirement of the WDO. The term "substantial conformity"
~ o shall not be interpreted to mean that City staff have the authority to waive or vary any
~~ development standard set forth in the WDO or to modify any condition of approval
>> imposed by the Planning Commission.
i3 4. The variance application authorizes the establishment of 15 dwelling units.*
ia 5. The buildings shall not exceed 35 feet in height, in accordance with WDO 2.104.06.C.*
i~ 6. The buildings shall be set back at least 20 feet from East Lincoln Street, in accardance with
i~ WDO 2.104.06.D.1.a.*
~~ 7. The buildings shall be set back at least 36 feet from the east, west, and north property
ix lines, in accordance with WDO 2.104.06.D.2.a and Table 2.1.7.*
~~~ 8. The property owner shall provide at least 20 feet between the garage entrances and the
zo closest edge of the shared driveway, in accordance with WDO 2.104.06.D.1.b.2.*
zi 9. The property owner shall install a solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graf~ti surface,
z~ no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height, along the west property line, in
z3 accordance with Table 2.1.7. The wall shall be no more than 30 inches in height
~=~ (measured from the top of the curb) within vision clearance area per WDO 3.103.10.E.*
?s 10. The property owner shall install a solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface,
?~ no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height, along the north and east property lines,
?~ in accordance with Table 2.1.7. The wall shall be no more than 30 inches in height
zR (measured from the top of the curb} within vision clearance area per WDO 3.103.10.E.*
~~~ 11. All architectural walls shall incorporate at least two colors and/or textures on the side
?o facing away from the subject property.*
~~ 12. Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened by an architectural block wall and
~? solid gate a minimum of six feet and a maximum of seven feet in height, in accordance
~3 with WDO 2.104.07.F.3.
za 13. The property owner shall demonstrate that the refuse enclosure incorporates at least two
z ~ colors and/or textures.
;r, 14. The property owner shall provide an anti-graffiti surface for the wall and gate.*
3,
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 1 of 7
120
~ 15. The property owner shall orient the refuse collection facility so that the gate will not be
z visible from East Lincoln Street.
3 16. The property owner shall dedicate an additional 11 feet to right-of-way for East Lincoln
a Street, in accordance with the Transportation System Plan. *
s 17. The property owner shall provide all street improvements required by the Transportation
~ System Plan or obtain an exception to street right of way and improvement requirements,
~ in accordance with WDO 3.101.02.D.
s 18. The property owner shall enter into a nonremonstrance agreement to participate in the cost
9 of reconstructing East Lincoln Street to the standards of the Transportation System Plan
~o when such reconstruction becomes timely. The property owner shall bear costs of such
>> reconstruction proportionate to the property's boundary street frontage as defined in WDO
~ z 1.102 and Figure 6.12: 166.65 lineal feet of half-street improvements.
i 3 19. The property owner shall provide 7 small street trees, 5 medium street trees, or 4 large
~4 street trees in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.1.*
is 20. The property owner shall provide driveways at least 20 feet in width, in accordance with
~e WDO 3.104.OS.D.l.b.1.*
~ ~ 21. The property owner shall provide curb returns with a radius of at least 25 feet, in
~s accordance with WDO 3.104.OS.D.2.*
i y 22. The property owner shall reconfigure the parking to provide a driveway throat length of at
zo least 20 feet, in accordance with WDO 3.104.OS.D.4.b, or obtain a variance.
z~ 23. Each parking space outside a garage shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the dwelling
r unit served by the garage. A sign shall be posted on each garage door indicating this
z3 reserved status.*
za 24. The property owner shall provide at least 2.0 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, in
zs accordance with WDO 3.105.O1.E.1.*
z6 25. The property owner shall provide accessible off-street parking spaces, including at least
~~ one van-accessible space, in accordance with WDO 3.1O5.O1.E.3, WDO 3.105.O1.H.4.c,
zx Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233.*
z9 26. All parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional requirements of WDO 3.l 05.O1.H.4
3o and Table 3.1.4.*
3~ 27. The property owner shall provide one loading space, in accordance with WDO
3z 3.1O5.O1.G1.*
~3 28. The property owner shall provide a looped driveway to Department of Public Warks
3:~ requirements based on the review of the Fire District, in accordance with WDO
~s 3.104.OS.D.S.*
~~ 29. The property owner shall provide driveways with a minimum 28 foot inside radius.*
3~ 30. The property owner shall post the driveway "no parking," in accordance with WDO
zs 3.1O5.O1.G.5 and WDO 3.1O5.O1.H.5.*
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 2 of 7
121
~ 31. The property owner shall provide pavement marking in the driveway and "no parking"
z signs along the driveway, in accordance with WDO 3.105.O1.G.5 and WDO
3 3. l 05.O1.H.5.*
a 32. Exterior parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines, in accordance with
s WDO 3.105.O1.H.6.*
~ 33. The applicant shall submit a photometric plan or details of luminaire shielding and wall
~ pack orientation demonstrating compliance with WDO 3.105.O1.H.8 to the Planning
s Division prior to issuance of any building permit.
9 34. The applicant shall provide at least four bicycle rack spaces, in accordance with WDO
~0 3.105.O1.H.10.*
i~ 35. The parking spaces and drive aisles shall comply with WDO 3.l OS.Ol.H.4 and the
~z minimum dimensions required by Table 3.1.4.*
i3 36. All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated, in accordance with WDO
~4 3.106.02.B.*
is 37. The property owner shall maintain all landscaping in good condition. Unhealthy and dead
i~ plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape plan, in
i~ accordance with WDO 3.106.02.E.*
~s 38. The property owner shall provide at least 197 plant units in the front yard, in accordance
~9 with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.a.
zo 39. The property owner shall provide at least 174 plant units in the east, north, and west buffer
z~ yards, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.B.*
~~ 40. The property owner shall landscape at least 20% of the paved surface area for off street
z3 parking and circulation. Such landscaping shall be located within 20 feet of the paved
za edge of off street parking and/or circulation improvements, and shall contain at least one
zs (1) plant unit per 20 square feet excluding required trees, in accordance with WDO
z~ 3.106.03.C.1 and C.2.*
z~ 41. The property owner shall provide at least the equivalent of 6 small, 3 medium, or 2 large
zs trees within and abutting off street parking facilities in a pattern that is in proportion to the
z9 distribution of the parking spaces, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.C.3.*
;0 42. The property owner shall provide at least 108 plant units in the east side yard that abuts the
3~ multiple-family development, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.E.
~z 43. The property owner shall provide at least 204 plant units in the central common area, in
3s accordance with WDO 3.106.03.D.
:a 44. The landscape architect shall certify that the plant spacing is such that the shrubs and
~s ground will attain 80% ground coverage within 3 years, in accordance with WDO
3e 3.106.OS.A.
3~ 45. The property owner shall provide at least fourteen replacement trees of at least 2" caliper,
3s in accordance with WDO 3.106.04.C.*
3y 46. Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of
~o bark mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a minimum of 2
a~ inches in depth, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.B.*
DR 2007-12, VAR 20U8-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 3 of 7
122
~ 47. The property owner shall provide a six-inch concrete curb between a landscaped area and a
z parking area or access way, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.C.*
3 48. Fire flows of the existing hydrants shall be provided to the Building Official and the Fire
4 District, in accordance with Appendix B of the Oregon Fire Code.
s 49. The property owner shall provide one or more on-site hydrants as required by Appendix C
~ of the Oregon Fire Code.*
~ 50. The building must be sprinklered, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the Oregon Structural
s Specialty Code.*
9 51. The property owner shall provide a fire alarm system if required by Chapter 9 of the
io Oregon Structural Specialty Code.
i~ 52. The property owner shall provide at least 26 feet of driveway width required at the on-site
~z hydrant for a minimum of 20 feet on both sides of the hydrant (40 foot total length) , in
~ 3 accordance with Appendix D of the Oregon Fire Code. *
~a 53. ADA access must be provided from the street, in accordance with Chapter 11 of the
~s Oregon Structural Specialty Code.*
i~ 54. The property owner shall obtain plan approval and permit issuance from the Public Works
i; Department for all work within the public rights-of-way or easement.
is 55. The property owner shall convey to the city a utility easement for all city maintained
~y facilities located on private property.
zo 56. The property owner shall pay all system development charges and installation fees at the
z i time of building permit issuance.
z~ 57. The property owner shall provide a storm water analysis to the Public Works Department
z~ to verify that the existing storm sewer system has the capacity to accept the additional
za runoff without on-site detention. If the existing storm sewer system does not have the
zs capacity to accept the additional runoff without on-site detention, the property owner shall
z~ provide onsite detention in accordance with the city Storm Water Master Plan.
a~ 58. The proposed 12" diameter storm system to be constructed within Lincoln Street shall be
zs approved and installed in accordance with Public Works Department standards,
z9 specifications, approval and permit requirements.
30 59. The wastewater service shall be sized in accordance the Uniform Plumbing Code.
3~ 60. The existing wastewater service to the existing residential structure shall not be utilized in
3z conjunction with this development and shall be plugged at the property line by the property
33 owner in a manner approved by the Public Works Department.
~a 61. The property owner shall provide a backflow preventer approved by the Public Works
~s Department for every new domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler service. (Contact
~c~ Frank Sutter, City of Woodburn Water Superintendent for type and installation
~~ requirements at 503-982-5238.).
3s 62. City records indicate there is an existing well on the subject property. The well shall either
~~~ be abandoned in accordance with state requirements or the property owner shall provide an
~o upgraded backflow preventer approved by the Public Works Department for every new
al domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler connection.
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 4 of 7
123
~ 63. The existing domestic water service to the existing residential structure shall not be utilized
2 in conjunction with this development . The existing domestic water service shall be
3 abandoned by the city. The property owner shall pay the abandonment fee at the time of
a building permit issuance.
s 64. Additional expansion of the public water system, if required, shall conform to Public
6 Works Department standards, specifications, approval and permit requirements.
~ 65. Required yards shall be included as common open space, in accordance with the guideline
s of WDO 3.107.OS.B.I.b.*
9 66. The property owner shall provide at least 9,588 square feet of common open space and
~o facilities, in accordance with the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.B.l.c.1.*
>> 67. The common area shall include at least one open space containing 2000 sq. ft., with a
~z minimum width of 36 feet, in accordance with the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.B.l.c.2.*
~ 3 68. The property owner shall provide at least 720 square feet of outdoor, or 240 square feet of
~a indoor recreation, meeting or education areas and facilities to meet the guideline of WDO
~s 3.10~.O5.B.l.c.3.*
i 6 69. The property owner shall provide each dwelling unit on or within 5 feet of the finished
i~ grade with 96 square feet of semi-enclosed, private open space, with no dimension less
ix than 6 feet, to meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.B.l.c.2. The applicant shall submit
i~ revised floor plans to the Planning Division demonstrating compliance with WDO
zo 3.107.OS.B.l.c.2 prior to issuance of a building permit.
z i 70. The property owner should provide all upper-level dwelling units with at least 48 square
zz feet of private open space in a balcony or deck, with no dimension less than 6 feet, to meet
z3 the guidelines of WDO 3.107.OS.B.2.b. The applicant shall submit revised floor plans to
za the Planning Division demonstrating compliance with WDO 3.107.OS.B.2.b prior to
zs issuance of a building permit.
z~ 71. Ground level private open space shall be visually and physically separated from common
z~ open space through the use of perimeter landscaping or fencing, to meet the guidelines of
zs WDO 3.107.OS.B.2.a.2.*
z9 72. The buildings shall have no dimension greater than 150 feet, to meet the guideline of
3o WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.a.*
3 i 73. Every two attached medium density residential dwelling units shall be offset by at least 4
3z feet in depth, to meet the guideline of the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.l.b.*
33 74. The ridge of a sloping roof, for a medium density residential building shall not exceed a
34 horizontal length of 100 feet, to meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.d.*
3, 75. The buildings shall incorporate a porch or recessed entry for each ground level dwelling
~~ unit. Covered porches and entries shall average at least 30 feet square per unit, with no
3~ dimension less than 6 feet, to meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.e. The applicant
~H shall submit revised floor plans to the Planning Division demonstrating compliance with
39 WDO 3.107.OS.C.I.e prior to issuance of a building permit.
ao 76. All habitable rooms of the southern building, except bath rooms, shall incorporate
ai w~ndows, in accordance with the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.1.£*
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 5 of 7
124
i 77. The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade shall be either siding, brick or
2 stucco. Plain concrete, corrugated metal, plywood and sheet press board should/shall not
3 be used as exterior finish material, in accordance with the guideline of WDO
a 3.107.OS.C.2.a.1.*
s 78. The exterior finish for at least 90 percent of the facade shall be either white, tinted with a
b minimum of 10 parts per 100 of white, or shaded with a minimum of 10 parts per 100 of
~ black or brown. "Fluorescent," "day-glo," or any similar bright colar shall not be used on
x the facade, in accordance with the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.2.a.2.*
9 79. The roofing material shall be either composition shingles; clay or concrete tile; metal; or
~o cedar shingles or shakes. Composition shingles shall be architectural style with a certified
>> performance of at least 25 years, to meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.2.b.*
~z 80. The internal pedestrian system shall connect to other areas of the site, to other building
~3 entrances and to adjacent streets, to meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.3.a.*
~4 81. The property owner shall provide garages for at least 9 dwelling units, in accordance with
15 the guideline of WDO 3.107.OS.C.4.*
~~ * The development as proposed appears to meet these conditions of approval. These
i ~ conditions are included to reiterate the relevant standards and guidelines.
Ix
~y
zo Attachments and Exhibits That Are Incornorated bv Reference:
21
zz Attachment "A" Zoning Map
z3 Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan Map
za Attachment "C" Public Works Department comments
zs Attachment "D" Building Division comments
z~ Attachment "E" Applicant's proportionality analysis
z~ Attachment "F" Proportionality analysis conducted by the Planning Division
zx Attachment "G" Applicant's narrative regarding the design review, date-stamped Apri13, 2008
zy Attachment "H" Applicant's nanative regarding the variance, date-stamped Apri13, 2008
~o
3l
3z Exhibit "A" Site Plan, Sheet C0.1, printed February 15, 2008
33 Exhibit `B" Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet C0.2, printed February 15, 2008
3a Exhibit "C" Grading and Drainage Plan, Sheet C0.3, printed February 15, 2008
~s Exhibit "D" Utility Plan, Sheet C0.4, printed February 15, 2008
36 Exhibit "E" Preliminary Planting Plan, Sheet L1.01, printed February 15, 2008
~~ Exhibit "F" Landscape Detail Sheet, Sheet 2.01, printed February 15, 2008
3a Exhibit "G" 6-Plex Floor Plans, printed February 15, 2008
3y Exhibit "H" 9-Plex Floor Plans (mislabeled "9-Plex Exterior Elevations}, printed February 15,
40 2~0g
ai Exhibit "I" 6-Plex Exterior Elevations, printed February 15, 2008
4z Exhibit "J" 9-Plex Exterior Elevations, printed February 15, 2008
a~ Exhibit "K" Architectural rendering, date-stamped January 14, 2008
a.~ Exhibit "L" Color scheme, date-stamped January 14, 2008
DR 2007-12, VAR 2008-07, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 6 of 7
125
~ Exhibit "M" Architectural rendering titled "6-Plex Building" introduced at the Council's public
z hearing
s Exhibit "N" Architectural rendering titled "9-Plex Building" introduced at the Council's public
a hearing
DR ~007-12, VAR 2008-0;, and EXCP 2007-08 Appendix "B" Page 7 of 7
126
11 C`
~.~ -` =:~
O DBUR ~~~
W N
~ i~ .. ..~ t. ~l I.1 ~ i
~ ~
April 28, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott D. Russell, Interim City Administrato~
SUBJECT: Marion County Law Enforcement Use of Deadly Physical Force
Response Plan (SB 111 Oregon Laws 2007)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council approve the attached resolution endorsing
the Marion County Law Enforcement Use of Deadly Physical Force Response
Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The 2007 Oregon Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1 1 1 that, among other things
established a Law Enforcement Deadly Use of Force Planning Authority in each
county in the State. The planning authority was to be made up of the county
sheriff, the district attorney, a police chief, a member of the Oregon State
Police, a member of police labor, and a public member. The planning authority
was charged with preparing a response plan to be utilized by all state and local
law enforcement agencies within the county whenever deadly force was used
by a police officer.
The response plan was to be created by the planning authority in cooperation
with law enforcement, the district attorney, labor, and the community. Each
plan is to be approved by a majority of the governing bodies, within the county,
who employ law enforcement officers prior to submission to the Oregon
Attorney Generals Office for review. The Marion County Planning Authority
conducted meetings, developed the attached plan, obtained input on the
plan from all the law enforcement agency heads within the county and
presented the final draft in a public hearing.
SB 1 1 1 requires that the Nlarion County Plan be submitted to you for approval or
disapproval. The relevant provisions of the new law provide:
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrator,~ City Attomey~ ~'~ ~`'-~ Finance
127
Mayor and City Council
April 28, 2008
Page 2
(7) The planning authority shall submit the plan developed under
subsection (4) of this section, and revisions of the plan, to the
governing body of each law enforcement agency within the
county except for the Department of State Police and the
Department of Justice.
(8) A governing body shall approve or disapprove the plan
submitted to it under subsection ~7) of this section within 60 days
after receiving the plan. The governing body may not amend the
plan.
(9) If the plan is not approved by at least two-thirds of the governing
bodies to which the plan is submitted, the planning authority shall
develop and submit a revised plan.
DISCUSSION:
The Marion County Law Enforcement Deadly Use of Force Response Plan (Plan)
was drafted to encompass all phases of a deadly use of force incident. The
Plan outlines necessary pre-event training for officers and investigators,
immediate post-event and investigative protocols, role of the District Attorney's
Office, Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) debriefings, reporting
requirements, post-event education, and community educational outreach.
The plan is consistent with our current Collective Bargaining Agreement protocol
which would be employed if a Woodburn Police officer used deadly physical
force. The Plan is consistent and augments our department policies and
procedures regarding officer Use of Force. The Plan will require little or no
change to our current procedures, but will provide a uniform and predictable
response to police deadly Use of Force situations countywide. I believe that the
initial plan provides a basis to build on and will provide the public with a
transparent process that is so necessary when these emotionally charged events
occur.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
12$
COUNCiI Blll NO. 2718
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL
FORCE RESPONSE PLAN PURSUANT TO SB 111, OREGON LAWS 2007.
WHEREAS, the 2007 Oregon Legislature enacted Senate Bill 111 that
requires the creation of a Law Enforcement Deadly Use of Force Planning
Authority in every county; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Authority consists of the Sheriff, District Attorney, a
Police Chief, a member of the Oregon State Police, a police labor
representative, and a public member; and
WHEREAS, this Planning Authority is charged with preparing a response
plan for the use of all state and local law enforcement agencies within each
county whenever deadly force is used by a police officer; and
WHEREAS, the Marion County Planning Authority has developed such a
plan after obtaining input from the public and law enforcement agencies within
the county; and
WHEREAS, SB 111 requires that all governing bodies within the county
consider the formal adoption of the plan; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Woodburn adopts the Marion County Law
Enforcement Use of Deadly Physical Force Response Plan pursuant to Senate Bill
1 1 1, Oregon Laws 2007.
Section 2. A copy of said plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is
incorporated herein.
Approved a5 to form
Approved:
~~~ ~~~- ~~
City Attorney
~- ~ ~._ 2 ,-: ~ ~
Date
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Page 1- Council Bill No. 2718
Resol~tion No.
129
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, ~regon
Page 2- Councii Bill No. 2718
Resolution No.
130
~~~~ ~`
~
~ ~~~~..
LAW ENFORCEMENT
USE OF
DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE
RESPONSE PLAN
Marion County
Use of Deadly Physical Force
Planning Authority
Table of Contents
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY ....................................................2
PREAMBLE ..........................................................................................................4
SECTION 1: ADMINISTRATION ..........................................................................4
SECTION 2: APPLICABILITY OF THE PLAN .....................................................4
SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................4
SECTION 4: IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH .............................................................5
SECTION 5: SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY/DEATH ..........................................5
SECTION 6: INVESTIGATION PROTOCOLS .....................................................8
SECTION 7: DISTRICT ATTORNEY ....................................................................9
SECTION 8: DEBRIEFING ...................................................................................9
SECTION 9: REPORTING, TRAINING, OUTREACH ........................................10
SECTION 10: FISCAL IMPACT .........................................................................11
SECTION 11: PLAN REVISION .........................................................................11
SECTION 12: AGENCY POLICIES ....................................................................12
Deadly Physicai Force Plar. -~farion Counry
1
132
Members of the Planning Authoritv
Walt Beglau, Marion County District Attorney (co-chair)
Russ Isham, Marion County Sheriff (co-chair)
Lt. Mike Peterson, Oregon State Police
Chief Jerry Moore, Salem Police Department
Detective Mike Beach, Labar Union Representative
Bert Ortiz, Public Member
Sgt. Molly Cotter (OSP, non-voting member)
On *, 2008, this Plan was approved by a*-* of the Planning Authority, and submitted for
approval to governing bodies of the following jurisdictions:
Marion Coun
City of Aumsville------------------------------
City of Aurora-----------------------------------
Ciry of Detroi
City of Donald---------------------------------
City of Gates
City of Gervais--------
City of Hubbard--------
City of Idanha---------
Approved/Disapproved (date)
--------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
-------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
Approved/Disapproved (date)
----------- Approved/Disapproved (date)
-- Approved/Disapproved (date)
•--Approved/Disapproved (date)
---Approved/Disapproved (date)
.__Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Jefferson---------------------------------------------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Keizer---------
City of Mill C
Approved/Disapproved (date)
________Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Mt. Angel--------------------------------------------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of St. Paul------------
__________________________Approved/Disapproved (date)
Deadly Physical Force Plan - Marion Counry 2
133
City of Salem------------------------------------------------------- Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Scotts Mills-------------------------------------------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Silverton----------------------------------------------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Stayton------------------------------------------------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Sublimity -------------------------------------------------- Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Turner-------------------------------------------------------Approved/Disapproved (date)
City of Woodburn-------------------------------------------------- Approved/Disapproved (date)
Upon receiving a vote of approval from 2/3 of the above jurisdictions, this Plan was
submitted to the Attorney General, who approved the Plan on ***.
Deadly Physical Force Plan -;Llar~on County
3
134
Preamble
Marion County Law Enforcement recognizes the importance to both their agencies and
our communities to ensure any use of deadly force is investigated in a professional,
competent and impartial manner. The openness with which we proceed in these
investigations is critical to establishing and maintaining trust within the community. It is
clear our citizens examine closely the actions any law enforcement agency takes when
their officers utilize deadly physical force, and it is our goal to ensure the community is
confident and accepting of the actions Marion County Law Enforcement agencies take
when involved in these situations.
Section 1: Administration
(1) In the event that a member of the planning authority is unable to continue to
serve, a replacement shall be appointed as provided in Section 2(1) of Senate Bill
111, Oregon Laws 2007.
(2) There shall be six voting members of the Planning Authority. The approval of the
Plan, elements or revisions thereof, shall be by majority vote.
(3) The presence of 2/3 of the voting members shall be required in order to hold any
vote.
Section 2: Applicability of the Plan
This plan shall be applicable, as set forth herein, to any use of deadly physical force by a
police officer acting in the course of and in furtherance of his/her official duties,
occurring within Marion County.
Section 3: Definitions
Agency - Means the law enforcement organization employing the officer who used
deadly physical force.
Plan - Means the final document approved by the Planning Authority, adopted by
two-thirds of the governing bodies employing law enforcement agencies,
and approved by the Attorney General. Any approved revisions shall
become a part of the Plan.
Deadly - Means physical force that under the circumstances in which it is used is
Physical readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Force
Deadly Physical Force Plan - Marion County
4
135
Serious - Means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which
Physical causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of
Injury health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
organ. (ORS 161.015(S))
Physical - Means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain that does not
Injury amount to "serious physical injury."
Involved - Means the person whose official conduct, or official order, was the cause
Officer in fact of the death of a person. "Involved Officer" also means an officer
whose conduct was not the cause in fact of the death, but who was
involved in the incident before or during the use of deadly physical force,
and this involvement was reasonably likely to expose the officer to a
heightened level of stress or trauma.
Section 4: Immediate Aftermath
(1) When an officer uses deadly physical force, the officer shall immediately take
whatever steps are reasonable and necessary to protect the safety and health of the
officer and any member of the public.
(a) After taking such steps, the officer shall immediately notify his or her
agency of the use of deadly physical force.
(b) Thereafter, the officer, if able, shall take such steps as are reasonably
necessary to preserve the integrity of the scene and to preserve evidence.
(c) Upon request, the officer shall provide information regarding the
circumstances as necessary to protect persons and property, preserve any
evidence, and to provide a framewark far the investigation.
(2) When the use of deadly physical force results in physical injury to any person, the
Agency may employ its own resources to investigate and document the incident.
This section does not prohibit the Agency from requesting assistance from an
outside law enforcement agency.
Section 5: Serious Physical Iniurv/Death
When the use of deadly physical force results in death or serious physical injury to
any person, in addition to the requirements of Section 4(1) of this Plan, and
notwithstanding agency policy, the following provisions apply:
Deadly Physical Force Plan - Marion Cozsnry
5
136
(1) Upon the arrival of additional officers, sufficient to manage the scene, each
Involved Officer shall be relieved of the above duties set forth in Section 4(1) of
the Plan, and the duties shall be re-assigned to uninvolved police personnel.
(2) The on-scene supervisor shall take immediate action to stabilize the situation,
ensure notification of the appropriate staff and agencies, and shall obtain
information relevant to public safety (e.g. outstanding suspects, location of
evidence, direction of travel, etc.).
(3) As soon as practicable, each Involved Officer shall leave the scene with a
companion officer, as directed by his or her supervisor, and be offered an
opportunity for a medical examination. If the officer is not in need of inedical
treatment, the officer shall be taken to a location designated by the investigative
agency. Following the use of deadly physical force, the officer's union
representative shall be notified.
(4) After consultation with the involved officer, the Agency or officer shall notify the
officer's family according to the Agency's General Order, or other policy
regarding such notification.
(5) Notification shall be made to the District Attorney as provided in Section 7(1) of
this Plan. This provision does not prevent the Agency from requiring additional
notification requirements within their respective agency policies.
(6) As soon as practicable, the duty weapon of any officer who fired his/her weapon
shall be seized by investigators, and replaced with a substitute weapon, if
appropriate. Other involved officers' weapons are subject to seizure by the
investigative agency.
(7) Interview of an "Involved Officer":
As used in this section "interview" refers to formal interview of the officer by
assigned investigative personnel that occurs a reasonable time after the incident,
and after the officer has had an opportunity to consult with counsel, if so desired.
(a) The interview of the involved officer(s) who discharged a firearm during a
use of deadly physical force incident resulting in death or serious physical
injury, shall occur after a reasonable period of time to prepare for the
interview and taking into account the emotional and physical state of the
officer(s). The interview shall occur no sooner than 48 hours after the
incident, unless this waiting period is waived by the officer.
(b) The waiting period does not preclude an initial on-scene debriefing with
the officer to assess and make an initial evaluation of the incident.
Deadly Physical Focce Plan -:Liarion CounFy
6
137
(c) The scene shall be secured and managed consistent with the control of any
other major crime scene. Only personnel necessary to conduct the
investigation shall be permitted access to the scene. When it is determined
that no evidence will be contaminated or destroyed, the officer(s) involved
may conduct a"walk through" to assist in the investigation.
(8) For at least 72 hours immediately following an incident in which the use of deadly
physical force by a police officer resulted in the death of a person, a law
enforcement agency may not return an Involved Officer to duties that might place
the officer in a situation in which the officer has to use deadly force. Officer(s)
involved in discharging his or her firearm that results in death or serious physical
injury shall immediately be placed on administrative leave until such time as
sufficient information exists to determine the justification in the use of deadly
physical force and that the officer(s) have had an opportunity for mental health
counseling.
(9) In the six months following a use of deadly physical force incident that results in
a death, the Agency shall offer each Involved Officer a minimum of two
opportunities for mental health counseling. The officer shall be required to attend
at least one session of inental health counseling.
(a) At agency expense, the involved officer (s) shall be scheduled for an
appointment with a licensed mental health counselor for a counseling
session with a follow-up session scheduled at a date determined by the
mental health professional.
(b) The counseling sessions are not to be considered fitness far duty
evaluations, and are to be considered privileged between the officer and
counselor.
(10) In the event of a use of deadly force that results in death or serious physical
injury, it is recommended that members of an organization outside the involved
officer's agency conduct the investigation under the direction of the District
Attorney. Members of the involved officer's agency may assign personnel to
assist in the investigation as directed by the lead investigative agency.
(a) An outside agency may include the Oregon State Police, the Marion
County Homicide Assault Response Team (HART), or any other agency
which has the expertise necessary to investigate a deadly force situation.
(b) The Marion County District Attorney shall be consulted whenever one
agency requests another to investigate any deadly force situation which
results in death or serious physical injury.
(c) At least one officer from an outside agency shall be assigned to the
investigative team in the event an agency investigates their own officer's
Deadly Physical Force Plan - tLfarion Counry
7
138
use of deadly force.
(11) The assignment of outside investigative personnel does not preclude the agency
involved from conducting a concurrent investigation for administrative purposes
as established by that agency. Such investigations may be necessary for civil
preparation, determination of policy violations or training issues.
(12) In order to preserve the integrity of the investigation, the scene supervisor and
investigative supervisor shall notify all involved officers to refrain from making
public statements about the investigation, until such time as the investigation has
concluded and the District Attorney has made a determination regarding the
criminal responsibility of all involved persons.
(13) As soon as practical, and in conjunction with the District Attorney's Office and
the lead investigative agency, the involved officer's agency shall release an initial
public statement about the incident. The statement shall include, as appropriate:
(a) The time and location of the incident;
(b} The condition of any suspect;
(c) The nature of the use of deadly physical force;
(d) Any other information the District Attorney, lead investigative agency, or
the involved officer's agency deems necessary given the particular
circumstances of the incident.
Section 6: Investiqation Protocols
(1) The investigation, at a minimum, shall consist of:
(a) Eyewimess and involved party interviews;
(b) Evidence collection;
(c) Scene documentation;
(d) Involved Officer interview(s).
(2) The investigation shall be documented in written reports, and all police reports
and taped statements shall be provided to the investigative agency and the District
Attorney.
Deadly Physical Force Plan - Marion County ~
139
Section 7: District Attornev
1) When an incident of the use of deadly physical force by an officer occurs, and
death or serious physical injury results, the agency shall immediately notify the
District Attorney's Office. Notification shall be made through the established on-
call procedure.
2) When a use of deadly physical force by an officer occurs, and death or serious
physical injury results, the District Attorney or his or her designee will consult
with the agency regarding the investigation and implementation of elements of
this plan.
3) The District Attorney has the sole statutory and constitutional duty to make the
decision on whether to present a matter to a Grand Jury.
(a) The District Attorney will consult with the investigating agencies and
make a decision on whether to present the case to a Grand Jury.
(b) The timing of the decision will be made by the District Attorney,
considering the availability of admissible evidence.
(c) If the District Attorney decides to present a case to the Grand Jury, the
District Attorney shall promptly notify the investigating agency, the
involved officer's agency, and the involved officer through his or her
representative.
(d) Upon a final decision by the Grand Jury, the District Attorney shall notify
the investigating agency and the involved officer's agency of the
conclusions of the Grand Jury proceeding under this plan. The District
Attorney shall also release the Grand Jury conclusions to the public.
Section 8: Debriefinq
The use of deadly physical force by an officer has the potential to create strong emotional
reactions which have the potential to interfere with an officer's ability to function. These
reactions may be manifested immediately, or over time. Further, these reactions may
occur not only in an officer directly involved in the incident, but also in other officers
within the Agency.
The requirements of this section provide a minimum framework, and are not intended to
take the place of Agency policy. Agencies are encouraged to develop formal procedures
to deal with an officer's stress response following a use of deadly force incident. Such
Deadly Physical Force Plan -~furion County
9
140
policies should include a procedure that are implemented from the time of the incident
and continue over time.
(1) Upon a final determination by the District Attorney, the Agency shall conduct an
internal review of the matter for compliance with agency policy. Such review, at
a minimum shall include a review of the incident with the involved officer(s).
(2) Each agency shall provide a process for any officer(s) who makes a request, to
participate in a critical incident debriefing.
(3) If available, agencies should encourage officers to take advantage of Employee
Assistance Programs, and if appropriate, agencies should request assistance from
other agencies that may have in place formal programs for dealing with critical
incidents.
Section 9: Reportinq, Traininq, Outreach
(1) Each law enforcement agency within Marion Counry shall include in its policy
regarding the use of deadly force, a provision regarding engaging members of the
community in a discussion regarding the Agency's policies on the use of deadly
force, as well as discussions regarding the use of deadly force by the Agency's
personnel.
(2) Each law enforcement agency within Marion County shall provide a copy of this
Plan to every officer, incorporate the plan into agency policy documents and
provide training to officers on the implementation of the plan.
(3) Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the announcement by the District
Attorney pursuant to Section 7(3) of this Plan, and the debriefing, the Agency
shall complete the Attorney General's report regarding the use of force, and
submit the report to the Attorney General.
(4) The Board and Department of Public Safety Standards and Training requires 8
hours per year, 24 hours over a three-year period of training from either the
"firearms" or "use of force" subject areas. Each agency subject to this Plan shall
require that a minimum of four (4) hours per year, 12 hours over a three-year
period, of that training be on the use of force. The training must include
education on the agency's use of force policy. This training may also include, but
is not limited to:
(a) Defensive Tactics;
Deadly Physical Force Plan -~'Ltarion County
10
141
(b) Tactical Shooring;
(c) SWAT training;
(d) Use of force in making an arrest;
(e) Use of non-lethal farce.
Each agency shall have a written policy and monitoring system to ensure that
the standards are met.
(5) Prior to the adoption of this Plan, the Planning Authority shall take steps to
engage the Marion County community in a discussion regarding the purpose of
the Plan, and the elements contained therein. Such steps shall include, but are not
limited to general public release of the draft, discussion with the media, providing
the draft to agency employees, union representatives, elected officials, and
members of relevant boards or commissions.
(6) After adoption of this Plan, to the extent they are fiscally able, each agency shall
take steps to publicize the Plan to their respective communities, by providing
information to the media, general public, communiry organizations, and quasi-
governmental bodies.
(7) At least once per calendar year, the Agencies subject to this Plan shall collectively
conduct a seminar intended to educate the media and selected members of the
Marion County community in the use of force by law enforcement officers, and
the investigation of such incidents.
Section 10: Fiscal Impact
At the conclusion of each fiscal year following the adoption of the Plan, each agency
shall submit to the administrator of the Plan, a report outlining the fiscal impact of each
element of the Plan as described in sections (a) to (e) of Section 2(4) of Senate Bill 11 l,
Oregon Laws 2007.
Section 11: Plan Revision
If a revision of the Plan becomes advisable, the Planning Authority shall meet and
discuss such a revision. If the Planning Authority adopts a revision, such revision shall
be submitted for approval as provided by statute.
Deadly~ Physical Force Plan -!Llarion Countv
11
142
Section 12: Aqencv Policies
*the plan must address the manner in which the agencies will comply with this
requirement.
Deadly Physical Force Plan - Marion Counry
12
143
11D
,. ~
" ~~ r~~
~r~~~~~~P ~~
WooDBUR,~T
Irtr: rn,`r:i i ed t~ 8~1
April 28, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM: Ben Gillespie, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Contingency Transfer-IS Air Conditioning
RECOMMENDATION:
Council approve the attached resolution authorizing contingency transfers.
BACKGROUND:
Last fall the IS Division relocated to space formerly occupied by Norcom. To
prepare for the move staff anticipated several issues unique to computer
installations, including wiring, sound, earthquake hazard, power interruption, and
temperature.
To determine the adequacy of the existing air conditioning equipment, staff
so~ght the opinion of the HvAC contractor that maintains the City's air handling
systems. Their opinion was that the demands of the server room would be close
to, but within, the current HVAC system's limits.
Servers are isolated in a separate room and must be kept cool. Ideally the
temperature in that room should be below 70 degrees. If the temperature rises
into the low 80's, machines will stcrrf to shut down. They will not be damaged,
but at those temperatures, the network will cease to function fully.
This spring as outside temperatures have risen, the temperature in the server
room has already crept into the high 70's. It is now apparent that the existing air
conditioning will not be ab{e to cool the server room adequately in the summer
heat.
QISCUSSION:
The Budget Committee has reviewed an Additional Funds Request for $6,064 to
address this issue in the 2008-09 budget. They have indicated their intention to
r",gen~a !tem Review:
City Administrator _~
144
City Attorney Fin
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 28, 2008
Page 2
include the request in their Recommended Budget. However, the risk of system
failure due to heat before the start of the new fiscal year on July 1 is great
enough that staff is recommending the purchase of a three-ton air condifiioner
be made in this year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The cost of the equipment and installation ($6,064) would be moved forward
from 2008-09 to 2007-08,
This transfer will reduce the General Fund Contingency to $1,Q46,689, which is
10.4% of the expense budget.
145
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2719
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS DURING
FISCAL YEAR 2007-08.
WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 (1) allows for the transfer of operating
contingency appropriations within the same fund to an existing appropriations category within the same
fund during the year in which appropriations are made, and
W'HEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 {3) allows for the transfer of
appropriations and a like amount of budget resources from the General Fund to any other fund during the
year in which appropriations are made, and
WHEREAS, a transfer of operating contingency appropriations from the General Fund to
the General CIP Fund is necessary to purchase an air-conditioner far the IS server room to provide
cooler air temperature for- computer equipment, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That authorization is hereby given to transfer the following appropriations
during fiscal year 2007-08:
GENERAL FUND:
Transfer to General CIP Fund (001.199.9711.5811.358)
Operating Contingency (001.901.9971.5921)
GENERAL CIP FUND:
Transfer from General Fund (358.000.2971.001)
Capital Outlay (IS Air-conditioner) (358.121.9531.5649.035)
Approved as to Form:~/~
City Attorney
APPROVED
Revenue Appropriation
6,064
( 6,064 )
6,064
6,064
~ 2~ "~t~ ~
ate
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, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
PAGE 1- COLTNCIL BILL NO. 2719
RESOLUTION NO.
146
12A
. ~- -=,1.
~
~°~ ~.~, ;~ ~~~,,
WOODBURj~j
,,,.~ ..~:., ,,,.,.
April 28, 2008
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
VIA: Jim Allen, Community Development Director
FROM: Natalie Labossiere, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Community Development Director's Approval of Zoning Adjustment
2008-03, Located at 1755 Mt. Hood Avenue
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is recommended. This item is placed before the Councif for
information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development
Ordinance. The Council may call up this item for review if it desires.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant requested a Type II Zoning Adjustment to allow joint use vehicle
parking, where up to 20% of the required vehicle parking may be satisfied by
joint use of the parking area that is used for another use that wo~ld require the
parking during the same peak hours. The proposed zoning adjustment would
authorize the use of four parking spaces to be used for a loading area during
those times when the vehicle parking area is not in use for parking.
DISCUSSION:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This decision is anticipated to have no public sector financial impact.
Agenda ~tem Review: City Administrator ~'~ City Attorney ~'~`~} Finan
147