The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - 11/10/2008CITY O F W 00 D B U RN KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1 RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV I~ Q FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WAP.D V NOVEMBER 1 O, ZOOS ~ 7.00 P.M. ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - Z7O MONTGOMERY STREET 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. City Hall and the Library will be closed Tuesday, November 1 1 m for Veteran's Day. The Aquatic Center will be opened during normal business hours. Appointments: None 4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None Presentations: None 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Woodburn School District 6. COMMUNICATIONS None 7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC -This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. "Habra interpretes c~isponi~~es Para aquel~as personas que no ~ja~~an Inq~es~ previo acuer~o. Comuniquese a~ (5031980-2485... November 10, 2008 Council Agenda Page i -. 8. CONSENT AGENDA -Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item maybe removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of October 27, 2008 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Community Development Building Activity for October 2008 7 Recommended Action: Accept the report. C. Annual SDC Report g Recommended Action: Accept the report. 9. TABLED BUSINESS A. Council Bill 2735 - A Resolution Approving An Adjusted Rate Schedule And Fuel Recovery Fee Surcharge For United Disposal Service, Inc; Setting An Effective Date; And Repealing Resolutions 1833 And 1843. Recommended Action: Keep item tabled at this time. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City Council Call-up Planning Commission Decision in Case 11 Design Review Number DR 2008-3 (Highway 214 8 S-curve) Recommendation: Conduct a de novo public hearing under Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) section 4.102.02. The accompanying staff report contains the findings, conclusions, and conditions recommended by the Planning Division for approval of the Design Review. 11. GENERAL BUSINESS -Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill No. 2753 - A Resolution Initiating Consideration of a 77 legislative Land Use Decision to Adopt the Woodburn Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution. November 10, 2008 Council Agenda Page ii B. Council Bill No. 2754 - A Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing 80 Date for the Vacation of a Permanent Easement, a Triangular Section in NE Corner of 1274 5th Street, and Directing the City Recorder to Give Public Notice Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution. C. Liquor License Change of Ownership/Full On-Premises Sales 84 Recommended Action: The Woodburn City Council recommend a change of ownership application for Casa Marquez Mexican Grill. D. Council Update on Midge Fly Presence in Water Supply System 87 Recommended Action: Discuss current Midge Fly presence in the water supply system and potential benefits of chlorination for the water supply system. Should Council consider chlorination of our municipal water supply system, staff will update Council on the estimated cost for this capital improvement project and budgetary adjustments needed to finance this project. E. Proposed City/Chamber Economic Development 90 Discussion/Working Group Recommended Action: Consider appointing a City Councilor (and one City Council citizen representative if deemed appropriate) to the proposed, and informal, City of Woodburn/Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Discussion/Working Group. 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 Council. None 13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(f). B. To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of November 10, 2008 Council Agenda Page iii r, a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2)(h). 16. ADJOURNMENT November 10, 2008 Council Agenda Page iv COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF VVOODBUR:'v, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, OCTOBER 27, 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 Absent Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Police Chief Russell, Public Works Director Brown, Community Services Director Row, Finance Director Gillespie, Recorder Tennant For the record, Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Cox was on vacation. 0053 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) General Election -November 4, 2008: Woodburn City Hall is a designated Marion County ballot drop site during regular business hours of 7:30 am until 5:30 pm, however, on Election Day, the lobby will be open until 8:00 pm to allow voters to place their ballots in the ballot box. 0095 PROCLAMATION: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH. Mayor Figley proclaimed the month of October 2008 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and urged community members to advocate for relationships free from violence and strive to increase society's intolerance towards domestic violence in an effort to bring hope and healing to survivors. 0175 PRESENTATION: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE COMMUNITY. Walt Beglau, Marion County District Attorney, stated that domestic violence is a silent crisis and violence within homes and against children is not a private family matter. Since domestic violence is so prevalent within the County, he has assigned a team of six prosecutors who handle over 1,200 cases of domestic violence annually. They, along with support staff and advocates within victim assistance, have learned that many domestic violence cases never reach their office. He stated that culturally diversed communities such as Woodburn have under-reporting and families that are very vulnerable in a numbers of ways such as financially, culturally, and geographically which Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2008 TAP E READING makes it very difficult for them to have their abuser held accountable. He stated that domestic violence does impact families and , in the crisis shelter, 2 out of 3 individuals at the shelter are children. During the month of October, he and Ms. Downing have been to numerous cities within the County to talk to City officials to try and bring the communities together and forge a continued commitment against domestic violence. He also extended an invitation to the Mayor and Council to let him know of their concerns around survivors of domestic violence and discuss what can be done to bridge the gap and come up with a future strategic plan to combat this problem. Jayne Downing, Mid Valley Women's Crisis Services Director, stated that their website receives 20,000 contacts per month and they reach out to people who speak many different languages in addition to providing information in large print and audio. They also have posters throughout the County that are in several languages and, in Woodburn, they have support groups in Spanish and Russian. An Outreach Coordinator cun•ently spends a lot of time in Woodburn and 4 out of their 9 staff members are bi-lingual with some being bi-lingual/bi-cultural. She also has trained over 2,000 State managers, supervisors, and human resource employees over the last year as a result of the Governor's signed order mandating training on domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. She stated that her organization continues to try and reach out to all individuals in Marion County that are in need and expressed her appreciation of the City's willingness to let them come to this meeting to talk about an issue that some people would rather not talk about. Councilor McCallum questioned what the is first step a person should take if they are having problems and need help. Ms. Downing stated that Crisis Services has a 24-hr crisis line and they should call the crisis line to talk to someone about what they are going through. Another available option is to call the police who would respond to the scene and also provide them with information on contacting the crisis service. Crisis Services will then work with the individuals to do whatever is necessary to try and meet their needs. 0818 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Don Judson, Executive Director, stated that the 7`h Annual Crystal Apple awards will be held on November 6`h to honor excellence in education within the Woodburn School Dirstrict, North Marion School District, Gervais School District, St. Luke's School, and Lord High School. The Chamber, along with their title sponsor West Coast Bank, received 51 nominees for the awards and winners will be announced at the event. This event will be held at the Senior Estates Golf & Country Club with a social beginning at 6:00 p.m. followed by dinner at 6:45 p.m. Keynote speaker v~~ill be State Representative Betty Komp. He urged anyone interested in attending to contact the Chamber office since ticket sales will end on Friday October 31, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.. Mr. Judson also stated that the November Forum lunch will be held at Cascade Park on November 12"' with the guest speaker being City Administrator Scott Derickson. Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2008 TAPE READING 0200 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve regular and executive session Council minutes of October 13, 2008; B) accept the Library Board minutes of October 8, 2008; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of September 11, 2008; D) accept the Recreation and Park Board minutes of October 14, 2008; E) accept the Community Services Department statistics report for September 2008; F) accept the September 2008 Crime Statistics report; G) accept the September 2008 Code Enforcement Statistics report; and H) accept the Building Activity report for September 2008. NICHOLS /MCCALLUM ... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 1024 TABLED BUSINESS: COUNCIL BILL NO. 2735 -RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE AND FUEL RECOVERY FEE SURCHARGE FOR UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS NO. 1833 AND 1843. Mayor Figley stated that this item will remain on the table. 1030 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2751 -RESOLUTION IMPLEMENTING THE WATER/SEWER UTILITY IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM. Council Bill No. 2751 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2751 duly passed. 1095 COUNCIL BILL N0.2752 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE WOODBURN POLICE ASSOCIATION. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2752. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Mayor Figley stated that a staff memo had been distributed just prior to this meeting for Council review that outlined two minor changes in the contract document and she provided them with an opportunity to ask questions before a final vote is taken.. Councilor Lonergan questioned the number of Sergeants and Captains on staff, the time off in-lieu of holiday provision, and work hour schedules. Chief Russell stated that the Police Department has 41 staff members consisting of himself, 2 Captains, 5 Sergeants, 24 Police Officers, 3 Code Enforcement officers and various support staff members. The Police Department has officers working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and officers have assigned work schedules and, if their work schedule includes a holiday, they work on the holiday. In lieu of giving specific holidays Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINI~TES OCTOBER 27, 2008 TAPE READING to the officers, they are given holiday leave time that they can take off at a later date as they put in for the time off through normal procedures. In regards to shift scheduling, patrol officers work 12 hour shifts, traffic officers work 10 hour shifts, and detectives work 8 hour shifts. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2752 duly passed. Councilor Lonergan thanked the City negotiating team members for their work on the contract. 1380 ESTABLISH A STAKEHOLDER'S WORKING GROUP FOR THE REVIEW OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO APPOINT MEMBERS. Staff recommended the establishment of a Stakeholder's Working Group who will provide consensus based advice on the project and communicate long range planning needs for the project area. BJELLAND/MCCALLUM... establish a Stakeholder's Working Group (SWG) for the review of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and authorize the Mayor to appoint members to this special ad-hoc committee. The motion passed unanimously. 1460 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CENTENNIAL PARK DESIGN. Proposals were received from 11 firms and the three top firms (WH Pacific, 2.ink Studio, and Group Mackenzie) were invited to make presentations to the review committee. Following the presentations and reference checks, a decision was made to recommend to the Council acceptance of the Group Mackenzie proposal. BJELLAIr'D/NICHOLS... accept the proposal from Group Mackenzie and award a contract in the amount of $71,412.00 to develop a detailed design, including construction documents for the final phase of work at Centennial Park. The motion passed unanimously. 1510 CITY ATTORNEY EVALUATION. Mayor Figley stated that Attorney Shield's evaluation would have normally been done in August but with all of the interim staffing that the Council was dealing with at that time and the general press of business, it was decided to delay his evaluation. She stated that he would appreciate being reviewed by the current group of Councilors regardless of the election results. She suggested that the evaluation be held the second meeting in November and evaluation forms will be provided to the Councilors prior to the meeting. 1575 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Derickson stated that staff had been receiving inquiries on why their ballots did not include the names of all individuals running for City offices. Under the Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2008 TAPE READING City Charter, all registered voters within the City vote on the Mayor's position, however, candidates for City Council positions are elected by the registered voters within the Ward. B) He stated that he will be speaking at the Chamber Forum on (1) economic development and (2) the stakeholder group who will be reviewing the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. He felt that there is a good opportunity for economic development strategies within our community and the Chamber has expressed an interest on this issue. C) Administrator Derickson stated that he had attended the Planning Commission meeting last week and felt that he had a good dialogue with the Commissioners on his vision for the Planning Department, where it is at now, where it will go, and the recruitment process for the Community Development Director. He will be implementing a process comparable to the City Administrator recruitment by establishing some community panels and bringing in some outside stakeholders to participate in the process, followed by a community meet and greet. Some Planning Commission members and Councilors will be invited to participate in the interview process. It is his intent to create as much buy-in and support for the new Director as possible in the community. The interview process has been tentatively scheduled for November 14 and 15, 2008. Mayor Figley stated that the position closes on October 30th and to date, the City has a fairly good pool of applicants for this position. 1836 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Nichols reminded registered voters to cast their ballot on all candidates and issues since this is an opportunity for voters to make the right choices for our country. Councilor Lonergan supported the comments made by Councilor Nichols. He also expressed his appreciation to Chief Russell for his interim work as City Administrator. Councilor McCallum also concurred with Councilor Nichols' comments. Additionally, he reminded the public that October 31S` is Halloween and he urged everyone, including motorists, to be very careful since there will be many young people dashing across the streets. Councilor Bjelland also supported the Councilor's comments on voting and urged voters to do their research on the issues and candidates whether it be at the federal, state or local level. Councilor Sifuentez also concurred with the comments made by the Councilors on the upcoming election. Mayor Figley reiterated that voters have a lot of choices on the ballot and a lot information is available in the voters pamphlets and urged registered voters to cast their ballot. Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 27, 2008 TAPE READING 2155 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/SIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2008 CI TY OF WOODB URN Community Development MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn. Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: November 3, 2008 To: Natalie Labossiere, Interim Community Development Director From: Building Division Subject: Building Activity for October 2008 2006 2007 2008 No. Dollar Amount No. Dollar Amount No. Dollar Amount Single-Family Residential 5 $1,267,683 17 _$3,414,368 0 __ $0 Multi-Family Residential 0 $0 0 $0 2 $2,500 Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Residential Adds & Alts 6 $96,092 4 $42,774 2 $8,484 Industrial 0 $0 1 $171,875 0 $0 Commercial 10 $180,724 10 $108,943 5 $572,100 Signs and Fences 9 $100,474 1 $4,000 0 $0 Manufactured Homes 1 $50,000 2 $115,000 0 $0 TOTALS 31 $1,694,973 35 $3,856,960 9 $583,084 Fiscal Year to Date (July 1 - June 30 $6,913,241 $13,714,057 $3,084,437 I \Commundy Development\Budding\Bwldmg Actively\BldgAct-2008\Bldg Activity - Mamoslactiwly -Oct 2008.doc T'~ ~1~Too~BURN A~,.Qw ~x~,,. November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Ben Gillespie, Finance Director SUBJECT: Annual SDC Report RECOMMENDATION: Accept 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 total amount of system development charge revenues collected for each system and the projects that were funded." DISCUSSION: The City of Woodburn has five system development charge (SDC) funds: Water, Sewer, Street (also called transportation impact fees or TIF's), Storm Water, and Parks Activity for the five systems for 2007-08 is tabulated below: Beginning SDC's Interest Spent on Ending Balance Collected Earned Projects Balance Water 1,092,150 352,546 41,259 437,069 1,048,886 Sewer 775,060 523,814 32,904 589,710 742,068 Street 6,535,764 617,221 289,249 16,122 7,426,112 Storm 833,288 54,314 30,713 212,220 706,095 Parks 805,126 268,570 35,030 325,000 783,726 TOTAL 10,041,388 1,816,465 429,155 1,580,121 10,706,887 Agenda Item Review: City Administrato Attorney ' ~ ~ Finan Honorable Mayor and City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 Beginning Balances are the unspent monies accumulated life to date. For the most recent year SDC's totaled $1,816,465 and interest totaled $429,155. Expenditures on projects totaled $1,580,121, leaving total Ending Balances of $10,706,887. The specifics of the project expenditures are shown in the attached schedules. SDC's can be spent only on projects that increase capacity. The concept behind SDC's is that the development that increases the demand for service, should pay for the infrastructure needed to provide that service; conversely, current property owners should not have to pay for new infrastructure that is needed only because of the new development. FINANCIAL IMPACT: 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. C1TY of WOODBURN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REPORT 2007!08 WATER SDC's (Fund 474) Beginning Fund Balance Resources SDC's Interest Earnings Expenditures Laurel Avenue Debt Service--water plants Ending Fund Balance 1, 092,150 352,546 41,259 393,805 32,750 404,319 437,069 1,048,886 SEWER SDC's (Fund 475) Beginning Cash Balance available for projects 775,060 Resources SD C's 523, 814 Interest Earnings 32,904 556,718 Expenditures Debt Service--sewer plant 589,710 Ending Fund Balance 742,068 STREET SDC'S (Fund 376) Beginning Fund Balance Resources SDC's 617,221 Interest Earnings 289,249 Expenditures Development of Interchange Development Charge Ending Fund Balance STORM SDC's (Fund 377j Beginning Fund Balance Resources SDC's Interest Earnings Expenditures Design Engineering--Regional Detention Facilities Construction Engineering--Regional Detention Storm Drains Construe--Regional Detention Storm Drains Construe--Hayes/Hall/Garfield Storm Drains Construe--W Lincoln/Rages/Hall Ending Fund Balance 6, 535, 764 906,470 16,122 7,426,112 833,288 54,314 30,713 85,027 5,450 4,977 60,484 43,102 98,207 212,220 706,095 PARKS SDC's (Fund 364) Beginning Fund Balance Resources SDC's Interest Earnings Expenditures Transf to GF CIP--Comp Parks Plan Update Transf to GF CIP--Greenway Construction Ending Fund Balance 805,126 268,570 35,030 303,600 70,000 255,000 325,000 783,726 DR 2008-03 Highway 214 & S-Curve • Oregon Law (ORS 197.763) governs local quasi judicial land use hearings and requires that persons who attend be advised of certain rights and duties before the hearing begins. • The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The applicable criteria are listed in the notice of public hearing and the text of all applicable criteria is printed in the staff report. The law requires that all testimony and evidence be directed toward these criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person testifying believes to apply to the decision. • Everyone who wishes to testify before the City Council will be heard. Please come forward, use the microphone, and give your full name and address. The public testimony portion of this hearing will be after the staff report and the applicant's presentation, as shown on the procedure outline on the left wall of the Council chamber. • The law includes a "raise it or waive it" rule. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the City Council and all interested parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Failure of the applicant to raise a constitutional or other issue relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Council to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. DR 2008-03 Highway 214 & S-Curve • The law provides for an opportunity to supplement the record of this hearing with additional evidence or testimony. Any applicant may request, before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The City Council will grant the request by either (1) continuing the public hearing to a specific date and time at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing, or (2) leaving the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence or testimony. • If the hearing is continued and new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony to respond to the new written evidence. If the record is left open rather than continuing the hearing, any participant may file a written request to reopen the record to respond to new evidence submitted while the record was left open and the City Council will grant that request. The applicant is allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties, to submit final written arguments, but not new evidence, in support of the application. • If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the City Council may allow any party to the hearing a continuance of the hearing, or leave the record open, to allow the party a reasonable opportunity to respond. DR 2008-03 Highway 214 & S-Curve Approval Criteria -Oregon Revised Statutes 197.763 requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each application. The applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) are: 1.1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 1.101 Structure 1.102 Definitions 2.1 LAN D USE ZONING 2.101 General Provisions 2.106 Commercial Office (CO) 3.1 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 3.102 Utilities and Easements 3.103 Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally 3.104 Access 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading 3.106 Landscaping Standards 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 3.110 Signs 4.1 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 4.101 Decision Making Procedures 4.102 Review, Interpretation and Enforcement 5.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 5.103 Type III Application Requirements Additional substantive criteria relevant to this hearing are:. The accessible parking standards of Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233. To: Mayor and City Council, City of Woodburn Re: Medical/professional building on Hwy. 214 File No. DR 2008-03 Our property and the property of our neighbors is already impacted by the ever-increasing traffic on Highway 214. Our enjoyment of our homes and the value of our property are already lessened by Hwy. 214 traffic, and it will undoubtedly become worse. According to the City's Transportation Systems Plan and the approved alternative under the Environmental Assessment Report, Hwy. 214 will be widened and improved to four lanes in this area, and it will come closer to our property. The only thing that is holding up the project is ODOT's lack of funding. Everyone recognizes that the improvement is long overdue. It will inevitably be accomplished; it is only a question of how soon. The approved altemative under the Environmental Assessment Report includes a 12-foot sound barrier wall in the same location where the applicant will place an architectural wall. When the applicant builds a wall, ODOT will certainly not tear it down and replace it with a new sound barrier wall. The development will therefore take away the neighborhood's reasonable expectation of an eventual sound barrier wall. Whatever protection we get now from the City Council will be all that we will ever have no matter how much Hwy. 214 traffic increases. For the protection of the enjoyment of our homes and the preservation of our property values the City Council should require that the developer add one foot to the height of the wall ~ 6' to 7' (except behind the building, which will serve as an J:" effective sound and vision barrier). Address ss ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ _~ ~, ~G~dLt~--- vet Z~`?"L,j~ ~- l z:+' ~ ~' ~~. ,(, t . ~ ~' .7' / S j G ~` \ ~> > i7 ~ Y r /~ Signature Print Name 2 Signature Print Name Address 12~2~ ~' ~ 9~? ~!/C?~1YlC< C~/'cZrrlS E' ~~~' ~ a dZ~~/ ice, ~74~/ GA- ~~~~ I~ ~ ff ~ j ~ 7 U `~ ~- o~ ~ ~ ~ e i~o~~~~/~l~ ~~ ~4 I 1 ~C~clC~ lp`1 ~C~ ~~ ~ -~ :~~., ~v 410 ~ t: (~v era i v~f Cry ~ `=~aQ ~~~~~ ~ 9~~~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ .; ' ~ - _ ,~ i _.~ ' " ~~ 4 ';,, .:~~ ~ ,~ /-~~-~ ~ i ~" Nld,r ~,_~-i/ I5~4 ~'~ i~/f~~ R, /mil % 'l c 'i ~ a ~r ~ ~, ~% ~~ ;'h % /, j ~~a I ' ""~l D) /~~i"//L~~/ ./~//`/I~ /~ /-~~~0 ~~~h~c%r~ c~ i (~ v f `~ r-` i' ~; l Cpl /~ ~r~ ~i ' `1 ~ y f ~'~ I \ Gi ~ Yl~~ )~ ~ ~} ~~~ w~i 3 Signature ~ 3 E ~a O~ /y i i'i ; Print Name Address /1/~ C''!Y LJL~ i%I ~~,~ 1~-~ -~- dos s ~~ yy ~~ ~ /I ~ Fi /c~~nl GU ~G~ ~7 ~I !Jy/ J ~TOODBUR~J ~ 1xe~. November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Natalie Labossiere, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT: City Council Call-up Of Planning Commission Decision In Case Design Review Number DR 2008-3 (Highway 214 8~ S-curve). RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a de novo public hearing under Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) section 4.102.02. The accompanying staff report contains the findings, conclusions, and conditions recommended by the Planning Division for approval of the Design Review. BACKGROUND: The applicant requested a Design Review for a new 7,992 square foot single story medical/professional office building in the Commercial Office (CO) zone. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved the final order on September 11, 2008. The project was called up by City Council on September 22, 2008 to review the height of the required buffer wall along the north and east property lines. WDO 2.105.05.C.2.a and Table 2.1.9 require a solid brick or architectural wall with anti- graffiti surface, no less than six feet or greater than 7 feet in height, when a commercial development is abutting a R1S zone. The applicant proposes a 6 foot wall that meets the requirements. The Planning Commission discussed the height of the wall at the public hearing and determined that the 6 foot wall was adequate. DISCUSSION: None FINANCIAL IMPACT: No public sector financial impact is anticipated. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~~~ l City Attorney CITY OF ~'OODBURN, OREGON CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Staff report of November 3, 2008 for public hearing by the City Council on November 10, 2008 City of Woodburn Staff Contact: Carrie Brennecke, Associate Planner, 503-980-2428 DR 2008-03 z 3 4 5 6 s 9 10 11 tz 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 zo zt zz 23 24 zs 26 z~ zs z~ 30 31 32 33 Applicant: Joe Consani 21029 SW Lebeau Road Sherwood, OR 97140 Property Owner: Rod Johnson & Joe Consani 21029 SW Lebeau Road Sherwood, OR 97140 Subject Property: Highway 214 & S-Curve, Tax lot 01500 Application Submitted: June 5, 2008 Application Deemed Complete: August 20, 2008 120-Day Rule Deadline: December 18, 2008 Nature of the Application: The applicant requests a Type III Design Review for 7,992 square foot medical/professional building at Highway 214 and the S-curve. Table of Contents Approval Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 2 General Provisions .............................................................................................................................3 Commercial General (CO) District Standards ............................................................................... 4 Utilities and Easements ..................................................................................................................... 5 Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally ...................................................................... 6 Access .................................................................................................................................8 Off Street Parking and Loading ....................................................................................................... 9 Landscaping Standards ...................................................................................................................12 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards ...........................................................................17 Signs ............................................................................................................................... 22 Decision ...............................................................................................................................23 Attachments and Exhibits ............................................................................................................... 25 1:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Rcvicw\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 1 of 27 ~ Condition of the Propert~~: The subject property is zoned Commercial Office (CO) and is z designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for the City of Woodburn. The ~ subject site is approximately 45,165 square feet (1.04 acres) and is currently vacant with no a improvements. The properties to the north and east are single family homes located in the Senior s Estates and are zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS) and designated as b Residential on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan map. Across Highway 214 the property to the 7 west contains a dentist office and is zoned Commercial Office (CO) and is designated as s Commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive plan map. The property to the south is developed 9 with a residential care facility and is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and designated io residential on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. No wetlands (per the Woodburn Local t t Wetland Inventory map) or floodplains (per the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood iz Insurance Rate Map, panel 0119G, dated January 19, 2000) exist on the site. 13 to Previous Land Use Decisions: On July 31, 2006, DR 2006-13 was submitted by the same owner is to the Community Development Department for a design review of a 8,200 medical office building. 16 On April 9, 2007 the application was withdrawn by the owner prior to the application being deemed i 7 complete by the Community Development Department. The owner stated in the letter of withdrawal to that the property was to be purchased by the Oregon Department of Transportation. t9 zo Public Notice: Public hearing notices were posted on the property on October 20, 2008. A total of 42 zt notices were mailed to surrounding property owners and the applicant on October 20, 2008. No zz comments have been received in favor of the case and none have been received in opposition. One z3 public hearing notice was returned by the Postal Service as unclaimed or undeliverable. 24 zs Approval Criteria 26 z7 Oregon Revised Statutes 197.763 requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each za application. The applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) are: 29 30 1.1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 3 t 1.101 Structure 3z 1.102 Definitions 33 2.1 LAND USE ZONING 3a 2.101 General Provisions 3s 2.105 Commercial Office (CO) 3c~ 3.1 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 37 3.102 Utilities and Easements 38 3.103 Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally 39 3.104 Access ao 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading a i 3.106 Landscaping Standards az 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards a3 3.110 Signs 4a 4.1 ADMINISTRATION Al~'D PROCEDURES as 4.101 Decision Making Procedures I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Pagc 2 of 27 i 4.102 Review, Interpretation and Enforcement 5.1 APPLICATION REQUIREIViENTS _ 5.103 Type III Application Requirements a Additional substantive criteria relevant to this hearing are: s • The accessible parking standards of Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code ~ and ORS 447.233. s WDO 2.101 General Provisions ~o The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to promote > > the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind of ~z use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the WDO. [WDO ~3 1.101.02.A] ~a All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-officials), of the City vested with ~s authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and require conformance with i~ the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO to 1.101.04] ~ 9 Findings: The City Councilors are officials of the City and are collectively vested with authority to zo grant approvals. The planning division staff are employees of the City and are vested with authority z ~ to issue permits or grant approvals. zz Conclusions: The City Councilors and planning division staff must adhere to and require z3 conformance with the WDO, and must not grant approval for any development or use which violates za 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 ~ zs All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval zb reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all z~ applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV decisions EXCEPT zs annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and objective or if the condition requires z9 discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.A] 3o Findings: Call-Up Review by the City Council is an appeal. The City Council is the City decision- ?~ making body with authority render decisions on appeals. ~z Conclusions: The City Council has "the authority to impose conditions of approval reasonably 3~ related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all applicable approval 3a standards are, or can be, met." If a condition of approval requires discretion, the Council must 3s require a public hearing on the matter. 36 L\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\S[aff Rcport Council.doc Page 3 of 27 z WDO 2.105 Commercial Office (CO) District Standards a The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of the V1'DO, s are permitted in the CO zone ...Ambulatory Health Services (621) [WDO 2.105.O1.I.1] b Findings: The applicant is proposing amedical/professional building. 7 Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is permitted in the CO district. 9 Lots in a CO zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.8. [WDO l0 2.105.O5.A] TABLE 2.1.8 Lot Standards in a CO Zone A. In a CO zone the lot area for anon-residential use shall be adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. There shall be no minimum width or depth. 1 ~ Findings: The lot area of the property is adequate to contain the medical/professional building within tz the required setbacks. 13 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirement of WDO 2.l 05.O5.A. to Is The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. [WDO 2.105.O5.B] tb Finding: The submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings that showed a t7 height of approximately 18 feet for the proposed office building. la Conclusion: The submitted building height elevation drawings proposed by the applicant would 19 comply with WDO 2.l 05.O5.B. The maximum height of any building shall not exceed 35 feet in zo accordance with WDO 2.105.O5.B. zl zz The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, Section z3 3.103.05. [WDO 2.105.06.C.1.a.1] za Findings: Pursuant to WDO 3.103.05, Highway 214 is classified in the WTSP as a Major Arterial zs with a 50 foot special setback. The site plan shows all portions of the proposed building to be greater zv than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214 and greater than 20 feet from the property line. z7 Conclusion: The proposed medical professional building as submitted would meet setback standards zs as defined in the WDO 3.103.05 and WDO 2.105.O5.C.l.a.1. 29 3o Off street parking, maneuvering and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback 31 EXCEPT for parking, maneuvering and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.105.O5.C.l.b.11 3z Findings: The minimum setback abutting Highway 214 is 20 feet from the property line. The site 33 plan shows no off-street parking or storage located within the required yard or special setback. 3a Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirements of WDO 2. l 05.O5.C.l.b.1. 1:\Community De~clopment\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 4 of 27 I The entrance to a garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet for the closest edge of a shared z driveway and 20 feet from the street right of way line. [WDO 2.105.O5.C.l.b.2] 3 Finding: No garages are proposed in conjunction with the medical professional building. a Conclusion: The development meets the requirements of WDO 2. l OS.OS.C.1.b.2. s ~ Development in a CO zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table ~ 2.1.9. [WDO 2.105.05.C.2.a] s TABLE 2.1.9 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for Non- Residential Uses in CO Zones Abuttin Pro ert Landsca in Wall Interior Setback RS, R1 S, or RM zone All interior yards shall be Solid brick or architectural 10 ft. fully landscaped subject to wall with anti-graffiti Section 3.106. surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. 9 Findin;;s: The abutting property north and east are single family homes in Senior Estates and are to zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS). Per Table 2.1.9, architectural walls >> would be required to mitigate adverse visual, noise andlor light impacts on the abutting uses and the ~ z interior setback is 10 feet. The site plan shows 6' masonry buffer walls along the north and east i 3 property lines. The proposed medical/professional building is setback 10 feet from the abutting to property lines. is Conclusion: The proposed development complies with the standards of WDO 2.105.O5.C.2.a and 16 Table 2.1.09. 17 is Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block wall to and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet, and a maximum of zo seven feet in height. [WDO 2.105.06.F.3] zt Findin :The site plan shows a trash enclosure will be located near the eastern side of the proposed zz building. The proposed enclosure will be 6 feet in height, and would be designed and constructed z3 with an architectural block wall and screened on all sides. A detailed construction drawing depicting za the layout and construction materials for the trash enclosure was submitted as part of this zs application. zb Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 2.110.07.F.3. z7 zs z9 WDO 3.102 Utilities and Easements 30 31 Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to applicable 3z Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.01] 33 34 Findings_The applicant submitted a utility plan showing the water, sanitary sewer, and storm 3s drainage facilities. The plan was reviewed by Woodburn Public Works staff. 36 1:\Community Development'~Planning`~008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 5 of 27 ~ Conclusion: Compliance with applicable standards will be verified by the Public Works Department. a All permanent utilit}~ service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where overhead s high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are currently served by ~ overhead wires or cables. [VVDO 3.102.02] s Findings: The site plan shows proposed underground utilities. 9 Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with V4'DO 3.102.02. The property owner io shall install underground utilities for the proposed development. tt tz Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed to the 13 standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO 3.102.03] 14 is Findings: The abutting public street is Newberg Highway. The utility plan submitted by the t 6 applicant does not include street lights. t7 Conclusion: The Newberg Highway is a state facility regulated by the Oregon Department of is Transportation (ODOT). 19 zo The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the zt construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities zz located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public Works z3 Department standards. [WDO 3.102.04.A] za zs Findin :The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public Works zb Department in conjunction with the establishment of any necessary facilities on private property. z7 Conclusion: The property owner shall dedicate easements for the construction and maintenance of zs municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities, in accordance with WDO 3.102.04.A. 29 30 3i Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for electric and 3z telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each lot line abutting a 33 public street. [WDO 3.102.04.B] 34 3s Findings: The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public Works 36 Department. Additional right-of--way will be acquired by ODOT for the widening of Highway 214. 37 Conclusions: The property owner shall dedicate a public utility easement along the property line 3s abutting a public street, in accordance with WDO 3.102.04.B. The property owner shall coordinate 39 the location of the easements with the Woodburn Public Works Department. ao at WDO 3.103 Setback Open Space & Lots az a3 Special Street Setbacks by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1 as The special setback shall apply to streets within the City of Woodburn as functionally I:\Community Development\Planning\200$\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 6 of 27 classified in the Woodburn Transportation S~~stems Plan (WTSP). [WDO 3.103.OS.D) TABLF, 3.1.1: SPECL4L SETBACK STANDARDS BY STREET CLASSIFICATION WTSP Functional Classification S ecial setback from center line Major Arterial 50 feet 4 5 6 s 9 to II Iz 13 14 15 16 17 18 ly zo 21 z2 23 24 Finding: The site plan shows that the special setback will encroach 5 feet into the lot. In addition to the special setback requirement of 50 feet, a minimum of 15 feet is required because it is abutting a street. The proposed medical/professional building and associated parking is set back greater than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214. Highway 214 is classified as a Major Arterial in the WTSP. Conclusion: The revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with the standard of the WDO 3.103.OS.D. Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a street, EXCEPT for parking in driveways [WDO 3.103.06] Finding: All 32 proposed parking spaces and the one required loading space are located on the site plan outside of the setback adjacent to the street. Conclusion: The proposed medical/professional building and parking complies with the WDO 3.103.06. A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and driveway or a street and alley in which visual obstructions are limited for safety purpose. [WDO 3.103.10] Vision C'tearance Area: Street to Driveway pr.~y nnr ~ ~~n~ fl '•, 0 io• ,; ,~> driveway 0 u 6 D fl n a a I:\Community Development\Planning12008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 7 of 27 ~ Finding: The clear vision area for intersection of Highway 214 and the driveway access to the site z would comply. No obstructions are shown on the proposed site plan. a Conclusion: The applicant demonstrated compliance with the vision clearance area requirements as s stipulated under the WDO 3.103.10. ~ WDO 3.104 Access 9 Access to a transportation facility under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of ~o Transportation (ODOT) shall be subject to the requirements of OAR 734-051 [WDO ~ ~ 3.104.O1.B.4] ~z Findings_ The ingress and egress for the project is proposed to be on Highway 214 which is an 13 ODOT facility. Information was not provided with the application in reference to ODOT approval of is access to Highway 214. is ~~ Conclusion: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734-051 ~7 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, State Highway 214, and i8 Newberg Highway. 19 zo Paved Two-Way Driveway: zt 1. With no turn lane: Throat and travel lane width 26 feet minimum, 36 feet maximum. zz [WDO 3.104.OS.E.l.b.1] z3 FindinQS: The site plan does not call out the width of the driveway, but the submitted site plan shows za it to be approximately 26 feet at the widest point for the throat and travel lane. The width is not zs uniform the entire length of the driveway. z~ Conclusion: The site plan does not show the travel lane to be 26 feet wide the entire length. The z7 throat and travel lane width of the drive aisle may comply with WDO 3.104.OS.E.1.b.1. zs z9 Radius of Curb Flare: 30 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.2] 3o Findin :The site plan shows the curb flare to be greater than 30 feet. 3t Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.104.OS.E.2. 32 33 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to 34 the outside edge of right-of--way for a: Major street connection: 50 feet minimum, greater 3s improvement as may be required by the TIA. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.4.b] 36 Findings: The site plan calls out a 50 foot throat length for the proposed driveway. 37 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.104.OS.E.4.b. 38 39 Turn arounds shall be required within the off street parking area(s) and/or as specific ao circulation features, to Department of Public Works requirements based on the review of the at Fire District. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.S] az Findings: The Department of Public Works and the Fire District have provided options to the a3 applicant to eliminate the requirement for the turd around. I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 8 of 27 ~ Conclusion: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with VVDO 3.104.OS.E.S or one of the z alternatives approved by Public Works and the Fire District prior to the issuance of building permits. 3 ~ Wll0 3.105 Off Street Parl~ing and Loading 5 ~ Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements. 7 1. Off street vehicle, parking spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than those set s forth in Table 3.1.2. ~ 2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed 2.0 times the amount required in to Table 3.1.2. [WDO 3.105.02.E] TABLE 3.1.2 Off Street Parking Ratio Standards Parking Ratio -spaces per activity unit or Use square feet of gross floor area (sfgfa) 52. Ambulatory health services 1.0/250 sfgfa [including doctors and dentists] (722) ~z Findings: The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, requiring 32 t3 parking spaces. The site plan shows 32 parking spaces. to Conclusion: The proposed parking spaces for the proposed medical/professional building meets the is requirements of WDO 3.105.O1.E.2 and Table 3.1.2. 16 The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be provided to the standards of to 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. zo [WDO 3.105.02.E.3] zt z2 The number of accessible arkin s aces shall be: Total Parking In Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 26 to 50 2 z3 [UItS 447.Z33(2)(a)J za In addition, one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van accessible. zs [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] zb Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the state Building z7 Code and applicable federal standards. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.4.c] zs A van accessible parking space shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent zn access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] 3o Accessible parking spaces shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent access 3~ aisle that is at least six feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(c)] 3z A sign shall be posted for each accessible parking space. The sign shall be clearly visible to a ;~ person parking in the space, shall be marked with the International Symbol of Access and I:~Community Development\Planning~2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 9 of 27 I shall indicate that the spaces are reserved for persons with disabled person parking permits. z Van accessible parking spaces shall have an additional sign marked "Van Accessible" 3 mounted below the sign. (ORS 447.233(2)(e)] a Findings: For the required 32 total off-street parking spaces, the proposed development requires 2 s disabled person vehicle parking, including at least one van-accessible space. The site plan shows 2 ~ disabled person vehicle spaces, one of which is van accessible. ~ Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.l 05.O1.E.3, WDO s 3.105.01.H.4.c, Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 447.233. ~o A maximum of 20 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces may be satisfied by compact I I vehicle parking spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.F] t2 FindinQS: The proposed medical/professional building requires 32 parking spaces. The site plan 13 shows 22 regular parking spaces, 2 accessible spaces, and 7 compact spaces. Twenty percent of 32 to is 6.4 maximum compact spaces. The site plan shows 7 compact spaces. is Conclusion: The proposed development would not meet the criteria of WDO 3.105.02.F. 16 t~ Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less ~s than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. [WDO 3.105.02.G.1] TABLE 3.1.3 Loading Space Requirements Minimum Size of S ace Use Minimum No. of Spaces Width Length Height For buildings used entirely for office occupancy (sq. ft. gfa) 2,000-41,999 1 12 feet 20 feet 14 feet 19 Finding: The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, requiring zo oneloading space. The site plan shows one loading space that meets the minimum size and space zt requirements. Zz Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.105.02.G.1 and Table 3.1.3. 23 2a Off street vehicle parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single family and 2s duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street parking areas shall be 26 designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off street parking spaces provided 27 subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no backing or maneuvering within a public za street right-of--way is required. [WDO 3.105.02.H.4.a] 29 30 I:~Community Development\Planning\2008~Design Rcview\Hwy 214 & S-Curvc\Staff Report Council.doc Page 10 of 27 TABLE 3.1.4 Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (See Figure 6.10) Aisle Type Width (Measured from the Curb 1-Way 2-Way Stall Depth midpoint of the double Length Aisle Aisle stripe) Width Width (F) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) 0° Standard 8.0 feet 22.5 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 8.U feet (Parall el) 90° Standard 9.0 feet 9.0 feet 24.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet Compact 7.5 feet 7.5 feet 22.0 feet 24.0 feet 15.0 feet I Findin>;s: The site plan shows 16 standard 90 degree parking spaces with dimensions of 9 feet wide z and 19 feet deep. The site plan show 7 compact 90 degree parking spaces with dimensions of 7.5 3 feet wide and 15 feet deep. The site plan also shows 4 parallel standard parking spaces with a dimensions of 8 feet wide and a curb length of 22.5 feet. The proposed parking spaces include two s ADA parking spaces. 6 The site plan shows at least 24-foot wide drive aisles in all places along the circulation pattern of the ~ proposal. There would no backing or maneuvering required within a public street right-of--way as s indicated by the submitted site plan. 9 Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. to I ~ Off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional markings and signs to control Iz vehicle movement. [WDO 3.105.02.H.5] 13 Findin>;s: The site plan does not show directional markings for traffic/vehicle control movements la proposed for the parking and maneuvering areas. Is Conclusion: The site plan does not show directional markings in accordance with WDO 1 ~ 3.105.02.H.5. Is Off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of a space. I~ The total width of the lines shall delineate a separation of 2 feet. [WDO 3.105.02.H.6] zo Findin>;s: The proposed parking spaces are delineated by double lines. The site plan shows double z I parallel lines. zz Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.6. z; za All outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent zs residentially zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any 1:\Community Development\Planning~?008\Design Rcview\Hwy 214 & S-Curve`.S[aff Report Council.doc Page I 1 of 27 i public street. [~'DO 3.105.02.H.8] z All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: 3 a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; a b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot candles; c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used property; and ~ d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. ]Wll0 A 3.107.06.F.2] ~~ Findings: The site plan is void of a lighting plan for the proposed medical/professional building. ~o The proposal would be required to submit a lighting plan that addresses lighting standards for >> parking areas and the entrance to the subject property. I z Conclusion: The site plan or utility plan does not show proposed outdoor lighting. A condition to the 13 approval requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the is standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and the guidelines and standards of WDO 3.107.08.B.3. 15 ~~ All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a bicycle rack I ~ within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack spaces shall be one plus one iR per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 rack spaces. [WDO 3.105.02.H.10] 19 Findin>;s: The proposed development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. This yields a zo requirement of four bicycle rack spaces. The site plan shows 4 bicycle rack spaces. zl Conclusion: The proposed development meet the standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.10. zz z3 WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards za zs The provisions of this section shall apply: zb A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single-family z7 and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; [WDO 3.106.01] zs B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to z9 structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and 3o parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. [WDO 3 ~ 3.106.01 ] 32 33 Findings: This proposal for a new medical/professional building consists of a new structure, parking 3a spaces, and accessory structure (trash enclosure). The proposal does not consist ofsingle-family 3s dwellings, and duplexes. The proposed development does not involve additions to structures and/or 3c, parking spaces. The proposal generates a parking requirement of 32 off-street parking spaces. 37 Conclusion: The development is subject to WDO 3.106 under 3.106.O1.A. as the proposed building 3R is a new structure. WDO 3.106.O1.B does not apply as the proposed medical/professional building is 39 not an addition to a structure. The proposed medical/professional building and related parking is ao subject to WDO Section 3.106.01. ai Landscaping and Irrigation Plans Required. Building plans for all uses subject to landscaping az requirements shall be accompanied by landscaping and irrigation plans to City standards. I:\Community Development~Planning\2O08~Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 12 of 27 I [WDO 3.106.02.A] 2 Findings: The submitted Design Review application packet submitted by the applicant contained a 3 landscaping plan. The City of Woodburn planning staff reviewed the landscape plans for a compliance with WDO Section 3.106. s Alt required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated unless a planting plan without ~ irrigation is submitted by a licensed landscape architect or licensed nursery person ~ demonstrating that the proposed landscaping will thrive without irrigation. [WDO 3.106.02.B] s Findin>?: The submitted landscape plan contains notes that the turf and planting beds will be fully 9 irrigated. The notes also state that the irrigation system will be designed and installed by a licensed to commercial irrigation contractor. 11 12 Conclusion: A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide an irrigation system that 13 complies with WDO 3.106.02.B. The proposal would comply with WDO 3.106.02.B. 14 ~s All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% of ground 16 coverage within 3 years. [WDO 3.106.02.C] 17 1 s Finding: The applicant provided plantings matrix for the proposed landscaping areas. The matrix i~ provides information plant sizes and names. Cursory analysis of the proposed plants show that the 20 proposal is capable of providing at least 80 percent ground cover in three years. 21 z2 Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.106.02.C. 23 za Installation of plant materials and irrigation specified in an approved landscaping plan shall zs occur at the time of development and shall be a conditioned of final occupancy. Should the site zb conditions or seasonal conditions make immediate installation impractical, an acceptable 27 performance guarantee may be approved subject to Section 4.102.17 (WDO 3.106.02.D] 2s z9 Findings: The proposal did not provide legal guarantees such as performance bond for when the 30 landscape plants become unhealthy. A performance guarantee or some legal document maybe 31 required as part of this code section requirement. 32 33 Conclusion: This criterion is unfulfilled. 34 35 The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good condition so 36 as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead plants shall be removed 37 and replaced in conformance with the original landscape plans. [WDO 3.106.02.D] 38 39 Findings: The submitted landscape plan does not provide information regarding the maintenance of ao the landscape. al a2 Conclusion: Information regarding the maintenance of the landscape was not provided in the a3 application. A condition requires the landscaping to be maintain in good condition in compliance as with WDO 3.106.02.E. as I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-C'urvc\Staff Report Council.doc Page 13 of 27 i Street Trees. Within the public street right-of--way abutting a development, street trees shall z be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy. ~ a. Acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable and a unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species. s b. Tree Density. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the right-of--way, c, subject to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103: 7 1) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage; s 2) Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or 9 3) Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. [WDO 3.106.03.A.1] ~o Findings: The submitted site plans does not show proposed street trees in the public right-of--way. > > The proposed development has approximately 500 feet of street frontage. iz ~3 Conclusion: The applicant does not meet this criteria, pursuant to WDO Section 3.106.03.A.1. A ~a condition requires the applicant to provide 20 small trees, 15 medium trees, or l O large trees, subject is to Clear Vision Standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103. ~6 LoT ~ rN eg ~---- - - - Ree-2 ~uILVAbLG ~ l ~ ~ • ~~ ~ ~ \\ ~ aui~piN~ co ve R.AG a .~ -fi- r ~ ~ ._._. , PKON T I Ynav ~ seTey.c~ u.res I ~.e~ ~ ~ .. _1- ~. FIdNT IOT.IJ~ ~ _- . ..7~ L~~.... . ~~ sT rz.E ~T ~..o_w. Figure 6.3 Setbacks and Yards ~7 All yards abutting a street, including off street parking and circulation areas shall be is landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. [WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.1] i9 Findings: The site plan shows that the front yard contains approximately 33,769 square feet. A total zo of 1,688 (33,769 divided by 20 = 1,688) plant units would be required to achieve a density of 1 plant z~ unit per 20 square feet. Almost the entire lot except the building footprint and the area behind the zz building is the front yard. There is a proposed 20 wide landscape strip between the property line and z3 the parking area. Two large triangular shaped planting areas on the sides of the property between za the parking area, road, and buffer walls. There are also several small planters in and around the zs parking area. The submitted landscape plan shows the total proposed plant units for the front yard to zb be approximately 778 plant units leaving the development short 910 plant units of the required l ,688 1:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 14 of 27 1 plant units. 2 Conclusion: The landscape plans does not show the minimum required plant units. A condition requires the applicant to provide 1,668 plant units in the front yard. By providing the required plant a units in the front yard and parking lot landscape areas, the project could meet the standard of WDO s 3.106.03.A.2.b.1. ~ All parking areas abutting a street shall provide a 42-inch vertical visual screen from the s abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the screening include plant 9 materials; berms; freestanding, architectural walls with an anti-graffiti finish, depressed grade to for the parking area. All screening shall comply with the clear vision standards, Section t ~ 3.103.10. [WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2] tz Findings: The submitted landscape plan shows a 42-inch vertical visual screen in the form of a 42- 13 inch grass berm from measured from the parking lot. 1a Conclusion: The proposal could comply with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2. is 16 Buffer Yards: All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are paved and which may be 1s used for parking, site access and vehicular circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.B] 19 Findin;;s: The adjacent properties are Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS) 20 making the area between the structure and the property line buffer yards. Walls are proposed z1 between the structure and the property line. The buffer yard would not be required to be landscaped 2z if it is paved. The site plan does not call out the proposed surface material for the buffer yards. 23 Conclusion: The site plan does not identify the surface material for the buffer yards. A condition as requires the buffer yards to be paved or landscaped. The buffer yards could meet the criteria of 2s WDO 3106.03.B. 26 z7 All unpaved land within off street parking areas, and within 20 feet of the paved edge of off zs street parking and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in the following 29 proportions: CO zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 20% of the paved surface area for 30 off street parking and circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a] 31 Findin;;s: The total area for parking and circulation is 15,175 square feet, with twenty percent of 3i paved parking area being 3,035 square feet. The submitted landscape plan show the area landscaping 33 in and within 20 feet of the parking area to be greater than 5,000 square feet. 3a Conclusion: The applicant submitted a landscape plan that addresses landscaping within the parking 3s and circulation areas. The proposal meets WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a. 36 37 The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off-street parking and circulation 3s facilities, EXCLUDING required trees, shall be one (l) plant unit per 20 square feet. [WDO 39 3.106.03.C.2] ao Findin;;s: The submittal contained a landscape plan and a matrix for plant species. The minimum a1 plant units required is 607 plant units excluding the required trees. The submitted landscape plan az does not show the minimum required plant units. a3 Conclusion: The landscape plan does not show the required plan units for off-street parking and l:\Community Development\Planning\200fi\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 1 s of 27 t circulation facilities. A condition requires the applicant to provide and 607 plant units in the off- z street parking and circulation facilities. The proposal could comply with WDO 3.106.03.C.2. 4 Trees, Section 6.103, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities in a s pattern that is in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the following ~ densities: ~ a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces; a b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or 9 c. 1 large tree per 14 parking spaces. [WDO 3.106.03.C.3] to Multi-Purpose Landscaping. Trees and other required landscaping located on private ~ t property within a required setback abutting a street or an interior lot line that is within 20 feet tz of the paved surface of off street parking and circulation facilities, may also be counted in 13 calculating required landscaping for off street parking and circulation areas. [WDO to 3.106.03.C.4] is Findings: The development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. The submittal landscape plan tb shows 4 medium trees within 20 feet of the paved surface. Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria of WDO 3.106.03.C.4. is i9 The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive landscaping zo requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant unit (PU) per 50 zt square feet prior to final occupancy. [WDO 3.106.03.E] zz Findings: The entire property is structure, front yard, or buffer yard. i3 Conclusion: There are no areas on the site that fall under this criterion. The proposed development 2a complies with the WD03.106.3.E 25 26 Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of bark 2~ mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a minimum of 2 inches in zs depth. [WDO 3.106.05.B] 29 Finding: The submitted landscaped plan does not show that the applicant will cover non-vegetated 3o areas with mulch. 31 Conclusion: The site plan does not show mulch covering non-vegetated areas. A condition requires 3i the applicant to provide bark mulch or decorative rock covering non-vegetated areas compiling with 33 WDO 3.106.OS.B. 34 35 A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking area or 36 access way. [WDO 3.106.OS.C] 37 Finding: The submitted site plan indicates that the project would provide a six inch curb between 3s landscaped areas and the parking spaces. Virtually all the landscape areas depicted on the landscape 39 plan have a 6-inch curb wedged between the vegetation and the parking spaces. ao Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.106.OS.C. a~ a2 I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 1 G of 27 WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 3 The following design guidelines shalt be applicable to all non-residential structures and a buildings in the RS, R15, RM, CO, CG and P zones. [VVDO 3.107.06.A] s Findin.s;: The proposed would be anon-residential retail structure in the CO zone. The submitted b application packet contained architectural elevation drawings to enable staff review. 7 Conclusion: The proposed development is subject to the Architectural Design Guidelines and s Standards of WDO 3.107. The criteria would be met. 9 to Building facades visible from streets and public parking areas should be articulated in order to ~ t avoid the appearance of box-like structures with unbroken wall surfaces. [WDO tz 3.107.06.B.1.a] , 3 Applicant's Statement: "As the plan and site plan reflect, the proposed building is "L" shaped with a la diagonal entry between the two wings. Due to this and the fact that the highway curves in two is directions across the front of the property, the building provides a multifaceted facade to the tb highway and parking area. As indicated in the building elevations, there is an entry portico and the t7 street facing facades have both cement stucco and cultured stone, with give a variation in both i s material and texture." t9 Findin;;: The proposed building would be oriented towards Highway 214. The submitted application zo packet contained architectural elevation drawings and renderings depicting how the design would zt comply with the WDO. The proposed building facade shows a projecting entry, different building zz materials and textures, and an overall L shape to break up the box-like appearance of the proposed z3 building. za Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.1.a. 25 zb The appearance of exterior walls should be enhanced by incorporating three dimensional z7 design features, including the following: zs 1) Public doorways and/or passage ways through the building. z9 2) Wall offsets and/or projections. 30 3) Variation in building materials and/or textures. 3t 4) Arcades, awnings, canopies and/or porches. [WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b] 3z Findings: The proposed exterior wall facing the street is varied with a projecting porch entry and an 33 L shape that from different angles can appear as a wall off-set. It also contains variations in building 3a materials including windows, cultured stone veneer and cement stucco. The north and east facing 3s wall abut the proposed 6 ft. wall and will not be visible from the right of way or adjacent properties. 36 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b. 37 3s Building exteriors should exhibit finishes and textures that reduce the visual monotony of 39 bulky structures and large structural spaces; enhance visual interest of wall surfaces and ao harmonize with the structural design. [WDO 3.107.06.B.2.a] at Findin;s: The submitted architectural elevation drawings show exterior wall feattaring use of az windows along Highway 214. The exterior would have stucco finish on the upper portion of the 1:\Community Devclopment\Planning\2008`,Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 17 of z7 ~ structure and a cultured stone veneer on the lower portion of the structure. The exterior is enhanced z with a prof ected entry. 3 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.a. s The appearance of exterior surfaces s/could be enhanced by incorporating the following: ~ 1) At least 30% of the wall surface abutting a street should be glass. ~ 2) All walls visible from a street or public parking area should be surfaced with wood, s brick, stone, designer block, or stucco or with siding that has the appearance of wood ~ lap siding. l0 3) The use of plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, T-111 and I I sheet composite siding as exterior finish materials for walls visible from a street or Iz parking area should be avoided. 13 4) The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible from a la street or public parking area should be an "earth tone" color containing 10 parts or Is more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 parts or more white. Fluorescent, tb "day-glo," or any similar bright color should not be used on the building exterior. 17 [WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b] ~ s Applicant's Statement: "Each wall surface facing the street has approximately 30% glazing. As 19 noted above, the walls facing the street have both cultured stone and stucco. We had on a previous zo submittal provided a colored elevation that showed the intent of the color scheme for the building zl and consisted primarily of brown and beige tones." zz Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation from Highway 214. The z3 elevation drawings show: za 1. The facade facing Mt. Hood Avenue contains windows which appear to total approximately zs 420 square feet, or approximately 30% of the facade area. No calculations were provided on ze the plans. z~ 2. All buildings facades are finished with stucco and cultured stone veneer. zs 3. The facades do not contain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, T-111 z9 and sheet composite siding. 30 4. No information was provided on the color of the stucco. The submittal mention by the 3l applicant was for a canceled land use application. The drawings are not on file with the 3z Community Development Department and the applicant did not resubmit the drawing. 33 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b (2) 3a and (3); and could meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b (1) and (4). Conditions have 3s been added to the approval requiring the project to comply with WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b, with the 36 exception of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b.1. The condition was modified to require glass as shown on 37 Exhibit "D". 3a 39 Multi-planed Roof Guidelines. ao a. The roof line at the top of a structure should establish a distinctive top to the building. al b. The roof line sl:ould not be flat or hold the same roof line over extended distances. a2 Rather the roof line should incorporate variations, such as: 1:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 18 of 27 ~ l) Offsets and/or jogs in the plane of the roof. z 2) Changes in the height of the exterior ~~~all for flat roof buildings, including 3 parapet walls with variations in elevation and/or cornices. [WDO 3.107.06.B.3] a Applicant's Response: "The gabled entry and hipped roof provide varied rooflines in both geometry s and height, while providing commonality with structures located on adjacent properties." s Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation. It shows a gabled entry and 7 hipped roofline which provides off sets in the plane of the roof. s Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.3. 9 ~o All roof mounted equipment, EXCEPT solar collectors, should be screened from view from >> streets abutting the building site. [WDO 3.107.06.B.4] iz Applicant's Response: "There is no roof-mounted equipment intended for the building. It will ]3 utilize a heat pump system with air handling units in the attic space and compressor units placed on ~a concrete pads at grade adjacent to the rear of the building and screened with landscaping materials." ~ s Findin :The applicant stated that no roof-mounted equipment is proposed and none is shown of the i~ submitted building elevations. 17 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.4. ~s ~9 All building faces abutting a street or a public parking area should provide weather protection zo for pedestrians. (WDO 3.107.06.B.5] z~ Applicant's Response: "The walkways that extend along the faces of the building adjacent to the zz parking are partially protected by a 30 inch roof overhang." z3 Findings: The proposed building elevation plans show an overhang over the front walkways of the za building adjacent to the parking lot. It also shows the a covered gabled entry. 2s Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.5. 26 z7 The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO should be augmented to address site zs specif-c visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the surrounding area. z9 [WDO 3.107.06.B.6] 3o Applicant's Response: "See landscape plan." 31 Findin :The applicant submitted a landscape plan. The applicant is proposing a single story 3z structure and 6 foot high buffer walls between the structure and the abutting uses. The entire site, 33 excluding the structures, paved parking and access, is required to be landscaped at the rate of one 34 plant unit per 20 square feet. The submitted landscape plan does meet the requirements for the 3s minimum plant units. 36 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.6. 37 3s Buffer V~'all. A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or 39 greater than 7 feet in height: ao a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential development a~ to mitigate adverse visual, noise aad/or light impacts on the abutting use when no az comparable buffer exists, and I:\Community Development\Planning~2008~Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 19 of 27 ~ b. Shall be constructed where the standards of the underlying zone reyuire such a wall z for anon-residential use in, or abutting, a RS, R1S, or RM zoning district. WDO 3 3.107.06.B.8] a Applicant's Response: "As indicated on the site plan, a 6 foot high masonry buffer wall is proposed s along both the north and east property lines." e Findings: The abutting properties are zoned R1 S, and developed with single family homes. A 6 foot ~ high masonry wall is proposed to be constructed along the property lines to the north and east where s the property is abutting the residential use. to Conclusion: The proposed development does meet with the guidelines of WDO 3.107.06.B.8. >> tz Obstruction of existing solar collectors on abutting properties by site development should be t3 mitigated. [WDO 3.107.06.B.10] to Applicant's Response: "The proposed building will not impact solar access of any of the adjacent I s properties". 16 FindinQS: A site inspection showed no existing solar collectors on abutting properties. I~ Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.10. 18 19 Site and Building Access Guidelines. 20 1. Access to and from the site and circulation within the site should separate facilities for zl cars, trucks and transit from those for bicycles and pedestrians. 2z 2. Site access in compliance with Section 3.104 should be augmented by the following z3 considerations: as a. Vehicle Access. zs 1) Vehicle access points should be identified by accentuated landscaped zb areas, by entrance throats designed to control access from abutting z~ parking and by monument type entrance signs. zg b. Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 29 1) The buildings should be linked to the sidewalks on abutting streets by 3o internal pedestrian ways. Such pedestrian ways should be either raised or 31 delineated by distinctive pavers. 32 2) Parking areas should be designed in multiples of no more than 50 spaces 33 separated by landscaped buffers or raised pedestrian ways in order to 3a minimize negative visual impacts associated with expansive parking. 3s [WDO 3.107.06.C] 36 37 Applicant's Response: "There are separate access points for vehicles and pedestrians (including 38 bicycles) to the site, see the site plan. The adjacent landscaping identifies the vehicle access and 39 there are no adjacent commercial properties for reciprocal internal access. The pedestrian walkway ao is clearly separated from the other accesses and will have distinctive paving where it crosses the at internal drives. There are only 32 parking spaces on this site so landscape buffers are not required" az Findings: The site plan shows a separate pedestrian access path from the sidewalk to the entrance of a3 the proposed building delineated with enhanced paving where it crosses the internal drives and as raised sidewalks adjacent to the building. The parking area contains less than 50 spaces. The site I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 20 of 27 1 plan show vehicular access with a 50 foot long throat. No signs have been proposed in the z application. 3 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.0. s Within the prescribed setbacks, building location and orientation s/could compliment abutting ~ uses and development patterns. [WDO 3.107.06.D.1] 7 Applicant's Response: "The building is located within the required setbacks as noted on the site 8 plan. The yard abutting the highway varies from 60' to about 114'." 9 Findings: The abutting uses are single family residential structures along Highway 214. The site ~o plan shows the building footprint to be located out of the setbacks, leaving a large front yard area ~ i with landscaping and parking abutting Highway 214. tz Conclusion: The building is located outside of the prescribed setbacks. The project conforms with 13 WD0.3.107.06.D.1. is is Off street parking between the architectural front of a building and the setback line abutting 16 street should be limited to a depth of not more than 130 feet. [WDO 3.107.06.E] 17 Applicant's Response: "The maximum depth of the parking is 108' measuring diagonally across the ~ s parking area and perpendicular to the highway right-of-way." 19 Findin;;s: The site plan shows approximately 87 between the setback line abutting the street and the zo architectural front of the proposed building. zl Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.E. zz z3 Outdoor Lighting Standards. All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: za a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; zs b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot candles; zb c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used z7 property; and za d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. [WDO z9 3.107.06.F.2] 30 3t Applicant's Response: "The outdoor lighting will be designed for the criteria established in this 3z section of the design guidelines." 33 3a Findin;;s: No outdoor lighting plan was submitted. 35 36 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.F.2. A 37 condition of approval requires the project to comply with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 38 39 Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall be screened from the view of abutting streets by a solid ao brick or architectural block wall not less than 6, nor more than 9 feet in height. [WDO a1 3.107.06.F.1 ] l:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 21 of 27 i Applicant's Response: The trash enclosure is the only outdoor storage and is enclosed with a 6' high masonry wall with a solid wood gate. 3 Finding: The site plan shows the trash enclosure as the only proposed outdoor storage. 4 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.F.1. 5 6 7 8 9 to tt 12 13 14 15 16 17 to 19 zo 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 WDO 3.110 Suns Section 3.110 states the standards for the number, size, placement, and physical characteristics of signs. This section applies to signs in all zoning districts within the City of Woodburn. Other regulations of the City Code my also apply to signs. [WDO 3.110.02] Findings: The applicant did not submit any information regarding proposed signs for the development. Conclusion: Compliance with WDO 3.110 will be verified as part of the building permit process. Any sign on the property will be required to submit for a sign permit and obtain approval prior to construction. 1:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review'~Flwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 22 of 27 ~ Decision S ~ Design Review 2008-03 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions of approval: s GENERAL CONDITIONS 9 ~0 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions of approval. > > 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all ~z provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, ~3 or public hearing. la 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as is Exhibits "A" though "D," except as modified by these conditions of approval. i~ 4. 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" shall 1 s not be interpreted to mean that City staff has the authority to waive or vary any development 19 standard set forth in the WDO. zo S. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide public utility easement along the property line z 1 abutting Newburg Highway. zz 6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the standards of z3 WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and WDO 3.107.06.F.2. za 7. The applicant shall provide an irrigation system for all landscape areas improved as part of zs this project, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.B. zb 8. All shrubs and ground cover shall be sized so as to attain 80% of ground overage within z7 three years, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.A. zs 9. Within the public street right-of--way the applicant shall provide 20 small trees, 15 medium z9 trees, or 10 large trees, subject to Clear Vision Standards, WDO 3.103.10 and 6.103, in 3o accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.b. 31 10. The applicant shall provide detailed information on the proposed maintenance of all 3z landscaping, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.E. 33 11. The applicant shall provide at least 1,688 plant units of landscaping in the yard abutting 3a Newberg Highway, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.a. 3s 12. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 3,035 square feet of landscaped area within 20 feet 3v of the paved edge of off street parking and'or circulation improvements, in accordance with 3~ WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a 3R 13. The applicant shall provide at least 607 plant units located within 20 feet of the paved edge 39 of the off street parking and/or circulation improvements, in accordance with WDO ao 3.106.03.C.2. 1:\Community Development\Planning'~,2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 23 of 27 i 14. The applicant shall provide bark mulch or decorative rock on all landscaped areas not z covered by plant materials, in accordance with WDO 3. l 06.OS.B. ~ 15. The applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards between the proposed structure and a the buffer walls in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.B. s 16. The applicant shall provide asix-inch concrete curb between all landscaped and improved as b part of this project and project areas or access ways, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.C. ~ 17. Signage shall comply with WDO 3.110. a 18. All work within the public rights-of--way or easement within city jurisdiction shall require 9 plan approval and permit issuance from the Public Works Department. l0 19. All city maintained facilities located on private property shall require a utility easement to be ~ i conveyed to the city. ~ z 20. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state and/or federal 13 agencies, which may require approval and/or permit. to 21. System Development fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. is I6 The Planning Division recommends that the Commission require compliance with the following I ~ guidelines of the WDO. If the Commission exercises its discretion to reduce any condition noted Is below, the Planning Division requests that it make findings regarding the reduction. ~ 9 22. The wall surface abutting Newberg Highway shall be in glass, as shown on Exhibit "D". zo 23. The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible from a street or zt public parking area shall bean "earth tone" color containing 10 parts or more of brown or a zz "tinted" color containing l 0 parts or more white. Fluorescent, "day-glo," or any similar z3 bright color should not be used on the building exterior, in accordance with WDO za 3.107.06.B.2.b. zs 24. The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO shall be augmented to address site zb specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the surrounding area, in z~ accordance with WDO 3.107.06.B.6. zs 25. Vehicle access points shall be identified by accentuated landscaped areas, by entrance throats z9 designed to control access from abutting parking and by monument type entrance signs, in 3o accordance with WDO 3.107.06.C. 31 26. All outdoor lighting shall be designed in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 32 33 STREET AND DRAINAGE: 34 35 27. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734-051 36 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, State Highway 37 214, and Newberg Highway. Newberg Highway is designated as a Major Arterial in the 3s Woodburn Transportation System Plan (WTSP). 39 ao 28. The site is currently being served by an ODOT storm sewer system. The City of Woodburn I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\Staff Report Council.doc Page 24 of 27 i has no storm sewer within Newberg Highway. Contact ODOT for permit requirements. ~ WASTE~'~'ATER: a s 29. The site can be served by the existing city sanitary sewer main within Rainer Road. That ~ portion extended from existing sanitary sewer main to the property in the existing Public 7 Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road shall be a city maintained s system, and shall comply with Public Works Department requirements, specifications, 9 standards and permit requirements. to t t WATER: l2 t 3 30. The site can be served by the existing city water main within Rainer Road. That portion to extended from the existing water main to the property in the existing Public Utility Easement t s within the vacated portion of Princeton Road shall be a city maintained system, and shall t~ comply with Public Works Department requirements, specifications, standards and permit t 7 requirements. l8 t9 31. Domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler service shall require the installation of a proper zo type of backflow preventer. The device and meter shall be located near the city water main zt within an easement, unless approved otherwise by Public Works. Contact Scott Bergren, City zz of Woodburn Cross Connection Inspector for proper type and installation requirements of the z3 backflow device at 503-982-5380. za zs 32. Fire protection requirements shall comply with the Woodburn Fire District standards and zb requirements. Additional fire hydrants for fire protection if required shall be city maintained z~ system and installed by the applicant. The system shall be placed within the public right of zs way or public utility easement and constructed in accordance with Public Works Department z9 requirements, specifications, standards and permit requirements. 30 3t Attachments and Exhibits 32 33 Attachment "A" Zoning Map 34 Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan Map 35 Attachment "C" Building Division comments 36 Attachment "D" ODOT Approval of Application with Mitigation 37 Attachment "E" Applicant's narrative regarding the design review 3R 39 Exhibit "A" Proposed Site Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 an Exhibit `B" Proposed Utility Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 at Exhibit "C" Proposed Landscape Plan, date stamped August 14, 2008 az Exhibit "D" Proposed Building Elevations, date stamped 3une 5, 2008 I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Rcview\Hwy 214 & S-Curvc`,Staff Rcport Council.doc Page 25 of 27 ATTACHMENT A Zoning Map `Cy I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Design Review\Hwy 214 8c S-Curve\Stafi~ Report Council.doc Page 26 of 27 ATTACHMENT B Open Space and Parks RAINIER RD Comprehensive Plan Map >~! i~-~" ,~P EC 0 LA \,~\V ~ ~~` is o~ ~° o~ ~i'`\~i~ RAINIER RD » /~yG a z 0 ~- z 0 tY m I:\Community Development\[ tanning\2008\Design Review\I Iwy 214 & S-Curve\Stafi~ Report Council.doc Page 27 of 27 ATTACHMENT C S Curve on iV'e~~~berg Highway (Approximately 1901 Ne~~~berg Highway) 8,232 sq. ft.Vledical Office Building June 6, 2008 OSSC =State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code, 2007 edition OMSC = State of Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code, 2007 edition OFC =State of Oregon Fire Code, 2007 edition Medical Office Building B Occupancy with possible accessory A-3 conference rooms, medical gas enclosures, and S-1 or S-2 storage rooms. Occupancy Separations (Sections 301.1, 302.2, and 302.3.2, OSSC) Plans need to designate the design option used, incidental use areas, accessory areas, separated uses, and/or non-separated uses. Building Construction (Table 503, 601, and 602, OSSC) Must be constructed in accordance with the OSSC and the OFC. Can be constructed of V-B construction. Allowable Area (Table 503, OSSC) B occupancy of V-B construction = 9,000 square feet per Table 503, plus yard increases. A occupancy of V-B construction = 6,000 square feet per Table 503, plus yard increases. Allowable Height (Table 503, OSSC) B occupancy of V-B construction = 2-story. A occupancy of V-B construction = 1-story. Building proposed to be one story in height. Exterior Wall Requirements B and A Occupancy (Table 602, OSSC) < 5' to property line = 1-hour fire-resistive construction >= 5' < 10' to property line = 1-hour-fire resistive construction >= 10' < 30' = 0-hour fire resistive with V-B construction Building shown at a minimum of IO feet from any property line. Opening Protection (Section 704.8 and Table 704.8, OSSC) unprotected and protected openings must comply with Section 704.8 and Table 704.8, OSSC. Openings 10' or more from the property line may be allowed to be unprotected with no limit to the amount of openings with V-B construction. (Table 704.8, Footnote g, OSSC) Building show: at a mi~:i~num of 10 feet from airy property line. Parapets (Section 704.11, OSSC) Parapets must be constructed if required by Section 704.11, OSSC. 1901 Newberg Highway Medical Office Building June 6, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Parapets may not be required on exterior walls 10' or more from the property line with V-B construction. (Section 704.11, Exception 1, OSSC) Interior Ceiling and Wall Finish (Table 803.5, OSSC) A occupancy = Class B in exit access corridors and Class C in rooms or areas with or without sprinkler system. B occupancy = Class C exit access corridors and Class C in rooms or areas. Sprinkler System (Section 903.2.1.3 and 903, OSSC) Required in A-3 occupancy if over 12,000 square feet. (See other requirements) Not required in B occupancy. (See other requirements) Fire Alarm System (Section 907.2.1 and 907.2.2, OSSC) Required in A occupancy with more than 300 occupants. Required in B occupancy with more than 500 occupants or 100 occupants above or below the level of exit discharge. A fire alarm system is not required. Disabled Access (Chapter 11, OSSC) Must comply with Chapter 11, OSSC. 30 total parking spaces shown on the submitted plans. Two disabled parking spaces are shown on the submitted plans. (ORS 447.233) Not enough information provided to verify compliance with disabled access requirements. Ventilation Must be provided in accordance with 1203.4 of the OSSC and 403.3 of the OMSC. Not enough information provided to verify compliance. Fire Flow with V-B construction (Appendix Chapter B and C, OFC) 6,201 - 7,700 square feet = 2,250 gpm fire flow. If provided with a sprinkler system = 1,500 gpm fire flow. 1,500 gpm fire flow = 1 fire hydrant required, maximum distance from street frontage to hydrant, 250 feet, maximum spacing 500 feet. 2,000 - 2,250 gpm fire flow = 2 fire hydrants required, maximum distance from street frontage to hydrant, 225 feet, maximum spacing 450 feet. Fire hydrants are not shown on the same side of the street as the proposed building. Verification of the available fire flow is required at permit submittal time. Need to verify fire department access in accordance with Appendix Chapter C of OUFC. • Fire department turnaround may be required on this site. SK H`.Word\Pre-applications`Medi.al Office E3wldmg 1901 Newberg Ilwy 2UU3-I 1901 Newberg Highway Medical Office Building June 6, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Miscellaneous Items • The address for the building shall be visible from the street or some other method provided to indicate the address of the building (monument sign). • Pedestrian access complying with disabled access requirements is required from the public way to the building. This information is provided to assist in opening a dialog with the applicant. The information contained in this form can't be considered completely accurate due to the limited information provided at the time this document was prepared. Document prepared by, Steve Krieg Building Official City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Phone: 503-980-2430 Fax: 503-982-5244 SK FI'~Word,Prc-applicauoro bt~dical Ofticc E3uilding 1901 Nc++her~ Hwy 2(.1(1R-I April 28, 2008 n l~heud~n~~ R Kulungoski, Governor VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Bruce Kenny Bruce Kenny Architecture 9318 N. Mohawk Ave. Portland, OR 97203 Department of Transportation ODOT District 3 885 Airport Road SE, Bldg P Salem, OR 9?301-4788 003) 986-2639 Fax: (503)986-2881 mike.rose'ioodot.state.or.us File Code: PMT 4-16 Subject: Approval of Application for State Highway Approach with Mitigation Highway Number 140, (Hillsboro-Silverton), at Mile Point 37.34 Application Number 6906 Dear Bruce Kenny: I am pleased to inform you that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has approved your Application for State Highway Approach. The Department's approval includes mitigation measures described below. Before you begin any work in the highway right of way, the Department must approve your construction drawings and plans and issue you a Permit to Construct. This letter provides instructions for submittal of your construction drawings and plans and your appeal rights regarding the mitigation measures. The following mitigation measures will become terms and conditions of your Permit to Construct: All mitigation shall be designed and constructed in compliance with ODOT standards and specifications for this highway segment. Applicant shall provide construction drawings and plans stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer incorporating the following mitigations: • Approach road at mile point 37.34, engineers station 127+35 Lt., shall be restricted to right-in, right-out only turn movements. • Applicant shall construct at their expense a raised traffic separator that will extend at a minimum 50-feet east, and 200-feet west of the approach road location. The traffic separator will be located along the southerly edge of the existing center turn lane of the Hillsboro-Silverton Highway, No. 140, State Route ORE 214. Approval of Application with Mitigation for State Highway Approach Highway Number 140, (Hillsboro-Silverton), at Mile Point 37.34 Application Number 6906. Monday, April 28, 2008 Page • Applicant shall construct at their expense frontage improvements (drainage curb, gutter, landscape strip and sidewalk) along the Hillsboro-Silverton Highway, No. 140, State Route ORE 214 in compliance with the ODOT standards and specifications and the City of Woodburn Transportation System Plan for this highway segment. A Permit to Construct an Approach (construction permit) will not be issued to the applicant until a set of construction drawings has been submitted, reviewed and accepted by ODOT. The issuance of a Permit to Operate, Maintain and Use an Approach will not be issued until all improvements have been completed, inspected and approved by ODOT and all State and Local requirements have been met. If you accept these mitigation measures, please submit your construction drawings and plans by 5:00 p.m. on June 27, 2008 to the address below. I have attached a detailed explanation of what the construction drawings must include. Mike Rose ODOT District 3 885 Airport Road SE, Bldg P Salem, OR 97301-4788 Under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 734-051-0070, you are required to submit your construction drawings and plans by the date specified above or the approval of your application is void. If necessary, the Department may extend the time for your submittal of drawings and plans if both you and the Department agree in writing before the deadline listed above. Please contact me at (503) 986-2639 if you would like to request an extension of time. After you submit construction drawings and plans, the Department will contact you if any additional information is needed for approval. We will notify you when your drawings and plans are approved and provide instructions for you to obtain a Permit to Construct. You may not begin any work in the highway right of way until you receive a Permit to Construct signed by the Department. Options to Appeal Mitigation Measures If the mitigation measures are not acceptable to you, then you may appeal them by submitting a request in writing for either a Region Review or a Contested Case Hearing. A Region Review is conducted under OAR 734-051-0345. It is an informal process that allows you to explain your objections and to present additional information in writing or in person to a panel of ODOT staff who were not involved in approving your Application for State Highway Approach. The provisions of OAR 734-051-0345 require that you include in your request for a Region Review the documentation that you will rely upon during the Region Review. The Region Review panel will consider all of the information Approval of Application with Mitigation for State Highway Approach Highway Number 140, (Hillsboro-Silverton), at Mile Point 37.34 Application Number 6906. Monday, April 28, 2008 Page 3 presented and may recommend either upholding the original decision or considering alternative decisions to resolve the disagreement. The Region Manager reviews the panel's recommendations and makes the final decision to approve, modify, or reverse the original decision. A Contested Case Hearing is a formal hearing conducted by a Hearing Officer of the Office of Administrative Hearings under OAR 137-003-0501 through 137-003-0700. The Office of Administrative Hearings is not a part of the Department of Transportation. The Hearing Officer will consider all information presented and decide whether the Department's original decisions are consistent with the requirements of OAR 734-051. The Hearing Officer usually decides in favor of, or against, the Department's original decision and does not offer alternative solutions to resolve any disagreements. If you request a Region Review and are not satisfied with the outcome, you may request a Contested Case Hearing at that time. You may also choose to skip the Region Review altogether and proceed directly to a Contested Case Hearing. The Department must receive your request for either a Region Review or a Contested Case Hearing within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the date of this letter. If your request is not received within this time period, your right to a Region Review or a Contested Case Hearing is considered waived. If you withdraw a request for a hearing, if you notify the Hearing Officer that you will not appear, or if you fail to appear at a scheduled hearing, then ODOT's Executive Deputy Director may issue a final order by default. In that case, ODOT designates its files on this matter as the record. ff you wish to request a Contested Case Hearing, send your request to: Hearing Officer Panel Transportation Section 1905 Lana Avenue Salem, OR 97314 The Hearing Officer will notify you of the time and location of the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Hearing Officer will provide you with information concerning administrative hearing procedures, your right to representation, and other rights relating to the conduct of the Contested Case Hearing. If you wish to request a Region Review, send your request to: Deolinda G. Jones ODOT Region 2 Manager 455 Airport Rd Bldg #B Salem, OR 97310 Approval of Application with Mitigation for State Highway Approach Highway Number 140, (Hillsboro-Silverton), at Mile Point 37.34 Application Number 6906. Monday, April 28, 2008 Page -i ODOT's Appeals Coordinator will contact you to establish a time and place for the meeting. If you would like to discuss the required mitigation measures further without requesting a hearing, or even after requesting a hearing, please feel free to contact Mike Rose, Permit Specialist at (503) 986-2639. Sincerely, Don Jordan, District Manager ODOT District 3, Maintenance Office c: David Warren, Regional Access Management Engineer Mike Rose, Permit Specialist Ann Zeltmann, Access Management Appeals Coordinator Hearing Officer Panel, Transportation Section :: 6RUCf W. I(fnnY. flRC~11TfCT, S.f. • 9318 nORTt1 MOhfjWK flVf(1Uf POQT! flI1D. ORfGOn 97403 Tfl•f fjX: 503-489-4581 architeer@yahoo.com Woodburn Office Building Design Review Narrative 3.107.06 B.1. As the plan and site plan reflect, the proposed building is "L" shaped with a diagonal cntly between the two wings. Due to this and the fact that the highway curves in two directions across the front of the propcl-ty; the building provides a multifaceted facade to the highway and parking area. As indicated in the building elevations, there is an entry portico and the street facing facades have both cement stucco and cultured stone, which hive a variatiall in both material and Texture. 3.107.0( B.2. Each of the wall surfaces facing the street has approximately 30% glazing. As noted above, the walls facing the street have with both cultured stoned and stucco. We had on the previous submittal provided a colored elevation that showed the intent of the color scheme for the building and consisted primarily of brown and beige tones. 3.107.06 B.3. "1-he gabled entry and hipped roof provide varied rooflines in both geometry and height, whsle provldmg a commonality with structures located on adjacent propclrties. 3.107.06 B.4. Thcrc is no roof-mounted equipment intended for the building. It will utilize a heat pump system \vitlt air handling units in the attic space and compressor units placed on concrete pads at grade adjacent to the rear of the building and screened with landscaping materials. 3.107.06 B.~. ~-hc ~\'alkway that extends along the faces of the building adjacent to the parking are partially protec:tcd by a 30" roof overhang. 3.1 a7.o6 B.6. See the landscape plan. ~. l 07.06 Ii.7. 1-;:i;I~C a CUi i Ciltiy IlU "CUl~)Ol"ate" Ur "franchise" elements to the proposed design. } ~ •;' i• W~x,dhurn ~II~IScc [3uilding I~esi~~n Rc~iewNarrative Pate 2 7i 1 ~~!20(}S 3.l u7.o6 ~.x. .As indicated on the silt plan, a 6' high masonry buffer wall is proposed along both the c~orth and east proji~rty lines. 3.107.06 13.9. Sec the landscape plan. 3.1(17.06 f3.10. The proposed building will not impact the solar access of any of the adjacent properties. 3.107.06 C.1. There arc separate access points for vehicles and pedestrians (including bicycles) to the site, see the site plan. 3. ] 07.06 C.2. The adjacent landscaping identifies the vehicle access and there are no adjacent commercial prOperti~s fr~r reciprocal intci~~al access. The pedestrian wa]kway is clearly separate from other accesses and viii have distinctive paving where it crosses the internal drives. Thcrc are only 32 parking spaces Oil t111S site so landscape buiTcrs are not required. 3.1(17.(-Ci D. The building is located within the required setbacks as noted on the site plan. The yard abutting the high~,vay varies li-om to about b0' to 1 ] 4'. 3. l 07.06 C. "fhe maximum depth of the parking is l08' measuring diagonally across the parking area and perpendicular to the hi~~hway right-of-way. ~. ~ 07.06 r.1. "~hc trash enclosure is the only outdoor storage area and is enclosed with a 6' high masonry ~~rali ~~~ith a solid ~wr>~,d ~,atc. 3.107.06 1:.2. •I~l~c outdr~or li~-l~ti~;g ~,vill be designed for the criteria established in this section of the dcsi~,n guidelines. IZuspcctiuli}~, ~~ruce ~V. Kenn}~, Architect ~, ~S- ~--- ~ / ~ ~__. •'~ __ r~ ~ ~ - ~-` ~i~~ '~~ ~~. a x ''.~ (r~ ~l ~~: V a,_ '~,,~ R ~Q ~~~~ i u ~ s .c ~ l v 3 ~g ~~bK ~~' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ O A~ ~~~~ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~'i ~ ]]] $ ~ ~ o `, ~ , y ~ v pj~ 0 '~l J ~j m n ~~ a N V V a , y. < F ~ '°' ~~~~ u - - ~~~'I CE BU~~NG _ . _. 1t 04DD~~ 4 D~ oKC~soN ~,_,,, l ` f ~ DR• RD 1 •~. ~~, ~. ~ 1~ ; l ~ i . ~,.~~ i ~ ,l. ~~. ~ . ~~t ~, - J `~ "~ ~~ .~ . ,.~~ ~~\ , y'~- ~` 4 ~~ ~ ~ /~ .' / ~' r ~' y / ~ ~' ..' ..se ~~~~ ~ ~ /f ~ G ; . i - '~ /~ is 'r i}. -• ~ r .' / ' '' / {f ~'r r ~~ a,. ~~ .M ~1r•A~ ~~ ~ I li ~~ ~ ~ p ~~ ~i i I :-- -' _~--_ :_- x ~~ 1 ~~~1 a 1 ~ ~~~ 1 l'~ 4. `~ bRU~-~ W • `n ro+~w~ nvt~ 9518 ~ ~ppn 4740 455-9135 ~~'q -4581- ChS 50 ~._ SLR-fN., 5C?5-4b ~~ 1 1 __ ______, __- __.~__._______--_-_ _. _-__ -__~.-_- _ 1 i ~ ' ~,I r~ ,„ ~, ~, ~ ; ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ,, / ~~ ' ~/i4 vi ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ x ~~~ <„ ~,,, '/ .~ 5~ "~ -+c+~r~xc s_ sm. ~.., x.e • utp 1°j¢ ~._E* j ss ss--~' ~' ~r , ,/ ,~_ _ ~~ m f~' / IwCY _viEJ '.WEER ~~ ' ~ may, .tti! . /~/ /'~ ~ ~~ '~ ~l~ 4'0A~~ ~ •~ ~ - - ~~ ~ ~' ~, ~ ~., ~ ; .~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 - /~ j. ~ /~ e,. .. ~ ~ N,` Jai. }~ i~ ~~ ~~-~-._ ~__ .___ ffJJl - m W - =6-~~ ~ '~ y- - -~i--~ ~; - 4~t~ ~--- - --- -- ` ~. '~ ~ ,a8 ~,~~ ~ i ~' yet i~ ~~ II °i~ ~ 4 ~a 4 ~n ~„ ;'~' ~~ Y, T - Q..1;rvpF Wei -So- - gc __ - t 1' ~ iii _ ~~a`;p ~h ,~ - ~ i r' m ^t ~ ~ 1 Ii -~d- ~ E ~N f i- N ~~, ct~~ V;V ~, I ~ ~~~e ~t~go~o ex~~, ! '~ ~x ~': ," ~ ~1 A'i ~ '~ ~,e,,,,,;~,~ ~; ?~~ WOODBURN OFFICE BUILDING t,iNa & nssoctA~r~; S ; , , ....,~ ~, .- ...,~ UTILITY PLAN .~.~.~ _ ~.~)« _ ~..o .~..~ 1 Z ~ ~` 1 "~" I ~ ;"'~ ~~'IC•+ M1111[R )T M E SVRL Y) ~~ _ _, ~~ /~ DR. ROD JOHNtiON w ~..~~ ~~ i~; a + t',a _~ ~,. WOODI3C;RN, ORF;GON ;x~;~-~~,~, ..8.. 3!4!kz3 ~wuiun v ~l/yl~i ll. I t ~~ m Z .{ ~}I' I i C ^'!!, i : I ; ~~+± t ,. ~ ~ < I ;S~i;' 'Et r ' .; t c 1 r ; ~ 1 j i~' ~i ; ~ e ~ , r .' t ~ S ~. i' y ~ S"s4 ~ ~° , ,~ ~~ _ ~ / . ~ ~:__~ /. -_ ~ r/ ~; ~/~ ,~ ~~; \ ~. v~ / ~ 9'+., lc ~J 1~~~ ti -' - 1 ~ ~_ .~'l ~_ ~ ~ l 'V ~ 7-- ~ ,` rL ~. _ _ _. ~_ ~. ~ !~ I i I ~f~ //•,j,~~~~ _ I ~~I~i ~i II ~I jl II ~ j -,. ~' ~~ . /' \~ l~ r~yn~ L `r m ~ 'i ~ ,s 1 ~OODBURN OFFICE BUILDING ~ r `~ DR. ROD JOHNSON '.~ ~atiD3CAPE PLAN i~'t'~~ ~5 ~ ~ I~ L "} ,Z A -~ m Si x~~ I~ S ;"+ F . ;; ~- I. ~ w ~ '~ Id ..{ i- ! r A ~ A A ~ ;~ r ~< ~~pp ~~Z WOODBURN OFo ICE BUILDING DR. ROD JOHNSON c1 i -~ Y w ~~ 3 Z ~:~~4 ~~ ~ ~~ ~€ bRUCf W. Kfft1'(. flRCt~TfCT v5b noQTn nonnwx nv~ut minim. oacon viYOs Ifl-fN4 505~Y9y-YSbI Cfli 505-455'v 5 ``EXHIBIT A" _, VVDO 2.101 General Provisions The provisions of the ~L'DO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to ~ promote the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the VVDO. [WDO 1.101.o2.A[ ~> All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-officials), of the City ~~, vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and i i require conformance with the V4'DO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for iz any development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or i3 standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [V4'DO 1.101.04] ~a FindinQS: The Woodburn Planning Commission are officials of the City and are ~ s collectively vested with authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff is ~ b employees of the City and is vested with authority to issue permits or grant approvals. zi zz The Woodburn Planning Commission shall render all Type III decisions. A Type z3 III is appealable to the City Council. (WDO 4.1O1.10.C] za All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval zs reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that z~ all 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 ~x objective or if the condition requires discretion shall provide for a subsequent =~~ opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.A] ~~; Findings: Design Reviews for "all structures 1000: ?000 square feet or more" are Type iII ;; decisions. The VGoodbum Planning Commission is the City decision-maker with ,~ authority to render Type iii decisions. Conclusion: The V1,'oodburn Planning Commission has "the authority to impose ,., conditions of appro~ al reasonably related to impacts caused by the developmcnt." Community DevelopmenYPlanning`,2008'Design Rev~ew`Hwy 214 & S-CurvelEXH181T A doc i~ Conclusion: The Woodburn Planning Commission and planning division staff must ~s adhere to and require conformance with the WDO, and must not grant approval for any i~~ development or use which violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards zo imposed to carry out the WDO. ~ WDO 2.105 Commercial Office (CO) District Standards ~ The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of a the VFDO, are permitted in the CO zone ...Ambulatory Health Services (621) [V~•DO 5 2.1os.ol.l.l] r, Findings: The applicant is proposing a medicaUprofessional building. Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is permitted in the CO district. ~~ Lots in a CO zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.8. [WDO ,,~ 2.1 os.os.A] I TABLE 2.1.8 Lot Standards in a CO Zone I A. In a CO zone the lot area for anon-residential use shall be adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. There shall be no minimum width or depth. f i Findins~s: The lot area of the property is adequate to contain the medicaUprofessional iz building within the required setbacks ~3 Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirement of WDO 2.l 05.O5.A. is ~s The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. [WDO 2.105.05.B] ~ e Finding: The submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings that showed a height of approximately 18 feet for the proposed office building. ~x Conclusion: The submitted building height elevation drawings proposed by the applicant ~~ would comply with WDO 2.105.O5.B. The maximum height of any building shall not zn exceed 35 feet in accordance with V~'DO 2.105.O5.B. z~ zz The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, z3 Section 3.103.05. [WDO 2.105.06.C.1.a.1 ] za FindinQS: Pursuant to W"DO 3.103.05, Highway 214 is classified in the WTSP as a Major zs Arterial with a 50 foot special setback. The site plan shows all portions of the proposed zb building to be greater than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214 and greater than z~ 20 feet from the property line. zs Conclusion: The proposed medical professional building as submitted would meet ,~ setback standards as defined in the Vv"DO 3.103.05 and Vl~"DO 2. lO5.O5.C. l.a.l. ,~~ ,t Off street parking, maneuvering and storage shall be prohibited within a required ;~ setback EXCEPT for parking, maneuvering and storage adjacent to a wall. (V4'DO ~~ 2.l 05.O5.C.l.b.1 ] ,.~ Findings: Thy minimum setback abutting High~~ ay ? 14 is ?0 feet from the property line. :~ The site plan show s no off-stroet parking or storage located «ithin the required yard or _•~, special setback. I:`,.Commun~ty Development'.Planning\2008'.Des~gn Rev~ew'Hwy 214 ~ S-Curve`,EXHISIT A.doc i Conclusion: The proposed development meets the requirements of V1~'DO 2.105.05.C.1.h.1. The entrance to a garage shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet for the closest edge .~ of a shared driveway and 20 feet from the street right of way line. (V1-'DO 2.105.05.C'.1.b.2] n Findin : do garages are proposed in conjunction with the medical professional building. Conclusion: The development meets the requirements of WDO 2.1O5.OS.C.1.h.2. x ~~ Development in a CO zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements io of Table 2.1.9. (W'DO 2.105.OS.C.2.a] ii TABLE 2.1.9 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for Non- Residential Uses in CO Zones Abuttin Pro rt Landaca in Wall Interior Setbac4 RS, R1 S, or RM zone All interior yards shall be Solid brick or architectural 10 ft. fully landscaped subject to wall with anti-graffiti Section 3.106. surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. iz Findings: The abutting property north and east are single family homes in Senior Estates ~ 3 and are zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS). Per Table 2.1.9, ~a architectural walls would be required to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light ~s impacts on the abutting uses and the interior setback is 10 feet. The site plan shows 6' ib masonry buffer walls along the north and east property lines. The proposed 1, medical,'professional building is setback 10 feet from the abutting property lines. ~s Conclusion: The proposed development complies with the standards of VVDO <<~ 2.IOS.OS.C.2.a and Table 2.1.09. zo zi Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened oa all sides by an architectural zz block wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet, z3 and a maximum of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.105.06.F.3] za Findin :The site plan shows a trash enclosure will be located near the eastern side of the zs proposed building. The proposed enclosure will be 6 feet in height, and would be z~ designed and constructed with an architectural block wall and screened on all sides. A z- detailed construction drawing depicting the layout and construction materials for the trash z:, enclosure ~~ as submitted as part of this application. ~~~ Conclusion: The development complies with ~`'DO 2.11 U.07.F.3. ?~) i~ ~z ~~'DO 3.102 Utilities and Easements _. `Iunicipal eater, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to - applicable Public ~~~orks Department and state standards. (~~ DO 3.102.01( Community Development',Planning',2008\Des~gn Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT A.doc z Finciirtu~s_The applicant submitted a utility plan showing the water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage facilities. "I'he plan was reviewed by Vr'oodburn Public ~~'orks staff. a s Conclusion: Compliance with applicable standards will be verified by the Public Works r, Department. x ~~ All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCF,PT where ~~~ overhead high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are i i currently served by overhead wires or cables. [WDO 3.102.02] iz i3 Findings: The site plan shows proposed underground utilities. is Conclusion:~The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.102.02. The ~ s property owner shall install underground utilities for the proposed development. 16 » Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed ~s to the standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO i9 3.102.03] zo zi Findings: The abutting public street is Newberg Highway. The utility plan submitted by zz the applicant does not include street lights. z3 Conclusion: The Newberg Highway is a state facility regulated by the Oregon za Department of Transportation (ODOT). zs zb The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the z, construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage zs facilities located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public z~ Works Department standards. (VVDO 3.102.04.A] 30 3 i Findin :The dedication of the required easements will be coordinated by the Public 3z Works Department in conjunction with the establishment of any necessary facilities on 33 private property. 3a Conclusion: The property owner shall dedicate easements for the construction and 3s maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities, in accordance 36 with Vl~'DO 3.102.04.A. 3' .s z~ Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for -~o electric and telecommunications wire or cable service) shalt be dedicated along each s~ lot line abutting a public street. [~`~DO 3.102.04.BJ a~ ~: Findings: Thy dedication ofthe required casements will be coordinated b}~ the Public ..., ~1~'orks Department. Additional right-of--v. ay will he arquirrd by ODOT for the widening I.',Commun,ty Development',P{anning',2008'~Des~gn Rev~ew'~,Hwy 214 8~ S-Curve\EXHIBIT A.doc i Conclusions: Thc; property owner shall dedicate a public utility easement along the property line abutting a public street, in accordance with WDO 3.102.~4.B. The property owner shall coordinate the location of the easements with the ~~'oodburn Public Works .~ Department. h V1-~DO 3.103 Setback Open Space & Lots x Special Street Setbacks by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1 ~, The special setback shall apply to streets within the City of Woodburn as I~~ functionally classified in the Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan (WTSP). i i (WDO 3.103.US.D( iz i3 TABLE 3.1.1: SPECIAL SETBACK STANDARDS BY STREET is CLASSIFICATION WTSP Functional Classification Special setback from center line Major Arterial 50 feet is ib Finding: The site plan shows that the special setback will encroach 5 feet into the lot. In i~ addition to the special setback requirement of 50 feet, a minimum of 15 feet is required is because it is abutting a street. The proposed medical,'professional building and associated l9 parking is set back greater than 65 feet from the centerline of Highway 214. Highway zo 214 is classified as a Major Arterial in the WTSP. z~ Conclusion: The revised site plan submitted by the applicant complies with the standard zz of the WDO 3.103.OS.D. 23 za Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a zs street, EYCEPT for parking in driveways (W'DO 3.103.06] z~ z~ Findin;;: All 32 proposed parking spaces and the one required loading space are located zs on the site plan outside of the setback adjacent to the street. Z9 3v Conclusion: The proposed medicaliprofessional building and parking complies with the 3 r ~L'DO 3.103.06. 32 33 A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and 3-i driveway or a street and alley in which visual obstructions are limited for safety 35 purpose. (w D0 3.103.10] :„ Corr,mun~ty Development'.Planning+2008'•Des~gn Review\Hwy 214 8 S-Curve' EXHIBIT A.doc Vision Clearance Area: Street to Driveway pr~~perty I~ne / cwt+ Inc ' D ~: •, 0 z 3 a s 6 R ~; 1~ 13 la 15 16 I' Is le ~n ,~ ,_ driveway ~ .. ~' ~; ~. . a a 0 n a a Findin :The clear vision area for intersection of Highway 214 and the driveway access to the site would comply. No obstructions are shown on the proposed site plan. Conclusion: The applicant demonstrated compliance with the vision clearance area requirements as stipulated under the V~~O 3.103.10. WDO 3.104 Access Access to a transportation facility under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) shall be subject to the requirements of OAR 734-051 [VVDO 3.104.O1.B.4] Findings: The ingress and egress for the project is proposed to be on Highway 214 which is an ODOT facility. Information was not provided with the application in reference to ODOT approval of access to Highway 214. Conclusion: The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in accordance with OAR 734-051 regulates access, street improvement requirements to the Boundary Street, State Highway 214, and Newberg Highway. Paved Two-W'ay Driveway: 1. V`'ith no turn lane: Throat and travel lane width ?6 feet minimum, 36 feet maximum. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.l.b.1 J Findings: The site plan does not call out the width of the dri~~eway, but the submitted site plan shows it to be approximately 2V feet at the ~~ idest point for the throat and tra~•c;l lane. The ~~idth is not unitoml the entire len~~th of the ~lri~e~tiav. I:'~Community Development,Planning'~,2008'~Design Review',Hwy 2'4 8 S-Curve`EXHIBIT A.doc 6 i Conclusion: The site plan does not show the travel lane to be 26 feet wide the entire z length. The throat and travel lane width of the drive aisle may comply with ~'~~ DO 3.104.OS.E.l.b.1. Radius of Curb Flare: 30 feet minimum. ]V1-'DO 3.104.OS.E.2] ~, Finding: The site plan shows the curb flare to be greater than 30 feet. Conclusion: The development complies with V4'DO 3.104.OS.E.2. ~~ Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading iu space to the outside edge of right-of--way for a: Major street connection: 50 feet i ~ minimum, greater improvement as may be required by the T1A. (WDO iz 3.104.OS.E.4.b) i 3 FindinQS: The site plan calls out a 50 foot throat length for the proposed driveway. is Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.104.OS.E.4.b. ;~ rb Turn arounds shall be required within the off street parking area(s) and/or as » specific circulation features, to Department of Public Works requirements based on rs the review of the Fire District. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.S] ie Findings: The Department of Public Works and the Fire District have provided options to zo the applicant to eliminate the requirement for the turn around. zr Conclusion: The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with WDO 3.104.OS.E.S or one zz of the alternatives approved by Public Works and the Fire District prior to the issuance of z3 building permits. z-r z; WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and I,oadin~ z~, z~ Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements. za 1. Off street vehicle, parking spaces shall be provided in amounts not less than zn those set forth in Table 3.1.2. 30 2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed 2.0 times the amount ~ ~ required in Table 3.1.2. [WDO 3.105.02.E] TABLE 3.1.2 Off Street Parking Ratio Standards Parking Ratio -spaces per activity unit or CSe square feet of gross floor area (sfgfa) ~?. Ambulatory health services 1.0: 2~0 sfgfa [including doctors and dentists] (22) Findin<~s: The proposed office buiidin~ contains ~.~)4? square tc;et of ~~ross fluor area, requiring 3? parking spaces. The site plan sho~ti s ~? parkin~~ spaces. I:•.Commun~ty Development\Plann~ng'.2008'~.Des~gn Review'~Hwy 214 & S-Curve EXHIBIT A.doc i Conclusion: The proposed parking spaces for the proposed medicalrprofessional building z meets the requirements of WDO 3.1O5.O1.E.2 and Table 3.1.2. ~ The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shalt be provided to the s standards of the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. The number c, of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be included as part of total required vehicle parking spaces. [~~'DO 3.105.02.E.3] ~~ The number of accessible parking spaces shall be: Total Parking [n Lot Required Minimum Number of Accessible Spaces 2G to 50 2 ~o (ORS 447.233(2)(a)J ~ ~ In addition, one in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be van iz accessible. [ORS 447.233(2)(b)] -3 Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the is state Building Code and applicable federal standards. [WDO 3.105.O1.H.4.c] ~s A van accessible parking space shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an ~c, adjacent access aisle that is at least eight feet wide. (ORS 447.233(2)(b)] i; Accessible parking spaces shall be at least nine feet wide and shall have an adjacent is access aisle that is at least six feet wide. [ORS 447.233(2)(c)] ~~ A sign shall be posted for each accessible parking space. The sign shall be clearly zo visible to a person parking in the space, shall be marked with the International zi Symbol of Access and shall indicate that the spaces are reserved for persons with zz disabled person parking permits. Van accessible parking spaces shall have an z~ additional sign marked "Van Accessible" mounted below the sign. [ORS zs Findings: For the required 32 total off-street parking spaces, the proposed development zb requires 2 disabled person vehicle parking, including at least one van-accessible space. z~ The site plan shows 2 disabled person vehicle spaces, one of which is van accessible. zs Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.105.O1.E.3, z~~ w'DO 3.105.01.H.4.c, Section 1104 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code and ORS 30 447.233. ~i 3z .-~ maximum of 20 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces may be satisfied by ~3 compact vehicle parking spaces. [V~'DO 3.105.02.FJ ?-~ Findings: The proposed medical; professional building requires 32 parking spaces. The :, site plan shows 22 regular parking spaces, 2 accessible spaces. and 7 compact spaces. _,~ Twenty percent of 32 is 6.4 maximum compact spaces. The site plan shows 7 compact - spaces. ,.~ ('~~nclusie~n: The proposed development would not meet the criteria of ~~"DO 3.10~.02.F. I: Community Development`,Plann~ng`.2008',Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve EXHBIT A.doc 8 1 Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts z not less than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. ~VVDO 3.105.02.G.1 ~ TABLE 3.1.3 Loading Space Requirements :Vlinimurn Size of S ace L.'se 1~linimum :vo. of Spaces Width Length Heigh a s 6 s 9 In 11 Iz 13 Id Is 1G For buildings used entirely for office occupancy (sq. ft. Ufa) 2,000-41,999 1 12 feet 20 feet 14 fec Findin :The proposed office building contains 7,992 square feet of gross floor area, requiring oneloading space. The site plan shows one loading space that meets the minimum size and space requirements. Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of WDO 3.105.02.G.1 and Table 3.1.3. Off street vehicle parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single family and duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street parking areas shall be designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. Three or more off street parking spaces provided subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no backing or maneuvering within a public street right-of--way is required. (WDO 3.105.02.H.4.a] TABLE 3.1.4 Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (See Figure 6.10) Aisle Type Width (Measured from the Curb 1-Way 2-VVay Stall Depth midpoint of the double Length Aisle Aisle stripe) Width Width (F) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (E) 0° Standard 8.0 feet 22.5 feet 12.U feet 24.0 feet 8.0 feet (Parall el) 90° Standard 9.0 feet 9.0 feet 24.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet Compact ?.5 feet ~ .5 feet 22.(1 feet 24.U feet 15.0 feet I:'~Communrty DevelopmenC,Planning'~.2008`.Design Review`,Hwy 214 &~ S-Curve'~EXHIBIT A.doc 9 i Findin;;s: The site plan shows 16 standard 90 degree parking spaces with dimensions of 9 z feet wide and 19 feet deep. The site plan show 7 compact 90 degree parking spaces with dimensions of 7.5 feet wide and I S feet deep. The site plan also shows 4 parallel s standard parking spaces with dimensions of 8 feet wide and a curb length of 22.5 feet. s The proposed parking spaces include two ADA parking spaces. e The site plan shows at least 24-foot wide drive aisles in all places along the circulation pattern of the proposal. There would no backing or maneuvering required within a public s street right-of-way as indicated by the submitted site plan. ~~ Conclusion: The development complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.4 and Table 3.1.4. io >> Off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional markings and signs iz to control vehicle movement. (WDO 3.105.02.H.5] i 3 FindinQS: The site plan does not show directional markings for traffic;'vehicle control is movements proposed for the parking and maneuvering areas. ~s Conclusion: The site plan does not show directional markings in accordance with WDO ~6 3.105.02.H.5. i~ ~g Off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of ~~ a space. The total width of the lines shall delineate a separation of 2 feet. [WDO zu 3.105.02.H.6] zi FindinQS: The proposed parking spaces are delineated by double lines. The site plan zz shows double parallel lines. z3 Conclusion: The site plan complies with WDO 3.105.02.H.6. za zs All outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent ze residentially zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles z~ on any public street. (WDO 3.105.02.H.8J zs All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: z~ a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; 3p b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot 3 i candles; 3z c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned 33 or used property; and 3~3 d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. :~ [~~~DO 3.107.06.F.2] ?~~ Findings: The site plan is void of a lighting plan for the proposed medical; professional ?- building. The proposal would be required to submit a lighting plan that addresses _~ lighting standards for parking areas and the entrance to the subject property. ~~~ Conclusion: The site plan or utility plan does not show proposed outdoor lighting. A .~~~ condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to submit a lighting plan .~ demonstratin, compliance with the standards of ~~DO 3.1i~~.it?.H.B and the guidelines -._ and standards of ~~~DO 3.10; .~~13.B.3. (:'.Community Development',Planning'~,20081Design Review'~Hwy 214 & S-Curve'~EXHIBIT A.doc 10 i All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a ~ bicycle rack within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack a spaces shall be one plus one per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 s rack spaces. [W'DO 3.105.02.H.10] h Findings: The proposed development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. This yields a ~ requirement of four bicycle rack spaces. The site plan shows 4 bicycle rack spaces. x Conclusion: "The proposed development meet the standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.10. ~o V4'DO 3.106 Landscaping Standards << Iz The provisions of this section shall apply: i3 A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING ~a single-family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; [WDO ~ s 3.106.01 ] ~6 B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of i~ additions to structures and/or parking areas increases the total area ~s covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the ~e date of the WDO adoption. [WDO 3.106.01] zo zi Findin;;s: This proposal for a new medical; professional building consists of a new zz structure, parking spaces, and accessory structure (trash enclosure). The proposal does z3 not consist ofsingle-family dwellings, and duplexes. The proposed development does not za involve additions to structures and/or parking spaces. The proposal generates a parking zs requirement of 32 off-street parking spaces. ze Conclusion: The development is subject to `VDO 3.106 under 3.106.O1.A. as the z~ proposed building is a new structure. WDO 3.106.O1.B does not apply as the proposed zx medical,'professional building is not an addition to a structure. The proposed z~~ medical/professional building and related parking is subject to WDO Section 3.106.01. 3o Landscaping and Irrigation Plans Required. Building plans for all uses subject to ~i landscaping requirements shall be accompanied by landscaping and irrigation plans 3z to City standards. [VVDO 3.106.02.A] ,3 Findings: The submitted Design Review application packet submitted by the applicant 3.~ contained a landscaping plan. The City of V~'oodburn planning staff reviewed the 3~ landscape plans for compliance with WDO Section 3.106. ~~, All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated unless a planting plan ;- without irrigation is submitted by a licensed landscape architect or licensed nursery ~~ person demonstrating that the proposed landscaping will thrive without irrigation. ;~ (WDO 3.106.02.B] .:~, Finding: The submitted landscape plan contains notes that the: turf and planting bens ~~ ill .. be fully irrigated. The notes also state that the irrigation system ~ti ill be designed and _ installed b} a lice;ns~d conun~rcial irrigation contractor. I:',Commun~ty Development'~Planning~2008'~Design Review`.Hwy 214 8~ S-Curve'~,EXHIBIT A.doc 11 1 2 Conclusion: A condition of approval would require the applicant to submit an irrigation 3 plan that complies with WDO 3.106.02.B, prior to the issuance of building permits. The a proposal would demonstrate compliance with WDO 3.106.02.B. s ~ All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% of ground coverage within 3 years. [WDO 3.IOb.02.CJ x ~ Findin :The applicant provided plantings matrix for the proposed landscaping areas. iu The matrix provides information plant sizes and names. Cursory analysis of the proposed > > plants show that the proposal is capable of providing at least 80 percent ground cover in i2 three years. 13 ~a Conclusion: The proposed development would comply with WDO 3.106.02.C. ~s ib Installation of plant materials and irrigation specified in an approved landscaping ;; plan shall occur at the time of development and shall be a conditioned of final ~s occupancy. Should the site conditions or seasonal conditions make immediate ~~~ installation impractical, an acceptable performance guarantee may be approved zo subject to Section 4.102.17 [WDO 3.106.02.D] zi zz Findings: The proposal did not provide legal guarantees such as performance bond for 23 when the landscape plants become unhealthy. A performance guarantee or some legal za document may be required as part of this code section requirement. zs zb Conclusion: This criterion is unfulfilled. 2~ 2x The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good _ z~~ condition so as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. IInhealthy and dead 3~] plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape 3l plans. [WDO 3.106.02.D] 32 33 FindinQS: The submitted landscape plan does not provide information regarding the 3a maintenance of the landscape. 35 ,b Conclusion: Information regarding the maintenance of the landscape was not provided in 3, the application. A condition could be added to the approval requiring the landscaping to 3a be maintain in good condition in compliance with V4'DO 3.106.02.E. ~~ .:r, Street Trees. Within the public street right-of--way abutting a development, street a! trees shall be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy. ~~_ a. acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable and unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species. ~.. b. Tree Densih~. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the right-of-wav, subject to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 urrd :~, Section 6.103: LiCommunity Development',Planning'~,2008\Design Review`,Hwy 214 & S-Curve~EXHIBIT A.doc 12 ~ 1) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage; z 2) Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or 3) Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. [VVDO 3.106.03.A.1 J .~ Findings: The submitted site plans does not show proposed street trees in the public right- s of-way. The proposed development has approximately 500 feet of street frontage. r, ~ Conclusion: The applicant does not meet this criteria, pursuant to WDO Section s 3.106.03.A.1. A condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to ~> provide 20 small trees, 15 medium trees, or 10 large trees, subject to Clear Vision i u Standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103. „ LoT L rtv CS r---- itsi-2, r3ur~vi.sr.e Y^ 4 0 ~ ~ H R.s+~. ~ r-- __-~ --~- ~ 1 co va R.~6 c .~ I FRaNT I ~ ~~_~ ~ Y~.RO I ~ f6T 6I~GK LlNi~j _ ~ _ _ FRONT L4T _u~ - - . .. ~_ ST rLE ET ~,p_W. Figure 6.3 Setbacks and Yards ~z All yards abutting a street, including off street parking and circulation areas shall ,3 be landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (Pi.J) per 20 sq. ft. [WDO ,a 3.106.03.A.2.b.1~ ~ s Findings: The site plan shows that the front yard contains approximately 33,769 square ,~, feet. A total of 1,688 (33,769 divided by 20 = 1,688) plant units would be required to ,- achieve a density of 1 plant unit per 20 square feet. Almost the entire lot except the ;~ building footprint and the area behind the building is the front yard. There is a proposed ,~> 20 wide landscape strip between the property line and the parking area. Two large ~, triangular shaped planting areas on the sides of the property between the parking area, ~~: road, and buffer walls. There are also several small planters in and around the parl.ing ~~ area. The submitted landscape plan shows the total proposed plant units for the front ~: yard to be approximately 778 plant units leaving the development short 910 plant units of _ the rcyuired 1.638 plant units. C'~~nclusion: The landscape plans does not show the minimum rcyuired plant units. ,\'~ I.~Community Deveiopmenf~Planning~2008~Design Review'~Hwy 214 & S-Curve`EXHIBIT A doe 13 ~ condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to provide 1,668 plant z units in the front yard. By providing the required plant units in the front yard and parking 3 lot landscape areas, the project could meet the standard of ~~'DO 3.106.03.A.2.b.1. s All parking areas abutting a street shall provide a 42-inch vertical visual screen 6 from the abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the screening include plant materials; berms; freestanding, architectural walls with an H anti-graffiti finish, depressed grade for the parking area. All screening shall comply ~, with the clear vision standards, Section 3.103.10. [WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2] ~u Findings: The submitted landscape plan shows a 42-inch vertical visual screen in the ~ i form of a 42-inch grass berm from measured from the parking lot. iz Conclusion: The proposal could comply with WDO 3.106.03.A.2.b.2. 13 is Buffer Yards: All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit ~s (PU) per 20 sq. ft. EXCEPT' for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are !E paved and which may be used for parking, site access and vehicular circulation. i~ [WDO 3.106.03.B) ~s Findings: The adjacent properties are Retirement Community Single Family Residential ~y (RIS) making the area between the structure and the property line buffer yards. Walls are za proposed between the structure and the property line. The buffer yard would not be zt required to be landscaped if it is paved. The site plan does not call out the proposed zz surface material for the buffer yards. z3 Conclusion: The site plan does not identify the surface material for the buffer yards. The za applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards in accordance with WDO 3.103.03.B. zs zc~ All unpaved land within off street parking areas, and within 20 feet of the paved z. edge of off street parking and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in za the following proportions: CO zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 20% of the z~ paved surface area for off street parking and circulation. [WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a] 3o Findings: The total area for parking and circulation is 15,175 square feet, with twenty 3i percent of paved parking area being 3,035 square feet. The submitted landscape plan 3z show the area landscaping in and within 20 feet of the parking area to be greater than 33 5,000 square feet. 3a Conclusion: The applicant submitted a landscape plan that addresses landscaping within ~s the parking and circulation areas. The proposal meets WDO 3.106.03.C.1.a. 3n _ , The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off-street parking and ax circulation facilities, EXCLL"DI~iG reyuired trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 ?~> square feet. (Vb'DO 3.106.03.C.2) .,~, Findings: The submittal contained a landscape plan and a matrix for plant species. The .~, minimum plant units required is GO.' plant units excluding the required trees. Thu ._ submitted lands~apu plan does not shoe the minimum required plant units. (:`Community DevelopmentlPlanning`~008'~Design Review\Hwy 214 & S-Curve\EXHIBIT A.doc 14 i Conclusion: The landscape plan does not show the required plan units for off-street z parking and circulation facilities. A condition could be added to the pencil requiring the ~ applicant to submit a landscaping plan demonstrating conformance with W'DO .~ 3.106.03.0.2. 5 n 'Trees, Section 6.IU3, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities in a pattern that is in proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the x following densities: ~, a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces; ~~, b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or ~ c. 1 large tree per 14 parking spaces. (W'DO 3.106.03.0.3] ~z Multi-Purpose Landscaping. Trees and other required landscaping located on ~ z private property within a required setback abutting a street or an interior lot line ~a that is within 20 feet of the paved surface of off street parking and circulation i s facilities, may also be counted in calculating required landscaping for off street ie parking and circulation areas. (WDO 3.106.03.0.4] Findings: The development requires 32 off-street parking spaces. The submittal ~ s landscape plan shows 4 medium trees within 20 feet of the paved surface. i~~ Conclusion: The proposal meets the criteria of WDO 3.106.03.0.4. zo z~ The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive zz landscaping requirements shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant z3 unit (PU) per 50 square feet prior to final occupancy. (WDO 3.106.03.E] za Findings: The entire property is structure, front yard, or buffer yard. z~ Conclusion: There are no areas on the site that fall under this criterion. The proposed ,b development complies with the WD03.106.3.E ,, zg Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a z~ layer of bark mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a ~o minimum of 2 inches in depth. (WDO 3.106.OS.B] ~~ Finding: The submitted landscaped plan does not show that the applicant will cover non- vegetated areas with mulch. ,z Conclusion: The site plan does not show mulch covering non-vegetated areas. A z.~ condition could be added to the approval requiring the applicant to submit a plan showing _.: mulch covering non-vegetated areas compiling with ~`'DO 3.106.OS.B. ;,, _- ,~- six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking ;. area or access way. (W'DO 3.106.05.0] :~~ Findin;: The submitted site plan indicates that the project would provide a six inch curb a,~ hetwec:n landscaped areas and the parking spaces. virtually all the landscape aroas depirt~d un the; landscape plan hay e a 6-inch each ~~ edged bete een the vc`,c;tatic~n and the _. parkin` spaces. Community Development Planning12008'~Des~gn Rev~ew'.Hwy 214 & S-Curve'~EXHIBIT A doe 15 ~ Conclusion: The proposed development meets the standards of V~'DO 3.1 U6.OS.C. ~ ~'~'DO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards v The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures and buildings in the RS, R1S, R.'~1, CO, CG and P zones. (V1-'DO 3.107.06.A( x Finding: The proposed would be anon-residential retail structure in the CO zone. The ~~ submitted application packet contained architectural elevation drawings to enable staff ~o review. !! Conclusion: The proposed development is subject to the Architectural Design Guidelines !z and Standards of WDO 3.107. The criteria would be met. l3 !a Building facades visible from streets and public parking areas should be articulated ! s in order to avoid the appearance of box-like structures with unbroken wall surfaces. !6 (WDO 3.107.06.B.1.a] !~ Findin :The proposed building would be oriented towards Highway 214. The submitted i s application packet contained architectural elevation drawings and renderings depicting !~ how the design would comply with the WDO. The proposed building facade shows a zo projecting entry, different building materials and textures, and an overall L shape to break z! up the box-like appearance of the proposed building. z2 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.1.a. 23 2~3 The appearance of exterior walls should be enhanced by incorporating three 2s dimensional design features, including the following: 2t, 1) Public doorways and/or passage ways through the building. 2~ 2) Wall offsets and/or projections. zs 3) Variation in building materials and/or textures. 29 4) Arcades, awnings, canopies and/or porches. [WDO 3.107.06.B.1.b] 3o Findings: The proposed exterior wall facing the street is varied with a projecting porch 31 entry and an L shape that from different angles can appear as a wall off-set. It also 32 contains variations in building materials including windows, cultured stone veneer and 33 cement stucco. The north and east facing wall abut the proposed 6 ft. wall and will not be 33 visible from the right of way or adjacent properties. 35 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of V~'DO 3.107.(16.B.1.b. 3. r~ ;- Building exteriors should exhibit finishes and textures that reduce the visual :~ monotony of bulky structures and large structural spaces; enhance visual interest of ;~ wall surfaces and harmonize with the structural design. (WDO 3.107.06.B.2.aJ .~~; Findins: The submitted architectural elevation drawings show exterior ~~ all featuring use s: of ~~ indo~~ s along High« ay ? 1.1. The exterior ~~ ould have stucco finish ~~n the upper i.'.Commurnty Development'+P{anning'~2008`~.Des;gn Review+•Hwy 214 & S-CurvelEXH{B{T A.doc 16 i portion of the structure and a cultured stone veneer on the lower portion of the structure. The exterior is enhanced with a projected entry. ~ Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of ~~"DO 3.107.06.B.2.a. s s The appearance of exterior surfaces should be enhanced by incorporating the b following: i) At least 30% of the wall surface abutting a street should be glass. n 2) All walls visible from a street or public parking area should be surfaced ~, with wood, brick, stone, designer block, or stucco or with siding that has the io appearance of wood lap siding. ~ i 3) The use of plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, ~z T-l 11 and sheet composite siding as exterior finish materials for walls ,~ visible from a street or parking area should be avoided. to 4) The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible ~ s from a street or public parking area should be an "earth tone" color ib containing 10 parts or more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 parts or more white. Fluorescent, "day-glo," or any similar bright color ~a should not be used on the building exterior. [WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b] 19 Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation from Highway 214. zo The elevation drawings show: zi 1. The facade facing Mt. Hood Avenue contains windows which appear to total zz approximately 420 square feet, or approximately 30% of the facade area. No z3 calculations were provided on the plans. za 2. All buildings facades are finished with stucco and cultured stone veneer. zs 3. The facades do not contain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, ~a plywood, T-111 and sheet composite siding. z- 4. No information was provided on the color of the stucco. The submittal mention by zs the applicant was for a canceled land use application. The drawings are not on z~ file with the Community Development Department and the applicant did not 3o resubmit the drawing. 3i Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guidelines of WDO 3z 3.107.06.B.2.b (2) and (3); and could meet the guidelines of WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b (1) 33 and (4). ,.~ ~s Multi-planed Roof Guidelines. 3o a. The roof line at the top of a structure should establish a distinctive top to {- the building. :~ h. The roof line should Prot be flat or hold the same roof line over extended :~~ distances. Rather the roof line s/tould incorporate variations, such as: .~;, 1) Offsets andior jogs in the plane of the roof. I:~Comm,.n~ty De~~elopment',Planning'2008`,Design Review\Hwy 214 8 S-Curve'~EXHIBIT A doe 17 - 2) Changes in the height of the exterior wall for flat roof buildings, including parapet walls with variations in elevation and/or cornices. (V~'DO 3.107.06.B.3 J .~ Findings: The submitted site plan shows the main entrance elevation. It shows a gabled s entry and hipped roofline which provides off sets in the plane of the roof. c, Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.3. s All roof mounted equipment, EXCEPT solar collectors, should be screened from ~, view from streets abutting the building site. (V4'DO 3.107.06.B.4] -~; Finding: The applicant stated that no roof-mounted equipment is proposed and none is - - shown of the submitted building elevations. -z Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.8.4. 13 -a All building faces abutting a street or a public parking area should provide weather -s protection for pedestrians. [WDO 3.107.06.B.SJ -b Findings: The proposed building elevation plans show an overhang over the front -~ walkways of the building adjacent to the parking lot. It also shows the a covered gabled - s entry. -~, Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.5. zo z- The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO should be augmented to zz address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the z3 surrounding area. (WDO 3.107.06.B.6] z~ Findin :The applicant submitted a landscape plan. The applicant is proposing a single zs story structure and 6 foot high buffer walls between the structure and the abutting uses. zb The entire site, excluding the structures, paved parking and access, is required to be z; landscaped at the rate of one plant unit per 20 square feet. The submitted landscape plan zR does meet the requirements for the minimum plant units. z9 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO 30 3.107.06.B.6. 3l 3z Buffer Wall. A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less ~3 than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height: :.- a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential ;s development to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the ,,, abutting use when no comparable buffer exists, and - b. Shall be constructed where the standards of the underlying zone require zs such a wall for anon-residential use in, or abutting, a RS, R1S, or RSI :~, zoning district. W'DO 3.107.06.B.8J ~„ Findin_<s: The abutting properties are zoned Rl S, and developed with single family ., homes. ~ 6 foot high masonry «all is proposed to he constructed along the property lines _ to the north and Last ~~hc:re the; property is abutting the residential use. I.' Community Development',Planning'~2008' Design ReviewlHwy 214 & S-Curve'~EXHIBIT A.doc 18 ~ Conclusion: The proposed development does meet with the guidelines of WDO z 3.107.~b.B.8. .s Obstruction of existing solar collectors on abutting properties by site development shor~ld be mitigated. (V1-'DO 3.107.06.B.10J h Findin s: A site inspection showed no existing solar collectors on abutting properties. 7 Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.Ob.B.1(). ~, Site and Building Access Guidelines. io 1. Access to and from the site and circulation within the site should separate i i facilities for cars, trucks and transit from those for bicycles and pedestrians. ~ z 2. Site access in compliance with Section 3.104 should be augmented by the ~ 3 following considerations: is a. Vehicle Access. ~ s 1) Vehicle access points should be identified by accentuated ib landscaped areas, by entrance throats designed to control access i~ from abutting parking and by monument type entrance signs. ~ a b. Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 19 1) The buildings should be linked to the sidewalks on abutting zq streets by internal pedestrian ways. Such pedestrian ways z ~ should be either raised or delineated by distinctive pavers. zz 2) Parking areas should be designed in multiples of no more than z3 50 spaces separated by landscaped buffers or raised pedestrian z~ ways in order to minimize negative visual impacts associated zs with expansive parking. [WDO 3.107.06.C] z~ z- Findings: The site plan shows a separate pedestrian access path from the sidewalk to the za entrance of the proposed building delineated with enhanced paving where it crosses the z9 internal drives and raised sidewalks adjacent to the building. The parking area contains 3•J less than 50 spaces. The site plan show vehicular access with a 50 foot long throat. No 3 i signs hate been proposed in the application. 3z Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of VVDO 3.107.06.C. 33 3a w'ithin the prescribed setbacks, building location and orientation should 35 compliment abutting uses and development patterns. [WDO 3.107.06.D.1 ] _~= Findings: ~'he abutting uses are single family residential structures along Highway 214. _- The site plan show s the building footprint to be located out of the setbacks, leaving a 3a large front yard area with landscaping and parking abutting Highway ? 14. •y Conclusion: The building is located outside of the: prescribed setbacks. The project »~~ conforms w ith ~~'D0.3.107.Ob.D.1. I~'Commun~ty Development',Plannir,g'~.2008',Design Review'~,Hwy 214 & S-Curve',EXHIBIT A.doc ,0 ~ Off street parking between the architectural front of a building and the setback line abutting street should be limited to a depth of not more than 130 feet. [WDO 3.107.U6.E( .~ Findings: The site plan shows approximately 87 between the setback line abutting the s street and the architectural front of the proposed building. h Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of VVUO 3.107.U6.E. x Outdoor Lighting Standards. X11 outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: ~~ a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; io b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot ~ i candles; iz c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned i 3 or used property; and i a d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. 15 [WDO 3.107.06.F.2] l6 Findings: No outdoor lighting plan was submitted. lA ~9 Conclusion: The proposed development does not meet the guideline of WDO zo 3.107.06.F.2. A condition of approval could be added to require the project to comply z~ with WDO 3.107.06.F.2. zz z3 Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall be screened from the view of abutting za streets by a solid brick or architectural block wall not less than 6, nor more than 9 zs feet in height. [WDO 3.107.06.F.1] ~~ Finding: The site plan shows the trash enclosure as the only proposed outdoor storage. z- Conclusion: The proposed development does meet the guideline of WDO 3.107.06.F.1. zs z~ VVDO 3.110 Sims 30 3i Section 3.110 states the standards for the number, size, placement, and physical 3z characteristics of signs. This section applies to signs in all zoning districts within the 33 City of Woodburn. Other regulations of the City Code my also apply to signs. 34 (WDO 3.110.02] 3~ 3v Findings: The applicant did not submit any information regarding proposed signs for the 3- development. 3.t :~ C'onclusion: Compliance with «'DO 3.1 10 will he verified as part of the building permit ~„ process. Any sign on the property will be required to submit for a sign permit and obtain .. appro~ al prior to constniction. I: Community Developrnent P!ann~ng'2008`~Des~gn Review'~,Hwy 214 8~ S-CurveIEXHIBIT A.doc 20 1 "EXHIBIT B" 2 3 Design Review 2008-03 is hereby approved subject to the following conditions of 4 approval: 5 6 GE:YERAL COtiDITIO;vS 7 8 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions of approval. 9 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance 10 with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, 11 conditions of approval, or public hearing. 12 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached 13 hereto as Exhibits "A" though "D," except as modified by these conditions of 14 approval. 15 4. The term "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted as relieving the 16 property owner from complying with any requirement of the WDO. The term 17 "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted to mean that City staff has the 18 authority to waive or vary any development standard set forth in the WDO. 19 5. The applicant shall provide a 5 foot wide public utility easement along the 20 property line abutting Newburg Highway. 21 6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the 22 standards of WDO 3.105.02.H.8 and WDO 3.107.06.F.2. 23 7. The applicant shall provide an irrigation system for all landscape areas improved 24 as part of this project, in accordance with WDO 3.106.02.B. 25 8. All shrubs and ground cover shall be sized so as to attain 80% of ground overage 26 within three years, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.A. 27 9. Within the public street right-of--way the applicant shall provide 20 small trees, 15 28 medium trees, or l O large trees, subject to Clear ti ision Standards, WDO 3.103.10 29 and 6.103, in accordance with WDO 3.106.03.A.b. 30 10. The applicant shall provide detailed information on the proposed maintenance of 31 all landscaping, in accordance with V1~'DO 3.106.02.E. 32 1 1. The applicant shall provide at least 1,688 plant units of landscaping in the yard 33 abutting \ewberg Highway, in accordance with ti~'DO 3.106.03.A.2.a. 34 12. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 3,03 square feet of landscaped area 35 ~L ithin 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and. or circulation 36 impro~•ements, in accordance with w"DO 3.106.1)3.C.l.a 37 13. The applicant shall prop ide at least 607 plant units located «ithin 20 feet of the; 38 pay ed edge of the off strut parking and or circulation impro~~ements. in 39 accordance ~~ ith ~~"DO ~.106.(J3.C.2. I ".Community Development'~Plann~ng',2G08'.Design Review',Hwy 214 & S-Curve',EXHIBIT B.doc 1 14. The applicant shall provide bark mulch or decorative rock on all landscaped areas 2 not covered by plant materials, in accordance with WDO 3.106.OS.B. 3 15. The applicant shall pave or landscape the buffer yards between the proposed 4 structure and the buffer walls in accordance with V4~0 3.106.03.B. 5 16. The applicant shall provide asix-inch concrete curb between all landscaped and 6 improved as part of this project and project areas or access ways, in accordance 7 with WDO 3.106.OS.C. 8 17. Signage shall comply with WDO 3.110. 9 18. All work within the public rights-of--way or easement within city jurisdiction shall 10 require plan approval and permit issuance from the Public Works Department. 11 19. All city maintained facilities located on private property shall require a utility 12 easement to be conveyed to the city. 13 20. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state 14 and/or federal agencies, which may require approval and/or permit. 15 21. System Development fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. 16 17 The Planning Division recommends that the Commission require compliance with the 18 following guidelines of the WDO. If the Commission exercises its discretion to reduce 19 any condition noted below, the Planning Division requests that it make findings regarding 20 the reduction. 21 22. The wall surface abutting Newberg Highway shall be in glass, as shown on 22 Exhibit "D". 23 23. The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof, and awning surface visible from 24 a street or public parking area shall bean "earth tone" color containing 10 parts or 25 more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 parts or more white. Fluorescent, 26 "day-glo," or any similar bright color should not be used on the building exterior, 27 in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.B.2.b. 28 24. The landscaping required by the standards of the W'DO shall be augmented to 29 address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the 30 sun-ounding area, in accordance with WDO 3.107.06.B.6. 31 25. Vehicle access points shall be identified by accentuated landscaped areas, by 32 entrance throats designed to control access from abutting parking and by 33 monument type entrance signs, in accordance w ith V4'DO 3.10 7.06.C. 34 35 26. All outdoor lighting shall be designed in accordance with ~VDO 3.107.06.F.2. 36 37 STREET .~\D DRaIrAGE: 38 39 27. The Oregon Department of Transportatiun (ODOT) in accordance with OAR %34- 40 i1~1 r~gulatrs accc;ss, street improvement rcyuirements to the Boundary Street, (:`Community Development,Ranning`.2008'',Design Review',Hwy 214 & S-Curve',EXHIBIT B.doc 2 1 State Highway 214, and Newberg Highway. Newberg Highway is designated as a 2 ',Major arterial in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan (WISP). 3 4 28. The site is currently being served by an ODOT storm sewer system. The City of 5 V1~'oodbum has no storm sewer within \ewberg Highway. Contact ODOT for 6 permit requirements. 7 8 V~'ASTEV4'ATER: 9 10 29. The site can be served by the existing city sanitary sewer main within Rainer 11 Road. "That portion extended from existing sanitary sewer main to the property in 12 the existing Public Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road 13 shall be a city maintained system, and shall comply with Public Works 14 Department requirements, specifications, standards and permit requirements. 15 16 WATER: 17 18 30. The site can be served by the existing city water main within Rainer Road. That 19 portion extended from the existing water main to the property in the existing 20 Fublic Utility Easement within the vacated portion of Princeton Road shall be a 21 city maintained system, and shall comply with Public Works Department 22 requirements, specifications, standards and permit requirements. 23 24 31. Domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler service shall require the installation of 25 a proper type of backflow preventer. The device and meter shall be located near 26 the city water main within an easement, unless approved otherwise by Public 27 Works. Contact Scott Bergren, City of Woodburn Cross Connection Inspector for 28 proper type and installation requirements of the backflow device at 503-982-5380. 29 30 32. Fire protection requirements shall comply with the Woodburn Fire District 31 standards and requirements. Additional fire hydrants for fire protection if required 32 shall be city maintained system and installed by the applicant. The system shall be 33 placed within the public right of way or public utility easement and constructed in 34 accordance with Public Works Department requirements, specifications, standards 35 and permit requirements. 36 37 Attachments and Exhibits 38 39 Attachment ":~" Zoning :~1ap 40 Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan ~1ap 41 attachment "C" Building Division comments 42 Attachment "D" ODOT Approval of Application with :Mitigation 43 Attachment "E" Applicant's narrative regarding the design review 44 45 Exhibit ".a" Proposed Site Plan, date stampod August 1.3, 2UU8 46 Exhibit "B" Proposed l iiliiy Plan, date sian~pcd ,-~i~~usi 1-t. ~~lllh (.'Community DevelopmenY~Planning120081Design Review'~.Hwy 214 & S-Curve'.EXHtBIT B doc 3 1 Exhibit "C" Proposed Landscape Plan, date stamped August 14, 2UU8 2 Exhibit "D" Proposed Building Elevations, date stamped June 5, 2U~8 I. Community DeveiopmenC Planning\2008'.Des~gn Rev~ew`,Hwy 214 8 S-Curve\EXHIBIT B doe 4 IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON DR 2008-03 ) FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, the applicant Joe Consani requests a Design Review for a new 7,992 square foot single story medical/professional office building in the Commercial Off ce (CO) zone and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of September 11, 2008 and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony presented by staff, the applicant, and other interested persons, and; WHEREAS, the Plaiu~ing Commission closed the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to approve case number DR 2008-03 and instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION: The Planning Commission approves case number DR 2008-03 based on the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "B", which are attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein and which the Planning Commission finds reasonable. Approved: ~_ ~ < <C:E< <` ~ L It -- C `i i i G~~'' Date Claudio Lima, Chairperson I:'Community Development'.Planning200g`~Design Review'Hwy 214 & S-Curve`,Fina] Order.doc rr ~TOODBURj~ A~~.~ ~~ November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Row, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution initiating consideration of the Woodburn Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. BACKGROUND: The existing Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in October 1999. Since that time, many of the assumptions the plan was based upon have changed. On October 8, 2007, the City Council approved a Personal Services Agreement with Group Mackenzie to assist the Community Services Department in updating the Plan. The update process has been taking place one year, and has involved evaluating the current system of parks, facilities, and recreation services to develop awell-planned approach to meeting the unique needs of the Woodburn community. A comprehensive public input process, including the utilization of a statistically valid community survey, was a critical component of this planning process. This project has culminated in the development of recommendations intended to eliminate current deficiencies in the system, while also preparing for the anticipated growth in the community. The future Parks Capital Improvement Program will be updated based on the recommendations of the plan. It is likely that this update will lead to an evaluation of the City's Parks System Development Charges (SDCs). The update to the Parks and Recreation SDC methodology has been budgeted for the current fiscal year. DISCUSSION: This project is a current City Council goal. The Council's adoption of the attached resolution is a necessary procedural step in the process, since Agenda Item Review: City Administrpt Attorney~_~ Finance Mayor and City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 approving the updated plan involves making a Type V legislative land use decision under the Woodburn Development Ordinance. After conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council must then conduct its own public hearing prior to adopting the updated plan. At their October 14, 2008 meeting, the Recreation and Park Board unanimously approved a motion advising the City Council to adopt the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The contract with Group Mackenzie is in the amount of $67,500. Of the $70,000 included in the adopted 2007-2008 budget, $56,559 was spent last year, leaving $13,440 to complete the project. Amid-year adjustment to the 2008-2009 General Fund CIP budget will include a $13,440 carry forward necessary to complete the Master Plan update. This project is funded entirely by Parks System Development Charges. The project has proceeded within budget. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2753 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE LAND USE DECISION TO ADOPT THE WOODBURN PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan on October 31, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contains goals and policies related to the provision of open space and parks; and WHEREAS, the 1999 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan is described by reference in these goals and policies; and WHEREAS, the City, with considerable public involvement, has developed a draft of a Woodburn Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to Section 4.101.17 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, the Woodburn Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is referred to the Planning Commission to initiate the consideration of a legislative land use decision. ' f Approved as to form: ~~ >%~ % ` ~ ~~ `-- ~---~...~.~~ ~,' ~ ~~ 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 Pale 1 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2753 RESOLUTION NO. Honorable Mayor and City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 Staff is recommending that the Council initiate the easement vacation in accordance with ORS 271.130 and approve the attached resolution setting the public hearing for the proposed street vacation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Since this is not a street vacation, there will not be an Application Service Fee for the street vacation process; however the property owner, FHDC, may have to pay for the expenses related to the Notice of Hearing. OODBUR '~~ W N r,.., ,,.,~~a r,~n,, November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: NUEVO AMANECER PERMANENT EASEMENT VACATION 1274 5th STREET NE TRIANGLE SECTION ONLY RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution initiating a vacation proceeding, setting a public hearing date for the vacation of a permanent easement, located on the northeast corner of 1274 5th Street. BACKGROUND: This permanent easement is a triangular section, located in the northeast corner of 1274 5th Street, the Farmworker Housing Development Corporation (FHDC) property. This portion of the Permanent Easement does not have public or franchise utility lines and is being occupied by building 9 of the apartment complex. There are no plans to install utility lines in this section of the easement. DISCUSSION: FHDC is rehabilitating the existing apartments and building 9 is in conflict with the permanent easement. Mr. Roberto Jimenez, Executive Director of FHDC, submitted a petition to vacate the subject portion of the permanent easement in July 2008. Then at a later date Mr. Mike Di Blasi, Project Manager, for FHDC asked if an easement correction can be done in lieu of a vacation process. Public Works's staff conferred with legal staff and concluded that the City should proceed with the vacation process. City Staff have reviewed the site and the location of utility lines in the vicinity of the site and have concluded that it is in the City's benefit that the vacation process be initiated by the City as per ORS 271.080 and 271.130. Agenda Item Review: City Administrato ity Attorney /`'' " ` Fin COUNCIL BILL NO. 2754 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE VACATION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT, A TRIANGULAR SECTION IN NE CORNER OF 1274 5'" STREET, AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO GIVE PUBLIC NOTICE. WHEREAS, the City Council has the legal authority to initiate a vacation proceeding; and WHEREAS, It is in the public interest to conduct a public hearing on the question of whether certain portions of the existing permanent easement in 1274 5'h Street should be vacated; and WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that Council establish a time and place for a public hearing to start the vacation process; and WHEREAS, the City Council, through this resolution, initiates the proposed vacation, NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The tract of real property subject to the proposed easement vacation is legally described as follows: A Portion Of An Easement For Utility Facilities, With All Appurtenances Incident Thereto Or Necessary Therewith, Recorded November ?, 1977 In Reel 101, Page 0749, Microfilm Records For Marion County, In, Under And Across A Portion Of Parcel 1 Of Partition Plat No. 93-15, Recorded March 2, 1993 In Reel 1037, Page 0403, Microfilm Records For Marion County, Located In The Southeast One-Quarter Of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 1 West Of The Willamette Meridian, City Of Woodburn, County Of Marion, State Of Oregon, More Particularly Described As Follows: That Triangle Formed By A Line Extended From The Two Southwesterly Corners Of An Existing Easement (Tax Lot No. 173 1-2, Vol. 71 3, Page 0684, Milbro Inc.), A Distance Of 178 Feet More Or Less. A diagram of above described area is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein. Section 2. That 7:00 P.M. on December 8, 2008 in the Woodburn City Council Chambers, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, Oregon, is the time and place for the public hearing on whether the above-described permanent easement shall be vacated. Page 1 -Council Bill No. 2754 Resolution No. Section 3. That the City Recorder is directed to give notice of the public hearing as provided by law. Approved as to form: r ~ ~ Date: City Attorney 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 Bill No. 2754 Resolution No. EXHIBIT "A" / EASEMENT NOTES O1 LIMBED ACCESS PROVISIONS AND PERMANENT SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN DEED TO STATE OF OREGON. B1' ANp THROUGH RS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION RECORDED OCTOBER B, 1971 IN BOOK 713, PAGE 0684, DEED RECORDS. O2 AN EASEMENT FOR UTILf1Y PURPOSES TO THE CRY OF WOODBURN PER DOCUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 2, 1977 IN REEL 101, PAGE 0749, FlLM RECORDS. PORTION OF EASEMENT TO BE VACATED PARCEL 1 PARTITION PLAT NO. 93-15 \ / , / \ / 5\ tli~ \ \ ~3b•'" 15 J~ \ all p611 yAQ~R 110 Gl`~ \ Q A~~1~,0~ ~~ \ 'Y~ \ / \ / ~~K, P~Ov ~~~~ ~I~.tg~ ~,oE~ / / Z 1~AAk/ / i StP / \ v; / ~ ~~ \ / / \\ASk~ % / EASEMENT SKETCH ~~ NUEVO AMANECER PHASE I 1274 FF'TH STREET IN 7HE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T5S, R1W, W.M. CITY OF WDODBURN, MARION CWNTY, OREGON / \~A5"% / SZP / \ / \ \ / ~ ..SO ~ / / r- . ., _ f~ OODBURN W ,.,...,.:..~,.; „yy A iz~». November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Via: Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police From: Thomas P. Tennant, Captain SUBJECT: Liquor License Change of Ownership Full On-Premises Sales RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council recommend a change of ownership application for Casa Marquez Mexican Grill. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Marquez, Enrique 5970 South West Erickson Ave Beaverton, Oregon 97005 Ph: 503-649-8079 Trade Name: Casa Marquez Mexican Grill Business: Casa Marquez Mexican Grill 553 N. Front St. Woodburn, Or. 97071 Ph: 503-981-3619 License Type: Full On-Premises Sales -Permits beer, wine, cider and hard alcohol sales for on-premises consumption only. On October 20, 2008 the Woodburn Police Department received an OLCC application requesting approval for a change of ownership for Restaurante Los Agenda Item Review: City Administra ity Attorney S Mayor and City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 Cantaros located at 553 N. Front St. The new name for the restaurant will be Casa Marques Mexican Grill. The Above mentioned applicant has purchased the business and is applying for a license. Restaurante Los Cantaros currently has a Full On-Premises Sales License. During the last 12 months there were no reported liquor law violations at Restaurante Los Cantaros. The business will be open from 9:00 am to 10:00 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9:OOam to 12:00 am Friday through Sunday. The applicant advises the business will be selling beer, wine and hard alcohol along with serving food during normal business hours. There will be recorded music and Video Lottery Machines available as entertainment. The police department has received no communication from the public or surrounding businesses in support of or against the change of ownership. DISCUSSION: The police department has completed a background investigation on the applicant and found nothing of a questionable nature, which would preclude the issuance of this Liquor License. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION PRINT LICENSE TYPES ~ull On-Premises Sales ($402.60lyr) ^ Commercial Establishment ^ Caterer ^ Passenger Carrier ^ Other Public Location ^ Private Club ^ Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ^ Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) ^ with Fuel Pumps ^ Brewery Public House ($252.60) ^ Winery ($250/yr) ^ Other: ACTIONS ~hange Ownership ^ New Outlet ^ Greater Privilege ^ Additional Privilege ^ Other FOR CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY The city council or county commission: (name of city or county} recommends that this license be: Granted ^ Denied ^ By: (signature) (date) Name: Title: ^ Limited ^ Corporation ^ Limited Liability Partnership Company OLCC USE ON Y Application Recd by: J~ ~ iC S Date: ~ U Individuals ~, - 90-day authority: ^ Yes ^ No 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] t0 ~~ ~i9r~quL Nl~2u~z O 2. Trade Name (dba):f,A~~~'il:©UGL /~( ~X~G~ AI ~r~L1 3. Business (number, street, rural route) (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: SArl~f (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers:~5o~ 9$I -,3(,) ~ ~? r.W (phone) ~~ ~~ (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? i~"Yes ^No -p ,~vs C~„{~o„rv5 7. If yes to whom: ~s~~cp,n~G QzxQ~urtD ,(,/,,G. Type of License: ~y~~ ~y1 - ~trrJ/,SP~.S 8. Former Business Name: ~.Kn'IwRAd!'n~ ~ C+4NTi4 9. Will you have a manager? ^Yes ~ Name: Nj~ (manager must fill out an individual history form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? G. v OL' woo Ur"~ (name o city or unty) 11. Contact person for this application:._.) UI ia~ C'. ~ ~2 r, (name) rs~y C~ti1r~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~et.~ 9~ye,~ ,~ (address) (fax I p~~ ~w~ ~~s~' ~~ o~~wsl,~p ,~ (ph number(s) '~ ``,~ (e-mail address) I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application. n Applicant(s) Si ature(s) and Date: ~ ~,.., ~ I V E J ~~ Date l 30 0 ~ OREG~ N LiCUG ; ;6'~'t~ %~ ~~%'~.;'Y~iS~i~~t J Date 1-800-452-OLCC 56522) www.oregon.gov/o cc SALEM REG~c~~AI~~rF1CE SEP ~~~a08 /~i~;_ ~'r'~s Faw.«, ~' `J~TOODBUR~J A~-Qw 1 November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: COUNCIL UPDATE ON MIDGE FLY PRESENCE IN WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION: Discuss current Midge Fly presence in the water supply system and potential benefits of chlorination for the water supply system. Should Council consider chlorination of our municipal water supply system, staff will update Council on the estimated cost for this capital improvement project and budgetary adjustments needed to finance this project. BACKGROUND: The City first became aware of the presence of Midge Flies in the water supply system in 2005. Public Works staff solicited the assistance of Oregon State University (OSU) to identify the organism observed in the water supply system and it was identified as the Midge Fly. The Midge Flies access to the water supply system was believed to have been through an overflow vent pipes that dumped directly into a catch basin. The Midge Fly is prevalent in storm water catch basins and drainage ways. The overflow vent pipe provides a direct path for the Midge Fly and other organisms into the water supply reservoir and ultimately the entire water supply system. Public Works staff has since installed a device in the overflow vent pipe to block organisms from having a direct path to the reservoir and permits discharge of water in the event of overfilling of the reservoir. DISCUSSION: The actions taken to date that inhibit the infiltration of new organisms, such as the Midge Fly, into the water supply system do not eliminate the organisms that have already entered the water supply system. Those organisms that are in the water supply system flourish because they have an ideal environment that has an ample food source and no predators in the food chain to reduce the population by natural means. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat ity Attorney i " Finance Honorable Mayor and City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 The ample food source for the Midge Fly is the biofilm in the water supply system. The microbiology of distribution systems essentially consists of two different environments-microorganisms in the bulk water column and those in biofilms attached to the surfaces of pipes, sediments, and other materials. Microorganisms in the bulk water column originate from either the source water, from bacterial growth within the treatment process (e.g., within the treatment filters), from biofilms within the distribution system, or from recontamination of the water from cross connections, intrusion, pipe breaks, or other external sources. Disinfecting the water entering the system does not control the microbiological activity that is associated with the biofilm environment in a water distribution system. This disinfection at point of entry reduces the possibility of new and potentially harmful organisms from entering and contaminating the water supply system. However, this point of entry disinfection does nothing to control the microbiological activity occurring within the water supply system without a disinfection process that contains a residual disinfection capability. The City's current water treatment processes provide point of entry disinfection that is associated with the use of Potassium Permanganate. Potassium Permanganate is primarily intended to remove unwanted mineral deposits in the raw well water. A secondary benefit of the Potassium Permanganate is the initial disinfection of the raw water. However, Potassium Permanganate does not provide any residual disinfection of the water supply system. Chlorination of municipal water systems is the most proven and cost effective means of providing system wide disinfection of water supply systems. While chlorination of the City's water system would not directly eliminate the Midge Fly, it would significantly reduce the biofilm within the water distribution system that provides nutrients in which the Midge Fly thrive within the water supply system. Chlorination provides greater protection to the community with regard to control of other pathogens that may enter the water supply system. The water supply system is not a sealed system and the possibility exists for contaminates entering the distribution system. The City hired the consulting firm Kennedy/Jenks to perform a disinfection system cost evaluation in July 2005. This study looked at various means of disinfection and compared costs. The cost of providing onsite generation of chlorine (the safest means of providing chlorine) was estimated at $484,000. The use of chlorine gas injection is less expensive, but provides many handling safety issues that must be factored in doing acost/risk comparison of alternatives. """`~~~,~s_ WooDBURN A I~ November 10, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Derickson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Proposed City/Chamber Economic Development Discussion/Working Group RECOMMENDATION: Consider appointing a City Councilor (and one City Council citizen representative if deemed appropriate) to the proposed, and informal, City of Woodburn/Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Discussion/Working Group. Overall, the purpose of the group is to create an overall economic development strategy or plan for the City Council's consideration. BACKGROUND: On October 21, 2008, the City Administrator and the Assistant City Administrator met with the Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development and Tourism Committees to discuss various on-going economic development efforts. During the course of discussion, it was noted that - in terms of economic development - very little coordination is occurring between our two organizations. It was also pointed out that both the City of Woodburn and the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce share a common mission of promoting a vibrant local economy. Consequently, the notion of forming aCity/Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Discussion/Working Group as an informal means of developing a mutually supportive and coordinated economic development approach and/or strategy was discussed at length. DISCUSSION: Current economic development programs, ranging from Woodburn's Downtown Development Plan (Urban Renewal) to the Chamber of Commerce's tourism efforts, could benefit from a clearly defined and focused economic development partnership between not only the City and the Chamber of Commerce, but other community stakeholders as well. Agenda Item Review: City Admini Attorney~~ J Fin Honorable Mayor and City Council November 10, 2008 Page 2 The purpose of the Economic Development Discussion/Working Group, consisting of representatives from the City of Woodburn and the Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development and Tourism Committees (and other likely partners) is to: Discuss and develop a community partnership for coordinating existing economic development efforts between the City of Woodburn and the Chamber of Commerce (and potentially other stakeholders). This could be established, for example, in the form of a mutually agreed strategy, an economic development plan or other arrangements; 2. Identify new economic development opportunities (such as visioning, tourism, business retention, expansion and recruitment programs, etc. and funding sources; 3. Identify other community stakeholders and potential partners; 4. Define roles, establish expectations and create an economic development partnership between the City of Woodburn and the Chamber of Commerce, and; 5. Provide periodic updates to the City Council, making a final report with recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No budgetary impact is anticipated at this time. It is being proposed that the group be staffed by the City Administrator, the Assistant City Administrator, and the Chamber Executive Director. It is also expected that the new Community Development Director will also participate in this effort once on-board.