Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda - 02/09/2009
CITY W T O F 00 D B U R N DICK PUGH, 000NCILOR WARD 1 AMENDED AG E ~,I DA J. MEL SCHMIDT, COUNCILOR WARD II PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV n e FEBRUARY 9, LOO 7 ~ 7.00 P.M. FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V KRISTEN BERKEY, COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. City Hall and the Library will be closed Monday, February 16tH for President's Day. The Aquatic Center will be opened during normal business hours. Appointments: B. Sign Standards Focus Group C. Mayor appointed to MWACT 4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None Presentations: None 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Woodburn School District b. 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 aisporli~iles Sara aque~~as personas que no ~jab~an Ing~es~ previo acuerao. Cornuniquese a~ (5031980-2485." February 9, 2009 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 may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council regular and executive minutes of 2 January 26, 2009. Recommended Action: Approve the minutes, B. Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 11, 2008 15 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. C. Planning Project Tracking Sheet 30 Recommended Action: Accept the Report. D. Accounting of Emergency Expenses 33 Recommended Action: Accept the Report. E. I-5 Woodburn Interchange Project Federal Appropriations 35 Candidate Recommended Action: Accept the Letter. F. Park and Recreation Board Minutes 38 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. PUBLiC HEARINGS A. Appeal of CU 2008-01, located at 595 North Pacific Highway, 41 tax lot 051 W 17BB09300. February 9, 2009 Council Agenda Page ii 11. GENERAL BUSINESS - Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to, commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill No. 2763 - A Resolution authorizing the transfer of 136 operating contingency appropriations during fiscal year 2008- 09. Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution. B. Appropriations Request from Oregon House Delegation Fiscal 140 Year 2010. Recommended Action: Approve submission of the Congressional Allocation Request Form to Representative Kurt Schrader's Office. C. 2009 OLCC Renewal 148 Recommended Action: The Woodburn City Council recommend to the OLCC renewal of liquor license for the listed business for the year of 2009. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS -These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Covncil. None 13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 15. ADJOURNMENT February 9, 2009 Council Agenda Page iii CITY OF WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD 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 ~prero'ga~tiv~e.- ~ J~ ~ (~ NAME: ..,~' 1~~~ % '~iti~-~F'~ L~ PHONE #: ~()~ _ ~ ~ (~ -~~ 3~ ADDRESS: AGENDA DATE: COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM #: ,~.I.C ` 2©~~~ ~ 1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Follow-up: CITY OF WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD 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. NAME: ~ C~Y\ J tJ ~ S cM PHONE #: Cs`v3) y~Z ~`~~ 1 -7 ADDRESS: ,Z~'I ~ 1'fG2C-~ r7ut-~r~w~ AGENDA DATE: Z~~/ ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM #: l U° A~ COMMENTS: ~(~t:?SC ~'f C ~~xsi'` Si ~r~ ~tiE' ~U FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Follow-up: ~ ~ i. • ~ 1~ W o RN lncorporq,tA X889 February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and C~ity/Council FROM: Kathy Figley, Mayor ~ J SUBJECT: Focus Group Appointments for the Woodburn Development Code (sign and land use standards) review. Council has discussed the need to evaluate the city's sign standards, which ore contained in the Woodburn Development Code (WDO). The purpose of the Focus Group will be to provide input as changes are evaluated and move forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director would also like to have the Focus Group involved in other WDO amendments he is initially proposing to improve the WDO. The following appointments are made, subject to the approval of the Council. Focus Group -Woodburn Development Code (sign and land use standards) Ellen Bandelow/Dick Jennings Pete McCallum/Jim Cox Dave Christoff Bruce Thomas Dan Dinges Teri Sunderland Sign Companies Cliff Zauner Phil Hand Planning Commission (Bandelow - signs/Jennings -other amendments) City Council (signs/other amendments) Chamber Chamber Business (small/large) Business (small/large) To be determined Citizen Citizen Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 1 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 26, 2009. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0020 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Berkey Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present (8:13 pm) Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Pugh Present Councilor Schmidt Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Public Works Director Brown, Acting Police Chief Blevins, Community Development Director Hendryx, Finance Director Gillespie, Community Services Director Row, Recorder Tennant For the record, Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Lonergan had some business obligations to attend this evening that conflict with this meeting time. 0061 ANNOUNCEMENTS. Mayor Figley stated that a committee is being formed to take a closer look at the sign code and she encouraged any member of the public who might be interested in being a part of this committee to contact the City Administrator's office or Community Development Department. She will be making appointments at the next Council meeting. 0094 PRESENTATION: OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Alan Fox, ODOT Project Manager for Area III -Mid Willamette Valley, stated that he is currently managing the following three Woodburn Projects: 1) Woodburn Interchange, 2) Transit Facility and Evergreen Road; and 3) Broughton Way to Park Avenue. He stated that the Transit Facility and Evergreen Road project is his main topic for Council update since he hopes to have a draft agreement for the City to review later this week in the hopes of having a final agreement approved by the Council at their February 23, 2009 meeting. He also noted that each of these projects have documents that are available for public review and there is a link on the City's Website for the public to access those documents. In regards to the Interchange project, Mr. Fox stated that it is being engineered into the design acceptance package which is less than the full set of preliminary plans. In Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING retrospect, he felt that ODOT did not do a very good job in talking to the City about the environmental assessment and explaining that environmental assessment plans are not shovel-ready plans. ODOT is currently completing their surveying which they expect it to complete in July 2009 with the design phase to begin in late summer or early fall. Once the design is completed and approved, ODOT can acquire right-of--way and get the permits for the project. It is hoped that more information on the funding aspect will be available by that time. In regards to improvements from Broughton Way to Park Avenue, the same steps are being followed similar to the Woodburn Interchange project and ODOT will be looking at potentially three alternative alignments followed by an environmental assessment on the alignment plan chosen. In regards to the Transit Facility at Oregon Highway 214 and Evergreen, this project includes extension of Evergreen Road from Highway 214 north to Country Club Court. Mr. Fox reviewed the project scope and preliminary schedule for the I-5 interchange project and stated that public involvement will take place on (1) the aesthetics during the first quarter of 2010 and (2) the traffic control plan in mid-2010. The traffic control plan will include separate meetings with businesses since they will experience an impact when construction begins but ODOT will be working on minimizing the impact. He reiterated that, since funding has not been allocated for this project, these time periods are still preliminary since the design has not been completed and a more accurate schedule will be available once the survey has been completed. It is anticipated that the design acceptance package will be approved in mid-2011, however, it will still take three to four years before the project would be completed. If funding were approved, ODOT would accelerate this project above other projects they have on the list. He stated that the I-5 project limits are from Willow Ave to Broughton Way. The interchange project will involve raising the elevation of Highway 214 to improve the line of sight resulting in some other traffic disruptions which is why ODOT is interested in building Evergreen Road as part of the Transit Facility project. The preliminary Broughton Way to Park Avenue improvement project schedule begins with a public review of the alternatives in the summer/fa112009, a draft environmental assessment in the fall/winter 2009, and a public hearing the latter part of 2009 or early 2010. Mr. Fox stated that the Transit facility (Park n Ride) project scope includes extension of Evergreen Road from Highway 214 to Country Club Court and building a new access road into the facility. The preliminary concept sketch provides for a complete separation of buses from pedestrians, approximately 154 parking spaces, providing electrical conduit in the event some plug-ins for electric vehicles are installed, and a transit platform will be designed to carry solar panels but ODOT will not install them. He stated that even though there is no final design on the I-5 project, he has worked with ODOT's interchange designer to make sure that the facility is back faz enough from Highway 214 so that any widening of the highway can be accommodated. The agreement ODOT will be submitting to the City approves the alignment of Evergreen Road which is exactly the same as what was in the environmental assessment which establishes the basis for ODOT Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 3 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING to do the Transit facility project. He reviewed the following objectives that ODOT is trying to achieve with the Transit facility project: (1) future use of solar energy and transit, (2) improved connectivity in the I-5 interchange area, and (3) aesthetics responsive to gateway location with the transit shelter and landscaping in the project area which will include public involvement. In this particular project, ODOT will manage the project development and construction, Otak consultants will be designing the plans and specifications and obtaining the permits, and the City will provide technical review of the plans, operate and maintain the transit facility, and will take jurisdiction of Evergreen Road. He reiterated that until design approval has been received, ODOT is unable to acquire right-of--way which extends out the time period before a project is completed. In this case, the schedule calls for a bid opening in May 2011 but if the property owners are cooperative in selling their land, than the project could be completed sooner than outlined in the preliminary schedule. Councilor Pugh questioned if the Evergreen Road improvement involves only the north side of Highway 214 and if preliminary drawings of the I-5 interchange project are subject to change. Mr. Fox affirmed that Evergreen Road would be improved only to the north of Highway 214. He also stated that the plans approved in the environmental assessment are the basis for the I-5 interchange design and additional engineering work to develop the design set of plans may involve some revisions to the environmental assessment plans. Councilor Pugh also questioned if ODOT is firm on their position relating to construction of another interchange at Crosby Road. Mr. Fox that the I-5 interchange project is for improvement of the current interchange (Highway 214) and the addition of a new interchange area on Crosby Road would be the subject of a new planning process. He stated that he was not commenting on the feasibility of a Crosby Road interchange since the I-5 interchange project currently before ODOT and the City involves improvements between Willow Avenue and Broughton Way. Councilor Schmidt questioned when the I-5 interchange improvement project was first started. Mr. Fox stated that he is aware of a feasibility study that was done in 2000 and the environmental study was done in 2003-2005 to determine the basic alternatives for the interchange design. Councilor McCallum stated that the first plans were developed in the early 1990's. Councilor Schmidt questioned if the Settlemier Avenue /Highway 214 intersection project is an ODOT project. Mr. Fox stated that he is familiar with the project but this is a City project. Administrator Derickson questioned the definition of a shovel-ready project as it relates to the transportation stimulus package and what the City can do to try and move a project up so that it could meet some definition of shovel-ready project. Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 4 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING Mr. Fox stated that working on getting the footprint design done will improve the readiness score of the interchange project. ODOT has determined that there are enough funds available to get the footprint design completed which will then be a significant advance to the point where it would improve the score of this project compared to other projects that did not have the footprint design. Additionally, the I-5 interchange project is already the #1 project in the area. Projects that will receive funding under the stimulus package will more than likely be those that already have all the permits in hand and all of the right-of--way acquired so construction can begin. As far as funding for this project, he felt that funding would be more likely under the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill rather than the economic stimulus package. He stated that ODOT is developing a list of projects and he believes that many of the projects will involve resurfacing projects. Administrator Derickson stated that the City has turned in a proposed overlay project for Young Street since staff felt that it would qualify as a shovel-ready stimulus project. Public Works Director Brown stated that distribution of funds from the stimulus package is fairly complex and, under the House of Representative's proposed bill, Oregon could receive about $341 million for transportation projects. Those funds would then be distributed similar to the way the surface transportation program is now and Woodburn would be allocated to receive a share based on our population. ODOT would retain about $245 million for state highway projects with the balance to the counties and cities. Based on the City's population, Woodburn could receive between $350,000 and $400,000 and Young Street was identified as having the greatest need that would meet the criteria for funding. In regards to the Highway 214 / Settlemier project, he stated that it is an ODOT project but the City was responsible for the design which was then reviewed and approved by ODOT. Additionally, ODOT awarded the bid and is executing the construction management and engineering. This is considered a local project which is different from the projects being discussed at this meeting. Administrator Derickson also questioned what could be done to widen Highway 99E. Mr. Fox stated that if a project is at the beginning stages, it would need to go to MWACT for consideration and it would compete against other projects before MWACT. Assuming MWACT approved the project, it would go through a process that may or may not involve an environmental assessment and eventually accorded a project number through MWACT and onto ODOT for consideration. Mr. Fox stated that the project budget for the building of Evergreen Road and the Transit Facility is $7.7 million. He briefly reviewed the following Agreement issues: (1) the Agreement would have a 20 year term which would begin when ODOT transfers jurisdiction of Evergreen Road to the City; (2) ODOT would retain title to the Transit facility land in case of an expansion need for the interchange, however, the agreement authorizes the City to have operational control and use of the transit facility for the term of the Agreement with some ODOT oversight on third party agreements; (3) establishes the standards for design and construction of Evergreen Road and the access road which Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 5 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING will require City approval of design variations; and (4) the Evergreen Road alignment is the same as approved in the environmental assessment but the road cannot be built without the City's approval of the alignment as designed. He stated that ODOT would plan, acquire the right-of--way, and build the project whereas the City will maintain the transit facility, access road, Evergreen Road, and landscaping. In regards to Access Control, the City will be in control of accesses north of the transit facility and other approaches to private property. Mr. Fox then reviewed the following tentative schedule of meeting with the Council: February 23, 2009 on the cooperative agreement, March 23, 2009 on the interchange project; April 27, 2009 on the Broughton to Park Avenue improvement, then quarterly reports thereafter. He stated that he will have consultants available at meetings where issues need to discussed in more detail. Councilor Schmidt questioned the amount of area is needed to widen the roadway from the high school property to Park Avenue. Mr. Fox stated that it depends on the alternative selected, however, the roadway will be expanded at least one more lane in each direction and more discussion on the actual width will be at a future meeting. Some property will have to be acquired to widen the roadway He stated that the intent is to stay away from the south side as much as possible because of the residential property but the north side has public property that is protected environmentally by a special section of the Environmental Protection Act and if they cannot work this out with the School District to their satisfaction, then they need to go into a lengthy report that will double their work. ODOT is highly motivated to negotiate with the School District to acquire whatever property is needed. Director Brown stated that the right-of--way being given up by the City on the Nuevo Amanecer property is a utility easement right-of--way and if the City ever had to go onto that easement for a roadway, then the City would have to take and remove the building that is also on that utility easement. If the road would ever go that far to the south, the City would have to remove a full unit of housing because most of the utility easement is underneath the dwelling. He reiterated that the utility easement is not road right-of--way and this is an isolated piece of a utility easement. Councilor Schmidt stated that his concern is that if the City has to give the easement up then it will cost more money if it is needed in the future whereas if we retain the easement then the City has a negotiating factor in the future. Director Brown expressed his feeling that looking at the cost of what would happen under that particular scenario the property is insignificant due to the fact that the City would be taking a full dwelling of an apartment building . He also mentioned that allowing the easement to remain puts an encumbrance on that particular building that is going to cause a great deal of difficulty for Nuevo Amanecer to finance improvements that are currently taking place. Councilor McCallum stated that he would like information on the operation and maintenance costs of the transit facility before a decision is made on the proposed agreement. He also questioned if sidewalks recently constructed in the vicinity of the Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 6 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING high school will be removed if Highway 214 is widened between Broughton and Park Avenue. Mr. Fox stated that the sidewalks will be removed but this project is not funded yet and by the time it is funded the sidewalks will probably have had a good useful life out of the sidewalk. Administrator Derickson requested that a chronological time line from the 1990's on the I-5 interchange project be provided at the March 23, 2009 meeting. Mr. Fox stated that he will see what information is available regarding this project that would have taken place prior to the year 2000. 4045 PRESENTATION: AUDITORS REPORT. Finance Director Gillespie stated that the annual financial report is included in the Agenda Packet and the information in the report is the public's assurance that financially everything is as it is presented. Brad Bingenheimer, CPA from Boldt Carlisle Smith, stated that there are 5 major sections to the audit report: 1) independent auditors report which is the their letter to the City regarding the financial statements, 2) Management Discussion and Analysis in which the City's Finance Department has provided some additional informational and summary financial information to help the reader understand the statements, 3) the basic financial statements required under General Accepted Accounting Principles, 4) budget detail information of the various funds of the City that are not presented as part of the basic financial statements, and 5) disclosures and comments required under the Oregon minimum standards for audits of municipal corporations. In the Auditor's report, they have given an unqualified opinion on the financial statements which says that the financial statements do present fairly the financial position and results of operation of the City for the year ending June 30, 2008 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The basic financial statements provide summary overview of the City as a whole on a full accrual basis of accounting which includes capital assets. He stated that over a period of time an increase in net assets is a good indicator of increasing financial health in the City. In the fourth major section of the report, the fund statements focus on economic resources and uses that are actively managed on a daily basis and these statements do not include capital assets or long term debt. An increase in these fund balances shows financial improvement and that the City is managing its resources effectively. Within the disclosure and comments section, he stated that they had evaluated the City's internal controls and felt that they are adequate given the size and complexities of the City's operations. They are also required to comment on the collateralization of public funds and during the fiscal year the City did have adequate collateralization with the depository institutions. Effective July 1, 2008, there was a change in Oregon law that changes how these public funds are going to be collateralized and now all depository institutions that accept funds from public entities are pooling all of their requirements for collateralization under the Oregon State Treasurer's Office. The Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 7 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING auditors also look at (1) indebtedness to see that the City is incompliance with long term debt covenants and legal lending limits and budgetary preparation, adoption, and execution during the year; (2) insurance and fidelity bonding; (3) programs funded by outside sources which are also subject to an audit from outside agencies; (4) funds received from State Gas Tax; (5) how the City invests their money since there are limitations on investment options; and (6} public contracting and purchasing under the provisions of Oregon State law. He stated that the City was in compliance in all of the areas which the auditors are required to comment on in the audit report. 5138 (Councilor Lonergan arrived at the meeting at approximately 8:13 p.m.) Councilor Cox stated that some other governmental organizations have experienced embezzlement of a large amount of funds by public officials and he questioned if there is anything the City should be doing to look at procedures other than end of year audit. Mr. Bingenheimer stated that there is more that could be done but there is a cost that needs to be considered. As auditors, they are required to evaluate the internal controls and to actively consider how and where fraud could occur. He felt that the City is where they ought to be, however, the City could engage either their firm or another to come in and do a very detailed analysis of all of the City's control systems and provide additional recommendations. He also mentioned that the City is also constrained by the number of people actually working within the financial system and they feel that the Finance Department has done a pretty good job of segregating duties so that no one person has complete control over an entire process. Councilor Berkey questioned if the City is meeting an effective budget plan. Mr. Bingenheimer stated that the auditors do not evaluate if the budget is effective. They do, however, look at if the budget process and the budget document to insure that it meets compliance with Oregon standards under Local Budget Law. Once the budget has been established, they look at making sure that the expenditures are within the appropriations and if there was non-compliance, then they would make a comment in the audit report that the City did not comply with specific items. As auditors, they do not determine if resources are adequately allocated to provide the maximum amount of services to the citizens. 5995 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the City Council minutes of December 8, 2008; B) approve the City Council special meeting and executive session minutes of January 5, 2009; C) approve the City Council minutes of January 12, 2009; D) accept the Audit Reports for fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 (City and Urban Renewal District}; E) accept the Recreation and Park Board minutes of January 13, 2009; F) accept the Library Board minutes of January 14, 2009; G) accept the Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2009; Page 7 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 8 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING H) accept the Planning Project Tracking Sheet report dated January 21, 2009; I) accept the Building Activity report for December 2008; and J) accept the December 2008 Claims report. Councilor Schmidt questioned if the Recreation & Park Board and Planning Commission minutes can be held over since they did not receive packet until late Friday and he was unable to throughly review the materials prior to this meeting. COX /MCCALLUM ... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented except for Items (E) & (G) which then can be addressed separately. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Schmidt stated that he was willing to approve the Planning Commission minutes but the reason he had questioned if it could be held over is because no minutes had been provided to the Council for the month of December 2008. Councilor Pugh suggested that staff make a change in the date in which the agenda is distributed to Wednesday rather than Friday incase there is a concern or problem that can be addressed with staff prior to the Council meeting. Administrator Derickson stated that staff is willing to change the agenda release date to Wednesday. He also stated that he will check on the status of the December 2008 Planning Commission meeting minutes. COX/MCCALLUM.... approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2009. The motion passed unanimously. 6697 PUBLIC HEARING: FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 8:28 pm. Tape 2 Finance Director Gillespie commented on four items within the staff report which have different figures than what was advertised in the newspaper. The first item involves advertising costs for the City Administrator's position which totaled $40,855, however, $16,000 of this total was spent in FY 2007-08 and this amount does not need to be included in the supplemental budget. The correct appropriation amount should be $25,000 which is the balance to be paid from the FY 2008-09 budget. The second item is located in the General CIP Fund and involves the Museum Wall project. In this case, the project began in FY 2007-08 but was carried over to the current fiscal year. The appropriation advertised was for $15,000 but additional work will need to be done to make the necessary repairs and the new appropriation amount is $26,200. Additional operating contingency funds will be transferred to this appropriations line item to pay for the extra construction work. Thirdly, the Sewer Construction Fund indicated a decrease in the Beginning Fund balance by $899,003, however, this amount should only be a decrease in the Beginning Fund balance by $417,003 since a loan had previously been made to the Water Construction Fund in the amount of $482,000 and the Beginning Fund balance did not take that loan amount into consideration when calculating the original reduction amount. Lastly, the Water Construction Fund had originally listed a decrease in Beginning Fund balance by $459,560, however, the loan to the Sewer Construction Fund Page 8 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 9 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING was not considered when calculating the original amount and the corrected reduction in Beginning Fund balance is $22,431. Councilor Cox stated that, for purposes of balancing the budget, he is in agreement with what has been prepared by staff. However, he did contact Director Gillespie to discuss a couple of expenditures listed in the staff~report and he is satisfied with staff's responses. Councilor Schmidt stated that he would have liked more time to review the material but, after talking to staff, he will vote to approve the supplemental budget. No one in the audience spoke either for or against the supplemental budget. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:34pm. COX/PUGH... approve the supplemental budget and direct staff to bring forth an ordinance to implement the changes. The motion passed unanimously. 0282 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2758 -ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A TRIANGULAR PERMANENT EASEMENT ON 1274 FIFTH STREET (Second Readin Mayor Figley requested a Second Reading of Council Bill No. 2758. Recorder Tennant read by 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. 2758 duly passed with the emergency clause. 0332 COUNCIL BILL N0.2762 -ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09. Councilor McCallum introduced Council Bill No. 2762. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of 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. 2762 duly passed with the emergency clause. 0390 ACCEPTANCE OF WARRANTY DEED FOR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Staff recommended the acceptance of a Warranty Deed from St. Luke's Catholic Church for the purpose of acquiring right-of--way along the frontage of the St. Luke's Cemetery for the North Front Street improvement project. COX/LONERGAN.... accept the warranty deed for public right-of--way granted by St. Luke Catholic Church to the City for right-of--way along the frontage of the cemetery. The motion passed unanimously. 0435 LIQUOR LICENSE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FULL ON-PREMISES SALES• The Restaurant at the Estates. 1776 Country Club Road. A change of ownership full on-premises sales application was submitted by Geri, Inc. DBA: The Restaurant at the Estates. Page 9 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 10 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING Councilor Cox stated that he had a potential conflict of interest since he is a member of Senior Estates but he will not let it interfere with his judgement. Councilor Schmidt stated that he also had a potential conflict since he knows the operator quite well and they belong to the same organization, however, he will not let that association have anything to do with his vote. LONERGAN/PUGH... accept the change of ownership and recommend to OLCC approval of the application for The Restaurant at the Estates. The motion passed unanimously. 0490 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX GRANT FUNDS. Councilor Cox stated that he had questions which he had submitted to Assistant City Administrator Stevens who gave him a more detailed explanation of what had happened and there was nothing wrong with what had occurred but it did slip between the cracks for a period of time. The City Council had approved the disbursement of the money but it did not get distributed as it should have due in part to staff changes at both the City and Chamber management levels. COX/PUGH.... authorize the City Administrator to draft a resolution to transfer General Fund operating contingency funds to the TOT appropriation line item for the remaining 2007-08 TOT grant balance previously approved by the City Council and to distribute the funds. Councilor Schmidt stated that ordinance calls fora 9% tax to be collected by operators of hotels and motels within the City. Of the tax collected, one-third of the tax collected goes to tourism and economic development and the balance goes into the general fund budget. In his opinion, more of the tax funds should be given to support tourism which the Chamber has been doing for the City and he suggested that the one-third amount be increased to one-half of the tax collected. Councilor Pugh stated that the Chamber is working hard to become stronger financially and questioned if the City is committed to a certain percentage amount to the Chamber under the ordinance or is the Council free to make changes in the amount that can be allocated at this meeting. Mayor Figley stated that issues being discussed differ from the intent of the motion and she called for a vote on the motion with discussion on the tax allocation to follow. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Figley felt that a lengthy discussion on this issue maybe premature since the ordinance does provide for the method in which funds collected are distributed and any changes will require an amendment to the ordinance. She also felt that this might be a topic for policy discussion by the Budget Committee as it relates to changing the proportion. Assistant City Administrator Stevens stated that the ordinance requires that the grant program have an annual process in which applications are received and the City awards the grant funds. Grant(s) are submitted around April of each year and funding is awarded Page 10 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 11 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING for the following fiscal year. The Council can change the ordinance but any change in the grant amounts would be for the next fiscal year. The ordinance also specifies the amount that can be used for economic development and tourism and the amount for other City expenditures. Mayor Figley stated that this is an issue that needs to have further discussion and will need to be discussed with the Budget Committee for the fiscal year 2009-10 budget. 0936 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Derickson invited the Councilors who are interested in taking a look at the City's Water plant, Wastewater plant, or the Police Facility to let him know and he will arrange for a tour. He recently took the new Councilors on a tour as part of an orientation process and wanted to extend the same invitation to the rest of Councilors. B) Administrator Derickson also invited the Councilors to attend the swearing in ceremony whereby Officer John Mikkola will be promoted to the position of Police Sergeant on Wednesday, January 28`h, 2:30 p.m., at the Police Facility. 1026 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor McCallum stated that he had distributed invitations to the Mayor and Council for the Relay for Life kickoff event which will be held on Tuesday, February 3`d, from 6:30 until 8:00 pm at Wellspring. He encouraged interested participants to attend. Councilor Schmidt stated that he had some individuals bring up to him the possibility of naming the new police building which does not have a name on it at this time, after Police Captain Tom Tennant. He suggested that the Council further discuss some type of memorial at a future date. Mayor Figley stated that it was a privilege of visiting Mrs. Avala's kindergarten class last Friday and they showed her that they all knew the pledge of allegiance. She, along with their principal, handed out certificates to the students and she let the students know that the City Council meetings always begin with the pledge of allegiance. 1212 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660(1)(h). COX/LONERGAN.... adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned into executive session at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.. Mayor Figley stated that no action was taken by the Council while in executive session but a motion for Council consideration Page 11 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 12 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2009 TAPE READING COX/MCCALLUM... authorize the City Administrator to execute a proposed settlement agreement with Qwest Communications to settle the matter of the audit of the franchise fees paid in the years 2000 to 2005 inclusive with settlement terms outlined in the staff report. The motion passed unanimously. 1290 ADJOURNMENT. SCHMIDT/PUGH..... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 12 -Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 13 Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 26, 2009 DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 26, 2009. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 8:55 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Berkey Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Pugh Present Councilor Schmidt Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Finance Director Gillespie, City Recorder Tennant Also Present: David Soloos, City of Portland Program Manager and member of Steering Committee on the Qwest settlement Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. The executive session was called to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(h). ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 9:23 p.m.. APPROVED ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR Page 1 -Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2009 74 WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 11, 2008 CONVENED The Planning Commiission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairaerson Bandelow presiding. Chairperson Bandelow questioned members of the Planning Commission having potential conflicts such as family, financial, or business relationship with any of the applicants or with regard to the project in question. If such a potential conflict exists, she asked whether the Commissioner in question believes he or she is without actual bias or whether he or she would like to step down from the Planning Commission during the case. There were none. There were no objections from those present. Chairperson Bandelow announced: agenda is available at the back of the room. We will consider cases one at a time according to the order listed in the agenda. We will follow the hearing procedure outlined on the public hearing procedure board. All persons wishing to speak are requested to come to the podium and give their name and address. Any individuals speaking from other than the podium will not be recognized. Commissioner Jennings led the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow P Vice Chairperson Vancil P Commissioner GrosJacques P Commissioner Grigorieff P Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jennings P Commissioner Kenagy P Staff Present: Scott Derickson -City Administrator Natalie Labossiere -Interim Community Development Director Dan Brown -Public Works Director Jon Stuart -Assistant City Attorney Carrie Brennecke -Associate Planner Don Dolenc -Associate Planner Alexandra Sprauer -Interim Administrative Assistant MINUTES A. Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2008. Commissioner Jennings moved to accept the minutes. Vice Chairperson Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. PROCEEDURAL MOTION Commissioner Jennings offered a procedural motion to move Agenda Item 6.B. Discussion Item: Election of Chair and Vice Chair moved to Item 3. Commissioner Grosiacgues seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 1 of 15 15 Commissioner Jennings moved to nominate Ellen Bandelow for Planning Commission Chairperson, and David Vancil as Planning Commission Vice Chairperson, for term of office to expire December 31, 2009. Commissioner Groslacques seconded the motion. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow Yes Vice Chairperson Vancil Yes Commissioner Groslacques Yes Commissioner Grigorieff Yes Commissioner Hutchison Yes Commissioner Jennings Yes Commissioner Kenagy Yes BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE City Administrator Derickson discussed recent city budget adjustments. The general fund is expected to experience a $175,000 budget shortfall. The Building Division is expected to experience a $75,000 budget shortfall. One Planning Division staff member and two Building Division staff members have been reassigned to contractual services with another city department. City Administrator Derickson stated that the new Community Development Director, Jim Hendryx, is assigned to begin work on Monday, December 15, 2008. Derickson encouraged Planning Commissioners to introduce themselves to Hendryx. City Administrator Derickson suggested that the Planning Commission choose a set of board policies and encouraged the Community Development Department to move towards Economic Development. Commissioner Jennings introduced Kevin Kenagy as a new Planning Commissioner. Public Works Director Brown introduced himself to Planning Commissioners. Brown stated that he plans to serve as an interface between the Public Works Department and the community. COMMUNICATIONS A. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008 B. Executive Session Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008 C. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2008 D. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2008 E. Executive Session Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2008 No comments were made. PUBLIC HEARING A. Benavidez Tires - Amoldo Benavidez, Applicant -Conditional Use 2008-01 The applicant requests a conditional use for auto parts sales, tire and wheel sales and installation, and general automotive repair in the Commercial General (CG) zone. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 2 of 15 16 Chairperson Bandelow asked if any of the Planning Commission members have any conflicts that they would like to declare. None. Staff Report Associate Planner Don Dolenc read the applicable ORS then commenced his presentation. The subject property is located on Highway 99E. It is 1.1 acre in area and is zoned Commercial General (CG) and designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. It is currently occupied by two 3,000 square foot commercial building constructed in 1940 and a 1,860 square foot commercial building constructed in 1967. No wetlands or floodplains exist on the site. Adjacent properties to the west, south and east are zoned Commercial General (CG). A portion of the property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential (RS). Two properties to the north are zoned commercial but are developed with single family dwellings. The aerial photo depicts three structures on the property. One of the larger buildings is occupied by a beauty salon and the other by a restaurant. The proposed use would occupy the 1,860 square foot building. Property to the south and west are developed with an auto repair facility. Property to the north is developed with a restaurant and a professional office, and single family dwellings. Property across Highway 99 is developed with mobile home sales operation and a vacant commercial lot. The 1,860 square foot building was constructed in 1967 as a gasoline service station. Its previous uses include auto repair and transmission repair shop. The auto repair use has continued as anon-conforming use. The applicant is currently conducting business at the location. The CG zone allows the selling of auto parts without installation. The non-conforming use for auto repair is not the subject of the conditional use; the non-conforming use may continue until the use is terminated, as provided in WDO 1.104. The Commercial General regulations distinguish between selling auto parts without installation, a bi-right use, and selling auto parts with installation, a conditional use. The applicant wishes to sell auto parts, tires, and install them. The applicant is requesting a conditional use to install auto parts. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and staff in regards to the interpretation of the term auto part, concerns of conditional use fees, and the reason why the "installation element" would trigger a conditional use. Vice Chairperson Vancil stated the intent of the ordinance is to prevent noise pollution. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that there was a legislative reason behind the WDO. Stuart recommended the Planning Commission hear the complete staff report with recommendations, and then make a decision. If necessary, Planning Commission could then deny. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 3 of 15 17 Chairperson Bandelow stated if Planning Commission denied the application the applicant would loose money. Associate Planner Don Dolenc stated that staff is sensitive to the fee issue. Staff looked at the issue closely and determined that the language used in the Commercial General (CG) regulations is clear, and it would be inappropriate for staff to "go around it". Staff does not have the discretion or authority to make the decision. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if there were records indicating previous decisions made by former staff members. Associate Planner Don Dolenc answered no. There were no records from the former transmission shop. Commissioner Jennings stated that years ago the property had zoning issues. Associate Planner Don Dolenc continued to present the staff report. The business is currently operating without installation. Dolenc presented the applicant's site plan. The sign on the property is nonconforming. The sign code requires the sign that is attached to the tenant space be brought into conformity when there is as conditional use. One of the conditions of approval is to remove the nonconforming pole sign or convert it into a monument sign. The applicant and the property owner are both aware of the requirement. The sign requirement is included in the conditional use process because the conditional use is the trigger that requires the sign to be brought into conformity. The aerial view depicts tire racks on the property. The tire racks display tires and rims. The WDO regulates outdoor storage. However, the racks have wheels and are brought into the building after hours. Staff has determined that the tire racks are product display; they are not outdoor storage. The original site plan depicted garbage containers behind the building. The applicant has instead decided to use the existing containers. The garbage containers are not included in the project. The existing outdoor storage is to be enclosed. The applicant is aware that~it must be enclosed. The applicant can enclose the area around the building where it is currently being stored. This requirement is not a condition of approval. This project has four conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of case CU 2008-01 subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Associate Planner Dolenc concluded the staff report. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any questions to the staff. Commissioner Hutchison asked if the sign currently being displayed at the location had been approved. Associate Planner Don Dolenc answered that the applicant had been approved for a temporary sign. The code allows the temporary sign to be displayed. The sign is not permanent. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 4 of 15 18 Chairoerson Bandelow asked if there were any further questions of the staff. None. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for testimony. Arnoldo Benavidez, 595 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR 97071. Benavidez owns Benavidez Tires. He has operated the business for twenty years, and would like to continue providing service to his customers at his new location. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if the new location was in addition to the existing location across the street. Arnoldo Benavidez answered no. The new business location is in place of the old business location. The Planning Commissioners applauded Arnoldo Benavidez for the appearance of the new location. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any proponents for this application. Jake Jacobson, 1585 W. Main Street, Molalla, OR 97038. Jake Jacobson addressed the Planning Commission. He is a local business person that knows Arnoldo Benavidez personally. He knows staff and is aware of planning requirements. He considers tire to be car parts. Tire businesses need to be able to install the tires they sell. He has worked with Arnoldo Benavidez to address the sign and tire storage issues. He asked the Planning Commission to approve Arnoldo Benavidez's request for conditional use. Don Judson, 2815 Hazel Avenue, Woodburn, OR 97071. Don Judsan is the Executive Director of the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. Forty-five days ago he received his first telephone call from a chamber member regarding the dilemma with Benavidez Tires. He spoke with Arnoldo Benavidez and contacted City Administrator Derickson and community development staff. He is frustrated with how long it takes to open a business in the City of Woodburn. The business would be operating if it was located in county land across the street. The delay is costly and hurts business. He requested that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use as soon as possible. Installation should be grandfathered to the location. The City of Woodburn should support Benavidez Tires. Chairperson Bandelow invited Don Judson to the Planning Commission meetings. He would find the Planning Commission to be business friendly. The Commission does not want Arnoldo Benavidez to have to pay fees for the conditional use. Staff and Planning Commission must work within the parameters of the WDO. Vice Chairperson Vancil encouraged the members of the Chamber of Commerce to involve themselves in WDO revisions. The previous update involved little participation. Cliff Zauner 2662 Hazelnut Drive, Woodburn, OR 97071. Cliff Zauner and his wife own WCAT, a local radio station. He has known the Benavidez family personally for many years. Benavidez Tires is a great small business. He requested that Planning Commission approve the conditional use. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 5 of 75 19 Conde Benavidez, 245 Polly Street, Woodburn, OR 97071. Conde Benavidez is co-owner of Benavidez Tires with his brother. They have owned Benavidez Tires for twenty-eight years. This is their fourth location. One of the brothers recently passed away; he and his wife owned the previous location across the street. In theirtwenty-eight years in business they have never received a noise complaint. They would like to remain in business. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional proponents. None. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any opponents for this application. Daniel Atkinson, 110 N. 2"d Street, Silverton, OR 97381. Daniel Atkinson is the attorney for Margarita Benavidez. He submitted a memo to the Planning Commission. He asked them to move carefully with the case. Approving the conditional use is against the WDO. The proposed use may not meet the standards for off street parking. Tire racks would consume parking space. The proposed use may not even meet setbacks to the north. Atkinson conGuded by stating that the application is not compatible by the described uses in the zone. Commissioner Jennings asked if the county property across the street installs tires. Daniel Atkinson answered yes. Commissioner Jennings asked why his objection only applies to the property within the city. Daniel Atkinson answered that the property across the street is within the county and not carried by the WDO. The city has different standards. Commissioner Jennings stated that it should be a level field. Both sides should receive fair treatment. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional opponents. None. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for rebuttal. Jake Jacobson is Arnoldo Benavidez's contractor. Jake Jacobson stated that the community does not distinguish itself into separate corridors. There is no reason that the county side of a street should be granted uses that the city side of a street is not. He disagreed with Daniel Atkinson and his methodology behind his decisions. This should be a simple application. The only opposition to this application derived from an outside, pending civil suit. The Benavidez family has worked very hard, they have asked for the outside consultation when needed, they are open and ask for guidance. Chairperson Bandelow closed the hearing and was open for discussion. Commissioner Jennings stated that the application should be approved. He recognized that staff did not feel that they had the authority to challenge the WDO. The use of the property is not an issue, the cost of the approval is an issue of concern. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 6 of 15 20 Vice Chairperson Vancil agreed with Commissioner Jennings. He respects staff for their knowledge of the WDO, and realizes the complexity of the ordinance. The Planning Commission should approve the conditional use application as presented and recommended by staff. In the future, conditional use requirements should be analyzed and revised. Commissioner Hutchison applauded staff for the quality of their work. The WDO should remain consistent in regards to signage and storage, in how it is applied throughout the city. He is in favor of the application. Commissioner Grosiacgues agreed with Commissioner Jennings. Chairperson Bandelow asked Commissioner Jennings for clarification on his earlier statement. She asked Commissioner Jennings if he believed that auto repair should be grandfathered to the location. This application should not be considered a change of use. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that there is not a provision to avoid a fee. Because the Planning Commission is anon-elected body, they are limited to what the WDO will allow. Legislative decisions are made by City Council. He agreed with Commissioner Jennings in that there is room for interpretation. The Planning Commission needs to make a decision based on the facts. They can approve the application with conditions, approve the application without conditions, deny the application, or make a motion to continue the hearing. All of the options have their own ramifications. If they disagree with staffs interpretation they should leave the record open and continue the hearing to determine the next step. Chairperson Bandelow stated that the Planning Commission is concerned about the project being delayed any further. Delaying a decision would only hurt Arnoldo Benavidez's business, and would not ensure that the fees would be refunded. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that staff has the option to recommend approval with the recommendation that the fee be returned. Approving the application would make it a conditional use. They have the option to deny the application. They also have the option to determine that the use has been grandfathered to the location, becoming an outright non-conforming use. The Planning Commissions should document their findings and justifications no matter the determination. Commissioner Grigorieff asked if the Planning Commission could approve the application and recommend that City Council refund the fees. Assistant Attorney Stuart answered yes. Commissioner Grigorieff stated that they could then put conditional use on the list for WDO revisions. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission members in regards to the effects of grandfathering installation to the location. Associate Planner Don Dolenc stated that the application must be processed. If the application is denied the applicant is not entitled a refund. If the application is approved, Planning Commission has the opportunity to recommend the fee be returned. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated various decisions Planning Commission could make. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 7 of 15 21 Vice Chairperson Vancil moved to approve Conditional Use 2008-01 as written with a recommendation to staff that the fee be waived. Commissioner Grosiacgues seconded the motion. Commissioner Jennings discussed the term "waived" and suggested "waived" be replaced with "refunded". Vice Chairperson Vancil moved to amend the motion to replace the word waived with the word refunded. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow Yes Vice Chairperson Vancil Yes Commissioner Groslacques Yes Commissioner Grigorieff Yes Commissioner Hutchison Yes Commissioner Jennings Yes Commissioner Kenagy Yes B. Nuevo Amanecer - Farmworker Housing Development Corporation, Applicant - Design Review 2008-05; EXP 2008-08 The Applicant requests a design review fora 40-unit affordable housing development and an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on 2"d Street. Chairperson Bandelow asked if any of the Planning Commission members have any conflicts that they would like to declare. Commissioner Jennings stated that he has recently traveled the site, but does not have ex pane conflict. Staff Report Associate Planner Brennecke read the applicable ORS then commenced her presentation. The subject property is located in Medium Density Residential zone (RM). Adjacent properties to the north and east are zoned medium density residential. Adjacent properties to the south and east are zoned Residential Single Family (RS). The ariel view of the site depicts the existing adjacent land uses. Property to the north is occupied by Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II and Stonehedge Apartments. Property to the west and south is occupied by older, single family homes. Property to the west is occupied by single family hames and commercial property. The project proposes a pedestrian connection between the proposed and existing Nuevo Amanecer complexes. The entrance to the proposed complex is Second Street. The street improvements are proposed for Second Street. The photo of the property depicts a vacant lot. The project is a medium density residential development consisting of forty dwelling units, nine two-story and three-story buildings, eighty off street parking spaces and two drive ways, a multi- purpose community room, laundry room, management office, playground and community plaza. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 8 of 15 22 The project proposes six foot architectural walls where the development abuts single family dwellings and where parking is located in the required setback. The project also proposes off site street improvements and water detention facilities. The site design plan depicts the building locations, parking, street and open space. The elevation drawing depicts the building facing Second Street. The proposed plans meet the architectural design guidelines, or propose equal or better alternatives. The only exception to the guidelines is the required fifty percent of parking that should be covered by garages. Staff concurred with the applicant that the requirement would not be appropriate to require garages because the surrounding multifamily development does not include garage parking. It would not be an equitable situation for the residents. The added cost would make the project less affordable to low income residents. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked why the garage requirement should be waived for the proposed development. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that the Planning Commission can apply standards at their discretion. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission in regards to nodal housing and rezoning property. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if the proposed project would look similar to the renovated portions of Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that the applicant would give a presentation on the project's design and function. Associate Planner Brennecke continued to present the staff report. The landscaping plan depicts plant unit requirements in various colors. The plan also includes the required planting areas, which include buffer yards, common area, and landscaping adjacent to parking. Each planting area has an area typical. The applicant requests an exception to the street right-of-way and improvement requirements on Second Street. Second Street is the boundary street and connecting street for the project. Second Street is classified in the TSP as a local residential with parking on both sides. The picture depicts two ten foot travel lanes, two seven foot parking lanes, two seven foot landscape strips, and two five foot sidewalks. The WDO Street Standards require a cul-de-sac at the termination streets with a minimum radius of fifty-five feet with an improved street radius of forty-five feet. The existing conditions of Second Street include a sixty foot right-of-way. The street is nineteen hundred feet in length, extending from Harrison Street to the site. Second Street dead-ends at the project site without a turnaround. The boundary portion of the street consists of a twenty foot gravel surface, the connecting portion has twenty-seven foot paved surface. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street. There is a planter strip and four foot wide sidewalk. The applicant proposes two ten foot travel lanes, one seven foot parking lane, one seven foot planting strip, one five foot wide sidewalk, a cul-de-sac with a thirty foot radius and a Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 9 of 15 23 hammerhead turnaround to accommodate emergency vehicles Staff recommends approval of cases DR 2008-05 and EXP 2008-08 subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Associate Planner Brennecke concluded the staff report. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked what the outcome would be if the Planning Commission did not approve the exception to the street right-of-way. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that if the exception was denied, the applicant would be required to build out the boundary and connecting street to the TSP standards. Associate Planner Brennecke entered into record the full drawings provided by the applicant. The drawings include the elevation, unit floor plans, and the layout for all of the buildings. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for testimony. Brian Carleton, 322 N.W. 8th Ave., Portland, OR 97209. Brian Carleton is with Carleton Hart Architecture and is representing the applicant on the Nuevo Amanecer project. Karen Pierson is also an architect with Carleton Hart and will answer technical questions. Jesse Olson is with Farmworker Housing Developer Corporation. Brian Carleton presented the project through a slideshow. The presentation showed the relationship from Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II to the proposed development. It included a turnaround with a pedestrian connection. There would not be an automotive connection. He explained that the design and site plan attempted to achieve a sense of neighborhood for the residents. Each apartment would have a private front door and a front porch. The buildings would be focused on open spaces while the parking would be focused towards the edges. The townhouses would be located near the adjacent single family dwellings, and the three-story buildings would be located towards existing multifamily buildings. The development would be broken into small buildings with fewer units. They would build a variety of building designs. They have organized the site for solar access for sustainability. All of the buildings have southern exposure and the open spaces would receive sunlight. He presented elevation drawings for several buildings. The front of buildings and the rooflines varied in dimension. Each building would be broken into sections representing each residence to give the residents a sense of individuality. Typical materials included lap siding and metal roofing for rain harvesting. They hope to utilize the rainwater collection for the community building immediately. Karen Pearson addressed the Staff Report comments and conditions. In general, Carleton Hart Architecture and Farmworker Housing Development Corporation agree with the recommended conditions of approval. They have proposed a buffer wall against the north property line behind the parking area. However, a buffer wall is not proposed on the property line adjacent to existing multifamily developments because the WDO allows discretion as to whether it is required. A chain link fence is proposed. There is a driveway between the two properties. The landscape plan also buffers the property. She stated that they agreed with staff that the Fire Department access turnarounds be finalized by the Fire Marshal and Public Works during the construction phase. The two hammerhead turnarounds should have the appropriate turning radiuses and the fire access lanes will be marked. Commissioner Jennings asked if Second Street would be the only access point. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 10 of 15 24 Karen Pearson answered yes. The property is landlocked on all other sides. She stated that they will collaborate with the city in determining the directional markings for the property per City of Woodburn standards. They would like to provide well lit paths for safety and security, and functionality. An electrical engineer will provide a complete photometric plan depicting the development's fighting during the construction phase. Lights located near the property line will be fitted with shields to prevent light pollution. She acknowledged that the back patio's private open space did not meet WDO minimum requirements, and that it was unacceptable. Chairperson Bandelow asked how many one, two and three bedroom units would there be. Karen Pearson answered that there would be five, one bedroom units, fifteen, two bedroom units, and twenty, three bedroom units. She addressed the one-hundred foot maximum roofline requirement by explaining that the depth of the roofline would vary by section. Commissioner Jennings asked if there would be firewalls in the attic space between the various sections. Karen Pearson answered that they would comply with building codes. They have not drawn the construction plans. She stated that WDO section 3.107 requires exterior staircases not be visible from the street. There are two stairways that are visible from the street. She stated that it meets the intent of the code because they are located far from the street. Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II do not have garages. She stated that adding garages to the proposed development would bring inequality between each complex. There was discussion in regards to the equitability of garages. Karen Pearson stated that another reason they did not include garages was because they add considerable cost. The goal is to provide affordable housing. Garages would add a density problem to the site and consume valuable dwelling and open space. If they included garages they would need to replace many of the two story buildings with three story buildings and would loose units. They will work with the Planning Division to comply with the signage requirement condition of approval. Prior to building permit approval they will complete the performance guarantee condition of approval. They plan to meet minimum street standards allowed in the WDO. They propose to build out the planting strip, sidewalk, curbing, parking and the drive lane on their side of the property to the center line. They also propose to build another drive lane and curb. The only item that is not included is the parking space, planting strip and sidewalk on the opposite side of the property. Commissioner Jennings asked if they were going to improve the west side of the street. Karen Pearson answered that they would not provide a planting strip or a sidewalk. They would improve to the minimum standards. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and the applicant in regards to street parking on only one side of the street and the effects it would have on the residents of Second Street. Karen Pearson stated that they are proposing not to provide full street improvements to the connecting street. Lancaster Engineering's traffic analysis determined that the proposed development would not generate a large enough impact to warrant full street improvements. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 11 of 15 25 Brian Carleton stated that although they are not meeting the full development standards of the Woodburn Transportation Plan they are meeting the minimum standards in the WDO. The full street development is a budget issue. Vice Chairperson Vancil stated that the Planning Commission has an obligation to provide a livable community to its resident's. Transportation is a major issue. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and the applicant in regards to the traffic study and its findings. Jessie Olson stated that Farmworker Housing Development Corporation has generated several market studies that indicate affordable housing is needed in the City of Woodburn. Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II have a waiting list of over one hundred and fifty families that meet the income requirements proposed for the current project. They have connected with residents of Second Street to meet their needs. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional proponents. Brent Wyden, 1425 N. Front Street. He is representing his landlord, Tom Lockran. He asked if the property had access to Front Street, on the drive adjacent to Roughing Trucking. He was concerned about privacy. There is a swale that runs through the corner of the site property. The owners of the site property recently sprayed for weeds and accidentally killed Mr. Lockran's Monkey Pod tree and Arborvitae hedge. He is concerned about crowding along the property line plantings. Public Works Director Brown stated that the city would require a local street standard at minimum for access to the subject property. Front Street is an arterial street that carries a substantial amount of traffic. Access to Front Street without an established intersection would create significant problem. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional proponents. Charlie Harris, 19400 N.E. Jaquith Road, Newberg, OR 97132. He works for the developer, Casa of Oregon. He believes Nuevo Amanecer is a worthwhile benefit to the community and the project should move forward. Improving the street will not address the parking issue on Second Street. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and Charlie Harris in regards to parking on Second Street. Charlie Harris stated that the applicant has agreed to the non-remonstrance agreement. When the money is available the road will be improved. Juanto Santo Jr., 1279 N. Second Street. He would like Second Street to be paved. After hearing the Planning Commission's concerns about street improvements, he is concerned about loosing parking space on Second Street. Commissioner Jennings asked Public Works Director Brown if it would be difficult to grant "no parking" on one side of the street. Public Works Director Brown answered staff must demonstrate to City Council that there is significant justification to restrict the WDO requirement. He stated that there was Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 12 of 15 26 misunderstanding between the applicant and the Planning Commission in regards to Second Street. To meet the proportionality requirements of the development, the applicant proposed a half street improvement. The city could look for other funding mechanisms to build out the remaining portion of the street or could leave it as it is. The applicant's proposal should not exacerbate restriction of on street parking. They are proposing to economize the street improvements and not make improvements outside of the travel lanes on the west side. The curbs would be established at full build-out. Their proposal allows the residents to continue to use the right-of-way as they have. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and staff in regards to the curbing. Interim Community Development Director Labossiere stated the applicant was not proposing to put in a curb. They were proposing not to pave the seven foot parking area. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for rebuttal. Brian Carleton stated that there are several solutions. They could put no parking signs on either side of the street. Nuevo Amanecer's side of the street would provide more parking, although it would not be assigned. He stated that they would complete the entire width of the street, including the parking on the opposite side. Their funds are limited and if they are required to build out the entire street, beyond the boundary section, they cannot continue the project. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if the developer if there was any consideration to purchase the right-of-way to Front Street. Brian Carleton answered yes. The property owner was uninterested. The drainage swale on the property was examined by a wetlands expert and determined not to be wetlands. Drainage has been designed into the project. Screening along the property line will be planted according to code. The landscaping will not prevent growth of neighboring landscaping. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked Public Works Director Brown if Fifth Street is a future capital improvement project. Public Works Director Brown answered that the project has not been approved by City Council. Fifth Street may be included in the next budget cycle. The Public Works Department understands the potential issues that must be addressed. Chairperson Bandelow closed the hearing and was open for discussion. Commissioner Jennings stated that the developers have made a good compromise. He is satisfied with what the developer has agreed to. He recommended the approval of the project. All other Planning Commissioners agreed with Commissioner Jennings. Commissioner Jennings moved to approve DR 2008-05 and EXP 2008-08 with the condition that the boundary street is improved to a pavement width of thirty-four feet, curbs on both sides, and sidewalk and landscaping on the east side. Commissioner Grosiacgues seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Chairperson Bandelow stated the motion included that staff return with the facts and findings, and the final order. Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 13 of 15 27 ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow Yes Vice Chairperson Vancil Yes Commissioner GrosJacques Yes Commissioner Grigorieff Yes Commissioner Hutchison Yes Commissioner Jennings Yes Commissioner Kenagy Yes The Planning Commission's final statement thanked Farmworker Housing Development Corporation for their affordable housing projects. DISCUSSION ITEMS Chairperson Bandelow stated that the first item of discussion was to reschedule the following Planning Commission meeting. A Special Planning Commission meeting could be scheduled for December 18, 2008, or as scheduled for January 8, 2009 to sign the Final Order. A Special Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for December 18, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will not be televised. Planning Commission was provided land use applications that had been approved by staff. REPORTS Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any comments or discussion on the reports. None. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION There was discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners about their current contact information. Commissioner Jennings thanked staff. He also recommended that the Planning Commission and City Council have a joint meeting. Chairperson Bandelow stated that a joint meeting will be scheduled soon. Commissioner Jennings stated that the Planning Commission should work with Assistant Attorney Stuart to create rules and policies for the Planning Commission. Chairperson Bandelow stated that the Planning Commission will review the conditional use issue that emerged. Commissioner Hutchison asked about the status of the Carl's Junior project. Interim Community Development Director Labossiere answered staff does not know why the applicant has not moved forward with the project. Planning Commission Meeting December 91, 2008 Page 14 of 75 28 There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission in regards to the future traffic problem that may exist on Second Street with the development of Nuevo Amanecer. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Jennings moved to adjourn the meeting, Commissioner Grosiacgues seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm. APPROVED Ellen Bandelow, Chairperson Date ATTEST Natalie Labossiere Date Interim Community Development Director City of Woodburn, Oregon Planning Commission Meeting December 11, 2008 Page 15 of 15 29 PLANNING PROJECT TRACKING SHEET Rev'~sed: Thursday, January 29, 2009 Protect Applicant Description Status: Date Deemed 120 Day Planner Refenals Facilities Mail Notice Notice to Post Sif Rpt Due PC Hearing PC Final Appeal SrteLoption: Received Complete Comp Date Meeting for PC Paper Property Admin Dec. Order Deadline CPA 2008-01, City of Amend the Comp. Plan Received 12/29/2008 Natalie Woodburn - to adopt the revised Labossiere Community Parks and Recreation Services Master Plan as a sub- exhibit CU 2008-01, Amoldo conditional use Appeal 10/16/2008 11120/2008 03/2012009 Don Dolenc 1011712008 1112112008 11/26/2008 12104!2008 12111(2008 01/08/2009 01/21/2009 Benavidez FSUB 2008-01, Steve Fnal Subdivision Received 09/0312008 Don Dolenc 09/12/2008 Farnsworth- approval Welkin Engineering 344 Hardcasde Ave. LA 2007-02, City of Legislative Amendment Receved 11/2612007 Natalie Woodburn Period Review Remand - Labossiere Street City of Woodburn LA 2007-03, City of Legislative Amendment Received 11/26/2007 Natalie 05124/2008 05/24/2008 0610512008 06!1312008 06/13/2008 06/26/2008 Woodburn 270 Montgomery St. Lahoss~ere Page 1 of 1 30 PLANNING PROJECTS (INCOMPLETE !HOLD) Revised: Thursday, Jtstttt3try 29, 2009 Project Applicant SiteLocation: Description BL 2008-140, Josue Torres Barreito 449 N Front ST paperwork services PAR 2008-07, Theron Covey, Churchill 417 Gatch Street Partition property into 2 parcels Leonard PUD 2006-01, ZC 2006-01, Boones Crossing, LLC - Parcels 1, 2 8 3 of Partition Modifications to Boones CU 2006-04, CPC 2007-01 Mike Hanks Plat 2006-55 Crossing PUD Incomplete Ltr Status: Date Received Sent Out 120-App Received 180-Expiration: Planner Incomplete 12!2212008 412112009 O6I2012009 Don Dolenc Incomplete 09/10/2008 10/2/2008 118/2009 0310912009 Don Dolenc Incomplete t013t/2006 ZI28/2007 04/2912007 Natalie Labossiere Page 1 of 1 31 Type I Applications App Complete / Folder Name Applicant Project ! PreApp Mtg SiteLocation Description Date Recd: P Complete o Status: Planner: BL 2008-140 Josue Torres Krascar International 449 N Front ST paperwork services 1 2122/2 0 0 8 Barreito EXT 2009-01 Varvitslotis Varvitslotis 1755 Mt. Hood Ave. Permit extension for Design Review 2007- 01/26/2009 Architecture Architecture 13 (Carl's Jr.) FPUD 2007-02 Bryan Cavaness Boones Crossing Dahlia Street and 07/12/2007 Phase III Brown Street FSUB 2008-01 Steve Castle Court 344 Hardcastle Ave. final subdivision plan approval 09/03/2008 Farnsworth- Subddivssion Welkin Engineering PAPP 2009-001 Mark Williams National Guard 1630 Park Ave. Addition and remodel of the armory and a 01/06/2009 Armory street exception 01/14/2009 SIGN 2008-11 Advanced Electric Carl's Jr. Restaurant 1755 Mt. Hood Ave. (3) 25.75 sq. ft. wall signs 05/1612008 Sign SIGN 2008-10 Advanced Electric Carl's Jr. Restaurant 1755 Mt Hood Ave. 13.36 sq ft wall sign 05l16I2008 Sign SIGN 2008-27 Wal-Mart (Shade Wal-Mart 3002 Stacy Allison Modifications to an existing electrical sign 11/24/2008 L O'Quinn WY SIGN 2009-05 Meyer Sign Meyer Sign 1001 Arney RD STE 2 new wall signs 01/28/2009 Company -Steve Company 910 Murphy SIGN 2009-04 Meyer Sign Meyer Sign 1001 Arney RD STE 1 new wall sign 01/28/2009 Company -Steve Company 904 Murphy TSP 2009-01 Arnold Benavidez Benavidez Tires 595 N Pack HY 32 sq. ft. (4' x 8') sign 01/21/2009 Incomplete Don Dolenc Natalie Labossiere Don Dolenc Received Don Dolenc Don Dolenc Hold Natalie Labossiere Hold Natalie Labossiere Don Dolenc Don Dolenc Don Dolenc Approved Don Dolenc Bl. -Business License EXT =Extension FPUD -- Final PUD SIGN = SiLm Pemtit TMKT = Temporaq Marketing Permit TSP Temporary Sign Pemtit PAPP =Pre-Application FNC =Fence Permit PLA =Property Line Adj 32 Thursday, January 29, 1009 w ODBUR j~j 7n<urryo~a~rA f8F9 ~ ~ February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Derickson, City Administrator SUBJECT: Accounting of Emergency Expenses RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Pursuant to ORS 2796.080, as City Administrator, I authorized certain emergency procurements as a result of the December 12, 2008 bombing. The goods and services listed below were secured by a direct appointment process. The Oregon State Fire Marshall's (OSFMj Office coordinated the planning and contracting, for the memorial services of Captain Tennant and Trooper Hakim. The City was notified at 8:00 AM on December 17, 2008 that all goods and service agreements had to be in to the head of the Memorial Planning Team by 4:00 PM that day. Three individuals from the planning committee spent the day going to each vendor and negotiating an agreement with them. The memorial service was held at the Salem Armory with the reception at the Jackman Long building because there were no venues in Woodburn large enough for the public memorial service. This decision and the arrangements were made by OSFM. OSFM also arranged for the goods and services of Cascade Sound and Clinkscales. Golden Funeral Home's services were contracted for by the families for private funeral services and consequently were utilized for both public memorial services as well. Allied Video (videotaping services) and Cascade Park (catering services) were also contracted by the family to provide services at their private funeral service so they agreed to provide the same services for the public memorial. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney /y ~"J Fi 33 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 9, 2009 Page 2 Daniel's Photography was recommended because of their proximity to City Hall. Cuppy's Coffee and Valley Pacific Floral were vendors that were located at random by the planning team when they were in Woodburn. Cuppy's coffee provided coffee for the set up of the Armory and the memorial reception. We ran out of coffee during the reception and Janie McCollister, a CCIS employee who had been helping to coordinate things throughout the week, purchased four carafes of coffee for the reception. Valley Pacific Floral Cascade Park Catering Cascade Sound Clinkscales Allied Video Productions Janie McCollister Flowers Food for Reception Audio equipment Portable toilets Taping & projector Coffee $ 127.00 6, 500.00 1,100.00 600.00 1,113.00 60.00 Total cost to the City Goods and services paid by other parties or donated include: Salem Armory Jackman Long Building Golden Funeral Home Cuppy's Coffee Allied Video Cascade Sound Rental of facility Rental of facility Funeral 8~ Limo Coffee & pastry Taping and projector Audio equipment $ 4,510.00 No Charge $ 2,000.00 8,090.00 790.00 999.00 740 .00 Total Donations $12,619.00 These costs do not include the expense associated with Public Works personnel, who provided traffic control along the procession route all the way to Salem, or the many police services provided by other agencies. There is really no way to estimate the value of those donated services. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Budget to provide for the City's portion of these expenses is included in the Police Administration Budget. 34 ~-`\ I. ,~~~~ D R W N /ntor/,crartA l88Y February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathy Figley, Mayor SUBJECT: I-5 (C~ OR 214/219) Woodburn Interchange Project Federal Appropriations Candidate RECOMMENDATION: Accept the letter. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: I recently submitted the attached letter to the Oregon Transportation Commission on behalf of the City. I wanted the City Council to have a copy and be aware of the status. I am looking forward to serving on MWACT. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney ~U~ Finance 35 o~ej ~ ~ OODBUR Incorporated 1889 February 4, 2009 The Oregon Transportation Commission 355 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97301 SUBJECT: I-5 (@OR 214J219) WOODBURN INTERCHANGE PROJECT FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS CANDIDATE Dear Oregon Transportation Commission Members, On behalf of the City of Woodburn and surrounding northern Marion County communities, the City Council and I would like to express our appreciation of the Commission's past support in advancing the correction of functional deficiencies of the existing I-5 at Oregon Highways 214/219 interchange in Woodburn. We would also like to request your continued aid in obtaining the federal funding needed to move this project through preliminary engineering and on to actual construction. This project must remain high on your priority list of State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects. The City of Woodburn has submitted an appropriations request to Representative Kurt Schrader, requesting federal earmark for the Woodburn Interchange Improvement Project. This project is essential to the future economic vitality of the City of Woodburn and surrounding northern Marion County communities. The direct positive economic impact to the region, as well as the construction jobs created, clearly distinguish this project as a strong contributor to the economic recovery of our state. The economic benefits of the Interchange Improvement Project will continue long after the construction jobs have ended. We believe the Interchange Improvement Project should be accelerated, and obtaining additional federal funds will accomplish this. The needs of our state's transportation system are great and you have the tremendously challenging task of prioritizing the limited federal funding we do receive to provide the greatest benefit to the entire state. I hope that our prior justifications, studies, and decisions associated with the !-5 Woodburn Interchange Project will help to guide you in identifying this as one of the projects that can provide the greatest benefit for limited transportation system program dollars spent. The existing interchange does not meet current design and operational standards. The interchange was last updated in 1975, when it was much less heavily used and the surrounding Woodburn area was much iess developed and populated. Today, the Office of tke Mayor 270.ti'lorrrgomery Srreer • Woodburn, Oregon 97071 PH.503-982-5228 • Fax 503-982-5243 February 4, 2009 Page 2 combination of the outdated interchange and increased traffic demand causes traffic to move at slower speeds with high levels of congestion throughout the interchange and along Oregon 214/219. Not addressing this congestion will limit future development and economic growth for the area. With increased congestion, both air quality and public safety wilt be compromised. While the interchange improvement means immediate jobs for those directly involved in the construction of this facility, it also offers a longer term benefit by providing employers a location that has timely, reliable, and safe access to the nation's interstate system. Flourishing businesses that can compete in a global economy are fundamental to long-term job creation. Inefficiencies created by the existing inadequate access to I-5 will constrain the economic growth of Woodburn and northern Marion County. The members of the Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation (MWACT} strongly support funding of the I-5 Woodburn Interchange Project. This project has been a high priority to MWACT membership for many years and has been evaluated and reviewed extensively. MWACT members have expressed a desire in seeing this project to continue to advance toward completion. Federal funding is essential to achieving this goal. The Woodburn City Council and I remain committed to our endorsement of the I-5 Woodburn Interchange Project. We are prepared to assist the Commission in any way possible to secure the federal funding needed to advance this project to completion. Since y, ~"\ ~athy Figley, a f Wood r Ore of Copy: City Administrator 37 Park and Recreation Workshop Minutes January 13, 2009 6:00 - 8:30 p.m. Call to Order Jim Row began the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Present Board Chair Board Secretary Member Member Member Member Member Vacant Vacant Rosetta Wangerin Present Joseph Nicoletti Present Judy Wesemann Present Eric Morris Present Charlene Williams Present Alexa Morris Present Staff present: Jim Row, Community Services Director; Stu Spence, Recreation Services Manager; Debbie Wadliegh, Facilities and Aquatics Manager: Paulette Zastoupil, Clerk. REVIEW CITY COUNCIL GOALS Jim briefly discussed the 2007-2009 City Council Goals. He mentioned that with the economy and the current budget restraints, he doubted there would not be surplus budget money for any additional fund requests the 2008-2009 budget process. 2. PROJECT DISCUSSION Jim updated the Board on the following projects. Jim will then ask the Board to prioritize these projects. He explained to the Board how this ranking process benefits him throughout the year with agenda items for City Council and grant writing. • Aquatic Center HVAC The equipment has been ordered, the installation date is April 27, 2009 and closure will be 2 weeks. • Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Master Plan Jim explained that the Plan would need to go to the Planning Commission, followed by a public hearing at a City Council meeting. The required 45 day notification to the Department of Land Conservation and Development was recently submitted by the Community Development Department. So, the Plan should be ready to proceed to the Planning Commission by late February. • SDC Methodology Update The City's SDC Methodology was last updated in 1999. Another update is funded in the current fiscal year. Jim reported that this project may be pushed forward to next year if time runs short. Discussion took place on the political issues in updating the methodology, related to the poor state of the economy and the housing market. Jim explained that he would recommend to the City Council that we go ahead and complete update the SDC Methodology regardless. They may then choose whether or not to fully implement the recommended fees at that time. • Mill Creek Greenway Phase I Jim gave each Board member a drawing of the trail design. The wetland permits will be submitted in the next couple of weeks and the project will go out to bid around the end of Workshop Minutes Page 1 38 Park and Recreation Workshop Minutes January l3, 2009 6:00 - 8:30 p.m. February. The project is expected to start on July 1, 2009, with a 30-45 day construction period. Jim is still negotiating property line adjustments, and when finalized, they will need to go to City Council for approval. Discussion took place on the property line adjustments, contract issues, trail surface and the proposed parking lot. • Playground Replacement Jim gave a brief history of this City Council adopted initiative. Jim shared the updated playground ranking which shows Wyffels Park as the top ranked playground for replacement. Discussion on budget, grant issues for this project took place. Rosetta stated her desire to complete this project and will be meeting with Jim to discuss the possibilities and limitations of fund raising. • Aquatic Center Expansion -Community Arts 8 Cultural Center Jim explained that with the process of hiring a new City Administrator, new Community Development Director, and election of three new City Council members, the discussion of these projects has stagnated. He plans to sit down with the City Administrator to discuss these projects very soon. Since it has been a year that discussion on these projects have taken place, Jim would, ideally, like to schedule a workshop with the City Council and the Recreation and Park Board. This would provide an opportunity to update them, show concept plans, and allow for questions to be addressed. Discussion took place on the Woodburn Foundation, its 501 (c) 3 status, and a possible partnership with Chemeketa and Woodburn School District. • Legion Park Master Plan Jim shared the 2003 Legion Park Master Plan concept plan to the Board. Discussion took place on the placement of the Community Center and sports field. Jim explained the use of SDC funds, and that this project will be difficult to fund. • Settlemier Park Master Plan Jim shared the 2003 Settlemier Park Master Plan concept plan to the Board. Discussion took place on the footprint of the Aquatic Center expansion, tennis courts and to daylight the underground creek. • Centennial Park Phase IV The consultant is 50% finished with the concept drawings. They will be taking a closer look at the rough budget, which currently sits at $2.5 million. Jim explained why they are looking at lighting the four baseball fields, and laying conduit for future soccer field lighting. Jim will apply for Oregon Lottery dollars in April 2009 to fund the final phase. • Burlingham Park Master Plan Our Master Plan consultant team has recommended that we develop a master plan for Burlingham Park because it is so heavily used and serves an isolated section of the community. Jim recommends that we wait a bit to initiate this project, given the fact that we currently have so many unfunded plans. Discussion took place on providing the park with affordable amenities, such as additional picnic tables and benches. • Downtown Plaza Gazebo Erection of the gazebo is scheduled for February 7, 2009. Woodburn Public Works maintenance staff is currently in the process of setting the anchor bolts. Woodbum Rotary Club volunteers and Public Works maintenance staff will then work to erect the structure on February 7. Discussion took place on the ribbon cutting date, and a Workshop Minutes Page 2 39 Park and Recreation January 13, 2009 6:00 - 8:30 p.m. Workshop Minutes providing a special recognition plaque for the money donors that made this project possible. • Off Leash Dog Areas This is a project that Jim is moving forward with. He explained that it would possibly include an unfenced area at Senior Estates Park for small dogs, and a similar area at Legion Park for dogs of all sizes. Centennial Park is still the preferred site for a large, fenced dog park. He hopes to implement the unfenced off-leash areas this spring, once the necessary city ordinances have been revised and rule signage has been developed. 3. Project Prioritization The Board members were asked to prioritize the following 9 projects. They were asked to assign a 1-9 score to each project, with 1 representing their highest priority and 7 representing their lowest priority. They could use each number (1-9) only once. The projects with the highest scores will represent the Board's highest priorities for the coming year. The results follow: 2009 Project List Rosetta Eric Charlene Jud Alexa Jose h Avera a Rank MiN Creek Greenwa Phase I 3 3 3 1 1 3 2.3 1 Pla round Re lacement Pro ram 1 1 1 7 4 1 2.5 2 Im lement Le ion Park Master Plan 4 6 6 2 3 2 3.8 3 Centennial Park Phase IV 2 4 4 5 5 4 4.0 4 A vatic Center Ex ansion 5 2 9 4 2 8 5.0 5 Im lement Settlemier Park Master Plan 6 7 7 3 6 5 5.7 6 Create Off Leash Do Area 8 5 2 6 7 9 6.2 7 Create Burlin ham Park Master Pian 9 8 5 9 8 7 7 7 g Cultural Arts Communit Center 7 9 8 8 9 6 7.8 9 For comparison, the 2008 Project Prioritization List, is as follows: 2008 Project List Bruce Rosetta Eric Jose h Charlene Avera a Rank Pla round Re lacement Pro ram 1 2 2 1 1 1.4 1 Centennial Park Phase IV 2 1 1 6 2 2.4 2 Mill Creek Greenwa Phase I 3 4 5 2 3 3.4 3 A vatic Center Ex ansion 4 3 3 4 5 3.8 4 Im lement Le ion Park Master Plan 6 5 4 3 4 4.4 5 Im lement Settlemier Park Master Plan 5 6 6 5 6 5.6 6 Cultural Arts Communit Center 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary Date Workshop Minutes Page 3 Paulette Zastoupil, Recording Secretary Date 40 ~4~' W~~URN ~~~ l ntn~~;ra1cJ IdA~ February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director ~,~~C~~G~~%~`l~ SUBJECT: Appeal of CU 2008-01, located at 595 North Pacific Highway, tax lot 051 W 178609300. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a de nova public hearing on the case. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subject to conditions of approval. Deny the appeal of case CU 2008-01. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Arnaldo Benavidez, requested a Conditional Use to sell and install auto parts (principally tires and wheels] at 595 N. Pacific Highway, in the Commercial General zone. This conditional use involves the use of an existing building and does not result in any building expansion. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 11, 2008 and unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. The order effecting their decision was signed on January 8, 2009. The Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) 4.101.06.C provides that the Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant, Margarita Benavidez, raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This decision is anticipated to have no public sector financial impact. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 41 CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Staff report of February 9, 2009 Don Dolenc, Associate Planner CU 2008-O1 Appellant: Margarita Benavidez Applicant: Arnoldo Benavidez Property Owner: Vladimir Pendov Subject Property: The subject property is located at 595 North Pacific Highway and is identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax Lot 051 W 17BB09300. Nature of the Case: The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires), in the Commercial General zone. This conditional use involves the use of an existing building and does not result in any building expansion. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. The conditional use is required for auto parts installation. Auto parts sales without installation is allowed outright. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) 4.101.06.C provides that the Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. Summary: City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the conditional use subject to conditions, and deny the appeal. Table of Contents Background .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Appeal .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Other Criteria and Standards Relevant to the Conditional Use Application ...................................... 12 Commercial General (CG) .......................................................................................................12 Street Standards ........................................................................................................................ 16 Access Standards ......................................................................................................................16 Utilities and Easements ............................................................................................................16 Off Street Parking and Loading Standards .............................................................................. 18 Landscaping Standards ............................................................................................................18 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards ...................................................................... 18 Signs .........................................................................................................................................19 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 22 Attachments and Exhibits .................................................................................................................. 22 I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy ')\Staff report Appeal final.doc 42 'age 1 of 22 Background z Planning Commission action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application 3 on December 11, 2008. The Commission unanimously approved the conditional use request to a allow installation of auto parts (principally tires), subject to conditions, at its meeting of January 8, s 2009. ~ Condition of the Property: The subject property is zoned Commercial General (CG} and is s designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is 1.1 acre in azea. It is 9 currently occupied by two 3,000 square foot commercial buildings constructed in 1940 and a 1,860 ~o square foot commercial building constructed as a service station in 1967. The larger buildings are I i occupied by a beauty salon and a restaurant. The conditional use is for the 1,860 square foot iz building. No wetlands or floodplains exist on the site. Properties to the east, south, west, and the 13 easterly portion of the north property line are zoned Commercial General (CG) and are designated la Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Properties on the westerly portion of the north Is property line are zoned Single Family Residential (RS) and designated Low Density Residential on 16 the Comprehensive Plan Map. No previous land use decisions for the subject property were found I~ in City files. ~s 19 Appeal zo The Woodburn Development Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission's decision is zl appealable to the City Council by persons who participated in the public hearing or who were zz adversely affected by the decision. The City Council then conducts a de novo public hearing on the z3 matter. Notice of the appeal hearing is mailed to the appellant, the applicant, the property owner, za the owners of all property within 250 feet of the site, and the persons who offered testimony at the zs public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. 26 z~ Grounds for Appeal: The appellant cites the following as grounds for the appeal: zs 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject z9 to termination under WDO 1.104.02. 30 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. 31 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is prohibited 3z by WDO 2.106.OS.c.l.b.2, WDO 2.I06.OS.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 33 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between the 34 proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 3s 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. 36 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 37 3.102.04.b. 3a 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 39 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. ao 9. The applicant is currently displaying an illegal sign for the business. al 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. az 11. The proposed use is r,.ot compatible with surrounding properties. a3 a. The size, shape .ation, and topography of the site aze not suitable for the proposed use. I:\Community Developm ~ning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staffreport Appeal final.doc 43 Page 2 of 22 i b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is z compatible with the proposed use. 3 c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living a environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. s d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. 6 e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure ~ compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. s 9 Staff Response: Staff responds to the grounds for appeal as follows: io ~ i 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use iz subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. i3 Appellant's statement: "Under WDO 1.104.02, a nonconforming use shall be considered terminated is if it is found that the use ceased for a continuous period of 6 months. The staff report assumes that i s the nonconforming use of the subject property has been continuous since the existing building's i~ establishment in 1967. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion. » The applicant does state that the application is to "re-establish" this use, indicating that it has ceased i s for some significant amount of time. i9 A search of local phone directories and business registration records indicates not less than three zo separate auto repair businesses -aside from the applicant's -occupying the subject property within 2i the last 15 years: Woodburn Auto Exchange, Highway Auto Repair, and Pacific Northwest 22 Transmission. Most of the business entities which operated under these names have been 23 involuntarily dissolved or canceled for failure to renew. There is a gap in the business records of 2a Pacific Northwest Transmission from 1994 to 1998. Woodburn Auto Exchange, despite being Zs listed at the subject property in the phone directory, appears to have principally operated at 1175 N. 26 Pacific Highway. There is no indication of when, if ever, this business was located at the subject 2~ property. (See Exhibits 1 and 2 of Memorandum in Opposition submitted by Kelley & Kelley.) is [Note: The Memorandum in Opposition is included as Attachment H.] i9 Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the nonconforming use of the subject 3o property ceased at some time for a continuous period of six months while the building stood vacant 3 i between tenants. Certainly, a conclusory finding that the nonconforming use has not terminated is 3z not supported by any evidence in the record provided by the applicant or anyone else. 33 Staff s findings assume that many mandatory standards and review criteria need not be applied, on 3a the assumption that the development and the use are nonconforming, and that the proposed use is 3s much the same as past uses. These are not relevant determinations, these assumptions are 36 inadequate, and even if true they do not excuse the applicant from complying with mandatory 3z standards. The applicant has not asked for a variance or adjustment of any standard." 3s Findings: The building was originally constructed as a gasoline service station in 1967. Automobile 39 maintenance and repair were commonly conducted as part of a service station's business. After the ao sale of gasoline was discontinued on the subject property, the building continued to be used for ai automobile maintenance and repair. The property owner has stated that the use of the property for a2 auto repair has been continuous. City records indicate that water service to Pacific Northwest a3 Transmissions began on December 8, 1992. A digital photo taken December 17, 2004 shows a sign as for Pacific Northwest Transmission that advertises "complete auto repair." City records indicate I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 44 Page 3 of 22 i that water service to water service to Highway Auto Repair began on February 9, 2007. An z Eviction Trespass Notice was served on Highway Auto Repair on September 17, 2008. The 3 applicant applied for a City business license on September 22, 2008. City records indicate that a water service to Benavidez Tires and Wheels began on October 20, 2008. There is no definitive s evidence in the record that the nonconforming use was discontinued for a continuous period of six b months. ~ Conclusions: The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair existed prior to current s zoning standards and is a nonconforming use because it is conducted without the conditional use 9 currently required by the WDO. As a nonconforming use, this may continue until it is terminated io pursuant to WDO 1.104.02. The nonconforming use of automobile repair is distinct under the i i WDO from auto parts sales with installation -the subject of the conditional use application. iz 13 is 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. ~s Appellant's statement: "The applicant also states that the proposal is to also include "the addition of ~b tire & wheel installation," which changes and expands the nature of the use. WDO 1.104.04 i~ provides that change or expansion of a nonconforming use "shall not make the development more ~s nonconforming." That is precisely what the applicant has proposed to do." 19 Findings: The WDO states that "Any expansion or addition to buildings or structures with zo nonconforming height, setback, density or lot coverage shall not make the development more zi nonconforming." [WDO 1.104.04.A] The proposed use does not involve an expansion or addition 22 to buildings or structures. In the CG zone, auto parts sales without installation is an outright z3 permitted use. Use of the property for auto repair predates the current zoning and is an existing 2a nonconforming use. The proposed conditional use is for automotive parts installation (principally zs tires and wheels.) 26 Conclusions: The nonconformity for automotive maintenance is not increased by the additional use 27 of automotive parts sales with installation. The proposed conditional use is not precluded by WDO 2s 1.104.04. 29 30 3 i 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is 3z prohibited by WDO 2.106.05.c.1.b.2, WDO 2.106.05.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 33 Appellant's statement: "Although the applicant does not show it on the site plan, the business 34 currently allows off-street parking to take place in the area near the front tire rack and the sign, 3s which is an area well within the required 10 foot plus 15 foot setback. The staff report confirms this 36 when addressing throat length, which is defined as "extending from the closest off street parking or 37 loading space to the outside edge of right of way." Staff finds that the throat length on the subject 3a property is 10 feet, meaning that offstreet parking is taking place within 10 feet of the right of way. 39 (Staff Report 7, lines 10-21.)" ao Findinus: "Any additional parking, loading, landscaping, wall and/or refuse facility required by the ai WDO to accommodate a change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the az following: a3 A. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, as loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the I:\Community Developmer +nning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 45 Page 4 of 22 I standards of the WDO. z B. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion 3 increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, a shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the s standards of the WDO. Parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities 6 required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to those ~ necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion." [WDO 1.104.05] s The proposed use does not result in additions to the building and is not subject to design review. 9 Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming off-street parking to be brought into to conformity only though a Design Review process. The WDO does not require that the I i nonconforming off-street parking be brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. Iz 13 la 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between Is the proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 16 Appellant's statement: "WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a provides that "development in the CG zone shall be I7 subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.11." That table requires a "solid brick is or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height," 19 where the CG zone development abuts RS-zoned property. This is also required by WDO zo 3.107.06.B.8.b. RS-zoned property abuts the proposed use to the north. At present, a wood fence in zl poor repair is all that is present along this property line. Contrary to staff's conclusion (Staff Report zz 6, lines 2-8), this is not "comparable" to a solid wall with anti-graffiti surface. [Note: This refers to z3 the staff report to the Planning Commission.] za Further, staff's statement that "the proposed use is similar to previous uses" is not an applicable zs standard or an exception to mandatory standards, particularly where there is no evidence supporting zb a conclusion that the nonconforming use has not terminated. The applicant has not met the z~ standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. zs The lack of any evidence that the nonconforming use has not terminated also implicates the setback z9 requirements of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. Applicant has not shown that the existing building meets the 3o five foot setback from abutting CG properties or the ten foot setback from RS properties. The 31 applicant has therefore not met his burden of producing evidence of compliance with all applicable 3z criteria." 33 Findinr?s: Property tax records indicate the building was constructed in 1967. The site and 3a associated improvements pre-date current standards. 3s Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming buffering to be brought into conformity only 36 though a Design Review process. The WDO does not require that the nonconforming buffering be 37 brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. 38 39 ao 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. al Appellant's statement: "WDO 3.104.OS.E.2 requires the radius of curb flare for a commercial use az driveway to be 30 feet minimum. According to the staff report, the proposed curb radius is a3 approximately 23 feet. Thi-.:':oes not meet the mandatory standard imposed by the WDO. I:\Community Development' ling\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeai final.doc 46 Page 5 of 22 ~ Similarly, WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 requires a throat length of 50 feet minimum, while applicant's site 2 plan only provides for 10 feet. 3 Staff s finding that the proposed use is comparable to previous uses of the building is irrelevant and a does not provide an exception to a mandatory standard. Further, the fact that meeting these s standards would be expensive and "may not be physically possible," as stafffinds, does not excuse 6 the applicant from his burden of meeting them. The applicant has not submitted an application for a ~ variance or adjustment from any standard, or provided any evidence in support of such an a application, so there is no basis for the Planning Commission to ignore applicable standards." 9 Findinss: Aerial photography from 2001 shows the driveways and parking area before the WDO io was adopted. A site inspection found the driveway and parking configuration to be substantially i i unchanged. The curb radius and throat length requirements of WDO 3.104.05.E relate to the iz property and not to its use. The current proposal does not involve a Design Review. i3 Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming access to be brought into conformity only ~a though a Design Review process. The structure is nonconforming to the curb radius and throat is length requirements of WDO 3.104.OS.E. The WDO does not require that the nonconforming curb ib radius and throat length be brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. -~ is i9 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by Zo WDO 3.102.04.b. i~ Appellant's statement: "WDO 3102.040B requires the dedication of five foot wide public utility i2 easements along each lot line abutting a public street. There is no evidence from the applicant that z3 the proposed use can or will meet this requirement. Although staff may have concluded that this za dedication is not necessary, it is mandatory under the terms of the WDO, leaving the Planning 2s Commission no discretion to overlook WDO 3.102.04.B." 26 FindinQS: The proposed use of the property does not involve any increased need for public utilities. 2~ The site is currently served by existing utilities. The Public Works Department did not indicate the za need for a public utility easement. 29 Conclusions: Dedication of a public utility easement is not necessary for approval of this 3o conditionaI use. 31 32 33 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 3a Appellant's statement: "WDO 3.106.O1.B provides that the WDO landscaping standards shall apply 3s to the entire site area of a development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures and/or 36 parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than 37 existed at the date of the WDO adoption. 3a The applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has not provided any evidence that the proposed use 39 is not subject to the Landscaping Standards. There is no evidence in the record showing to what ao existed on the subject property at the date of the WDO adoption, from which it is possible to a~ conclude that the proposed use does not expand structures or parking area more than 50 percent. a2 Therefore these standards ~ t be applied, and the applicant has not submitted any evidence a3 showing the proposed use comply with the landscaping standards in WDO 3.106." I:\Community Developmenr ing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 47 Page 6 of 22 ~ Findin s: WDO 3.106.01 provides that "The provisions of this section shall apply: z A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single-family and 3 duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and a B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to s structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 6 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption." ~ No new structures, additions to structures, or parking azeas aze proposed. Aerial photography from s 2001 shows the buildings and pazking area before the date of the WDO adoption. A site inspection 9 found the buildings and parking area to be the same as in 2001. ~o Conclusion: Under WDO 3.106.01, the development is not subject to the standards of WDO 3.106. ~i iz ~ 3 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. ~a Appellant's statement: "The Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the existing i s building in which the proposed use will be located is a nonconforming structure which has not lost ~6 its nonconforming status by termination. Therefore, the existing building comes within the i7 definition of "all non-residential structures in the CG zone," and must comply with the design is requirements of WDO 3.107. The applicant has not produced any evidence to meet his burden of i 9 showing that the proposed use will comply with these standards." zo Findings: The use is proposed to be established in an existing non-residential structure in the CG zi zone. The structure was built in 1967, before the current land use standards were enacted. The zz architectural design standards and guidelines of WDO 3.107 relate to the building and not to its use. z3 Conclusions: The WDO does not require that the nonconforming design be brought into conformity za with the proposed conditional use. zs 26 z~ 9. The applicant is currently displaying an illegal sign for the business. zs Appellant's statement: "WDO 3.110.04 requires a permit for the erection of any sign non exempt z9 under WDO 3.110.11. The applicant presently has two permanent, non-free-standing signs for the 3o business placed on the subject property in violation of WDO 3.110.04. The Planning Commission 3 i should not grant a permit to an applicant presently in violation of the WDO unless the permit will 3z correct the violation." 33 FindinQS: A site inspection found two pole signs. The Planning Commission required that the 3a existing pole sign in front of the building be removed or converted to a monument sign conforming 3s to WDO 3.110 as a condition of approval for the conditional use. The temporary sign located on 36 the base of the larger pole sign is subject to Temporary Sign Permit 2009-01, which expires on 37 March 2, 2009. 3s Conclusions: The restaurant and auto repair shop constitute individual tenant spaces. The existing 39 pole sign for the restaurant is not attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is not ao required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. The existing pole sign for the auto repair a~ shop is attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is required by WDO 3.110.20.B.4 to az comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. 43 I:\Community Developmeni\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 48 Page 7 of 22 1 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of z properly. 3 Appellant's statement: "At present, the proposed use's primary refuse item, old tires, is being a collected in the open air to the back of the existing building. Old tires are quite bulky. They also s tend to invite infestation of vermin such as rats, as a nesting location. The applicant's stated 6 intention to "use the existing refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant" strains ~ credibility and the applicant's present approach to refuse collection is unhealthy, unsightly, and in s violation of WDO 2.106.06.E.3." 9 Findings: A site inspection found that some of the tires stored behind the building are inventory, to while others are used tires awaiting recycling. The existing refuse collection facilities located 11 behind the restaurant are reported by the applicant to be emptied on a weekly basis. The applicant Iz reports that he takes unusable tires to an off-site processor on a regular basis. The WDO does not 13 set standards for the "proper" disposal of refuse, or require an applicant to produce evidence that la refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. Nonconforming refuse facilities are governed by i s WDO 1.104.05. 16 Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming refuse facilities to be brought into conformity 17 only through a Design Review process. 18 19 zo 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. 21 a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed zz use. z3 b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian za facilities is compatible with the proposed use. zs c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living zb environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. z~ d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. zs e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to z9 ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. 3o Appellant's statement: "To the south on the same lot are a restaurant and a beauty salon. To the 31 north are a restaurant and single-family dwellings. The portion of the abutting property to the west 3z is essentially vacant, and beyond this vacant area to the west are single-family dwellings. 'The 33 proposed use does not comply with the relevant review factors as follows: 3a a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. 3s The size and shape of the subject property made for an awkward, unsuitable fit between the existing 36 restaurant and beauty salon and the proposed use. To a large extent the proposed use encroaches on 37 and crowds the parking and pedestrian area required by the restaurant and beauty salon sharing the 3s subject property to the south. The increase in vehicular traffic to the subject property, particularly 39 with regard to the anticipated presence of large tire and automotive equipment deliveries, will ao adversely effect the safety and comfort of customers coming to and from the neighboring al businesses. I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use1595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-OI)\Staff report Appeal tinal.doc 49 Page 8 of 22 i The location is also inappropriate for a use of this kind. The proposed use's abutting properties are z used for restaurants, a beauty salon, and single family residences. Tire and wheel sales and 3 installation does not belong in this location. a The existing building appears to be nonconforming as to setbacks from neighboring properties, as s well as access standards, and applicant has not produced evidence that these setbacks and standards b are or can be satisfied. A nonconforming structure is, by definition, unsuitable for a conditional use ~ because it is not compatible with the zoning district. s b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities 9 is compatible with the proposed use. ~o The subject property is paved to a considerable extent, yet applicant has produced no evidence of a i i plan for addressing stone run-off Further, there are no sidewalks on the subject property. iz Although, as staff notes, this is an automotive business, it still requires capacity for pedestrian 13 facilities for pedestrian traffic which passes through. At present, pedestrians are forced to traverse is the subject property's driveway and parking area. ~s c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living ib environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. ~ i The noise and unsightliness of a tire and wheel installation and repair business will negatively is impact the business activities going on in the neighboring businesses, which, being two restaurants ~ 9 and a beauty salon, are of a higher aesthetic character. Removal and replacement of tires and zo engine noise. The proposed use will also negatively impact neighboring residential properties. The z~ existing fence is not adequate buffering of these impacts as required by WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a, and zz the negative aesthetic impacts are fully visible from residential properties to the west. z3 The coming and going of the applicant's own large truck and other trucks delivering parts or taking za away refuse will have a negative impact on noise and vehicular traffic both for abutting businesses zs and for traffic passing on Highway 99E. The proposed use, being anautomobile-related business, z6 will significantly increase vehicular traffic. z~ d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. zs It is the applicant's burden to review all potentially applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and z9 explain why each is or is not applicable, and explain how the proposal conforms to those that are 3o applicable. The applicant has not met this burden. 3i Staff identified two policies which it believes is applicable. The proposal does not conform to 3z these. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that architectural design should be attractive and 33 should include enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parking areas. The applicant's 34 proposed use is not attractive and the applicant has proposed no new landscaping to reduce the 3s visual impact of the subject property's parking area. Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that 36 the city should ensure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential 37 areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones. The proposed use does not 3s conform to the applicable architectural and landscaping buffer requirements, so it does not conform 39 to this policy. The proposed use would expand, intensify, and alter the previous use of the property, ao which was nonconforming and likely terminated. I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 50 Page 9 of 22 i e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure z compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. 3 It is the applicant who bears the burden of production and proof that the proposed use will meet all a applicable criteria. This does include the burden to propose conditions of approval to mitigate the s negative impacts of a use and ensure compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has not b produced a single proposed condition." s Findin s: WDO 5.103.O1.C.3 enumerates "[r]elevant factors to be considered in determining 9 whether the proposed use is compatible." The property was developed prior to the existing io standards established by the WDO. The requested conditional use would allow a tire store with i ~ installation to operate in an existing building. iz a. The buildings aze separated by approximately 42 feet. WDO 3.105 (Table 3.1.4) requires a 2- i3 way aisle width of 24 feet. The property at its narrowest is approximately 132 feet wide. A is site inspection found that the property is relatively flat. is b. The subject property is currently served by public storm drains. The Public Works Department ib has not noted any deficiencies in the capacity of the drainage or pedestrian facilities serving the i~ site. The proposed conditional use of auto parts sales with installation involves no increase in i a impervious surface and generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. Sidewalks are i9 not provided along Highway 99E - a state facility. The business is auto-oriented, not zo pedestrian-oriented. The proposed conditional use of auto parts sales with installation zi presumably generates little if any off-site pedestrian traffic. zz c. The proposed use is an automotive parts dealership with installation and automotive z3 maintenance. The previous use was automotive maintenance. The residentially zoned property za is approximately 80 feet from the building. zs d. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan aze not self-implementing, but aze effected zb through the zoning regulations in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. WDO 1.104 z~ recognizes and regulates nonconformities. zs e. There are four conditions of approval. This is a nonconforming site. The property is in the CG z9 zone and nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. 30 3i Conclusions: "Relevant factors to be considered" are not mandatory standards. WDO 5.103.O1.C.3 3z does not require site compliance for this request. 33 a. The site is large enough to accommodate traffic between the buildings. The shape, location, 3a and topography of the site do not preclude its use for auto repair. 3s b. The existing public drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. 36 c. The proposed use (automotive parts dealership with installation -principally tires and wheels - 37 and automotive maintenance) would have impacts regarding noise, illumination, hours of 3s operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic similar in nature and extent to those of 39 the previous automotive maintenance use. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the ao living environment is a "factor to be considered." Based on the site location and the ai surrounding land uses, 'le impacts of the proposed conditional use are minimal. I:\Community Development` Wing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 51 Page 10 of 22 i d. As discussed more fully above, the property is nonconforming with respect to architectural z design and landscaping requirements, and the WDO does not require conformance. 3 e. The proposed use of the property is compatible with nearby uses, which include automotive a repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities.. ~ Overall Conclusions: 9 The proposed use either meets WDO requirements or is nonconforming to them and regulated under ~o WDO 1.104. I:\Community Development\Planrung\2008\Conditional Use\595 N P; )\Statl"report Appeal final.doc 52 'age 11 of 22 I 2 3 a s 6 s 9 to II 12 13 l4 Is l6 17 Is 19 zo 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 2s 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 al a2 Other Criteria and Standards Relevant to the Conditional Use Application jas considered by the Planning Commission) The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on December 11, 2008. The Commission unanimously approved the conditional use request to allow installation of auto parts (principally tires and wheels), subject to conditions, at its meeting of January 8, 2009. The following criteria must be considered by the decision makers in rendering a decision. Oregon Revised Statutes 197.763 requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) are: 1.1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 1.101 Structure 1.102 Definitions 1.104 Nonconforming Uses and Development Standards 2.1 LAND USE ZONING 2.101 General Provisions 2.106 Commercial General (CG) 3.1 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 3.103 Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally 3.104 Access 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 WDO 2.106 Commercial General (CGS The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of the WDO, are permitted in the CG zone. ... Automotive parts (44131) without installation. [WDO 2.106.O1.E.1] The following uses may be permitted in the CG zone subject to the applicable development standards of the WDO and the conditions of conditional use approval: ... Motor vehicle and parts dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation. ... Automotive maintenance. (8111) [WDO 2.106.03.A.1, 2.106.03.G.1] Findings: The proposed use ~ an automotive parts dealership with installation (principally tires and wheels), and automotive ma -enance. I:\Community Development\F ing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pa• F,_ H • (('T r^ lg_O1)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 53 Page 12 of 22 1 Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. z a The nonconforming use of a building, structure, or land shall be considered terminated if the s Community Development Director fords that the use of the building, structure or land ceased, b for any reason, for a continuous period of 6 months. [WDO 1.104.02] z Findings: The building was originally constructed as a gasoline service station in 1967. At that s time, automobile maintenance and repair were commonly conducted as an integral part of a service 9 station's business. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued on the subject property, the building to continued to be used for automobile maintenance and repair. The property owner stated that the use 11 of the property for auto repair has been continuous. The applicant's business license lists 12 automotive repair as an element of the current business. 13 Conclusions: The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use la because it is conducted without the conditional use currently required by the WDO. As a Is nonconforming use, this element of the business may continue until it is terminated pursuant to 16 WD0 1.104.02. 1~ IS 19 Lots in a CG zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.10. [WDO zo 2.106.OS.A] TABLE 2.1.10 Lot Standards in a CG Zone In a CG 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. zl Findings: The existing and proposed uses of the property are non-residential. The lot area is zz adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. z3 Conclusion: The lot is conforming for area in the CG zone. There is no minimum lot width or za depth. 25 26 z~ Height, Building: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest zs point of the coping or flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of z9 the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. [WDO 1.102] 3o The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 70 feet. [WDO 2.106.05.B] 31 FindinQS: The existing building is a single-story structure, and does not exceed the height standard. 3z Conclusion: The existing building complies with WDO 2.106.OS.B. 33 34 3s Special setback standards by street classification are established in Table 3.I.1. The special 36 setback standards shall be applied to streets within the City of Woodburn as functionally 37 classified in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan. [WDO 3.10?.OS.D] I:\Community Developments ng\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pac ' )\Staff report Appeal final.doc 54 ?age 13 of 22 TABLE 3.1.1 Special Setback Standards by Street Classification WTSP Functional Classification ~ Special Setback from Center Line ~ Major Arterial ~ 50 feet ~ ~ The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, Section 2 3.103.05. [WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1] 3 Findin s: Figure 7.1 of the Transportation System Plan shows Pacific Highway as a Major Arterial. a Table 3.1.1 requires a special setback of 50 feet from the center Iine. The GIS system shows a right- s of-way width of approximately 80 feet. In addition to the special setback of 50 feet from centerline b (or 10 feet from property line), an additional 15 foot setback is required. The GIS system shows the ~ existing building to be set back approximately 45 feet from the front property line. s Conclusion: The existing building complies with the standards of WDO 3.103.OS.D, Table 3.1.1, 9 and WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1. u~ ii i2 Development in a CG zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table ~3 2.1.11. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a] TABLE 2.1.11 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for CG Zones Abutting Property Landscaping Wall Interior Setback RS, R1S, or RM There is no buffer Solid brick or architectural wall 10 ft. zone yard landscaping with anti-graffiti surface, no less requirement for than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet an interior yard in height. abutting a buffer wall. CO, CG, DDC, There is no buffer Alternative A: Wall requirements Alternative A: 5 ft. NNC, P/SP, IP, yard landscaping shall be detemuned in SWIR or IL zone requirement for conjunction with the applicable an interior yard Design Review process. abutting a buffer wall. Alternative B: No wall required. Alternative B: Zero setback abutting a building wall. is A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than ~ s 7 feet in height: ib a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line ofnon-residential development ~~ to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting use when no ~s comparable buffer cts. (WDO 3.107.06.B.8] I:\Community Development\P '.008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 55 Page 14 of 22 1 Findings: Design Review is required for new buildings and expansions of existing buildings. The z building is not required to go through a Design Review process at this time. An existing wood 3 fence separates the subject property from the abutting residential properties. The proposed use of a the property is similar to previous uses of the property. Although the property abuts properties s zoned RS, the residential zoning is approximately 80 feet from the building with the proposed b conditional use. Nonconforming buffering is governed by WDO 1.104.05. ~ Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming buffering to be brought into conformity only s though a Design Review process. The existing wood fence is comparable, although not equivalent, 9 to an architectural wall as a buffer. The guideline of WDO 3.107.06.8.8 - which is partially met - lo is not applicable to the current proposal. ll 12 13 Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard la abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2] 1 s Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for 16 parking and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.1Ob.05.C.2.c] 17 Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a street, is EXCEPT for parking in driveways. [WDO 3.103.06] 19 Findin :The site plan does not show any parking or storage located within a required setback. zo Conclusions: Parking within a required setback would be nonconforming. The site plan complies zl with the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2, WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.c, and 3.103.06. zz 23 za Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block 2s wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum zb of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.106.06.E.3] z~ Any additional parking, loading, landscaping, wall and/or refuse facility required by the ze WDO to accommodate a change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the z9 following: 3o A. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, 31 loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the 32 standards of the WDO. 33 B. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or 34 expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 3s percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and 36 refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading, landscaping, buffer 37 walls and refuse facilities required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent 38 shall be limited to those necessary to conform with the increment of change or 39 expansion. [WDO 1.04.05] ao Findings: The site plan shows a trash enclosure located at the rear of the building. The applicant al has indicated that he would delete the trash enclosure shown on the site plan and use the existing az refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant. Nonconforming refuse facilities are a3 governed by WDO 1.10 'S. I:\Community Developm inning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 56 Page 15 of 22 ~ Conclusions: WDO 1.204.05 requires nonconforming refuse facilities to be brought into conformity z only though a Design Review process. The standards of WDO 2.106.06.E.3 are not applicable to 3 the project as revised. 6 WDO 3.101 Street Standards s All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the 9 applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction io specifications of the Public Works Department. [WDO 3.101.02.C.1] ~ i Finding: Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. iz Conclusions: Highway 99E is not "under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn" and street i3 improvements are not required per WDO 3.101.02.C.1. is is ~b WDO 3.104 Access Standards l7 ~s Radius of Curb Flare: 35 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.05.E.2] ~9 Findin~es: The site plan does not call out the curb radius. The City GIS system shows that the curb zo radius is approximately 23 feet. The previous use of the building was auto repair. The proposed zi use of the building is auto repair. zz Conclusions: No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of this conditional use. 23 24 zs Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to zb the outside edge of right of way for a:... z7 a. Major street connection: 50 feet minimum, with greater improvement as may be zs required by a T1A. [WDO 3.104.05.E.4] z9 Street, Major: A street or highway classified in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan as 3o a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Service Collector, or Access street. [WDO 1.102] 3 i Findings: The site plan shows a throat length of approximately 10 feet. The previous use of the 3z building was auto repair. The proposed use of the building is auto repair. The site is 33 nonconforming. 34 Conclusions: No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of this conditional use. Bringing the 3s site into conformity is not required by the conditional use. 36 37 3s 3.102 Utilities and Easements 39 ao Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to applicable ai Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.01] I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal tinal.doc 57 Page 16 of 22 ~ Findinus: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm 2 drainage facilities. The site is already served by municipal services. 3 Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.01 do not apply to this case. a 6 All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where overhead ~ high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are currently served by s overhead wires or cables. [WDO 3.102.02] 9 Findin : A site inspection showed that the property is served by existing overhead high-voltage ~o electric facilities. i i Conclusion: Underground utilities are not required by WDO 3.102.02. 12 13 ~a Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed to the is standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. (WDO 3.102.03] i~ Findin :Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. i~ Conclusion: Street improvements, including street lights, are not required on Highway 99E per is WDO 3.101.02.G1. l9 20 2l The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the z2 construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities z3 located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public Works 2a Department standards. [WDO 3.102.04.A] z5 Findin s: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm 26 drainage facilities. The site is already served by municipal services and subject to a recorded utility 27 easement. 2s Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.04.A do not apply to this case. 29 30 3 i Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for electric 32 and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each lot line abutting a 33 public street. [WDO 3.102.04.B] 3a FindinQS: The site is served by existing utilities and the proposed use of the property does not 3s involve any increased need for public utilities. 36 Conclusions: Dedication of a public utility easement would not be roughly proportional to the 37 impacts of the development, and is not necessary for approval of this conditional use. 38 39 I:\Community Development~f'fanning\20081Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU200~ ')\Staffreport Appeal final.doc 58 Wage 17 of 22 ~ WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading Standards 3 The provisions of this Section shall apply to the following types of development:... a B. Any additional parking and/or loading required by the WDO to accommodate a s change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the following. b 1. Applications subject to Type III Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform ~ all parking, loading and landscaping for the subject use to the standards of the a WDO. 9 2. Applications subject to Type II Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the ~o change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading or i i landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform to all parking, loading and iz landscaping to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading and landscaping 13 required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to -a those necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion. [WDO ~ s 3.105.01 ] i6 Finding: The proposed use does not require a Type II or Type III Design Review. i~ Conclusion: The provisions of WDO 3.105 do not apply under WDO 3.105.01. is l9 zo WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards z~ iz The subject property shall be landscaped to the standards of Section 3.106 and 3.107.03. i3 [WDO 2.105.06.F.2] 2a The provisions of this section shall apply: is A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single- 2~ family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and i~ B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to zs structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and i9 parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. [WDO 30 3.106.01] 3 ~ Findings: No new structures, additions to structures, or parking areas are proposed. 32 Conclusion: The development is not subject to WDO 3.106 under WDO 3.106.01. 33 34 3s WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 36 31 The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures and 3s buildings in the RS, R1S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. [WDO 3.107.06.A) 39 Findings: The use is proposed to be established in an existing non-residential structure in the CG ao zone. The structure was built in 1967. ai Conclusions: The structure is nonconforming and is regulated under WDO 1.104. The architectural a2 design guidelines and standards do not apply. I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 59 Page 18 of 22 ~ WDO 3.110 Signs 3 The applicant has not submitted details of the proposed signage for review as part of this a application. The site sketch shows two pole signs and a wall sign. This land use decision does not s authorize the installation of signs. The property owner will be required to obtain a sign b permit prior to the installation of any sign. 9 Complex: Any group of two or more buildings, or individual businesses within a single io building provided at least two of the businesses have separate exterior entrances, on a site that i i is planned and developed to function as a unit and which has con-mon on-site parking, ~z circulation and access. A complex may consist of multiple lots or parcels that may or may not l3 be under common ownership. [WDO 3.110.03] is Findings: The site contains three buildings, is planned and developed to function as a unit, and has i s common on-site parking, circulation and access. ib Conclusions: The site qualifies as a "complex" for the purposes of WDO 3.110. i~ is i9 Complex. 20 a. A pole sign is permitted on a street frontage that exceeds 1001ineal feet not to exceed zi one pole sign for a complex. z2 b. A pole sign on a street with less than 3001ineal feet of frontage shall not exceed 15 z3 feet in height and 50 square feet in area. [WDO 3.110.16.A.2] za Findin s: The site sketch shows two existing pole signs in the complex. The City's GIS system zs shows the site to have approximately 231 feet of street frontage. The WDO only allows one pole 26 sign. z~ Conclusions: No more than one pole sign maybe authorized on the subject property, per WDO is 3.110.16.A.2.a. Conditional use approval requires that one of the signs be removed. 29 30 3 ~ Nonconforming signs are those signs lawfully established prior to the adoption of Section 3z 3.110 or subsequent amendment thereto or signs lawfully established on property annexed to 33 the City, which do not conform to the requirements of Section 3.110. Nonconformutg 3a permanent signs may remain provided they comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.20. 3s [WDO 3.110.20.A] 36 Finding: The two existing pole signs are evident on the property. 37 Conclusions: The two existing pole signs were established prior to the adoption of Section 3.210. 3s The two existing pole signs are nonconforming permanent signs subject to WDO 3.110.20. 39 Conditional use approval requires that one of the signs be removed. ao a~ az Nonconforming permanent signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 3.110 when one a3 or more of the following occ•: rs:... A Type II Design Review or T} pe III Conditional Use or I:\Community Development\P? x,2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pa '20f~c )\Staff report Appeal final.doc 60 'age 19 of 22 i Design Review land use application is approved for the premises upon which the sign is z located. In a complex, if an individual tenant space is the subject of a Type II Design Review 3 or Type III Conditional Use or Design Review land use application, only signs attached to a such tenant space shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. [WDO s 3.110.20.8.4] b Findings: The property is subject to a Type III Conditional Use. A site inspection found two pole ~ signs. The applicant has indicated that he would convert the existing pole sign in front of the s building to a conforming monument sign. The property owner has verbally agreed to this action. 9 Conclusions: The restaurant auto repair shop constitute individual tenant spaces. The existing pole io sign for the restaurant is not attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is not required > > to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. The existing pole sign for the auto repair shop is iz attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is required by WDO 3.110.20.8.4 to l3 comply with the provisions of Section 3.110 and be removed. is is ~b WDO 5.103.01 Conditional Use 17 is The proposed use shall be permitted as a conditional use within the zoning district. [WDO i9 5.103.O1.C.1] zo Findings: WDO 2.106.03.A.1 lists as a conditional use in the CG zone "Motor vehicle and parts zi dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation." WDO 2.106.03.G.1 lists as a zz conditional use in the CG zone "Automotive maintenance. (8111)" The proposed use is an z3 automoti re parts dealership with installation (principally tires and wheels), and automotive z4 maintenance, which is allowed conditionally. zs Conclusions: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. The zb criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.1 is met. z~ 2s z9 The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. [WDO 30 5.103.O1.C,2] 3 i Finding: Compliance with the Commercial General (CG) zoning regulations is discussed in detail 3z above. 33 Conclusion: The proposed use meets the requirements of WDO 2.106. 34 35 36 The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. [WDO 5.103.O1.C.3] 37 Findings: A beauty salon and a restaurant exist on the same lot with the proposed use. Two 3s conforming and two nonconforming single-family dwellings abut the north lot line, as does a 39 restaurant and professional office. An automobile repair facility abuts the lot on the south and west. 4o A mobile home sales lot and a vacant commercial lot adjoin the lot across Highway 99E. 41 42 I:\Community Development\>'lanning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staffreport Appeal final.doc 61 Page 20 of 22 i Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is z compatible include: 3 a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use; a Findings: The subject property is of adequate size, is irregular in shape but not excessively so, s is located on a major arterial street, and is relatively flat. ~ 6. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving s the proposed use; e Findings: The subject property is currently served by public water, sewerage, and drainage io facilities. The proposed conditional use involves no increase in impervious surface and i i generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. Sidewalks are not provided along iz Highway 99E - a state facility. Adequate public facilities exist to serve the site. l3 is c. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment: is 1) Noise; ib 2) Illumination; l7 3) Hours of operation; is 4) Air quality; i9 5) Aesthetics; and zo 6) Vehicular traffic. z i Findings: "The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment" is one of zz the "[r]elevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible" z3 that are enumerated in WDD 5.103.O1.C.3. The proposed use (automotive parts dealership za with installation and automotive maintenance} would have impacts regarding noise, zs illumination, hours of operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic similar in nature z6 and extent to those of the previous automotive maintenance use. 27 zs d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; zy Findings: Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial 3o areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual 31 impact of lazge expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides 3z that: "Commercial office and other low traffic generating commercial retail uses can be located 33 on collectors or in close proximity to residential areas if care in architecture and site planning is 34 exercised. The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close 3s to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." The proposed 36 use does not expand, intensify, or alter the pattern of existing development. 37 3s e. The suitability of proposed conditions of approval to insure compatibility of the proposed 39 use with other uses in the vicinity. [WDO 5.103.O1.C.3] ao Findings: The proposed conditions of approval minimize the effects of the proposed use on ai adjacent property. az a3 Conclusion: The proposed use meets the criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.3. as I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 62 Page 21 of 22 I 2 3 4 s 6 7 s 9 w II 12 13 14 Is 16 17 18 19 20 zl 2z 23 za zs 26 z7 2s 29 30 31 32 33 34 3s 36 37 38 39 40 al 42 Recommendations City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions on a form provided by the City. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, or public hearing. 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. The property owner shall remove the existing pole sign in front of the building or convert it to a monument sign conforming to WDO 3.110. City Council deny the appeal of case CU 2008-01. Attachments and Exhibits Attachment "A" Attachment "B" Attachment "C" Attachment "D" Attachment "E" Attachment "F" Attachment "G" Attachment "H" Attachment "I" Attachment "J" Attachment "K" Attachment "L" Attachment "M" Attachment "N" Attachment "O" Attachment "P" Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map Public Works Department comments Building Division comments Fire District comments Applicant's narrative Appellant's narrative Memorandum in Opposition (submitted to the Planning Commission) 2001 aerial photo with lot lines overlaid Minutes of the December 11, 2008 Planning Commission hearing Planning Commission's Final Order Notice and Procedure City water billing summary Eviction Trespass Notice Photograph taken December 17, 2004 Business license application Drawing of the property labeled "595 N. Pacific" Site plan I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pac ~q- 1)\Staffreport Appeal final.doc 63 Page 22 of 22 Attachment "A" Zoning Map Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan Map 64 From: To: Date: Subject: Dago Garcia Dolenc, Don 10/23/2008 4:08 PM N 2008-O1 (Benavidez Tires) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. The existing metered service shall be upgraded with a proper type of backfiow device. The applicant shall contact Scott Bergren City of Woodbum cross connection inspector for type and installation requirerr~nts at 503-982-5380. Marion County Plumbing permit may also be required. 2. An oil and sand separator will be required to be installed on the sanitary service. Contact Larry Arendt for type and installation requirements at 503-982-5283. Dago Garcla Senior Engineering Technician City of Woodburn 503-982-5248 PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Woodburn and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records law. This e-mail is subject to the State Retention Schedule. ATrACHMEMT C 65 PROJECT REFERRAL Woodburn DATE: October 17,1008 TO: Woodburo Fire District (Paul Iverson) Public Works (Dago Garcia) Building Division (Steve Krieg) ODOT (District 3 Sr. Permit Specialist) Applicant: Property Owner: File Number: Project: Arnoldo Beaavidez Vladimir Pendov CU 2008-01 Benavidez Tires The property is located at 595 North Pacific Highway and is identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax Lot OS 1 W 17BB09300. Please review and provide comments by October 31. Please contact Don Dolenc at (503) 980-2431 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Comments: ~~•~ /O •'?.~ -cam ATTACHMENT D 66 V ~' - Don Dotenc - CU 2008-O1 Frain: "Paul Iverson" To: "Don Dotenc" Date: 10/30/2008 3:53 PM Subject: CU 2008-Ot Don I do not have any comments in regards to this application. Paul ATTACHMENT E tile: -(':'Ducuments and Settings'dundo`~Local Sett~s`,Temp\XF ti~ise`~4909D867Primar... ! l/312008 1. The proposed use shall be permitted as s conditional use within the zoning district The proposed use is to re-establish an Auto Repair Facility on the subject site with the addition of Tire & Wheel Installation. The subject property is flat, 1680 square feet in size and is located in a commercially zoned area. Commercial businesses surround the subject property. The subject site has street frontage and access onto Highway 99E to the West. The site has been designed and used for auto repair for over 30 years. The size, shape, location and topography will not impair the re-establishment of an auto repair business with installation of tires and wheels on the subject property. There are 2 Tire Centers across the street, one to the north and one to the south along with several commercial retail businesses located to both the north and south. The above described commercial businesses surround the subject site and are compatible with the proposed auto repair and tire installation business. 2. The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. The proposed use is retail trade, motor vehicle & parts dealers, automotive maintenance and tire and wheel installation. Structure isnon-conforming. A design review is not required. 3a) The subject property is flat, 1,580 square feet in size and is located in a commercially zoned area. Commercial businesses surround the subject property. The size, shape, location and topography will not impair the re-establishment of an auto repair business with installation of tires and wheels on the subject property. b. The existing public water, sewer, and drainage facilities to the subject site are adequate to re-establish the auto repair and tire installation business. gg ATTACHMENT F 1. Noiae -The proposed use is located in a commercial zone. There has been an automotive repair shop there for 30 years. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to re-establish this use with the addition of tire & wheel installation. There will be minimal noise from the proposed facility with most of the work being done inside the building. The proposed commercial business is compatible with the surrounding commercial businesses. 2. Illumination -There are 3 outside security lights that shine down on the property and not on traffic or neighbors. No lighting is proposed to be changed with this application. 3. Hours of operation -House of operation will be Sunday, 10 a.m. - 3 p.m. and Monday thru Saturday, S a.m. - 7 p.m. The proposed hours of operation are consistent with a commercial business and the abutting commercial businesses (retail sales and tire store) ,~. Aesthetic; -The equipment will be stores inside the building, with some tire and wheels displays outside the structure during business operating hours. Trash containers are located to the south end of the building. There will be no vehicle storage at the site and there are no fencing changes at this time. The building and parking lot on the subject site have been well maintained. Landscaping strips are located adjacent to Highway 99E. No new development is proposed. The landscape strips adjacent to Highway 99E contain existing shrubs, annuals and bark dust. The plantings in these planter strips will be well maintained. The site is paved. Existing buildings on the subject property are on consistent of nature and build located in the same area. Parking spaces are not striped on the site and there are no sidewalks adjacent to the subject property. An access permit is not required for a conditional use request so street improvements are not triggered. The applicant does not propose a change in use on the site or structural changes that would trigger the design review process. The applicant is only making cosmetic changes to the outside, painting, pressure washing, etc. 6. Vehicular traffic. Traffic that stops at this location are people in need of estimates for auto repair ancUor Tires/Wheels purchase and installation. The estimate at this time would be 10-15 cars daily. The proposed traffic for the use is consistent with the traffic that the site has generated in the past. Two driveway accesses are located on Highway 99E 69 1 3 4 ~~ RECD ~ s 6 ~~~~ .~ ~ nrlj~fS L'~. ~ VIlOOOBItRN COMMUNITY DEVE! OPMENT DEPT. 8 9 BEFORE TEIE CITY COUNC[[. 10 FOR THE CITY OF WOODI3i1RN, ORF,GON 11 In the Matter of the Conditional Use ) l ~ Application of ) Case No. CU 2008-01 l ; ARNOI~llU BENAVIUI:1, ) NOTIC)r; OF IN'I'>H N"1' 14 Applicant. } 'I'O APPEAL 1 ~ -- ----------- -- --- --- - 16 Margarita 13cnavidcr in her capacity as I'crsonal Itcprescntativc ii)r the I•atatc oi~ 17 Guadalupe A. 43enavider appears by and through her attorneys, Kcllcy & Kelley, and 18 submits this Notice of Intent to Appeal. "I'he Community I)evclopment iilc numher hcin,~ l 9 appealed is CU 2008-O1. The date of the decision was January 8, 2009. 'l~he contact 20 information for the appellant is: 2l Margarita Iienavidci ~ 7996 Cicarlakc Court N1? ~_~ f Kcirer. OR 97303 X03-981-2330 daytime phone) ?~ Appellant has sanding to appeal. Appellant \b'as a part}' in opposition \\ho uihmitlcd ?> •~~ memorandum in opposition to the granting of a conditional use to i\rnoldu 13ena\ id~i at the 26 I ` planning commission le~~el. Appellant appeared. through her attornry. at the plannim~ I':4~~~ i - ~crrlrl', cal- I~: rt:N r rc~ ANt)I.:v. ,~L~:,:..,,~~._.:._,,:.,,,,,,~.,,~„i~,,.r,,,.al,,:~-; •~ ~,....,n,,::,~~, ~~i,,:., K~•:r.t.r•.~~ K~•:t.t.t~.\ 141, v„~(1,1 sl,l,,a,1, N... ~ ATTACHMENT G 111.\'I'.N i'1)\, t)ll l.f:t,~i `17.)N4 (ill~~'7.4-ti471 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 {1 12 1; 14 l5 16 17 l8 19 20 21 ~~ ~; ~4 ~~ commission meeting in opposition of the granting of the permit. Appclant owns real property within the notification area, is adversely affected and aggrieved. STATEMENT OE THE GROUNDS FOR THE Ai'1'1•;A[, 1. The Use of the Property for Automobile Maintenance and Repair is a Nonconforming Use Subject to 'Germination under Wll0 1.104.A2. Under WDO 1.104.02, a nonconforming use shall be considered tcrminatcd if it is found that the use ceased for a continuous period of 6 months. "I'he staff report assumes that the nonconforming use of the subject property has been continuous since the existing building's establishment in 1967. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion. The applicant does state that the application is to `'ro-establish" this use. indicating that it has ceased for some significant amount of time. A search of local phone directories and business registration records indicates not less than three separate auto repair businesses -aside from the applicant's occupying the subject property within the last 15 years: Woodburn Auto Exchange, I lighway Hato Repair. and Pacific Northwest "Transmission. Most of the business entities which operated under these names have been involuntarily dissolved or canceled for failure to renew. "I'herc is a gap in the business records of Pacific Northwest 'Cransmission Isom 1994 to 1998. Woodburn Auto Exchange, despite being listed at the subject property in the phone directory, appears to have principally operated at 1175 N. Pacitic I lighway. 'I~here is no indication of when, if ever, this business was located at the subject property. (Sec I:xhihits I and ? ul• Memorandum in Opposition submitted by Kelley & Kcllcy.) [Jndcr these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the nonconti~rnin~~ usr cif the subjc~t property ceased at some time for a continuous period ol~six months «hile the building stood vacant between tenants. Certainly. a conclusory finding that the nonconforming use has not tcrminatcd is not supported by any c~ idence in the reeur~l 2F ~ ~ provided by the applicant or anyone else. Page '_-!~!)"I'IC[~ OF IN"I'I:NI'"fOAPf'I{:11. ~r~,•:;.~:.a~..,,~_,,._~,,;...,,•;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,;~~:.,~;,r„~.ti~u, , Kf•:I.I.i'.Y . KIil.Llil' IID Nuk7 n SccuNU S~re r: r:~r tirr.t~r~.R~(uN,Oxcc~uu 973tl1 (SO.ri 87.1-8G71 1 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 l3 14 l~ 16 17 18 19 fit) Staff s tindings assume that many mandatory standards and review criteria need not be applied, on the assumption that the development and the use are noncontbnning, and that the proposed use is much the same as past uses. 'these are not relevant dctcnninations. these assumptions arc inadequate, and even if true they do not excuse the applicant from complying with mandatory standards. 'l~he applicant has nat asked for a variance or adjustment of any standard. 2. The Proposed Use Will Expand the Nonconforming Usc in Violation of W I)O 1.104.04. "fhe applicant also states that the proposal is to also include "the addition of lire & wheel installation," which changes and expands the nature of the use. WI)O 1.IU4.U4 provides that change or expansion of a nonconforming use "shall not make the development more nonconforming." That is precisely what the applicant has proposed to do. 3. "fhe Proposed Use Will Include Off-Street Parking Within a IZrquircd Setback, Which is Prohibited by WDO 2.106.05.C.1.b.2, WDO 2.106.I15.C.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. although the applicant does not show it on the site plan, the business currcntl~ allows oft=street parking to take place in the area near the front fire rack and the sign. whie:h is an area well within the required 10 foot plus l 5 foot setback. 'C'he staff report confirms this when addressing throat length, which is defined as "extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to the outside edge of right of way." Staff finds that the threat I length on the subject property is 10 lcct, meaning that offstrcct parking is takin~~ place ~~ ithin ~? 10 feet ofthe right of way. (Staff Report 7, lines 10-21.) 2; ~3. The Proposed Usc Dues i`iot Meet Required Setbacks or Provide f-or :~ 13u1'frr ~4 V1•'all 13eh~•ecn the Proposed Usc And Abutting RS-loved Properties. ?j Vl'1~0 2.106.O~.C.2.a provides that "development in the CG lone slug!( hr suhjcct to ?6 the setback and puffer requirements of -f•ablc ?.l .1 { ... •I•hat u~hle reyuires a "s~)lid prick ur Pcte~ ~ - \O1-!(~l. (il' l\ I l'.ti'l l O r~1"1=..1 _-,I~:-,,.::,:., ....~~ ~;:;,:: >.:•,.:.-.::.,rn•.; •~,.-;r~_.•i , ~~r~.,~~.• Ki•.i.i.~•:v K)•:i.t.i:~ .:1~...y.,,..! ~~:.,...~ I1D \oN,ii 5r.r.~i~u S, Rl.ci Sn.vi,Hrn N, Oe1LGOfv 97.4X1 (S~R73-N! 71 1 3 =1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 l~ 16 17 18 l9 20 ?1 ~~ ~; ~q 7j architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 lcet in height," where the CG -r_one development abuts RS-•roned property. ~l'his is also reduirai by WDO 3.107.06.6.8.b. RS-zoned property abuts the proposed use to the north. At present, a wood fence in poor repair is all that is present along this property line. Contrary to stall's conclusion (Staff Report 6, lines 2-8), this is not "comparable" to a solid wall with anti- graffiti surface. Further, staff's statement that '`the proposed use is similar to prcvictus uses" is nut an applicable standard or an exception to mandatory standards, particularly where there is no evidence supporting a conclusion that the nonconforming use has not terminated. "I~hc applicant has not met the standards of WDO 2.106.O5.C2.a. "fhe lack of any evidence that the nonconforming use has not terminated also implicates the setback requirements of WDO 2.106.O~.C.2.a. Applicant has not slu~wn that the existing building meets the five foot setback from abutting CG properties or the ten loot setback from RS properties. The applicant has therefore not met his burden oCproducin~ evidence of compliance with alt applicable criteria. 5. 'The Proposed Use Does Not Mcet "I'hc Access Standards of ~VDO 3.1 tl-1. WDO 3.104.OS.E.2 requires the radius of curb dare for a commercial use drivcwav to be 30 feet minimum. According to the staff report, the proposed curb radius is approximately 23 feet. "['his does not meet the mandatory standard imposed by the ~'UO. Similarly, WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 requires a throat length of 50 feet minimum, while applicant's site plan only provides for 10 feet. Staffs finding that the proposed use is comparable to previous uses ul" the huil.iin~, is irrelevant and dues not provide an exception to a mandatory standard. further, the Fact Tat meeting these standards would be erpcnsive and "may not he physicall~• pussihlc." as slat t~ finds. does not excuse the applicant Isom his burden ofntceting them. l he applicant fins not 2G , ~ submitted an application fur a variance or adjustment from anv standard. or prtwided any I'a:!l' ~ - NO fl('F OF IN'fl:\l~ ~CO :1 k'Pl::~l. x.14<r.a~.: ~.,. ..g. ~.~-. ~I, ..:~~~,:,,,•r-~:.~: n,,.. ~~ :.~:,,: ~, •,1~~, .,. ;:... I;-.sc~.~,~,.: IID \t1N111 $1:1:11 VII ti'1~1{1: 1.-I tin.~'IH~ruv,Oxlauti 7?38l (i1~2S$875.8671 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ ,~ _a ~4 ,~ evidence in support of such an application, so there is no basis for the Planning Commission to ignore applicable standards. 6. The Proposed Use Does Not Provide for the Dedication of 1Jtility ih:ascments as Required by WDO 3.102.04.B. WDt) 3]02.0408 requires the dedication of tive toot wide public utility casements along each lot line abutting a public street. 'Chore is no evidence from the applicant that the proposed use can or will meet this requirement. Although staff may have concluded shat this dedication is not necessary, it is mandatory under the terms of the WDO, leaving the Planning Commission no discretion to overlook WDO 3.102.04.13. 7. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Landscaping; Standards of ~YUO 3.106. WDO 3.106.01.8 provides that the WDO landscaping, standards shall apply to the entire site area of a development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by ~0 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. The applicant, who bears the burden of prooi•, has not provided any evidence that the proposed use is not subject to the C,andscaping Standards. "I here is no evidence in the rc(:clyd showing to what existed on the subject property at the date of the WI)O adoption, li•om which it is possible to conclude that the proposed use does not expand structures or parking area more than 50 percent. Therefore these standards must be applied, and the applicant has not submitted any evidence showing the proposed use will comply with the landscapin,, standards in W DO 3.106. 8. The Proposed Use Does Not lvTcct the Dcsig;n St,~ndards of WUO 3.1117. "I-he ;1pplicant has not provided anv evidence to show that the ezislin~~ buil~lin~~ in which the proposed use will be located is a nonconforming structure which has not I~~st itti nonconii)n»ing status by termination. ~I'hcrclorc. the cxistin= building cc~mcs ~~ ithin the ?6 i ~ definition of "all non-residential structures in the CG zone," and mint compl}~ ~~ ith the f',tec :+ - AO~f'(CE Of' 1V"fFV' f "FO ;1PPlAt. ill<.,.,..,,.,- ~,I, ~;,i,..,~~,,,,")„,.~~u.~. I ~(.,.,,,~i,-: ~:~n~ -. Kt:i.1.i~.v Kt~.~.~.t~:v 111) '11)N fll SF:(;().V !) 1IN I~.I~'I' SI1.\')~. )11 ()IV. ()MI.1~(1V 97}KI (if~.Y7}-gG71 I 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 ~0 ?1 ,~ ,; ,4 design requirements of WDO 3.107. The applicant has not produced any c~"idcnce to meet his burden of showing that the proposed use will comply with these standards. 9. The Applicant is Currently llisplayin~ an Illegal Sil;n H or the Business. WDO 3.110.04 requires a permit for the erection ofany sign non exempt under ~'I)O 3.110.11. The applicant presently has two permanent, non-Gee-standing signs lix• the business placed on the subject property in violation of WDO 3.110.04. "I'hc Planning Commission should not grant a permit to an applicant presently in violation ol•the W'I)U unless the permit will correct the violation. l0. "the Applicant l><as Not Prc-duced h:vidence 'Phut Kefuse Can Be C'uilected and Disposed of Properly. t1t present, the proposed use's primary rcluse item, old tires, is being collcctcd in the open air to the back of the existing building. Old tires are quite bulky. "l'hey also tend to invite infestation of vermin such as rats, as a nesting location. "I'he applicant's stated intention to `'use the existing refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant" strains credibility and the applicant's present approach to refuse collection is unhealthy. unsightly. and in violation of WDO 2.106.06.L'.3. l 1. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. "fo the south on the same lot are a restaurant and a beauty salon. 'I~o the north arc a restaurant and single-family dwellings. "1'he portion of the abutting property to the ~~est is essentially vacant, and beyond this vacant area to the west arc single-family d.."lllln~~s. I he proposed use does not comply with the relevant review factors as t~311o~~s: a. 'I•he size, shape, location, and topograph~~ of the site sire not suitxhlc fur the proposed use. The siic and shape of the subject property made li)r an awkward, un,uitahlc lit ?5 between the existing restaurant and beauty salon and the proposed use. "l~u a Icu-ge extent the ?E, proposed use encroaches on and crowds the parking and pedestrian area re~luired h~ the E~:18.1 G - 1~C)1-ICE OF IN'!~f-a-I-'f0 af'PI•:AL ;n.~:.,,,.:,~-~;~_,i~-.~;,~,..,; ~.,~,~..r,,,.,l n,.. _ _ ~ .__..,, ~.~r,.~~. , 1101\iUNlll Suewu $'f er: ~-:r ti n.v ~c e~io~. Oxr:cuN 97381 (5873-Sti71 1 3 4 6 7 K 9 10 11 l2 13 14 15 1 fi 17 18 19 ?U ,1 ~~ ~~ ~~ ?6 restaurant and beauty salon sharing the subject property to the south. "I'he increase in vehicular traffic to the subject property, particularly with regard to the anticipated presence of large fire and automotive equipment deliveries, will adversely effect the safety and comfort of customers coming to and from the neighboring businesses. "fhe location is also inappropriate for a use of this kind. "[~he proposed use's abutting, properties are used for restaurants, a beauty salon, and single family residences. fire and wheel sales and installation does not belong in this location. 'The existing building appears to be nonconforming as to setbacks from ncighborin<~ properties, as well as access standards, and applicant has not produced evidence that tllcse setbacks and standards are or can be satisfied. A nonconforming structure is, by definition, unsuitable for a conditional use because it is not compatible with the Toning district. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. 1•he subject property is paved to a considerable extent, yet applicant has produced no evidence of a plan for addressing storm run-ol'f. I~urther, there arc no sidewalks on the subject property. Although, as staff notes, this is an automotive business. it still Iryuires capacity for pedestrian facilities for pedestrian traffic which passes through. ~\t present. pedestrians are forced to traverse the subject property's driveway and parking area. c. "I'he proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. "I'he noise and unsightliness ofa fire and wheel installation and repair business kill negatively impact the business activities going on in the neighboring businesses. ~~hich. being, two restaurants and a beauty salon, arc ol'a higher aesthetic character. ftcmo~;zl and replacement ~f tires and engine noise. 'hhe proposed use will also ne~~atirel~• impact neighboring residential properties. "fhe existing fence is not adequate hufi~ring ul~thcsc I'a_(: % - tiO I IC1: OI~ 1~"l~[N I l O :1PPlil\l, ~il.::.~.;~: . ~+~ .(i•:,.vs.,;:., i:~,.rn,.: ..r.....,,; . ~•,n,,, ., Kt:~.L~:Y . Kt:t.l.t;~' .:lam e~ `' ;.,....,,rte IIU tilla'rn 51 c:n~n S_I ui rr till,\'i. 12'1'(1.\. ()111. t~. 1!~ )7,)31 (il~`A'1-3671 l 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 l2 13 14 l~ 16 17 18 19 ~0 ?1 ,~ ~~ ~ ~} ~~ impacts as required by WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a, and the negative aesthetic impacts arc fully visible from residential properties to the west. The coming and going of the applicant's own large truck and other trucks deli~erin~.: parts or taking away refuse will have a negative impact nn noise and vehicular traffic hoth tin- abutting businesses and for traffic passing on highway 991?. 7"he proposed use. being. an automobile-related business, will signsticantly increase vehicular tral•lic. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive t'lan policies. It is the applicant's burden to review all potentially applicable Comprehensive flan policies and explain why each is or is not applicable, and explain how the proposal conti~rms to those that arc applicable. 1'hc applicant has not met this burden. Staff identified two policies which it believes is applicable. "l'hr proposal does not conform to these. Comprehensive Plan policy [3-4 provides shat architectural design should be attractive and should include enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parkint; areas. •1•hc applicant's proposed use is not attractive and the applicant has proposed no new landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the subject property's parking area. C;omprehcnsive Plan policy 13-6 provides that the city should ensure by proper rcgulati~nis that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones. '1'hc proposed use does not conform to the applicable architectural and landscaping buffer requirements, so it does not cont~~rm to this policy. I'he pri)pcised use would expand, intensify. and alter the previous use of the property. which ~~ as nonconforming and likely terminated. c. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approv:~l to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. It is the applicant who bears the burden ol•productiun and hrool"that the propc~s~,i ~~~;~ ?6 14 ~ti ill meet all applicahle criteria. This does include the harden tc~ prc~posc r~mditic~ns ~~f I':1_r S - V!)11C'k: OI IN I I:'vl fO -~PPl~.:1L ,,....,. ,... .•.~,,,,"1•.,~:„ ,,.~•u,., .. ,~ _,~,... ~,~,, .~,.~ K~:i.i.i:~ . K~•;~.i.i~.~ I I11 ~~IN 111 1F.1 :11\II til'I<I-.1 I 111.\'I It 111 \, 171<1 ~.11• ')?i,11 (iiP4'~47.4-Nr111 l 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 f2 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ ~; ,~ ,~ 26 I':I"~ approval to mitil;ate the negative impacts of a use and ensure compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has not produced a single proposed condition. DATF,D this ~ day of ~~~. _-- • 2009. .. `/ f;y:---~~- -- - - ~ _ - --- i)O AI,I) M. KI?I,I,I;Y, OS(3i' -117(1 Ot' Attarncys Eor Margarita I3cnavidcx. Personal Representative oi' the F'state of C;uadalupc n. 13cnavidcx --~ " Personal Rcpresenitctt~i'e of l c [,talc of'Guadalu~,•` n. tic avidcv. k'`~_.~. I ~) -'gin"flCk•: OF I\'fl•:\"k' I~O ;\k'Pk~.:1L ,ls~,,.,,.;,:...-,;~ ~,,,,..,:•.,.;~ ~-,,~,_,;u,,. ;, .:~:.~ K1~.~.i.~•:~ • K~~:r.i.~~:~ i YYllM.wn, ya o..Rl r+~rs~t~+e IIO ~il)H'1'11 til-1'11'\1) ~-I Itt I-.I sn.~'1:arm,Oltcoll~ 77,SR1 (i~7i7S-S!i? I KELLEY • KELLEY 1 ~r ). , L1) >t. h L:LLr., e~~,.e~a, a.~ `.rafetota ,~:,Il l,t I~ ~, 111, ,.:: , r :;l;l ;;;; Ut~n.l. P.:\'I'Kt~sn~ 110 NORTH SECOND STREET 11 i I ruu~l K; ; sr.'I Iau>Ir~\LG"Itur)x SILVERTON,OREGON 47381 December 11, 2008 Honorable Commissioners Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Conditional Use CU 2008-01 Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Margarita Benavidez, in her capacity as personal representative of the l~statc of Guadalupe A. Benevidez Jr., enclosed for your consideration please find a Memorandum In Opposition to the proposed Conditional Ilse. As detailed in this Memorandum, the applicant's proposal is unable to co-nply with a number of development standards, would resume and expand a nonconforming use that has likely terminated on the subject property, and does not meet the applicable criteria for a new conditional use. For these reasons, on behalf of Margarita Benavidez, I ask that you deny this application. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, KI[_LEY • KELLEY ,-~ --_ D IEL P. ATKINSON }~})n: pc \largarita l3ena~'i~ez ~~'' encl. }:nclosurc ATTACHMENT H Iti~n.~ .J~•/:~~.~::_I I"-I'.:: •.: :; (~~:nnti.~:ttn l).ri- ~~ li ':N:XI (': c:ite.t htl)1':\ 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISION 10 FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON 11 In the Matter of the Conditional Use ) 12 Application of ) CU 2008-01 13 ARNOLDO BENAVIDEZ, ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOS[T[ON 14 Applicant. ) 15 i b Margarita Benavide2, in her capacity as Personal Representative for the Estate of 17 Guadalupe Benavidez, appears by and through her attorneys, Kelley & Kelley, and submits 18 this memorandum in opposition to the Conditional Use Application of Arnoldo 13enavidei, 19 CU 2008-O1. A conditional use shall comply with the development standards of'thc •r_oning 20 district. WDO 5.103.O1.C.2. In all the following respects, this application does not, and 21 therefore the Planning Commission should deny this application. 22 1. The Use of The Property For Automobile Maintenance and Repair is a 23 Nonconforming Use Subject to Termination under WDO 1.104.02. 2-1 [,'ndcr WDO 1.10x.02, a nonconforming use shall be considered terminated if it is 25 lound that the use ceased for a continuous period of fi months. 7~he staff report assumes that 26 the nonconforming use of the subject property has been continuous since the existing Pace 1 - MEMORANDI;M IN OPPOS(TInN.,r;, ~,,,;,~,•,.,,F_,y:_~IeDn, . ~_ ,,, ,~„~IC«~I<s:•, n1~1 KF.LI.EY • KELI,F,Y 110 NuR~rn Secohu S'rnchr $II.VFRI'n IV, ORF:f 1)N 77381 (503h8•i3-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ,~ 23 2.1 25 building's establishment in 196?. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion. The applicant does state that the application is to "re-establish" this use, indicating that it has ceased for some significant amount of time. A search of local phone directories and business registration records indicates not Icss than three separate auto repair businesses -aside from the applicant's -occupying the subject property within the last 15 years: Woodburn Auto Exchange, Highway Auto (te;pair, and Pacific Northwest Transmission. Most of the business entities which operated under these names have been involuntarily dissolved or canceled for failure to renew. 't'here is a gap in the business records of Pacific Northwest Transmission From 1994 to 1998. Woodburn Auto Exchange, despite being listed at the subject property in the phone directory, appears to have principally operated at 1175 N. Pacific Highway. There is no indication of when, if ever, this business was located at the subject property. (See Exhibits 1 and 2.) Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the nonconforming use of the subject property ceased at some time for a continuous period of six months while the building stood vacant between tenants. Certainly, a conclusory finding that the nonconforming use has not terminated is not supported any evidence in the record provided by the applicant or anyone else. Staffs findings assume that many mandatory standards and review criteria need not be applied, on the assumption that the development and the use are nonconforming, and that the proposed use is much the same as past uses. These are not relevant determinations, these assumptions are inadequate, and even if true they do not excuse the applicant from complying with mandatory standards. The applicant has not asked t~~r a variance or adjustment of any standard. /~ ~,~ 2fi ~ ` l1 {'~Ql' ? - Mf-:MORA'`D1;~1 L\ OPPOSI LION-us~::,~•::a~: ~~ ~.;-+t.rn;~-,_ is ,•;~:x,o~.,;~,;,,, nr~ Kt:{.{.~:t' Kri.i.t:~' sa~,.y.,.,..r ~ ,~. lt0 Notrnt SecaNn S~rKt:r~t Su-vr•.x~rorv,OtcttGOrv 973A1 (5033-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~; ~q 7J 2. The Proposed Use Will Expand the Nonconforming Use in Violation of WDO 1.104.04. The applicant also states that the proposal is to also include "the addition of fire & wheel installation," which changes and expands the nature of the use. WDO 1.104.04 provides that change or expansion of a nonconforming use "shall not make the development more nonconforming." That is precisely what the applicant has proposed to do. 3. The Proposed Use Will Include Off-Street Parking Within a Required Setback, Which is Prohibited by WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2, WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.c,and WDO 3.103.06. Although the applicant does not show it on the site plan, the business currently allows off-street parking to take place in the area near the front fire rack and the sign, which is an area wel! within the required 10 foot plus 15 foot setback. The staff report confirms this when addressing throat length, which is defined as "extending from the closest oft street i, ~ parking or loading space to the outside edge of right of way." Staff finds that the throat length o(i the subject property is 10 feet, meaning that offstreet parking is taking place within 10 feet of the right of way. (Staff Report 7, lines 10-21.) 4. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet Required Setbacks or Provide For A Buffer Wall Between the Proposed Use And Abutting RS-Zoned Properties. WDO 2.106.OS.C?.a provides that "development in the CG zone .ehull be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.11." That table requires a `'solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height,'' where the CG zone development abuts RS-zoned property. This is also required by WDO ~.107.06.13.8.b. RS-zoned property abuts the proposed use to the north. At present. a wood fence in poor repair is all that is present along this property line. (See Exhibit ~. Pluto #1.) Contrary to staffs conclusion (Staff Report 6, lines 2-8 ). this is not "comparable" a~ a 26 ~, solid wall with anti-graffiti surface. Pale 3 - MEMORA'~fDUM IN OPPOSITION.~F,~-:,~:::r..,,~._a~.1.•u,:..:, ~: ,,,,;~,c~.T~~~~,; i~r> KELI.IiY . KEt.i.r~ti• ~~ 110 Nonrn Sr:cnNn 5ruo-.r:r SiLVea'ro v, OXF:G O\ 97181 (5033-8GT 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ?; ~4 25 Further, staff's statement that "the proposed use is similar to previous uses'' is not an applicable standard or an exception to mandatory standards, particularly where there is no evidence supporting a conclusion that the nonconforming use has not terminated. "l'he applicant has not met the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. The lack of any evidence that the nonconforming use has not terminated also implicates the setback requirements of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. Applicant has not shown that the existing building meets the five foot setback from abutting CG properties or the ten toot setback from RS properties. The applicant has therefore not met his burden of producing evidence of compliance with all applicable criteria. 5. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet The Access Standards of WDO 3.104. WDO 3.104.OS.E.2 requires the radius of curb flare for a commercial use driveway to be 30 feet minimum. According to the staff report, the proposed curb radius is approximately 23 feet. This does not meet the mandatory standard imposed by the WDO. Similarly, WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 requires a throat length of 50 feet minimum, while applicant's site plan only provides for 10 feet. Staft s finding that the proposed use is comparable to previous uses of the buildinb is irrelevant and does not provide an exception to a mandatory standard. Further, the tact that meeting these standards would be expensive and "may not be physically possible," as staff finds, does not excuse the applicant from his burden of meeting them. "I'he applicant has not submitted an application for a variance or adjustment from any standard, or provided any evidence in support of such an application, so there is no basis for the; Planning Commission to ignore applicable standards. 6. The Propused Use Does Not Provide for the Dedication of Utility Easements as Required by WDO 3.102.04.B. WDO 3102.040B requires the dedication oftive foot wide public utility casements 26 ~ ~ along each lot line abutting a public street. There is no evidence from the applicant that the Past: d - !~iGMORANUU~1 1?V OPPOSITION-~it<<•:~-~,:,~,___~< ~;~u:,: ~~ ~,: _ ~s~i ~;.~..an, nr~ Ktt.t.r;v . Kei.~.~;v l10 NOHTII SF:COIUp ST HkF'C $1 LV P:NTON. o81:GON 97381 (so» 8$sen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 22 23 24 7j proposed use can or will meet this requirement. Although stat~t may have concluded that this dedication is not necessary, it is mandatory under the terms of the WDO, leaving the Planning Commission no discretion to overlook WDO 3.102.04.B. 7. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Landscaping Standards of WDO 3.106. WDO 3.106.O1.B provides that the WDO landscaping standards shall apply to the entire site area of a development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by ~0 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. The applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has not provided any evidence that the proposed use is not subject to the Landscaping Standards. There is no evidence in the record showing to what existed on the subject property at the date of the WDO adoption, from which it is possible to conclude that the proposed use does not expand structures or parking area more than 50 percent. Therefore these standards must be applied, and the applicant has not submitted any evidence showing the proposed use will comply with the landscaping standards in WDO 3.106. 8. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Design Standards of W1)O 3.107. The Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the existing building in which the proposed use will be located is a nonconforming structure which has not lost its nonconforming status by termination. Therefore, the existing building comes within the definition of ``all non-residential structures in the CG zone," and must comply with the design requirements of WDO 3.107. The applicant has not produced any evidence to meet his burden of showing that the proposed use will comply with these standards. 9. The Applicant is Currently Displaying an Illegal Sign For the Business. WDO 3.l 10.04 requires a permit for the erection of any sign non exempt under 41'!)O 3.110.11. 7~he applicant presently has two permanent, non-tree-standing signs fir the 26 I I business placed nn the subject property in violation of WDO 3.110.04. (Sec l?xhihit ~. Pepe ~ - MF,:VIORA'VDUM !N U!'POSITIC?N-iii.~.,,.,1~~-ux.]J~.?I¢uoc- ~= a z~;nxic~.•:~~,Ii„ or.\ KEL.I.E1' • KFLI.F.Y ..~!l~.ryror.d~wi.rs+fs 110 :~i if X'1'11 $k'.C~)NU $7X1:1:'1' $Il.\'I:X'!'UN, O t)N 97381 {503) 87 4 71 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ?j Photos #3 & #4.) The Planning Commission should not grant a permit to an applicant presently in violation of the WDO unless the permit will correct the violation. 10. The Applicant Has Not Produced Evidence That Refuse Can 13e Collected and Disposed of Properly. At present, the proposed use's primary refuse item, old tires, is being collected in the open air to the back of the existing building. (See Exhibit 3, Photo #2.) As one can sec li•om the photo, old tires are quite bulky. They also tend to invite infestation of vermin such as rats, as a nesting location. The applicant's stated intention to "use the existing refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant" strains credibility and the applicant's present approach to refuse collection is unhealthy, unsightly, and in violation of WI)O 2.106.06.E.3. 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. To the south on the same lot are a restaurant and a beauty salon. "1'o the north arc a restaurant and single-family dwellings. 'The portion of the abutting property to the west is essentially vacant, and beyond this vacant area to the west are single-family dwellings. "I'he proposed use does not comply with the relevant review factors as follows: a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. The size and shape of the subject property made For an awkward, unsuitable fit between the existing restaurant and beauty salon and the proposed use. 1-o a large extent the proposed use encroaches on and crowds the parking and pedestrian area required by the restaurant and beauty salon sharing the subject property to the south. (Sec Exhibit 3. Photo #5, and Exhibit 4.) The increase in vehicular traffic to the subject property, particularly with regard to the anticipated presence of large fire and automotive equipment deliveries. «ill adversely effect the safety and comfort of customers coming to and tram the neighboring 26 ~ ~ businesses. P.t:,'~ 6 - MEitgORANDL'~l Iti OPPOS1TlON_.i;,,,.,.,,~..,.;,~. ;:.~I„>„~ _ i, ~i _~~.w,~:.:~:,:~, urea Kta.1.t:~' Ki;t.i.~~ .sa~...~.. a..d ~~,...~. 110 Noe-ru 51~.conn S'ral:n~r $II.Y k'It'f/1N. oRF:f.11N 97381 (573-8471 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~~ 23 -, ~ ~j The location is also inappropriate for a use of this kind. "Che proposed use's abutting properties are used for restaurants, a beauty salon, and single family residences. "fire and wheel sales and installation does not belong in this location. The existing building appeazs to be nonconforming as to setbacks from neighboring properties, as well as access standards, and applicant has not produced evidence that these setbacks and standards are or can be satisfied. A nonconforming structure is, by definition. unsuitable for a conditional use because it is not compatible with the coning district. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is paved to a considerable extent, yet applicant has produced no evidence of a plan for addressing storm run-off. Further, there are no sidewalks on the subject property. Although, as staff notes, this is an automotive business, it still requires capacity for pedestrian facilities for pedestrian traffic which passes through. At present, pedestrians are forced to traverse the subject property's driveway and parking area. (See Exhibit 3, Photos #3 & #4. Note the pedestrian in Photo #3.} c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. The noise and unsightliness of a tire and wheel installation and repair business will negatively impact the business activities going on in the neighboring businesses, which, being two restaurants and a beauty salon, are of a higher aesthetic character. Removal and replacement of tires and engine noise. The proposed use will also negatively impact neighboring residential properties, as can be seen in Photos # 1 & #2 on F..xhibit 3. "l~hc existing fence as shown in Photo #1 is not adequate buffering of these impacts as rcquir~d by W'DO 2.106.O~.C.2.a, and the negative aesthetic impacts shown in Photo It2 arc fully ~ isib{e from residential properties to the west. ~~~ I Pa~!e 7- M E M O RA V D l- M[ N n P PQS l"1'!O'~i. ,II~,,,.,ar,-,•H-.-h-gym 1~~,~ - n n ,~,",1(«•~1~~: rn ur ~ KF:LLF.Y • Kr L~.-:v ,9~a,~...y..,./ ~ ..~. IIO IY))M'1'11 sl:l:(1VI)!fl'R I~:I~;l' SII.\'1': H'I'()~I~ oRI: GI)N 97381 (S~'®73•R671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~~ 2:} ,~ The coming and going of the applicant's own large truck and other trucks delivering parts or taking away refuse will have a negative impact on noise and vehicular traffic both for abutting businesses and for traffic passing on Highway 99E. The proposed use, being an automobile-related business, will significantly increase vehicular traffic. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive flan policies. It is the applicant's burden to review all potentially applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and explain why each is or is not applicable, and explain how the proposal conforms to those that are applicable. The applicant has not met this burden. Staff identified two policies which it believes is applicable. 1'he proposal does not conform to these. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that architectural design should be attractive and should include enough [andscaping to reduce the visual impact of parking areas. The applicant's proposed use is not attractive and the applicant has proposed no new landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the subject property's parking area. Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that the city should ensure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones. The proposed use does not conform to the applicable architectural and landscaping buffer requirements, so it does not conform to this policy. "I~he proposed use would expand, intensify, and alter the previous use of the property, which was nonconforming and -ikely terminated. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. [t is the applicant who bears the burden of production and proof that the proposed use will nieet all applicable criteria. This does include the burden to propose conditions of approval to mitigate the negative impacts ofa use and ensure compliance with all applicable 2G (~ criteria. 1'he applicant has nut produced a single proposed condition. Pa~,c S - ti1EMORA?~1t)U`~1 IN OPPOSSTION ~Ilr~,;~,:n,~~s__3._~I,u,.<-;~ I::,-~slc «:~I,~r.l~r~ Kt. [. [.t:Y Krt.t.r:v ~~a....q.....1 ~'«.....P. 110 NORTII St'CUND $~7NF.I~. f SILYI': R'fON~ ORkGON 97381 (50~~73-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1~ i6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ ~~ CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission should DENY the conditional use application of Alnoldo Benavidez, CU 2008-O1. t'~ DATED this ~ ~ day of ~e`"~~' , 200 KELL • K By: P. ATKI , OSBI~bG703 Of Attorneys for Margarita Benavidc-r. '~ II Page 9 - M1=.MORANDUM IN OPPOSITION.,~i.~~,,,~a~.-~;n.,.~s.~i~ o~,< r_ :~ se ~i r,.,~,:7: urn ,~.,.y,. ~../ . I16 Noant SfCOUn SrKt;er Sn.eeero~, OHeeuh ')736t t3~673-6671 WhitePages.com -Online Directory Assistance Whi~e~ages.cam`~ search, find. connect. http://www.vi+hitepages.com/search/ReverseAddress?search id=80101400340470852107. 1. ~ Woodburn Auto Exchange 2. ~ Highway Auto Repair 595 N Pacific Hwy 595 N Pacifc Hwy Woodburn, OR 97071-5178 Woodburn, OR 97071-5178 (503) 982-5699 (503) 982-5699 <~' SMARTE,~ BOTQx® _ . i~nnnnnse tt•nt e 1-2 of 2 results for 595 North Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR . ~wwwa ,~~,~au y vuuu,wo ..u,.w u..wv.. ....t,... -o" ..---•-----•"'- --'r -a... -- -°---- Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 > > .,e~ Registry Nbr ~ Entity Jurisdiction Registry Date Duration Date Renewal V Date 740066-86 ABN •lNA 03-06-2000 Entity Name OODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE REPAIR Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type pg RINCIPAL PLACE OF USINESS Addr 1 1175 N PACIFIC HWY 99E Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 7071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this business. Type P UTHORIZED PRESENTATIVE Start Date 2-21-2002 Resign Date Name OSE ENA SR Addr 1 O BOX 489 Addr 2 CSZ BARD R 7032 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA Type G GISTRANT Name OSE ENA SR Addr 1 30 S FIRST Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 97071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Name History ` B i E i Name us ness nt ty Name ~ Start Date End Date WOODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE REPAIR EN CUR 03-06-2000 Please read before ordering Co ies. 1 2 90 ~ ~-a9 e 1 ~' -t ~ I oft 12/10/2008 11:42 AN New Search Summary History image Action ransaction Effective Status Name/Agent Dissolved By Date Date Date Chan e ANCELLATION OF 06-18-2004 GI STRATTON 06-18-2004 FI 3-OS-2004 NEWAL OF 03-OS-2004 FI GISTRATION 2-21-2002 ENDMENT OF 02-21-2002 FI Representative GISTRATION 2-21-2002 NEWAL OF 02-21-2002 FI GISTRATION _ 3-06-2000 EW FILING 03-06-2000 FI New Search COLiritleS ounties Filed anion ounties Not Filed (but not necessarily available aker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, eschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, efferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, orrow, Multnomah, Pollc, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, allows, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, Yamhill O 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. 91 2 of 2 12/ 10/2008 11:42 AM ~USI(ICJS t(G~IJU~' DU5111W5 1VQI11G JGGtNI uta•~.i~~.~vv.uwaww.~..wi vv l+ay~.v vv_a.u....._ .. _..y.w.v _ ...,.t._..... Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:44 Registry Nbr SLY Status ]urisdiction Registry Date Duration Date Renewal Date 226394-96 ABN INA 06-18-2004 06-18-2008 Entity Name OODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE & REPAIR Foreign Name Affidavit? N New_Search Associated Names Type pB RINCIPAL PLACE OF USINESS Addr 1 1175 N PACIFIC HWY 99E Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 7071 Country TED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this hl Icinacc Type REP UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Start Date 6-18-2004 Resign Date Name OSE ENA Addr 1 O BOX 489 Addr 2 CSZ BARD R 7032 Count ITED STATES OF AMERICA Type GISTRANT Name OSE ENA Addr 1 1838 HARDCASTLE ST Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 7071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA l~'ew Search Name History me Business Entity Name T St Start Date End Date WOODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE & REPAIR EN CUR 06-18-2004 Please read before ordering Copies. 1 oft 92 12/10/2008 11: WJIIIWJ pG~,'WUy UUJIIIWJ lvaux. J1+a1vu • ~•j..,,..b... .............................., L..d_... _ .. -_ _ ..,..... _ _..r_ _. New Search Summary History Image Action ransaction Effective Status Name/Agent Dissolved By Date Date Date Chan e 7-03-2008 AILURE TO RENEW 06-19-2008 SYS 2-13-2007 ~W`d'I' OF 02-13-2007 FI GISTRATION 6-18-2004 PLICATION FOR 06-18-2004 FI Representative GISTRATION New Search COL1Tlt1eS ounties f=iled ion unties Not Filed (but not necessarily available) aker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, eschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, efferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, orrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, Yamhill m 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rlghts Reserved. 93 2of2 ~B •.m 12/ 10!2008 11:44 AN ~UJIIICJJ l~.C~j'1SUy DUMllWJ 1Va111G JGal1~r1~ .a..l..~...6............. w....... ......... ~ ~...~_.. -.._..._...-_... _.._...~._.._ .. __. __ . t'__ . Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:45 Registry Nbr ~Y St Jurisdiction Registry Date Duration Date Renewal Date 413427-91 ABN ACT 02-13-2007 Entity Name GHWAY AUTO REPAIR Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type PB RINCIPAL PLACE OF USINESS Addr 1 95 PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99E Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 7071 Country TED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this Type REP UTHORIZED PRESENTATIVE Start Date 2-13-2007 Resign Date Name OSE ENA Addr 1 0 BOX 489 Addr 2 CSZ BARD R 97032 Country TED STATES OF AMERICA Type G GISTRANT Name OSE ENA Addr 1 1475 N PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99E Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 97071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Name Hi Business Entity Name ~-~ ~ ~~ ~ Start Date ~ End Date IGHWAY AUTO REPAIR ~ EN ~ CUR ~ 02-13-2007 ~ ~ Please read before or~ ring Co ies. 94 1 of 2 wwwa i~~giauy uuauiwa .•u..w u..u.v.. ....r... _o...._....._--•-•--•--~ --~ r--a_~ ~ --_ -°---_ - ---- -- ~ New Search Summary History Image Action ransaction Effective Status Name/Agent Dissolved By Date Date Date Chan e 2-13-2007 PLICATION FOR 02-13-2007 FI Representative GISTRATION New Search COUrit1eS ounties Filed anion Counties Not Filed (but not necessarily available) aker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, eschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, efferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, orrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, Yamhill p 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. AB Rights Reserved. 95 2 oft ~~, 12/ 10/2008 11:45 AM ll$171E$$ KCy:ISUy ISUJIIICSJ 1V CIIiC JCGI t~II auyr.ii..~v r.uw.uww.va .ua. vu ~..r~rr .. _ .a _ _..y..,.... _ ... .~._..• Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:48 Registry Nbr Entity Status ]urisdiction Registry Date Duration Date Renewal Date 666540-89 ABN 1NA 12-22-1998 12-22-2004 Entity Name ACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type pg RINCIPAL PLACE OF USINESS Addr i 95 N PACIFIC HWY Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 7071 Country TED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this h~ icinPCc Type REP t~THORIZED PRESENTATIVE Start Date 12-22-1998 Resign Date Name ICHAEL URET Addr i O BOX 249 Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 97071 Country TED STATES OF AMERICA Type GISTRANT of Record 239956-99 ACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION INC Addr 1 Addr 2 CSZ Country New Search Name History Name D Business Entity Name St Start Date ate I E do PACIFIC NORTHWE~'T TRANSMISSION ET r('iJF I2-22-1998 96 1 of 2 ona 2; uawwa ~. g~ouy .....~ .................~ .,......... .. .~ - - Please read before ordering Copies. New Search Summary Histol V Image Action ransaction Effective S a u Name/Agent h Dissolved By Date Date Date an e C 1-06-2005 AILURE TO RENEW 12-23-2004 SYS 9-07-2004 MENDMENT OF 09-07-2004 FI GISTRATION 12-30-2002 NEWAL 12-30-2002 SYS AYMENT 11-27-2000 S E 11-27-2000 FI W N 12-22-1998 EW FILING 12-22-1998 FI New Search unties Filed Counties Filed. ~ 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rghts Reserved. 97 2 of 2 1UU [~, 1 r 4~ i ic~t ~~_y ~,;~~ ~'~~al~c~ r ,.fit ~,~~yL'~, ~c! ;:fir. 1 ~ ~ L ~ :~~~~•~ ~ - ~ ~ I ` /'~~ 101 W mdRJ N~WJLY{ x.~ r n ;a ~,~. yw ... .. :.. *''4 ~ ~ '' i j~, ~, . ,; 0. ~e ~~ .. y~v` "~ l f~~.h~;~~ p~~' Attachment "In WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 11, 2008 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Bandelow presiding. Chairperson Bandelow questioned members of the Planning Commission having potential conflicts such as family, financial, or business relationship with any of the applicants or with regard to the project in question. If such a potential conflict exists, she asked whether the Commissioner in question believes he or she is without actual bias or whether he or she would like to step down from the Planning Commission during the case. There were none. There were no objections from those present. ChairQerson Bandelow announced: agenda is available at the back of the room. We will consider cases one at a time according to the order listed in the agenda. We will follow the hearing procedure outlined on the public hearing procedure board. All persons wishing to speak are requested to come to the podium and give their name and address. Any individuals speaking from other than the podium will not be recognized. Commissioner Jennings led the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow P Vice Chairperson Vancil P Commissioner GrosJacques P Commissioner Grigorieff P Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jennings P Commissioner Kenagy P Staff Present: Scott Derickson -City Administrator Natalie Labossiere -Interim Community Development Director Dan Brown -Public Works Director Jon Stuart -Assistant City Attorney Carrie Brennecke -Associate Planner Don Dolenc -Associate Planner Alexandra Sprauer -Interim Administrative Assistant MINUTES A. Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2008. Commissioner Jennings moved to accept the minutes. Vice Chairperson Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. PROCEEDURAL MOTION Commissioner Jennings offered a procedural motion to move Agenda Item 6.B. Discussion Item: Election of Chair and Vice Chair moved to Item 3. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion, which unar M~usly carried. Attachment "J" Planning Commission December 11,'I~ppB Page 1 of 15 Commissioner Jennings moved to nominate Ellen Bandelow for Planning Commission Chairperson, and David Vancil as Planning Commission Vice Chairperson, for term of office to expire December 31, 2009. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow Yes Vice Chairperson Vancil Yes Commissioner GroaJacques Yea Commissioner Grigorieff Yes Commissioner Hutchison Yes Commissioner Jennings Yes Commissioner Kenagy Yes BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE City Administrator Derickson discussed recent city budget adjustments. The general fund is expected to experience a $175,000 budget shortfall. The Building Division is expected to experience a $75,000 budget shortfall. One Planning Division staff member and two Building Division staff members have been reassigned to contractual services with another city department. CitYAdministrator Derickson stated that the new Community Development Director, Jim Hendryx, is assigned to begin work on Monday, December 15, 2008. Derickson encouraged Planning Commissioners to introduce themselves to Hendryx. Citx Administrator Derickson suggested that the Planning Commission choose a set of board policies and encouraged the Community Development Department to move towards Economic Development. Commissioner Jennings introduced Kevin Kenagy as a new Planning Commissioner. Public Works Director Brown introduced himself to Planning Commissioners. Brown stated that he plans to serve as an interface between the Public Works Department and the community. COMMUNICATIONS A. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008 B. Executive Session Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008 C. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2008 D. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2008 E. Executive Session Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2008 No comments were made. PUBLIC HEARING A. Benavidez Tires - Arnoldo Benavidez, Applicant -Conditional Use 2008-01 The applican~ =quests a conditional use for auto parts sales, fire and wheel sales and installati~ and general automotive repair in the Commercial General (CG) zone. Planning Commission ' r December 11,'Hil~B Page 2 of 15 Chairperson Bandelow asked if any of the Planning Commission members have any conflicts that they would like to declare. None. Staff Report Associate Planner Don Dolenc read the applicable ORS then commenced his presentation. The subject property is located on Highway 99E. It is 1.1 acre in area and is zoned Commercial General (CG) and designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. It is currently occupied by two 3,000 square foot commercial building constructed in 1940 and a 1,860 square foot commercial building constructed in 1967. No wetlands or floodplains exist on the site. Adjacent properties to the west, south and east are zoned Commercial General (CG). A portion of the property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential (RS). Two properties to the north are zoned commercial but are developed with single family dwellings. The aerial photo depicts three structures on the property. One of the larger buildings is occupied by a beauty salon and the other by a restaurant. The proposed use would occupy the 1,860 square foot building. Property to the south and west are developed with an auto repair facility. Property to the north is developed with a restaurant and a professional office, and single family dwellings. Property across Highway 99 is developed with mobile home sales operation and a vacant commercial lot. The 1,860 square foot building was constructed in 1967 as a gasoline service station. Its previous uses include auto repair and transmission repair shop. The auto repair use has continued as anon-conforming use. The applicant is currently conducting business at the location. The CG zone allows the selling of auto parts without installation. The non-conforming use for auto repair is not the subject of the conditional use; the non-conforming use may continue until the use is terminated, as provided in WDO 1.104. The Commercial General regulations distinguish between selling auto parts without installation, a bi-right use, and selling auto parts with installation, a conditional use. The applicant wishes to sell auto parts, tires, and install them. The applicant is requesting a conditional use to install auto parts. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and staff in regards to the interpretation of the term auto part, concerns of conditional use fees, and the reason why the "installation element" would trigger a conditional use. Vice Chairperson Vancil stated the intent of the ordinance is to prevent noise pollution. Assistant Attorney Stu<. -stated that there was a legislative reason behind the WDO. Stuart recommended the P~ ~ ~g Commission hear the complete staff report with recommendations, and then make a de~ If necessary, Planning Commission could then deny. Planning Commiss ig December 11,'t~8 Page 3 of 15 Chairperson Bandelow stated if Planning Commission denied the application the applicant would loose money. Associate Planner Don Dolenc stated that staff is sensitive to the fee issue. Staff looked at the issue closely and determined that the language used in the Commercial General (CG) regulations is clear, and it would be inappropriate for staff to "go around it". Staff does not have the discretion or authority to make the decision. Vice Chaimerson Vancil asked if there were records indicating previous decisions made by former staff members. Associate Planner Don Dolenc answered no. There were no records from the former transmission shop. Commissioner Jennings stated that years ago the property had zoning issues. Associate Planner Don Dolenc continued to present the staff report. The business is currently operating without installation. Dolenc presented the applicant's site plan. The sign on the property is nonconforming. The sign code requires the sign that is attached to the tenant space be brought into conformity when there is as conditional use. One of the conditions of approval is to remove the nonconforming pole sign or convert it into a monument sign. The applicant and the property owner are both aware of the requirement. The sign requirement is included in the conditional use process because the conditional use is the trigger that requires the sign to be brought into conformity. The aerial view depicts tire racks on the property. The tire racks display tires and rims. The WDO regulates outdoor storage. However, the racks have wheels and are brought into the building after hours. Staff has determined that the tire racks are product display; they are not outdoor storage. The original site plan depicted garbage containers behind the building. The applicant has instead decided to use the existing containers. The garbage containers are not included in the project. The existing outdoor storage is to be enclosed. The applicant is aware that it must be enclosed. The applicant can enclose the area around the building where it is currently being stored. This requirement is not a condition of approval. This project has four conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of case CU 2008-01 subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Associate Planner Dolenc concluded the staff report. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any questions to the staff. Commissioner Hutchison asked if the sign currently being displayed at the location had been approved. Associate Planner D~ Dolenc answered that the applicant had been approved for a temporary sign. The code allow temporary sign to be displayed. The sign is not permanent. Planning Commissr: ~ December 11, ~p8 Page 4 of 15 Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any further questions of the staff. None. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for testimony. Arnoldo Benavidez, 595 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR 97071. Benavidez owns Benavidez Tires. He has operated the business for twenty years, and would like to continue providing service to his customers at his new location. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if the new location was in addition to the existing location across the street. Arnoldo Benavidez answered no. The new business location is in place of the old business location. The Planning Commissioners applauded Arnoldo Benavidez for the appearance of the new location. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any proponents for this application. Jake Jacobson, 1585 W. Main Street, Molalla, OR 97038. Jake Jacobson addressed the Planning Commission. He is a local business person that knows Arnoldo Benavidez personally. He knows staff and is aware of planning requirements. He considers tire to be car parts. Tire businesses need to be able to install the tires they sell. He has worked with Arnoldo Benavidez to address the sign and tire storage issues. He asked the Planning Commission to approve Arnoldo Benavidez's request for conditional use. Don Judson, 2815 Hazel Avenue, Woodburn, OR 97071. Don Judson is the Executive Director of the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. Forty-five days ago he received his first telephone call from a chamber member regarding the dilemma with Benavidez Tires. He spoke with Arnoldo Benavidez and contacted City Administrator Derickson and community development staff. He is frustrated with how long it takes to open a business in the City of Woodburn. The business would be operating if it was located in county land across the street. The delay is costly and hurts business. He requested that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use as soon as possible. Installation should be grandfathered to the location. The City of Woodburn should support Benavidez Tires. Chairperson Bandelow invited Don Judson to the Planning Commission meetings. He would find the Planning Commission to be business friendly. The Commission does not want Arnoldo Benavidez to have to pay fees for the conditiona{ use. Staff and Planning Commission must work within the parameters of the WDO. Vice Chairperson Vancil encouraged the members of the Chamber of Commerce to involve themselves in WDO revisions. The previous update involved little participation. Cliff Zauner 2662 H: ~Ir Drive, Woodburn, OR 97071. Cliff Zauner and his wife own WCAT, a local radio station. F gown the Benavidez family personally for many years. Benavidez Tires is a great sma =. He requested that Planning C ~mmiss~~~n approve the conditional use. Planning Commis ecember 11, 7~8 Page 5 of 15 Conde Benavidez, 245 Polly Street, Woodburn, OR 97071. Conde Benavidez is co-owner of Benavidez Tires with his brother. They have owned Benavidez Tires for twenty-eight years. This is their fourth location. One of the brothers recently passed away; he and his wife owned the previous location across the street. In their twenty-eight years in business they have never received a noise complaint. They would like to remain in business. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional proponents. None. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any opponents for this application. Daniel Atkinson, 110 N. 2nd Street, Silverton, OR 97381. Daniel Atkinson is the attorney for Margarita Benavidez. He submitted a memo to the Planning Commission. He asked them to move carefully with the case. Approving the conditional use is against the WDO. The proposed use may not meet the standards for off street parking. Tire racks would consume parking space. The proposed use may not even meet setbacks to the north. Atkinson concluded by stating that the application is not compatible by the described uses in the zone. Comr :~sioner Jennings asked if the county property across the street installs tires. Daniel Atkinson answered yes. Commissioner Jennings asked why his objection only applies to the property within the city. Daniel Atkinson answered that the property across the street is within the county and not carried by the WDO. The city has different standards. Commissioner Jennings stated that it should be a level field. Both sides should receive fair treatment. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional opponents. None. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for rebuttal. Jake Jacobson is Arnoldo Benavidez's contractor. Jake Jacobson st: '~d that the community does not distinguish itself into separate corridors. There is no reason `the county side of a street should be granted uses that the city side of a street is not. He dry -eed with Daniel Atkinson and his methodology behind his decisions. This should be a su; ~ication. The only opposition to this application derived from an outside, pending civil s~. Benavidez family has worked very hard, they have asked for the outside consultation when needed, they are open and ask for guidance. Chairperson Bandelow closed the hearing and was open for discussion. Commissioner Jer~+ings st. ted that the application should bP approved. He recognized that staff did not feel that th '-~3d • '~!;thf,-~'v to chi"~nge the WD~ Th•-= use of the property is not an issue, the cost of '~ Planning Comm 109 Page 6 of 15 Vice Chairperson Vancil agreed with Commissioner Jennings. He respects staff for their knowledge of the WDO, and realizes the complexity of the ordinance. The Planning Commission should approve the conditional use application as presented and recommended by staff. In the future, conditional use requirements should be analyzed and revised. Commissioner Hutchison applauded staff for the quality of their work. The WDO should remain consistent in regards to signage and storage, in how it is applied throughout the city. He is in favor of the application. Commissioner Grosjacques agreed with Commissioner Jennings. Chairperson Bandelow asked Commissioner Jennings for clarification on his earlier statement. She asked Commissioner Jennings if he believed that auto repair should be grandfathered to the location. This application should not be considered a change of use. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that there is not a provision to avoid a fee. Because the Planning Commission is anon-elected body, they are limited to what the WDO will allow. Legislative decisions are made by City Council. He agreed with Commissioner Jennings in that there is room for interpretation. The Planning Commission needs to make a decision based on the facts. They can approve the application with conditions, approve the application without conditions, deny the application, or make a motion to continue the hearing. All of the options have their own ramifications. If they disagree with staffs interpretation they should leave the record open and continue the hearing to determine the next step. Chairperson Bandelow stated that the Planning Commission is concerned about the project being delayed any further. Delaying a decision would only hurt Amoldo Benavidez's business, and would not ensure that the fees would be refunded. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that staff has the option to recommend approval with the recommendation that the fee be returned. Approving the application would make it a conditional use. They have the option to deny the application. They also have the option to determine that the use has been grandfathered to the location, becoming an outright non-conforming use. The Planning Commissions should document their findings and justifications no matter the determination. Commissioner Grigorieff asked if the Planning Commission could approve the application and recommend that City Council refund the fees. Assistant Attorney Stuart answered yes. Commissioner Grigorieff stated that they could then put conditional use on the list for WDO revisions. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission members in regards to the effects of grandfathering installation to the location. Associate Planner Don Dolenc stated that the application must be processed. If the application is denied the applicant is not entitled a refund. If the application is approved, Planning Commission has the opportunity to recommend the fee be returned. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated various decisions Planning Commission could make. Planning Commissia. ~fing December 11, 't?CCIDB Page 7 of 15 Vice Chairperson Vancil moved to approve Conditional Use 2008-01 as written with a recommendation to staff that the fee be waived. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion. Commissioner Jennings discussed the term "waived" and suggested "waived" be replaced with "refunded". Vice Chairoerson Vancil moved to amend the motion to replace the word waived with the word refunded. Commissioner Grosiacgues seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ROLL CALL Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bandelow Yes Vancil Yes GrosJacques Yes Grigorieff Yes Hutchison Yes Jennings Yes Kenagy Yes B. Nuevo Amanecer - Farmworker Housing Development Corporation, Applicant - Design Review 2008-05; EXP 2008-08 The Applicant requests a design review fora 40-unit affordable housing development and an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on 2"d Street. Chairperson Bandelow asked if any of the Planning Commission members have any conflicts that they would like to declare. Commissioner Jennings stated that he has recently traveled the site, but does not have ex parte conflict. Staff Report Associate Planner Brennecke read the applicable ORS then commenced her presentation. The subject property is located in Medium Density Residential zone (RM). Adjacent properties to the north and east are zoned medium density residential. Adjacent properties to the south and east are zoned Residential Single Family (RS). The ariel view of the site depicts the existing adjacent land uses. Property to the north is occupied by Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II and Stonehedge Apartments. Property to the west and south is occupied by older, single family homes. Property to the west is occupied by single family homes and commercial property. The project proposes a pedestrian connection between the proposed and existing Nuevo Amanecer complexes. The entrance to the proposed complex is Second Street. The street improvements are proposed for Second Street. The photo of the property depicts a vacant lot. The project is a media density residential development consisting of forty dwelling units, nine two-story and three-s buildings, eighty off street parking spaces and two drive ways, a multi- purpose community ~ .laundry room, management office, playground and community plaza. Planning Commissic ~g December 11, '2gg8 Page 8 of 15 IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON CU 2008-01 ) FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, a request was made by Arnoldo Benavidez, for a conditional use for auto parts sales, tire and wheel sales and installation, and general automotive repair in the Commercial General (CG) zone and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of December 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 Planning Commission closed the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to approve case number CU 2008-01 and instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION: The Planning Cornrnission approves case number CU 2008-01 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: Ellen Bandelow, C airperson 112 _~ ~ T Da ATTACHMENT K EXHIBIT "A" 1 General Provisions z 3 The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to promote a the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind s of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the WDO. 6 [WD01.101.02.A] ~ All officials, departments, employees (including contractor-offtcials), of the City vested wfth a authority to issue permits or grant approvals shall adhere to and require conformance with v the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which io violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO 11 1.101.04] Iz Findings: The planning commissioners are officials of the City and are collectively vested with 13 authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff aze @[nployees of the City and are vested la with authority to issue permits or grant approvals. 1 s Conclusions: The planning commissioners and planning division staff must adhere to and require 16 conformance with the WD~, and must not grant approval for any development or use which 1 ~ violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE Section Decision I II III IV V Appeal 5.103.01 Conditional Use ~ i s The Planning Commission shall render all Type III decisions. [WDO 4.1O1.10.C] 19 All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval zo reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all z 1 applicable approval standards are, or can be, met oa Type II, III and IV decisions EXCEPT z2 annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and objective or if the condition requires z3 discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.A[ za Findings: A Conditional Use is a Type III decision. The Planning Commission is the City decision- zs making body with authority to render Type IIi decisions. zb Conclusions: The Planning Commission has "the authority to impose conditions of approval r reasonably related to impacts caused by the development." If the implementation of a condition of za approval requires the exercise of discretion, the Commission shall require a public hearing on the zy matter. 3~1 31 I:`.Community Developmern Planning'2008`.Conditionat Use~595 ~i Pacific Hwy (CC2008-01)'~Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 1 of 10 113 ~ WDO 2.106 Commercial General (CGS z 3 The following uses may be permitted in the CG zone subject to the applicable development a standards of the WDO and the conditions of conditional use approval: s ...:V[otor vehicle and parts dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation. 6 ... Automotive maintenance. (8111) [WDO 2.106.03.A.1, 2.106.03.G.1] ~ Findings: The proposed use is an automotive parts dealership with installation and automotive s maintenance. 9 Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. io ii iz The nonconformLtg use of a building, structure, or land shall be considered terminated if the i3 Community Development Director ftnds that the use of the building, structure or land ceased, is for any reason, for a continuous period of 6 months. [WDO 1.104.02] is Findings: Property tax records indicate that the building was originally constructed in 1967. A site ie visit found that the building design is typical a gasoline service station of that period. At that time, ~ ~ automobile maintenance and repair were commonly conducted as an integral part of a service ig station's business. According to the property owner's representative, after the sale of gasoline was iq discontinued on the subject property, the building continued to be used for automobile maintenance zo and repair. The Planning Division has photographs from 1994 showing a transmission shop that z i also advertised "complete auto repair." The applicant's business license lists automotive repair as zz an element of the current business. The cutrent proposal does not include expansion of the z3 building, increase in off-street parking requirements, or other activity that would require the za building location, off-street parking, architectural design, landscaping, or buffering to comply with z s current standards. ze Conclusions: The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use z7 because it is conducted without the conditional use currently required by the WDO. As a za nonconforming use, this element of the business may continue until it is terminated pursuant to z9 WDO1.104.02. 3U 3l sz Lots in a CG zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.10. (WDO 3~ 2.106.OS.AJ TABLE 2.1.10 Lot Standards in a CG Zone In a CG 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. 3a Findings: The existing and proposed uses of the property are non-residential. The lot area is ss adeyuate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. ~~ Conc[usion: The lot is conforming for area in the CG zone. There is no minimum lot width or 3- depth. I:`Community Developmenf.Planning~,2003 Conditional Use`595 V Pacitic Hwy (Cli2008-O1)~Final Order Exhibit A.da; Page 2 of 10 114 3 Height, Building: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest a point of the coping or flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of s the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. [WDO 1.102) e The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 70 feet. [WDO 2.106.05.8] ~ Findings: The existing building is a single-story structure R Conclusion: The existing building complies with WDO 2.106.O5.B. io i i Special setback standards by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1. The special iz setback standards shall be applied to streets within the City of Woodburn as functionally 13 classifted iII the Woodburn Transportation System Plan. [WDO 3.103.OS.D] TABLE 3.1.1 Special Setback Standards by Street Classiftcation WTSP Functional Classification Special Setback from Center Line Major Arterial 150 feet ~a The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, Section is 3.103.05. [WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1] ib Finding: Figure 7.1 of the Transportation System Plan shows Pacific Highway as a Major Arterial. i~ Table 3.1.1 requires a special setback of 50 feet from the center line. The GIS system shows aright- ix of-way width of approximately 80 feet. In addition to the special setback of 50 feet from centerline i9 (or 10 feet from property line), an additional 15 foot setback is required. The GIS system shows the zo existing building to be set back approximately 45 feet from the front property line. zi Conclusions: The existing building complies with the standards of WDO 3.103.OS.D, Table 3.1.1, zz and WDO 2.106.06.C.l.a.l . 23 24 zs Development in a CG zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table z~ 2.1.11. [WDO 2.106.05.C.2.a[ TABLE 2.1.11 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for CG Zones Abutting Property Wall Interior Setback CO, CG, DDC, Iv`NC, Alternative A: Wall requirements Alternative A: 5 ft. PiSP, IP, SWIR or IL shall be determined in conjunction with zone the applicable Design Review process. Alternative B: Zero setback Alternative 6: No wall required. abutting a building wall. I:~ Community DevrlopmenhPlanning' 2008`Conditional Use~595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-0 l )`Final Order Exhibit A.da; Page 3 of 10 115 ~ A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than z 7 feet in height: 3 a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential development a to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or llght impacts on the abutting use when no s comparable buffer exists. [WDO 3.107.06.8.8) 6 ~ Findings: The building is not required to go through a Design Review process at this time. An s existing wood fence separates the subject property from the abutting residential properties. The 9 proposed use of the property is similar to previous uses of the property. -o Conclusions: The wall requirement of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a and Table 2.1.11 (Alternative A) do not i i apply to the proposed development. The existing wood fence is comparable, although not iz equivalent, to an architectural wall as a buffer. The guideline of WDO 3.107.06.8.8 -which is i3 partially met - is not applicable to the current proposal. is is ib Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard i~ abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2] i a Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for ~y parking and storage adjacent to a wall. (WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.c] zo Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a street, z- EXCEPT for parking in driveways. [WDO 3.103.06] zz Finding: The site plan does not show any parking or storage located within a required setback. z3 Conclusion: The site plan complies with the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.1.b.2, WDO za 2.106.OS.C.2.c, and 3.103.06. 25 26 z~ Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block za wall and solid gate, both with an anH-graHlti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum z9 of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.106.06.E.3] 3o Findings: The site plan shows a trash enclosure located at the rear of the building. The applicant 31 has indicated that he would delete the trash enclosure shown on the site plan and use the existing 3z refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant. 33 Conclusion: The standards of WDO 2.106.06.E.3 are not applicable to the project aS revised. 3a 35 36 WDO 3.101 Street Standards 3~ 3s All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the 3v applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction .~o specifications of the Public Works Department. [WDO 3.101.02.C.1j ai Finding: Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. az Conclusions: Higltw•ay 99E is not 'under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn" and street I:`Community Development~Planning`?008~Conditional Use~.595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)`,Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 4 of 10 116 i improvements are not required per WDO 3.101.02.C.1. 3 a WDO 3.104 Access Standards b Radius of Curb Flare: 35 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.2] ~ Findings: The site plan does not call out the curb radius. The City GIS system shows that the curb s radius is approximately 23 feet. The previous use of the building was auto repair. The proposed v use of the building is auto repair. to Conclusions: No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of this conditional use. ~~ ti t 3 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to to the outside edge of right of way for a:... is a. Major street connection: SO feet minimum, with greater improvement as may be is required by a TIA. [WDO 3.104.05.E.4] t~ Street, Msjor: A street or highway classified in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan as is a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Service Collector, or Access street. [WDO 1.102] ie Findings: The site plan shows a throat length of approximately 10 feet. The previous use of the Zo building was auto repair. The proposed use of the building is auto repair. zt Conclusions: Establishing a throat to meet the requirements of WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 would entail zz significant effort and expense, may not be physically possible, and would not be roughly 23 proportional to the impacts of the development. No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of 2a this conditional use. 25 26 z~ 3.102 Utilities and Easements zs z9 Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to applicable 3o Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.01] 3i Finding: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm 3z drainage facilities. 33 Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.01 do not apply to this case. 3~ 35 36 All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where overhead 3; high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned tots that are currently served by 38 overhead wires or cables. (WDO 3.102.02) ,y Finding: A site inspection showed that the property is served by existing overhead high-voltage .an electric facilities. ~si Conclusion: Underground utilities are not required by WDO 3.102.02. a~ (:`Community Development Fanning 2008'~Conditional li~e.595 N Pacitic Hwy (CU?008-01)\Final Order Exhibit A.doc: Page 5 of 10 117 1 z Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed to the 3 standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO 3.102.03] a Finding: Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. s Conclusion: Street improvements, including street lights, are not required on Highway 99E per e WDO 3.101.02.C.1. 9 The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the lu construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities 11 located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public Works Iz Department standards. [WDO 3.102.04.A] 13 Finding: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm la drainage facilities. Is Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.04.A do not apply to this case. 16 l7 Is Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for electric 19 and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each lot line abutting a zo public street. [WDO 3.102.04.B] zl Finding: The proposed use of the property does not involve any increased need for pubic utilities. zz Conclusions: Dedication of a public utility easement would not be roughly proportional to the z3 impacts of the development, and is not necessary for approval of this conditional use. za zs zb WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading Standards z~ za The provisions of this Section shall apply to the following types of development:... ze B. Any additional parking and/or loading required by the WDO to accommodate a 30 change iII use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the following. 31 1. Applications subject to Type III Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform 3z all parking, loading and landscaping for the subject use to the standards of the 33 WDO. 34 2. Applications subject to Type II Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the 3s change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading or 36 landscaping by 25 percent or more, shag conform to all parking, loading and 3? landscaping to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading and landscaping 3s required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to 39 those necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion. [WDO .a„ 3.105.01) al Finding: The proposed use does not require a Type ti or Type III Design Review. az Conclusions: The provi~:~ns of WDO 3.105 do not apply under VUDO 3.105.01. ~i3 [:'.Community Develop- nning' 2008'~Conditional Use~.595 ~1 Pacitic Hwy (CU~008-0])\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 6 of 10 118 I WDO 3.106 Landscaain~ Standards 3 The subject property shall be landscaped to the standards of Section 3.106 and 3.107.03. a [WDO 2.1O5.Ob.F.2~ s The provisions of this section shall apply: e A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single- ~ family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and s B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to 9 structures and/or parking areas Increases the total area covered by structure and 10 parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. (WDO I I 3.106.01[ 12 Findings: The proposed use of the subject property is essentially the same as the previous use. No 13 new structures, additions to structures, or parking areas is proposed. la Conclusion: The development is not subject to WDO 3.106 under WDO 3.106.01. Is 16 17 WDO 3.107 Architectural DeSi~n Guidelines and Standards IS I v The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures and zo buildings in the RS, R1S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. [WDO 3.107.06.A[ zl Findings: The use is proposed to be established in an existing non-residential structure in the CG zz zone. The structure was built in 1967. z3 Conclusion: The structure either meets the guidelines and standards of WDO 3.107, or is za nonconforming to them and is regulated under WDO 1.104. zs z~ z, WDO 3.110 Sims zs zy The applicant has not submitted details of the proposed signage for review as part of this 3o application. The site sketch shows two pole signs and a wall sign. This land use decision does not 31 authorize the installation of signs. The property owner shall obtain a sign permit prior to the 3z installation of any sign. 33 34 3s Complex: Any group of two or more buildings, or individual businesses within a single 3h building provided at least two of the businesses have separate exterior entrances, on a site that 37 is planned and developed to function as a unit and which has common on-site parking, 3M circulation and access. A complex may consist of multiple lots or parcels that may or may not ~y be under common ownership. [WDO 3.110.03) ;~~ Findings: The site contains three buildings, is planned and developed to function as a unit, and has ;i common on-site parking, circulation and access. ~, Cunclusions: The site qualifies as a "complex" for the purposes of WDO 3.1 10 I:'Community Development',Planning\201)8\Conditional l1se~.595 ti Pacific Hwy (01;2008-01)~Final Order Exhibit A.doc: Page 7 of 10 119 3 Complex. a a. A pole sign is permitted on a street frontage that exceeds 1001ineal feet not to exceed s one pole sign for a complex. 6 b. A pole sign on a street with less than 3001ineal feet of frontage shall not exceed 1S ~ feet is height and SO square feet in area. (WDO 3.110.16.A.2[ s Findings: The site sketch shows two existing pole signs in the complex. The City's GIS system y shows the site to have approximately 231 feet of street frontage. io Conclusions: No more than one pole sign may be authorized on the subject property, per WDO i ~ 3.110.16.A.2.a. No new pole sign could be established unless the existing pole signs were removed. 12 13 ~a Nonconforming signs are those signs lawfully established prior to the adoption of Section i s 3.l 10 or subsequent amendment thereto or signs lawfully established on property annexed to ie the City, which do not conform to the requirements of Section 3.110. Nonconforming i~ permanent signs may remain provided they comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.20. ~s [WDO 3.110.20.AJ ie Finding: The two existing pole signs are evident in aerial photography taken in 2000. 2u Conclusions: The two existing pole signs were established prior to the adoption of Section 3.110. 2i The two existing pole signs are nonconforming permanent signs subject to WDO 3.110.20. ~~ 23 za Nonconforming permanent signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 3.110 when one 2s or more of the following occurs:... A Type II Design Review or Type III Conditional Use or 26 Design Review land use application is approved for the premises upon which the sign is :~ located. In a complex, if an individual tenant space is the subject of a Type II Design Review 2a or Type III Conditional Use or Design Review land use application, only signs attached to 29 such tenant space shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. [WDO 30 3.110.20.B.4j 3 i Findings: The property is subject to a Type III Conditional Use. A site inspection found two pole 32 signs. The applicant has indicated that he would convert the existing pole sign in front of the 33 building to a conforming monument sign. The property owner has verbally agreed to this action. 3a Conclusions: The restaurant auto repair shop constitute individual tenant spaces. The existing pole 3s sign for the restaurant is not attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is not required 36 to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. The existing pole sign for the auto repair shop is 3' attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is required by WDO 3.110.20.8.4 to 38 comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. 3y 1U a~ W'DO 5.103.01 Conditional Use az {3 The proposed use shall be permitted as a conditional use within the zoning district. [WDO sa 5.103.01.C.1 J L.Community Developmc:nt'Pianning~2008`,Conditional ~se~595 N Pacitic Hwy (CU~008-01)'.Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 8 of 10 120 t Findings: WDO 2.106.03.A.1 lists as a conditional use in the CG zone "Motor vehicle and parts z dealers (441 }EXCEPT automotive parts without installation." WDO 2.106.03.G.1 lists as a 3 conditional use in the CG zone "Automotive maintenance. (8111)" The proposed use is an a automotive parts dealership with installation and automotive maintenance. s Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. The e criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.1 is met. 8 y The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. [WDO io 5.103.O1.C.2] i i Finding: Compliance with the Commercial General (CG) zoning regulations is discussed in detail iz above. is Conclusions: The proposed use meets the requirements of WDO 2.106. ~a ~s ~e The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. (WDO 5.103.O1.C.3] i ~ Findings: A beauty salon and a restaurant exist on the same lot with the proposed use. Two ~ s conforming and two nonconforming single-family dwellings abut the north lot line, as does a ig restaurant and professional office. An automobile repair facility abuts the lot on the south and west. zu A mobile home sales lot and a vacant commercial lot adjoin the lot across Highway 99E. z~ ~~ z3 Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is za compatible include: zs a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use; ze Findings: The subject property is of adequate size, is irregular in shape but not excessively so, z~ is located on a major arterial street, and is relatively flat. zs zy b. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving so the proposed use; 3i Findings: The subject property is currently served by public water, sewerage, and drainage 3z facilities. Street access is from a state highway. Sidewalks are not provided. The business is 33 auto-oriented, not pedestrian-oriented. 34 3s c. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment: 36 1) ~toise; 3~ 2) Illumination; sx 3) Hours of operation; 3y 4) Air quality; .,u 5) Aesthetics; and si 6) Vehicular traffic. ~a Findings: The previous and proposed use of the property is an automotive parts dealership with a; installation and automoti~ a maintenance. The proposed use would have impacts on the quality I:' Community Development,P! ~g•2008' Conditional Use' 595 ti Pacific Hwy (CL~2008-01)` Final Order Exhibit A.doc •'age 9 of 10 121 I of the living environment similar in nature and extent to those of the previous use regarding z noise, illumination, hours of operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. 3 a d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; s Findings: Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial e areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual ~ impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides s that: "Commercial office and other low traffic generating commercial retail uses can be located v on collectors or in close proximity to residential areas if care in architecture and site planning is to exercised. The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close I I to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones" The proposed Iz use does not expand, intensify, or alter the pattern of existing development. 13 la e. The suitability of proposed conditians of approval to insure compatibility of the proposed Is use with other uses in the vicinity. [WDO 5.103.O1.C.3] Ib Findings: The proposed conditions of approval minimize the effects of the proposed use on I~ adjacent property. Is 19 Conclusion: The proposed use meets the criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.3. [:.Community Deg elopmenC Planr ~08'.Conditional L'se\595 ti Exhibit A.doc (C[;2[~08-01)`,Final Order 'age l0 of 10 122 EXHIBIT "B" The Planning Division approves case CU 2008-01 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions on a form provided by the City. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, or public hearing. 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. The property owner shall remove the existing pole sign in front of the building or convert it to a monument sign conforming to WDO 3.110. (:,Community Devrlopnunt Planning~?U08~~Conditional Use 595 ti Pacific Hwy (CU~008-O1)`Fina{ Order Exhibit B.doc P~-ge t of t 123 Notice and Procedure Conditional Use Application Deemed Complete: November 20, 2008 120-Day Rule Deadline: Friday, March 20, 2009 Public Notice: Notices for this public hearing were mailed on January 22, 2009 to the appellant, the applicant, the property owner, area property owners, and the persons who offered testimony at the Planning Commission's public hearing. In accordance with the requirements of WDO 4.101.09.B.2, a public hearing notice was posted on the property on January 23, 2009. Appeal: This appeal was filed on January 21, 2009. The issues before the City Council are consideration of the appeal and consideration of the conditional use to allow installation of auto parts. For Type III decisions, only those persons who participated either orally or in writing or who are adversely affected or aggrieved have standing to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board, as applicable and is substantially adversely affected. [WDO 4.102.O1.A.3] Findinus: The Conditional Use is a Type III decision. The appellant, through her attorney, offered oral and written testimony to the Planning Commission. Conclusion: The appellant has standing to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. A notice of intent to appeal any ... Type III decision must be received in writing by the Community Development Director within twelve (12) days from the date notice of the challenged decision is mailed to those entitled to notice. Late filing of any appeal shall be a jurisdictional defect and will result in the automatic rejection of any appeal so filed. [WDO 4.102.O1.B.1] A period of time to perform expressed in days shall mean consecutive "calendar days" unless otherwise defined. The number of calendar days is counted beginning with the first date after the date or event from which the period begins, and ending at 5 o'clock p.m. on the last day of the number of days stated, unless the last day is not a City business day, in which case the last day of the period shall be the first City business day following the last of the consecutive calendar days. [WDO 1.1O1.OZ.B] Findings: The Notice of Decision was mailed to those entitled to notice on January 9. The notice of intent to appeal was received by the Planning Division on January 21 at approximately 11:30 AM. Conclusion: The notice of intent to appeal was timely filed. The following must be included as part of the notice of appeal: a. The Community Development file number and date the decision to be appealed was rendered; b. The name, n- ling address and daytime telephone number for each appellant; c. A statement ~w each appellant has standing to appeal; 124 Attachment L d. A statement of the grounds for the appeal; and e. The appropriate appeal fee. Failure to include the appeal fee for the costs of appeal and transcript fee within the appeal period is a jurisdictional defect and will result in the automatic rejection of any appeal so filed. IF an appellant prevails at hearing or on appeal, the transcript fee shall be refunded. [WDO 4.102.O1.B.2] Findin :The notice of intent to appeal included all of the information specified in WDO 4.102.O1.B.2.a-e. Conclusion: The notice of intent to appeal met the filing requirements of WDO 4.102.O1.B.2. 125 <Attachment L ~,,.iLy oz wovaaurn "lalvLri* 0 . ~ . 4 LTT0070S1 1/27/09 Inquiry Reset: + + -Wo,r,k, With, ~,cc,ou~;~u,s, o~e,r;-,-,-,-~ ~ .-~-,-,-~ ~ . ~ .-, ~ ~ ~ .-, ~-, ~-, ~ ,-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,-~ ~ .-.-,-,-,-.-~~','~T, ,,,S.T,- ,I, ,I, { , Account : 78005440 , I , 595 N PACIFIC SW7f , I . ,i. .1, ,{, Type options, press Enter. ,{, ,I, S=Display ,I. .l. .I. I , Account , I , ,I, Opt Customer # Name Balance Move In Date ,I, ,l, 4862 BENAVIDEZ TIRES ~ WBEEI.S #1,,, 273.64 10/20/2008 ,I, ,{, -' 10479 HIGHWAY AUTO REPAIR,,, .00 2/09/2007 ,l, {, - 4944 PACIFIC NW TRANSMISSIONS,,, .00 12/08/1992 ,I, .I, -' , i, .I. .I. .I. ,1, .I. ~ ,!, I , Bottom , I , -F3; ,E,x,it, . , ,F,5=,Refre,s,h, , , F12=Cance,l, ~-,-~ , ~ ~ , ; ~-~ , ; ~ ; ;-,-~ ~ ,-~ ,-,-~ ~ . ;-. ~-.-. ~ ~ , ~ ~-,-. ~-~ ~ ~ .-, :HMENT M 126 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case No. 08C20989 State of Oregon ) WRIT OF EXECUTION OF ss. 3UDGMENT OF RESTITUTION County of Marion ) To the Sheriff: This was an eviction action for possession of the following premises: 595 N Pacific Hwy Woodburn 97071 MARION (street) (city) (~) (county) Judgment was entered that the plaintiff have restitution of the premises and that the plaintiff may be entitled to court costs and disbursements. In the name of the State of Oregon, you are ordered to enforce and serve this writ on the defendant, in the manner provided in ORS 105.161(1), after the four-day period provided in the Mice of restitution. You are ordered to enter the premises and rremove the defendant and any other individual present an the premises who is subject to the judgment sect r+eburn possession of the pranises to the plaintiff. You may use all reasonable force that may be necessary to eater the premises and remove individuals who are subject to the judgment. The plaintiff shall be responsible for relrloving, storing and disposing of a~+ personal property left by the defendant on the premises following the ranoval of the ORS 105.165. DATED: September 1 b, 2008 Pauline Pendov P. R fa Estate of Vladimir PeMov PlsirNiff PO 13ox 226 Add~rxs Woodburn, OR 97071 City/StatdZip 503-9B2A226 Tdephaw Numbs WRIT OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OF RESTITUTION -Page 1 of 1 FC{ 10/23/07) 128 FORM pa. 612 -LEASE - StlSINElS PROPERTY. cori~oNT iMa 9TEVENE.NtDR lIw NEUE1MNO Co saaTwo. oa EryEt NABE THIS NDER'TUR OFj1, EASE, entered into this _._.. ~. s ~ ...................... day of .....~e b.~ ~~~. -. - •~ a•G07 between ._.. ~Q1sl-~ L~. •...~ fi1{~.~ .................... _...................-......_......._....- • ................~ .....•---.......... ........-•----........ ~4.f!l. ..---._ .. ._._. .._,.~---45'...N-.~a-~•i- -•~'~.....--~-~l.,a:,._...L{1aQC~~b.~~t~~--..P..._...~..f.v.~.~7.D.'?.~....i..s....~af..r.'.~!~.~~l~~tt-._... hereinafter called the Lessor, and ._..~~ s4..... 4_~,LA....~~~ ................................................................................................... ........ .................................................................................................................................... hereinafter called the lessee, WITNESSETH: In consideration of the covenants herein, the lessor hereby leases unto the lessee those certain premises, as is, situated in the City of ...~ ~.Q~.bV..~.~r.~ ................ County ot ..~9.~1.~N...................... and State ot....D.~•lly.V..N ..................., hereinafter called the premises, described as follows: ~-~,3- ~, ~~~-~;~ ~W~. uJo~~b~~, v~e~ge~ gZa~1 uSe- o'F ~NGI o,S~ ~ o+~ 4 ~s ~~,~ o~ F~oN''c ,, ~~~ ~ ~ CgNo~ ~ ~,~ 1l owNG~R..~r~.t ~ f c t~ w,~ ~ w i~,~, ' ~ ~-,~ ve wad ` Q~ _ p ~Rq (~ ~tl.~ _ .. _ _ _ .. LL To Have and to Aotd the premises commencing with the .~ St._...... da of _.. ~-I~.R.S~..W.Rr.~ .............. ~~ 01 and ending at midnight on the ..~.1.._._..... day of ...,,rl~1J.f,JA1~~~..J ................... ~~}~~~ far a zental of ,f..,fx.~..~ROt~~~~v. for the w,~gle term, which lessee agrees to pap et ~4y.~fl.k----Q~•NARa1--•~A-0•t-Dllx••-o~-~`~-S?•!~'~eu~~1u/01~.4,f ~...~~ cite of..w.a-adb•~r•.a.-•.•-••--. State of ..~.~..541'±..:...., et the Following times and in the following amounts, to-wit: pay411~e. 1 sf ''~ eac 4.. µoeV"~. '~ oZaoO P.+Qit. rt onr/1i 1 tt~.~ ~,~a`d~ ~,, M,~•~,~ Se~c,o~ ~, ~i a as ~ ~, ~f~ -~~ ~ y,<.o ~ Na i~~f~Q~-tr~ s~cv~,~~cQP~~~s~~- N~ 5~'av~~•t~f G~~w ~S wi d~0 ~-~e~ h1.~ss i ~ a8 1 ~s So ~ 9 ~, ~ ~ 1 I bt? ~~ PN~ ~~' .art. ~ a~ -1-~~-M- I ~s S aNy ad v e ~ Q ~N~ e1 ~~ In consideration of the leasing of the premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties agree as fo/lows: 129 y J ATTACHSIENT pROVIDI;D, ALWAYS, and these presents are upon these conditions, that (1) ff the leases shell be in arrears in eM BANKRUPT payrrxnt of rent for a period of ten deya alter the same becomes due, or (?) i! the )cosec shall fail or neglect to perform DEFAULT or observe any of the covenants and agreements contained herein on lessee's par! !o be done, kept, parlorrnet! and ob- served and such default shall continue for ten days or more after written notice o! such failure or neglect shall bs given to /sues, or (3) if the lessee shall be declared bankrupt or insolvent according to )aw, or (t) if any aaaignaront of lessee's property s1u11 be mods for the benefit of creditors, w (S) it on the expiration of this leau lessee fails to surrender posaeation of the premises, the lessor or those having lessor's estate in the premises, may terminals this lease arid, lawfully, et lessor's option immediately or st arry time thereafler, without demand or notice, enter into end upon tiro premiaea and every pert thereof end repossea the same, and expel !cosec end !boas claiming by, through end under leases arod remove lessee's effects at Ieuee'a expense, forcibly if necessary and store the Gams, all without being doomed guilty of trespass and without prejudice to a»y remedy which otherwise might be used for arrears of rent w preceding breech of covenant. Neither the termination o1 this lease by forfeiture nor the taking or recovery of possession o/ the premises shall deprive lessor of any otMr action, right, w remedy against lessee for possession, rant or damages, nw shat/ any omission by lessor to enforce any forfsftun, right or remedy to which lessor may be entitled be deemed • waiver by lessor of the right to enforce the psrformarxe of atl terms and conditions of this lsasa by leases. In the event o! any re-entry by lessor, lessor mry lease or relet the promises in whole or in part to any tenant or tenants who rney be satisfactory to lessor, for any duratio», and for the beat sent, terms and conditions as lesor msy reasonably obtain. Lsasw she/1 apply the rent received from any such tenant first to the cost of retaking end reletting the premiaea, induding remodeling required to obtain arty such teruuU, and then !o any arrears of rent and future rent payable under this lease and any other damsges to which lessor may be entitled hereunder. ' Any proper!}- wleici+ ltaaee leaves o» the premises alter abandonment or expiration of the lesse, or for more than ten deya attar any termination of the lease by landlord, shall be deemed to have been abandoned, end lessor may remove artd sell the property at public or private oafs as Jesaor sees fit, without being liable for sny prosecution therefor or for damages by reason therool, and the net proceeds of a»y such rile shall be applied toward the expenses of landlord end rent es aforesaid, and the balance of such amarnb, ff any, alrall bs held for and paid to G'ro lessee. ov~fNG In the event the lessee for any reason shall hold over otter the expiration of this lease, such holding over shat/ not be deemed to operate as a renewal a extension of this lease, but shall only create a tenancy at eutfererru which !nay be torminated at will at any tuns by the lessor. ATTO$NILT In case soil or action is instituted to snforr» compliance with any o! the terms, covenants or conditions of this lease, P668 AND or to collect the renlal which may become due hereunder, or any portion thereof, the loci COURT COSTS ng party agrees to pay tin pre- vailing party's reasonable attorney fees incurred throughout auah proeeading, including st trial, on epped, end for pwt- ludgment collection. The lessee egress to pay and discharge ell lessor's costs and expenses, including lessor's reasonable attorney's lees that shall arise from enforcing any provision or covenants of this lease even though no suit or action is instituted. Should tiro lessee be or• become the debtor fn any bankruptcy proceeding, voluntarily, involuntarily or otherwise, either during the period this lease is in effect ar while there eziats any outstanding obligation of the lessee created by Chia lease in favor of the lessor, the lessee agrees to psy the leuor's reasonable attorney tees and cost: which the teasor may incur as the result of lessor's participalion in nieh bankruptcy proceedings. It ie understood and agreed 6y both parties that applicable federal bankruptcy taw or rules of procrdure may affect, alter, reduce or Huffily the attorney tee and cos! awuda mentioned irr the preceding sentence. WALYBR Any waiver by the lessor of sny breach of any covenant herein conteirrsd to be kept and performed by tin leases shell not be deemed or considered as a continuing waiver, end shall not operate to bar d prevent the lessor from decluing a forfeiture for any succeeding broach, either of the same condition or covenant or otlrorwiae. NOTICES Any notice required 6y the terms of this lease to be given ey one party hereto to the other or desired ao to be given, shall be sufficient iE in writing, contained in a seal envelops, a sent !'rat class mail, with postage fully prepaid, and if 'nfendednfor t1ro le^uor herein, th_n if addressed^to the leaver st .......CA.g.. ~~#1.t f-.....L..dY..f~.11Y ................•-..-.-_.......--°-.._.....-..........-..-..-............ ..~s.Q~...V..!?.J~Q~.paeb..-..~.Q~.61,1~.~7-- 1L.1~Q~.~..9.7Q.T~ .................... and if intended for the lessee, then it addressed to ohs lessee at ............................• --.............-.............-.........--...-...............--.._....-............-..-........---...............-...-......-......-.....-...... Any such notice shall be deemed conclusively to have been delivered to the addresses forty-eight hours otter the deposit thereof fn the U.S. Mail. H@i1tB AND qll rights, remedies and liabilities herein given fo or imposed upon either of the parties hereto shall extend to, inure AAS1GNa to the benalit of end bind, as the circumstances may require, the heirs, successors, personal repreae»tativea and so ter oa this lease is assignable by the terms hereof, to the assigns o/ such parties. In construing this lease, it is understood that the lessor or the /easoe may be mote than one person; that iL the context so requires, ohs singular prorroun shall be taken to mean and irfclude the plural, end that generally all grammatical changes shelf be mods, assumed end implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease on the day and year first hereirtabove written, ~ny orporatio sign tore being by authority of its Board of Dire t rs. ........................... ......... ................~ ~~ ~~t..~..s Oo?.........-........-..-•--•--•--...-----....-...........-................... ~.f .........0? .. ~~ The publisher strongly recommends that troth the lessor amt the lessee become familiar with !fie Americans with Dtsabliities Act o/ 1990, Public Laws 101-336. The Act may impose certsln duties and responsibilities upon either or both parties to this lease. These duties end responsibilities may inetude but not be limited to the removal of certain architectural barriers and ensuring that dbabied persons arc not denied the opportunity to benefit from the ulna goods end services as those available to persons without disabllh ties. Under the Act, prohibition against discrimination applies to any ps~on who Is the owner, operator, lessor, or lessee of • place of pubpc accommodation. LSBBSE'B (I) The lessee accepts fhir /etfin/ and a/tea to pay to tlr order of the lessor the monthly rentals above stated for the ACCSP?ANCS lull eerm of this Issas, in advance, at the times and in the manrar elareaaid. OP LSABS IJBIi DP (? T Jew shall use the p lass tlurln/ the form of this loose ~ or the cordue of the I owln/ businse: PREItTBSB .....J.4~-t......Mr,,~i-s~....P..btu.q.._.r<.~....~.a~~....o..~........ ~. fr~ks.a~-....~~.s~.s. ~ N,.~ ................................................................. - --•---.-....--•-•-• .............................................................°---.....- and for fro other purpose whatsoever without lessor's written consent. (?b) The leases will not make any unlawful, Improper or oltenalvs use of the promise; the /esssr will not suffer any rtrlp or warts fhareol; the (asses will not perm!! say objectionable noise or odor to escape or to bs emitted from tM prsmisss or do artythin/ or permit anylhin/ to be done upon or about the premiss in any way tendin/ to crests a nuisance; the /essso will Trot sell or permit to ba sold atrY prodnel, substance or saroia upon or about the premises, e:osptin/ such u lessee may be !!tensed by law to sell end ea may be hsroin exprsady psrmlttsd. . (?c) The lessee will not allow the premises et any tirr» to fell into such a state of repair or dleorder as to increase the tlrs hasard thereon; the lease will not install any power machlnsry on the promises escept under the supervision end with written consent of fhs lessor; the loess will not store /asolirre or other h!/hly combustfb/s materaa/a on the promises at arty time; the lassos will not use the promises in sash • way or for such a purpos that the tiro insurance rats on the improvements on the premises is thereby incroasd or that would prevent the boor from taken/ adventaje o! arty rulin/r of any a/ency of the state in which the premises ere situated, or which would allow the lessor to obtain reduoad premium rates for /on/ term firs insurance poleein. (2d) The lassos shd! comply at lease's own expense with all laws and ro/vlatlons of any municipal, county, state, federal or other publee authority rospseten/ the use of the proariss. Theca include, without llmitgtion, all laws, rs/ulations and ordinatrQea psrtaerdn/ to sir and wafer quality, Ha:ardour Materials'u heraen defined, wants disposal, air sauasioro, are( other environmsnta! matters. As used !train, Hasardoua Material arena any hasardova or toxic substance, material, or waste, ineludlnj but not limited to those substances, matsriala, and routs (bled !n the U.S. Department of Transportation Hasudous Matsrla/s Table or by the U.S. Ern+eronawrrta! Protection A/ancy a harudous substances and aa+sndarnh fheroto, petroleum products, or such other mbstanosa, rruterids, and route !teat us or bsooar re/elated under any appljubls local, state, a iedsral law. (1e) The tease shall rs/ularly occupy and use the prsmiaa for the conduct of Issas s business, and shell not abardon or vacate tlr promises for mare then ten days without written approval of !soot. (?f) Leases anal! not souse or perms! any Hasardoua Material to be brow/ht upon, kept or ued in or about the promises by lease, its a/ants, emplgyaea, coatraetors, or invitees without the prior written consnt of lessor, which consent will not be unrsrronab/y withheld so !on/ as /eases demonstrates to lessor's reaeoaab/e setialaction that such Hasardoua Material is rrolaaary or useful to lessee's burins and will be used, kept, end elored in a mar>ner that will comply at s1/ times with all laws re/ulatin/ any such Hasudous Msteria/ ao brou/hf upon or used or kept on or about the premises. U?ILITIEB (3) The /saes shall pay for all heat, /i/ht, water, power, and other services or utilities used in the praariar durin/ the term of !tees leas. RSPAISB AND (Ia) The lease abet! not be required to make any repairs, alterstiona, additions w improvemrnts to or upon the prem- IIIPSOVSaISNTB isa durin/ the term of this /sae, a:Dept only those hereinafter apecitically provided tor; the lessee Mreby a/resa to matntaln and keep tM premiss, iruludin/ al! Interior and axferjor walls and doom, Jratin/, vsntilatine and coolin/ syateaa, interior wlrln/, plumbin/ and drain pipes to sowers or septic tank, in /cod order end ropair durin/ the entire term of this lease, at lessee's own cost std sxpsns, and !o replace all jlae which may bs broken or dams/ed durin` the term hereof in the windowr and doors of the promises wttA, /lee of u load ar better quality as that now in use; if is further a/reed that the lssseo will make rw alterations, :ddiNons or improrsmenh to or upon the premises without the written consent of the lessor ti»t bslr~ obtained. (db) The lessor a/tees to make all necessary slructural repairs to the buildin/, includirrj a:prior walls, fovndateon, root, /utters and davnapoufs, and the abuttin/ sidewalks. The feaaor resrvea and at any end s/l times shall have the rF/ht to alter, repair or improve ths~ bnildln/ of which the premises are a part, or to add thereto, end far that purpoe at any time may erect aeaffo/din/ and all other neosaary struchrroa about and upon t/ts premises and lessor brad lessor's roprosentativu, contraetorr and worker for that purpose may enter in of about the premises with such materials as lessor may deem neaasary therelor, and /ease waives any claim to daar/le, induden/ loss oL buainsa rosulten/ thsrofrom. LSBB0S'8 (5) Tt shall 6e lawiu/ for the lessor, the !savor's a/enh and reproantatfvss, at any reasonable flare to enter Into or upon RI~RRTTOP ihs prenusea !or the purpose of s:aminin/ into the condilion thereol, or for any other Jawtul purpose. RTaHT OP (ti) The lessee will not assign, transfer, pled/e, hypothecate, aurronder or dispose of this !sass, or any fnterea! heroin, ABBI(iNLISNT sub/at, or permit any other person or persona whoauoevsr to occupy the premises withou! the written consent of the lessor heir/ first obtained in writin/; Chia leas is persona! to leases; lessee's inhreata, in whole or In part, cannot be sold, ant/red. transferred, ailed or taken by operation at law, or under or by virtue of any execution or /e/a! process, attecharnt or pro- ceedin/s instituted a/strut the lessee, u under or by virtue of arty bankruptcy or inaofvency procesden/a had in re/ud to the /seas, or in arty other manner, exeep! as above mentioned. LTSNB (7) The lessee will not perarit any lien of any kind, Type or description to be placed of imposed upon the improvements in which the prsrnias ors situated, or any part tharoot, or the land on which they stand. ICR KNOW. (8) It the prsmisn aro located at street level, then at all times Issas shall keep the sidewalks in front of the premises DSBSIB tree end clear of ice, avow, rubbish, debris and obstruction; and if the lessee occupies the entire buildi»/, the losses wilt not permit rubbish, debris, toe or snow to ecetrmubts on the root of the bveldin/ ao ea to stop up or obstruct /utters or downspouts or sous dama/s to !hs root, and will save huaileu acrd protest the lessor a/ainst say injury whether to lessor or to !soot's property or to any other person or property caused by lerass's (allure in that re/ard. OVSALOADINO (9) Thy lessee will not overload the floors of the prsmiaa in each a way as to sous any undue or arious elves or OP FLOORB strain upon the bui/din/ in which the premiss ors located, or any pert thereof, and the lessor shall have the rtdht, at any time, to ufl upon any competent sn/eneer or architect whom the lessor cry choose, !o decide whether or not the !loots of the premises, of any part thereof, are bale/ overloaded so as to taus any urdus or saviour strew or strain on the buildin/, or any put thereof, and the decidon of !hs engineer or uchitec! shall be lira! and binding upon the lessee; end in the oven! that it le the oplnton of the en/inser or architect shat !hs altos or attain is sash as to endanger or injure the building, or any part thereol, then and !n that event the lessee a/rees Immediately to relieve the ruse or atrsin, either by reintorcln/ the building or by /i/htsnin/ the load which causes such altos or etrelrt, In a manner aatisiaetory to the lessor. wavSartB[NG (JO) Ths /salsa will no! us the outside walls of the promises, or slfow signs or dsvius of any kind to be attached BIGNB thereto or susperded Therefrom, for advertiritrg or diaplayin/ the name or business of the Jewess or tot any purpoa whataosvsr without the written consent of the lessor; however, the lessee may make use of the wirdowa of the promises to display lessee's name and busineaa when the workarnship of such aims shall be of /cod quality and permanent nature; provided furtMr flat tlr lassos may not suspend or piece within acid windows or paint thereon arty banner!, ai/ns, si/n-boards or other devises in violation of the intent and meaning of this action. 131 LIABILITY (11) At al! timer during the term hereof, the lease will, s! the lessee's own expense, keep in efleet and deliver to the INSURANCE /saor liability insurartoe policies in form, and with an insurer, aatisfaetory to the lessor. Such policies shall insure both the Jeaaor end the lessee against ell lisbility for damage to persorN or properly in, upon, or about th/e premises. The amount of such lnaur- snce shag be not /sa than =...~,t..Q.Q.dL.Q.O.R ................._ for injury fa one person, not leas than i !_i ~~~-~•d ~ _ - _ !or injuries to d/ persona arising out o! any single incident, and not lase than 1.. L~ O.D.O~...QA.e... ...._... for damsge to properly, or a combined single limp of not leas than ,t...` ..D~~. Q..f}Qi~............ It shell be the reaponefbility et lessor to purchase casualty insurance with aztsrded covsrap ao as to fnsurYany atr{rclure on !hs premises against damage caused by firs or the effects at lire (smoke, heat, msam of e:tinguisharsnt, sto.), or any other means of loss. It shall bs the responsibflfty of the /cease to Insure ap o! the leaee'a belongings upon the premises, of whatao+rsr nature, against !hs same. With respect !o thss polirJee, lessee shat) cuss the lessor to be named as an addl- tfortaJ insured party. Lssss s/tees to and shat/ indemnity and hold lessor harmless against any and all claims end demands arisfrrg from the nsgligancs of the lessee, lesas'a officers, sgenta, invitees andlor employees, as well as those arising from /ease's tailors to comply with arty eovsrunt of this teas on /ease's pert to bs performed, and shill a! lessee's own s:penes detsrd the )ascot against any std all sulfa or acffons arising out o! such negligence, actual or alleged, end alt appeals therefrom and shall satiety and discharge my judgment which may be awarded against lessor in any such suit or action FIJCTURBB {!1) All partitions, plumbing, a/sctrical wiring, additions to or improvements upon the premiss, whether installed by tiu lpsor x lases, shall bs and become a part of the bvi/ding in which the premiss are located as soon as installed and the property o! the lessor unless othsswis herein provided. LIGRT {t3) Thia lease does not grant any rights of aceea to light and air over the premiss or any adjacent property. AND AIR DAYAGS BY (!t) In the event of the destruction of the improvements in which the premises are located by firs or other casualty, R1RE AND ~ either party hereto may tsrminats Chia lees ea of the date of fire or casualty, provided, howersr, that in the even! DUTY TO REPAIR of damage to the improvements by lire or other casualty to the extent of ............................ per cent or more of the sound vahte thereof, flu lessor may or may not elect to repair tM same; written notices of lessor's election shall bs given leases wlehln fifteen days after the oeeurrsrrce of the damage; it notice is not so given, lessor eoncluaively shaft be deemed to have elected not to repair; in the event lsawr •/sets not to repair, then and in that event this /eaa shelf terminate with the date of the damage; but it the improvements in which the premises ere located be but partially destroyed aril the damage so occasioned shall no! amount to the eztent indicated above, of iL greater than sold eztent and lessor elects to ropdr, sa atorssid, than tM lessor shall repair the saau with all oonvenfent speed aril altaJJ lure tlsr rfgh! to take posassaion of and oxupy, to the szelusfon of the lessee, all or arty part lhsroo! !n cadet fo make the nsosasary repairs, and the bees hereby agrees fo vacate upon request, all or any par! thereof which the lessor may require for the purpose of making rucesaary repairs, and for the period of tirru between ller• day of such damage and until such ropeira have been substantially completed !here shall 6e such an ebatament of rent as the nature of flu injury or damage and its intsrfarence with the occupancy of flu premiss by the lease ahM[i warrant; however, it fhs premiss bs but alighely injured end the damage so occasioned shaft not caul any malarial intsr- ferertoe with tJu occupation of the premises by lessee, then there shall bs no abatement of roast and the lessor shall repair the damage with at! corevsnienf speed. WAIVER OF (1 S) Neither the )easor nor the lessee shall be liable to the other !or loss arising out of damage to or destruction of SUBROGATION the premise, or the building or improvement of which the premises ors a part or with which they ate connected, or AIOHTH the contents of any thereof, when ouch Loss is ceased by any of the perils which are or could be included within or fn- aursd against by a standard form of lire insurance with eztended coverage, including sprinkler leakage insurance, it any. A11 such claims !or any and at) lose, however uuasd, hereby are waived. Such absence of liability shall ezfat whether or net the damage or destrrction is ca{tasd by the nag/lgenos of either lessor or lessee or by any of their teapective agents, srranta or employees. It fs the intention and egrss- msnt of the lessor end the lessee that the rentals reserved by this lease have been ffzed in contemplation that both parties shall lolly provide their own insurance protection st their own ezpens, grid lhst both parties shall took to their respective insurance carriers Lot rsimbrrrsment of any such loss, and further, that the insurance rerrfera involved shall not be entitled to subrogation under any cfreum- afancea against any party to thin leas. Neither the lector nor the lessee shall have arty interest or claim in the other a insurance policy of policies, or the ptocsds thereof, antes specifically covered therein ea a join! assured. EIiINENT (16) In cos of the condemnation or purchase of all or any sub:tantial part of the premiss by any public or private DOIiAiN corporation with the power of condemnation this /ease may be terminated, etlsctivs on the date poasaion f} taken, by either party hereto on written notice to the other end fn the! caa the lessee aha/f not be Jfe61s for any rent altar the termirution date. Lease anal/ not bs entitled to acrd hereby ezpre warvea any right to any part of the corrdemrution award or purchase price. FOR BALE (L7) During the period of .... ........ days prior to the date above fixed for the tsrmJnation of ehfa leas, the lessor PA'ONR ~N.p heroin may post on the premfsea or in the windows thereo[ signs of rrrodsrate us. notitying the public that flu premiss BICNB ors "for sale" or "tor lease." D8LIV8RiN0 UP (L8) At the expiration of the lease term or upon any sooner terminstion thereof, the leases will quit and deliver up PRBMIBSB ON the premiss and al) tutors erections or additions to or upon the same, broom-clean, to the lessor or ehos having lessor's TSRIIiNAT10N estate in the premises, peaceably, qufst/y, and in as good order and condition, rsaaonabJe us and weer !hereof, damage by tire, unavoidable casualty aril the elements aloru excepted, wa the same are now in or hereafter may be put fn by the lessor. ADDITIONAL' (19) ~~ N b~so~a l ~ y ° w "'~'~- ~ o~''>IN_,-~.__ sod aN 'f 't~t,e ~ ~ ~J 9 EX~EPTIONH-J ~P~~al-~"1 Qs 132 t. "~// ~ ~M i ~ ~ i i ;~/ / ~~ ~ /r ~ 1e ~ r l i ,.: l ~ {{ ~-, z~`: ~ .~ ATTACHMENT O CITY OF WOODBURN . ~~ r~ , BUSINESS REGISTRATION APPLICATION W U N Date: ~. New ^ Renewal License No: _i Product/Service Descnption Door-to-Door Solicitation? Yes ^ No~ (If yes, soy insbucbon shoot) If Transient Business, dates: -~~~ Bi181NESS;,1l1FQRMA,TIONiWCATIOft e~c~y~Qez ~~~~ ;_ Name Doin Bu Hess As ~15 ~. ~ACii~c ~~W1` Address / -,~o~rlbain lJ~ 9~0?~ c-cy~b~, 3~~' _~,~~~ state zip Telephone Fax MAILIN0..11tFORMATiOt~ - ~~ / id C Z 1 r~r~ Registered Busin~ Name -S~5 yI. YAu~ Ic.: ~y Address ~yj~~U.rn • 0 ~ ~ 7~?/ City State Zip ... GWNER 11~IFORI~TiOlrw 2N~~~~~ Lem v -CIeZ- _ Owner's Full Name ~ r ~ ` ~ ~ / J JJ 1~C1 1 ~. C~ ~ Address ~i~Da(~~?uin ~'~? ~~G~~ City ~().3-31Y -070.1 State Zip Telephone Fax Date of firth Driver's License No. .. .., _:. lMERtiE1UCY Ih1FOR~IIATtONIt _:,. ... _ ~;tn~liao 1~cn~~. «1~-z ~SU331X ~jo2.. Name of First Contad Phone No. Do you have an aiann? Yes No D Type of alarm system: (Burglary, Fire, Holdup, etc.) Do you store any hazardous or flammable Yes O No}~' materials on the premises? Are any discharged into the City wastewatert Yes D Nom If yes, please list: Date Business Began: / Z Is this ahome-based business? Yes O No,~ Will you sell liquor? Yes D No If yes, contact OLCC Building size (sq ft) # of Employees If applicable, provide the following: State Occupational License #: - Builder's Board # Health Dept. License #: __~ _~ Name of Second Contad Phone No. ~r REG'Q ~ ~~~erstto , I have ceived and r r ce r Obtaining a Business Registration Certificate" V S~~ ~' Gity of Woodburn 270 Moratyomery St., ' ;' ~'~O~ Woodbutrt, OR Q?{i7t Signature Date ~~ , ~., ~ ry!upt ;-~ ~~ , , _ ~,` -,, a Routing: App ved Denied 9 - ,. ~ Receipt No: Building Public Works ~ ~- Date Paid: ~C (~>^~GroL f , Zoning / {-~ Bu less Code Amount Paid; ______ ~~ ~/ ~,;r~ __ " l ~ ~ i - .~ ~ ,- i~ ,< . .. ~~:-i:c r t ,: ; . ter; 1 .i,r„ l~ ~ %,::~,;-l . 134 ATTACHMENT P :. I , .~- ~I `F ~ t h ~i ~ r f 11.44'ev .ti ~t. ~ ~ •1' . ~;, 4 Fa Exhibit A 135 ...-- ~r~. r~ n .- -- ~ " Vii. •~r~ ~~ 136 i ~/'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,. ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~f .._ ._ ~~ _5 ~, =~ ~ _ ... ~~ 4,~ ,.,~ . .. ~,/ ~._ -. ~, ter' 1± , . 'j C y i C~ .. ''. Y C Exhibit B 137 ~~~ ,~~ ~_ WOODBUR~j ~'~~ rn~u.po,a~,d ia:~ February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Terrie Stevens, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Transient Occuponcy Grant Disbursement for 2007-08 FY RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution for transfer of funds and disbursement to the Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce. BACKGROUND 8 DISCUSSION: At its January 26, 2009 meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft a resolution to transfer general fund contingency funds to the TOT appropriation line item for the remaining 2007-08 TOT grant balance previously approved by the City Council. The Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce was opproved for a TOT Grant for the FY 2007-2008 in the amount of $42,125.00 They received disbursements in July and December '07 totaling $24,186.25, leaving $17,938.75 remaining in the grant. FINANCIAL IMPACT: During the 2008-2009 budget process, the unspent TOT funds were included in the General Fund operating contingency line item. Transferring the Chamber's request of $17,938.75 to the TOT grant line item expense will reduce the contingency to 1 1 %. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 138 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2763 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2008-09. WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 allows for the transfer of operating contingency appropriations within a fund to an existing appropriations category within the same fund during the year in which appropriations are made, and WHEREAS, a transfer of General Fund operating contingency appropriation is necessary to disburse the remaining fiscal year 2007-08 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Grant funds to the Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce which had been previously approved by the City Council in fiscal year 200?-08, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That authorization is hereby given to transfer the following operating contingency appropriation during fiscal year 2008-09: GENERAL FUND: Transfer From: Operating Contingency (001.901.9971.5921) $17,939 Transfer To: Non-Departmental - Materials & Services (001.199.1211.5499) $17,939 Approved as to Form: ` .~ J~ / "~ /~~ Z 3 2 0 ~ City Attorney Da e 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, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 -COUNCIL BILL NO. 2763 RESOLUTION NO. 139 ~- •~ ~~±d-v ~~ I~~, ~Jr ODBUR j~j rn~urpc.ataA r8F9 ~ - - -- February 9, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Scott Derickson, City Administrator SUB.fECT: Appropriations Request form Oregon House Delegation Fiscal Year 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Approve submission of the Congressional Allocation Request Form to Representative Kurt Schrader's office. BACKGROUND: Representative Kurf Schrader's office requested that I prepare a Congressional Allocation Request Form for the Woodburn I-5 Interchange project (or any other transportation project). DISCUSSION: Every year during the appropriations process, Congress directs funding - normally part of the overall federal budget -specifically for local projects throughout the U.S. Every agency requesting a priority project is required to fill out a request form describing the project in detail and submit that document to the appropriate state representative's office. If an agency does not submit the required form by the deadline, the request will not be considered. The lnterchange project is currently on a list of Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) projects identified for earmark. We are working with the OTC for a federal earmark. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on submitting the appropriations request. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 140 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 9, 2009 Page 2 However, obtaining the federal earmark will have a financial impact on the City. If the earmark is not sufficient to advance the project through design and right of way acquisition, ODOT and local match will need to be made available to compliment any earmark received. If we do not make any required match funds available, the earmark would remain unobligated. 141 Representative Kurt Schrader Policy Statement Regarding Appropriations for Projects Congressman Schrader believes that as your Representative in Washington it is his duty to provide his constituents with the highest level of transparency and accountability in government. Thus his actions regazding appropriations shall be open and available to the public. All projects requested will be posted on Congressman Schrader's website in accordance with the rules of the House of Representatives to ensure transpazency in the process. Congressman Schrader is committed to job creation and the economic development and sustainability of the region and therefore projects must fit into a regional and comprehensive plan that will benefit the residents of Oregon's S~' Congressional District and surrounding community. If used judiciously, directed spending is an important tool that allows us to work together to bring critical funding home for the benefit of our communities. . 142 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FORM OREGON HOUSE DELEGATION FISCAL YEAR 2010 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION; FEBRUARY 20~ 2009 PLEASE NOTE: As required by the House Appropriations Committee, all requests will be made public on the requesting Member's website. 1. Project Title: 1-5 @OR 214/219 (Woodburn Interchange) 2. Organization Name and address: City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071-4730 3. Primary Contact name, phone number, mobile phone number, fax number and email: Scott Derickson City Administrator Office: (503) 982-5230 Fax: (503) 982-5243 Cell: (503) 791-7965 4. Project Location Address (if different from Organization): The interchange (milepost [MP] 271.85) provides access from OR 214/219 and services the communities of Woodburn, Silverton, Mt. Angel, Gervais, Hubbard, and Molalla with access to Interstate 5 in northern Marion County. 5. Please describe the requesting organization's main activities, and whether it is a public, private non-profit, or private for-profit entity: The City of Woodburn is an incorporated city and provides basic urban services and Land use planning for its residents, which include transportation system planning. 6. Briefly describe the activity or project for which funding is requested (please keep to 500 words or less.) The scope of the approved project includes: • Reconstructing the interchange to a partial cloverleaf • Widening the existing over crossing structure (bridge) to the north 143 Raising the profile of the bridge approaches in order to improve sight lines • Widening Oregon 214 and 219 equally or northerly of the existing centerline, depending on the segment • New 6-foot sidewalks with an additional 6-foot-wide landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the curb • Anew bicycle lane in each direction along Oregon 214 and 219 • A raised median to control turning movements • Modifying access for city streets at Oregon Way, Evergreen Road and Lawson Avenue The purpose of the Woodburn Interchange Project is to improve the traffic flow and safety conditions of the existing Woodburn/l-5 interchange. The existing Woodburn/I-5 interchange does not meet current design and operational standards, which causes traffic to move at slower speeds and increases congestion. Future growth in the interchange area wilt increase congestion problems, increase the difficulty to access adjacent businesses, and increase the risk of safety to drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The surrounding communities of Woodburn, Silverton, Mt. Angel, Gervais, Hubbard, and Molalla access I-5 using Oregon 214 in Woodburn. The surrounding communities of St. Paul and Newberg access 1-5 using Oregon 219. When upgrades to the interchange were last completed in 1975, development within the Interchange Management Area was minimal and the City of Woodburn was more oriented around Oregon 99E. Since the 1970s, Woodburn's population has grown more than 60 percent and the community has developed to the south and to the west near I-5. Current land uses around the interchange are a combination of residential, industrial, regional retail/commercial, and traveler services/commercial. The increase in population and land use in both Woodburn and Northern Marion County that serviced by the interchange, as well as a statewide and regional increase in the I-5 corridor, results in more traffic than the existing interchange can accommodate. Continued growth is projected for the city and region. The existing interchange is a standard diamond design. The interchange was last updated in 1975 when I-5 was widened from four to six lanes from Woodburn to Salem. At that time, traffic volumes were 28,600 average daily traffic (ADT) on I-5, 2,900 ADT west on the interchange on Oregon 219, and 5,600 ADT east of the interchange on Oregon 214. In 1999, traffic volumes on I-5 through the interchange were 73,100 ADT. Ramp volumes varied from a high of 6,300 ADT to a low of 4,000 ADT. Oregon 214 traffic volumes were 18,900 ADT east of the interchange and 15,000 ADT west of the interchange. These traffic volumes have continued to increase significantly for the last 10 years as planning to improve the interchange has progressed, with the most current traffic counts from 2007 indicating 84,600 ADT at MP 271.55. Based upon analysis of crash data from the period of January 1997 to December 2001, the four roadway segments within the Interchange Management Area, Oregon 214/219 fall within the top 10 percent of the Oregon Department of Transportation Safety Priority Index System as the worst crash locations in the state. 144 7. Has this project received federal appropriations funding in past fiscal years? Funding has been allocated through the Surface Transportation Program (title 23) for environmental work and to design improvements to the interchange, however, construction funding has not been allocated. Preliminary cost estimates for engineering, right of way and construction are approximately $70 million (in dollars adjusted for inflation in 2013, the earliest construction could begin). 7a. If yes, please provide fiscal year, Department, Account, and funding amount of any previous funding. Title 23 funds dispersed by the Federal Highway Administration through the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and allocated through the 2008-2U11 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) administered by the Oregon Transportation Commission. 8. Federal agency and account from which funds are requested (Please be specific -e.g. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Economic Development Initiatives account): Federal Highway Administration title 23. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the federal act that provides funds to states for transportation projects. 9. What is the purpose of the project? Why is it a valuable use of taxpayer funds? How will the project support efforts to improve the economy and create jobs in Oregon? Interstate 5 is a National Highway System and state freight route, a critical transportation infrastructure element of the economy of the western US and state of Oregon. The existing interchange does not meet current design and operational standards. The interchange was last updated in 1975, when it was much less heavily used and the surrounding Woodburn area was much less developed and populated. Today, the combination of the outdated interchange with increased traffic demand causes traffic to move at slower speeds with high levels of congestion throughout the interchange and along Oregon 2141219. Not addressing this congestion will limit future development and economic growth for the area. With increased congestion, air quality and public safety will be compromised. A properly functioning interchange is vital to the economic health of Woodburn and surrounding communities in Northern Marion County. The interchange improvement means immediate jobs for those directly involved in the construction of this facility. However, the greater benefit in creation of jobs is providing businesses a location that has timely, reliable, and safe access to the nation's interstate system. Jobs need flourishing businesses that can compete in a global economy. Inefficiencies created by the existing inadequate access to I-5 will constrain the economic growth of Woodburn and Northern Marion County. 10. Have you requested funding for this project from other Members of Congress? If so, who? 145 Yes. Rep. Darlene Hooley (Retired 5T" congressional district) 11. Funding Details: Funding received to date: STIP: $4,438,846 EARMARK: $709,292 LOCAL: 2 500 000 TOTAL: $7,648,138 a. Total project cost (all funding sources and all years): $70,000,000 (2013 dollars) b. Amount being requested for this project in Fiscal Year 2010: Project full funding ($70,000,000 - $7,648,138) _ $62,351,862 Preliminary Engineering and Right of Way Acquisition in FY 2010 = $8,000,000 c. What other funding sources (local, regional, state) are contributing to this project or activity? (Please provide specific dollar amount or percentage.) City of Woodburn: $8,000,000 d. Do you expect to request federal funding in future years for this project? Yes. e. Breakdown/budget of the amount you are requesting for this project in FY 2010. (e.g. salary $40,000; computer $3,000): Preliminary Engineering: $4,000,000 Right of Way Acquisition: $4,000,000 f. Please list public or private organizations that have supported/endorsed this project: • Oregon Transportation Commission • Mid-Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation • Marion County Board of Commissioners • Woodburn City Council 146 • Woodburn Chamber of Commerce g. Is this project scalable? (i.e. if partial funding is awarded, will the organization be able to use the funds in FY 2010?): Yes. Current funding is only adequate to complete design to approximately 30% stage. Approval of that stage of development will enable ODOT to begin acquiring right of way required for the final project footprint and to obtain federal and state environmental and local development permits. Any partial funding awarded at this point would be applied to those project activities. Please return this form no later than February 20.2009 to: Suzanne.Kunse anmail.house.s~ov and Mectan.MurnhvCa~mail.house.aov 494 State Street, Suite 210 202/225-5711 Salem, OR 97301 503/588-9100 ~a~ ~ti~-Y<.~. ~ s~i~~: ~~ ~ ~ , ~ UR~j 0,~ " "IY~'"- Inr u.ptrn ~tA 15Av February 3, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator THRU: Charles Blevins, Acting Chief of Police FROM: Jason R. Alexander, Acting Captain SUBJECT: 2009 OLCC Renewal RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council recommend to the OLCC renewal of liquor license for the listed business for the year of 2009. BACKGROUND: Annually the police department reviews activities occurring at or in the vicinity of all licensed liquor establishments in Woodburn. Through the established guidelines and procedures, the City Council ensures equitable and consistent treatment of liquor license applications. The following liquor license applications were reviewed in accordance with police department standards and are recommended for approval: Off Premise Sales: 7-Eleven BI-Mart Corp Dos Arbolitos Musica Latina Gary's Market La Azteca Pipers Jewelry Safeway Store # 1976 Su Casa Imports US Market # 109 Woodburn Fast Serve INC Woodburn Shop N Kart Your Northwest A&J Market Crossroads Grocery 8~ Deli EZ Stop Grocery & De{i Harry and David #595 O'Donnell Enterprises Roadrunner V Woodburn Salvador's Bakery The Bistro at Wellspring Wal Mart Supercenter Woodburn Grocery Outlet Young Street Market Woodburn Stop N~ Go Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 148 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 03, 2009 Page 2 Full On Premise Soles; Billy O Deli Pub Cinco De Mayo Taqueria Eagles Lodge Elmer' Restaurant Los Cabos Mexican Restaurant Margaritas Rumor's Bar and Grill Senior Estates Golf 8~ Country Club The Raven Inn EL Dorado Casa Marquez Mexican Grill Denny's At Woodburn Elks Lodge Happy Garden Buffet Lupita's OGA Members Course The Bistro at Wellspring The End Zone Yun Wah Limited On-Premise Sale: 7 Mares Restaurant Cactus Grill Taqueria 8~Restaurant Mariscos EL Sarondeado Nuevo Arandas Salvador's Bakery Taqueria Guadalajara Abby's Pizza Inn of Woodburn DEDE's Deli Mugsy's Bagels Pizza Hut Shari's of Woodburn Woodburn Lanes DISCUSSION: The Police Department has completed a background investigation, in connection with the OLCC, on the businesses and found nothing of a questionable nature, which would preclude the renewal of these licenses. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 149 • 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 Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. • 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 wi11 grant the request by either (1) continuing the public hearing to a specific date and time at feast 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. Oregon Revised Statutes 197.763 requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance are: 1.1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 1.101 Structure 1.102 Definitions 1.104 Nonconforming Uses and Development Standards 2.1 LAND USE ZONING 2.101 General Provisions 2.106 Commercial General (CG) 3.1 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARD S 3.103 Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards 3.104 Access 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 /- ~j - . ~,~ . a -~ - ': ~ ~ ~ • Incorporated X889 Appeal of Conditional Use 2008-01 Benavidez Tires The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. 2 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. A conditional use is required for auto parts installation. iy 3 :_. ~, 4LL .. .._.. ~_ -... _ . ' ~: , . - _ ~ '. F 3 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. A conditional use is required for auto parts installation. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. The Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. ~,~.~:. -.:~.~ 4 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. A conditional use is required for auto parts installation. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. The Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. Since this is a de novo hearing, the conditional use application is also before the Council. k:v, 5 . . .'-.r-~ n~ ~r .~. ,- ,v `-~` •,; ~:• ._ .~. . ' , t'~""~rr'i .: ~. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, .x r ' ~, ~ k ~:.` H~ o-1? t~ ~ t~., +l ~' „;"'~ "~ y.Q ~ `ice" ~'~ ° 4 v ~ ~. . „ a ,' ,. _„ e - o ~ a~ ~ .r *~s) cx' e. .. R ~ ~ ~ ~, '' ~`- ~ . e. M Y' _ . ~ ~. a sus ~~, ~a~~-~~ ~. ~t1~ Eti .-ter C'Tl r-~~ " $tk rwlddi ~`~ ~~~~ 11 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. 12 1. The use of the aroaerty for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. .~; The building was service station in constructed as a 1967 -before adoption of the WDO. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued, the building continued to be used for auto repair. Evidence in the record includes the following documents: ~5 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. The building was constructed as a service station in 1967 -before adoption of the WDO. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued, the building continued to be used for auto repair. Evidence in the record includes the following documents: Water connect records, 1992-2008 ,:;~_~ ~,~:,: , , , State business registry dated 1993 State business registry dated 1998 Photo of sign taken 2004 Lease dated 2007 State business registry dated 2007 Notice of eviction dated 2008 Business license application dated 2008 The use of the property for auto repair existed prior to current zoning standards. As a nonconforming use, auto repair may continue until it is terminated pursuant to WDO 1.104.02._ ~~,~'~ - µ< _~ ~ ~ ,fit 4. ..,n. .. ~ ~ ~ ,.A. a+. w:. .,~-}`.sly+.wn.... a. ... sme. .. .. .. 15 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. The building was constructed as a service station in 1967 -before adoption of the WDO. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued, the building continued to be used for auto repair. Evidence in the record includes the following documents: Water connect records, 1992-2008 ~ .~ .- ~ s State business registry dated 1993 State business registry dated 1998 Photo of sign taken 2004 Lease dated 2007 State business registry dated 2007 Notice of eviction dated 2008 Business license application dated 2008 The use of the grope standards. As a nonco terminated pursuant to The nonconforming us use application. or auto repair ~ Forming use, ai VDO 1.104.02. of auto repair i fisted prior to current z ~ reaair may continue not at issue in this con ntil it is onal ~5 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. 16 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. "Any expansion or addition to buildings or structures with nonconforming height, setback, density or lot coverage shall not make the development more nonconforming." [UNDO 1.104.04.A] The conditional use does not involve an expansion or addition to buildings or structures. -. µ ~~ ~;. __ k- f `__ _._._.. F;~ r - d fi s Y ~ ~"'g' ~'~ ~w^ 3- „ §~ ~ a 4 ~ .*^ ~ ~ ~ ^~ M""~ +€ r s °~"' ~ ~ ' ~t ~ ~ t ~ ~ .~ ~ f , = 17 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. "Any expansion or addition to buildings or structures with nonconforming height, setback, density or lot coverage shall not make the development more nonconforming." [V1IDO 1.104.04.A] The conditional use does not involve an expansion or addition to buildings or structures. The proposed conditional use is not precluded by WDO 1.104.04.A. 18 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is prohibited by WDO 2.106.05.c.1.b.2, WDO 2.106.05.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between the proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. ~s ~ - _ _ ~ ~ ~ f 3 { p €-- ~ 5 ? ~ ~ ~~ H y ~~ ~ bt ~. ~~ ~..a'-Y.:... '. 1 19 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is prohibited by WDO 2.106.05.c.1.b.2, WDO 2.106.05.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between the proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. Site development began in 1940. The service station building was constructed in 1967 -before current standards were enacted. The site is nonconforming to current standards and is regulated by Section 1.104 of the WDO. µ ~: ____ 20 Applications subject to [Type III] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [WDO 1.104.05] z; ~: ,¢ 21 Applications subject to [Type III] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [UNDO 1.104.05] Type III Design Reviews are required for new structures or expansions of 1,000 square feet of more. Type II Design Reviews are for new structures or expansions of less than 1,000 square feet. >,?~_ 22 Applications subject to [Type III] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [UNDO 1.104.05] Type III Design Reviews are required for new structures or expansions of 1,000 square feet of more. Type II Design Reviews are for new structures or expansions of less than 1,000 square feet. The proposed conditional use does not expand the building and is not subject to a Design Review. :i ~: 23 Applications subject to [Type III] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [WDO 1.104.05] Type III Design Reviews are required for new structures or expansions of 1,000 square feet of more. Type II Design Reviews are for new structures or expansions of less than 1,000 square feet. The proposed conditional use does not expand the building and is not subject to a Design Review. WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming parking, loading, landscapin buffer walls and refuse facilities to be brought into conformity only though a Design Review process -not through a conditional use. 24 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 3.102.04.b. 'R ,, r 25 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 3.102.04.b. The site is served by existing utilities. The proposed conditional use does not involve any increased need for public utilities. __ _.-_- ~ ~, _~_.~... _._.-- . ~ M~~ "~' - n .~ - "1 _ ~ : ~- ~; ~~~ Y ~ ;? ~ ~ .~ s;, ~, 26 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 3.102.04.b. The site is served by existing utilities. The proposed conditional use does not involve any increased need for public utilities. Dedication of a public utility easement is not this conditional use. £s s ~, ~: N_~ for aaaroval of 27 8. 28 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. The structure was built in 1967 -before the current architectural design standards and guidelines were enacted. ...-~ .. ,. .. a .. r'' ~, ... __. ._ _'._,.. ~ ~ ~s _~_- _.1 - - .._~l ~'. t . 5: ~ - . i~.;~ti '' .. ~ ~ B __ _ __~____._.___ ~ _. ti.,.. ~~ __ `e'er u .. ~ #'~ " .,. ~F ~ °~~ ,~,~~ 29 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. The structure was built in 1967 -before the current architectural design standards and guidelines were enacted. The WDO do building be t ~e or the onal use. 30 9. The applicant is currently displaying an illegal sign for the business. 31 32 Point of Appeal 11 relates to WDO 5.103.01.C.3: "The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties." 33 Point of Appeal 11 relates to WDO 5.103.01.C.3: "The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible include:...." x ~ ~~. ~~ ~ ~ _ . . 34 Point of Appeal 11 relates to WDO 5.103.01.C.3: "The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible include: a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use; b. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving the proposed use; c. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment: 1) Noise; 2) Illumination; .. 3) Hours of operation; - - 4 Air ualit "~ `~#_ ~'~° ~~ ~"~' ~ ~~ . . ~n ~,~ 5) Aesthetics; and ~ '"' '~ .4 ~ ~~~ ~~.~r .~ ~~~ 6) Vehicular traffic. ~--_ ;-~ ~-~~r ~ -w`~~~~~~ d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and e. The suitability of proposed conditions of approval to insure compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. 35 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. 36 ,, ;,, s ~ ~,~ .: ~ .. 4;. 1., .7„' ~'.~+smrn `." mss, ~ .?, r'.ra~. ,:'-~ . ,.~fk. ...., ~, ".tom. _, _ ... ~ _ _ 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. The property is 1.1 acre in size and is approximately 132 feet wide at its narrowest point. It is located on Highway 99E - a major arterial street. The site is relatively flat. ~ ~~. ~ ~~. ~s j~ ~. i ,. •,~ ~'~ ~~ ;« . ~ .. ~ A y' i~ Y ~ .:~ ~ ~ ~ ~,;~, ,: - rte. `.:. ~.~~`~~..~: •la.s~ rq,... ~.. ~~ ~ ~~ ,- 37 ,~ _ w, .a .. 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. The property is 1.1 acre in size and is approximately 132 feet wide at its narrowest point. It is located on Highway 99E - a major arterial street. The site is relatively flat. ~~. -. The size shape, location, and topography of the site do not preclude the aroaosed conditional use. . ~ ~ ~ .~ w %tls4vtr a e,' .v ..~ - ....._ N6~.3~. i _ ~ ~.' ~:~ ~~~ ~ ~` ti 3. ,~,. ~ 9~~ ~ r\ F 38 ., a~ t ~ t, 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. °-~ ~ ~; ~~ ~,~ -~ ~ ~~ 6 - ~, ~. _:; ~~ ~~ ~ ~:~_: 39 _. ,, ,, _ ~ .. > _ °. ,~ r 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is currently served by public storm drains. The Public Works Department has not noted a deficiency in the capacity of the drainage facilities. The proposed conditional use involves no increase in impervious surface and generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. The proposed conditional use is auto-oriented, not pedestrian-oriented, and presumably generates little if any off-site pedestrian traffic. Highway 99E is a state facility. ~~- .~ ~~~ 40 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is currently served by public storm drains. The Public Works Department has not noted a deficiency in the capacity of the drainage facilities. The proposed conditional use involves no increase in impervious surface and generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. The proposed conditional use is auto-oriented, not pedestrian-oriented, and presumably generates little if any off-site pedestrian traffic. Highway 99E is a state facility. :: .,~. The existing drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Requiring pedestrian improvements in a State highway is beyond the scope of the present conditional use application. 41 11. ~ ''' ~ ~` . The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. c ,~,~"~ s, ~~ ,_ , ~ ~', _ r- b~~ .,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~`~ __ ~. ~, ~* ~ ' ~, ~~„ fi s~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,; ~~~, ~; ~• ;~ '' ' ~' 42 .x + ~ r ~ ~. ~ ~~~ 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. ._ The proposed use is auto parts installation and auto repair. The previous use was automotive repair. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. The nearest residentially zoned property is approximately 80 feet from the building. a ~ W: _,r' ~~ ~~ r t' ~Z~ ~ q. :.. ~~ f ~',~ ~`~~ ~ ~-~ ~~ ` ~~~~~~ ~~ 1~ .~ .,... 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. The proposed use is auto parts installation and auto repair. The previous use was automotive repair. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. The nearest residentially zoned property is approximately 80 feet from the building. The proposed use would have impacts hours of operation, air quality, aestheti nature and extent to those of the arevic on the site location and the surroundin proposed conditional use are minimal. "~ ny f=H~'°~k ~gardina noise ;, and vehicular s automotive re land uses. the ii ~ ~~ ~ ~- a ~ ~ '. ,~ ~+ ~ _ ~ !> / ~ nil ~ ~S-. ~ _.. ~. 'S .3s¢ ,,; ('~ ~ £~~ ~ J ~! ~'. ~ "x' q+. ,'t ~fi 'fi'r'' ~ 3' P ~, ~...~~ illumination, traffic similar in pair use. Based of the :1~?A'~ 44 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. 45 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that: "The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." ~. ~Y ~~L_:.. __..__...~_...,_ _ ~ ~ k ~ ~ 7 "'~ 1r~ . fit` ~ 4 ~~ ~ ~ d" ~`, ° fw . ,.~~~. ~~-y ~ :~~k=.i>s.~'a.-s-.°M~~. ,:gam*s~~. ~~a~ 46 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that: "The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." ~~!{g ~ ~ The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan have no direct application to a conditional use application unless they are specifically referenced in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. WDO 1.104 recognizes and regulates nonconformities. The proposed use does not expand or alter the pattern of existing development. ~~ ~ ,~~~ +~~ ,~ "~ ~ ; ~ x`+'' ~ F..~ ~~k~ ~F ~ .k~r ~~ 4+ ~~, ~- ~, ,i ~ '~~ - t4a~ .~"y~` ~ ~ 'F , -'` ~ ~„ ~.''-'lea.': '&e ~ F „' ~, z a ?{. w. ".. 1~ o "~ # ~. ra, ~:,:- i x ~..,.~ ,..,_~' fi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~., ".... .j, a ., .f T,Ct` ~,~':.r w ~t~S r.A~' `Z, +F' 4 .~ 47 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that: "The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not self- implementing, but are effected through the zoning regulations in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. WDO 1.104 recognizes and regulates nonconformities. The proposed use does not expand or alter the pattern of existing development. The property i ~rmina wi to architectural desian landscaping requirements, and the WDO does not require conformance as part of the conditional use process. 48 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. .~_. ~,', ~. ~~~ . a r> ~ ,a~ ~ ~~ 49 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. There are four conditions of approval. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. The proposed conditions of approval ensure that the pro conditional use is compatible with nearbv uses. 51 Overall Conclusions: _.~ The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. 52 Overall Conclusions: The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. Staff recommendations: • Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subject to the: conditions of approval in the staff report. 53 Overall Conclusions: _. The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. 54 Overall Conclusions: .__,.. The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. Staff recommendations: • Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. • Deny the appeal of case CU 2008-01. 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions on a form provided by the City. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, or public hearing. 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. The property owner shall remove the existing pole sign in front of the building or convert it to a monument sign conforming to WDO 3.110. 55 _ Staff Exhibit #2 - CU 2008-01 Council Public Hearing 2/9/2009 Appeal of N Conditional Use 2008-01 Benavidez Tires Incorporated 4888 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. 2 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. A conditional use is required for auto parts installation. 3 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. A conditional use is required for auto parts installation. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. The Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. 4 The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires and wheels) in an existing building. The site was developed before the adoption of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Many site characteristics are nonconforming and are permitted to continue under WDO 1.104. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. A conditional. use is required for auto parts installation. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. The Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. Since this is a de novo hearing, the conditional use application is also before the Council. 5 Woodburn Tax Service, , Elena's Fabric & Jewelry •.~-~ ~.~. ~~ V~ acant dwelling ~® RS-zoned dwellings Nonconforming dwellings Auto repair shop, Heidi's Restaurant "~- ~ - ODOT maintenance yard iii ~=~~^~~ Vacant commercial building t Benavidez Tire Awards and Athletics Vacant Woodburn Automotive Repair Center .. .-~ { •' :~; r '~~ Cascade Factory Homes Mufflers, Hitches ~ .`^ and More ~ f ;;a,.~ _ ~ ~; ~'~: .,, DC Doors, Costa Azul travel, Princess beauty a salon, Correa Consulting Services, Alcoholicos ,.f `~ ~ ,.~ Anonimos, La Jerusalem bookstore ~.. ~x ' ~- 59 ~~G~~;c ~_ ~r . ,.,. ~.~~ r~ `~ . 4~,.,. ., ~.. v ._ ~~~ 11 1. The use of the property for nonconforming use subjec automobile maintenance and repair is a t to termination under WDO 1.104.02. 12 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a termination under WDO 1.104.02. nonconforming use subject to continued to be used for auto repair. Evidence in the record includes the following documents: 15 v was discontinued, the building The building was constructed as a service station in 1967 -before adoption of the WDO. After the sale of gasoline 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. The building was constructed as a service station in 1967 -before adoption of the WDO. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued, the building continued to be used for auto repair. Evidence in the record includes the following documents: Water connect records, 1992-2008 State business registry dated 1993 State business registry dated 1998 Photo of sign taken 20.44 Lease dated 2007 State business registry dated 2007 Notice of eviction dated 2008 Business license application dated 2008 The use of the property for auto repair existed prior to current. zoning standards:. As a nonconforming use, auto repair may continue until it is terminated pursuant to WDO 1.104.02. 15 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. The building was constructed as a service station in 1967 -before adoption of the WDO. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued, the building continued to be used for auto repair. Evidence in the record includes the following documents: Water connect records, 1992-2008 State business registry dated 1993. State business registry dated 1998 Photo of sign taken 2004 Lease dated 2007 State business registry dated 2007 Notice of eviction dated 2008 Business license application dated 2008 The use of the property for auto repair existed prior to current zoning standards. As a nonconforming use, auto repair may continue until it is terminated pursuant to WDO 1.104.02. nq use of auto repair. is .not at issue in this conditional use application. 5 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. 16 2. The proposed WDO 1.104.04. use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of "Any expansion or addition to buildings or structures with nonconforming height, setback, density or lot coverage shall not make the development more nonconforming." [V1IDO 1.104.04.A] The conditional use does not involve an expansion or addition to buildings or structures. 17 2. The proposed WDO 1.104.04. use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of "Any expansion or addition to buildings or structures with nonconforming height, setback, density or lot coverage shall not make the development more nonconforming." [V11DO 1.104.04.A] The conditional use does not involve an expansion or addition to buildings or structures. The proposed conditional use is not precluded by WDO 1.104.04.A. 18 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is prohibited by WDO 2.106.05.c.1.b.2, WDO 2.106.05.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between the proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. 19 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is prohibited by WDO 2.106.05.c.1.b.2, WDO 2.106.05.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between the proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. Site development began in 1940. The service station building was constructed in 1967 -before current standards were enacted. The site is nonconforming to current standards and is regulated by Section 1.104 of the WDO. 20 Applications subject to [Type 111] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [WDO 1.104.05] 21 Applications subject to [Type III] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [WDO 1.104.05] Type III .Design Reviews are required for new structures or expansions of 1,000. square feet of more. Type II Design Reviews are for new structures or expansions of less than 1,000 square feet. 22 Applications subject to [Type I11] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [WDO 1.104.05] Type I11 Design Reviews are required for new structures or expansions of 1,000 square feet of more. Type I1 Design Reviews are for new structures or expansions of less than 1,000 square feet. The proposed conditional use does not expand the building and is not subject to a Design Review. 23 Applications subject to [Type III] Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. Applications subject to [Type II] Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. [UNDO 1.104.05] Type III Design Reviews are required for new structures or expansions of 1,000 square feet of more. Type II Design Reviews are for new structures or expansions of less than 1,000 square feet. The proposed conditional use does not expand the building and is not subject to a Design Review. WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming. parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to be brought into conformity only though a Design Review.process - notethrough a conditional use. 24 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 3.102.04.b. 25 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 3.102.04.b. The site is served by existing utilities. The proposed conditional use does not involve any increased need for public utilities. 26 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 3.102.04.b. The site is served by existing utilities. The proposed conditional use does not involve any increased need for public utilities. Dedication of a public utility easement is not necessary for approval of this conditional use. 27 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. 28 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. The structure was built in 1967 -before the current architectural design standards and guidelines were enacted. 29 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. The structure was built in 1967 -before the current architectural design standards and guidelines were enacted. The WDO does not require that the nonconforming architecture of the building be brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. 30 9. The applicant is currently displaying an illegal sign for the business. 31 32 Point of Appeal 11 relates to WDO 5.103.01.C.3: "The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties." 33 Point of Appeal 11 relates to WDO 5.103.01.C.3: "The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible include:...." 34 Point of Appeal 11 relates to WDO 5.103.01.C.3: "The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible include: a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use; b. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving the proposed use; c. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment: 1) Noise; 2) Illumination; 3) Hours of operation; 4) Air quality; 5) Aesthetics; and 6) Vehicular traffic. d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; and e. The suitability of proposed conditions of approval to insure compatibility of the proposed use with other uses in the vicinity. 35 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. 36 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. The property is 1.1 acre in size and is approximately 132 feet wide at its narrowest point. It is located on Highway 99E - a major arterial street. The site is relatively flat. 37 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. The property is 1.1 acre in size and is approximately 132 feet wide at its narrowest point. It is located on Highway 99E - a major arterial street. The site is relatively flat. The size shape, location, and topography of the site do not preclude the proposed conditional use. 38 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. 39 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is currently served by public storm drains. The Public Works Department has not noted a deficiency in the capacity of the drainage facilities. The proposed conditional use involves no increase in impervious surface and generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. The proposed conditional use is auto-oriented, not pedestrian-oriented, and presumably generates little if any off-site pedestrian traffic. Highway 99E is a state facility. 40 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is currently served by public storm drains. The Public Works Department has not noted a deficiency in the capacity of the drainage facilities. The proposed conditional use involves no increase in impervious surface and generates. no increased runoff to the storm drain system. The proposed conditional use is auto-oriented, not pedestrian-oriented, and presumably generates little if any off-site pedestrian traffic. Highway 99E is a state facility. The existing drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. Requiring pedestrian improvements in a State highway is beyond the scope of the present conditional use application. 41 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. 42 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. The proposed use is auto parts installation and auto repair. The previous use was automotive repair. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial. activities. The nearest residentially zoned property is approximately 80 feet from the building. 43 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. The proposed use is auto parts installation and auto repair. The previous use was automotive repair. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop,. and other commercial activities. The nearest residentially zoned property is approximately 80 feet from the building. The aroaosed use would have impacts reaardina noise. illumination hours of operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic similar in nature and extent to those of the previous automotive repair use. Based on the site location anal the surrounding land uses, the impacts of the proposed conditional use are minimal. 44 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. 45 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that: "The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." 46 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that: "The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan have no direct application to a conditional use application unless they are specifically referenced in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. WDO 1.104 recognizes and regulates nonconformities. The proposed use does not expand or alter the pattern of existing development. 47 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that: "The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not self- implementing, but are effected through the zoning regulations in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. WDO 1.104 recognizes and regulates nonconformities. The proposed use does not expand or alter the pattern of existing development. The property is nonconforming with respect to architectural design and landscaping requirements, and the WDO.does not require conformance as part of the conditional use. process. 48 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicini#y. 49 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. There are four conditions of approval. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. 50 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. There are four conditions of approval. Nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. The proposed conditions of approval ensure that the proposed conditional use is compatible with nearby uses. 51 Overall Conclusions: The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. 52 Overall Conclusions: The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformties are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. Staff recommendations: • Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subject to the:conditions of approval in the staff report. 53 Overall Conclusions: The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. Staff recommendations: • Uphold the Planning. Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subjec# to the conditions of approval in the staff report. • Deny the appeal of case CU 2008-01. 54 Overall Conclusions: The proposed use either meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, or is nonconforming to them. Nonconformities .are permitted to continue subject to WDO 1.104. Staff recommendations: • Uphold. the Planning Commission's decision and approve case. CU 2008-01 subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. • Deny the appeal of case CU 2008-01. 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions on a form provided by the City. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, or public hearing. 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. The property owner shall remove the existing pole sign in front of the building or convert it to a monument sign conforming to WDO 3.110. 55 ^ Staff Exhibit #1 - CU 2008-01 _ Council Public Hearing 2/9/2009 CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Staff report of February 9, 2009 Don Dolenc, Associate Planner CU 2008-01 Appellant: Margarita Benavidez Applicant: Arnoldo Benavidez Property Owner: Vladimir Pendov Subject Property: The subject property is located at 595 North Pacific Highway and is identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax Lot O51 W 17BB09300. Nature of the Case: The applicant requested a conditional use for auto parts sales and installation (principally tires), in the Commercial General zone. This conditional use involves the use of an existing building and does not result in any building expansion. The business is currently operating as auto parts sales without installation, and automotive repair. The conditional use is required for auto parts installation. Auto parts sales without installation is allowed outright. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application subject to conditions. Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) 4.101.06.C provides that the Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council for a public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. Summary: City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve the conditional use subject to conditions, and deny the appeal. Table of Contents Background .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Appeal .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Other Criteria and Standards Relevant to the Conditional Use Application ......................................12 Commercial General (CG) .......................................................................................................12 Street Standards ........................................................................................................................16 Access Standards ...................................................................................................................... 16 Utilities and Easements ............................................................................................................16 Off Street Parking and Loading Standards ..............................................................................18 Landscaping Standards ............................................................................................................ 18 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards ...................................................................... 18 Signs .........................................................................................................................................19 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 22 Attachments and Exhibits .................................................................................................................. 22 I:\Community Development` ~ning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 1 of 22 Background 2 Planning Commission action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application 3 on December 11, 2008. The Commission unanimously approved the conditional use request to a allow installation of auto parts (principally tires), subject to conditions, at its meeting of January 8, s 2009. 6 ~ Condition of the Property: The subject property is zoned Commercial General (CG) and is a designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The property is 1.1 acre in area. It is 9 currently occupied by two 3,000 square foot commercial buildings constructed in 1940 and a 1,860 to square foot commercial building constructed as a service station in 1967. The larger buildings are 11 occupied by a beauty salon and a restaurant. The conditional use is for the 1,860 square foot lz building. No wetlands or floodplains exist on the site. Properties to the east, south, west, and the 13 easterly portion of the north property line are zoned Commercial General (CG) and are designated la Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Properties on the westerly portion of the north is property line are zoned Single Family Residential (RS) and designated Low Density Residential on 16 the Comprehensive Plan Map. No previous land use decisions for the subject property were found 17 in City files. is 19 20 The Woodburn Development Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission's decision is 21 appealable to the City Council by persons who participated in the public hearing or who were 2z adversely affected by the decision. The City Council then conducts a de novo public hearing on the 23 matter. Notice of the appeal hearing is mailed to the appellant, the applicant, the property owner, Za the owners of all property within 250 feet of the site, and the persons who offered testimony at the zs public hearing. The appellant raises eleven points of appeal to the City Council. 26 z~ Grounds for Appeal: The appellant cites the following as grounds for the appeal: Zs 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use subject z9 to termination under WDO 1.104.02. 30 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. 31 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is prohibited 3s by WDO 2.106.OS.c.l.b.2, WDO 2.106.OS.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 33 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between the 34 proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 35 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. 36 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by WDO 37 3.102.04.b. 3s 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 39 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. ao 9. The applicant is currently displaying an illegal sign for the business. al 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. a2 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. a3 a. The size, shape. ocation, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. I:ACommunity Developm~ ~nning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU200~ ~1)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 2 of 22 ~ b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is z compatible with the proposed use. 3 c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living 4 environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. s d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. 6 e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure ~ compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. a 9 Staff Response: Staff responds to the grounds for appeal as follows: io i ~ 1. The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use ~z subject to termination under WDO 1.104.02. 13 Appellant's statement: "Under WDO 1.104.02, a nonconforming use shall be considered terminated la if it is found that the use ceased for a continuous period of 6 months. The staff report assumes that ~s the nonconforming use of the subject property has been continuous since the existing building's i6 establishment in 1967. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion. i~ The applicant does state that the application is to "re-establish" this use, indicating that it has ceased is for some significant amount of time. i9 A search of local phone directories and business registration records indicates not less than three zo separate auto repair businesses -aside from the applicant's -occupying the subject property within z~ the last 15 years: Woodburn Auto Exchange, Highway Auto Repair, and Pacific Northwest zz Transmission. Most of the business entities which operated under these names have been z3 involuntarily dissolved or canceled for failure to renew. There is a gap in the business records of za Pacific Northwest Transmission from 1994 to 1998. Woodburn Auto Exchange, despite being zs listed at the subject property in the phone directory, appears to have principally operated at 1175 N. zb Pacific Highway. There is no indication of when, if ever, this business was located at the subject z~ property. (See Exhibits 1 and 2 of Memorandum in Opposition submitted by Kelley & Kelley.) zs [Note: The Memorandum in Opposition is included as Attachment H.] z9 Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the nonconforming use of the subject 3o property ceased at some time for a continuous period of six months while the building stood vacant 31 between tenants. Certainly, a conclusory finding that the nonconforming use has not terminated is 3z not supported by any evidence in the record provided by the applicant or anyone else. 33 Staff's findings assume that many mandatory standards and review criteria need not be applied, on 34 the assumption that the development and the use are nonconforming, and that the proposed use is 3s much the same as past uses. These are not relevant determinations, these assumptions are 36 inadequate, and even if true they do not excuse the applicant from complying with mandatory 37 standards. The applicant has not asked for a variance or adjustment of any standard." 3s Findings: The building was originally constructed as a gasoline service station in 1967. Automobile 39 maintenance and repair were commonly conducted as part of a service station's business. After the ao sale of gasoline was discontinued on the subject property, the building continued to be used for ai automobile maintenance and repair. The property owner has stated that the use of the property for az auto repair has been continuous. City records indicate that water service to Pacific Northwest 43 Transmissions began on December 8, 1992. A digital photo taken December 17, 2004 shows a sign 44 for Pacific Northwest Transmission that advertises "complete auto repair." City records indicate L\Conununity Developmer Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 3 of 22 1 that water service to water service to Highway Auto Repair began on February 9, 2007. An z Eviction Trespass Notice was served on Highway Auto Repair on September 17, 2008. The 3 applicant applied for a City business license on September 22, 2008. City records indicate that a water service to Benavidez Tires and Wheels began on October 20, 2008. There is no definitive s evidence in the record that the nonconforming use was discontinued for a continuous period of six 6 months. ~ Conclusions: The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair existed prior to current s zoning standards and is a nonconforming use because it is conducted without the conditional use 9 currently required by the WDO. As a nonconforming use, this may continue until it is terminated to pursuant to WDO 1.104.02. The nonconforming use of automobile repair is distinct under the 11 WDO from auto parts sales with installation -the subject of the conditional use application. lz 13 la 2. The proposed use will expand the nonconforming use in violation of WDO 1.104.04. 1 s Appellant's statement: "The applicant also states that the proposal is to also include "the addition of 16 tire & wheel installation," which changes and expands the nature of the use. WDO 1.104.04 17 provides that change or expansion of a nonconforming use "shall not make the development more is nonconforming." That is precisely what the applicant has proposed to do." 19 Findings: The WDO states that "Any expansion or addition to buildings or structures with zo nonconforming height, setback, density or lot coverage shall not make the development more zl nonconforming." [WDO 1.104.04.A] The proposed use does not involve an expansion or addition zz to buildings or structures. In the CG zone, auto parts sales without installation is an outright z3 permitted use. Use of the property for auto repair predates the current zoning and is an existing za nonconforming use. The proposed conditional use is for automotive parts installation (principally zs tires and wheels.) zb Conclusions: The nonconformity for automotive maintenance is not increased by the additional use z~ of automotive parts sales with installation. The proposed conditional use is not precluded by WDO zs 1.104.04. z9 30 31 3. The proposed use will include off-street parking within a required setback, which is 3z prohibited by WDO 2.106.OS.c.l.b.2, WDO 2.106.05.c.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. 33 Appellant's statement: "Although the applicant does not show it on the site plan, the business 34 currently allows off-street parking to take place in the area near the front tire rack and the sign, 3s which is an area well within the required 10 foot plus 15 foot setback. The staff report confirms this 36 when addressing throat length, which is defined as "extending from the closest off street parking or 37 loading space to the outside edge of right of way." Staff finds that the throat length on the subject 3g property is 10 feet, meaning that offstreet parking is taking place within 10 feet of the right of way. 39 (Staff Report 7, lines 10-21.)" ao Findings: "Any additional parking, loading, landscaping, wall and/or refuse facility required by the al WDO to accommodate a change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the az following: a3 A. Applications s~.ibject to Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, as loading, lands Ding, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the I:ACommunity Develops Tanning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 4 of 22 1 standards of the WDO. z B. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion 3 increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, a shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the s standards of the WDO. Parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities 6 required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to those ~ necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion." [WDO 1.104.05] s The proposed use does not result in additions to the building and is not subject to design review. 9 Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming off-street parking to be brought into to conformity only though a Design Review process. The WDO does not require that the 11 nonconforming off-street parking be brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. 12 13 la 4. The proposed use does not meet required setbacks or provide for a buffer wall between is the proposed use and abutting RS-zoned properties. 16 Appellant's statement: "WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a provides that "development in the CG zone shall be 17 subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.11." That table requires a "solid brick is or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height," 19 where the CG zone development abuts RS-zoned property. This is also required by WDO 20 3.107.06.B.S.b. RS-zoned property abuts the proposed use to the north. At present, a wood fence in 21 poor repair is all that is present along this property line. Contrary to staff's conclusion (Staff Report 22 6, lines 2-8), this is not "comparable" to a solid wall with anti-graffiti surface. [Note: This refers to 23 the staff report to the Planning Commission.] 2a Further, staff's statement that "the proposed use is similar to previous uses" is not an applicable 2s standard or an exception to mandatory standards, particularly where there is no evidence supporting 26 a conclusion that the nonconforming use has not terminated. The applicant has not met the 27 standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. 28 The lack of any evidence that the nonconforming use has not terminated also implicates the setback 29 requirements of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. Applicant has not shown that the existing building meets the 3o five foot setback from abutting CG properties or the ten foot setback from RS properties. The 31 applicant has therefore not met his burden of producing evidence of compliance with all applicable 32 criteria." 33 Findings: Property tax records indicate the building was constructed in 1967. The site and 34 associated improvements pre-date current standards. 3s Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming buffering to be brought into conformity only 36 though a Design Review process. The WDO does not require that the nonconforming buffering be 3'7 brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. 38 39 ao 5. The proposed use does not meet the access standards of WDO 3.104. al Appellant's statement: "WDO 3.104.OS.E.2 requires the radius of curb flare for a commercial use a2 driveway to be 30 feet minimum. According to the staff report, the proposed curb radius is a3 approximately 23 feet. This does not meet the mandatory standard imposed by the WDO. I:\Conununity Development ?lanning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 5 of 22 ~ Similarly, WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 requires a throat length of 50 feet minimum, while applicant's site z plan only provides for 10 feet. 3 Staff s finding that the proposed use is comparable to previous uses of the building is irrelevant and a does not provide an exception to a mandatory standard. Further, the fact that meeting these s standards would be expensive and "may not be physically possible," as staff finds, does not excuse 6 the applicant from his burden of meeting them. The applicant has not submitted an application for a ~ variance or adjustment from any standard, or provided any evidence in support of such an s application, so there is no basis for the Planning Commission to ignore applicable standards." 9 Findings: Aerial photography from 2001 shows the driveways and parking area before the WDO io was adopted. A site inspection found the driveway and parking configuration to be substantially i ~ unchanged. The curb radius and throat length requirements of WDO 3.104.05.E relate to the ~z property and not to its use. The current proposal does not involve a Design Review. 13 Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming access to be brought into conformity only is though a Design Review process. The structure is nonconforming to the curb radius and throat is length requirements of WDO 3.104.OS.E. The WDO does not require that the nonconforming curb i6 radius and throat length be brought into conformity with the proposed conditional use. i~ ~s i9 6. The proposed use does not provide for the dedication of utility easements as required by zo WDO 3.102.04.b. z ~ Appellant's statement: "WDO 3102.040B requires the dedication of five foot wide public utility zz easements along each lot line abutting a public street. There is no evidence from the applicant that z3 the proposed use can or will meet this requirement. Although staff may have concluded that this za dedication is not necessary, it is mandatory under the terms of the WDO, leaving the Planning zs Commission no discretion to overlook WDO 3.102.04.B." z6 Findings: The proposed use of the property does not involve any increased need for public utilities. z~ The site is currently served by existing utilities. The Public Works Department did not indicate the za need for a public utility easement. z9 Conclusions: Dedication of a public utility easement is not necessary for approval of this 3o conditional use. 31 32 33 7. The proposed use does not meet the landscaping standards of WDO 3.106. 34 Appellant's statement: "WDO 3.106.O1.B provides that the WDO landscaping standards shall apply 35 to the entire site area of a development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures and/or 36 parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than 37 existed at the date of the WDO adoption. 3s The applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has not provided any evidence that the proposed use 39 is not subject to the Landscaping Standards. There is no evidence in the record showing to what ao existed on the subject property at the date of the WDO adoption, from which it is possible to 4~ conclude that the prop~:~sed use does not expand structures or parking area more than 50 percent. az Therefore these stands ~ must be applied, and the applicant has not submitted any evidence a3 showing the proposed ;l comply with the landscaping standards in WDO 3.106." L\Community Develop ~\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 6 of 22 i Findings: WDO 3.106.01 provides that "The provisions of this section shall apply: z A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single-family and 3 duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and 4 B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to s structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 6 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption." ~ No new structures, additions to structures, or parking areas are proposed. Aerial photography from a 2001 shows the buildings and parking area before the date of the WDO adoption. A site inspection 9 found the buildings and parking area to be the same as in 2001. io Conclusion: Under WDO 3.106.01, the development is not subject to the standards of WDO 3.106. it 12 13 8. The proposed use does not meet the design standards of WDO 3.107. is Appellant's statement: "The Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the existing is building in which the proposed use will be located is a nonconforming structure which has not lost i6 its nonconforming status by termination. Therefore, the existing building comes within the definition of "all non-residential structures in the CG zone," and must comply with the design is requirements of WDO 3.107. The applicant has not produced any evidence to meet his burden of ~9 showing that the proposed use will comply with these standards." zo Findings: The use is proposed to be established in an existing non-residential structure in the CG z ~ zone. The structure was built in 1967, before the current land use standards were enacted. The zz architectural design standards and guidelines of WDO 3.107 relate to the building and not to its use. z3 Conclusions: The WDO does not require that the nonconforming design be brought into conformity za with the proposed conditional use. zs z6 z~ 9. The applicant is currently displaying an illegal sign for the business. za Appellant's statement: "WDO 3.110.04 requires a permit for the erection of any sign non exempt z9 under WDO 3.110.11. The applicant presently has two permanent, non-free-standing signs for the 3o business placed on the subject property in violation of WDO 3.110.04. The Planning Commission 3 i should not grant a permit to an applicant presently in violation of the WDO unless the permit will 3z correct the violation." 33 Findings: A site inspection found two pole signs. The Planning Commission required that the 34 existing pole sign in front of the building be removed or converted to a monument sign conforming 3s to WDO 3.110 as a condition of approval for the conditional use. The temporary sign located on 36 the base of the larger pole sign is subject to Temporary Sign Permit 2009-01, which expires on 37 March 2, 2009. 3a Conclusions: The restaurant and auto repair shop constitute individual tenant spaces. The existing 39 pole sign for the restaurant is not attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is not ao required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. The existing pole sign for the auto repair a~ shop is attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is required by WDO 3.110.20.B.4 to az comply with the provision :~f Section 3.110. 43 I:\Community Developmer ing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 7 of 22 ~ 10. The applicant has not produced evidence that refuse can be collected and disposed of a properly. s Appellant's statement: "At present, the proposed use's primary refuse item, old tires, is being a collected in the open air to the back of the existing building. Old tires are quite bulky. They also s tend to invite infestation of vermin such as rats, as a nesting location. The applicant's stated 6 intention to "use the existing refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant" strains ~ credibility and the applicant's present approach to refuse collection is unhealthy, unsightly, and in a violation of WDO 2.106.06.E.3." 9 Findings: A site inspection found that some of the tires stored behind the building are inventory, io while others are used tires awaiting recycling. The existing refuse collection facilities located > i behind the restaurant are reported by the applicant to be emptied on a weekly basis. The applicant iz reports that he takes unusable tires to an off-site processor on a regular basis. The WDO does not 13 set standards for the "proper" disposal of refuse, or require an applicant to produce evidence that ~a refuse can be collected and disposed of properly. Nonconforming refuse facilities are governed by is WDO1.104.05. i6 Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming refuse facilities to be brought into conformity i~ only through a Design Review process. 18 19 Zo 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. zi a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed Zz use. Z3 b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian 2a facilities is compatible with the proposed use. zs c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living 26 environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. z~ d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. za e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to i9 ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. 3o Appellant's statement: "To the south on the same lot are a restaurant and a beauty salon. To the 3 i north are a restaurant and single-family dwellings. The portion of the abutting property to the west 3z is essentially vacant, and beyond this vacant area to the west are single-family dwellings. The 33 proposed use does not comply with the relevant review factors as follows: 34 a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. 3s The size and shape of the subject property made for an awkward, unsuitable fit between the existing 36 restaurant and beauty salon and the proposed use. To a large extent the proposed use encroaches on 3~ and crowds the parking and pedestrian area required by the restaurant and beauty salon sharing the 3s subject property to the south. The increase in vehicular traffic to the subject property, particularly 39 with regard to the anticipated presence of large tire and automotive equipment deliveries, will ao adversely effect the safety and comfort of customers coming to and from the neighboring a~ businesses. L\Community DevelopmE~ °lanning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 8 of 22 i The location is also inappropriate for a use of this kind. The proposed use's abutting properties are z used for restaurants, a beauty salon, and single family residences. Tire and wheel sales and 3 installation does not belong in this location. a The existing building appears to be nonconforming as to setbacks from neighboring properties, as s well as access standards, and applicant has not produced evidence that these setbacks and standards 6 are or can be satisfied. A nonconforming structure is, by definition, unsuitable for a conditional use ~ because it is not compatible with the zoning district. s b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities 9 is compatible with the proposed use. ~o The subject property is paved to a considerable extent, yet applicant has produced no evidence of a ii plan for addressing storm run-off. Further, there are no sidewalks on the subject property. ~z Although, as staff notes, this is an automotive business, it still requires capacity for pedestrian i3 facilities for pedestrian traffic which passes through. At present, pedestrians are forced to traverse is the subject property's driveway and parking area. is c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living ~6 environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. i~ The noise and unsightliness of a tire and wheel installation and repair business will negatively is impact the business activities going on in the neighboring businesses, which, being two restaurants ~9 and a beauty salon, are of a higher aesthetic character. Removal and replacement of tires and zo engine noise. The proposed use will also negatively impact neighboring residential properties. The zi existing fence is not adequate buffering of these impacts as required by WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a, and zz the negative aesthetic impacts are fully visible from residential properties to the west. z3 The coming and going of the applicant's own large truck and other trucks delivering parts or taking za away refuse will have a negative impact on noise and vehicular traffic both for abutting businesses zs and for traffic passing on Highway 99E. The proposed use, being an automobile-related business, zb will significantly increase vehicular traffic. z~ d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. zs It is the applicant's burden to review all potentially applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and z9 explain why each is or is not applicable, and explain how the proposal conforms to those that are 3o applicable. The applicant has not met this burden. 3 ~ Staff identified two policies which it believes is applicable. The proposal does not conform to 3z these. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that architectural design should be attractive and 3s should include enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parking areas. The applicant's 3a proposed use is not attractive and the applicant has proposed no new landscaping to reduce the 3s visual impact of the subject property's parking area. Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that 36 the city should ensure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential 3~ areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones. The proposed use does not 3s conform to the applicable architectural and landscaping buffer requirements, so it does not conform 39 to this policy. The proposed use would expand, intensify, and alter the previous use of the property, ao which was nonconforming and likely terminated. I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-O1)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 9 of 22 i e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure 2 compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. 3 It is the applicant who bears the burden of production and proof that the proposed use will meet all a applicable criteria. This does include the burden to propose conditions of approval to mitigate the s negative impacts of a use and ensure compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has not 6 produced a single proposed condition." s Findings: WDO 5.103.O1.C.3 enumerates "[r]elevant factors to be considered in determining 9 whether the proposed use is compatible." The property was developed prior to the existing io standards established by the WDO. The requested conditional use would allow a tire store with ~ i installation to operate in an existing building. iz a. The buildings are separated by approximately 42 feet. WDO 3.105 (Table 3.1.4) requires a 2- 13 way aisle width of 24 feet. The property at its narrowest is approximately 132 feet wide. A la site inspection found that the property is relatively flat. is b. The subject property is currently served by public storm drains. The Public Works Department ~6 has not noted any deficiencies in the capacity of the drainage or pedestrian facilities serving the i~ site. The proposed conditional use of auto parts sales with installation involves no increase in is impervious surface and generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. Sidewalks are ~9 not provided along Highway 99E - a state facility. The business is auto-oriented, not 20 pedestrian-oriented. The proposed conditional use of auto parts sales with installation z~ presumably generates little if any off-site pedestrian traffic. zz c. The proposed use is an automotive parts dealership with installation and automotive z3 maintenance. The previous use was automotive maintenance. The residentially zoned property 2a is approximately 80 feet from the building. 2s d. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are not self-implementing, but are effected zb through the zoning regulations in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. WDO 1.104 z~ recognizes and regulates nonconformities. Zs e. There are four conditions of approval. This is a nonconforming site. The property is in the CG z9 zone and nearby uses include automotive repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities. 30 3 i Conclusions: "Relevant factors to be considered" are not mandatory standards. WDO 5.103.O1.C.3 3z does not require site compliance for this request. 33 a. The site is large enough to accommodate traffic between the buildings. The shape, location, 34 and topography of the site do not preclude its use for auto repair. 3s b. The existing public drainage facilities are adequate to serve the proposed use. 36 c. The proposed use (automotive parts dealership with installation -principally tires and wheels - 37 and automotive maintenance) would have impacts regarding noise, illumination, hours of 3s operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic similar in nature and extent to those of 39 the previous automotive maintenance use. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the ao living environment is a "factor to be considered." Based on the site location and the a~ surrounding land uses. he impacts of the proposed conditional use are minimal. I:ACommunity Development' .Wing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 10 of 22 ~ d. As discussed more fully above, the property is nonconforming with respect to architectural 2 design and landscaping requirements, and the WDO does not require conformance. s e. The proposed use of the property is compatible with nearby uses, which include automotive a repair, a tire shop, and other commercial activities.. ~ Overall Conclusions: 9 The proposed use either meets WDO requirements or is nonconforming to them and regulated under ~o WDO 1.104. I:ACommunity Development\Planning\20081Conditional Use\595 N P~~ ! )1Staff report Appeal final.doc ''age 11 of 22 1 Other Criteria and Standards Relevant to the Conditional Use Application 2 has considered by the Planning Commission) 3 a The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on December 11, 2008. The s Commission unanimously approved the conditional use request to allow installation of auto parts 6 (principally tires and wheels), subject to conditions, at its meeting of January 8, 2009. The ~ following criteria must be considered by the decision makers in rendering a decision. s 9 Oregon Revised Statutes 197.763 requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each ~o hearing. The applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) are: ~i 12 1.1 ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE 13 1.101 Structure ~a 1.102 Definitions i s 1.104 Nonconforming Uses and Development Standards 16 2.1 LAND USE ZONING i~ 2.101 General Provisions is 2.106 Commercial General (CG) 19 3.1 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 20 3.103 Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally 21 3.104 Access z2 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 23 3.110 Signs 2a 4.1 ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES 2s 4.101 Decision Making Procedures 26 4.102 Review, Interpretation and Enforcement 2~ 5.1 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 2s 5.103 Type III Application Requirements 29 30 3 ~ WDO 2.106 Commercial General (CG) 32 33 The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of the WDO, 34 are permitted in the CG zone. 3s ... Automotive parts (44131) without installation. [WDO 2.106.O1.E.1] 36 37 The following uses may be permitted in the CG zone subject to the applicable development 3s standards of the WDO and the conditions of conditional use approval: 39 ... Motor vehicle and parts dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation. ao ... Automotive maintenance. (8111) [WDO 2.106.03.A.1, 2.106.03.G.1] ai Findings: The proposed use is an automotive parts dealership with inst 'lation (principally tires and a2 wheels), and automotive maintenance. I:\Community Development\Planni 2008\Conditional Use\595 N P: ~)\Staff report Appeal final.doc page 12 of 22 i Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. 3 4 The nonconforming use of a building, structure, or land shall be considered terminated if the s Community Development Director fmds that the use of the building, structure or land ceased, 6 for any reason, for a continuous period of 6 months. [WDO 1.104.02] ~ Findings: The building was originally constructed as a gasoline service station in 1967. At that s time, automobile maintenance and repair were commonly conducted as an integral part of a service 9 station's business. After the sale of gasoline was discontinued on the subject property, the building ~o continued to be used for automobile maintenance and repair. The property owner stated that the use i i of the property for auto repair has been continuous. The applicant's business license lists i2 automotive repair as an element of the current business. 13 Conclusions: The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use 14 because it is conducted without the conditional use currently required by the WDO. As a is nonconforming use, this element of the business may continue until it is terminated pursuant to l6 WD0 1.104.02. i~ is i9 Lots in a CG zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.10. [WDO zo 2.106.OS.A] TABLE 2.1.10 Lot Standards in a CG Zone In a CG 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. ai Findings: The existing and proposed uses of the property are non-residential. The lot area is 22 adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. 23 Conclusion: The lot is conforming for area in the CG zone. There is no minimum lot width or Za depth. 2s 26 z~ Height, Building: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest Zs point of the coping or flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of zy the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. [WDO 1.102] 3o The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 70 feet. [WDO 2.106.OS.B] 3 i Findings: The existing building is a single-story structure, and does not exceed the height standard. 3i Conclusion: The existing building complies with WDO 2.106.OS.B. 33 34 3s Special setback standards by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1. The special 36 setback standards shall be applied to streets within the City of Woodburn as functionally 37 classified in the Woodburr= Transportation System Plan. [WDO 3.103.OS.D] I:ACommunity Development`, ding\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 13 of 22 TABLE 3.1.1 Special Setback Standards by Street Classification WTSP Functional Classification ~ Special Setback from Center Line Major Arterial 50 feet i The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, Section z 3.103.05. [WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1] 3 Findings: Figure 7.1 of the Transportation System Plan shows Pacific Highway as a Major Arterial. a Table 3.1.1 requires a special setback of 50 feet from the center line. The GIS system shows a right- s of-way width of approximately 80 feet. In addition to the special setback of 50 feet from centerline 6 (or 10 feet from property line), an additional 15 foot setback is required. The GIS system shows the ~ existing building to be set back approximately 45 feet from the front property line. s Conclusion: The existing building complies with the standards of WDO 3.103.OS.D, Table 3.1.1, 9 and WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1. io ii iz Development in a CG zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table i3 2.1.11. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a] TABLE 2.1.11 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for CG Zones Abutting Property Landscaping Wall Interior Setback RS, R1S, or RM There is no buffer Solid brick or architectural wall 10 ft. zone yard landscaping with anti-graffiti surface, no less requirement for than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet an interior yard in height. abutting a buffer wall. CO, CG, DDC, There is no buffer Alternative A: Wall requirements Alternative A: 5 ft. NNC, P/SP, IP, yard landscaping shall be determined in SWIR or IL zone requirement for conjunction with the applicable an interior yard Design Review process. abutting a buffer wall. Alternative B: No wall required. Alternative B: Zero setback abutting a building wall. ~a A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than i s 7 feet in height: i 6 a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line ofnon-residential development i ~ to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting use when no is comparable buff exists. [WDO 3.107.06.B.8] I:\Community Development' ing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 14 of 22 ~ Findings: Design Review is required for new buildings and expansions of existing buildings. The z building is not required to go through a Design Review process at this time. An existing wood 3 fence separates the subject property from the abutting residential properties. The proposed use of a the property is similar to previous uses of the property. Although the property abuts properties s zoned RS, the residential zoning is approximately 80 feet from the building with the proposed 6 conditional use. Nonconforming buffering is governed by WDO 1.104.05. ~ Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming buffering to be brought into conformity only a though a Design Review process. The existing wood fence is comparable, although not equivalent, 9 to an architectural wall as a buffer. The guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.8 -which is partially met - io is not applicable to the current proposal. ii ~z 13 Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard 14 abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2] ~s Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for i6 parking and storage adjacent to a wall [WDO 2.106.05.C.2.c] i~ Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a street, ~a EXCEPT for parking in driveways. [WDO 3.103.06] ~9 Findin :The site plan does not show any parking or storage located within a required setback. Zo Conclusions: Parking within a required setback would be nonconforming. The site plan complies 2i with the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2, WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.c, and 3.103.06. zz 23 za Common refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block is wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum i6 of seven feet in height. [WDO 2.106.06.E.3] z~ Any additional parking, loading, landscaping, wall and/or refuse facility required by the is WDO to accommodate a change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the 29 following: 3o A. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, 31 loading, landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the 3z standards of the WDO. 33 B. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or 34 expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 3s percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, landscaping, buffer walls and 36 refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading, landscaping, buffer 37 walls and refuse facilities required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent 3s .shall be limited to those necessary to conform with the increment of change or 39 expansion. [WDO 1.04.05] ao Findings: The site plan shows a trash enclosure located at the rear of the building. The applicant a~ has indicated that he would delete the trash enclosure shown on the site plan and use the existing as refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant. Nonconformin~~ ~~:~-~use facilities are 43 governed by WDO 1.1 ` ~ . L\Conununity Developr ~0~)4`~Conditional ` ~sc`~595 N P !)\Staff report Appeal final.doc 'age 15 of 22 i Conclusions: WDO 1.104.05 requires nonconforming refuse facilities to be brought into conformity z only though a Design Review process. The standards of WDO 2.106.06.E.3 are not applicable to 3 the project as revised. 4 5 b WDO 3.101 Street Standards 7 s All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the 9 applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction io specifications of the Public Works Department. [WDO 3.101.02.C.1) Finding: Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. iz Conclusions: Highway 99E is not "under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn" and street 13 improvements are not required per WDO 3.101.02.C.1. 14 15 ~b WDO 3.104 Access Standards 17 ~s Radius of Curb Flare: 35 feet minimum. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.2) i9 Findings: The site plan does not call out the curb radius. The City GIS system shows that the curb zo radius is approximately 23 feet. The previous use of the building was auto repair. The proposed z~ use of the building is auto repair. zz Conclusions: No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of this conditional use. 23 24 zs Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to z6 the outside edge of right of way for a:... z7 a. Major street connection: 50 feet minimum, with greater improvement as may be zs required by a TIA. [WDO 3.104.OS.E.4] z9 Street, Major: A street or highway classified in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan as 3o a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Service Collector, or Access street. [WDO 1.102] 3 ~ Findings: The site plan shows a throat length of approximately 10 feet. The previous use of the 3z building was auto repair. The proposed use of the building is auto repair. The site is 33 nonconforming. 34 Conclusions: No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of this conditional use. Bringing the 3s site into conformity is not required by the conditional use. 36 37 3s 3.102 Utilities and Easements 39 4o Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to applicable a~ Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.01] I:ACommunity Developmer~ ~uling\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 16 of 22 1 Findin s: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm 2 drainage facilities. The site is already served by municipal services. 3 Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.01 do not apply to this case. 4 s 6 All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where overhead ~ high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are currently served by 8 overhead wires or cables. [WDO 3.102.02] 9 Findin A site inspection showed that the property is served by existing overhead high-voltage to electric facilities. Conclusion: Underground utilities are not required by WDO 3.102.02. iz 13 14 Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed to the is standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO 3.102.03] fib Findin :Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. 17 Conclusion: Street improvements, including street lights, are not required on Highway 99E per la WDO 3.101.02.C.1. 19 20 21 The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the zz construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities 23 located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public Works 2a Department standards. [WDO 3.102.04.A] 2s Findings: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm 26 drainage facilities. The site is already served by municipal services and subject to a recorded utility 27 easement. 2s Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.04.A do not apply to this case. 29 30 3 i Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for electric 32 and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each lot line abutting a 33 public street. [WDO 3.102.04.B] 34 Findings: The site is served by existing utilities and the proposed use of the property does not 3s involve any increased need for public utilities. 36 Conclusions: Dedication of a public utility easement would not be roughly proportional to the 37 impacts of the development, and is not necessary for approval of this conditional use. 38 39 I:ACommunity Development\? !fining\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 17 of 22 WDO 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading Standards 2 3 The provisions of this Section shall apply to the following types of development:... a B. Any additional parking and/or loading required by the WDO to accommodate a s change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the following. 6 1. Applications subject to Type III Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform ~ all parking, loading and landscaping for the subject use to the standards of the s WDO. 9 2. Applications subject to Type II Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the to change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading or 11 landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform to all parking, loading and lz landscaping to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading and landscaping 13 required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to 14 those necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion. [WDO 1 s 3.105.01 ] 16 Findin :The proposed use does not require a Type II or Type III Design Review. 17 Conclusion: The provisions of WDO 3.105 do not apply under WDO 3.105.01. la 19 20 WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards zl 22 The subject property shall be landscaped to the standards of Section 3.106 and 3.107.03. 23 [WDO 2.105.06.F.2] 2a The provisions of this section shall apply: zs A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single- 26 family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and 2~ B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to zs structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and 29 parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. [WDO 30 3.106.01] 31 Findings: No new structures, additions to structures, or parking areas are proposed. 3z Conclusion: The development is not subject to WDO 3.106 under WDO 3.106.01. 33 34 3s WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards 36 37 The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures and 3s buildings in the RS, R1S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. [WDO 3.107.06.A] 39 Findings: The use is proposed to be established in an existing non-residential structure in the CG ao zone. The structure was built in 1967. al Conclusions: The structure is nonconforming and is regulated under WDO 1.104. The architectural az design guidelines and standards do not apply. L\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 18 of 22 WDO 3.110 Signs z 3 The applicant has not submitted details of the proposed signage for review as part of this 4 application. The site sketch shows two pole signs and a wall sign. This land use decision does not s authorize the installation of signs. The property owner will be required to obtain a sign 6 permit prior to the installation of any sign. a 9 Complex: Any group of two or more buildings, or individual businesses within a single io building provided at least two of the businesses have separate exterior entrances, on a site that i i is planned and developed to function as a unit and which has common on-site parking, ~z circulation and access. A complex may consist of multiple lots or parcels that may or may not l3 be under common ownership. [WDO 3.110.03] is Findings: The site contains three buildings, is planned and developed to function as a unit, and has ~s common on-site parking, circulation and access. ib Conclusions: The site qualifies as a "complex" for the purposes of WDO 3.110. i~ is i9 Complex. zo a. A pole sign is permitted on a street frontage that exceeds 100 lineal feet not to exceed z ~ one pole sign for a complex. zz b. A pole sign on a street with less than 3001ineal feet of frontage shall not exceed 15 z3 feet in height and 50 square feet in area. [WDO 3.110.16.A.2] za Findings: The site sketch shows two existing pole signs in the complex. The City's GIS system zs shows the site to have approximately 231 feet of street frontage. The WDO only allows one pole zb sign. z~ Conclusions: No more than one pole sign may be authorized on the subject property, per WDO zs 3.110.16.A.2.a. Conditional use approval requires that one of the signs be removed. 29 30 31 Nonconforming signs are those signs lawfully established prior to the adoption of Section 3z 3.110 or subsequent amendment thereto or signs lawfully established on property annexed to 33 the City, which do not conform to the requirements of Section 3.110. Nonconforming 34 permanent signs may remain provided they comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.20. 3s [WDO 3.110.ZO.A] 36 Findin :The two existing pole signs are evident on the property. 37 Conclusions: The two existing pole signs were established prior to the adoption of Section 3.110. 3s The two existing pole signs are nonconforming permanent signs subject to WDO 3.110.20. 39 Conditional use approval requires that one of the signs be removed. 40 4l az Nonconforming permanent signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 3.110 when one a3 or more of the following ~~ccurs:... A Type II Design Review or Type III Conditional Use or I:ACommunity Development nning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 19 of 22 1 Design Review land use application is approved for the premises upon which the sign is 2 located. In a complex, if an individual tenant space is the subject of a Type II Design Review 3 or Type III Conditional Use or Design Review land use application, only signs attached to 4 such tenant space shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. [WDO s 3.110.20.B.4] 6 Findings: The property is subject to a Type III Conditional Use. A site inspection found two pole ~ signs. The applicant has indicated that he would convert the existing pole sign in front of the a building to a conforming monument sign. The property owner has verbally agreed to this action. 9 Conclusions: The restaurant auto repair shop constitute individual tenant spaces. The existing pole to sign for the restaurant is not attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is not required 11 to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. The existing pole sign for the auto repair shop is li attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is required by WDO 3.I 10.20.B.4 to 13 comply with the provisions of Section 3.110 and be removed. 14 15 16 WDO 5.103.01 Conditional Use l7 la The proposed use shall be permitted as a conditional use within the zoning district. [WDO 19 5.103.O1.C.1] zo Findings: WDO 2.106.03.A.1 lists as a conditional use in the CG zone "Motor vehicle and parts z i dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation." WDO 2.106.03.G.1 lists as a zz conditional use in the CG zone "Automotive maintenance. (8111)" The proposed use is an i3 automotive parts dealership with installation (principally tires and wheels), and automotive 2a maintenance, which is allowed conditionally. 2s Conclusions: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. The 26 criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.1 is met. z~ zs Z9 The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. (WDO 30 5.103.O1.C.2] 3 i Findin :Compliance with the Commercial General (CG) zoning regulations is discussed in detail 3i above. 33 Conclusion: The proposed use meets the requirements of WDO 2.106. 34 35 36 The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. [WDO 5.103.OI.C.3] 37 Findings: A beauty salon and a restaurant exist on the same lot with the proposed use. Two 3s conforming and two nonconforming single-family dwellings abut the north lot line, as does a 39 restaurant and professional office. An automobile repair facility abuts the lot on the south and west. 4o A mobile home sales lot and a vacant commercial lot adjoin the lot across Highway 99E. 4l 42 I:\Community Development\Pla Wing\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific H~;~y (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 20 of 22 i Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is 2 compatible include: 3 a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use; a Findings: The subject property is of adequate size, is irregular in shape but not excessively so, s is located on a major arterial street, and is relatively flat. 6 7 b. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving 8 the proposed use; 9 Findin s: The subject property is currently served by public water, sewerage, and drainage io facilities. The proposed conditional use involves no increase in impervious surface and i ~ generates no increased runoff to the storm drain system. Sidewalks are not provided along ~z Highway 99E - a state facility. Adequate public facilities exist to serve the site. 13 ~a c. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment: ~ s 1) Noise; i 6 2) Illumination; 17 3) Hours of operation; i a 4) Air quality; ~ 9 5) Aesthetics; and zo 6) Vehicular traffic. zi Findings: "The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment" is one of zz the "[r]elevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is compatible" 23 that are enumerated in WDO 5.103.O1.C.3. The proposed use (automotive parts dealership 2a with installation and automotive maintenance) would have impacts regarding noise, Zs illumination, hours of operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic similar in nature z6 and extent to those of the previous automotive maintenance use. 27 za d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; z9 Findings: Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial 3o areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual 3 ~ impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides 32 that: "Commercial office and other low traffic generating commercial retail uses can be located 33 on collectors or in close proximity to residential areas if care in architecture and site planning is 34 exercised. The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close 35 to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." The proposed 36 use does not expand, intensify, or alter the pattern of existing development. 37 3s e. The suitability of proposed conditions of approval to insure compatibility of the proposed 39 use with other uses in the vicinity. [WDO 5.103.O1.C.3) ao Findings: The proposed conditions of approval minimize the effects of the proposed use on a i adjacent property. 42 43 Conclusion: The proposed use meets the criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.3. 44 I:\Community Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 21 of 22 z 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 to II 12 13 14 Is 16 17 l8 19 20 21 2z 23 24 zs 26 27 2s 29 30 3l 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Recommendations City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve case CU 2008-01 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions on a form provided by the City. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, or public hearing. 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. The property owner shall remove the existing pole sign in front of the building or convert it to a monument sign conforming to WDO 3.110. City Council deny the appeal of case CU 2008-01. Attachments and Exhibits Attachment "A" Attachment "B" Attachment "C" Attachment "D" Attachment "E" Attachment "F" Attachment "G" Attachment "H" Attachment "I" Attachment "J" Attachment "K" Attachment "L" Attachment "M" Attachment "N" Attachment "O" Attachment "P" Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Zoning Map Comprehensive Plan Map Public Works Department comments Building Division comments Fire District comments Applicant's narrative Appellant's narrative Memorandum in Opposition (submitted to the Planning Commission) 2001 aerial photo with lot lines overlaid Minutes of the December 1 1, 2008 Planning Commission hearing Planning Commission's Final Order Notice and Procedure City water billing summary Eviction Trespass Notice Photograph taken December 17, 2004 Business license application Drawing of the property labeled "595 N. Pacific" Site plan I:ACommunity Development\Planning\2008\Conditional Use\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Staff report Appeal final.doc Page 22 of 22 Attachment "A" Zoning Map Attachment "B" Comprehensive Plan Map _~_ From: Dago Garcia To: Dolenc, Don Date: 10/23/2008 4:08 PM Subject: CU 2008-01 (Benavidez Tires) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONOI-TIONS 1. The existing metered service shall be upgraded with a proper type of backflow device. The applicant shall contact Scott Bergren City of Woodburn cross connection inspector for type and installation requirements at 503-982-5380. Marion County Plumbing permit may also be required. 2. An oil and sand separator will be required to be installed on the sanitary service. Contact Larry Arendt for type and installation requirements at 503-982-5283. Dago Garcia Senior Engineering Technician City of Woodburn 503-982-5248 PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Woodburn and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This e-mail is subject to the State Retention Schedule. ATTACHMENT C PROJECT REFERRAL Woodburn Community Development Department DATE: October l7, 2008 TO: Woodburn Fire District (Paul Iverson) Public Works (Dago Garcia) Building Division (Steve Krieg) ODOT (District 3 Sr. Permit Specialist) Applicant: Property Owner: File Number: Project: Arnoldo Benavidez Vladimir Pendov CU 2008-O1 Benavidez Tires The property is located at 595 North Pacific Highway and is identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's maps as Tax Lot 051 W 17BB09300. Please review and provide comments by October 31. Please contact Don Dolenc at (503) 980-2431 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Comments: $~=.~ -: ~- /0 ~'2.~ -cam Cum ATTACHMENT D V _ _ _ Don Dolenc - CU 2008-01 From: "Paul Iverson" To: "Don Dolenc" Date: 10/30/2008 3:53 PM Subject: CU 2008-01 Don i do not have any comments in regards to this application. Paul ATTACHMENT E ftle: ,(~:',nocuments and Settings`dcmdo'~Local Settings`.Temp`~XF 'rimar... 1 1/3/2008 1. The proposed use shall be permitted as a conditional use within the zoning district The proposed use is to re-establish an Auto Repair Facility on the subject site with the addition of Tire & Wheel Installation. The subject property is flat, 1680 square feet in size and is located in a commercially zoned area. Commercial businesses surround the subject property. The subject site has street frontage and access onto Highway 99E to the West. The site has been designed and used for auto repair for over 30 years. The size, shape, location and topography will not impair the re-establishment of an auto repair business with installation of tires and wheels on the subject property. There are 2 Tire Centers across the street, one to the north and one to the south along with several commercial retail businesses located to both the north and south. The above described commercial businesses surround the subject site and are compatible with the proposed auto repair and tire installation business. 2. The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. The proposed use is retail trade, motor vehicle & parts dealers, automotive maintenance and tire and wheel installation. Structure is non-conforming. A design review is not required. 3a) The subject property is flat, 1,580 square feet in size and is located in a commercially zoned area. Commercial businesses surround the subject property. The size, shape, location and topography will not impair the re-establishment of an auto repair business with installation of tires and wheels on the subject property. b. The existing public water, sewer, and drainage facilities to the subject site are adequate to re-establish the auto repair and tire installation business. ATTACHMENT F 1. Noise -The proposed use is located in a commercial zone. There has been an automotive repair shop there for 30 years. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to re-establish this use with the addition of tire & wheel installation. There will be minimal noise from the proposed facility with most of the work being done inside the building. The proposed commercial business is compatible with the surrounding commercial businesses. 2. Illumination -There are 3 outside security lights that shine down on the property and not on traffic or neighbors. No lighting is proposed to be changed with this application. 3. Hours of operation -House of operation will be Sunday, l0 a.m. - 3 p.m. and Monday thru Saturday, 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. The proposed hours of operation are consistent with a commercial business and the abutting commercial businesses (retail sales and tire store) ~. Aesthetic; -The equipment will be stores inside the building, with some tire and wheels displays outside the structure during business operating hours. Trash containers are located to the south end of the building. There will be no vehicle storage at the site and there are no fencing changes at this time. The building and parking lot on the subject site have been well maintained. Landscaping strips are located adjacent to Highway 99E. No new development is proposed. The landscape strips adjacent to Highway 99E contain existing shrubs, annuals and bark dust. The plantings in these planter strips will be well maintained. The site is paved. Existing buildings on the subject property are on consistent of nature and build located in the same area. Parking spaces are not striped on the site and there are no sidewalks adjacent to the subject property. An access permit is not required for a conditional use request so street improvements are not triggered. The applicant does not propose a change in use on the site or structural changes that would trigger the design review process. The applicant is only making cosmetic changes to the outside, painting, pressure washing, etc. ~. Vehicular traffic. Traffic that stops at this location are people in need of estimates for auto repair and/or Tires/Wheels purchase and installation. The estimate at this time would be 10-15 cars daily. The proposed traffic for the use is consistent with the traffic that the site has generated in the past. Two driveway accesses are located on Highway 99E 1 2 J 4 5 ~ RECD ~ ,~~,.; 7 V~f00DBURN COMMUNITY DEVE! OPMENT DEPT. 8 9 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 10 FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON 11 In the Matter of the Conditional Use ) 12 Application of ) Case No. CU 2008-O1 13 ARNOLDO BENAVIDEZ, ) NOTICE OF INTENT 14 Applicant. ) TO APPEAL IS 16 Margarita Benavidez in her capacity as Personal Representative for the F,statc ol~ 17 Guadalupe A. Benavidez, appears by and through her attorneys, Kelley & Kelley, and 18 submits this Notice of Intent to Appeal. The Community Development file number being 19 appealed is CU 2008-01. The date of the decision was January 8, 2009. "l~he contact 20 information for the appellant is: 21 Margarita Benavidez 7996 Clearlake Court NE 22 Keizer, OR 97303 503-981-2336 (daytime phone) 23 SI'ANllING 24 Appellant has standing to appeal Appellant was a party in opposition who submitted 25 a memorandum in opposition to the granting of a conditional use to Arnoldo 13enavider at tllc 26 planning commission level. Appellant appeared, through her attorney, at the planning Page l -NOTICE OF 1NTEN'T TO APPEAL- ~ae~~~;a~z.-os-zas-a,i~i~eri N~nice-F~~~,~i_~~~ - iizoizoo~~ c~~a~~d iw Kniop~ KELLL:Y . KLLLEY ~~~ ~ ~~ti 110 Noe~rr~ S~~:corv~ S~~aeer ATTAC~„~MENT ~. Su_veirroN, OaecoN 97381 (503)873-8!>71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commission meeting in opposition of the granting of the permit. Appelant owns real property within the notification area, is adversely affected and aggrieved. STATEMENT OF THE GROUNDS FOR 'THE APPEAL 1. The Use of the Property for Automobile Maintenance and Repair is a Nonconforming Use Subject to Termination under WDO 1.104.02. Under WDO 1.104.02, a nonconforming use shall be considered terminated if it is found that the use ceased for a continuous period of 6 months. The staff report assumes that the nonconforming use of the subject property has been continuous since the existing building's establishment in 1967. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion. The applicant does state that the application is to "re-establish" this use, indicating that it has ceased for some significant amount of time. A search of local phone directories and business registration records indicates not less than three separate auto repair businesses -aside from the applicant's occupying the subject property within the last 15 years: Woodburn Auto Exchange, Ilighway Pluto Repair, and Pacific Northwest Transmission. Most of the business entities which operated under these names have been involuntarily dissolved or canceled for failure to renew. "There is a gap in the business records of Pacific Northwest Transmission from 1994 to 1998. Woodburn Auto Exchange, despite being listed at the subject property in the phone directory, appears to have principally operated at 1175 N. Pacific Highway. "There is no indication of when, if ever, this business was located at the subject property. (See Exhibits 1 and 2 oC Memorandum in Opposition submitted by Kelley & Kelley.) Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the nonconforming use o(~ the subject property ceased at some time for a continuous period of six months while the building stood vacant between tenants. Certainly, a conclusory finding that the nonconforming use has not terminated is not supported by any evidence in the record 26 ~ ( provided by the applicant or anyone else. Page Z -NOTICE ~~ INTENT T~ APPEAL- (Eenavidez-OS-245-Appeal Notice-PinalSJoc- I/20/?009) Geated by K~iG ac KEG LEY K~L~.~Y~ ~~ ~ ~~-.~ 110 NORTH SECOND S"I'REE7' SILVER"I'ON, OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Staff's findings assume that many mandatory standards and review criteria aced not be applied, on the assumption that the development and the use are noncon~Porming, and that the proposed use is much the same as past uses. These are not relevant determinations, these assumptions are inadequate, and even if true they do not excuse the applicant from complying with mandatory standards. The applicant has not asked for a variance o-- adjustment of any standard. 2. The Proposed Use Will Expand the Nonconforming Use in Violation of WDO 1.104.04. The applicant also states that the proposal is to also include "the addition of lire & wheel installation," which changes and expands the nature of the use. WDO 1.104.04 provides that change or expansion of a nonconforming use "shall not make the development more nonconforming." That is precisely what the applicant has proposed to do. 3. The Proposed Use Will Include Off-Street Parking Within a Required Setback, Which is Prohibited by WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2, WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. Although the applicant does not show it on the site plan, the business cun-cntly allows off-street parking to take place in the area near the front tiro rack and the sign, which is an area well within the required 10 foot plus 15 foot setback. The staff report confirms this when addressing throat length, which is defined as "extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to the outside edge of right of way." Staff finds that the throat length on the subject property is 10 feet, meaning that offstreet parking is taking place within 10 feet of the right of way. (Staff Report 7, lines 10-21.) 4. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet Required Setbacks or Provide For A Buffer Wall Between the Proposed Use And Abutting RS-Zoned Properties. WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a provides that "development in the CG zone shall he subject to 26 ~ ~ the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2. l .11." That table requires a "solid brick or Page 3 -NOTICE OF INT'ENT' TO APPEAL-1He~2~ad~z-os-z~s-npp~„i N~~~~e-r~~,Ti H0~- in_oizooe> c~~~~~d n~ Knac~~»:, KELLEY . K~;i.r,~:v ~~~~~ 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILV ERTO N, OREGON 97381 (503)873-8(71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 f eet in height," where the CG zone development abuts RS-zoned property. This is also required by WDO 3.107.06.B.8.b. RS-zoned property abuts the proposed use to the north. At present, a wood fence in poor repair is all that is present along this property line. Contrary to staff s conclusion (Staff Report 6, lines 2-8), this is not "comparable" to a solid wall with anti- graffiti surface. Further, staff's statement that "the proposed use is similar to previous uses" is not an applicable standard or an exception to mandatory standards, particularly where there is no evidence supporting a conclusion that the nonconforming use has not terminated. "Chc applicant has not met the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. The lack of any evidence that the nonconforming use has not terminated also implicates the setback requirements of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. Applicant has not shown that the existing building meets the five foot setback from abutting CG properties or the ten foot setback from KS properties. The applicant has therefore not met his burden of producing evidence of compliance with all applicable criteria. 5. The Proposed Use lloes Not Meet The Access Standards of WDO 3.104. WDO 3.104.OS.E.2 requires the radius of curb flare for a commercial use driveway to be 30 feet minimum. According to the staff report, the proposed curb radius is approximately 23 feet. This does not meet the mandatory standard imposed by the WDO. Similarly, WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 requires a throat length of 50 feet minimum, while applicant's site plan only provides for 10 feet. Staff's finding that the proposed use is comparable to previous uses of the building is irrelevant and does not provide an exception to a mandatory standard. further, the fact that meeting these standards would be expensive and "may not be physically possible," as staff finds, does not excuse the applicant from his burden of meeting them. "I`he applicant has not 26 ~ ~ submitted an application for a variance or adjustment from any standard, or provided any PagO 4 -NOTICE ~F' INTENT T~ APPEAL.-(13enavidez-OS-245-Appeal Notice-PinelDoc- I/20i2009) Created 6y K~1Gnine KELLEY• KELLEY ~~~~~~ 110 Nok'rH SeCOtVD S~r2er_'r S~cvex'rorv, OaecoN 97381 (503) 873-8671 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence in support of such an application, so there is no basis for the Planning Commission to ignore applicable standards. 6. The Proposed Use Does Not Provide for the Dedication of Utility I~ascmcnts as Required by WDO 3.102.04.B. WDO 3102.040B requires the dedication of five foot wide public utility easements along each lot line abutting a public street. There is no evidence from the applicant that the proposed use can or will meet this requirement. Although staff may have concluded that this dedication is not necessary, it is mandatory under the terms of the WDO, leaving the Planning Commission no discretion to overlook WDO 3.102.04.B. 7. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Landscaping Standards of WDO 3.106. WDO 3.106.O1.B provides that the WDO landscaping standards shall apply to the entire site area of a development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. The applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has not provided any evidence that the proposed use is not subject to the Landscaping Standards. "There is no evidence in the record showing to what existed on the subject property at the date of the WDO adoption, li-om which it is possible to conclude that the proposed use does not expand structures or parking area more than 50 percent. Therefore these standards must be applied, and the applicant has not submitted any evidence showing the proposed use will comply with the landscaping standards in WDO 3.106. 8. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the llesign Standards of Wll0 3.107. The Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the existing building in which the proposed use will be located is a nonconforming structure which has not lost its nonconforming status by termination. Therefore, the existing building comes within the 26 ~ ~ definition of "all non-residential structures in the CG zone," and must comply with the Page 5 -NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL- rs~„~~~de~-oa-zas-n,>F>~~i N~,a~~~.r~~~i n~~- vzon_oo~> c~~T~~d i>y Ktilc~~~,,.~ KELLEY • KELLEY' ~S~,u~e ~ d ~,a-,mow 110 NORTH SECOND STREE"I' SILV ERTO N, ORElCON 97351 (503) 873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 design requirements of WDO 3.107. "I'he applicant has not produced any evidence to meet his burden of showing that the proposed use will comply with these standards. 9. The Applicant is Currently Displaying an Illegal Sign For the I3usincss. WDO 3.110.04 requires a permit for the erection oC any sign non exempt under W ISO 3.110.11. The applicant presently has two permanent, non-free-standing signs for the business placed on the subject property in violation of WDO 3.110.04. "hhc Planning Commission should not grant a permit to an applicant presently in violation ol~the WT~O unless the permit will correct the violation. 10. The Applicant Has Not Produced Evidence 't'hat Refuse Can Be Collected and Disposed of Properly. At present, the proposed use's primacy refuse item, old tires. is being collcctcd in the open air to the back of the existing building. Old tires are quite bulky. They also tend to invite infestation of vermin such as rats, as a nesting location. The applicant's stated intention to "use the Existing refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant" strains credibility and the applicant's present approach to refuse collection is unhealthy, unsightly, and in violation of WDO 2.106.06.E.3. 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. To the south on the same lot are a restaurant and a beauty salon. To the north arc a restaurant and single-family dwellings. The portion of the abutting property to the west is essentially vacant, and beyond this vacant area to the west are single-family dwellings. 'I~hc proposed use does not comply with the relevant review factors as follows: a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site arc not suitable for the proposed use. The size and shape of the subject property made for an awkward, unsuitable Gt between the existing restaurant and beauty salon and the proposed use. To a large extent the 26 ~ ~ proposed use encroaches on and crowds the parking and pedestrian area required by the Page 6 -NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL-1R~~T~ad~z-os-zas-n~i~~~i Notice-F~~,Ti nog- iizor_ooe~ a~rFm h~, KtiFC~~»T KELLEY • KELLEY ~~~~~ 110 NORTH SECOND STREE"I S ILV ERTO N, OREGON 97381 (503)873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 restaurant and beauty salon sharing the subject property to the south. 'Che increase in vehicular traffic to the subject property, particularly with regard to the anticipated presence of large fire and automotive equipment deliveries, will adversely eflect the salcty and comfort of customers coming to and from the neighboring businesses. The location is also inappropriate for a use of this kind. "fhe proposed use's abutting properties are used for restaurants, a beauty salon, and single family residences.fire and wheel sales and installation does not belong in this location. The existing building appears to be nonconforming as to setbacks from neighboring properties, as well as access standards, and applicant has not produced evidence that these setbacks and standards are or can be satisfied. A nonconforming structure is, by definition, unsuitable for a conditional use because it is not compatible with the zoning district. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is paved to a considerable extent, yet applicant has produced no evidence of a plan for addressing storm run-off. Further, there are no sidewalks on the subject property. Although, as staff notes, this is an automotive business, it still requires capacity for pedestrian facilities for pedestrian traffic which passes Through. nt present, pedestrians are forced to traverse the subject property's driveway and parking area. c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. The noise and unsightliness of a fire and wheel installation and repair business will negatively impact the business activities going on in the neighboring businesses, which, being two restaurants and a beauty salon, are of a higher aesthetic character. Removal and replacement of tires and engine noise. The proposed use will also negatively impact neighboring residential properties. The existing fence is not adequate buffering of these 26 Page 7 -NOTICE Ol+ INTENT TO APPEAL-~R~~,a~~d~z-os-zas-n,>~>eai Nalco-r~ai D~~- uzorzoo~> c~~a«d by Khla~~»., KELLEY • KELLEY 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILV ERTO N, ORBGON 97381 (503) 873-8(71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impacts as required by WDO 2.106.O5.C.2.a, and the negative aesthetic impacts arc fully visible from residential properties to the west. The coming and going of the applicant's own large truck and other trucks delivering parts or taking away refuse will have a negative impact on noise and vehicular traffic both for abutting businesses and for traffic passing on Highway 99E. The proposed use, being an automobile-related business, will significantly increase vehicular traffic. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. It is the applicant's burden to review all potentially applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and explain why each is or is not applicable, and explain how the proposal conforms to those that are applicable. The applicant has not met this burden. Staff identified two policies which it believes is applicable. 711e proposal does not conform to these. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that architectural design should be attractive and should include enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parking areas. The applicant's proposed use is not attractive and the applicant has proposed no new landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the subject property's parking area. Comprehensive Plan policy I3-6 provides that the city should ensure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones. The proposed use does not conform to the applicable architectural and landscaping buffer requirements, so it does not conform to this policy. The proposed use would expand, intensify, and alter the previous use of the property, which was nonconforming and likely terminated. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. It is the applicant who bears the burden of production and proof that the proposed use 26 ~ ~ will meet all applicable criteria. This does include the burden to propose conditions ol~ Page 8 -NOTICE OT INTENT TO APPEAL- C~~~~~aa~~-ns-zas_ni,~,eai N~,~~~~-r~~,Ai o~~- uzoizoo~~ a~~«d h~ Knlca~„r KELLEY . KEr~l.r~5~ s~~~~~ ll0 NoK'ri-~ SBCOND Sricrr'r Su.vra~roN, Oaitcorv 97381 (503)873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page ~ approval to mitigate the negative impacts of a use and ensure compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has not produced a single proposed condition. DATED this ~ day of ~ , 2009. CLLI~Y I~~;LLLY i ~ ~~ By: ~~~ ~ ~ ' DO ALD M. KELLEY, OS1;31 4170 Of Attorneys for Margarita I3enavidei, Personal Representative of the Estiate of Guadalupe A. )3enavider -~ ,- -: a,~ ~ .- - ~/ --- MARG- BENAVIDI;'„ Personal Represen~ttrve oft e Estate of Guadalui3e a~~ider - NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAL-(r~e~,T~,~ae~-os-zas-nhh~ai N«~~e-r~~,~i-~o~- uxlizooel c~~~,I~d by i<hlc_T~n2 KELLEY • K~LL~Y ~~~~~ 110 Noa~rH SECOND STaeeT $ILVHRTO N, ORG(iON 97381 (503)873-8671 KELLEY • KELLEY DC)N:SLll A4. IiEI,I.Gl' ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ /12~L11 PI)I1_1P 1~. ICELLIiI' , D:~NU~a. P. ATI<I?JSO~ 110 NORTH SECOND STREET I<a(srl~.N ~-1. GOKDON SILVERTON, OREGON 97381 December 11, 2008 Honorable Commissioners Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Conditional Use CU 2008-O1 Dear Commissioners: ARI'..v (.OI)I( 5(13 1~1',LI{PIIUAI'. RIi-8C, 11 On behalf of Margarita Benavidez, in her capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Guadalupe A. Benevidez Jr., enclosed for your consideration please find a Memorandum In Opposition to the proposed Conditional Use. As detailed in this Memorandum, the applicant's proposal is unable to comply with a number of development standards, would resume and expand a nonconforming use that has likely terminated on the subject property, and does not meet the applicable criteria for a new conditional use. For these reasons, on behalf of Margarita Benavidez, I ask that you deny this application. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, KELLEY KELLEY D IEL P. ATKINSON DPA: pe: Margarita Benavidez w/ encl. Enclosure ATTACHMENT H ([3enavidez-O8-24S-LT-Planning Commission.Doc - 12/1 (/2008) Created by DPA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISION 10 FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON 11 In the Matter of the Conditional Use ) 12 Application of ) CU 2008-01 13 ARNOLDO BENAVIDEZ, ) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION 14 Applicant. ) 15 16 Margarita Benavidez, in her capacity as Personal Representative for the Estate of 17 Guadalupe Benavidez, appears by and through her attorneys, Kelley & Kelley, and submits 18 this memorandum in opposition to the Conditional Use Application of Arnoldo Benavidez, 19 CU 2008-O1. A conditional use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning 20 district. WDO 5.103.O1.C.2. In all the following respects, this application does not, and 21 therefore the Planning Commission should deny this application. 22 1. The Use of The Property For Automobile Maintenance and Repair is a 23 Nonconforming Use Subject to Termination under WDO 1.104.02. 24 Under WDO 1.104.02, a nonconforming use shall be considered terminated if it is 25 found that the use ceased for a continuous period of 6 months. The staff report assumes that 26 the nonconforming use of the subject property has been continuous since the existing Page 1 - MEMORANDUM W OPPOSITION-(se~T~~ae~-os-zas-Me.Do~- izn vzoos~ c~ear~d ey DFA KELLEY • KELLEY .~fffoy.~o a.,,d ~~ ,~ae 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILVERTO N, OREGON 97381 (503)873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ]1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 building's establishment in 1967. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion. The applicant does state that the application is to "re-establish" this use, indicating that it has ceased for some significant amount of time. A search of local phone directories and business registration records indicates not less than three separate auto repair businesses -aside from the applicant's -occupying the subject property within the last 15 years: Woodburn Auto Exchange, Highway Auto Repair, and Pacific Northwest Transmission. Most of the business entities which operated under these names have been involuntarily dissolved or canceled for failure to renew. There is a gap in the business records of Pacific Northwest Transmission from 1994 to 1998. Woodburn Auto Exchange, despite being listed at the subject property in the phone directory, appears to have principally operated at 1175 N. Pacific Highway. There is no indication of when, if ever, this business was located at the subject property. (See Exhibits 1 and 2.) Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the nonconforming use of the subject property ceased at some time for a continuous period of six months while the building stood vacant between tenants. Certainly, a conclusory finding that the nonconforming use has not terminated is not supported any evidence in the record provided by the applicant or anyone else. Staff's findings assume that many mandatory standards and review criteria need not be applied, on the assumption that the development and the use are nonconforming, and that the proposed use is much the same as past uses. These are not relevant determinations, these assumptions are inadequate, and even if true they do not excuse the applicant from complying with mandatory standards. The applicant has not asked for a variance or adjustment of any standard. // // 26 ~ ~ // Page 2 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION-([3e~x~~de~-os-zas-Me.~o~-iziiiizoos~c~ea«anyor,a KELLEY• KELLEY 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILV ERTON, OREGON 97381 (503)873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2. The Proposed Use Will Expand the Nonconforming Use in Violation of WDO 1.104.04. The applicant also states that the proposal is to also include "the addition of tire & wheel installation," which changes and expands the nature of the use. WDO 1.104.04 provides that change or expansion of a nonconforming use "shall not snake the development more nonconforming." That is precisely what the applicant has proposed to do. 3. The Proposed Use Will Include Off-Street Parking Within a Required Setback, Which is Prohibited by WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2, WDO 2106.OS.C.2.c, and WDO 3.103.06. Although the applicant does not show it on the site plan, the business currently allows off-street parking to take place in the area near the front tire rack and the sign, which is an area well within the required 10 foot plus 15 foot setback. The staff report confirms this when addressing throat length, which is defined as "extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to the outside edge of right of way." Staff finds that the throat length on the subject property is 10 feet, meaning that offstreet parking is taking place within 10 feet of the right of way. (Staff Report 7, lines 10-21.) 4. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet Required Setbacks or Provide For A Buffer Wall Between the Proposed Use And Abutting RS-Zoned Properties. WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a provides that "development in the CG zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.11." That table requires a "solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height," where the CG zone development abuts RS-zoned property. This is also required by WDO 3.107.06.B.8.b. RS-zoned property abuts the proposed use to the north. At present, a wood fence in poor repair is all that is present along this property line. (See Exhibit 3, Photo #1.) Contrary to staff's conclusion (Staff Report 6, lines 2-8), this is not "comparable" to a 26 ~ ~ solid wall with anti-graffiti surface. Page 3 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION-~sen~~~ae~-os-zas-Me Doc- izii uzoos~ c~e~Ied by De,a KELLEY • KELLEY .Sd~eYo,~ra m„d ~,w-.~~re 110 NORTH SECOND STRF, E'I' $ILV ERTON~ OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 1 Further, staff's statement that "the proposed use is similar to previous uses" is not an 2 applicable standard or an exception to mandatory standards, particularly where there is no 3 evidence supporting a conclusion that the nonconforming use has not terminated. The 4 applicant has not met the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. 5 The lack of any evidence that the nonconforming use has not terminated also 6 implicates the setback requirements of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a. Applicant has not shown that 7 the existing building meets the five foot setback from abutting CG properties or the ten foot 8 setback from RS properties. The applicant has therefore not met his burden of producing 9 evidence of compliance with all applicable criteria. 10 5. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet The Access Standards of WDO 3.104. 11 WDO 3.104.OS.E.2 requires the radius of curb flare for a commercial use driveway to 12 be 30 feet minimum. According to the staff report, the proposed curb radius is 13 approximately 23 feet. This does not meet the mandatory standard imposed by the WDO. 14 Similarly, WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 requires a throat length of 50 feet minimum, while applicant's 15 site plan only provides for 10 feet. 16 Staff's finding that the proposed use is comparable to previous uses of the building is 17 irrelevant and does not provide an exception to a mandatory standard. Further, the fact that 18 meeting these standards would be expensive and "may not be physically possible," as staff 19 finds, does not excuse the applicant from his burden of meeting them. The applicant has not 20 submitted an application for a variance or adjustment from any standard, or provided any 21 evidence in support of such an application, so there is no basis for the Planning Commission 22 to ignore applicable standards. 23 6. The Proposed Use Does Not Provide for the Dedication of Utility Easements as 24 Required by WDO 3.102.04.B. 25 WDO 3102.040B requires the dedication of five foot wide public utility easements 26 along each lot line abutting a public street. There is no evidence from the applicant that the Page 4 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION-(ne„~~~de~-oa-zas-nh_Do~-iznuzoos)c~e~i~de~D~~n_ KELLEY• KELLEY 110 NORTH SECOND STREE"I SILVERTON, OREGON 97381 (503)873-8671 1 proposed use can or will meet this requirement. Although staff may have concluded that this 2 dedication is not necessary, it is mandatory under the terms of the WDO, leaving the 3 Planning Commission no discretion to overlook WDO 3.102.04.B. 4 7. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Landscaping Standards of WDO 3.106. 5 WDO 3.106.O1.B provides that the WDO landscaping standards shall apply to the 6 entire site area of a development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures 7 and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 percent 8 or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. 9 The applicant, who bears the burden of proof, has not provided any evidence that the 10 proposed use is not subject to the Landscaping Standards. There is no evidence in the record 11 showing to what existed on the subject property at the date of the WDO adoption, from 12 which it is possible to conclude that the proposed use does not expand structures or parking 13 area more than SO percent. Therefore these standards must be applied, and the applicant has 14 not submitted any evidence showing the proposed use will comply with the landscaping 15 standards in WDO 3.106. 16 8. The Proposed Use Does Not Meet the Design Standards of WDO 3.107. 17 The Applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the existing building in 18 which the proposed use will be located is a nonconforming structure which has not lost its 19 nonconforming status by termination. Therefore, the existing building comes within the 20 definition of "all non-residential structures in the CG zone," and must comply with the 21 design requirements of WDO 3.107. The applicant has not produced any evidence to meet 22 his burden of showing that the proposed use will comply with these standards. 23 9. The Applicant is Currently Displaying an Illegal Sign For the Business. 24 WDO 3.110.04 requires a permit for the erection of any sign non exempt under WDO 25 3.110.11. The applicant presently has two permanent, non-free-standing signs for the 26 business placed on the subject property in violation of WDO 3.1 10.04. (See Exhibit 3, Page 5 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION- (se~a~~de~-os-zas-Me.~o~ - Izn uzoos> c~ealed ey ~~a. KELLEY • KELLEY ~~a„~, ~ ~ ,~-~~ 110 NORTH SECONll STREET $ILV ERTON, OREGON 97381 (503) 8'13-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Photos #3 & #4.) The Planning Commission should not grant a permit to an applicant presently in violation of the WDO unless the permit will correct the violation. 10. The Applicant Has Not Produced Evidence That Refuse Can Be Collected and Disposed of Properly. At present, the proposed use's primary refuse item, old tires, is being collected in the open air to the back of the existing building. (See Exhibit 3, Photo #2.) As one can see fiom the photo, old tires are quite bulky. They also tend to invite infestation of vermin such as rats, as a nesting location. The applicant's stated intention to "use the existing refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant" strains credibility and the applicant's present approach to refuse collection is unhealthy, unsightly, and in violation of WDO 2.106.06.E.3. 11. The proposed use is not compatible with surrounding properties. To the south on the same lot are a restaurant and a beauty salon. To the north are a restaurant and single-family dwellings. The portion of the abutting property to the west is essentially vacant, and beyond this vacant area to the west are single-family dwellings. The proposed use does not comply with the relevant review factors as follows: a. The size, shape, location, and topography of the site are not suitable for the proposed use. The size and shape of the subject property made for an awkward, unsuitable f)t between the existing restaurant and beauty salon and the proposed use. To a large extent the proposed use encroaches on and crowds the parking and pedestrian area required by the restaurant and beauty salon sharing the subject property to the south. (See Exhibit 3, Photo #5, and Exhibit 4.) The increase in vehicular traffic to the subject property, particularly with regard to the anticipated presence of large tire and automotive equipment deliveries, will adversely effect the safety and comfort of customers coming to and from the neighboring 26 I ~ businesses. Page 6 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION-tae~a~~aez-os-zas-meDo~-iznv2ooa~c~e~iedbyDna KELLEY O KrpELLEY ~~~lfa,,u~e ~.,~ ~m „a-.~b 110 NORTH SECOND S"PREET S[LV ERTON~ OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The location is also inappropriate for a use of this kind. The proposed use's abutting properties are used for restaurants, a beauty salon, and single family residences. Tire and wheel sales and installation does not belong in this location. The existing building appears to be nonconforming as to setbacks from neighboring properties, as well as access standards, and applicant has not produced evidence that these setbacks and standards are or can be satisfied. A nonconforming structure is, by definition, unsuitable for a conditional use because it is not compatible with the zoning district. b. The applicant has not demonstrated that the capacity of drainage and pedestrian facilities is compatible with the proposed use. The subject property is paved to a considerable extent, yet applicant has produced no evidence of a plan for addressing storm run-off. Further, there are no sidewalks on the subject property. Although, as staff notes, this is an automotive business, it still requires capacity for pedestrian facilities for pedestrian traffic which passes through. At present, pedestrians are forced to traverse the subject property's driveway and parking area. (See Exhibit 3, Photos #3 & #4. Note the pedestrian in Photo #3.) c. The proposed use will have an adverse, negative impact on the quality of the living environment as to noise, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. The noise and unsightliness of a tire and wheel installation and repair business will negatively impact the business activities going on in the neighboring businesses, which, being two restaurants and a beauty salon, are of a higher aesthetic character. Removal and replacement of tires and engine noise. The proposed use will also negatively impact neighboring residential properties, as can be seen in Photos # 1 & #2 on Exhibit 3. The existing fence as shown in Photo #1 is not adequate buffering of these impacts as required by WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a, and the negative aesthetic impacts shown in Photo #2 are fully visible from residential properties to the west. 26 Page 7 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION- ple~a~~ae~-os-zas-me Doi- izii vzooa~ c~e~~ed ey DEn KELLEY • KELLEY 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILVERTON~ OREGON 97381 (503)873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The coming and going of the applicant's own large truck and other trucks delivering parts or taking away refuse will have a negative impact on noise and vehicular traffic both for abutting businesses and for traffic passing on Highway 99E. The proposed use, being an automobile-related business, will significantly increase vehicular traffic. d. The proposed use does not conform to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. It is the applicant's burden to review all potentially applicable Comprehensive Plan policies and explain why each is or is not applicable, and explain how the proposal conforms to those that are applicable. The applicant has not met this burden. Staff identified two policies which it believes is applicable. The proposal does not conform to these. Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that architectural design should be attractive and should include enough landscaping to reduce the visual impact of parking areas. The applicant's proposed use is not attractive and the applicant has proposed no new landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the subject property's parking area. Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides that the city should ensure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones. The proposed use does not conform to the applicable architectural and landscaping buffer requirements, so it does not conform to this policy. 'I~he proposed use would expand, intensify, and alter the previous use of the property, which was nonconforming and likely terminated. e. The applicant has not produced any proposed conditions of approval to attempt to ensure compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. It is the applicant who bears the burden of production and proof that the proposed use will meet all applicable criteria. This does include the burden to propose conditions of approval to mitigate the negative impacts of a use and ensure compliance with all applicable 26 ~ ~ criteria. The applicant has not produced a single proposed condition. Page 8 -MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION- ~ge~a~~ae~-oe-zas-Me Doi - ivi uzoos> c~ea~ed ey DPA KELLEY• KELLEY 110 NORTH SECOND $TREE"! SILV ERTON~ OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http: //egov. sos. state. onus/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq. show_detl?p_b... Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:43 En it Entit Registry Duration Renewal Registry Nbr T e status Jurisdiction Date Date ____-_. Date 740066-86 ABN '' INA 03-06-2000 --- -- Entity Name WOODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE REPAIR Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type pg PRINCIPAL PLACE OF USINESS Addr 1 1175 N PACIFIC HWY 99E Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN ' R 97071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this hi i~inP~~_ Type REP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Start Date 02-21-2002 Resign Date Name OSE PENA SR Addr 1 O BOX 489 Addr 2 r_ CSZ BARD R - 97032 Country _ITED STATES OF AMERICA Type G GISTRANT ~~ Name OSE '. PENA SR Addr 1 530 S FIRST Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 97071 ' Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Name History Business Entity Name Name Name Start Date ' End Date Type Status WOODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE REPAIR EN CUR 03-06-2000 Please read before ordering Copies. 1 of 2 12/10/2008 11:42 AM 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_b New Search SLimmaly History Image . Action Transaction Effective Status Name/Agent Dissolved By Date Date Date Changed _ _ 06-18-2004 CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION 06-18-2004 FI 03-OS-2004 02-21-2002 02-21-2002 NEWAL OF REGISTRATION MENDMENT OF REGISTRATION _. RENE WAL OF REGISTRATION 03-OS-2004 02-21-2002 02-21-2002 ~ FI FI FI ~ Representative 03-06-2000 EW FILING 03-06-2000 FI Ne~v Search COU11t1eS Counties Filed Marion Counties Not Filed (but not necessarily available) Baker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, efferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, Yamhill © 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. 2 of 2 12/ 10/2008 11:42 AM 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http: //egov. sos. state. onus/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq. show_detl?p_b.. - Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:44 Registry Nbr En i T e En i S tus ]urisdiction Registry Date Duration Date Renewal Date 226394-96 ABN INA 06-18-2004 06-18-2008 Entity Name WOODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE & REPAIR Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type pg PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Addr 1 1175 N PACIFIC HWY 99E _ _ ~ _ _ Addr 2 , CSZ OODBURN R 97071 ~ Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this business. Type REP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Start Date 06-18-2004 Resign Date - Name OSE PENA Addr 1 O BOX 489 Addr 2 CSZ BARD R 97032 ~' Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA Type ~ GISTRANT Name OSE M PENA _ Addr 1 __ _ 1838 HARDCASTLE ST Addr 2 ~_ CSZ OODBURN OR 97071 ~ Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Name History Name Name ' Business Entity Name one Status Start Date End Date WOODBURN AUTO EXCHANGE & REPAIR EN CUR 06-18-2004 Please read before ordering Copies. 1 of 2 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http://egov.sos.state.onus/br/pkg_web_name_srch inq.show_detl?p_b New Search Summary History Image Date Action Transaction Date Effective Date Status Name/Agent Change _ Dissolved By _._ 07-03-2008 02-13-2007 FAILURE TO RENEW ~NEWAL OF GI STRATION 06-19-2008 02-13-2007 SYS FI 06-18-2004 PPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION 06-18-2004 FI Representative New Search COLllltle5 Counties Filed _ Marion ~_ Counties Not Filed (but not necessarily available) Baker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, Jefferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, Yamhill © 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. 2 of 2 12/10/2008 11:44 AM 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http://egov. sos. state. onus/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq. show_detl?p_b... Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:45 Registry Nbr Enti Tygg En it Status Jurisdiction ~ Registry Date Duration Date Renewal Date 413427-91 ABN ACT 02-13-2007 - - --- - Entity Name IGHWAY AUTO REPAIR Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type pB RINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Addr 1 595 PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99E Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN ' R 97071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this hi icinPCC_ Type REP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Start Date 02-13-2007 Resign Date Name OSE PENA [_ Addr 1 0 BOX 489 Addr 2 __ CSZ UBBARD R . 97032 ~- Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA Type ~ GISTRANT Name OSE M PENA Addr 1 1475 N PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99E Addr 2 CSZ _~ WOODBURN R 97071 Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA Nevv Search Name History Name Name ' Business Entity Name Tvne Status Start Date End Date IGHWAY AUTO REPAIR EN CUR 02-13-2007 Please read before ordering Copies. 1 of 2 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg web_name_srch inq.show_detl?p_b.,. New Search Summary History Image Action Transaction Effective Status Name/Agent Dissolved By Date Date Date Change ~~~ 02-13-2007 PPLICATION FOR 02-13-2007 FI Representative ' GISTRATION New Search COUI1t1eS Counties Filed arion Counties Not Filed (but not necessarily available) Baker, Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, efferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, orrow, Multnomah, Polk, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, Washington, Wheeler, Yamhill © 2008 Oregon Secretary of State, All Rights Reserved. Z oft 12/10/2008 11:45 AM 3usiness Re~istry Business Name Search http://egov.sos.state.onus/br/pkg_web_name_srch inq.show_det]?p_b... Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:48 En i En i Registry Duration Renewal Registry Nbr T e us ]urisdiction ~ Date Date Date 666540-89 ABN INA 12-22-1998 12-22-2004 Entity Name ACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION Foreign Name Affidavit? N New Search Associated Names Type pg PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Addr 1 595 N PACIFIC HWY Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 97071 . Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA The Authorized Representative address is the mailing address for this husiness. Type REP AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Start Date 12-22-1998 Resign Date Name ~vIICHAEL ~ MEURET Addr 1 O BOX 249 Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R 97071 ' Country _ ITED STATES OF AMERICA Type GREGISTRANT Of Record 239956-99 PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION INC Addr 1 Addr 2 CSZ ' Country Naw ~Par~h Name History Name Name Business Entity Name Type Status Start Date End Date PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION EN CUR 12-22-1998 1 of 2 3usiness 1. ~gistry Business Name Search Please read before ordering Copies. New Search http: //e gov. s os .state. or. us/br/pkg_web_name_s rch_i nq. s how_detl?p_b. Summary History Ima a '. Action Transaction Effective Status Name/A ent Dissolved By Date Date Date Change 01-06-2005 FAILURE TO RENEW' 12-23-2004 SYS 09-07-2004 MENDMENT OF REGISTRATION 09-07-2004 FI 12-30-2002 RENEW`~'L' PAYMENT 12-30-2002 SYS 11-27-2000 STRAIGHT RENEWAL 11-27-2000 FI 12-22-1998 EW FILING 12-22-1998 ~ FI New Search COUr1t1eS _ _ Counties Filed f 11 Counties Filed. © 2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. 2 of 2 3usiness Registry Business Name Search http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg web_name_srch inq.show_detl?p_b... Business Registry Business Name Search New Search Business Entity Data 12-10-2008 11:48 En it Entitv Registry Duration Renewal Registry Nbr T~ S a us Jurisdiction Date Date Date 340339-85 DBC INA ' OREGON 04-07-1993 04-07-1994 -------- Entity Name PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSIONS INC. Foreign Name New Search Associated Names Please click here for general information about registered agents and service of process. Type AGT GISTERED AGENT Start Date 04-07-1993 Resign Date ~~ Name ICHAEL.JOSEPH~MEURET Addr 1 595 N PACIFIC HWY _ Addr 2 CSZ OODBURN R - 97071 ~, Country ITED STATES OF AMERICA New Search Name History Name Name Business Entity Name Tvne Status Start Date End Date PACIFIC NORTHWEST TRANSMISSIONS INC. ~EN ~ CUR 04-07-1993 Please read before ordering Copies. New Search Summary History Image Date Action Transaction: Date Effective Date Status Name/Agent Chanc,~e Dissolved By 06-17-1994 INVOL ISSOLUTION 06-03-1994 SYS 04-15-1994 OTICE 04-19-1994. ~ SYS ~ ~ ~~ ~LL~ 04-07-1993 EW FILING 04-07-1993 ~ FI ~ r 04-09-1993 EW FILING 04-07-1993 EX ©2008 Oregon Secretary of State. All Rights Reserved. 1 of 1 1/~" pp}} L~! ~1"~ (- ~li~r)'~Y? ~ ~ ~ ' ~~'w1. ~~~ '~ y~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ,s ~, l i'~t f7!"t ~ ~-~. r ^^~~ r ~i ( c I' 1 ,,~/ D ~~ Y ~ .~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~= '~"~ ~~,:. ~z .t ~ ,~~ . ;~ 1. .. i 'r.''': h t. ~ ~ ~. WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 11, 2008 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Bandelow presiding. Chairperson Bandelow questioned members of the Planning Commission having potential conflicts such as family, financial, or business relationship with any of the applicants or with regard to the project in question. If such a potential conflict exists, she asked whether the Commissioner in question believes he or she is without actual bias or whether he or she would like to step down from the Planning Commission during the case. There were none. There were no objections from those present. Chairperson Bandelow announced: agenda is available at the back of the room. We will consider cases one at a time according to the order listed in the agenda. We will follow the hearing procedure outlined on the public hearing procedure board. All persons wishing to speak are requested to come to the podium and give their name and address. Any individuals speaking from other than the podium will not be recognized. Commissioner Jennings led the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow P Vice Chairperson Vancil P Commissioner GrosJacques P Commissioner Grigorieff P Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jennings P Commissioner Kenagy P Staff Present: Scott Derickson -City Administrator Natalie Labossiere -Interim Community Development Director Dan Brown -Public Works Director Jon Stuart -Assistant City Attorney Carrie Brennecke -Associate Planner Don Dolenc -Associate Planner Alexandra Sprauer -Interim Administrative Assistant MINUTES A. Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2008. Commissioner Jennings moved to accept the minutes. Vice Chairperson Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. PROCEEDURAL MOTION Commissioner Jennings offered a procedural motion to move Agenda Item 6.B. Discussion Item: Election of Chair and Vice Chair moved to Item 3. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Attachment "J" Planning Commission M December 11, 2008 Page 1 of 15 Commissioner Jennings moved to nominate Ellen Bandelow for Planning Commission Chairperson, and David Vancil as Planning Commission Vice Chairperson, for term of office to expire December 31, 2009. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow Yes Vice Chairperson Vancil Yes Commissioner GrosJacques Yes Commissioner Grigorieff Yes Commissioner Hutchison Yes Commissioner Jennings Yes Commissioner Kenagy Yes BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE City Administrator Derickson discussed recent city budget adjustments. The general fund is expected to experience a $175,000 budget shortfall. The Building Division is expected to experience a $75,000 budget shortfall. One Planning Division staff member and two Building Division staff members have been reassigned to contractual services with another city department. Citx Administrator Derickson stated that the new Community Development Director, Jim Hendryx, is assigned to begin work on Monday, December 15, 2008. Derickson encouraged Planning Commissioners to introduce themselves to Hendryx. City Administrator Derickson suggested that the Planning Commission choose a set of board policies and encouraged the Community Development Department to move towards Economic Development. Commissioner Jennings introduced Kevin Kenagy as a new Planning Commissioner. Public Works Director Brown introduced himself to Planning Commissioners. Brown stated that he plans to serve as an interface between the Public Works Department and the community. COMMUNICATIONS A. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008 B. Executive Session Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2008 C. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of October 27, 2008 D. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2008 E. Executive Session Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2008 No comments were made. PUBLIC HEARING A. Benavidez Tires - Arnoldo Benavidez, Applicant -Conditional Use 2008-01 The applicant -equests a conditional use for auto parts sales, tire and wheel sales and installatir -and general automotive repair in the Commercial General (CG) zone. Planning Commission f ~ December 7 7, 2008 Page 2 of 75 Chairperson Bandelow asked if any of the Planning Commission members have any conflicts that they would like to declare. None. Staff Report Associate Planner Don Dolenc read the applicable ORS then commenced his presentation. The subject property is located on Highway 99E. It is 1.1 acre in area and is zoned Commercial General (CG) and designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. It is currently occupied by two 3,000 square foot commercial building constructed in 1940 and a 1,860 square foot commercial building constructed in 1967. No wetlands or floodplains exist on the site. Adjacent properties to the west, south and east are zoned Commercial General (CG). A portion of the property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential (RS). Two properties to the north are zoned commercial but are developed with single family dwellings. The aerial photo depicts three structures on the property. One of the larger buildings is occupied by a beauty salon and the other by a restaurant. The proposed use would occupy the 1,860 square foot building. Property to the south and west are developed with an auto repair facility. Property to the north is developed with a restaurant and a professional office, and single family dwellings. Property across Highway 99 is developed with mobile home sales operation and a vacant commercial lot. The 1,860 square foot building was constructed in 1967 as a gasoline service station. Its previous uses include auto repair and transmission repair shop. The auto repair use has continued as anon-conforming use. The applicant is currently conducting business at the location. The CG zone allows the selling of auto parts without installation. The non-conforming use for auto repair is not the subject of the conditional use; the non-conforming use may continue until the use is terminated, as provided in WDO 1.104. The Commercial General regulations distinguish between selling auto parts without installation, a bi-right use, and selling auto parts with installation, a conditional use. The applicant wishes to sell auto parts, tires, and install them. The applicant is requesting a conditional use to install auto parts. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission and staff in regards to the interpretation of the term auto part, concerns of conditional use fees, and the reason why the "installation element" would trigger a conditional use. Vice Chairperson Vancil stated the intent of the ordinance is to prevent noise pollution. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that there was a legislative reason behind the WDO. Stuart recommended the Play ng Commission hear the complete staff report with recommendations, and then make a deci If necessary, Planning Commission could then deny. Planning Commissic: ng December 11, 2008 Page 3 of 15 Chairperson Bandelow stated if Planning Commission denied the application the applicant would loose money. Associate Planner Don Dolenc stated that staff is sensitive to the fee issue. Staff looked at the issue closely and determined that the language used in the Commercial General (CG) regulations is clear, and it would be inappropriate for staff to "go around it". Staff does not have the discretion or authority to make the decision. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if there were records indicating previous decisions made by former staff members. Associate Planner Don Dolenc answered no. There were no records from the former transmission shop. Commissioner Jennings stated that years ago the property had zoning issues. Associate Planner Don Dolenc continued to present the staff report. The business is currently operating without installation. Dolenc presented the applicant's site plan. The sign on the property is nonconforming. The sign code requires the sign that is attached to the tenant space be brought into conformity when there is as conditional use. One of the conditions of approval is to remove the nonconforming pole sign or convert it into a monument sign. The applicant and the property owner are both aware of the requirement. The sign requirement is included in the conditional use process because the conditional use is the trigger that requires the sign to be brought into conformity. The aerial view depicts tire racks on the property. The tire racks display tires and rims. The WDO regulates outdoor storage. However, the racks have wheels and are brought into the building after hours. Staff has determined that the tire racks are product display; they are not outdoor storage. The original site plan depicted garbage containers behind the building. The applicant has instead decided to use the existing containers. The garbage containers are not included in the project. The existing outdoor storage is to be enclosed. The applicant is aware that it must be enclosed. The applicant can enclose the area around the building where it is currently being stored. This requirement is not a condition of approval. This project has four conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of case CU 2008-01 subject to the conditions of approval attached to the staff report. Associate Planner Dolenc concluded the staff report. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any questions to the staff. Commissioner Hutchison asked if the sign currently being displayed at the location had been approved. Associate Planner Don,. Dolenc answered that the applicant had been approved for a temporary sign. The code allows f: :temporary sign to be displayed. The sign is not permanent. Planning Commission Ping December 11, 2008 Page 4 of 15 Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any further questions of the staff. None. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for testimony. Arnoldo Benavidez, 595 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR 97071. Benavidez owns Benavidez Tires. He has operated the business for twenty years, and would like to continue providing service to his customers at his new location. Vice Chairperson Vancil asked if the new location was in addition to the existing location across the street. Arnoldo Benavidez answered no. The new business location is in place of the old business location. The Planning Commissioners applauded Arnoldo Benavidez for the appearance of the new location. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any proponents for this application. Jake Jacobson, 1585 W. Main Street, Molalla, OR 97038. Jake Jacobson addressed the Planning Commission. He is a local business person that knows Arnoldo Benavidez personally He knows staff and is aware of planning requirements. He considers tire to be car parts. Tire businesses need to be able to install the tires they sell. He has worked with Arnoldo Benavidez to address the sign and tire storage issues. He asked the Planning Commission to approve Arnoldo Benavidez's request for conditional use. Don Judson, 2815 Hazel Avenue, Woodburn, OR 97071. Don Judson is the Executive Director of the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. Forty-five days ago he received his first telephone call from a chamber member regarding the dilemma with Benavidez Tires. He spoke with Arnoldo Benavidez and contacted City Administrator Derickson and community development staff. He is frustrated with how long it takes to open a business in the City of Woodburn. The business would be operating if it was located in county land across the street. The delay is costly and hurts business. He requested that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use as soon as possible. Installation should be grandfathered to the location. The City of Woodburn should support Benavidez Tires. Chairperson Bandelow invited Don Judson to the Planning Commission meetings. He would find the Planning Commission to be business friendly. The Commission does not want Arnoldo Benavidez to have to pay fees for the conditional use. Staff and Planning Commission must work within the parameters of the WDO. Vice Chairperson Vancil encouraged the members of the Chamber of Commerce to involve themselves in WDO revisions. The previous update involved little participation. Cliff Zauner 2662 H< ~Inut Drive, Woodburn, OR 97071. Cliff Zauner and his wife own WCAT, a local radio station. F' ~~s known the Benavidez family personally for many years. Benavidez Tires is a great sma -Hess. He requested that Planning Commission approve the conditional use. Planning Commiss ~ December 11, 2008 Page 5 of 15 Conde Benavidez, 245 Polly Street, Woodburn, OR 97071. Conde Benavidez is co-owner of Benavidez Tires with his brother. They have owned Benavidez Tires for twenty-eight years. This is their fourth location. One of the brothers recently passed away; he and his wife owned the previous location across the street. In their twenty-eight years in business they have never received a noise complaint. They would like to remain in business. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional proponents. None. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any opponents for this application. Daniel Atkinson, 110 N. 2"d Street, Silverton, OR 97381. Daniel Atkinson is the attorney for Margarita Benavidez. He submitted a memo to the Planning Commission. He asked them to move carefully with the case. Approving the conditional use is against the WDO. The proposed use may not meet the standards for off street parking. Tire racks would consume parking space. The proposed use may not even meet setbacks to the north. Atkinson concluded by stating that the application is not compatible by the described uses in the zone. Commissioner Jennings asked if the county property across the street installs tires. Daniel Atkinson answered yes. Commissioner Jennings asked why his objection only applies to the property within the city. Daniel Atkinson answered that the property across the street is within the county and not carried by the WDO. The city has different standards. Commissioner Jennings stated that it should be a level field. Both sides should receive fair treatment. Chairperson Bandelow asked if there were any additional opponents. None. Chairperson Bandelow invited the applicant for rebuttal. Jake Jacobson is Arnoldo Benavidez's contractor. Jake Jacobson stated that the community does not distinguish itself into separate corridors. There is no reason that the county side of a street should be granted uses that the city side of a street is not. He disagreed with Daniel Atkinson and his methodology behind his decisions. This should be a simple application. The only opposition to this application derived from an outside, pending civil suit. The Benavidez family has worked very hard, they have asked for the outside consultation when needed, they are open and ask for guidance. Chairperson Bandelow closed the hearing and was open for discussion. Commissioner Jennings st:=ted that the application should be approved. He recognized that staff did not feel that they had t~ -authority to challenge the WDO. The use of the property is not an issue, the cost of the appr ! is an issue of concern. Planning Commission MF December 11, 2008 Page 6 of 15 Vice Chairperson Vancil agreed with Commissioner Jennings. He respects staff for their knowledge of the WDO, and realizes the complexity of the ordinance. The Planning Commission should approve the conditional use application as presented and recommended by staff. In the future, conditional use requirements should be analyzed and revised. Commissioner Hutchison applauded staff for the quality of their work. The WDO should remain consistent in regards to signage and storage, in how it is applied throughout the city. He is in favor of the application. Commissioner Grosjacques agreed with Commissioner Jennings. Chairperson Bandelow asked Commissioner Jennings for clarification on his earlier statement. She asked Commissioner Jennings if he believed that auto repair should be grandfathered to the location. This application should not be considered a change of use. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that there is not a provision to avoid a fee. Because the Planning Commission is anon-elected body, they are limited to what the WDO will allow. Legislative decisions are made by City Council. He agreed with Commissioner Jennings in that there is room for interpretation. The Planning Commission needs to make a decision based on the facts. They can approve the application with conditions, approve the application without conditions, deny the application, or make a motion to continue the hearing. All of the options have their own ramifications. If they disagree with staff's interpretation they should leave the record open and continue the hearing to determine the next step. Chairperson Bandelow stated that the Planning Commission is concerned about the project being delayed any further. Delaying a decision would only hurt Arnoldo Benavidez's business, and would not ensure that the fees would be refunded. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated that staff has the option to recommend approval with the recommendation that the fee be returned. Approving the application would make it a conditional use. They have the option to deny the application. They also have the option to determine that the use has been grandfathered to the location, becoming an outright non-conforming use. The Planning Commissions should document their findings and justifications no matter the determination. Commissioner Grigorieff asked if the Planning Commission could approve the application and recommend that City Council refund the fees. Assistant Attorney Stuart answered yes. Commissioner Grigorieff stated that they could then put conditional use on the list for WDO revisions. There was discussion amongst the Planning Commission members in regards to the effects of grandfathering installation to the location. Associate Planner Don Dolenc stated that the application must be processed. If the application is denied the applicant is not entitled a refund. If the application is approved, Planning Commission has the opportunity to recommend the fee be returned. Assistant Attorney Stuart stated various decisions Planning Commission could make. Planning Commissio; sting December 11, 2008 Page 7 of 15 Vice Chairperson Vancil moved to approve Conditional Use 2008-01 as written with a recommendation to staff that the fee be waived. Commissioner Grosjacques seconded the motion. Commissioner Jennings discussed the term "waived" and suggested "waived" be replaced with "refunded". Vice Chairperson Vancil moved to amend the motion to replace the word waived with the word refunded. Commissioner Gros~acques seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. ROLL CALL Chairperson Bandelow Yes Vice Chairperson Vancil Yes Commissioner GrosJacques Yes Commissioner Grigorieff Yes Commissioner Hutchison Yes Commissioner Jennings Yes Commissioner Kenagy Yes B. Nuevo Amanecer - Farmworker Housing Development Corporation, Applicant - Design Review 2008-05; EXP 2008-08 The Applicant requests a design review fora 40-unit affordable housing development and an exception to street right-of-way and improvements on 2~d Street. Chairperson Bandelow asked if any of the Planning Commission members have any conflicts that they would like to declare. Commissioner Jennings stated that he has recently traveled the site, but does not have ex parte conflict. Staff Report Associate Planner Brennecke read the applicable ORS then commenced her presentation The subject property is located in Medium Density Residential zone (RM). Adjacent properties to the north and east are zoned medium density residential. Adjacent properties to the south and east are zoned Residential Single Family (RS). The ariel view of the site depicts the existing adjacent land uses. Property to the north is occupied by Nuevo Amanecer Phases I and II and Stonehedge Apartments. Property to the west and south is occupied by older, single family homes. Property to the west is occupied by single family homes and commercial property. The project proposes a pedestrian connection between the proposed and existing Nuevo Amanecer complexes. The entrance to the proposed complex is Second Street. The street improvements are proposed for Second Street. The photo of the property depicts a vacant lot. The project is a mediu~r~ density residential development consisting of forty dwelling units, nine two-story and three-st ~ buildings, eighty off street parking spaces and two drive ways, a multi- purpose community rc ~, laundry room, management office, playground and community plaza. Planning Commissior `~.ng December 11, 2008 Page 8 of 15 IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON CU 2008-O1 ) FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, a request was made by Arnoldo Benavidez, for a conditional use for auto parts sales, fire and wheel sales and installation, and general automotive repair in the Commercial General (CG) zone and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of December 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 Planning Commission closed the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to approve case number CU 2008-01 and instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION: The Planning Commission approves case number CU 2008-01 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: ~" Ellen Bandelow, C airperson ~~~~~ Da ATTACHMENT K EXHIBIT "A" ~ General Provisions 3 The provisions of the WDO shall be considered the minimum regulations adopted to promote a the public health, safety and general welfare; and shall apply uniformly to each case or kind s of use, structure or land unless varied or otherwise conditioned as allowed in the WDO. b (WDO1.101.02.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 9 the WDO, and shall issue no permit or grant approval for any development or use which to violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. [WDO i i 1.101.04] iz Findings: The planning commissioners are officials of the City and are collectively vested with i 3 authority to grant approvals. The planning division staff are employees of the City and are vested is with authority to issue permits or grant approvals. ~ s Conclusions: The planning commissioners and planning division staff must adhere to and require ib conformance with the WDO, and must not grant approval for any development or use which i ~ violates or fails to comply with conditions or standards imposed to carry out the WDO. TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE Section Decision I II III IV V Appeal 5.103.01 Conditional Use ~ 1 s The Planning Commission shall render all Type III decisions. (WDO 4.101.10.C] 19 All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of approval zo reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that all zl applicable approval standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and IV decisions EXCEPT zz annexation. All conditions of approval shall be clear and objective or if the condition requires z3 discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a public hearing. [WDO 4.101.15.Aj za Findings: A Conditional Use is a Type III decision. The Planning Commission is the City decision- zs making body with authority to render Type III decisions. zb Conclusions: The Planning Commission has "the authority to impose conditions of approval z~ reasonably related to impacts caused by the development." [f the implementation of a condition of zs approval requires the exercise of discretion, the Commission shall require a public hearing on the zy matter. 30 31 I:`.Commucuty Development\Planning'2008\Conditional Use~595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)~Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 1 of 10 ~ WDO 2.106 Commercial General (CGS 3 The following uses may be permitted in the CG zone subject to the applicable development a standards of the WDO and the conditions of conditional use approval: s ... Motor vehicle and parts dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation. b ... Automotive maintenance. (8111) [WDO 2.106.03.A.1, 2.106.03.G.1] ~ Findings: The proposed use is an automotive parts dealership with installation and automotive s maintenance. 9 Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. io ii t2 The nonconforming use of a building, structure, or land shall be considered terminated if the i3 Community Development Director finds that the use of the building, structure or land ceased, is for any reason, for a continuous period of 6 months. [WDO 1.104.02) is Findings: Property tax records indicate that the building was originally constructed in 1967. A site ib visit found that the building design is typical a gasoline service station of that period. At that time, i~ automobile maintenance and repair were commonly conducted as an integral part of a service ~s station's business. According to the property owner's representative, after the sale of gasoline was i9 discontinued on the subject property, the building continued to be used for automobile maintenance zo and repair. The Planning Division has photographs from 1994 showing a transmission shop that z~ also advertised "complete auto repair." The applicant's business license lists automotive repair as zz an element of the current business. The current proposal does not include expansion of the z3 building, increase in off-street parking requirements, or other activity that would require the za building location, off-street parking, architectural design, landscaping, or buffering to comply with zs current standards. zb Conclusions: The use of the property for automobile maintenance and repair is a nonconforming use z~ because it is conducted without the conditional use currently required by the WDO. As a za nonconforming use, this element of the business may continue until it is terminated pursuant to z9 WD01.104.02. 30 31 3z Lots in a CG zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.10. [WDO 33 2.106.OS.A] TABLE 2.1.10 Lot Standards in a CG Zone In a CG 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. 3a Findings: The existing and proposed uses of the property are non-residential. The lot area is 35 adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. 36 Conclusion: The lot is conforming for area in the CG zone. There is no minimum lot width or 3? depth. I:'~Community Development.Planning`?008'`.Conditional Use~•595 N Pacific Hwy (CU?008-O1)'•Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 2 of 10 z 3 Height, Building: The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest a point of the coping or flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of s the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. [WDO 1.1021 b The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 70 feet. [WDO 2.106.OS.B] ~ Findings: The existing building is a single-story structure R Conclusion: The existing building complies with WDO 2.146.OS.B. -o - ~ Special setback standards by street classification are established in Table 3.1.1. The special ~z setback standards shall be applied to streets within the City of Woodburn as functionally i3 classified In the Woodburn Transportation System Plan. [WDO 3.103.05.D] TABLE 3.1.1 Special Setback Standards by Street Classification WISP Functional Classification Special Setback from Center Line Major Arterial 50 feet 14 The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, Section is 3.103.05. [WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1] ib Finding: Figure 7.1 of the Transportation System Plan shows Pacific Highway as a Major Arterial. i~ Table 3.1.1 requires a special setback of 50 feet from the center line. The GIS system shows a right- s of-way width of approximately 80 feet. In addition to the special setback of 50 feet from centerline i9 (or 10 feet from property line), an additional 15 foot setback is required. The GIS system shows the zo existing building to be set back approximately 45 feet from the front property line. z- Conclusions: The existing building complies with the standards of WDO 3.103.OS.D, Table 3.1.1, z2 and WDO 2.106.06.C.1.a.1. 23 24 2s Development in a CG zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Table ,6 2.1.11. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a) TABLE 2.1.11 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for CG Zones Abutting Property Wall interior Setback CO, CG, DDC, NNC, Alternative A: Wall requirements Alternative A: 5 ft. PiSP, IP, SWIR or IL shall be determined in conjunction with zone the applicable Design Review process. Alternative B: Zero setback Alternative B: No wall required. abutting a building wall. (:'.Community Development'~Planning'~2008~.Conditional lise\595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)' Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 3 of 10 i A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than z 7 feet in height: 3 a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential development a to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting use when no s comparable buffer exists. [WDO 3.107.06.B.8] ~ Findings: The building is not required to go through a Design Review process at this time. An s existing wood fence separates the subject property from the abutting residential properties. The v proposed use of the property is similar to previous uses of the property. to Conclusions: The wall requirement of WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.a and Table 2.1.11 (Alternative A) do not t i apply to the proposed development. The existing wood fence is comparable, although not iz equivalent, to an architectural wall as a buffer. The guideline of WDO 3.107.06.B.8 -which is ~ 3 partially met - is not applicable to the current proposal. to is tb Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard t~ abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.l.b.2] is Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for iy parl:irQ and storage adjacent to a wall. [WDO 2.106.OS.C.2.c] zo Parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback adjacent to a street, zi EXCEPT for parking in driveways. [WDO 3.103.06] zz Finding: The site plan does not show any parking or storage located within a required setback. z3 Conclusion: The site plan complies with the standards of WDO 2.106.OS.C.1.b.2, WDO za 2.106.OS.C.2.c, and 3.103.06. 25 26 zz Comr~aon refuse collection facilities shall be screened on all sides by an architectural block zs wall ar_~ >~iid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum z9 of seven feet in height. [W'DO 2.106.06.E.3] 3o Findings: The site plan shows a trash enclosure located at the rear of the building. The applicant 3t has indicated that he would delete the trash enclosure shown on *.1~~ sitc 'an and use the existing 3z refuse collection facilities located behind the restaurant. 33 Conclusion: The standards of WDO 2.106.06.E.3 are not applicable to the pru ~:~' as revised. 3a 35 36 WDO 3.101 Street Standards 3? 38 All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the 39 applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction an specifications of the Public Works Department. [WDO 3.101.02.C.1[ ai Finding: Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. az Conclusions: Highµ - ~9E is not "under the jurisdiction of t?•~~.° City of Woodburn" and street I:' Community Devei X008-U1)~Final Order Exhibit A.doc 'age 4 of 10 i improvements are not required per WDO 3.101.02.C.1. z 3 a WDO 3.104 Access Standards s b Radius of Curb Flare: 35 feet minimum. (WDO 3.104.OS.E.2] ~ Findings: The site plan does not call out the curb radius. The City GIS system shows that the curb a radius is approximately 23 feet. The previous use of the building was auto repair. The proposed 9 use of the building is auto repair. io Conclusions: No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of this conditional use. i~ iz 13 Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off street parking or loading space to is the outside edge of right of way for a:... is a. Major street connection: 50 feet minimum, with greater improvement as may be ib required by a TIA. [WDO 3.104.05.E.4] i~ Street, Major: A street or highway classified in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan as is a Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Service Collector, or Access street. [WDO 1.102] i9 Findings: The site plan shows a throat length of approximately 10 feet. The previous use of the zo building was auto repair. The proposed use of the building is auto repair. z~ Conclusions: Establishing a throat to meet the requirements of WDO 3.104.OS.E.4 would entail zz significant effort and expense, may not be physically possible, and would not be roughly z3 proportional to the impacts of the development. No curb reconstruction is necessary for approval of za this conditional use. zs 26 z7 3.102 Utilities and Easements zs z9 Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to applicable 3v Public Works Department and state standards. [WDO 3.102.01] 3i Finding: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm 3z drainage facilities. 33 Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.01 do not apply to this case. 3a 3s 36 All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where overhead 3 ~ high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned tots that are currently served by 38 overhead wires or cables. (WDO 3.102.02] 39 Finding: A site inspection showed that the property is served by existing overhead high-voltage a~~ electric facilities. a- Conclusion: Underground utilities are not required by WDO 3.102.02. az 1:`~Comnlunity Deve{opme° ~.nnin~~2008'~.Conditional Use1595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 5 of 10 I z Public streets abutting development shall be illuminated with street lights installed to the 3 standards of the Public Works Department and the electric utility. [WDO 3.102.03] a Finding Highway 99E is an ODOT facility. s Conclusion: Street improvements, including street lights, are not required on Highway 99E per b WDO 3.101.02.C.1. a 9 The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the to construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities I I located on private property shall be requiredIri accordance with the Public Works Iz Department standards. [WDO 3.102.04.A] 13 Finding: The conditional use does not require the installation of water, sanitary sewer, or storm la drainage facilities. Is Conclusion: The standards of WDO 3.102.04.A do not apply to this case. Ib 17 la Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for electric 19 and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall 6e dedicated along each lot line abutting a zo public street. [WDO 3.102.04.B] zl Finding: The proposed use of the property does not involve any increased need for pubic utilities. zz Conclusions: Dedication of a public utility easement would not be roughly proportional to the z3 impacts of the development, and is not necessary for approval of this conditional use. 2a 2s zb WDO 3 105 Off Street Parking and Loading Standards z~ zs The provisions of this Section shall apply to the following types of development:... z9 B. Any additional parking and/or loading required by the WDO to accommodate a 3o change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the following. 31 1. Applications subject to Type III Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform 3z all parking, loading and landscaping for the subject use to the standards of the 33 WDO• 34 2. Applications subject to Type II Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the 3s change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading or 36 landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform to all parking, loading and 3~ landscaping to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading and landscaping 34 required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to 39 those necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion. (WDO ao 3.105.01) a I Finding: The proposed use does not require a Type lI or Type III Design Review. az Conclusions: The provisions of WDO 3.105 do not apply under WDO 3.105.01. a3 I:`Community Development .Planning 2008\Conditional Use~~95 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 6 of 10 I WDO 3.106 Landscaping Standards 3 The subject property shall be landscaped to the standards of Section 3.106 and 3.107.03. a [WDO 2.105.06.F.2] s The provisions of this section shall apply: ~ A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single- ~ family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and s B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to e structures and/or parking areas increases the total area covered by structure and In parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WDO adoption. [WDO I I 3.106.01] Iz Findings: The proposed use of the subject property is essentially the same as the previous use. No 13 new structures, additions to structures, or parking areas is proposed. la Conclusion: The development is not subject to WDO 3.106 under WDO 3.106.01. Is 16 17 WDO 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards Is 19 The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non-residential structures and zo buildings in the RS, R1S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. (WDO 3.107.06.A] zl Findings: The use is proposed to be established in an existing non-residential structure in the CG z2 zone. The structure was built in 1967. z3 Conclusion: The structure either meets the guidelines and standards of WDO 3.107, or is za nonconforming to them and is regulated under WDO 1.104. zs ,~ ~~ WDO 3.110 Signs zs z9 The applicant has not submitted details of the proposed signage for review as part of this 3o application. The site sketch shows two pole signs and a wall sign. This land use decision does not 31 authorize the installation of signs. The property owner shall obtain a sign permit prior to the 3z installation of any sign. 33 34 3s Complex: Any group of two or more buildings, or individual businesses within a single 3h building provided at least two of the businesses have separate exterior entrances, on a site that 37 is planned and developed to function as a unit and which has common on-site parking, 3V circulation and access. A complex may consist of multiple lots or parcels that may or may not 39 he under common ownership. [WDO 3.110.03[ -~~~ Findings: The site contains three buildings, is planned and developed to function as a unit, and has -~ i common on-site parking, circulation and access. az Conclusions: The site q . alifies as a "complex" for the purposes of WDO 3.1 10. 1:'Community DeveloprY !'fanning\2008\Conditional Use~,595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)~Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 7 of 10 3 Complex. a a. A pole sign is permitted on a street frontage that exceeds 1001ineal feet not to exceed s one pole sign for a complex. b b. A pole sign on a street with less than 300 lineal feet of frontage shall not exceed 15 ~ feet in height and 50 square feet in area. [WDO 3.110.16.A.2) s Findings: The site sketch shows two existing pole signs in the complex. The City's GIS system v shows the site to have approximately 231 feet of street frontage. In Conclusions: No more than one pole sign may be authorized on the subject property, per WDO 11 3.110.16.A.2.a. No new pole sign could be established unless the existing pole signs were removed. 12 13 la Nonconforming signs are those signs lawfully established prior to the adoption of Section 1 s 3.110 or subsequent amendment thereto or signs lawfully established on property annexed to 16 the City, which do not conform to the requirements of Section 3.110. Nonconforming 17 permanent signs may remain provided they comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.20. la [WDO 3.110.20.A] 19 Finding: The two existing pole signs are evident in aerial photography taken in 2000. zo Conclusions: The two existing pole signs were established prior to the adoption of Section 3.110. zl The two existing pole signs are nonconforming permanent signs subject to WDO 3.110.20. zz 23 za Nonconforming permanent signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 3.110 when one zs or more of the following occurs:... A Type II Design Review or Type III Conditional Use or zb Design Review land use application is approved for the premises upon which the sign is z~ located. In a complex, if an individual tenant space is the subject of a Type II Design Review za or Type III Conditional Use or Design Review land use application, only signs attached to z9 such tenant space shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. [WDO 3n 3.110.20.B.4[ 31 Findings: The property is subject to a Type III Conditional Use. A site inspection found two pole 3z signs. The applicant has indicated that he would convert the existing pole sign in front of the 33 building to a conforming monument sign. The property owner has verbally agreed to this action. 3a Conclusions: The restaurant auto repair shop constitute individual tenant spaces. The existing pole 3s sign for the restaurant is not attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is not required 36 to comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. The existing pole sign for the auto repair shop is 3? attached to the tenant space of the auto repair shop and is required by WDO 3.110.20.8.4 to 3a comply with the provisions of Section 3.110. 3y al) ai WDO 5.103.01 Conditional Use a2 a3 The proposed use shall be permitted as a conditional use within the zoning district. (WDO -~~ 5.103.01.C.1 J I:\Community Developii 'anning~2008`~Conditional lise'~595 N Pacitic Hwy (CU?008-01)\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 8 of 10 - Findings: WDO 2.106.03.A.1 lists as a conditional use in the CG zone "Motor vehicle and parts z dealers (441) EXCEPT automotive parts without installation." WDO 2.106.03.G.1 lists as a 3 conditional use in the CG zone "Automotive maintenance. (8111)" The proposed use is an a automotive parts dealership with installation and automotive maintenance. s Conclusion: The proposed use of the property is allowed by conditional use in the CG zone. The b criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.1 is met. s v The proposed use shall comply with the development standards of the zoning district. [WDO -0 5.103.O1.C.2J -- Finding: Compliance with the Commercial General (CG) zoning regulations is discussed in detail -2 above. -3 Conclusions: The proposed use meets the requirements of WDO 2.106. -a -s -6 The proposed use shall be compatible with the surrounding properties. [WDO 5.103.O1.C.3] -~ Findings: A beauty salon and a restaurant exist on the same lot with the proposed use. Two i s conforming and two nonconforming single-family dwellings abut the north lot line, as does a i9 restaurant and professional office. An automobile repair facility abuts the lot on the south and west. zo A mobile home sales lot and a vacant commercial lot adjoin the lot across Highway 99E. 21 22 23 Considerations. Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether the proposed use is za compatible include: is a. The suitability of the size, shape, location and topography of the site for the proposed use; ,6 Findings: The subject property is of adequate size, is irregular in shape but not excessively so, z~ is located on a major arterial street, and is relatively flat. zs 29 b. The capacity of public water, sewerage, drainage, street and pedestrian facilities serving 3o the proposed use; 3- Findings: The subject property is currently served by public water, sewerage, and drainage 32 facilities. Street access is from a state highway. Sidewalks are not provided. The business is 33 auto-oriented, not pedestrian-oriented. 34 3s c. The impact of the proposed use on the quality of the living environment: 3~ 1) Noise; 3~ 2) Illumination; 3s 3) Hours of operation; 3y 4) Air quality; ~~~ 5) Aesthetics; and i 6) Vehicular traffic. ~~ Findings: The previous and proposed use of the property is an automotive parts dealership with .~~ installation and automotive maintenance. The proposed use would have impacts on the quality I:`Community Developmenf~Planning~2008`Conditional Use'~595 N Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)'~.Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 9 of 10 i of the living environment similar in nature and extent to those of the previous use regarding z noise, illumination, hours of operation, air quality, aesthetics, and vehicular traffic. a d. The conformance of the proposed use with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies; s Findings: Comprehensive Plan policy B-4 provides that: "Architectural design of commercial 6 areas should be attractive with a spacious feeling and enough landscaping to reduce the visual ~ impact of large expanses of asphalt parking areas." Comprehensive Plan policy B-6 provides s that: "Commercial office and other low traffic generating commercial retail uses can be located y on collectors or in close proximity to residential areas if care in architecture and site planning is io exercised. The City should insure by proper regulations that any commercial uses located close i i to residential areas have the proper architectural and landscaping buffer zones." The proposed iz use does not expand, intensify, or alter the pattern of existing development. 13 -a e. The suitability of proposed conditions of approval to insure compatibility of the proposed is use with other uses in the vicinity. [WDO 5.103.O1.C.3] ib Findings: The proposed conditions of approval minimize the effects of the proposed use on i~ adjacent property. is i9 Conclusion: The proposed use meets the criterion of WDO 5.103.O1.C.3. I:\Community Deg elopment`.Planning'2008`Conditional L'se\595 '~ Pacific Hwy (CU2008-01)\Final Order Exhibit A.doc Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT "B" The Planning Division approves case CU 2008-01 subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The property owner shall execute an acceptance of these conditions on a form provided by the City. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all provisions of the WDO, whether or not addressed in the staff review, conditions of approval, or public hearing. 3. The property shall be developed in substantial conformity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," except as modified by these conditions of approval. 4. The property owner shall remove the existing pole sign in front of the building or convert it to a monument sign conforming to WDO 3.110. I: ~Conununity Devc;lopmenC Planning` 2008',Conditional Use' 595 N Pacific Hwy (CU'_'U08-O 1)`,Einal Order Exhibit B.doc P ~ge 1 of 1 Notice and Procedure Conditional Use Application Deemed Complete: November 20, 2008 120-Day Rule Deadline: Friday, March 20, 2009 Public Notice: Notices for this public hearing were mailed on January 22, 2009 to the appellant, the applicant, the property owner, area property owners, and the persons who offered testimony at the Planning Commission's public hearing. In accordance with the requirements of WDO 4.101.09.B.2, a public hearing notice was posted on the property on January 23, 2009. Appeal: This appeal was filed on January 21, 2009. The issues before the City Council are consideration of the appeal and consideration of the conditional use to allow installation of auto parts. For Type III decisions, only those persons who participated either orally or in writing or who are adversely affected or aggrieved have standing to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board, as applicable and is substantially adversely affected. [WDO 4.102.O1.A.3] Findings: The Conditional Use is a Type III decision. The appellant, through her attorney, offered oral and written testimony to the Planning Commission. Conclusion: The appellant has standing to appeal the Planning Commission's decision. A notice of intent to appeal any ... Type III decision must be received in writing by the Community Development Director within twelve (12) days from the date notice of the challenged decision is mailed to those entitled to notice. Late filing of any appeal shall be a jurisdictional defect and will result in the automatic rejection of any appeal so filed. [WDO 4.102.O1.B.1] A period of time to perform expressed in days shall mean consecutive "calendar days" unless otherwise defined. The number of calendar days is counted beginning with the first date after the date or event from which the period begins, and ending at 5 o'clock p.m. on the last day of the number of days stated, unless the last day is not a City business day, in which case the last day of the period shall be the first City business day following the last of the consecutive calendar days. [WDO 1.101.02.B] Findings: The Notice of Decision was mailed to those entitled to notice on January 9. The notice of intent to appeal was received by the Planning Division on January 21 at approximately 11:30 AM. Conclusion: The notice of intent to appeal was timely filed. The following must be included as part of the notice of appeal: a. The Community Development file number and date the decision to be appealed was rendered; b. The name, mailing address and daytime telephone number for each appellant; c. A statement ~ ~~ how each appellant has standing to appeal; Attachment L d. A statement of the grounds for the appeal; and e. The appropriate appeal fee. Failure to include the appeal fee for the costs of appeal and transcript fee within the appeal period is a jurisdictional defect and will result in the automatic rejection of any appeal so filed. IF an appellant prevails at hearing or on appeal, the transcript fee shall be refunded. [WDO 4.102.O1.B.2] Findin :The notice of intent to appeal included all of the information specified in WDO 4.102.01.B.2.a-e. Conclusion: The notice of intent to appeal met the filing requirements of WDO 4.102.O1.B.2. Attachment L City of Woodburn *LIVE* 5.2.4 UT0070S1 1/27/09 Inquiry Reset: + + -W,or,k, With, ~,c,c,ou~u,s~o~e,r,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-3,~,- ,I~ ~I~ I , Account : 78005440 , I , ,I, 595 N PACIFIC HWY ,i, ,I. .I. ,I, Type options, press Enter. ,I, ,I, 5=Display ,I, .I. .I. I , Account , I , ,I. Opt Customer # Name Balance Move In Date ,I, ,I, _ 4862 BENAVIDEZ TIRES & WHEELS #1,,, 273.64 10/20/2008 ,I, ,I, 10479 HIGHWAY AUTO REPAIR,,, .00 2/09/2007 ,I, ,I, -_ 4944 PACIFIC NW TRANSMISSIONS,,, .00 12/08/1992 ,I, .I, ~I, .I, ~I, .I, ~I. .i. .I. I , Bottom , I , -,F,3; Ex,it, ~ , ,F,5; Re,f,re,sh, , , ,F,1,2=C,ance,l,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-~-~-~-~-~-,-~-~-~-~-,-,-~-,'~-,','.',',-,',-~'~-~-~-, ,-~-~-, ,-,-,-, ATTACHMENT M w ~ r : ~ 4~. -~~ ~. f - . ~ f ~ ' BfhX 6'~~ ' b LL ~1 y t ~ ~u, , r .r. r d i ~~ aa>` ~` ~ ry Y r ,~ xr; a ~ r r ~.~ ~ a ~~ r ~ ' 1 r ~ k' 4w a ,,, ~ti xa~s ~;{ ~ k ~~~~~~ .~ ~ ' ~ '' ~ ~ 'f 5 '~ ~' r h ^ ` ~ . t tt a1 F- r ~ ! ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ , ~~+ ` af~ , ~,.p,7 . l,~e; AY`l,"j.S'.. ~'~k '~. '.~`9"u'!~Cue~ura"~'~~ .. ., ... ~~, .~t-.. ,,p. ~ _ Lt^~ n~i1~8v'~.~4h~e ~+ ;N'f.4 ~7~+~„ t .~ ~ J ~ i "~: ~, h t. ~i('~..:. ~~ s .. ~ t, ! .r,`~~^f•~t I . i ~.~;~i~dl~.: , ,t R ~iy, ~,~~ .:y { ~~ .~J '~ ~' ~ + •. ..~ ~ r 1 R~ ?, :a~,~ r y '~ ~' ~ ." 75~:°i . Ord "5r :~'.d ~' rw ~, ~~. sue" r,; . r ~a ~ k~ _~ -t~ ~r ~ ~: Y~ .~~,4t ~ Iti.Jw% /4 ,J d u, emu, -: ! Y, ~ ~ ` t ' ~ > 4 ~3~p ~+1~} ~~ Y.. ! n~ _~ ,~t~Tia~7:zJA~~1111:I~SF.Uf n, r v c ~~ ~. * r r;^~ S.', . s4 u~ y'. r ;: _ < ~ r y "~ Ir r fi '~w"',,~ r ~t, a ~ is " kr; .~~~ 1yY ~ ~~1'!~ r '~, jS' p ° ~ ~ !µ"' f,~E ~, r 'Fa s' ~ - ~' Mti~~ , ~ t~ o- y 1 ~ e+5 "r } L° v m 4, ~ i ~~ ref-' 4rN r.~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ' s' p'!6 ~'~.r• r~ 4 1a ~('~~ A `"f -:P 1 ~ 1 F ~~ ~ ,~ ~$$~~P94 r~931 ~ 7 ~ tt ~ f~ ~ ~ {~ i ~ ~ N r. t ~'X l~le5 s ~~ y si ~d~k i `~ t~1 ~1 r / at'.: N. ;.t. -;ky~;5{ ~ ~_ i~ •~: 4~ " ~ ~t ;, s ~ {`~ ~ 1 'H n ~ rl+ " ~tiq. „~ . a~,, , / Ai ~+~ ti% , ~h~ '. ~ J ~~ N I~ e < w~""~ % r~ h 'Z" n ~ ~ 44 ~ k y% w " °~ a, f ' c `_ ti < 9 sl ` s ATTACHMENT N IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case No. 08C20989 State of Oregon ) WRIT OF EXECUTION OF ss. JUDGMENT OF RESTITUTION County of Marion ) To the Sheriff: This was an eviction action for possession of the following premises: 595 N Pacific Hwy (street) (zip) (county) 3udgment was entered that the plaintiff have restitution of the premises and that the plaintiff maybe entitled to court costs and disbursements. In the name of the State of Oregon, you are ordered to enforce and serve this writ on the defendant, in the manner provided in ORS 105.161(1), after the four-day period provided in the notice of restitution. You are ordered to enter the premises and remove the defendant and any other individual present on the premises who is subject to the judgment and return possession of the premises to the plaintiff: You may use all reasonable force that may be necessary to enter the premises and remove individuals who are subject to the judgment. The plaintiff shall be responsible for removing, storing and disposing of any personal property left by the defendant on the premises following the removal of the ORS 105.165. DATED: September 16, 2008 Woodburn 97071 MARION (city) Pavlina Pendov P. R forEstate of Vladimir Pendov P1ainNff PO Box 226 Address woodbwn, OR 97071 CitylStatelZip 503-982-4226 Telephone Number WRIT OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT OF RESTITUTION -Page 1 of 1 FC(10/23/07) FORM No. B12 - LtA't - owmcaa rnvr~n ~ ~. NABS -.;J1 ,: THIS NDEIVTUR OF LEASE, entered into this .....1.5.~ ....................... dey of .....~e b.~U,~-~~........., °~ X07 between .....~~~t.~ ~,5~_ ...--1~t~-~fl-y--------------------- -- --- ----------------•-- -•--------------•-•-•--..............:..................---------------...............-....._-, ..--.~---`~~'-•-N-•-••Qa-~-f- ---f`~----- ~~W~•----t,~,~c~.c~~-~-R-rv~.-- 9.-..-~.. f.tr.>r,..rr..7..d ~-~----1...,~..C~as.i .,r~.~-d ~'°~S~t------- hereinafter called the lessor, and --..T.~~~..... 4.R.t~....~'~,N.q----•-•-----------------------------•----------------------•---------•------..........------------- ....--•--....--•-•---------•-----------•------------------------------•--------..-......----••----------•--......-....., hereinafter called the lessee, WITNESSETH: In consideration of the covenants herein, the lessor hereby leases unto the lessee those certain premises, as is, situated in the City of -..U,). ~?.4r~1.~2`1.!~ N ................ County of ..~q~,~.°!'~..................-... and State of ....~.~~ey.~.n! ..................... hereinafter called the premises, described as follows: ~j'q ~ ~ . ~a~;-~; ~ ~-W~ , uJ o o ~l b ~R.n1, ~ K-e~ eti, q ~ a71 ~I,.Se- o~ QNG~ of ~ '~~~ P ~-e p-{~-~-~~ a was ~lj ~gNo~Q ~ ~'l~ ~~ owNP~R. ~gfrf-f ~ ~- ~ ~, ~~ wad ~ c ~ ~ F~~ < ~~ .e _..~ rt~__ n - (~-eA/lZ ~ t~ l~ ~ ~ e$ r_,,,, L To Have and to Hold the premises commencing with the .~ 5~........ day of ...T. ~'-R.~.II.~.Qi~ .............. ~~ ~,1 and ending at midni~lit on the ..~.1....-..... day of ...~t~,N.~A.~,~ ...................... a.a~~ -flat a rental of $..,F.I_~..bG~ et~- tor the wf,h-gqle term, which lessee agrees to pa)~ at ~4Y-~t.~.._.P.~.NL(.0~!-..~.~.Q ..BQx...a.a.~.1.~1 O,4d~tu.~Cu~p ~!,~.~...9 ~ City of_.L~1.Q.Qd,hN_~..a.........., State of_.~.~~-ST_1.'.±...__..., at the following times and in the following amounts, to-wit; P4yw~~, ~ S+ ,~ eq,c ~ ntia N`i"I. ~ o2a Oa rs onN'h 1 s fi~.~ t~~a`cr~ ~ ~,,,~ P~- S2L~ U - " ,~ ~ ot6 v ~.P,~, IWo,v-~ ~'~ Rd yea 1C ~II~ j~'Rv~j'~(~~ (~~L~W ~S w! ~0 v-f-~el~ hti~ss i b~-~ cog ~~SSo /` 9 ~ ~.,~ ~ I I ~~ ~~ 1~~ ~'~ -P~.~ o-~ ~-~~M- i e5 S ~LNy ~U e ~` P LN-~'e1 9,13 In consideration of the leasing of the premises and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows: ATTACHMENT pROYIDI:'D, ALWAYS, and these presents are upon these conditions, that (1) if the lessee she/1 be in arrears in the BANKRUPT DEFAULT payment o1 rent for a period of ten days after the same becomes due, or (2) if the lessee shell sail or neglect to perform or observe any of the covenants and agreements contained herein on lessee's part to be done, kept, performed and ob- served and such default shall continue for ten days or more after written notice of such failure or neglect shall be given to lessee, or (3) if the lessee shall be declared bankrupt or insolvent according to law, or (4) it any assignment of lessee's property shall be made for fhe benefit of creditors, or (5) if on fhe expiration of this lease lessee fails !o surrender possession of the premises, the lessor or those having lessor's estate in the premises, may terminate this lease arid, lawfully, at lessor's option immediately or et any time thereafter, N•ithout demand or notice, enter into and upon the premises and every part thereof and reposses the same, and expel lessee and those claiming by, through and under lessee and remove lessee's effects at lessee's expense, forcibly if necessary and store the same, all without being deemed guilty of trespass and without prejudice to any remedy which otherwise might be used for arrears of rent or preceding breach of covenant. Neither the termination of this lease by forfeiture nor the taking or recovery of possession of the premises shall deprive lessor of any other action, right, or remedy against lessee for possession, rent or damages, nor shall any omission by lessor to enforce any forfeiture, right or remedy to which lessor may be entitled be deemed a waiver by lessor of the right to enforce the performance of al! terms and conditions of this lease by lessee. In the event of any re-entry by lessor, lessor may lease or valet the premises in w=hole or fn part to any tenant or tenants who may be satisfactory to lessor, for any duration, and for the best rent, terms and conditions as lessor may reasonably obtain. Lessor shall apply the rent received from any such tenant first to fhe cost of retaking and referring the premises, including remodeling required to obtain any such tenant, and then fo any arrears of rent and future rent payable under this lease and any other damages to which lessor may 6e entitled hereunder. ' Any property which lessee ]eaves on the premises after abandonment or expiration of the lease, or for more than ten days after any termination of fire lease by landlord, steal/ be deemed to have been abandoned, and lessor may remove and sell the property at public of private sale as lessor sees fit, without being liable for any prosecution therefor or for damages by reason thereof, and the net proceeds of any such sale shall be applied toward the expenses of landlord and rent as aforesaid, and the balance of such amounts, if any, shall be held for and paid fo tSe lessee. HOLDING In the event the lessee for any reason she/1 hold over after the expiration of this lease, such holding over shall not be OVER deemed fo operate as a renewal or extension of this /ease, but shall only create a tenancy at sufferance which may be torminated at will at any time by the lessor. ATTORNEY In case suit or action is instituted to enforce compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this lease, FEES AND or to collect the rents/ which may become due hereunder, or any portion thereof, the losi art a rees to a the re- COURT COSTS yailin arty's reasonable attorney tees incurred throu pout such roceedin includin a~ el, on a P y P g P g P g, g ppeal, and for post- judgment collection. The lessee agrees to pay and discharge all lessor's costs and expenses, including lessor's reasonable attorney's tees that shall arise from enforcing any provision or covenants of this lease even though no suit or action is instituted. Should the lessee be or become the debtor in any bankruptcy proceeding, voluntarily, involuntarily or ofherw•ise, either during thn Period Ehis lease is in effect or while there exists any outstanding obligation of the lessee created by this lease in favor of the lessor, the )ossee agrees to pay the lessor's reasonable attorney tees and costs which the lessor may incur as the result of lessor's participation fn such bankruptcy proceedings. It is understood and agreed by both parties that applicable federal bankruptcy law or rules of procedure may affect, alter, reduce or nullify the attorney fee and cost awards mentioned irr the preceding sentence. WAIVER Any waiver by the lessor of any breach of any covenant herein contained to be kept and performed by the lessee shall not be deemed or considered as a continuing waiver, and shall not operate to bar or prevent the lessor from declaring a forfeiture for any succeeding breach, either of the same condition or covenant or otherwise. NOTICES Any notice required by the terms of this lease to be given by one party hereto to the other or desired so to be given, shall be sufficient if fn writing, contained in a seal envelope, an sent f•rst class mail, with postage fully prepaid, and if 'ntended(~for tlia lessor her+e_iln, thin if addressed to the lessor at ......~~1.s(...~4 ~„t.f~-...~~-~.Q.v ............................................................. . --~a.~.-~ --R!-:o.~OZ.~-....IK..~~~\J.~Nr...O>~Q~.~ -~.~~.Z.~. ..-_.--.....-. and ff intended for the lessee, then if addressed to the lessee at .................................................................... ........... .~---._....- -~-• -............-----•--•------°•-----•---•--•--°-- ---.......-..-----..........._ --- -...-----°-............... Any such notice shall be deemed conclusively fo have been delivered to the addressee forty-eight hours after the deposit thereof in the U.S. Mail. HEIRS AND All rights, remedies and liabilities herein given to or imposed upon either of the parties hereto shall extend to, inure ASSIGNS to the benefit of and bind, as the circumstances may require, the heirs, successors, Personal representatives and so Ear as this ]ease is assignable by the terms hereof, to the assigns of such parties. In cui:struing this lease, it is understood that the lessor or the lessee may be more than one person; that if the context so requires, the singular pronoun shall be taken to mean and iricludo the plural, and that generally all grammatical changes shall be made, assumed and implied to make the provisions hereof apply equally to corporations and to individuals. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this lease on the day and year first hereirtabove written, ~~ny orporatio sign Lure being by authority of its Board of Direp gt.~rs~~ [..P , ........ ................... .... .. ..........•-----•---~b~ ~~•-I--~~ ~?----.----.........-.------ ~.1....-- .-.o~ ~.----- .....- --.......~C...-... .- - -.-.-.-•• ................................................. ------•-----•----..-.-......------------•------------.--...-...-._...----2.-------. ~-~ The publisher strongly recommends that both the lessor and the lessee become familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 7990, Public Laws 101-336. The Act may impose certain duties and responsibilities upon either or both parties to this lease. These duties and responsibilities may include but not be limited to the removal of certain archttecturai barriers and ensuring that disabled persons are not denied the opportunity to benefit from the same goods and services as those available to persons without disabili- ties. Under the Act, prohibition against discrimination applies to any person who is the owner, operator, lessor, or lessee of a place o! public accommodation. ..,.. ~. w.a.....,, -' 4St~11YligCa~kQ1N1 LE88EE'9 (1) The lessee accepts this letting and agrees to pay to the order of the lessor the monthly rentals above stated for the ACCEPTANCE full term of this lease, in advance, at the times and in the mnrtner aforesaid. OF LEASE LfBE OF (2 The lee shall use the pr fees during the term of this lease for the corrduc of the fo owing business: PREMIBE$ ~ V ` ~ e -, --- - -~- - - - ..~ .~..- 1 t-.~ ~,.1--- ~.------ - ~~.-------~---~--~-~1~5~-------- ~.s~.i.N.~......~4.... -------~--- ------s---------------------------------------- -----~-°-~-"e------~!'~-a~.>-s~..---P&~q~----~--~---.u..ar~-.e---.D..$....------ Q.GIL-S.c~!1-....~:?,~S--I- ^!;~--~--- ----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- and for no other purpose whatsoever without lessor's written consent. (2b) The /eases will not make any unlawful, improper or offensive use of the premises; the lessee will not suffer any strip or waste thereof; the lessee will not permit any objecfionab/e noise or odor to escape or fo be emitted from the premises or do arrything.or permit anything to be done upon or about the premises in any way tending to create a nuisance; the lessee wit! not sell or permit to be sold any product, substance or service upon or about the premises, excepting such as lessee may be licensed by law fo sell and as may be herein expressly permitted. (2c) The lessee will not allow the premises at any time Eo fall into such a state of repair or disorder as to increase the fire hazard thereon; the lessee will not install any power machinery on the premises except under the supervision and with written consent of the lessor; the lessee will not store gasoline or other highly combustible materiels on the premises at any time; the lessee will not use the premises fn such a way or for such a purpose that the fire insurance cafe on the improvements on the premises is thereby increased or that would prevent the lessor from taking advantage of any rulings of any agency of the state fn which the premises are situated, or which would allow the lessor to obtain reduced premium rates for long term fire insurance policies. (2d) The lessee shall comply at lessee's own expense with all laws and regulations of any municipal, wanly, state, federal or other public authority respecting the use of the premises. These include, without limitation, al] laws, regulations and ordinanFes pertairrfng to air and water quality, Hazardous Materials •as hereln defined, waste disposal, air emissions, and other environmenlal matters. As used herein, Hazardous Material means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including but not limited to those substances, materials, and waste listed in the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table or by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances and amendments thereto, petroleum products, or such other substances, materials, end waste that ate or became regulated under any applicable local, state, or federal !au•. (2e) The lessee shall regularly occupy and use the premises for the conduct of lessee's business, and shall not abandon or vacate the premises for more than ten days without written approval of lessor. (2f) Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Material to be brought upon, kept or used in or about the premises by lessee, its agents, employees, contractors, or invitees without the prior cvritten consent of lessor, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld so long as lessee demonstrates to lessor's reasonable satisfaction that such Hazardous Material is necessary or useful to lessee's business and will be used, kept, and stored in a manner that will comply at all times with all laws regulating any such Hazardous Material so brought upon or used or kept on or about the premises. UTILITIES (3) The lessee shall pay for all heat, light, water, power, and other services or utilities used in the premises during the term of this lease. REPAIRS AND (4a) The lessor shall not be required to make any repairs, alterations, additions or improvements to or upon the prem- IMPROVEMENTB fees during the term of this lease, except only those hereinafter specifically provided for; the lessee hereby agrees to maintain and keep the premises, including all interior and exterior walls and doors, heating, ventilating and cooling systems, interior wiring, plumbing and drain pipes to sewers or septic tank, in good order and repair during the entire term of this lease, at lessee's own cost and expense, and to replace all gless which may be broken or damaged during the term hereof in the windows and doors of the premises with' glass of as good or better quality as that now in use; it is further agreed that the lessee will make no alterations, additions or improvements to or upon the premises without the written wnsent of the lessor first being obtained. (4b) The lessor agrees to make al] necessary structural repairs to the building, including exterior walls, foundation, roof, gutters and downspouts, and the abutting sidewalks. The lessor reserves and at any and all times shall have the right to alter, repair or improve the• building of which the premises are a part, or fo add thereto, and for that purpose at any time may erect scaffolding and ell other necessary structures about and upon the premises and lessor 'and lessor's representatives, contractors and workers for that purpose may enter in or about the premises with such materials as lessor may deem necessary therefor, and lessee waives any claim to damages, including loss of business resulting therefrom. a LESSOR'S (5) It shall be lawful for the lessor, the lessor's agents and representatives, at any reasonable time to enter into or upon RIGHT OF the premises for the purpose of examining into the condition thereof, or for any other lawful purpose. ENTRY RIGHT OF (6) The lessee will not assign, transfer, pledge, hypothecate, surrender or dispose of this lease, or any interest herein, ASSIGNMENT sublet, or permit any other parson or persons whomsoever to occupy the premises without the written wnsent of the lessor being first obtained in writing; this lease is personal to lessee; lessee's interests, in whole or in part, cannot be sold, assigned, transferred, seized or taken by oporation at law, or under or by virtue of any execution or legal process, attachment or pro- ceedings instituted against the lessee, or under or by virtue of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings had in regard to the lessee, or in any other manner, except as above mentioned. LIENS (7) The lessee will not permit any lien of any kind, type or description to be placed or imposed upon the improvements in which the premises era situated, or any part thereof, or the land on which they stand. ICE, SNOW, (8) If the premises are located at street level, then at all times lessee shall keep the sidewalks in front of the premises DEBRIS free and clear of ice, snow, rubbish, debris and obstruction; and ii the lessee occupies the entire building, the lessee will not permit rubbish, debris, ice or snow fo accumulate on the root of the building so as to stop up or obstruct gutters or downspouts or cause damage to' the roof, and will save harmless and protect the lessor against any injury whether to lessor or to lessor's property or to any other person or property caused by lessee's failure in that regard. OVERLOADING (9) The lessee will not overload the floors of the premises in such a way as to cause any undue or serious stress or OF FLOORS strain upon the building in which the premises are located, or any part thereof, and the lessor shall have the rlght, at any time, fo call upon any competent engineer or architect whom the lessor may choose, fo decide whether or not the floors of the premises, or any part thereof, are being overloaded so as to cause any undue or serious stress or strain on the building, or any part thereof, and the decision of the engineer or architect steal! be final and binding upon the lessee; and in the event that if is the opinion of the engineer or architect that the stress or strain is such as to endanger or injure the building, or any part thereof, then and in that event the lessee agrees immediately to relieve the stress or strain, either by reinforcing the building or by lightening the load which causes such stress or strain, in a manner aetfsfactory fo the lessor. ADVERTISING (10) The lessee will not use the outside walla of the premises, or allow signs or devices of any kind to be attached SIGNS Ehereto or sus nded therefrom, for advertisi pe ng or displaying the name or business of the lessee or for any purpose whatsoever without the written consent of the lessor; however, the lessee may make use of the windows of the premises fo display lessee's Hama and business when the workmanship of such signs shall be of good quality and permanent nalure; provided further that the leases may not suspend or place within said windows or paint !hereon any banners, signs, sign-boards or other devices in violation of the intent and meaning of this section. LIABILITY (11) At al! times during the term hereof, the lessee will, at the lessee's own expense, keep in effect and deliver to the INSURANCE )essor liability insurance policies in form, and with an insurer, satisfactory to the lessor. Such policies shall insure both the lessor and the lessee against all liability for damage to persons or property in, upon, or about the pr~le~m)ises. The amount of such insur- f! __ for injur l _ wO 0 d Q ance shall be not less than $.....,~_QQO~..Qp a......_....... y to one person, not less than $ y ~......._... ...._.. .. for injures to all persons arising out of any single incident, and not less than $.. L/-O.p.ta~...~o.C..._._._.... for damage to property, or a combined single limit of not less than $...~~..0,.°.~.t ~..Q~f~....._...... It shall be the responsibility of lessor to purchase casualty insurance with extended coverage so as to insure any strVcture on the premises against damage caused by fire or the ettects of fire (smoke, heat, means of extinguishment, etc.), or any other means of loss. It shall be the responsibility of the lessee to insure all of the lessee's belongings upon the premises, of whatsoever nature, against the same. With respect to these policies, lessee shall cause the lessor to be named as an addi- tional insured party. Lessee agrees to and shall indemnity and hold lessor harmless against any and all claims and demands arising from the neglfgettce of the lessee, lessee's officers, agents, invitees and/or employees, as well as those arising from lessee's failure to comply with any covenant of this lease on lessee's part to be performed, and shall at lessee's own expense defend the lessor against any and all suits or actions arising out of such negligence, actual or alleged, and all appeals therefrom and shall satisfy and discharge any judgment which may be awarded agamst (essor in any such sprit or action. FIXTURES (12) All partitions, plumbing, electrical wiring, additions to or improvements upon the premises, whether installed by the lessor or lessee, shall be and become a part of the building in which the premises are located as soon as installed and the property of the lessor unless otherwise herein provided. LIGHT (13) This lease does not grant any rights of access to light and air over the premises or any adjacent property. AND AIR DAMAGE BY (14) In the event of the destruction of the improvements in which the premises are located by fire or other casua/fy, CASUALTY, "either party hereto may terminate this lease as of the date of fire or casualty, provided, however, that in the event FIRE AND DUTY TO REPAIR of damage fo the improvements by fire or other casualty to the extent of ............................ per cent or more of the sound value thereof, the lessor may or may no! elect to repair the same; written notice of lessor's election shall be given lessee within fifteen days after the occurrence of the damage; it notice is not so given, lessor conclusively shall be deemed to have elected not to repair; in the event lessor elects not to repair, then and in that event this lease steal! terminate with the date of the damage; but if the improvements in which the premises are located be but partially destroyed and the damage so occasioned shall not amount to the extent indicated above, or it greater than said extent and lessor elects to repair, as aforesaid, then the lessor shall repair the same with al/ convenient speed and shall have the right to take possession of and occupy, !o the exclusion of the lessee, all or any part !hereof in order !o make the necessary repairs, and the lessee hereby agrees to vacate upon request, all or any part thereof which the lessor may require for the purpose of making necessary repairs, and for the period of time between the day of such damage and until such repairs have been substantially completed there shall be such an abatement of rent as the nature of the injury or damage and its interference with the occupancy of the premises by the lessee steal/ warrant; however, if the premises be but slightly injured and the damage so occasioned shall not cause any material inter- ference with the occupation of the premises by lessee, then there shall be no abatement of rent and the lessor shall repair the damage with all convenient speed. WAIVER OF (1 S) Neither the ]essor nor the lessee shall be liable to the other for loss arising out of damage to or destruction of SUBROGATION the premises, or the buildin or im rovement of which the remises area art or with which the are connected, or RIGHTS g P P P y the contents of any thereof, when such loss is caused by any of the perils which are or could be included within or in- sured against by a standard form of fire insurance with extended coverage, including sprinkler leakage insurance, if any. All such claims for any and all loss, however caused, hereby are waived. Such absence of Iiabflity shall exist whether or not the damage or destruction is caused by the negligence of either lessor or lessee or by a»y of their respective agents, servants or employees. If is the intention and agree- ment of the lessor and the lessee that the rentals reserved by this ]ease have been fixed in contemplation that both parties shall fully provide their own insurance protection at their own expense, and that both parties shall look to their respective insurance carriers for reimbursement of any such loss, and further, that the insurance carriers involved shall not be entitled to subrogation under any circum- stances against any party to this ]ease. Neither the lessor nor the lessee shall have any interest or claim in the other's insurance policy or policies, or the proceds thereof, unless specifically covered therein as a joint assured. EMINENT (16) In case of the condemnation or purchase of all or an substantial DOMAIN Y part of the premises by any public or private corporation with the power of condemnation Phis lease may be terminated, effective on the date possession is taken, by either party hereto on written notice to the other and fn that case the lessee shall not be liable for any rent after the termination date. Lessee shall not be entitled to and hereby exprelss~warves any right to any part of the condemnation award or purchase price. FOR SALE (17) During the period of .__. ............. days prior to the date above fixed for the termination of this lease, the lessor AND herein ma oat on the g y g p p FOR RENT Y P premises or in the windows thereof si ns of moderate size notif in the ublic that the remises SIGN9 are "for sale" or "for lease." DELIVERING UP (18) At the expiration of the lease term or upon any sooner termination thereof, the lessee will quit and deliver up PREMISES ON the premises and all luture erections or additions to or u on the same, broom-clean, to the lessor or those Navin lessor's TERMINATION P g estate in the premises, peaceably, quietly, and in as good order end condition, reasonable use and wear thereof, damage by fire=unavoidable casualty and the elements alone excepted, as the same are now in or hereafter may be put in by the lessor. ADDITIONAL' (19) GQYENANTS EXCEPTIONB''J C~iN be.so~a so (, ~ aT}- aN~-f ~~e b~ v W ,_~"'T ~ ~ ~~Na~`~"ie~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ ,; ~_ ' y ~ ~, t~ ~' ~~~ r ~ ~a y~ I i t :~~~ ` ~ i ~, ~-?r. -. V +~49~~44b o ~~o ~+ ~~. .~ A.~'ACHMEN'f O ' ~~ u.. .^ CITY OF WOODBURN s..~a,;'~# " ?. BUSINESS REGISTRATION APPLICATION VVoo,.~N r+<~.~,.,r~a raro Date: '~. New ~ Renewai License No: Bti~tN>ES5 Ilt~i~QRIV1ATt4N/iLQQATlON ~f1 C~ ~ l' Q e Z ~ l d~~ ~ 8t1~#1~L~SS TYPE: ; ` Product/Service Description Door-to-Door Solicitation? (If yes, see instruction sheet) If Transient Business, dates: Yes ^ No~ MA11L1N6r i1NFO~tMAT101~i~ Berle v id { ~ ~ t'~ ... Registered Business Name Address f ~j~~urn • ~ ~ ~/ 7 ~~~ City State Zip !' QViiNER 1€NiF(3iti~ilATiQN I NUt-l~v Z~r1~ V IClev _ Telephone Fax Do you have an alarm? Yes No 0 Type of alarm system: (Bu~ ire, Holdup, etc.) Do you store any hazardous or flammable Yes 0 No~`' materials on the premises? Are any discharged into the City wastewater'? Yes d No~ If yes, please list: Date Business Began: / Z ~? Is this ahome-based business? Yes ^ No, Telephone Fax 1~lia,~~ ~~. J R~ ~ Date of firth Driver's License No. EMER+(3EIhICY INFaR>NIIAT!©t+l: ;; ,, _ { y~~~,r~o 1°~ z nG ~ i ~~~-- X303 31 F~ ~l a -~ Name of First Contact Phone No. Name of Second Contact Phone No. 1 have received and Sig Name Doin~q Bu~~~ess As ~/ Address ~+.~o~~~~n ~~ 9721 Cityc~~,~,~l~,~G~ State Zip ate DEVFLGPMEN7 ~FPT tii ~-'~~'~ >"r Remit payment to- tration Certificate" City °f wO°~b~ ~~~ ~ <~ ~(~(~~ 236 >Vlontgdmery St: Wo4dburrt, bl~ S7'+37'1 503t98z-5222 '~~!~~rarrnur~i ~~ Routing: Planning App ved Denied i - ~ ~ " ~ 5~ ~-' ~ Receipt No: Building °-' Date Paid: ~~ (>/~k L ~ ~ Public Works Amount Paid: ~~ ~ r~~ Zoning ~--~ Buta Hess Code ~ n~ ~.r.~ ~•-`~L..~C C{-7fC.Ci~F"<a <~ ;:~;~'ItC`ri ~-r ~-Y'+<i ~~r.l.lrf 1•~4'y IC [,~c.f.~~;,r"/~rxf.? fining a Business Regis Will you sell liquor? Yes ^ No If yes, contact OLCC Building size (sq ft) # of Employees If applicable, provide the following: State Occupational License #: ..--- BuildePs Board # _~ Health Dept. License #: ATTACHMENT P } t t til V s~~ 4 ~.~. ry °° ..- 1 v 1 ~~ ~~ti~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ,~ m, ~, ~~ ~~'~' 1 waa ~'N` ~~ ~ , r ,t~, .} ~ ~,~-, ~-,, .. m X 11.1