Minutes - 04/14/2008COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, APRIL 14, 2008.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
0025 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Figley Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Cox Present
Councilor Lonergan Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Absent
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City
Administrator Stevens, Community Development Director Allen, Public Works Director
Brown, Police Captain Tennant, Finance Director Gillespie, Community Services
Director Row, Associate Planner Dolenc, Recorder Tennant
0050 ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Special City Council Meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 23, 2008, 5:30 p.m.,
in the City Hall Council Chambers to consider and adopt standards, criteria, and policy
directives for the hiring of the Woodburn City Administrator. She encouraged members
of the Chamber, business community, and residents to participate in this meeting. The
Mayor and Council will be discussing what they are looking for in our next City
Administrator with recruitment firm consultant Greg Protham. For the record, she added
that pursuant to ORS 192.660, there will be an opportunity for public comment on the
standards, criteria, and policy directives.
B) Wastewater Facility Plan Committee meeting will be held on Thursday, April 24,
2008, 7:00 p.m., at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
0095 APPOINTMENT: WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN COMMITTEE.
Mayor Figley appointed Rongie Wangerin to serve on the Wastewater Facility Plan
Committee.
MCCALLUM/LONERGAN...appoint Rongie Wangerin to the Committee. The motion
passed unanimously.
0150 PROCLAMATION: El Dia de los Ninos / El Dia de los Libros -APRIL 26 2008
Mayor Figley read a proclamation declaring Apri126, 2008 as El Dia de los Ninos / El
Dia de los Libros (Day of the Child /Day of the Library) to celebrate children and to
Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
recognize the importance of literacy which is supported by reading programs for children
at the public library.
0235 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Deb Yager, Chamber President, reviewed the March 2008 statistics for the Chamber
office (5 relocation packets sent out, 344 phone calls, 86 visitors), Visitor's Center (738
visitors from within Oregon, 764 visitors from outside Oregon), and 6,736 e-mail or
website hits. Projects being worked on by the Chamber include: (1) Ambassadors
assisting Woodburn Together with the Flower Basket Program and (2) Woodburn
Business Police Academy is entering into their 4`" week during which time they have been
learning the process in which to support Woodburn Police and the contact between
businesses and police whereby information provided to the police is effective in
prosecution of cases. This police academy program should be the first in the West Coast
area to have set the precedent to start a Business Watch Program and the Chamber is in
full support of this program.
The WAVA Committee will be reviewing the bids and proposals for the brochures to
highlight the area. Next month they will moving forward with the hiring of the WAVA
Coordinator for the volunteers.
0446 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT.
Walt Blomberg, School Superintendent, stated that the District had recently received the
dropout report data showing a reduction in the dropout rate from 9.4% in 2005-06 to
5.2% in 2006-07. It was noted that 2006-07 was the first year for the small schools at the
high school and the district is hoping that the dropout data is a trend that can be seen out
of the small high schools in that students feel more connected, have better relationships
with adults in those schools and find more reasons to stay in school. The four-year trend
went from 29.9% to 19.4% which is a significant decrease over that time period.
He stated that more discussions will be held with the community on a School Bond
proposal with upcoming meetings at Senior Estates (4/18) and a community forum at the
high school lectorium (4/29). He also stated that the School District does celebrate the
Day of the Child on Apri126t'' and they have a full complement of activities at French
Prairie Middle School from 2:00 p.m. unti16:00 p.m.. These activities involve students
and families in addition to giving local businesses, civic and health organizations an
opportunity to make connections with families.
Councilor McCallum stated that many years ago there had been a problem with school
districts uniformity in reporting dropout information and he questioned if there was a
more uniform method now in place to make sure that all districts are doing it the same.
Superintendent Blomberg stated that the District submits data to the State and they put the
data into the same formula and provide the drop out rate to the District.
Councilor McCallum mentioned that he had noticed that small schools in Portland were
Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
not experiencing the same success that Woodburn has seen and he congratulated the
District on the rate reduction.
Superintendent Blomberg stated that the small schools in Portland did not experience the
same result as Woodburn and, in most cases, the whole State saw a slight incline in the
dropout rate.
Councilor McCallum stated that Councilor Bjelland, presenter at a recent Marion County
Children and Families Commission meeting, had emphasized as to where families are
going, population is going, and what is important for the future of education in the State
of Oregon. He recommended that Councilor Bjelland be contacted to see he would be
able to make a presentation to the School District's management staff since his focus is
on future planning.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the Superintendent of the Salem-Keizer School District had
attended the session and he has been contacted by them to make a presentation to their
organization.
Councilor Lonergan also congratulated the School District in keeping students in school.
Mayor Figley stated that she has also noticed the increased number of high school
graduates over the years and is looking forward to seeing an increased number of
graduates in 2007-08.
0900 Beverly Koutney, Hubbard, stated that Chemeketa's Center for Learning and Retirement
Program has a number of senior citizens very interested in starting a Senior Center.
Plans are progressing to Incorporate and raise funds to establish a Center for the programs
that are located at multiple areas. The next organizational meeting is scheduled for April
22, 2008, 4:00 pm, in Room 207 at the Chemeketa building. She stated that this group
would like a City representative to participate especially in fundraising activities. Two
options are being discussed for a facility location but they continue to be open for other
suggested locations. They not only want to establish a Senior Center but would like to
have a Center for the youth which could be a Boys & Girls Club or the YMCA.
Currently, there is a Task Force proceeding with plans to work on fundraising and
establishing a 501(c)(3). At the next meeting, they will be finalizing their vision and
mission statement and formalizing a name. She stated that this should be anarea-wide
group rather than just the City and they are keeping the Park & Recreation Board
informed at their monthly meetings.
Mayor Figley stated that the City has studied the possibility of building a stand alone
Center or expanding the Aquatic Center and, in both cases, the costs to build and operate
the facilities are quite staggering. She knows that there is a need for these facilities and
would be willing to work with others to see what can be done.
In the Salem area, Ms. Koutney stated that the North Salem Senior Center is funded by
the City while the South Salem Senior Center is completely volunteer with no City funds
involved. She also mentioned that The Dalles has an even better Center whereby they
Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
have one paid staff member to manage the Center and everything else is volunteer.
Councilor McCallum questioned if the group is advanced enough to know if the Center
would be located in Woodburn or at some other location.
Ms. Koutney stated that Woodburn is the central location but no specific location has
been identified as of yet.
Councilor McCallum suggested that she contact the Police Chief regarding the Weed and
Seed grant since it has funding available for youth programs.
1400 CONSENT AGENDA.
A) approve the Council meeting minutes of March 24, 2008;
B) approve the special Council meeting minutes of March 31, 2008;
C) accept the draft Recreation and Parks Board minutes of March 11, 2008;
D) receive the Planning Project Tracking sheet dated April 9, 2008; and
E) receive the Building Activity report for March 2008.
MCCALLUM/LONERGAN... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion
passed unanimously.
1455 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY COUNCIL CALL-UP OF PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION IN DESIGN REVIEW~DR~ 2007-12, VARIANCE
VAR) 2007-07 AND EXCEPTION (EXCPI 2007-08 ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 845 E. LINCOLN STREET.
Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:33 pm.
Mayor Figley stated that she has driven by the site because the Council had recently
addressed another site in the area and wanted to be clear as too which one was being
addressed at this hearing.
Councilor Sifuentez declared that she lives across from the property being discussed and
has spoken to some of the neighbors. She had referred all of them to the Planning
Commission for their hearing and have had very little contact with them other than they
did have some questions but no discussion. She felt that she could make a good decision
when it comes time for a vote.
Councilors McCallum, Lonergan, Bjelland, and Cox all stated that they were familiar
with the site.
City Attorney Shields stated that if anyone had any challenges to the declarations now
would be the time to assert those challenges.
Mayor Figley asked if anyone had any challenges and, since no one came forth with a
challenge, she proceeded with the hearing.
Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197.
Associate Planner Dolenc presented the staff report and stated that is case involves a
design review case, a variance case, and a street exception. The subject property is zoned
medium-density residential and is designated as residential more than 12 units per acre on
Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
the Comprehensive Plan map. The property is .936 acres in area and currently occupied
by a single family dwelling. The properties on the north side of East Lincoln Street (same
side of street as subject property) are generally zoned medium density residential (RM)
with more than 12 units per acre on the Comprehensive Plan map. The exception is
Washington School which is zoned Public and Semi-Public (P/SP). Properties on the
south side of East Lincoln Street are zoned single family residential (RS). These cases
were originally heard by the Planning Commission and they had approved the cases
subject to 77 conditions of approval. The applicant appealed 6 of those conditions but the
appeal was rendered mute when the Council called up these cases for review on its own
initiative. The Planning Commission's decision also became mute by the call up by the
Council. This is a de novo hearing and the Council can consider all aspects of the cases.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the applicant proposes to develop the site with 15
dwelling units in two buildings with a 6-plex located closer to East Lincoln Street and a
9-plea to the north of the 6-plex, a driveway into the development and two driveway isles
surrounding the cite, and a central open space area. He began with addressing the
variance case stating that the RM district has a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre
and, in this case, 14 dwelling units would be allowed on the property after the right-of-
way dedication. The variance is to allow 15 dwelling units and he proceeded to review
the variance criteria within the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) outlined in
the staff report. Of the four criteria to be considered, staff conclusion was that two of the
factors had not been met one of which was that the property could be developed with up
to 14 dwelling units rather the developer's desire for I S units, and the other factor being
that the variance has not been shown to be necessary to make reasonable economic use of
the property. He stated that the Planning Commission had approved the variance case but
the Planning staff had recommended denial.
2774 In the Street Exception case, the Transportation Plan requires a 72 foot right-of--way
dedication and certain improvements within that right-of--way. The existing cross section
of East Lincoln Street does not meet that cross section in that there is adequate paved
width but not the street trees, sidewalk, and planter strip requirements. The applicant has
agreed to dedicate the additional right-of--way and staff recommends approval of the
Street Exception subject to entering into anon-remonstrance agreement to participate in
any future reconstruction of East Lincoln Street. The applicant did indicate to the
Planning Commission that they would develop the street frontage in front of their
property.
Mayor Figley stated that the development is occurring and there is no outcry for a road
improvement at this time so the non remonstrance agreement is the best way of handling
this issue.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the developer has the option of making the street
improvements at the time of development but it does not make a lot of sense to improve a
small portion of the entire street. The non-remonstrance agreement is the process that
Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
would allow the developer to delay payment of the improvement until it is timely to
reconstruct the street all at one time. It was noted that the applicant did not appeal the
non-remonstrance agreement condition.
In the Design Review case, Associate Planner Dolenc stated that there is a requirement
for a architectural wall between multi-family and single family dwellings and it is
discretionary to require the wall adjacent to the P/SP zone or a medium density residential
unit. However, the applicant has proposed to build a perimeter wall meeting the
requirements for an architectural wall which would then allow parking within the
setbacks. He reviewed the applicant's proposed number of plant units per square foot
which is slightly under the required number and the buffer yard, located between the
property line and the curb, would be in excess of the required standard. Included as a
condition of approval is to increase the number of plant units per square feet in all of the
other yard area to meet the required standard. The perimeter landscaping meets the
required standard. In regards to yard setbacks, he provided the Council with a
discretionary code requirement to include yard setbacks as part of common open space
and landscaping required in common areas. The Planning Commission and staff have
interpreted that the common areas and common open space are different and the common
areas do not include setbacks. The reason behind this interpretation is that the setbacks
have their own landscaping stocking requirements and, if common open space and
common area mean the same, it would eliminate the degradation in requirement and the
all open space would have the same requirement of 3 plant units per 50 square feet. Staff
is requesting that the Council adopt the interpretation that the common areas do not
include the setbacks which would then allow for different stocking requirements within
the proposed development. He proceeded to outline the common open space areas and
common area proposed by the applicant which is less than the code guidelines. The
Council has discretion over this code provision and a finding will be included in the
ordinance based on the Council's decision as to what will be required. To accommodate
the recreation, meeting, and education activities requirement within the open space
provision, the applicant has proposed a picnic table, barbeque pit, and two benches in the
common area. The WDO does not give any guidance as to how to determine the area,
therefore staff requested that the Council make a determination of the area so that it can
be included in the findings. In regards to design issues relating to the buildings and semi-
private enclosed open space for ground-level units, the applicant has indicated that they
can meet the dimensions required and the condition of approval will require submittal of
new floor plans before the issuance of building permits. It was noted that the code does
require private open space on other than ground floor units. Porch or recessed entries is a
similar requirement and a similar resolution. A major point of appeal is the discretionary
guideline that every two attached medium-density residential dwelling units should/shall
be offset by at least four (4) feet. Staff feels that this guideline could be met if the
driveways were moved and the buffered yards reduce which would involve redesign of
Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
the building and the site. He stated that the building facade is not flat since there are
balconies and entries but it does not have articulation and, from a visual standpoint, it
does breakup a flat wall.
4050 Councilor Bjelland questioned if the offset references the internal alignment since he
feels it should only reference the external alignment which makes a building
architecturally attractive.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that staff believes that the code provides exterior offsets
as a guideline.
4371 Councilor Cox stated that the only reason for guidelines is visual impact from the outside
to avoid big expanses of flat walls and it will break up the appearance from the outside.
He questioned how the Planning Commission decided on this issue.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the Planning Commission accepted the staff's
condition that would require the articulation. He stated that another guideline of the code
is that 50% of required parking should be covered by garages and, since each dwelling
unit requires two spaces, there should be 1 garage space for each dwelling unit. The
applicant proposes 9 spaces out of 15 (30%). The Planning Commission required the
50% garages and the applicant appealed this discretionary point.
He stated that another design characteristic of the project is that the internal garages all
have external parking spaces directly outside of them and staff feels that there are
inconveniences and problems associated with this configuration but the code does not
prohibit it. Staff feels that it is reasonable to reserve the exterior space for the unit that
has the interior garage and the garage door be posted with the sign that indicates that it is
reserved for that unit. It was noted that the applicant has agreed to this condition.
Lastly, the door of the trash receptacle would be visible from East Lincoln Street and staff
has asked that the applicant rotate the trash receptacle 90° so that it points to the
northwest and the applicant has agreed to the rotation which will not impact the parking.
4755 In summary on the design review case, staff recommended approval of the case subject to
conditions that are contained in the staff report and requested that Council specify any
changes in their motion. Overall, staff recommends denial of the variance, approval of
the Street Exception, and approval of the Design Review subject to the conditions. They
also requested that the Council adopt the interpretation that the common areas do not
include the setbacks and requested guidance on whether the lawn area counts as an
improved facility for the outdoor activities.
4854 Councilor Bjelland requested clarification on the issues before the Council that are
different from what the Planning Commission approved and what issues the applicant
has appealed.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the appeal covered 6 points some of which were
resolved but those left unresolved are as follows: 1) 30% common open space, (2)
articulation, and (3) 50% garages. It was also mentioned that the Planning Commission
had approved the variance whereas staff is recommending denial. As a de novo hearing,
Page 7 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
staff is presenting the report as they see it under the code requirements and if they are
interpreting something within the code differently, they would like guidance from the
Council on their interpretations and it maybe that there are some issues which could also
be brought up for periodic review or legislative amendment.
In regards to the unresolved issues, the Planning Commission agreed with staff on
articulation and garages, and they agreed with the applicant on the common open space.
Councilor McCallum questioned if these units would be condominiums.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the submittal refers to both in that the intent is
condominiums but the applicant referred to renting units until the market conditions
improved. The staff report does not address that issue since there is no difference as far
as a land use action.
Councilor Bjelland questioned if this review was brought up by an appeal from the
applicant or brought up by the Council.
Mayor Figley stated that it was brought up as a Council appeal and she took the initiative
in asking for a motion primarily because there seemed to be some difference of opinion
on areas in addition to those where it was known that the appeal had been filed.
Councilor Cox stated that by the Council calling it up for review made the applicant's
appeal mute and with the Council bringing it up, it opens up the whole process for a
hearing on everything involved in this application.
Community Director Allen stated that had the Council not brought up the issue for
review, it would have been a much more focused hearing on the limited issues that were
raised in the appeal.
5483 Councilor Cox made a suggestion for the City's amendment process that any appeal
would open up everything involved in the application and not just the narrow issue that is
the stated basis for the appeal. He felt that it makes more sense administratively and the
Council may want to change the ordinance to make it clear that the Council is not limited
to looking at the whole issue.
Director Allen stated that there are ways to make it work that way regardless by the
notification that is provided for what the Council is to consider. He will bring this issue
forward as a concept for the next WDO amendment.
Brief discussion was held regarding any appeal being opened up for full or limited
review.
5817 Brandy Dalton, Multi-Tech Engineering representing the applicants, stated that all of the
findings and anything that is part of file is submitted into this record. She stated that the
applicant is requesting approval to construct a 15-unit condo complex where 14-units are
allowed. The applicants have explored many options for the property and found that the
condo development was the most feasible for the site and they wanted to construct
something that was unique and visually appealing for the area. This one additional unit
helps to keep costs therefore allowing the developer to pass the savings onto renters or
buyers. They are aware that this proposal does not meet the letter of the code but believe
Page 8 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
it meets the intent of the code by providing adequate setbacks, open space, safe and
convenient circulation and parking on the site, and a variety of housing types in the area.
The applicant is requesting that the Council approve the variance, the design review, and
the right-of--way exception cases. The applicant did appeal the Planning Commission's
decision since, at the Planning Commission meeting, there were 81 conditions of
approval and they requested that conditions 1 through 64 be approved with the three
cases. Conditions 65 through 81 were discretionary conditions of approval and they were
never discussed at the hearing. The Planning Commission approved their project as is
and did not talk about agreeing with needed offsets or 50% covered parking so they
believe it was not their intent to include those conditions which pretty much denied the
project. The applicant does agree with all of the conditions of approval except the
following: (1) conditions 9 and 10 located in the staff report are the same so they are
requesting that one of those be eliminated, (2) conditions 66 and 68 talk about the 30%
open space requirement and the applicant requests that these be eliminated since the
development does provide adequate open space and provides essential open space of
3,300 square feet which exceeds the 2,000 square foot requirement; (3) the applicant
requests elimination of condition 73 requiring the offsets and, rather than constructing
box-type apartments, the condos do have offsets in the roof-lines which provides
dimensions to the structures; and (4) the applicant is requesting elimination of condition
81 which requires garages to be provided for at least 50% of the required parking since
adding more garages would eliminate required parking therefore requiring additional
variances. She stated that the required parking on the site is well-lit and adjacent to
pathways that go into entry ways. In conclusion, she stated that it is their belief that they
have provided findings needed to warrant approval of all three cases and the elimination
of conditions 66, 68, 73, and 81.
6315 Councilor Cox questioned if 15 units would have been allowed if the right-of--way
dedication was not a condition of approval.
Ms. Dalton stated that the applicant would have been allowed the 15 units and no
variance would have been required.
Councilor Bjelland stated that there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not the
50% covered parking issue was discussed at the Planning Commission hearing or whether
that issue came up in preparation of the findings of fact.
Ms. Dalton stated that she could not speak for the Planning Commission but they were
surprised to see that condition in the conditions of approval since the Commission
approved the project as is and this issue was never discussed nor could they find anything
in the minutes on this issue.
Director Allen stated that this was a fairly complicated project with a lot of public
testimony. Typically in the Planning Commission deliberations, they have a discussion
over anything that is of a concern to them including conditions that they want to modify
Page 9 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
or eliminate. In this case, they did not eliminate some of these conditions that surprised
the applicant when they received their notice of decision. There was a lot of discussion
on items that would take you down a certain path but the final bridge was not crossed that
would eliminate a condition. There was discussion on the open space area and their
conclusion was that the open space area met that standard but did they did not eliminate
the condition.
Tape 2 Councilor Cox stated that it seems that, in this case, it was may have been an oversight on
the Planning Commission's part in not making their motion carefully enough and, in
return, nobody on staff picked up that fact. Staff is then left with the motion that was
made that did not eliminate those conditions which then shows up in the findings
prepared.
Director Allen stated that Councilor Cox's summation was the case for the open space
but he would not characterize it so much for the 50% garage coverages because there was
not as much of a discussion on that and they just accepted that condition. Based on action
taken to date, the applicant will need to add 6 more garages if the variance is approved to
allow 15 units. In regards to the articulation issue, there was same discussion as to
whether balconies would provide the articulation but it did not make it into the motion
which was to accept the staff recommendations with a couple of exceptions. The
conditions of approval were in the staff report in a very similar format that is provided in
the Council's staff report.
Ms. Dalton stated that they would lose at least 6 parking spaces if the additional garages
are required. She stated that they did talk to staff and would have been willing to cover
with carports but that is not permitted in the City's code and did not know if a carport
would be the right type of covering for this development.
Councilor Cox stated that, from his personal observation, covered garages are more of
the exception rather than rule in most multi-family developments within the City.
During Council discussion, it was noted that covered garages are an enhancement and
those individuals who want a covered garage will go elsewhere if one is not available at
this site. Additionally, the 50% garage coverage is a guideline and not a requirement
under the code.
Councilor Sifuentez questioned as to when the conditions are provided to the applicant.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the decision is mailed to the applicant and they sign
formal acceptance of conditions. They must have signed the acceptance of conditions
before they are issued a building permit.
0480 Associate Planner Dolenc requested that the condo renderings displayed at this meeting
be entered into the records as Exhibits M-N.
Brad Schnell, applicant, stated that the buildings are oriented so that there is access on the
9-plea on all four sides of the building and the 6-plex has only entrances on three sides.
The garages will face the east and there will be trees and landscaping along East Lincoln
Page 10 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
Street. From an architectural standpoint, they have tried to create a lot of articulation just
in the building design with the various gables and awnings that protrude over the
balconies. They have agreed to make as many of the combinations as they possibly can
without re-engineering the building. He stated that they had looked at four or five
building types for this site and selected the one before the Council primarily because
having the 15-units will keep the price down with their intention being to sell the units as
condos. By taking one unit away, it will incrementally increase the price for the
remaining units just because of fixed costs. He stated that they have made every effort to
meet all of the design standards and landscaping.
0904 No one in the audience spoke either for or against the land use cases before the Council.
Councilor Cox stated that the variance seems to be an approximate 8.5% increase in the
allowable density and he questioned if there was some provision in the code that
variances of less than a certain percentage could be allowed administratively.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the code does contain a provision for zoning
adjustment but density is specifically prohibited in the zoning adjustment process.
Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:55 pm.
1017 Councilor Bjelland stated that he sees four primary issues to deal with: (1) the 30%
common open space, (2) the articulation issue, (3) the 50% garage requirement, and (4)
the density of 15-units versus 14-units. He was willing to accept all four of those
variance since it only allows one additional unit and if the right-of--way had not been
required, the developer would have been allowed the 15-units. In regards to articulation,
he feels that the design, with the size of these units, there is a lot of exterior visual appeal
with some offset in the variation in the balconies and roof lines. In regards to the garages,
he has seen numerous condo and apartments without a covered garage for every one of
their units and by having a different mix of units people will have choice as to what they
are willing to purchase. Lastly, this is a small project and feels that the 30% open space
which is adjacent to a lot of open space around the area is sufficient.
Councilor Cox stated that Planning staff members were not employed when the WDO
was developed so it is difficult for them to interpret the intent of the ordinance. He
agreed with Councilor Bjelland on the open space issue and agreed that the two
definitions of open space should be made more clear. He felt that, for most purposes, the
setback area should be considered as open space and, with it being a just a guideline, he
did not want to apply it to this project. He also mentioned that staff did provide a
reasonable interpretation considering that they did a careful reading of the code. In regard
to the garages, he agreed with Councilor Bjelland and stated that it might affect the
marketability of a condo without a garage but did not see from a planning point of view
as to how that would detract from the project in terms of its impact on the City. On the
issue of open space, the lawn with the barbeque, table and benches should be counted as
open space since there are features being placed in the area that would draw the residents
Page ll -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
to that area. He also felt that the project has plenty of visual appeal and, with it being a
guideline, he is okay with the design as presented. He stated that by requiring any of the
three conditions under discussion will require re-design and shortages in other areas and
the applicant may be back for other variances. He felt that the applicant has done about
as much as they can with what they had to work with. In regards to the variance,
requirements are in place that need to be followed rather than a guideline in which the
Council has some discretion. Even though a 14-unit project similar to this could be built
on this site and the other conditions of the variance such as economic criteria, ties in with
the build ability and there is no data in the recoxd that would show it is economically
impossible to construct only 14 units other than it would raise the price of the other units
probably more than the percentage of reduction since many of the fixed costs will remain
the same. He stated that he is willing to allow the variance in this particular case.
Councilor McCallum expressed his opinion that the variance should be denied and even
though it is only one additional unit, the next developer will want the same decision. He
is agreeable with the guidelines because of the size of the project but not in favor of the
variance.
Councilor Lonergan concurred with comments made by Councilor Bjelland and Cox and,
overall, he would agree with the 14 units thereby denying the variance.
Councilor Bjelland stated that his argument on the variance is that the Planning
Commission had approved the 15 units and denying the variance would go against what
the Planning Commission has already approved. He felt that it was more important to
have the minimum level achieved then to be concerned about the maximum level. From
a state-wide planning standpoint, there is pressure to have higher density and, even
though you do not want to see it everywhere, there are areas in which higher density can
be acceptable and he finds this development as acceptable since it is only one additional
unit. Additionally, this development would need to be redesigned if one unit is not
allowed.
Councilor Sifuentez stated that the variance is the area in which she has concerns. The
units look very large and her neighbors feel that the units are large compared to what is in
the neighborhood.
Mayor Figley stated that she has no problem with guideline issues and feels that the
development will fit in with the neighborhood. She expressed concern about the variance
since there does not seem to be a consensus on the number of units.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the development would have been allowed 15 units under
the current configuration of land had it not been a requirement that the applicant give the
City additional right-of--way which reduces the number of units down to 14. In his
opinion, this is a special situation and it is justification to approve the variance.
Councilor Cox agreed that this would not set a precedent since the applicant is being
required to give up land that they could otherwise use for their development. The right-
of-way will have appearance of open space but it maybe twenty-five or more years before
Page 12 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
Lincoln Street is widened. Under the circumstances, he would not like to see a complete
re-design of the development just for one unit. He had heard that the neighbors were
concerned about the windows on the new units looking into other households but he does
not see that as an issue nor has it been raised at this hearing. This area has mixed zoning
of RS and RM and the Council has to anticipate that the property will be developed as it
is zoned which is multi-family. He did not see where this development would have much
impact within the neighborhood except for the fact that there will be a building on a lot
that was previously a single family dwelling.
Mayor Figley stated that there seems to be some consensus on the guideline
interpretations but there does not seem to be a consensus on the variance.
2422 COX/LONERGAN... Council approve this project and all of the findings of staff except
the 3 guideline conditions that staff recommended pertaining to the 30% common open
space question, the articulation question, and 50% garage question.
Associate Planner Dolenc stated that there are two issues on the common open space one
of which is the 30% issue and the other issue is whether or not the lawn counts as
improved facility.
Councilor Cox stated that it is his intent in the motion that both aspects of that would be
covered.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
BJELLAND/COX... approve a variance for this project allowing 15 units to be built as
opposed to the 14 units that would be called for under the property after the dedication for
street right-of--way.
Councilor Lonergan questioned as to why the additional 11 feet ofright-of--way.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the applicant is being required to dedicate the additional
right-of--way since East Lincoln Street is a collector street which has a requirement of 72
feet ofright-of--way whereas the street currently has a 60 foot right-of--way.
Councilor Cox also mentioned that the developer will be required to sign anon-
remonstrance agreement to participate in the process to pay their fair share of any
improvement to the street.
On roll call vote, the motion passed 3-2 with Councilors McCallum and Sifuentez voting
nay.
2888 COX/BJELLAND... Council approve this project subject to conditions in the staff report
except those that have been specifically dealt with in the Council's earlier motions and
including the allowance of the variance as requested, with staff to come back with the
appropriate findings and conclusions in an ordinance for adoption.
Councilor McCallum stated that he would vote in favor of this motion so that the
ordinance can be prepared for final consideration by the Council.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
Page 13 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
3125 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2715 -RESOLUTION SETTING AMOUNT OF THE
PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES UNDER
AN EXISTING METHODOLOGY• ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATIVE RATE
REVIEW FEE• AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPOSITION OF
THE FEES AND CHARGES.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2715. Recorder Tennant read the two
readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Cox stated that this resolution provides for a modest increase that will bring
the Parks system development charges in line with the increases in construction cost. It is
his understanding that this maybe the last year in which the Council maybe able to
adjust the charges and they may need to devote more energy to it the next time it comes
up for review.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared
Council Bill No. 2715 duly passed.
3272 RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE.
Interim City Administrator Russell stated that this issue first came before Council in
December 2007 and staff was directed to convene a stakeholder's meeting which was
done on February 29, 2008. As a result of this meeting, staff received input from the
stakeholders and a brief summary of the meeting has been provided in the agenda packet.
Members of the stakeholder group requested an opportunity address some of the issues
with Council. Staff also has also prepared some recommendations for the proposed
ordinance and would like Council direction on those recommendations before a final
document is presented to the Council for consideration.
Councilor Cox questioned if the stakeholders were told that this matter would be before
the Council at this meeting.
Interim Administrator Russell stated that they were told that they would be advised when
this issue would be brought back to the Council for consideration whether it be an
ordinance or workshop and they were not advised of the item being on this meeting's
agenda.
Councilor Cox stated that he would be interested in hearing from the stakeholders. He
read the summary of their objections in the staff report, but in his review of the report,
there are only two areas in which staff suggests changes from the last draft.
Interim Administrator Russell stated that from the issues brought up by the stakeholders,
staff suggested two changes in the last draft document thereby still maintaining the
integrity of what the Council had previously asked to be done to the draft ordinance.
These two changes are: (1) language be made clear that any entry on the premises has to
be consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements for entering, and (2) the
owner of the property, if different from the manager, would be notified of any
enforcement process.
Page 14 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
Councilor Cox stated that he had gone through the objections in the report and feels that
the Council had considered them previously and he is not anxious to make changes based
on what he sees in the objections raised at the meeting.
Mayor Figley stated that she can see the point of most of the objections with the one she
would argue with is the objection stating that this ordinance is intended for revenue. The
Council has wanted to take this step and, being aware of some of the conditions, she
would follow the Council's decision on this issue.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the Council has periodically received complaints that
citizens do not always have an opportunity to get involved in the process. He would be
willing to have workshop to hear their concerns and find out if there are any additional
issues that surface for consideration.
Councilor McCallum stated that taking care of people has been an area of complaint but
he would like to see something move forward on this issue within the near future.
It was the consensus of the Council to hold a workshop preferably before a regular
Council meeting.
3936 LIQUOR LICENSE• CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP LIMITED ON-PREMISES
_SALES - TAQUERIA GUADALAJARA ONE, INC., 995 N. PACIFIC HIGHWAY.
A change of ownership liquor license application for limited on-premises sales was
submitted by Sergio Balverde-Flores and Aydee Moreno-Corona DBA: Taqueria
Guadalajara Authentic Mexican Food.
LONERGAN/SIFUENTEZ... recommend that OLCC approve a liquor license
application change of ownership for limited on-premises sales to Taqueria Guadalajara
One, Inc.. The motion passed unanimously.
3990 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'SREPQRT.
Interim Administrator Russell reminded the Council of the budget workshop on Saturday,
April 19`h, at 8:30 a.m.. The packets will be distributed to the Committee on Tuesday.
Staff has received a draft Emergency Operations Plan for the City and the County and a
copy is available to the Council if interested in receiving one for review.
Lastly, sponsorship for Relay for Life was obtained and Councilor McCallum will
provide more information on this sponsorship.
4076 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORT.
Councilor McCallum announced that the City is a Platinum sponsor for the annual Relay
for Life which will be held June 20-21, 2008. He reminded the public that this
sponsorship is not taxpayer money and comes from the Mayor, Council, and Department
Heads. He stated that the City has been a longtime sponsor and moved up to a Platinum
level several years ago. This is a great community event facing a major medical problem
but one of the great things about this event is that all factions of the city become united in
Page 15 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 14, 2008
TAPE
READING
trying to help find a cure for cancer.
Mayor Figley stated that this is one of the most positive events that takes place in our
community in addition to being a very positive life affirming event and she is glad to be a
part of it.
Councilor Sifuentez thanked staff for putting the Council Bill Number on the bill itself.
Councilor Cox also expressed his appreciation for putting the page number on the
computer which coincides with the page numbers on the agenda materials.
4300 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority
of ORS 192.660 (2)(h), 192.660 (2)(f), and 192.660 (2)(d).
COX/MCCALLUM...adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited
by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously.
The Council adjourned into executive session at 9:42 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
10:25 p.m.
4340 Mayor Figley stated that no decisions were made by the Council while in executive
session.
ADJOURNMENT.
SIFUENTEZ/MCCALLUM.... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:26 p.m..
ATTEST ~ 1 ~~'
Mary ennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 16 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 14, 2008