Loading...
Ord 1894COUNCIL BILL N0. 823 ORDINANCE N0. 1894 AN ORDINANCE DENYING THE APPLICATION IN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE CASE N0. 84-01 IN REGARD TO RECLASSIFYING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 214 AND PROGRESS WAY. WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council held a public hearing on April 23, 1984, concerning Comprehensive Plan and "Lone Change Case No. 84-O1, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council on April 23, 1984, acted, by motion, to direct staff to provide an ordinance approving the application in Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Case No. 84-01, together with find.in.gs of fact and conclusions of law, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council at its May 14, 1984, meeting voted, by motion, to continue this matter until June 11, 1984, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn C.it.y Council at its June l.l, 1984, meeting was presented Council :Bill No. 792, which approved the application in Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Case 'No. 84-01 and justified said approval with findings of fact and. conclusions of law, and WHEREAS, Council. Bi11 No. 792 was read at the June I1, 1984, Council meeting a.nd did not pass, and WHEREAS, discussion of the matter continued. and the Woodburn City Council acted, by motion, directing staff to prepare an ordinance denying the application in Comprehensive P]_an and Zone Change Case No. 84-O1 together with f.nda.ngs of. fact and conclusions of law, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council tabled the matter at the June 25, 1984 Council meeting, and , Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL N0. 823 ORDINANCE N0. 1894 WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council at July 9, 1984 Council meeting, voted to reopen and renotice another public hearing on the matter before the Council, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council held a second public hearing on the matter at the August 13, 1984 Council meeting, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council acted, by motion, for staff to provide an ordinance denying the application in Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Case No. 84-01 together with findings of fact and conclusions of law, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The legal description of the involved real property is as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Bloclc 1, Walil_ale Home Tracts in Twonship 5 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon, as recorded in Book 5, Page 64, Plat Records for Marion County, Oregon; running thence South 89°38'30"' East 952.00 feet more or less along the Northerly line of said Block 1 to the Northwest corner of a tract of land conveyed in document recorded December 1, 1976, in Reel 64, Page 691, Film Records for Marion County, Oregon, thence South 1°51'51" East along the West line of said Tract 485,89 feet to the Northerly right-of-way line of Mt, Hood Avenue in the City of Woodburn, Oregan; thence North 88°05' West 951,67 feet along said right-of-way line to the Westerly line of said Lot 5; thence North 1°51'51" East 460.00 feet to the place of beginning. Section 2. The applicant has requested that the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map be amended to change the use of said real property from Industrial to Commercial Use and that the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance 'be amended to redesignate said real property from Industrial Park District (IP) to Commercial General District (C G). Section 3. The application in Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Case No, 84-O1 is hereby denied, said denial being based upon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL N0. 823 ORDINANCE NO. 1894 evidence in the record before the Woodburn City Council and is justified by the Findings of Denial which. are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are by this reference incorporated herein. Approved as to form: ~' ~ City Attorney Date APPROVED~G,r ~~-`~ ~.6~~ _ WILLIAM J.~ INE, MAYOK. Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved. by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: ~ ,~> ~~~ ~~~ ~ ,~ ~A~2NEY~`. iERIS, Recorder City o Woodburn, Oregon September 10, 1984 September 11, 1984 September 11, 1984 September 11, 1984 Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL N0. 823 ORDINANCE N0. 1894 Exhibit "A" FINDINGS OF DENIAL I. NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS On March 22, 1984, the Woodburn Planning Commission held a public hearing and took testimony on Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Case No. 84-01, On April 5, 1984, the Planning Commission adopted findings of approval in this case. At the applicant's request a de novo public hearing was held before the Woodburn City Council on April 23, 1984. The public hearing was closed and the Council acted, by motion, to direct staff to draft proposed findings of approva]_ for its review and discussion at the Council's May 14, 1984, meeting. The matter was, by motion, continued by the Woodburn City Council at its May 14, 1984, meeting. At the following Council meeting, on June 11, 1984, the Council was presented with Council Bill No, 792, a proposed ordinance approving the application .in Comprehensive Plan and Zone Change Case No. 84-01 and justifying said approval with findings of fact and conclusions of law, whereupon Council Bill No. 792 failed. The Council had additional discussion of the testimony previously presented and acted, by motion, to direct the staff to prepare findings of denial for its review at the Council meeting of June 25, 1984. At the June 25; 1984, Council meeting the Council tabled the matter, On July 9, 1984, the Woodburn City Council voted to reopen and renotice another public hearing before the Council on the matter. On August 13, 1984, a second public hearing was held before the Woodburn City Council and on that date the Council acted, by motion to direct the staff to prepare findings of denial for its review at the Council meeting of August 27, 1984. II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Facts 1. The facts concerning this application are contained in the public testimony heard before the Woodburn City Council on April 23, 1984, and on August 13, 1984, including, but not limited to, the staff report with attachments which was introduced into the record at the time of the hearings. 2. The subject parcel contains approximately 10 acres of undeveloped real property lying on the northeast .corner of the :intersection of State Highway 214. (Mt, Hood Avenue) and. Progress Way, in the City of Woodburn, Marion County, Oregon. Findings of Denial August 22, 1984 Page 2 3. The subject parcel is bordered on the north by a certified public accountant's office and a mini-storage facility, on the west, across Progress Way, by the Portland General Electric Woodburn District Center, and on the east by a commercial complex, including Family Federal Savings and Loan Association, Shariis Restaurant, Payless Drugstore and. Safeway Grocery Store. 4. The subject parcel has been designated on Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan Map as Industrial and is zoned IP in accordance therewith. It has been included by indentification in the Woodburn Industrial Park, and is at the present time undeveloped. 5. The a.pplicant's request that the City of Woodburn amend its Comprehensive Plan M:ap from :Industrial to Commercial u.se and amend the present. Woodburn Zoning Ur.dinance from IP (Industrial Par1c) district to CG (Commercial General) district. B. Applicable Criteria - Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 1. The City Council finds that paragraph IX. of Volume I of_ the 1981 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Woodburn sets forth the substantive criteria which must be established to justify an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A plan change must be justified by the introduction by petitioners of a sols_d bad.y of evidence showing: (a) that th.e amendment is in compliance with the goals and pol:ici.es of the Comprehensive Plan narrative; and (b) that the amendment is in compliance with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan narrative; and (c) that the amendment is in compliance with the Statewide Goals and Guidelines; and (d) that there .is a public need for the change; and (e) that the land best suits that public need; and (f) that the land cannot be suitably used as it is presently designated. 2. The City Council finds t:h.at a. Comprehensive Plan amendment may also be justified by a determination that either: (a) a mistake was made i.n the drafting of the original plan; or (b) conditions have changed which would justify a redesignation of a particular parcel. 3. The Comprehensive Plan lists, on page 51 of Volume 1, six criteria which must be addressed. to justify a comprehensive plan amendment, These criteria constitute the City's goals and policies anal are as follows: a) Policies for Industrial Land Use Those policies dealing with industrial land use, as se.t forth on pages 25 and 26 of Volume 1 of the Comp r. ehensive Plan narrative, advocate industry within the city of Woodburn, which wi:1l provide a healthy job market in a location which will provide ease of access and. which. wi11 avoid environmental dangers. Findings of Denial August 22, 1984 Page 3 Attention is to be given to the visual impact of industrial development upon arterial streets, by the appropriate use of buffers, The industrial park concept is favored and attention is to be given to avoid commercial encroachment on industrial land, which might either cause the price of industrial lands to increase or result in traffic generation problems which would interfere with the use of adjoining industrial land, (b) Policies for Commercial Land Development The City's policies for commercial land development are found on pages 24 and 25 of Volume 1 of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1 states that "the City should, at all times, have sufficient land to accomodate the retail needs of the City and the surrounding market area. The City presently has three major commercial areas: 99E, I-5 interchange, and the downtown area." Policy 2 states that "lands for high traffic generating uses should be located on well-improved arterials. The uses should provide the necessary traffic control devices needed to ameliorate their impact on the arterial streets." Policy 3 states that "strip" zoning should be discouraged as a most unproductive form of commercial land development. Whenever possible, the City should encourage or require commercial developments which are designed to allow pedestrians to shop without relying on private automobiles to go from shop to shop. Commercial developments or commercial development patterns which require the use of the private automobile shall be discouraged, (c) Policies and Goals for Transportation Woodburn's goals and policies regarding transportation are set forth on pages 29 and 30 of Volume 1 of Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan. The City's goal is "ta provide for a safe, efficient means of circulation within the city, and to provide for safe transport of goods or persons moving through the city." The City's policies with regard to transportation encourage the orderly development of major arterial streets to accomodate traffic flows and the signalization of major arteries. Pedestrians and bicycle access is to be provided on arterial and collector streets. Findings of Denial August 22, 1984 Page 4 4. The City Council finds that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be in compliance with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan narrative. These elements are as follows: (a) the sewer system element, (b) the water system element, (c) the storm drainage element, (d) the transportation element, (e) the housing element, and (f) the economic element. 5. The City Council finds that Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan has been acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Nevertheless, the City Council finds that the plan amendment must comply with the applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines. 6. The City Council finds that there must be a public need for the proposed plan amendment. 7. The City Council finds that to amend the Comprehensive Plan it must be shown that the subject parcel best suits the public need. 8. The City Council finds that to justify a comprehensive plan change it must be shown that the subject parcel cannot be suitably used as it is presently designated. C. Applicable Criteria - Zone Change 1, The City Council finds that section 15 and 16 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance address zone change procedures, 2. The City Council finds that, specfically, to support a zone change the applicant must: (a) show there is a need for the use proposed, (b) show that the particular piece of property in question will meet that need. Section 16.080(b), Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City Council concludes that at the present time sufficient commercially designated land exists to accomodate the retail needs of the City. The Council bases this conclusion on evidence in the record and, specifically, on the land use inventory made part of the record. 2. The City Council concludes that the subject parcel is not located within one of the three established areas of commercial development a.s designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Findings of Denial August 22, 1984 Page 5 3. The City Council concludes that although the applicant placed much emphasis on the development of the site for use as a theatre, the applicant's representative stated that he was uncertain as to when the site would actually be developed. 4. The City Council concludes that the proposed commercial element of the subject parcel constitutes strip zoning as it is defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Strip development presently exists on Highway 99E in close proximity to the subject property and the Council does not want to establish a precedent of strip development on Highway 214. 5. The City Council concludes that a greater amount of "commercial" designated lands with services exists than "industria.l" designated lands with services. Therefore, commercial development of the subject parcel would violate the Comprehensive Plan policy of development in areas of existing facilities f first, in that serviced industrial designated land which is limited in amount, would be lost to commercial development when adequate commercial designated land is currently available for development. 6. The City Council concludes that the development of the subject parcel as either commercial or industrial would satisfy the economic element of the Comprehensive Plan. However, since adequate commercial designated lands are available, commercial development would violate the policy of protection of industrial lands from encroachment by commercial uses. 7. T:~~ C~.t.y Council concludes that the number of .vehicle trips pe.r day generated by the proposed use, a movie theatre and retail establishments with: 662 parking spaces would violate the Comprehensive Plan which, states that Highway 214 should be a limited. access highway with low traffic generating uses. The Council further concludes that this additional traffic genera- tion would require s.ignalization on. 214 and Progress Way resu.lt- i.ng in disruption of the traffic. flow. 8. The City Council concludes that the applicant, as a matter of law, must show that under the Comprehensive Plan there is a public need for the proposed change i.n uses. Since retail uses are allowed by land use ordinance to occupy a number of vacant sites already designated for commercial use. and since the record reflects that adequate commercial sites ar.e avail- able (see land use inventory), the Council further concludes that the applicant did not carry the burden of proof in showing public need. 9. The City Council concludes that although the applicant. contended t7iat the subject parcel provides the best exposure, and that certain of the intended uses require a large amount of exposure to t.raffi.c, no convinr.ing evidence was introduced at either of the two public hearings to adequately substantiate those statements, Findings of Denial August 22, 1984 Page 6 10 The City Council concludes that the applicant failed to show that the land cannot be suitably used as it is presently designated. Specifically, the applicant failed to show that the land in question could not be suitably used as an industrial use. The Council concludes, based on the record, that a substantial number of industrial uses can utilize the applicant's site. These are identified in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 34, Section 34.010 (A) through (C) and Section 34.030, Conditional Uses (A) through (D). 1~1. The City Council concludes that the applicant failed to prove that there was a mistake made in drafting the Comprehensive Plan. 12. The City Council concludes that the applicant failed to bear the burden of showing that conditions in the land use of the area have changed to the extent that a redesign.ation of the property is necessary. 13. The City Council concludes that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment violates Statewide P"fanning Goal 2 (land use planning) in that it is inconsistent with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated above, 14. The City Council concludes that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment violates Statewide Planning Goal 9 (economy of the state) in that it reduces the supply of industrially designated land available with adequate services. Although .the proposed development of the site would possibly be attractive economically for a short time, the Council concludes that the long-term effect would be to reduce the amount of available industrial land and to hamper the economy of the area and the state.