Loading...
September 12, 2016 Agenda KF,M CW ATHRYN IGLEYAYOR ITY OF OODBURN TAL,CW1 ERESA LONSO EONOUNCILOR ARD LE,CWII ISA LLSWORTHOUNCILOR ARD CCA RC,CWIII ITYOUNCILGENDA OBERT ARNEYOUNCILOR ARD S S,CWIV HARON CHAUBOUNCILOR ARD FL,CWV RANK ONERGANOUNCILOR ARD S12,2016–7:00.. EPTEMBERPM E M,CWVI RIC ORRISOUNCILOR ARD CHCC–270MS ITY ALL OUNCIL HAMBERS ONTGOMERY TREET 1.CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2.ROLL CALL 3.ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: None. Appointments: None. 4.COMMUNITY/GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS None. 5.PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: A.Hispanic Heritage Month1 Presentations: B.Youth Advisory Board 6.COMMUNICATIONS . None – This allows the public to introduce items for Council 7.BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. –Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine 8.CONSENT AGENDA and may be adopted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A.Woodburn City Council minutes ofAugust 8, 2016 3 This facility is ADA accessible. Ifyou need special accommodation, please contact the City Recorder at 503-980- 6318at least 24 hours prior to this meeting. **Habrá intérpretes disponibles para aquéllas personas que no hablan Inglés, previo acuerdo. Comuníquese al (503) 980-6320.** September 12, 2016Council Agenda Page i Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B.WoodburnSpecialCity Council minutes of August 17, 20167 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. C.WoodburnSpecialCity Council minutes of August 31, 20168 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. D.Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of July 28, 20169 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. E.Building ActivityforAugust 201612 Recommended Action:Receive the report. 9.TABLED BUSINESS None. 10.PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Annexation-1385 Cooley Road (ANX 2016-02) Alexsey Bodunov13 BLegislative Amendment LA 2016-0127 C.Public Hearing to Consider Adopting an Updated Parks SDC 58 Methodology –Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general 11.GENERAL BUSINESS 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.3013-An Ordinance Amending and Repealing 60 Sections of Ordinance 2250 (The Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Ordinance) Based Upon a Methodology Report Dated July 11, 2016 and Setting an Effective Date Recommended Action:That the City Council conduct a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2250 (The Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Ordinance), effective October 13, 2016. B.Council Bill No.3014–A Resolution Setting the Amount of the Parks 81 and Recreation System Development Charges Pursuant to a Recently Updated Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology; Establishing an Alternative Rate Review Fee; and Setting an Effective Date for Imposition of the Fees and Charges Recommended Action:That the City Council adopt a resolution September 12, 2016Council Agenda Page ii establishing Parks and Recreation SDC Fees pursuant to the recently updated Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology. C.Revised Traffic Ordinance Discussion85 Recommended Action:Consideration of the Revised Ordinance regulating the overnight parkingand storage of recreational vehicles (RVs) on City streets and the parking of any vehicles in designated and marked fire lanes on both public City streets and private right-of- ways. – These are 12.PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. A.Planning Commission Approval of a Variance for Removing 103 Balconies at Wood Park Terrace Apartments, Located at 1025 Park Avenue (VAR 2016-05) Recommended Action:No action is recommended. This item is placed before the Council for informational purposes, in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired. 13.CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 14.MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 15.ADJOURNMENT September 12, 2016Council Agenda Page iii 1 2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2016 DATECOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF AUGUST 8,2016 MARION, STATE OF OREGON, CONVENED The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor Carney Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Present Councilor Ellsworth Present Councilor Alonso Leon Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Economic and Development ServicesDirector Hendryx, FinanceDirector Head,Economic Development Director Johnk, Police Chief Ferraris, Public Works Director Scott,Assistant City Attorney Granum, Community Relations Manager Gutierrez-Gomez, Communications Coordinator Horton, City Recorder Pierson ANNOUNCEMENTS 0:00 A.The City Council meeting scheduled for August 22, 2016 has been cancelled. The next Council meeting will take place September 12, 2016. B.City Hall, the Library and transit service will be closed September 5, 2016 in observance of Labor Day. The Aquatic Center will be open normal hours. COMMUNITY/GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS Stuart Rodgers, Woodburn Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, introduced himself to the City Council. PRESENTATION 0:02 A.Ordinance Review and Revision –City Attorney Shields provided an update on the Council’s goal of review and revisions of City ordinances. B.Target Industry Analysis and Code Amendments: Next Steps –Economic Development Director Johnk provided an update on the recommendations that came out of the Targeted Industry Analysisand the City’s Economic Development Strategy.Economic and Development Services Director Hendryx provided information on recommendations on code amendments as well as a policy updateand master planning requirements. Public Works Director Scott provided information on a grant opportunity through Oregon Business Infrastructure Authority thatthe Citywould use to hire a consultant to review and refine existing facilities plan. Councilor Lonergan stated that he is excited about this and likes the way it’s going. Mayor Figley stated that they are on the right trackand added that in regards to residential she would like have some level of accountability on who does what. Councilor Morris stated that he is concerned about competing with other communities for jobs and wants to look at the next thing that is 10 years from now. He 3 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2016 added that he would like the smaller property owners to feel comfortable coming to the City. COMMUNICATIONS 1:11 Mayor Figley stated that she received a letter from Buddy Dyer the Mayor of Orlando, Florida. CONSENT AGENDA 1:12 Woodburn City Council minutes ofJuly 25, 2016, A. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of June 23, 2016, B. Building Activity through July 2016. C. Lonergan/Alonso Leon ... adopt the Consent Agenda. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL BILL NO. 3011 - A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1385 COOLEY ROAD, TAX LOT 051W08DA04400 (ANX 16-02) - ALEXSEY BODUNOV Lonergan Introduced Council Bill No. 3011. Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3011 duly passed. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TRAFFIC ORDINANCE 1:14 Assistant City Attorney Granum provided a staff report. Councilor Ellsworth stated that the ordinance doesn’t leave enough time for people who may be loading or unloading their campers. She added that there are inconsistencies about parking in the front of the house and would like to see that revised to account for people who may live on corner lots. Councilor Schaub stated that the restricted hours may bea hardship for people in her ward and would like that to be looked at a little more carefully. Mayor Figley concurred and added we don’t want to restrict people who are packing up to go camping but those who are using the street as storage for their RV. Councilor Carney stated that he has heard from people that they are in favor of this revised ordinance but one citizen suggested the wording in section 16(2)(b) should stand alone. Councilor Lonergan stated that 10 days a year may be too restrictive but he likes the idea of having a time limit. Councilor Carney stated that the biggest inhibitor seems to be the 10 days a year and he suggested that the wording be changed to read that whenever a person parks an RV on a public street it has to be moved in 48 hours off of public streets. He added that it’s a safety concern. Councilors were in favor of the fire lane changes. City Administrator Derickson asked if the Council would like staff to revise the ordinance with the Councils recommendations. Councilor Carney stated that he would like to see it return in September. Councilor Schaub concurred with Councilor Carney and would also like to see the number of complaints that come in and where they are located. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL FOR LEASE OF MARKED POLICE VEHICLES 2:13 Lonergan/Morris …Accept the proposal of Auto Additions, Inc. for police vehicle leasing services. The Woodburn Police Department will lease Ford Police Interceptor SUV police vehicles in the amount of $40,878.36 per vehicle for a three year lease period.The motion passed unanimously. 4 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2016 METCOM LEASE AGREEMENT 2:14 Lonergan/Schaub …Authorize the City Administrator to execute, on behalf of the City, a Lease Agreement with METCOM. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW (DR 2016-02; VAR 2016-04) 2851 W HAYES STREET 4-PLEX Council declined to call this item up for review. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT City Administrator Derickson thanked everyone who worked at the Fiesta, thanked the Council for their participation and announced that there were 21,000 that attended Fiesta over the weekend. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORT 2:16 Mayor Figley thanked City Administrator Derickson, city staff and the community for their support of the Fiesta. Councilor Alonso Leon thanked city staff, volunteers at the event and said the parade was amazing. She added that the GlobalInclusion Advisory Committee had its first meeting. Councilor Carney thanked Chief Ferraris for the invitation to the Bridge the Gap discussion and added that it was a wonderful round table discussion between the faith leaders of the community. Councilor Lonergan thanked staff and volunteers for their work on the Fiesta. He also thanked City Administrator Derickson and Chief Ferrarisfor sitting in the dunk tank at the City Council meeting community picnic and thanked those that helped cook. Councilor Ellsworthstated that from what we have heard tonight tells everyone out there what’s right about Woodburn and added that Woodburn has had the Relay for Life, the Basset Hound Games, Music in the Park, National Night Out, City Council Barbecue,the Fiesta and parade, and the upcoming Fire House Cook Off and that Woodburn is a great place for families. Councilor Schaub stated that Fiesta was wonderful. She added that she received an email stating the Steve Krieg and Jim Hendryx were doing a fantastic job. She added that she conducted an interview with Naomi Mendoza from PCUN about what the City Council does. Councilor Morris asked about lead in the water and Public Works Director Scott answered that the City’s lead level is very low and they test every three years. He added that Fiesta was great and very relaxed. ADJOURNMENT Morris/Ellsworth ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m. APPROVED ___________________________ KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR 5 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 8, 2016 ATTEST_________________________ Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon 6 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2016 DATECOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF AUGUST 172016 MARION, STATE OF OREGON, , CONVENED The meeting convened at 2:03 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor Carney Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Absent Councilor Ellsworth Absent Councilor Alonso Leon Present(via telephone) Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, Assistant City Attorney Granum, Assistant City Administrator Row, Economic and DevelopmentServicesDirector Hendryx, Public Works Director Scott,Police Chief Ferraris, Communications Coordinator Horton, City Recorder Pierson COUNCIL BILL NO. 3012 - A RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE OPTION PERIOD TO 0:00 ACQUIRE REAL PROPERTY FOR THE FARMWORKER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FHDC) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT OPTION CONTRACT WITH FHDC. Lonergan Introduced Council Bill No. 3012. Recorder Pierson read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 3012 duly passed. ADJOURNMENT Schaub/Alonso Leon ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m. APPROVED ___________________________ KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST_________________________ Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon 7 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 31, 2016 DATECOUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF AUGUST 312016 MARION, STATE OF OREGON, , CONVENED The meeting convened at 2:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Figley Present Councilor Carney Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor Schaub Present Councilor Morris Present(via telephone) Councilor Ellsworth Absent Councilor Alonso Leon Present(via telephone) Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Assistant City Administrator Row, Communications Coordinator Horton, City Recorder Pierson APPOINTMENT OF FINANCE DIRECTOR 0:00 Lonergan/Schaub… hire Sandra Montoya as the finance director. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Morris/Carney ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:03 p.m. APPROVED ___________________________ KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST_________________________ Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon 8 9 10 11 12 AgendaItem September 12, 2016 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director S UBJECT: Annexation - 1385 Cooley Road (ANX 2016-02) Alexsey Bodunov RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council conduct apublic hearing, tentatively approve Annexation 2016-02,and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate the Council's decision. BACKGROUND: The applicant requests annexation of a 2.7 acre parcel fronting Cooley Road, approximately 1,200 feet south of Highway 211 and 225 feet north of Audrey Way. The property is designated Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The subject property is zoned Urban Transition 20 by Marion County. The site includes a single family dwelling and a manufactured dwelling used for medical hardship by a relative. Abutting properties within the City are zoned Residential Single-Family (RS) and are designated Low Density Residentialon the Comprehensive Plan Map.There are severalsignificant trees on the site.No wetlands or floodplains exist on thissite. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the annexation request on August 25, 2016 and recommended that the City Council approve the annexation. DISCUSSION: The applicant and his family live on the propertyand want to annex to the City for access to City services (water, sanitary sewer, etc.)and for future development of the property. Marion County approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Medical Hardship on the property in 2014. This provision allows, on a temporary basis, an additional dwelling unit (mobile home) to be placed on the property. With annexation, the Agenda Item Review:City Administrator ___x___City Attorney ___x___Finance __x___ 13 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 2 medical hardship and additional dwelling unit will be treated as a nonconforming use and will requirean annual renewalupon a medical verification (aphysician’s certificate) that the hardship remains. : FINANCIAL IMPACT This decision is anticipated to have nopublic sector financial impact. 14 Community Development Planning Division -5246 CITY COUNCILSTAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING Application TypeType IVAnnexation Application NumberANX2016-02 Project Location 1385 Cooley Road,tax lot051W08DA04400(2.17acres) Applicant/Representative Alexsey Bodunov Property OwnerAlexsey andJuliana Bodunov Planner AssignedJim Hendryx, Community DevelopmentDirector Application Received April 18, 2016 120-Day Deadline The 120-day rule does not apply to annexations. Date of Staff ReportAugust 17, 2016 Planning Commission: August 25, 2016 Date of Public Hearing City Council: September 12, 2016 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL The applicant requests annexation ofa2.7acre parcelfronting Cooley Road, approximately 1,200 feet south of Highway 211 and 225 feet north of Audrey Way.The property is designated Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map.The subject property is zoned Urban Transition 20by Marion County. The site includes a single family dwelling and a manufactured dwelling used for medical hardship by a relative.Abutting properties within the City are zoned Residential Single-Family (RS) and are designated Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. There are several significant trees on the site. No wetlands or floodplains exist on thissite. The applicant and his family live on the property. Marion County approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Medical Hardship in 2014. Under County provisions, the CUP is annually renewed upon medical verification (aphysician’s certificate) that the hardship remains. Similar verification would continue, should the property be annexed. Prior to the Planning Commission’s public hearing, notices were mailed to Marion County, the Woodburn Fire District, the Woodburn School District, and surrounding property owners. A public hearing notice was posted on the property andpublished in the Woodburn Independent.The Department of Revenue gave preliminary approval for the map and legal descriptionon July 7, 2016. 1 15 The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Annexation ANX2016-02 (Alexsey Bodunov) on August 25, 2016 and recommends that the City Council approve the annexation. RECOMMENDATION – Recommend that the City Council conducta public hearing and approveannexation of the subject property. APPROVAL CRITERIA Applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance(WDO)are Sections: 1.01, 1.02, 1.103, 2.01, 4.01, 4.02, and 5.04.Additional relevantcriteria arethe goals and policies of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, and the standards of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Site 2 16 Comprehensive Plan map showingthe subject property Site Marion County Zoning Map Urban Transition (UT) ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT General Provisions Findings: Per Section 5.04, annexationsare Type IV decisions. Per Section WDO 4.01.02.D, the City Councilis the decision-maker forType IV decisions, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Conclusion: The application is correctly filed as a Type IV decision. WDO 5.104.01Annexation Findings: Section 5.04.01.B requires a pre-application conference with the applicant. The pre-application conference was conducted on February 3, 2016. Conclusion: The application complies with Section 5.04.01.B. 3 17 Findings: Section 5.04.01.C.1 requires compliance with applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan goals and policies regarding annexation. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan are discussed later in this report. Findings: Section 5.04.01.C.2 requires that the territory to be annexed be contiguous to the City and either link to planned public facilities with adequate capacity to serve the existing and future development of the property, or guarantee thatthe presentpublic facilities have adequate capacity to serve the existing and future development of the property. The property immediately bordersthe City limits, which are to the west.Water and sanitary sewer facilities extend to the property from the west (Barn Street). Storm andsewerfacilities are located south at the Audrey/Cooley intersection. The Public Works Department notes that the existing public facilities have adequate capacity to the propertyas it presently exists.Ultimate development of the property will link to public facilities with capacity to serve the property’s future needs. Conclusion:The application complies with Section 5.04.01.C.2. Findings: Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.1 provides that the territory to be annexed should be contiguous to the City on two or more sides. The term “should” is a discretionary term and subject to Council’s review. The property is contiguous to the City on the west side, while compliance to the standard of “contiguous on two or more sides” would require neighboringproperties toannex. The applicant contacted adjacent properties to determine interestin annexing. Adjacent property owners were not interested in annexing at this time. Conclusion: The application complies with Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.1. Findings: Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.2 provides that the annexationshould not increase the inventory of buildable land designated on the Comprehensive Plan as Low or Medium Density Residential within the City to more than a five-year supply. The City annexed approximately 1 acre of residentially designated land in 2014. Few vacant developed lots exist in the City and the supply of vacant land available for development is limited. The subject property is adjacent to public utilities and is serviceable for development. Conclusions:The proposed annexation represents less than a one monthsupply of residential land at the rate of building that has occurredin Woodburn in the past five years. The application complies with Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.2. Findings: Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.3 provides that the annexation should reflect the City’s goals for directing growth by using public facility capacity thathas been funded by the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The property abuts the City limits and utilities are available, or can be made available, to serve the property. Conclusion: The application complies with Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.3. 4 18 Findings: Section 5.104.01.C.3.a.4 provides that the site should be feasible for development and extend the arterial/collector street pattern. The property is adjacent to existing residential development, is essentially flat, and is serviceable by public utilities. Cooley Road is designated as a Service Collectorwhile Barn is a local street.Additional right-of-way and improvements would be provided upon development of the property. Conclusion: The application complies with Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.4. Findings: Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.5 provides that the annexation should fulfill a substantial unmet community need that has been identified by the City Council after a public hearing – such as park space and conservation of significant natural or historic resources. The annexation would address the need for additional residential land within the City.The last annexation of residential land occurred in 2014and the City has fewresidential lots still available for development. Conclusion: The application complieswith Section 5.04.01.C.3.a.5. Findings: Section 5.04.01.D.1 provides that an annexation may be initiated by petition based on the written consent of one hundred percent of the owners and fifty percent of the electors within the territory proposed to be annexed. The annexation petition has been certified to be signed by one hundred percent of the owners.The applicant lives on the property with his family. Marion County permitted a temporary dwellingunit on the property under their medical hardship provision. There are no resident electors. Conclusion: The application complies with Section 5.04.01.D.1. Findings: Section 5.14.01.E provides that an annexation shall be designated consistent with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, unless an application to re-designate the property is approved as part of the annexation process. The property is designated Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The petitioner has notrequested that either the Comprehensive Plan Map orthe Zoning Map be amended. Conclusion: The property would be zoned Residential Single-Family (RS) upon annexation, in accordance withSection 5.04.01.E. Note: Compliance with Sections 2.02 (Single-Family Residential Zone), 3.01 (Street Standards), 3.02 (Utilities and Easements), 3.03 (Setback, Open Space and Lot Standards), 3.04 (Access), 3.05 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), 3.06 (Landscaping), 3.07(Architectural Design), and 3.08 (Partition and Subdivision Standards) is not applicableto the annexation, and will be required when the property is developed. 5 19 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan The annexation goals and policies of the Comprehensive Planguide the shape and geographic area of the City within the Urban Growth Boundary, so that the City limits define a compact service area for the City, reflect a cohesive land area that is entirely contained within the City, and provide the opportunity for growth in keeping with the City’s goals and capacity to serve urban development. Findings: OAR 660-014-0070 requires that the annexation comply with all appropriate statewide planning goals, unless the acknowledged comprehensive plan controls the annexation. The property is within Woodburn’s Urban Growth Boundary and upon annexation would be subject to Woodburn’s Comprehensive Planand Development Ordinance. Conclusion: The proposed annexation complies with OAR 660-014-0070. Findings:Policy G-2.1requires an assessment of the proposed annexation’s conformance with the City’s plans, facility capacity, and impact on the community. The property is immediately adjacent to City limits and public infrastructure is available to serve the property. This report and the agency comments provide the required assessment. Conclusion: The proposed annexation complies with Comprehensive Plan policy G-2.1. Findings: Policy G-2.2states that Woodburn will achieve mostefficient utilization of land by incorporating all of the territory within the City limits that will be of benefit to the City, providing for the urban infill of vacant and underutilizedproperty, fostering an efficient pattern of urban development in the City, maximizing the use of existing City facilities and services, and balancing the costs of City services among all benefited residents and development.The property abuts the City limits and would utilize existing streets and utilities. Conclusions: The proposed annexation maximizes the efficient use of existing City facilities and services, and is similar to infill development of vacant land. The proposed annexation complies with Comprehensive Plan policy G-2.2. Findings: Policy G-2.3states that Woodburn will useannexation as a tool to guide the direction, shape and pattern of urban development, smooth transitions in the physical identity and the development pattern of the community, andpromote the efficient use and extension of City facilities and services.Theproposed annexation would utilizeexisting streets and utilitiesand would not require the extension of City facilities and services. Conclusion: The proposed annexation complies with Comprehensive Plan policy G-2.3. 6 20 OVERALLCONCLUSION The proposed annexation meets the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance.Marion County approved aConditional Use Permit (CUP) for a medical hardship on the property.With annexation, the health hardship becomes a non- conforming use, subject to annual medical verification that the medical hardship continues to exist, withthat verification(a Physician’s Certificate)being submitted to the City. Marion County governs medical hardships as outlined below: A.A doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the person(s) with the infirmity from providing the basic self-careneeded to live on a separate lot. The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the infirmity must be provided the care so frequently, or in such a manner, that the caretaker must reside on thesame premises. B.The residence occupied by those having the infirmity shall not be occupied by others capable of providing the needed assistance. C.Those providing the needed assistance shall be related by blood, marriage or legal guardianship and reside in another residence on the lot. If evidence is presented that there is no family member able to provide the needed care, the caretaker may be someone else. D.Those providing the care must show that they will be available and have the skills to provide the primary care required by the doctor or psychologist. E.The existing residences on the property either cannot be modified or expanded to accommodate those needing care, or there is some reason the caretaker and those with the infirmity need to live in separate residences. F.Either the residence occupied by the person(s) with the infirmity or those providing the care shall be a mobile home or a dwelling that will be removed at such time as the person(s) with the infirmity no longer reside(s)on the lot.An agreement to remove one of the residences within 60 days of the date the person(s) withthe infirmity no longer reside(s)on the lot shall be signed by the property owner and those providing the care. 7 21 G.The temporary residence shall, to the extent permitted by the nature of the property and existing development: 1.Be located as near as possible to other residences on the property; 2.Not require development of a new driveway access to the street; 3.Be connected to the existing wastewater disposal system if feasible. H.The use shall be subject to review every year and shall meet the above criteria in order to qualify for renewal. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approveannexation ANX 2016-02.With annexation, the heath hardship becomes a non-conforming use, subject to the following conditions: 1.Annually, a doctor of medicine or licensed psychologist shall sign a statement indicating the physical or mental condition that prevents the person(s) with the infirmity from providing the basic self-care needed to live on a separate lot. The statement shall also attest that the physician or licensed psychologist is convinced the person(s) with the infirmity must be provided the care so frequently, or in such a manner, that the caretaker must reside on the same premises. 2.Theresidence occupied by the person(s) with the infirmity shallbe removed at such time as the person(s) with the infirmity no longer reside(s) on the lot. An agreement to remove one of the residences within 60 days of the date the person(s) with the infirmity no longer reside(s) on the lot shall be signed by the property owner and those providing the care. 3. The use shall be subject to review every year and shall meet the above criteria in order to qualify for renewal. 8 22 Exhibits Exhibit “A” Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit “B” Legal Description Exhibit “C” Oregon Department of Revenue – Preliminary Approval 9 23 24 25 26 AgendaItem September 12, 2016 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director S UBJECT: Legislative Amendment LA 2016-01 RECOMMENDATION: 1.Hold public hearing on LA 2016-01and accept Planning Commission recommendation to approve Woodburn Development Ordinance amendments to Nodal Standards (Sections 2.02 & 2.05.04) and Fence and Wall Standards (Sections2.06). If LA 2016-01is approved, staff will prepare an ordinance amendment for adoption next meeting. 2.Direct staff to notice a new public hearing beforeCity Council on October 10, 2016 to consider that portion of LA 2016-01 on scrivener errors. BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2009, the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) was entirely rewritten. Initially, sign standards were revised (2010). Then, in 2011, administrative provisions were updated and in 2013, the remaining sections of the ordinance, primarily dealing with land use standards, were updated. The ordinance was again readopted in the fall of 2013 in order to address scrivener errors, resulting in reformatting the WDO. The WDO states that the Director shall keep a list of potential modifications to the ordinance and report those to the Council, who may initiate such modifications if they so choose. Additionally, Council can initiate such modifications anytime, at their discretion. Council gave direction to address these WDO issues this past February. At the June23,2016Planning Commission Workshop, there was recognition of rd the need to update City fence standards. The current standards are restrictive for corner and through lots. Additionally, fencing regulations in non-residential areas aresimilar to residential standards and donot address security needs for businesses. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator __x____City Attorney ___x___Finance ___x__ 27 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 2 With the 2005 Periodic Review and Urban Growth Boundary amendments, the City enacted four new zoning districts, three of which are nodal zones (single family, multi-family and commercial) as well as the South West Industrial Reserve (SWIR).None of these zones have been utilized before, since these areas have always been outside City limits in the contested Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). However, now that the UGB is approved, discussions with potential developers have highlighted the need to resolve any oversights and mistakesin the WDO regarding these zones. 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a At the August 25, public hearing on LA 2016-01 and took action on fence and nodal standards, recommending that the City Council approve amendments to those sections of the WDO. The Commission continued the public hearing on the remaining amendments, which primarily address scrivener errors, to their forthcoming September 22 nd meeting. Those amendments will proceed to the Council separately at its October 10, 2016 meeting.It is recommended that Council take action on nodal and fence/wall standardsand continue the public hearing on LA 2016-01 to October 10, 2016 to consider other proposed amendments, primarily dealing with scrivener errors. DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that plans and implementing ordinances like the WDO continue to evolve and change over time. Between the years 2010–2013, the Woodburn Development Ordinance was completely rewritten. Current fence standards for both residential and non- residential properties are not meeting the needs for residents and businesses. Secondly, while nodal standards encourage particular types of development, existing standardsmake it difficult to develop. Legislative Amendment LA 2016-01 addresses these deficiencies. The amendments are consistent with the intentof the Comprehensive Plan and statewide goals and guidelines. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Legislative Amendment LA2016-01 revises development standards and should not havefinancial impacts. 28 Community Development Planning Division -5246 CITY COUNCILSTAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING Application TypeType VLegislative Amendment Application Number LA2016-01 Project Description Revise Sections 2.05 Nodal Standards;2.06 Fences and Walls; andrevise various sections to correct scrivener errors inthe Woodburn Development Ordinance AreaEntire City ZoningAll zones Planner AssignedJim Hendryx,Community DevelopmentDirector 120-Day DeadlineNot applicable to legislative decisions Date of Staff ReportAugust 17, 2016 Date of Public HearingsPlanning Commission: August 25, 2016 City Council: September12, 2016 BACKGROUND Beginningin 2009, the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) was entirely rewritten. Initially, sign standards were revised (2010). Then, in 2011, administrative provisions were updated and in 2013, the remaining sections of the ordinance, primarily dealing with land use standards, were updated. The ordinance was again readopted in the fall of 2013 to ad dress scrivener errors, resulting in reformattingthe WDO. LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 1 of 8 29 The WDO states that the Director shall keep a list of potential modifications to the ordinance and report those to the Council, who may initiate such modifications if they so choose. Additionally, Council can initiate such modifications anytime,at their discretion.Council gave direction toaddresstheseWDOissues this past February. At the June Planning Commission Workshop,there was recognition of the need to update City fence standards. The current standards are restrictive for corner and through lots. Additionally,fencingregulations in non-residential areas is similar to residential standards and does not addresssecurity needs for businesses. With the 2005 Periodic Review and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) amendments, the City enacted four new zoning districts, three of which are nodal zones (single family, multi-family and commercial) as well as the South West Industrial Reserve(SWIR). None of these zones have been utilized before, since these areas have always been outside City limits in the contested Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). However,now that the UGB is approved, discussions with potential developers have highlighted the need to resolve any oversights and mistakes. At the August 25,2016 Planning Commission meeting,the Commission held a public hearing on LA 2016-01 and took action on fence and nodal standards, recommending that the City Council approve amendments to those sections of the WDO. The Commission continued the public hearing on the remaining amendments, which primarily addressscrivener errors,to theirSeptember 25meeting.Those amendments will proceed to the Council separately at th its October 10, 2016 meeting. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT – Woodburn Development Ordinance WDO 4.101Decision Making Procedures Findings: Under Section 4.101.02.E of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, decisions involving legislative actions where the City Council amends the City’s land use regulations, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map or some component of these documents where changes are ofsuch a size, diversity of ownership or interest as to be legislative in nature under state law,are Type V decisions. The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing, which they did on August 25, 2916on the proposal and makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then holds a finalpublic hearing and makes the City’s final decision. The City Council’s action is the City’s final decision and is appealable to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) within 21 days after it becomes final. Conclusion: This legislative amendment is correctly processed as a Type V decision. LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 2 of 8 30 Findings: Under Section 4.101.03,the City Councilmay initiate any type of land use action by amotion designating the appropriate City department to complete and file the application. The City Council passed a resolution this past February,initiating Legislative Amendment 2016-01. The Commission conducted a work shop in June and provided directionfor the attached amendments.Other work shop meetings and public hearings will follow to address other needed revisions. Conclusion: The City Council directed staff to initiate amendments to the WDO. The Commission conducted a workshop and provided direction on initial amendments to the Ordinance. Findings: Under Section 4.101.10, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing, which it did on August 25, 2016 and recommended that theCouncil approve amendments to the fence and nodal standards contained in the WDO. Several people presented both written andoral testimony in support ofthe proposed amendments to the fence standards at the Planning Commission hearing. The Director provided notice tothe Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days before the first hearing,as required by the post- acknowledgment procedures of ORS 197.610 to 197.625, as applicable. Once the Planning Commission hearing wasscheduled and notices sent out, the Director prepared and made available a report on the legislative proposal at least seven days before the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommendedapproval of the fence and nodal standards to the City Council. This staff report summarizes the report and recommendation to the City Council on Legislative Amendment 2016-01. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the proposalat its September 12, 2016 meeting. Anyinterested person may provide written or oral testimony on the proposal at,or prior to,the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council may adopt, modify or reject the legislative proposal, or it may remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration. If the decision is to adopt at least some form of the proposal, and thereby enact or amend the City’s land use regulations, Comprehensive Plan, official Zoning Map or some component of any of these documents, the City Council’s decision shall be enacted as an ordinance. Not later than five working days following the City Council’s final decision, the Director shall mail notice of the decision to the DLCD,in accordance with ORS Chapter 197. : The Planning Commission held a public hearing on fence and nodal standards Conclusions LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 3 of 8 31 at its August 25, 2016 meetingand made recommendations to the City Council. They continued the portion of the public hearing on scrivener errors to their September 22 nd meeting.Notice has been provided to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development(DLCD)and Marion County. Background information,including the staff report, has been made available for public inspection. The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on September 12, 2016to receive the Commission’s recommendations and public input. All provisions of this section of the WDO and State statute have been met. Findings: Public notice is provided for all public hearings in accordance with Section 4.101.14 of the WDO. Notification was provided to affected agencies, including the Department of Land Conservation and Development and Marion County,in advance of the Commission’s hearing. Notification was provided to the Woodburn Historic Neighborhood Association. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Woodburn Independent newspaper. All notifications contained information regarding the time, date, and location ofthe public hearings, the file number, and staff contact information for questions or submission of testimony. All notifications also included a summary of the proposed amendments. All notification documents provided information regarding the public hearing procedures and how to review or obtain copies of the documents to be considered. : Notification requirements consistent with the provisions of the Woodburn Conclusion Development Ordinance and statutory requirements were met. WDO 5.104.04Zoning Map Change, Owner Initiated Findings: Section 5.104.04 governs changes to the Zoning Map that are initiated by a property owner. This case is initiated by the City and applies to many separate properties. Conclusion: Section 5.104.04 does not apply to the proposed Zoning Map amendment. Findings: Under State statute, all cities and counties in Oregon must have an approved comprehensive plan, along withimplementing ordinances. Amendments to an approved comprehensive plan must be consistent with State statutes. Implementing ordinances must also be consistent with each comprehensive plan. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in1978, and subsequently amended several times. The Woodburn Development Ordinance was adopted 2008, and most recently amended in 2013. LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 4 of 8 32 Conclusion: Amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Woodburn Development Ordinance will be evaluated for consistency withthe Comprehensive Plan and State statute. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT – Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Findings: The Comprehensive Plan (Volume 1 Goals and Policy Amendments) states: “The keystone of plan implementation is the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO). This WDO ensures that the location and design of various land uses and in some cases, the timing of those land uses, is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The WDO ensures that incompatible uses do not occur, while allowing flexibility consistent with the purpose of the plan. The Zoning Map will be more specific than the Comprehensive Plan Map, and may have more designations than the Comprehensive Plan Map. In addition, there will be many cases where the zoning ordinance will be more restrictive than the map. This is because there are areas which must be retained in a more restrictive zoneuntil public facilities are developed or public need is established for a zone change to a less restrictive zone. However, in no case should the Zoning Map allow a use which is less restrictive than that called for in the Comprehensive Plan.” The currentfence and wall standards are restrictive for corner and through lots. Additionally,fencing regulations in non-residential areas, which at present are similar to residential standards, donot address security needs for businesses. Property and business owners continue to express frustration with the current regulations. While the City offers free fence permits,homeownersandbusiness owners continue to complain about the current fence standards. Residents want to fence their properties to address privacy and security needs. Business owners continue to beprimarily concerned aboutsecurity. In 2005,City enacted four new zoning districts, three of which are nodal zones (single family, multi-family and commercial) as well as the South West Industrial Reserve(SWIR). None of these zones have been utilized before, since these areas have generally been outside City limits. Recentdiscussions with potential developers have highlighted the need to updateand revise the nodal standards. For example, while row housing is encouraged, current standards discourage theirdevelopment; lot standards (width and depth) should be reducedin recognition of the narrowness of this particular type of development.Likewise,nodal standards recognize conventional development, but the WDO rewrite precludes that type of development. The proposed update addresses these issues. : The amendments insure that the WDO implements the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions The proposed amendments clarify the intent of the WDO and simplify administration of the Ordinance. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 5 of 8 33 Findings: The Comprehensive Plan (Volume 1 Goals and Policy Amendments) states: “The planning process is continuous. There is no plan that can foresee all of the problems the future will bring. In most cases for decision, the Planning Commission and Council will be petitioned by private citizens to change the Comprehensive Plan designation of a particular parcel of property. This is a quasi-judicial activity and should follow the procedures set outfor quasi-judicial rulings. The Planning Commission should ensure that any change it makes in the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with other goals and policies established in this Plan. These changes, in general, should be justified by a solid body of evidence presented by the petitioner showing the following: 1.Compliance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2.Compliance with the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan; 3.Compliance with Statewide goals and guidelines; 4.That there is a public need for the change; 5.That this land best suits that public need;” Between the years 2010–2013, the Woodburn Development Ordinance was completely rewritten. Current fence standards for both residential and non-residential properties are not meeting the needs or residents and businesses. While nodal standards encourage particular types of development, existing standards make it difficult to develop. The rewrite addresses these deficiencies. : The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that plans and implementing ordinances Conclusions like the WDO continue to evolve and change overtime. The amendments are consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and Statewide goals and guidelines. Findings: The Comprehensive Plan (Volume 1,Goals and Policy Amendments) states: “Goal C-1 of the Comprehensive Plan is to coordinate with Marion County regarding planning issues that extend beyond the boundaries of the City of Woodburn, including amendments to the Comprehensive Planand Transportation System Plan, and achievea compact urban growth form.” Affected public agencies, including Marion County,have been notified on the proposed amendments tothe WDO. Conclusion: Legislative 2016-01complies with Goal C-1 of the Comprehensive Plan. LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 6 of 8 34 Findings: The State adopted 19 goals for state and local land use decisions. The statewide planning goals applicable to this case are Goals 1 (Citizen Involvement), 2 (Land Use Planning), 9 (Economic Development) and 12 (Transportation). Goal 1 requires that the City develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Agency and public notice has been provided. Open houses have been held and public hearings conducted. Goal 2 requires that the City establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related totheuse of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. The Woodburn Development Ordinance contains procedures and requirements for facts and findings. The proposed amendments clarifythe intent of the WDO by: Including diagrams, illustrations, tables, charts and maps o Updating and standardizing terminology o Eliminating conflicting standards and circular references o Making the ordinance more user-friendly o Correcting scrivener errors o Goal 9 requires the City to provide adequate opportunities for a variety of economic activities vital to health, welfare, and prosperity. The amendments clarify the standards of the Ordinance. Goal 12 requires that the City provide and encourage a safe,convenient and economic transportation system. The proposed amendments recognize the need fencing while recognizing vision clearance standards along public streets. : The proposed additions and amendments are consistent with applicable Conclusion statewide planning goals. Woodburn DevelopmentOrdinance Findings: Legislative amendments are Type V legislative decisions.The Development Ordinance addresses Type V decisions in Section 4.101.06.E, Decision Making Procedures. The Planning Commission heldan initial public hearing on the proposal on August 25, 2016 and madea recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then holds a de novo public hearing, scheduled for September 12, 2016 and makes the City’s final decision. Conclusions: The proposed amendment is a Type V legislative decision.The decision-maker is the City Council. LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 7 of 8 35 Findings: The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development was sent a Notice of Proposed Amendment, as required by statute. Affected agencies (Marion County, the State of Oregon, the Woodburn School District, and the Woodburn Fire District,) as well as the Woodburn Historic Neighborhood Association,were also notifiedby mail.Notice was published in the Woodburn Independent. Conclusion: The public hearing has been publicizedas required by State statute and the Woodburn Development Ordinance. CONCLUSIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed amendments areconsistent with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The PlanningCommissionconducted a public hearing on August25, 2016 and at the conclusion of the public hearing,recommended that the City Council approve amendments to the fence and nodal standards,as contained in LA 2016-01. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on thatportion of LA 2016-01 dealing with scrivener errors to September 22, 2016. Those amendments willcome separately for actionat the City Council meeting onOctober 10, 2016. It is recommended that Council hold the public hearing on the fence and nodal standards, take action on those amendments,and continue LA 2016-01, which dealswith scrivener errors, to October 10, 2016. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ExhibitA: Fence and Wall Standards Exhibit B: Nodal Standards LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE\\Staff report City Council Page 8 of 8 36 Exhibit A Fence and Wall Standards Note: Text that is crossed out is deleted. New text isitalicized, underlined and highlighted. 2.06Accessory Structures The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for accessory structures such as fences, walls, storage buildings, detached garages and gazebos. 2.06.01Applicability 2.06.02Fences and Walls 2.06.03 Structures 2.06.01 Applicability The following standards are applicable to accessory structures in all zones. 2.06.02Fences and Walls Location and Height Abutting a Streetin Residential Zones A. The height shall comply with the vision clearance area standards, Section 1. 3.03.06. The height shall not exceed 42 inches (3½ feet) above the curb elevation,the 2. ground elevation under the fence or wall.when located at the lot line abutting the street.For streets without curbs, the maximum height shall be measured relative to the elevation of the center line of the improved street. The height may increase one foot for each 6 feet of setback from the lot line 3. abutting the street.Fences may increase to their maximum height (7 ft) when flush with the houseor garage. Forcorner lots, one frontage shall not exceed the standards in #2 above. The 4. alternative frontages are treated as interior lot line(s),allowing fencing in excess of 42 inches up to, and equalwith, the house frontage. The remaining frontage shall not exceed the 42 inch limitation. For through lots, abutting streets and/or alleys on two opposite frontages, the 5. rear frontageopposite the front isbe treated as an interior lot line, allowing a Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 2.06 Page 1 37 maximum height of 7 ft. Fences and walls may be constructed in the special setback, provided the 6. property owner agrees to removal at such time as streetimprovements are made. Height in Yards Not Abutting a Street B. In residential zones, the maximum height of a fence or wall located in a yard not 1. abutting a street,other than for corner and/or through lots,shall be seven feet, relative to the ground elevation under the fence or wall. Height in Non-Residential Zones C. In commercial, industrial, or public zones, the maximum height of a fence or 2. wall located in a yard not abutting a street shall be nine6feet, relative to the ground elevation under the fence orwall.Fence height may increase to 9 feet onceflush with the building face, or 20 feet from streetright-of-way. Fences and walls may be constructed in the special setback provided the 3. property owner agrees to removal at such time as street improvementsare made. Fence Materials D. 1.Fences and walls shall be constructed of any materials commonly used in the construction of fences and walls, such as wood, stone, rock, or brick, or other durable materials. 2. Chain link fences are acceptable as long as the fenceis coated and includes slats made of vinyl, wood or other durable material. Slats may not be required when visibility into features such as open space, natural areas, parks and similar areas is needed to assure visual security, or into on-site areas in industrial zones that require visual surveillance. 3. For manufacturing, assembly, fabricating, processing, packing, storage and wholesale and distribution activities which are the principle use of a building in industrial districts, the preceding standards apply when visible from, and within 20 . feet of, a public street Figure 2.06A –Fence or Wall Height Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 2.06 Page 2 38 Figure 2.06B–Stepped Fence or Wall 2.06.03Structures A.Accessory structures attached to a primary building shall be considered as a portion of the primary building and subject to the same requirements as the primary building. B.The minimum separation between detached accessory structures and the primary building shall be six feet. Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 2.06 Page 3 39 Exhibit B Nodal Standards Note: Text that is crossed out is deleted. New text isitalicized, underlined and highlighted. 2.05.04Nodal Overlay Districts A. Purpose Development within the Nodal Overlay Districts includes multi-family, single family, attached single family (row houses) and small-lot single family development, with limited commercial development and accessible parks. The intent of the overlay districts is to provide community identity to higher density residential developments within walking distance (generally one-half mile or less) of the neighborhood commercial center. Nodal development will be designed with a pedestrian focus, with interconnected streets and pedestrian walkways, alleys serving garages located at the rear of lots, and with limited on-street parking. Nodal Overlay Districts are shown on the Comprehensive Plan Map with zoning applied at the time of annexation. To ensure that land is efficiently used within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), master plans shall be requiredfor land within Nodal districts. B.Nodal Single Family Residential (RSN) and Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) Districts 1.Vehicular access directly to a public street is prohibited and alley access to garages facing the alley is required for anything other than standard single family development.Off-street parking, maneuvering and storage is prohibited within a required front or side setback, or any yard abutting a street with attached single family and small-lot single family development. 2.Alleys shallbe required for all small lot single-family residential subdivisions and attached single family (row houses) development.Alleys shall be dedicated and paved to a minimum width of 20 feet. No parking shall be allowed within an alley right-of-way. C.MasterPlanning Requirement 1.A master development plan shall be approved by the City Council for the entire area designated as Nodal Overlay on the Comprehensive Plan Map, prior to annexation of any property within the Nodal Development Overlay Comprehensive LandUse Plan map designation. The master plan shall be conceptual and non-binding in nature, but may be used as a general guide for development within the Nodal Overlay Districts. 40 2.The required master plan shall show: a)The location and rights-of-way for existing and planned streets. These streets shall provide access to all existing and proposed parcels, consistent with the Transportation System Plan (TSP); b)The location and size of existing and planned sanitary sewer, storm water and water facilities, at adequate levels to serve existing and proposed development; c) The location and area of the Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District (RCWOD). Planned streets and public facilities that cannot reasonably avoid the RCWOD shall be indicated; d)A development plan for the Nodal Neighborhood Commercial center, neighboring multi-family areas, and potential parks, including planned pedestrian and bicycle connections within the Nodal Overlay District as shown on the Transportation System Plan, and pedestrian and bicycle connections to Southwest Industrial Reserve areas; e)A development plan for all residential areas, demonstrating consistency with applicable nodal design standards. D.Removal of a Nodal Overlay District 1.Removal of a Nodal Overlay District from any area or parcel shall require the following: a)A revised transportation, housing and commercial land needs analysis, consistent with the Goal 9, 10 and 12 Rules (OAR Chapter 660, Divisions 8, 9 and 12); b)A Comprehensive Plan Amendment that demonstrates compliance with all applicable Statewide Planning Goals, applicable goals and policies of the Marion County Framework Plan, and applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; c) A zoning map amendment that demonstrates consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. 41 Note: Text that is crossed out is deleted. New text is italicized, underlined and highlighted. Nodal Residential Single-Family (RSN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02C 1 Interior or cul-de-sac lot6,000 Single-family dwelling, Standard lotchild care facility or group 8,000 Lot Area, Corner lot 2 home Minimum (square Any other use10,000 feet) 1 Interior or cul-de-sac lot4, 000 Small lot and row house Corner lot5,000 Interior or cul-de-sac lot50 Standard lot Lot Corner lot80 Width, Minimum Interior or cul-de-sac lot4530 Small lot and row (feet) house Corner lot6050 Lot Depth, Standard lot90 Average (feet)Small lot androw house80 Standard lot Residential Density, Minimum (units per netacre)5.2 42 Nodal Residential Single-Family (RSN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02C Small lotandrow houseResidential Density, Minimum (units per net acre)7.9 Interior or cul-de-sac lot40 Single-family dwelling, Standard lotchild care facility or group 40 Corner lot 2 home Street Frontage, Any other use50 Minimum (feet) Interior lot40 Small lotand row houseCorner lot50 Cul-de-sac lot30 3, 4 Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet)20 Front Porch Setback, Maximum (feet)10 7, 8 Side Setback, Minimum (feet)5 5, 7,10 Primary structure20or 0 Rear Setback, Average (feet) Accessory structure5 Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet)5 43 Nodal Residential Single-Family (RSN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02C 9 Primary building height 16 feet or less40 Lot Coverage, 9 Primary building height more than 16 feet35 Maximum (percent) 6, 25 of rear yard Accessory structure 9 Primary structure35 Building Height, Features not used for habitation70 Maximum (feet) Accessory structure15 1.Flag lots are not allowed in the RSN zone. 2.Child care facility for 12 or fewer children, group home for five or fewer persons 3.Measured from the Special Setback (Section 3.03.02), if any 4.Infill lots between developed lots: average of abutting residential buildings, plus or minus 5 feet, but not less than 10 feet 5.With a maximum deviation of fivefeet from the setback standard 6.Accessory structures are included in the total lot coverage. Accessory structures are also limited to 25% coverage of the rear yard. 7.A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 8.Row houses have a 0 foot side setback on interior lots 9.Lot coverage limitations determined by setbacks for small lot and row house development 10.Garages have a 20 ft or 0 ft setback 44 Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02F 1, 2 Single-family dwelling, Interior or cul-de-sac lot4, 000 child care facility or group 2 Corner lot5, 000 home 1 Interior lot3, 000 Row house Lot Area, Corner or cul-de-sac lot3,600 Minimum (square feet) 1 Duplex8, 000 Multiple-family dwelling, child care facility, group home 1, 3 87,120 or nursing home 7 Any other useNot specified 2 Interior or cul-de-sac Lot45 Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group 2 Corner lot60 home Interior lot2820 Row house Lot Width, Corner or cul-de-sac lot4035 Minimum (feet) Duplex80 Multiple-family dwelling, child care facility, group home 3 200 or nursing home 7 Any other useNot specified Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group home 2 80 or row house Duplex90 Lot Depth, Average (feet) Multiple-family dwelling, child care facility, group home 3 200 or nursing home 7 Any other useNot specified Interior lot4020 Corner lot5035 45 Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02F Single-family dwelling, child care facility, group Cul-de-sac lot30 , homeor multiple-family 2 dwelling Street 2820 Interior lot Frontage, Row house Minimum (feet) 4035 Corner or cul-de-sac lot Duplex80 Any other use200 Single-family dwelling7.9 Duplex or row houses10 Minimum Multiple-family dwelling19 7 Any other useNot specified Residential Density (units 7 Multiple-family dwelling24 per net acre) Child care facility, group care facility 3,7 32 or nursing home Maximum 7 Manufactured dwelling park12 7 Any other useNot specified Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group 2, 4 20 home 4 Abutting an arterial street20 Front Setback Row house and Setback 4 Not abutting an arterial street10 Abutting a Street, Abutting commercial or industrial 4 20 Minimum (feet) zone, or collector or arterial street Any other use Not abutting commercial or 4 industrial zone, or collector or 10 arterial street 46 Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02F 10 plus 5 for Abutting an RS zoneeach story over 4 1 Row housesTo front porch10 Abutting commercial or industrial Front Setback Duplex, 3 Not specified zone, or collector or arterial street and Setback multiple-family Abutting a dwelling, group Not abutting commercial or Street, home or nursing 3 industrial zone, or collector or 15 Maximum (feet)home arterial street Any other useNot specified Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group 2 5 home 5, 9 Row house15 16 or less24 Abutting RS, RM, or P/SP zone, or Building more than 16 an existing single- Side Setback, height and less than 30 family, duplex, or Minimum (feet) All (feet)28 multiple-family other dwelling uses 28 or more36 8 Abutting NNC, or CG zone10 Abutting SWIR zone15 Accessory structureSame as primary 2, 6 16 or less24 Single-family dwelling, Building more than 16 and 2, 6 child care facility or height 30 Rear Setback, less than 28 group home(feet) Minimum (feet) 2, 6 28 or more36 11 Row houses20or 0 47 Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) -Site Development Standards Table 2.02F Any other useSame as side Accessory structure5 Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet)5 2 Single-family Primary building height 16 feet or less 40 dwelling, Lot Coverage, child care Primary building height more than 16 2 35 facility or Maximum feet or less group home (percent) 7, 10 Any other useNot specified Primary structure45 Building Height, Features not used for habitation70 Maximum (feet) Accessory structure15 1. Flag lots are not allowed in the RMN zone. 2. Child care facility for 12 or fewer children, group home for five or fewer persons 3. Child care facility for 13 or more children, group home for six or more persons 4. Measured from the Special Setback (Section 3.03.02), if any 5. For row houses, there is no side setback along common lot lines. 6. With a maximum deviation of five feet from the setback standard 7. The minimum lot dimensions, maximum density, and maximum lot coverage are determined by setbacks, off-street parking, and landscaping requirements. 8. A house of worship shall be set back at least 20 feet from a property line abutting a residential zone or use. 9. Row houses have a 0 foot side setback on interior lots 10. Lot coverage limitations determined by setbacks for small lot and row house development 11. Garages have a 20 ft or 0 ft setback 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Agenda Item September 12, 2016 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Jim Row, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Public Hearing/Ordinance Amendments to adopt an updated Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe City Councilconduct a public hearing and consider adoption ofan ordinance amending Ordinance 2250 (The Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Ordinance), effective October 13, 2016. BACKGROUND: SDClegislation was first adopted by the State of Oregon in 1989. SDCs are fees that are charged to developers to fund the expansion of infrastructure for parks, streets, water, wastewater, or storm water management systems. By statute, SDCs can only be utilized to fund projects that add capacity to the system. The City of Woodburn has collected and utilized parks and recreation SDCs since 1992. The parks SDC methodology was most recently updated in 1999, immediately following an update to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. While the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was updated again in 2009, the City did not update the SDC methodology, since it was believed that the local market could not accommodate increased development fees in the wake of the economic and housing market recession. DISCUSSION: Now that the economy and housing market have recovered and the UGB expansion has been approved, it is necessary to review and update the Parks SDC methodology to ensure that the City collects the resources required to expand the park system as necessitated by growth. The SDC methodology that the Council is asked to consider adopting includes an updated parks Capital Improvement Project (CIP) list, which has been reviewed and is supported by the Recreation and Park Board. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator __x____City Attorney __x____Finance __x___ 58 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 2 State law has strict provisions that require a city to develop a formula, or “methodology”, which takes into account the value of existing or planned capacity in the infrastructure system to serve new development. Oregon law allows for both a “reimbursement fee” and an “improvement fee.” A “reimbursement fee”is based on the value of available reserve capacity for capital improvements already constructed or under construction. The methodology must consider the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing users, the value of unused capacity, grants, and other relevant factors. The is designed to recover all or a portion of the costs improvement fee of planned capital improvements that add system capacity to serve future development. The methodology must be designed in a manner that SDCs will not exceed the growth-related costs from the CIP. The ordinance presented for your consideration amends Ordinance 2250 (the Parks and Recreation SDC Ordinance) to do the following: Adds a new definition of SDCto include a “reimbursement fee,” in addition to an “improvement fee,” as permitted by state law. Adopts the Methodology Report dated July 11, 2016 as the statutory basis for increasing any SDCs. Amends the existing ordinance languagetorequire that theCity Council approve annual rate adjustments, as opposed to them being authorized solely by theCity Administrator. Additionally, the formula that is used to calculate annual rate increases is revised to eliminate the average land value factor, since theMarion County Assessor’s Office no longer produces this figure. Annual rate adjustments will now be equal to the change in the regional construction cost index. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The $18,000 cost to update the Parks SDC Methodology is funded by the Parks SDC Fund. The current residential SDCs are $1,752 (single family), $1,882 (multi- family), $1,160 (manufactured). It is proposed that the residential SDC be increased to $3,365 for all housing types. The non-residential SDC will increase from $31 per employee to $133 per employee. The increased revenues that are expected to result from the updated methodology and resulting fees are unknown at this time. 59 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3013 ORDINANCE NO. 2536 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REPEALING SECTIONS OF ORDINANCE 2250 (THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ORDINANCE) BASED UPON A METHODOLOGY REPORT DATED JULY 11, 2016 AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE ORS 223.297 –223.314 authorizes local governments to WHEREAS, impose System Development Charges; and the City has adopted Ordinance 2250 establishing Parks WHEREAS, and Recreation SystemDevelopment Charges; and the City last updated the Parks and Recreation System WHEREAS, Development Charges Methodology on November 19, 1999; and the City seeks to ensure that future growth contributes its WHEREAS, fair share toward the cost of improvements and additions to parks and recreation facilities that are necessary to accommodate the needs of such growth;and the City recently completed an update to the Parks and WHEREAS, Recreation System Development Charges Methodologyand wants to adopt it as the justification for new Parks and Recreation System Development Charges, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 (T) of Ordinance2250 is amended to read as Section 1. follows: (T) "Reimbursement fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements already constructed or under construction on the effective date of this ordinance. Section 1 (U) of Ordinance2250 is amended to read as Section 2. follows: (U) "Right-of-Way" shall mean that portion of land that is dedicated for public use. Page 1 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 3013 ORDINANCE NO. 2536 60 Section 1 (V) of Ordinance 2250 is amended to read as Section 3. follows: (V)“SystemDevelopment Charges” shall mean an improvement fee or reimbursement fee assessed or collected at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit or building permit.System Development Charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a condition of development. Section 3 (B)of Ordinance 2250 is amended to read as Section 4. follows: Rates of Charges. (B) (1) The City hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the report entitled "Methodology Report - Parks and Recreation System Development Charges” dated July 11,2016, particularly the assumptions, conclusions and findings in such study as to the determination of anticipated costs of capital improvements required to accommodate growth and the rates for system. (2) SystemDevelopment Charges are imposed on all new development in the City for capital improvements for parks and recreation. The System Development Charges shall be paid in addition to all other fees, charges and assessments due for development, and are intended to provide funds only for capital improvements necessitated by new development. (3) The City shall, based upon the report referred to in subsection (1) above, adopt by resolution the amounts of System Development Charges. (4) Additional SystemDevelopment Charges may be assessed by the City if the demand placed on the City's capital facilities exceeds the amount initially estimated at the time System Development Chargesare paid. The additional charge shall be for the increased demand or for the demand above the underestimate, and it shall be based upon the fee that is in effect at the time the additional demand impact is determined, and not upon the fee structure that may have been in effect at the time the initial SystemDevelopment Charges werepaid. This provision does Page 2 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 3013 ORDINANCE NO. 2536 61 not apply to single family or other residential units unless additional rental units are created. (5) Notwithstanding any other provision, the System Development Charge rates adopted pursuant to this ordinance of each year, after the first year that the may on January 1 st ordinance is effective, be adjusted by the City Council to account for changes in the cost of constructing facilities.The adjustment factor shall equal the change in construction costs according to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington) Construction Cost Index. The System Development Charge Adjustment Factor shall be used to adjust the System Development Charge rates, unless they are otherwise adjusted by action of the City Council based on adoption of an updated methodology or capital improvements plan (master plan). Section 6 of Ordinance No. 2250 is amended to read as Section 5. follows: .This ordinance shall be legally effective on October Effective Date 13, 2016. Approved as to form: City AttorneyDate Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather Pierson, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 3013 ORDINANCE NO. 2536 62 Methodology Report Parks System Development Charges Prepared For July 11, 2016* *With minor edits 8/28/16 1 63 SECTION 1 Introduction System development charges (SDCs) are an important funding source for parks capital improvement projects. The City of Woodburn last updated its Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and SDC methodology in 1999. The City adopted a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 2009, which includes an updated list of planned capital improvements and priorities. The proposed park SDCs presented in this report are intended to bring the SDCs into alignment with current cost and planning assumptions contained in the Master Plan, and to incorporate a reimbursement component for existing park capacity that will help meet the needs of future development. Oregon legislation establishes guidelines for the calculation of SDCs. Within these guidelines, local governments have some latitude in selecting technical approaches and establishing policies related to the development and administration of SDCs. A discussion of this legislation follows; the recommended methodology for calculating parks SDCs is presented in Section 2. SDC Legislation in Oregon In the 1989 Oregon state legislative session, a bill was passed that created a uniform framework for the imposition of SDCs statewide. This legislation (Oregon Revised Statute \[ORS\] 223.297-223.314), which became effective on July 1, 1991, (with subsequent amendments), authorizes local governments to assess SDCs for the following types of capital improvements : Drainage and flood control Water supply, treatment, and distribution Wastewater collection, transmission, treatment, and disposal Transportation Parks and recreation The legislation provides guidelines on the calculation and modification of SDCs, accounting requirements to track SDC revenues, and the adoption of administrative review procedures. SDC Structure SDCs can be developed as: (1) a reimbursement fee, (2) an improvement fee, or (3) a combination of the two. The is based on the costs of capital reimbursement fee improvements . The legislation requires the already constructed or under construction reimbursement fee to be established or modified by an ordinance or resolution setting forth the methodology used to calculate the charge. This methodology must consider the cost of existing facilities, prior contributions by existing users, gifts or grants from federal or state government or private persons, the value of unused capacity available for future system 1 64 users, rate-making principles employed to finance the capital improvements, and other relevant factors. The objective of the methodology must be that future system users contribute no more than an equitable share of the capital costs of facilities. existing Reimbursement fee revenues are restricted only to capital expenditures for the specific system which they are assessed, including debt service. The methodology for establishing or modifying an must be specified in an improvement fee ordinance or resolution that demonstrates consideration of the projected costs of capital , that are needed to increase capacity in the improvements identified in an adopted plan and list system to meet the demands of new development. Revenues generated through improve- ment fees are dedicated to capacity-increasing capital improvements or the repayment of debt on such improvements. An increase in capacity is established if an improvement increases the level of service provided by existing facilities or provides new facilities. In many systems, growth needs will be met through a combination of existing available capacity and future capacity-enhancing improvements. Therefore, the law provides for a (reimbursement plus improvement component). However, when such a fee is combined fee developed, the methodology must demonstrate that the charge is not based on providing the same system capacity. Credits The legislation requires that a credit be provided against the improvement fee for the construction of “qualified public improvements.” Qualified public improvements are improvements that are required as a condition of development approval, identified in the system’s capital improvement program, and either (1) not located on or contiguous to the property being developed, or (2) located in whole or in part, on or contiguous to, property that is the subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related. Update and Review The methodology for establishing or modifying improvement or reimbursement fees shall be available for public inspection. The local government must maintain a list of persons who have made a written request for notification prior to the adoption or amendment of such fees. The legislation includes provisions regarding notification of hearings and filing for reviews. “Periodic application of an adopted specific cost index or… modification to any of the factors related to the rate that are incorporated in the established methodology” are not considered “modifications” to the SDC. As such, the local government is not required to adhere to the notification provisions. The criteria for making adjustments to the SDC rate, which do not constitute a change in the methodology, are further defined as follows: “Factors related to the rate” are limited to changes to costs in materials, labor, or real property as applied to projects in the required project list. The cost index must consider average change in costs in materials, labor, or real property and must be an index published for purposes other than SDC rate setting. 2 65 The notification requirements for changes to the fees that represent a modification to the do methodology are 90-day written notice prior to first public hearing, with the SDC methodology available for review 60 days prior to public hearing. Other Provisions Other provisions of the legislation require: Preparation of a capital improvement program or comparable plan (prior to the establishment of a SDC), that includes a list of the improvements that the jurisdiction intends to fund with improvement fee revenues and the estimated timing, cost, and eligible portion of each improvement. Deposit of SDC revenues into dedicated accounts and annual accounting of revenues and expenditures, including a list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole or in part, by SDC revenues. Creation of an administrative appeals procedure, in accordance with the legislation, whereby a citizen or other interested party may challenge an expenditure of SDC revenues. The provisions of the legislation are invalidated if they are construed to impair the local government’s bond obligations or the ability of the local government to issue new bonds or other financing. 3 66 SECTION 2 SDC Methodology Overview The methodology used to calculate parks SDCs begins with determination of the “cost basis” (the costs in aggregate associated with meeting the capacity needs of growth). Then, growth costs are divided by the projected growth units (population and employees) to determine the system-wide unit costs of capacity. Finally, the SDC schedule is developed which identifies how the system-wide costs will be assessed to individual development types. Population and Employment Park capacity is measured in terms of people served –resident population and resident and nonresident employees. Table 1 provides population and employment data derived from recent City planning documents for use in the SDC analysis. Table 1 City of Woodburn Park SDC Analysis Population and Employment Data PriorProjected Existing Item2000202020252035 1 Population20,86024,67034,91936,06841,170 2 Employment 10,38814,57518,76219,17521,668 3 Equivalent Population20,86026,46037,22338,42243,831 Recent Growth 4 5,600 Future Growth 11,962 1 Based on Legislative findings on remand 2 From City of Woodburn 3 Population plus equivalent employee population (12%) 4 The increment of existing development since 2000 (subject to prior SDCs) The concept of equivalent population is used to recognize different utilization levels of parks by the general population (used to estimate residential development capacity needs) and employees (used to estimate nonresidential development needs). For purposes of this analysis, the equivalent population for nonresidential development is equal to 12 percent of total employees. This analysis reflects the ratio of estimated future park use by residents to park use by employees (see Appendix Tables A-1 and A-2 for more details). 4 67 The planning period for the SDC capital improvement plan (CIP) is 2025. However, the planned community center is assumed to meet service area needs through 2035. As shown in Table 1, future growth in population and employees through 2025 is estimated to be 11,398 and 4,600, respectively. Growth in equivalent population is estimated to be 11,962 (about 31 percent) of the projected 2025 total, and is used as a basis for determining planned levels of of service for parks and facilities (discussed further below). The City has been collecting SDCs since 2000 to pay for park improvements. That recent growth represents about 21 percent of the existing equivalent population, and represents the portion of costs that may be funded through existing SDC reserves. Capacity Analysis The City – through adoption of the Parks Master Plan --is planning for acquisition and development of the parks system consistent with the community’s desired level of service (LOS). In order to equitably fund the CIP, both new development and existing park users will need to contribute to the improvements at a level that reflects their relative needs, as determined by the planned LOS. The planned LOS for a particular park or facility is defined as the quantity of future City-owned park acreage or facilities per 1,000 equivalent population served. The following equation shows the calculation of the planned LOS: ExistingQ PlannedLOS PlannedQ FuturePopulationServed Where: Q = quantity (acres of parks, miles of trails, or number of facilities), and Future Population Served = projected 2025 equivalent population Table 2 shows the existing and future LOS by park type and trails. The City’s Master Plan identifies the following park classifications: Core parks (neighborhood, community, mini, and municipal parks) Urban/Special Use parks Natural area Greenways The capacity requirements, or number of park acres or trail miles, needed for the existing population and for the growth population are estimated by multiplying the planned (future) LOS for each park type (from Table 2) by the equivalent population of each group (from Table 1). Table 3 shows this capacity analysis for each park type, and for the Mill Creek Trail land and development. 5 68 6 2.070.050.000.000.162.13 1,000) (Units/ LOS Future 79.722.070.000.006.0181.79 Developed Units 2.070.050.520.210.162.86 1,000) (Units/ LOS Future 79.722.0720.018.116.01109.91 Total ts Uni 2.450.080.000.000.042.52 (Units/ 1,000) LOS Existing Developed 64.722.070.000.001.0066.79 69 Units 2.450.080.760.310.093.59 1,000) (Units/ LOS (2) Downtown Plaza, Cowan, Library, and Locomotive Parks Existing 64.722.0720.018.112.4394.91 Total Units hborhood, Mini, Community, Municipal Existing and Planned Levels of Service Measure AcresAcresAcresAcres Miles Unit (4) Hermanson parks; Wyfells park Parks and Open Space Owned Acres Urban/Special Use (2) Recreation Trails Park SDC Analysis City of Woodburn (3) Senecal Park Natural Area (3) Mill Creek Trail Greenways (4) Core Parks (1) - Total City (1) Neig Table 2 Type 7 70 As shown in Table 3, the City has varying degrees of excess (surplus) capacity in existing park acreage; however, there is a deficit for the Mill Creak Trail – both in terms of total land owned and developed -- compared to the planning standard. Additional acreage included in the CIP is limited to 15 acres of core parks (both land purchase and development). Based on the planned LOS shown in Table 2, future growth requires almost 25 acres of Core Park land, of which almost 10 acres is provided through current excess capacity (Reimbursement column in Table 2), and 15 acreas is provided from new CIP (Project List) investment. Available capacity in other park types varies from 0.6 acres for Urban/Special Use Parks, to 6.2 acres for Natural Areas. The Mill Creek Trail is primarily a new facility (the City currently owns a portion of the land for the trail, and has developed 1 mile of the planned 6 miles). Based on the planned LOS, future growth requires 1.9 miles of the planned investment in additional land and development. A separate capacity analysis (shown in Table 4) was conducted for parks and recreation facilities. Similar to the park land analysis, the capacity analysis for facilities is based on the planned LOS. As shown in Table 4, the planned LOS for facilities is shown as the equivalent population served per facility. In some cases, the additional planned investment will yield an enhanced LOS – meaning that the number of people served by a single facility is lower (e.g., basketball, loop walks and shelters). In other cases, new facilities types are being added (spray features, sport courts, and a boundless playground and community center). For facilities with enhanced LOS – either existing or new facility types – a portion of the planned investment is needed to meet the needs of existing development. In other cases, where the planned LOS declines (meaning each facility will serve a higher equivalent population than currently), all of the new investment is needed for future development (such is the case for firels and playgrounds). 8 71 9 Reimb 17%31%0%0%4%31%14%0%31%31%0%0%0%0%0% % Reimb 0.90.30.00.00.23.41.10.00.30.30.00.00.00.00.0 Inv. Growth Project 100.00%100.00%100.00% 57.08%77.83%80.95%93.40%31.13%31.13%31.13%27.29% List % nananana (Each) Need 1.90.31.71.62.23.43.14.00.30.30.90.60.60.30.3 Project 42.92%19.05%68.87%68.87%68.87%60.37% 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 0% List % 0.0 Existing (Each) Need 0.000.001.290.440.000.000.000.950.000.000.071.381.380.69 0.6 Per Equiv. Planned 6,40438,4226,9867,6845,4893,4933,8422,95638,42238,42212,80719,21119,21138,42243,831 Pop. 72 6.0 1.0 5.5 5.0 7.0 11.0 10.0 13.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Facilities Future (1) Per Equiv. 5,29226,46010,5848,8205,2922,4053,3073,30726,46026,46013,2300000 Existing Capacity Analysis and Project List Allocations for Facilities Pop. Inventory Existing 5.01.02.53.05.011.08.08.01.01.02.00.00.00.00.0 (1) Boundless Playground wned only Community Center Park SDC Analysis Ballfield, complex burn use Fields Spray Feature Facility Type City of Wood Playgrounds urt BasketballSkate Park Loop WalkOpen Turf Parcourse (1) City o Shelter Sport Co Ballfield Table 4 Tennis - Multi Cost Basis As noted in Section 1, Oregon law provides that SDC may include either or both of the following: —the portion of the SDC charged to cover an equitable share of the Improvement fee capital improvements needed to meet the service requirements of future development. —the portion of the SDC charged to recoup the community’s past Reimbursement fee investment in parks and facilities related to the capacity needs of future growth. Improvement Fee The current Parks CIP (based on the Parks Master Plan) includes almost $26 million in improvements to existing parks and facilities, and acquisition of additional land for Core Parks and the Mill Creek Trail. Table 5 provides a listing of park improvements during the planning period, and an allocation of costs between existing development (recent and prior to 2000), and future development (growth). As mentioned previously, the CIP is generally a 10-year planning horizon; however, some major facilities (Community Center and existing Worl Berry Museaum/Theater) are assumed to serve population through 2035; only the portion serving future development through 2025 is included in the SDC cost basis. The Total improvement fee cost basis is $11.4 million. The SDC project list shown in Table 5 identifies the portion of planned capital project costs that are related to future (post 2015) development, for purposes of calculating the updated SDCs. As mentioned previously, the City has been collecting SDCs since 2000 to pay for a portion of the planned parks improvements. Growth since 2000 (shown as “Recent Growth” in Table 1) represents almost 21 percent of the existing equivalent population, and represents the portion of costs that may be funded through existing SDC reserves. The current SDC reserves are approximately $0.2 million, and area assumed to fund short term priority projects (projects planned for 2016-2019). Reimbursement Fee The reimbursement fee cost basis is the sum of the value of the existing system inventory funded by City revenues that will serve growth. The capacity requirements for existing development and growth were developed in Tables 2-4 for the City’s parks, trails, and facilities. Existing acreage and facilities that exceed the capacity requirement of existing development are available to meet the needs of growth. As Tables 3 and 4 indicate, the existing system has available (surplus) capacity in acreage for all parks, and many facilities. Table 6 shows the calculation of the reimbursement fee cost basis. The City’s existing fixed asset records were used to determine the cost of prior investment in parks and facilities; the reimbursement allocation percentages from Tables 3 and 4 were then used to determine the cost of each line item eligible for reimbursement. As shown in Table 6, the reimbursement fee cost basis totals almost $1.5 million. 10 73 11 74 12 75 Table 6 City of Woodburn Park SDC Analysis Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis OriginalOtherNetReimbursementAllocation FundingCost%$Basis Cost Park Land Core Parks$1,096,204$0$1,096,20415%$166,328Core Reimb Urban/Special Use$37,034$0$37,03431%$11,530Urban Reimb Park Development Legion$682,648$278,000$404,64815%$61,397Core Reimb Centenial$1,262,161$500,000$762,16115%$115,643Core Reimb Ballfield$222,937$0$222,93717%$38,704Facility Reimb Settlemier$88,181$0$88,18115%$13,380Core Reimb Skate Park$211,447$0$211,44731%$65,832Facility Reimb Greenway$483,879$210,000$273,8790%$0Trail Reimb Playgrounds$191,999$91,900$100,09914%$13,931Facility Reimb Picnic Shelter$16,246$0$16,2460%$0Facility Reimb General$104,077$0$104,07731%$32,403Population Existing Facilities Pool$3,462,279$0$3,462,27927%$944,927Facility Reimb Museum$91,972$0$91,97227%$25,101Facility Reimb $7,951,064$1,079,900$6,871,164$1,489,175 Compliance Costs Local governments are entitled to include in the SDCs, the costs associated with complying with the SDC statutes. Compliance costs include costs related to developing the SDC methodology and project list (i.e., a portion of planning costs), and annual budgeting and reporting. As shown in Table 7, the estimated compliance costs over the 10-year planning period are approximate $105,000. Table 7 City of Woodburn Parks SDC Analysis Compliance Costs Total Parks Plan $35,196 SDC Methodology $20,000 Accounting, Reporting $50,000 Total $105,196 13 76 SDC Schedule Unit Costs To determine the SDC schedule, the system-wide unit costs of capacity are first determined, as shown in Table 8.The unit cost calculations begin with allocation of the cost basis between residential and nonresidential development. For SDC development purposes, park costs are allocated to residential and nonresidential development based on each group’s share of future equivalent population. As shown in Table 1, total growth in equivalent population is estimated to be 11,962, including 11,398 new residents (95 percent) and 565 1 nonresidential equivalents (5 percent). Based on these allocations, residential development is allocated $12.4 million (combined reimbursement and improvement costs), and nonresidential is allocated $0.6 million of future growth-related park costs from Tables 5-8. Compliance costs are allocated to each group in proportion to the total capital costs. Table 8 City of Woodburn Parks SDC Analysis SDC Unit Cost Calculation Growth $Growth Units$/Unit Capital ComplianceTotal Improvement Fee Residential$10,853,326$10,853,326 11,398$952 Nonresidential$537,814$537,814 4,600 $117 Total$11,391,140$0$11,391,140 Reimbursement Fee Residential$1,418,867$100,229$1,519,096 11,398$133 Nonresidential$70,309$4,966.65$75,2764,600 $16 Total$1,489,175$105,196$1,594,371 The growth capacity units for both residential and nonresidential developments are people; in the case of residential it is total population, and in the case of nonresidential the unit of measure is employment. The growth in population and employment during the 10-year planning period is estimated to be 11,398 and 4,600, respectively. Dividing the residential cost by the total growth in population yields improvement and reimbursement unit costs per person of $952 and $133, respectively. Similarly, the unit costs for nonresidential are $117 (improvement) and $16 (reimbursement) per employee. SDC Schedule SDCs are assessed to different development types based on average dwelling occupancy and employee density (employees per thousand square feet), as estimated by local or regional data. Planning data for the City does not show significant difference in occupancy 1 As discussed previously, the nonresidential equivalents are equal to the number of employees multiplied by an equivalency factor of 12 percent. 14 77 for different types of dwelling unit types; therefore a uniform SDC of $3,365 per dwelling unit (based on occupancy of 3.1 persons per household) is recommended. This compares to a current SDC of $1,752 for single family and $1,882 for multifamily. Table 9 City of Woodburn Parks SDC Analysis Parks SDC Schedule Development TypeUnitsUpdatedCurrent Residential ($/dwelling unit)pphh Single-Family3.1$3,365$1,752 Multifamily (>1 unit)3.1$3,365$1,882 Nonresidential ($/employee) $133$31 The updated nonresidential SDC per employees is $133, compared to $31 currently. For nonresidential development, the SDC is assessed based on estimated employees (generally based on employment density and building size). Inflationary Adjustments In accordance with Oregon statutes, it is recommended that the SDCs be adjusted annually based on a standard inflationary index. Because parks SDCs include both land acquisition and facility improvement, the City currently uses a combination of indices to annually adjust charges: Change in Average Market Value from rom the County Tax Assessor Engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest Construction Cost Index . 15 78 Appendix Table A-1 City of Woodburn Parks SDC Study Weighted Average Park Availability Hours by Class Residential Season/PeriodNon- Not-Employed Kids (5-17)Employed Residential Adult Adult Summer Weekday Before Work1 Breaks1 After Work2 Other Leisure121220 Subtotal121224 Weekend Leisure1212120 Subtotal1212120 Hours/Day 12.00 12.00 4.86 2.86 Spring/Fall Weekday Before Work0.5 Breaks1 After Work1 Other Leisure10420 Subtotal10422.5 Weekend Leisure1010100 Subtotal1010100 Hours/Day 10.00 5.71 4.29 1.79 Winter Weekday Before Work0.5 Breaks1 After Work0.5 Other Leisure8210 Subtotal8212 Weekend Leisure8880 Subtotal8880 Hours/Day 8.00 3.71 3.00 1.43 Annual Avg. Weighted Hours10.007.144.052.02 16 79 Table A-2 City of Woodburn Parks SDC Study Determination of Parks Equivalent Population Ratio GrowthAvg. HoursUnit CategoryUnitsPer person/dayHours/Day% Total Population Kids (5-17)2,566 7.1418,320 Non-Emplyed Adults (18+) 2,616 1026,156 Employed Adults (18+) 5,438 Work In City1,564 4.056,329 Work out of City 3,875 4.0515,681 Subtotal10,620 66,485 88% Employees Residents 1,564 2.02 3,164 Nonresidents 3,036 2.02 6,143 Subtotal 4,600 9,307 12% Total 15,219 75,792 17 80 Agenda Item September 12, 2016 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM:Jim Row, Assistant City Administrator SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Updated Parks and Recreation SDC Fees RECOMMENDATION: That the City Counciladopt a resolution establishing Parks and Recreation SDC Fees pursuant to the recently updated Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology. BACKGROUND: While the Parks and Recreation Master Plan was most recently updated in 2009, however, the City did not update the SDC methodologyat that time, since it was believed that the local market could not accommodate increased development fees in the wake of the economic and housing market recession. DISCUSSION: Now that the economy and housing market have recovered and the UGB expansion has been approved, it is necessary toimplement updated Parks and Recreation SDC fees, pursuant to the recently updated Parks and Recreation SystemDevelopment Chargesmethodology.Ordinance 2250 provides for these SDC charges to be established by resolution. The updated schedule is as follows: Old FeeNew Fee Single Family$1,752/ dwelling unit$3,365/ dwelling unit Multi-Family $1,882/ dwelling unit$3,365/ dwelling unit Manufactured Housing$1,160/ dwelling unit$3,365/ dwelling unit Non-residential $31/ employee$133/ employee FINANCIAL IMPACT: The increased revenues that are expected to result from the updated SDC fee schedule are unknown at this time. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator __x____City Attorney __x____Finance __x___ 81 COUNCIL BILL NO. 3014 RESOLUTION NO. 2085 A RESOLUTION SETTING THEAMOUNT OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES PURSUANT TOA RECENTLY UPDATEDPARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES METHODOLOGY; ESTABLISHING AN ALTERNATIVE RATEREVIEW FEE; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPOSITION OF THE FEES AND CHARGES ORS 223.297 – 223.314 authorizes local governments to impose WHEREAS, system development charges; and the City last updated the Parks and Recreation System WHEREAS, Development Charges Methodology on November 19, 1999; and On September 12, 2016, the City Council conducted a public WHEREAS, hearing to consider adopting an updated Parks and Recreation System Development ChargesMethodology and amendments to Ordinance 2250 to supportthe Parks and Recreation SystemDevelopment Charges; and Ordinance 2250 was amended and the updated Parks System WHEREAS, Development Charges Methodology was adopted; and Ordinance 2250 provides that the amounts of the Parks and WHEREAS, Recreation and Parks SystemDevelopment shall be set by resolution; and Ordinance 2250 also allows the City to establish an alternative WHEREAS, rate review fee by resolution; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES The scheduleof Parks and Recreation SystemDevelopment Charges attached as Exhibit “A”, and, by this reference, incorporated herein is hereby adopted to be imposed beginning the effective date identified in Section 3 of this resolution. Section 2. ALTERNATIVE RATE REVIEW FEE The minimum fee for review of an alternative rate review calculation shall be two-hundred-and-fifty dollars ($250), to be paid at the time the alternative Page 1 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 3014 ORDINANCE NO. 2085 82 rate calculation is submitted for review. If the City hires a consultant to assist in reviewing the information submitted, the cost of the consultant’s review shall be shared equally by the City and the applicant, and the applicant shall pay its share of the cost of the consultant’s review at the time the City decides whether or not to accept the alternative rate. Section 3. EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date for imposition of the fees and charges identified in this resolution shall be October 13, 2016. Approved asto form: City AttorneyDate Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Heather PiersonCity Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 – COUNCIL BILL NO. 3014 ORDINANCE NO. 2085 83 EXHIBIT “A” PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SCHEDULE Effective: October 13, 2016 DEVELOPMENT TYPESDC PER UNIT Residential (all housing types) $3,365/dwelling unit Non-residential $133/employee The non-residential fee is assessed based on astructure’s gross square footage peremployee as determined by the following MetroEmployment Density Study guidelines: SQUARE FEET PER EMPLOYEE (Recommended Guidelines from Metro Employment Density Study) Standard Industry Square Feet Standard Industry Square Feet Per Employee Classification (SIC) Per Employee Classification (SIC) Manufacturing: Trucking 1,500 General 700 Communications 250 Food Related 775 Utilities 225 Textile, Apparel 575 Lumber, Wood Products560 Retail: Paper and Related 1,400 General 700 Printing and Publishing600 Hardware 1,000 Chemicals, Petrol, Food Stores 675 Rubber, Plastics 850 Restaurant/ Bar 225 Cement, Stone, Glass, Clay800 Appliance/ Furniture 1,000 Furniture and Furnishings600 Auto Dealerships 650 Primary Metals 1,000 Gas Station (gas only) 300 Secondary Metals 800 Gas Station (Gas and Service)400 Non-Electrical Machinery600 Regional Shopping Center600 Electrical Machinery 375 Electrical Design 325 Services: Transportation Equipment500 Hotel/ Motel 1,500 Other 400 Health Services (hospital) 500 Health Services (clinic) 350 Wholesale Trade: Educational 1,300 Durable Goods 1,000 Cinema 1,100 Non-Durable Goods 1,150 Personal Services (office)600 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Warehousing: Business Services (office)350 Storage 20,000 Distribution 2,250 Government Administration300 84 Agenda Item September 12, 2016 TO:Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM:N.RobertShields, City Attorney Jim Hendryx, Economic & Development Services Director James C. Ferraris, Chief of Police UBJECT: S Revised Traffic Ordinance Discussion RECOMMENDATION: After the City Council considers the Revised Ordinance regulating the overnight parking and storage of recreational vehicles(RVs)on City streets and the parking of any vehicles in designated and marked fire lanes on both public City streets and private right-of-ways, the City Council could: 1.Direct staff to undertake a community outreach and information campaign designed to take public feedback on the proposed revisions and raise awareness about the issue per the Public Outreach Plan contained within this Agenda item. 2.Adopt the revised Ordinance as submitted. 3.If there is no consensus on the revised provisions, provide further direction on how to proceed with the proposed Ordinance as the Council deems appropriate. BACKGROUND: Proposed amendments to the Traffic Ordinance were first brought before the Council at the August 8, 2016, meeting as part of the Ordinance Review/Revision Project. Draft modifications were proposed on the basis of two primary issues: -Fire Lane parking enforcement; and -RV parking/storage on City streets. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator __x____City Attorney ___x___Finance __x___ 85 Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 2 During the August 8meeting, a consensus by the Council was reached on the th matter of new enforcement provisions for fire lane parking violations. That portion of the proposed ordinance amendment remains unchanged. Most of the Council discussion, however, was centered on RV parkingand storage. Councilors expressed differing points of view as to how to best address the issues relatedto this topic. After an extensive Council discussion, it was agreed that a Revised Ordinance (attached) would be prepared. DISCUSSION: In preparing theRevised Ordinance, the comments and concerns expressed by Council membersat the August 8th meetingwere reviewed and considered. Additionally, various city ordinances from around the stateand home owner association rules that address RVs were considered. Proposed changes to Section 16 and 17 of the ordinance regulating RV parking, so as to respond to many of the comments and concerns Council raised at the August 8meeting, have been outlined below: th -The concern thatthe 1-day out of 7-day parking Comment/Concern: regulationwould beunreasonable and/or overly restrictive to those who require more than 1-day or evening to pack their RV and/or desire to return and unload their RV within that 7-day window. Additionally, the concern overthe 10-day out of 1-year parking regulation would be unreasonable and/or overly restrictive to those who more regularly use their RV and require the overnight parking to prepare or unload from trips on a more frequent basis. Change toa simple 48-hour restriction that has no Proposed Revision: o limitations on number of days per week or yearthat an RV can be parked on City Streets. This change would still requiremovement of the RV off city streets on a more stringenttimeline than the 72-hours allowed for regular motor vehicles—cutting down on the consecutive days an RV may be parked,—but it also allows a family to an unlimited number of trips they could take. -A desire to really formulatean ordinance that has the Comment/Concern: purpose and effect ofgetting at those who are currently abusing the RV storage ordinance, while not penalizing the individual or family that is trying to follow the rules. 86 Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 3 Adding language that the parking of an RV on Proposed Revision: o City streets for any 48-hour period is for the purpose of loading, unloading, or otherwise preparing the RV for use and that using the street for storage is not allowed. -Having an ordinance that puts an onus on the RV Comment/Concern: owner to either beactively using his or her RV for going out on trips or finding alternative off-street storage for the RV. Placing emphasis on the definition within Section Proposed Revision: o 17 of what constitutes “movement” of the RV that has been differentiated from the definitionof "movement"for regular motor vehicles. For RVs, the proposed revision requires that the RV is actually moved off of the city street, not just the block where it was parked. -Location restrictions in the proposed ordinancefor Comment/Concern: where an RV can park were inconsistent and/or problematic for homeowners who live on corner lots. Rephrasing the proposal to include that parked Proposed Revision: o RVs must merely be located adjacent to the home of the owner (or if it is a guest, the home where they are visiting). Parking can then occur on either frontage of a corner or through-lot, but still must be in close proximity to the home. -That the following part of the ordinance language Comment/Concern: should stand alone so as to emphasize its importance: “Failure to move a \[vehicle within the regulated time\] constitutes prima facie evidence of violation of the section.” Change was made to move this language from Proposed Revision: o Section 16 alone, to be added to Section 17 that regulates the calculation of storage time for both Section 15 and 16. Thislanguage was then put into its own subsection so as to emphasize its importance in how the parking restrictions are enforced. -That the ordinance could or should include restrictions Comment/Concern: that deter individuals from sleeping in RVs while they are parked on City streets. 87 Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 4 Adding a restriction that human occupancy of Proposed Revision: o RVs is not permitted while the vehicle is parked on City streets during any allowable time period. -That regular motor vehicles still have a safe means to Comment/Concern: navigate through city streets and not be obstructedby RVs, which instigates many of the calls received by code enforcement about this issue. Adding language that states that regardless of Proposed Revision: o whether somebodymeets all of the other criteria for parking their RV on the street, their RV must still be parked in a manner thatdoes not interfere with traffic or create a hazard by obstructing the view of drivers. PROPOSED PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN At the direction of the City Council, the City will engage in the following public outreach effort to take public feedback on the proposed traffic ordinance amendments by highlighting the issueper the following: 1)Staff will draft a series of articles to be pushed to the community via the City’s Weekly E-Blast including an email address for citizens to submit any comments they may have regarding the proposed amendments electronically. 2)The City will take out a paid advertisement in the Woodburn Independent highlighting the issue of illegal parking and the proposed amendments being considered bytheCity Council. 3)The City will also send direct notifications to the City’s various home owner and neighborhood associations informing them of the proposed revisions and asking for input. 4)The City will schedule a Parking Ordinance Open House at the Woodburn Police Department’s Community Roomwhere the issue will be presented and public feedback taken. Once the City has completed this effort, all feedback and the proposed parking ordinance amendments will come back to the City Council for final consideration. 88 Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 5 FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. 89 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC ORDINANCE 2285 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING MOTOR VEHICLE, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC WITHIN THE CITY OF WOODBURN; REPEALING ORDINANCES 1904, 2078 AND 2191; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1.Short Title.This ordinance may be cited as the “City of Woodburn Traffic Ordinance.” Section 2.Definitions. (1)The definitions contained in the Oregon Vehicle Code, ORS Chapter 801, as constituted on the date this ordinance takes effect, are hereby incorporated by reference. (2)As used in this Ordinance, the following words and phrases mean: (a)Bus stop. A space on the edge of a roadway designated by sign for use by buses loading or unloading passengers. (b)Chief of Police. The Chief of Police of the City of Woodburn or designee. (c)City. The City of Woodburn. (b)City Administrator. The City Administrator of the City of Woodburn or designee. (d)Council. The City Council of the City of Woodburn. (e)Emergency. A situation where an unforeseen combination of circumstances calls for immediate action in order to avoid damage to a vehicle or where a vehicle was rendered inoperable but does not include a situation where the vehicle is left standing in excess of 24 hours. (f)Holiday. New Year's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and any other day proclaimed by the Council to be a holiday. (g)Loading zone. A space on the edge of a roadway designated by sign forthe purpose of loading or unloading passengers or materials during specified hours of specified days. ON. 2285 P 1 RDINANCE OAGE 90 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (h)Parade. Any march, demonstration, procession or motorcade consisting of persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination thereof upon the streets, parks or other public grounds within the City with an intentof attracting public attention that interferes with the normal flow or regulation of traffic upon the streets, parks or other public grounds. (i)Person. A natural person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation, company or organization of any kind. (j)Street. Any place or way set aside or open to the general publicfor purposes of vehicular traffic. (k)Traffic lane. That area of the highway used for or designated forthe movement of a single line of traffic. (l)Truck. A “motortruck” vehicle as defined by ORS 801.355that is vehicledesigned and used primarily for drawingother vehicles, such as truck trailers, or Commented \[MHG1\]: Proposed change to align the for carrying loads other than passengers, andsubject to state licensing for ten thousand defined term w/ the ORS chapter 801 definition of Motor Truck for better precision. (10,000) pounds or more gross vehicle weight. (m)Truck Trailer. Any trailer designed and used primarily for carrying loads other than passengers whether designed as a balance trailer, pole trailer, semitraileror self-supportingtrailer. Administration Section 3.Powers of the Council.Subject to state law, the Council constitutes the City road authority under ORS 810.010 and is empowered with all municipal traffic authority for the City except those powers specificallyand expressly delegated herein or by another ordinance. Section 4.Duties of the City Administrator. The City Administrator shall implement the ordinances, resolutions and motions of the Council. Installation of traffic control devices shall be based on the standards contained in the Oregon Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Section 4A.Duties of Chief of Police.In addition to any other duties provided herein, the Council delegates to the Chief of Police theauthority under ORS 810.030 to impose temporary street closures for a period not to exceed 14 days. Temporary street closures may be made because of traffic accidents or hazards, construction activity, natural disasters, special events, or any other reason where temporary closure is necessary to protect the interest and safety of the general public. (Section 4A added by Ordinance 2323 adopted July 17, 2002.) Section 5.Public Danger.Under conditions constituting a danger to thepublic, the City Administrator may install temporary traffic control devices which aredetermined to be necessary. ON. 2285 P 2 RDINANCE OAGE 91 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC Section 6.Standards. The regulations of the Mayor and City Council or its designate shall be based upon: (1)Traffic engineering principles and traffic investigations. (2) Standards, limitations and rules promulgated by the OregonTransportation Commission. (3) Other recognized traffic control standards. Section 7. Authority to Enforce Ordinance. Police officers as defined by ORS 801.395 and all other City employees designated by the City Administrator have the authority to enforce the provisions of this Ordinanceto all City of Woodburn owned or operated property, highways as defined by ORS 801.305, and all private streets within the City limits specificallynoted bythis Ordinance. Commented \[MHG2\]: Authority language for enforcement on private streets where designated by the ordinance, which is only “Fire Lanes” at this point in time. Section 7A.Right of Entry.When necessary to investigate a suspected violation of this Ordinance, the enforcement officer may enter on any site open to the public for the purpose of investigation,provided entry is done in accordance with law. Absent a search warrant, no site that is closed to the public shall be entered without the consent of the owner or occupant. If entry is refused, the enforcement officer shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry. Commented \[MHG3\]: This “Right of Entry” language is similar in scope to what we include in the code enforcement section for nuisance properties. It curtails some of the Section 8. Alteration of Traffic Control Devices Prohibited.No unauthorized authority to act on private property to what is lawful under person shall install, move, remove, alter the positionof, or deface or tamper with a traffic Oregon/Federal law, while still providing an appropriate control device. means by which enforcement can take action under this ordinance. Section 9. Presumption that Traffic Control Device was Lawfully Authorized and Installed.A traffic control device is presumed to be lawfully authorized and installed unless the contrary is established by competent evidence. General Regulations Section 10.Crossing Private Property. No operator of a vehicle shall proceed from one street to an intersecting street by crossing private property. This provision shall not apply to the operator of a vehicle who stops on the property for the purpose of procuring or providing goods or services. Section 11. Unlawful Riding. (1) No operator shall permit a passenger and no passenger shall ride on a vehicle upon a street except on a portion of the vehicle designed or intended for the use of passengers. This provision shall not apply to an employee engaged in the necessary discharge of a duty, or to a person riding within a truck body in space intended for merchandise. ON. 2285 P 3 RDINANCE OAGE 92 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (2) No person shall board or alight from a vehicle while the vehicle is inmotion upon a street. Section 12. Prohibited Devices. No person shall use the streets for traveling on skis, toboggans, sleds, skates, skateboards roller blades or other similar devices. Section 13. Removing Glass and Debris. A party to a vehicle accident or a person causing broken glass or other debristo be deposited upon a street shall remove the glass and other debris from the street. Section 14. Obstructing Streets.No unauthorized person shall obstruct the free movement of motor vehicles or pedestrians using the streets. Section 15. Storage of Vehicles on Streets. No person shall store or permit to be stored on a street or other public property, without permission of the City, a vehicle or personal property. Failure to remove a vehicle or other personal property for a period of 72 hours shall constitute prima facie evidence of storage of a vehicle. Section 16. Storage and Parking Trucks, Trailers, Boats, Campers, Car Units and Other Vehicles. Commented \[MHG4\]: Additional locations added to the scope of this provision for consistency with the Oregon Fire (1) No person shall park a truck,or truck trailer upon any street, alley, avenue Code. or public way in any residential area of the City adjacent to any residence, apartment, Commented \[MHG5\]: Delineating from the start that the hotel, care facility, church, school, hospital, multiple dwelling, park or playground in any use of public streets for the storage of RVs is generally area of the City.The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to prohibit the lawful prohibited. This change emphasizes the general purpose of parking of such equipment upon any street, avenue or public way in theCity for the the overall regulation and tracks consistently with the actual loading or unloading of goods or to make repairs necessitated by an emergency.language from Section 15 above. Commented \[MHG6\]: Scope of terms for this provision revised to align w/ ORS chapter 801 defined terms. (2) No person shall store or permit to be stored on a street or otherpublic property,without permission of the city, park a bus or vacation house trailer, motor Commented \[MHG7\]: Revised limitation to a simpler 48- hour calculation of parking time being allowed with the home, recreational vehicle, travel trailer, camper, boat and/orboat trailer, whether added criteria of subsection (a) – (d) below. attended or unattended., motor home, tent trailer, utility trailer, or any motorized or Commented \[MHG8\]: Emphasizing again that RV parking unmotorized vehicleon any street or on any avenue or public way within the City for on the city street cannot be for mere storage, and will be longer than 72 hours. A bus, motorhome, recreational vehicle, travel trailer, camper, limited to the scope of loading/unloading/prep of the RV for usage. boat and/or boat trailermay be parked on a street for a period of not more than forty- Commented \[MHG9\]: Location restriction for RV parking eight (48) hours if it meets the criterialisted below: is rephrased to “adjacent to property,” so that residents on corner or through lots can have more flexibility for where (a) It is parked for the purpose of loading, unloading, or otherwise being they may park their RV; while the provision still maintains the purpose of restricting non-residents from parking their prepared for use; RVs on City streets or from residents parking their RVs on City streets that are not in proximity to where they actually (b) It is owned by the resident or guest of the resident of the property it is reside. parked adjacent to; Commented \[MHG10\]: Added provision that includes a restriction against human occupancy of an RV while it is (c) It is not being used for human occupancy while parked on the street; parked on City Streets. While not by itself an anti-camping ordinance, this added section may be a helpful tool in and addressing any future instances of people living in RVs on City Streets. ON. 2285 P 4 RDINANCE OAGE 93 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (d) It is parked in a manner which does not interfere with traffic or create ahazard by obstructing the view of drivers.Commented \[MHG11\]: Added provision to address potential safety concerns and visibility issues for other drivers on City streets. Section 17. Calculation of Time of Storage. (1)Failure to move a vehicle regulated by Section 15 and 16 of this Ordinance after expiration of any of the time periods set forth constitutes prima facie evidence of violation of that Section. Commented \[MHG12\]: Changed to make this section of the provision stand alone so as to emphasize its importance in how time under this ordinance for storage is calculated. (2)For purposes of Section 15 of this Ordinance, “move” meansWhen calculating hours underSections 15 and 16 of this Ordinance, the continuity of time shall not be deemed broken by the movement of the motor vehicle or personal property elsewhere on the block unless the movement removingesthe motor vehicle or personal property from the block where it is located before it is returned. (3)For purposes of Section 16 of this Ordinance, “move” means removingthe bus, motor home, recreational vehicle, travel trailer, camper, boat and/or boat trailer off the City’s streetsor other public propertybefore it is returned. Commented \[MHG13\]: These revisions are included to distinguish how “movement” of a vehicle will differ in calculating the time of storage based on the vehicle type Parking Regulations and the Section on Storage (either 15 or 16) that applies. The difference being highlighted is that regular vehicles just Section 18. Method of Parking. have to “leave the block” vs. RVs have to be “removed off the City’s streets” before returning. (1) Where parking space markingsare placed on a street, no person shall stand or park a vehicle other than in the indicated direction, and unless the size orshape of the motor vehicle makes compliance impossible, within a single markedspace. (2) The operator who first begins maneuvering a motor vehicle into a vacant parking space on a street shall have priority to park in the space, and no other motor vehicle operator shall attempt to interfere. (3) Whenever the operator of a vehicle discovers the vehicle is parked close to a building to which the fire department has been summoned, the operator shall immediately remove the vehicle from the area, unless otherwise directed by the police or fire officers. Section 19. Prohibited Parking or Standing. In addition to the state motorvehicle laws prohibiting parking, no person shall park or stand: (1) A vehicle in an alley other than for the expeditious loading or unloading of persons or materials, and in no case for a period in excess of 30 consecutive minutes. (2) A motor vehicle upon a street for the principal purpose of: (a) Displaying the vehicle for sale. ON. 2285 P 5 RDINANCE OAGE 94 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (b) Repairing or servicing the vehicle, except to make repairsnecessitated by an emergency. (c) Displaying advertising from the vehicle. (d) Selling merchandise from the vehicle, except when authorized. (3) A motor vehicle parked in such a manner that it damages or causes to be damaged any public improvement within the City including streets, alleys, or other public ways. The person who parked the vehicle shall be liable to the City for thedamage caused thereby. (4)A vehicleon a highway or streetclearly designated as a fire apparatus access road or fire lane per Section 2 of the Oregon Fire Code.A curb painted red or otherwise marked as a “Fire Lane” designates a fire apparatus access road or fire lane and may be established on public or private property. Commented \[MHG14\]: New prohibition against parking in designated “Fire Lanes,” whether marked on public or private property. Section 20. Affirmative Defense of Emergency Repairs.Under Sections 15, 16and 19 of this Ordinance, it shall be an affirmative defense that the prohibited parking was necessitated by an emergency and the defendant shall have the burden ofproving the existence of the emergency by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 21. Use of Loading Zone. No person shall stand or park a vehicle forany purpose or length of time, other than for the expeditious loading or unloading ofpersons or materials, in a place designated as a loading zone when the hoursapplicable to that loading zone are in effect. In no case, when the hours applicable tothe loading zone are in effect, shall the stop for loading and unloading of materialsexceed the time limits posted. If no time limits are posted, then the use of the loadingzone shall not exceed 30 minutes. Section 22. Unattended Vehicles. Whenevera police officer finds a motor vehicle parked unattended with the ignition key in the vehicle, the police officer is authorized to remove the key from the vehicle and deliver the key to the person in charge of the police station. Section 23. Standing orParking of Buses. The operator of a bus shall not standor park the vehicle upon a street in a business district at a place other than a bus stop, except that this provision shall not prevent the operator from temporarily stopping the bus outside a traffic lane while loading or unloading passengers. Section 24. Restricted Use of Bus Stops. No person shall stand or park a vehicle other than a bus in a bus stop, except that the operator of a passenger vehicle may temporarily stop for the purpose of, and while actually engaged in, loading or unloading passengers when stopping does not interfere with a bus waiting to enter orabout to enter the restricted zone. ON. 2285 P 6 RDINANCE OAGE 95 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC Section 25.Extension of Parking Time.Where maximum parking time limits are designated by sign, movement of a vehicle in a block shall not extend the time limits for parking. Section 26. Exemption. The provisions of this ordinance regulating the parkingor standing of vehicles shall not apply to a vehicle of the city, county or state or publicutility while necessarily in use for construction or repair work on a street, or a vehicleoperated by the United States while in use for the collection, transportation or deliveryof mail. Abandoned Vehicles Section 27. Authority Over Abandoned Vehicles within City.City police officers and code enforcement personnel employed by the Cityand supervised by the Chief of Police shall have authority pursuant to ORS 819.140(1)(c) to take abandoned vehicles into custody and exercise powers over abandoned vehicles pursuant to state law. Section 28. Abandoned Vehicle Procedure.All abandoned vehicles shall be processed under the provisions of state law. Bicycles Section 29. Bicycle Operating Rules.In addition to observing all other applicable provisions of this ordinance and state law pertaining to bicycles, a person shall: (1) Not leave a bicycle, except in a bicycle rack. If no bike rack is provided, the person shall leave the bicycle so as not to obstruct any roadway, sidewalk,driveway or building entrance. A person shall not leave a bicycle in violation of theprovisions relating to the parking of motor vehicles. (2) Not ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within the downtown core area bounded on the north by Harrison Street, on the west by Second Street, on the south by Cleveland Street, and on the east by Front Street. Section 30. Licensing. The owner or lawful possessor of a bicycle may obtain a license in the following manner: (1) The police department shall issue licenses and in so doing, shall obtainand record the name and address of each person purchasing a license and the make,model and serial number (if any) of the bicycle. (2) A number shall be assigned to each bicycle so licensed, and a record of the license issued shall be maintained as part of the police records. A license plate assigned shall be affixed to the frame of the bicycle. (3) A fee for a bicycle license shall be $1.00; all license fees collected shall be paid over to the general fund. ON. 2285 P 7 RDINANCE OAGE 96 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC Section 31. Impounding of Bicycles. (1) No person shall leave a bicycle on public or private property without the consent of the person in charge or the owner thereof. (2) A bicycle left on public property for a period in excess of 24 hours may be impounded by thepolice department. (3) In addition to any citation issued, a bicycle parked in violation of this ordinance may be immediately impounded by the police department. (4) If a bicycle impounded under this ordinance is licensed, or other means of determining its ownership exist, the police shall make reasonable efforts to notify the owner. (5) A bicycle impounded under this ordinance which remains unclaimed shall be disposed of in accordance with the city's procedures for disposal of abandoned or lost personal property. Pedestrians Section 32. Right Angles. A pedestrian shall cross a street at a right angle,unless crossing within a crosswalk. Section 33. Use of Available Crosswalk.No pedestrian shall cross a street other than within a crosswalk in blocks with marked crosswalks or if within 150 feet of a marked crosswalk. Section 34. Skates, Skateboards, and Roller blades.No person shall use skates, skateboards, roller blades or other similar devices upona sidewalk within the downtown core area bounded on the north by Harrison Street, on the west by Second Street, on the south by Cleveland Street, and on the east by Front Street. Funeral Processions Section 35. Funeral Processions. (1) A funeral procession shall proceed to the place of interment by the most direct route which is both legal and practical. (2)The procession shall be accompanied by adequate escort vehicles for traffic control purposes. (3) All motor vehicles in the procession shall be operated with their headlights turned on. ON. 2285 P 8 RDINANCE OAGE 97 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (4) No person shall unreasonably interfere with a funeral procession. (5) No person shall operate a vehicle which is not a part of the procession between the vehicles of a funeral procession. Parades Section 36.Permit Required.No person shall engage in or conduct anyparade unless a permit is issued by the Chief of Police. Section 37.Parade Permit Application. (1) Application for a parade permit shall be made, except for a funeral procession, to the Chief of Police at least seven days prior to the intended date of parade, unless the time iswaived by the Chief of Police. In considering whether to waive the minimum time within which an application for a permit must be made, the Chief of Police shall consider the following factors: (a) Whether the size, route or nature of the proposed parade is suchthat additional law enforcement or other resources are required; (b) Time needed to inform the public of the parade in order tominimize public inconvenience. (2) Applications shall be signed by the applicant and include the following information: (a) The name, address and telephone number of the persons responsible for the proposed parade. (b) The name, address and telephone number of the headquarters of the organization for which the parade is to be conducted, if any, and the authorizedand responsible heads of the organization. (c) The requested date of the proposed parade. (d) The desired route, including assembling point. (e)A statement as to whether the parade will occupy all or only a portion of the width of the streets proposed to be traveled. (f) The location by street of any assembly areas for such parade. (g) The number of persons, vehicles and animals which will be participating in the parade. ON. 2285 P 9 RDINANCE OAGE 98 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (h) Theestimated number of spectators. (i) A description of any recording equipment, sound amplification equipment, banners, signs, or other attention-getting devices to be used in connection with the parade. (j) The intervals of space to be maintained between units of such parade. (k) The proposed starting and ending times. Section 38.Standards for Issuance. (1) The Chief of Police shall issue a parade permit as provided for hereinwhen, from a consideration of the application and from such other information as may otherwise be obtained, the Chief of Police finds that: (a) The conduct of the parade will not substantially interrupt the safe and orderly movement of other pedestrian or vehicular traffic contiguous to its route or location; (b) Theconduct of the parade will not require the diversion of so great a number of City police officers to properly police theline of movement and the areas contiguous thereto as to prevent normal police protection of the City; (c) The concentration of persons, animals, and vehicles at public assembly points of the parade will not unduly interfere with proper fire and police protection of, or ambulance service to, areas contiguous to such public assemblyareas; (d) The conduct of the parade is not reasonably likely to cause injuryto persons or property; (e) The parade is scheduled to move from its point of origin to its point of termination expeditiously and without unreasonable delays en route; (f) Adequate sanitation and other required health facilities are or will be made available in or adjacent to any public assembly areas; (g) There are sufficient parking placesnear the site of the parade to accommodate the number of vehicles reasonably expected; (h) No parade permit application for the same time and location is already granted or has been received and will be granted. Section 39. Denial of Permit.If the Chief of Police denies the permit basedupon the standards for issuance specified in Section 38, written findings shall be issued specifying the reasons for the decision and a copy of thefindings shall be furnished to the applicant. ON. 2285 P 10 RDINANCE OAGE 99 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC Section 40. Alternative Permit. (1) The Chief of Police, in denying an application for a parade permit, may authorize the conduct of the parade at a date, time, location, or route different from that named by the applicant. An applicant desiring to accept an alternate permit shall, within five (5) days after notice of the action of the Chief of Police, file a writtennotice of acceptance with the Chief of Police. (2) An alternate parade permit shall conform to the requirements of, andshall have the effect of, a parade permit issued under this Ordinance. Section 41. Notification of Decision. (1) The Chief of Police shall notify the applicant of the decision within five days of receipt of the application. (2) If the Chief of Police requires an alternate route or an alternate date or refuses to issue a permit, the applicant shall have the right to appeal this decision to the Council. Section 42. Appeal to Council. (1) The applicant may appeal the decision of the Chief of Police by filing a written request of the appeal with the City Recorder within five days after the Chief of Police has proposed alternatives or refused to issue a permit. (2) The Council shall schedule a hearing date which shall not be later thanthe second regular session following the filing of the written appeal with the CityRecorder and shall notify the applicant of the date and time that he may appear eitherin person or bya representative. Section 43. Public Conduct During Parades. (1) No person shall unreasonably hamper, obstruct or impede, or interferewith any parade or with any person, vehicle or animal participating or used in aparade. (2) No driver of a vehicle shall drive between the vehicles or persons comprising a parade when such vehicles or persons are in motion and are conspicuously designated as a parade. (3) The Chief of Police shall have the authority, when reasonably necessary,to prohibit or restrict the parking of vehicles along a street constituting a part of theroute of a parade. Section 44. Prohibited Conduct.The following prohibitions shall apply to all parades: ON. 2285 P 11 RDINANCE OAGE 100 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to stage, present, or conduct any parade without first having obtained a permit as herein provided; (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to participate in a parade for which the person knows a permit has not been granted; (3) It shall be unlawful for any person in charge of, or responsible for the conduct of, a duly licensed parade to knowingly fail to comply with any condition of the parade permit; Section 45. Permit Revocable.The City Administrator may revoke a paradepermit if: (1) An imminent threat of violence and personalinjury to the parade participants exists, all reasonable efforts to protect the parade participants have failed, and a request to disband the parade made tothe parade organizers has been refused; (2) Actual violence that endangers public safety has been caused byparade participants and public safety cannot be protected without revocation of thepermit; or (3) There is significant deviation from the route designated in the applicationor approval, or assembly at points not shown in the application or approval, whichoccurs without approval of the Chief of Police. Parking Citations and Owner Responsibility Section 46. Citation on Illegally Parked Vehicle. Whenever a vehicle withoutan operator is found parked in violation of a restriction imposed by this ordinance orstate law, the officer finding the vehicle shall take its license number and any otherinformation displayed on the vehicle which may identify its owner, and shallconspicuously affix to the vehicle a traffic citation instructing the operator to answer tothe charge and at the time and place specified in the citation. Section 47. Owner Responsibility.The owner of a vehicle placed in violation ofa parking restriction shall be responsible for the offense, except when the use of thevehicle was secured by the operator without the owner's consent. Section 48. Registered Owner Presumption. In a prosecution of a vehicleowner charging a violation of a restriction on parking, proof that the vehicle at the timeof the violation was registered to the defendant shall constitute a presumption that the defendant was then the owner in fact. Impoundment and Penalties Section 49. Authority to Impound Improperly Parked Vehicles.When any unattended vehicle is parked upon a street, alley or public way of the City in such a manner that it is unlawfully parked in any prohibited or restricted area or is unlawfully parked for a length of time prohibited by this Ordinance, such vehicle is declared by the ON. 2285 P 12 RDINANCE OAGE 101 T WOC OODBURN RDINANCE OMPILATIONRAFFIC Council to be a public nuisance and it shall be subject to abatement, removal and impounding in accordance with the procedures provided for abandoned vehicles pursuant to state law. Section 50. Civil Infraction Assessment.Each violation of any provision of this Ordinance constitutes a class 4 civil infraction and shallbe dealt with according to the procedures established by City ordinance. General Section 51. Severability Clause. If a portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect validity ofthe remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 52. Repeal. Ordinances 1904, 2078 and 2191 are hereby repealed. Section 53. Saving Clause.The repeal of any ordinance by this Ordinance shall not preclude any action against any person who violated the ordinance prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 54. Emergency Clause. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. ON. 2285 P 13 RDINANCE OAGE 102 Agenda Item September 12, 2016 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM:Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director Kate Foster, Associate Planner UBJECT: S Planning Commission Approval of a Variance for Removing Balconies at Wood Park Terrace Apartments, Located at 1025 Park Avenue (VAR 2016-05) RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended.This item is placed before the Council for informational purposes, in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.02.02. The Council may call up this item for review if desired. BACKGROUND: The variance is requested to modify a previous approval and remove all of the upstairs balconies from the apartment complex. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2016 and unanimously approved VAR 2016-05. There was nopublic input on the proposal. The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM). FINANCIAL IMPACT: This decision is anticipated to have no direct public sector financial impact. Agenda Item Review:City Administrator ______City Attorney ______Finance _____ 103 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 2 ZONING MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 104 Honorable Mayor and City Council September 12, 2016 Page 3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 105 ANNEXATION 2016-02 1385 Cooley Road Alexsey & Juliana Bodunor Rights and Duties Prior to Start of Hearing OregonLawandtheWoodburnDevelopmentOrdinancegovernlocalquasi- judiciallandusehearingsandrequirethatpersonswhoattendbeadvisedof certainrightsanddutiesbeforethehearingbegins. Theapplicablecriteriaforthishearingarelistedinthispresentationandinthe noticeofpublichearing.Thetextofallapplicablecriteriaisprintedinthe staffreport. Thehearingwillproceedinthefollowinggeneralorder:staffreport, applicant’spresentation,testimonyinfavoroftheapplication,testimonyin oppositiontotheapplication,rebuttal,recordcloses,deliberationand decision; Thelawrequiresthatalltestimony,argumentsandevidencemustbedirected towardthelistedcriteria.Ifapersonbelievesothercriteriaintheplanorland useregulationapply,thosecriteriamustbeidentifiedanddiscussedonthe record.Thedecision-makermayreasonablylimitoralpresentationsinlength dependingupontimeconstraintsandtocontentthatisrelevanttoapplicable approvalcriteria.Anypartymaysubmitwrittenmaterialswhiletherecordis open. Rights and Duties Prior to Start of Hearing Failuretoraiseanissueaccompaniedbystatementsorevidencesufficientto affordthedecision-makerandallinterestedpartiesanopportunitytorespond totheissueprecludesanappealtotheLandUseBoardofAppealsbasedon thatissue. Failureoftheapplicanttoraiseaconstitutionalorotherissuerelatingto proposedconditionsofapprovalwithsufficientspecificitytoallowtheCityto respondtotheissueprecludesanactionfordamagesincircuitcourt. Priortotheconclusionoftheinitialevidentiaryhearing,anyparticipantmay requestanopportunitytopresentadditionalevidence,argumentsortestimony regardingtheapplication.Thedecision-makerwillgranttherequestbyeither (1)continuingthepublichearingtoaspecificdateandtimeatleastsevendays fromthedateoftheinitialevidentiaryhearing,or(2)leavingtherecordopen foratleastsevendaysforadditionalwrittenevidenceortestimony. Applicable Criteria From the Woodburn Development Ordinance Applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance: Sections; 1.01, 1.02, 1.103, 2.01, 4.01, 4.02, and 5.04. Additional relevant criteria are the goals and policies of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the standards of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation Site Comprehensive Plan -Low Density Residential Zoning -Residential Single-Family (RS) Aerial Picture of the Subject Property Site Site Pictures –Cooley Rd Site Pictures –Cooley Road Site Pictures Site Pictures Site Pictures Site Pictures Site Pictures Criteria Criteria: • Shall be contiguous; • Link to planned public facilities; or • Verify that public facilities have adequate capacity to • serve existing and future development of the property Demonstrated community need: • The territory to be annexed should be contiguous to the • City on two or more sides; The territory to be annexed should not increase the • inventory of buildable land to more than a 5-year supply; The site is feasible for development and provides either: • Completion or extension of the arterial/collector street; • or Connects existing stub streets, or other discontinuous • streets, with another public street Annexation fulfills a need that has been identified by the • City Council after a public hearing Annexation Process An annexation may be initiated by petition based on the written consent of: The owners of more than half of the territory proposed for annexation and more than half of the resident electors within the territory proposed to be annexed; or One hundred percent of the owners and fifty percent of the electors within the territory proposed to be annexed; or A lesser number of property owners. Annexation Notice Post property Newspaper notice Property owner notice Annexation Annexation 2016-02: Meets all applicable criteria Proper notice provided Planning Commission (August 25, 2016) Recommended that City Council approve Annexation 2016-02 Questions? Legislative Amendment 2016-01 Procedures -Hearing Legislative Amendment 2016-01 Fence and Wall Standards Residential Non-residential Nodal Standards Clarify intent of zoning districts Revise standards Scrivener Errors Separate action from Fence and Wall and Nodalstandards -October Applicable Criteria From the Woodburn Development Ordinance Applicable criteria from the Woodburn Development Ordinance: Sections; 1.01, 1.02, 1.05, 2.01 -2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 3.01 –3.10, 4.01,4.02 and 5.04. Additional relevant criteria are the goals and policies of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the standards of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Fences and Walls The current fence and wall standards are restrictive for corner and • through lots Fencing regulations in non-residential areas do not address security • needs for businesses Property and business owners continue to express frustration with • the current regulations Residents want to fence their properties to address privacy and security needs • Business owners continue to be primarily concerned about security • Existing Standards –Fence and Wall Site Existing Standards –Fence and Wall Site Proposed Standards –Fence and Wall Proposed Standards –Fences and Walls Fence and Wall Standards Public input Letters Testimony Nodal Standards In 2005, the City enacted four new zoning districts, three of which are nodal zones (single family, multi-family and commercial) None of these zones have been utilized Recent discussions highlighted the need to update and revise the Nodal standards Row housing is encouraged, yet current standards discourage their development Lot standards (width and depth) should be reduced in recognition of the narrowness of this particular type of development Nodal standards recognize conventional development, but the ordinance precludes that type of development NODAL ZONES NNODAL ZONES Nodal Single family Nodal Medium Density Neighborhood Nodal Commercial Planning Commission Planning Commission hearing August 25, 2016, recommended approval to the City Council Legislative Amendment 2016-01 Next steps? Return with necessary ordinance? Return at subsequent meetings with revisions? Questions? Parks SDC Update Council Hearing September 12, 2016 Parks SDC History Current methodology adopted in 1999 SDC for single family residential dwelling = $762 o Ordinance included provision for annual inflation o adjustments Current SDC = $1,752 (per single family dwelling) New parks plan completed in 2009 Identified about $27 million in capital improvements o (10-year period) 2 SDC Components Reimbursement Improvement Compliance Fee FeeFee •Costs of existing or •Projects included on •SDC methodology in-processfacilitiesan adopted listdevelopment •Related to available •Related to capacity •Master planning capacityfor growth •SDC accounting, etc. 3 Overview of Methodology Cost Basis Development Existing System Available Future Projects Growth- Capacity $Related $ Unit Cost Calculation Residential Development $Nonresidential Development $ Number of new residentsNumber of new employees SDC Schedule Cost per resident XCost per employee X Number of residents per unitNumber of new employees 4 Improvement Fee Cost Basis Summary (thru 2025) Improvement TypeTotal $Existing $SDC $ New Parks - Greenway Trail$2,200,000$1,268,622$931,378 New Parks - Core Parks$3,000,000$0$3,000,000 New Facility (Community Center)$9,730,265$6,700,848$3,029,417 Improvements to Existing Parks$7,645,000$3,472,062$4,172,938 Improvements to Existing Facilities$1,564,901$1,077,685$487,216 Total$24,140,166$12,519,218$11,620,948 52%48% 5 Reimbursement Fee Cost Basis Summary TypeNet $Existing $Growth $ Park Land$1,133,238$955,380$177,858 Park Development$2,183,675$1,842,385$341,290 Existing Facilities$3,554,251$2,584,223$970,028 Total$6,871,164$5,381,989$1,489,175 78%22% Costs net of grants and other non-City funding 6 Residential vs. Nonresidential Share GrowthAvg. HoursUnit CategoryUnitsPer person/dayHours/Day% Total Population Kids (5-17)2,5667.1418,320 Non-Emplyed Adults (18+)2,61610.0026,156 Employed Adults (18+)5,438 Work In City1,5644.056,329 Work out of City3,8754.0515,681 Subtotal10,62066,48588% Employees Residents1,5642.023,164 Nonresidents3,0362.026,143 Subtotal4,6009,30712% Total15,21975,792 7 SDC Schedule Comparison Updated Development TypeUnitsCurrent Residential ($/dwelling unit)pphh Single-Family3.1$3,365$1,752 Multifamily (>1 unit)3.1$3,365$1,882 Mobile Home3.1$3,365$1,160 Nonresidential ($/employee)emp/1000 sf* $133$31 Ag, Forestry, Fishing, Construction, Manuf.1.6$219$51 Wholesale Trade, Transportation & Ware.0.3$41$9 Retail Trade2.1$284$66 Finance, Insurance & Health Services2.8$370$86 Non-Health Services1.3$177$41 *Based on Metro employment density study 8 Community Comparison* $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 *2013 League of Oregon Cities Survey 9 Further Discussion and Questions 10