Ord 2538 - WDO Text AmendmentsCOUNCIL BILL NO. 3016
ORDINANCE NO. 2538
AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE WOODBURN
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE REGARDING NODAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (FENCE AND WALL STANDARDS)
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) was originally
adopted by the City Council in 2002; and
WHEREAS, starting in 2009, the WDO was entirely rewritten. Sign
standards were revised in 2010, administrative provisions were updated in
2011, and land use standards were updated in 2013; and
WHEREAS, the WDO requires the Director to keep a list of potential
modifications and report these to the Council; and
WHEREAS, in February 2016, by Resolution 2072, the City Council initiated
this WDO revision in response to the Director's report; and
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission conducted a workshop
on June 23, 2016 and a public hearing on August 25, 2016 regarding proposed
amendments to the nodal overlay districts and fence and wail standards and
forwarded said amendments to the City Council, with a unanimous
recommendation of approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September
12, 2016 and tentatively approved amendments to the nodal overlay districts
and fence and wall standards in the WDO and directed staff to prepare this
Ordinance effecting the proposed amendments; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The text of Section 2.05.04 (Nodal Overlay Districts), Table
2.02C and Table 2.02F of the WDO are amended as set forth in Exhibit A.
Section 2. The text of Section 2.06 (Accessory Structures) of the WDO is
amended as set forth in Exhibit B.
Page- I - Council Bill No. 3016
Ordinance No. 2538
Section 3. The legislative action taken by this Ordinance is explained
and justified by the City Council Staff Report as set forth in Exhibit C.
(-Ay ATTorn,
ZE
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Heather Pierson, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page- 2 - Council Bill No. 3016
Ordinance No. 2538
Exhibit A
2.05.04 Nodal 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 required for 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 shall be 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. Master Planning 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 Land Use 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.
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.
Nodal Residential Single -Family (RSN) - Site Development
Standards
Table 2.02C
Interior or cul-de-sac lot
6,0001
Single-family dwelling,
Lot Area,
Minimum
Standard lot
Corner lot
child care facility or group
home 2
8,000
(square
feet)
Any other use
10,000
Small lot and row
Interior or cul-de-sac lot
4,0001
house
Corner lot
5,000
Interior or cul-de-sac lot
50
Standard lot
Corner lot
80
Lot Width,
Minimum
(feet)
Small lot and row
Interior or cul-de-sac lot
30
house
Corner lot
50
Lot Depth,
Standard lot
90
Average
(feet)
Small lot and row house
80
Standard lot Residential Density, Minimum (units per net acre)
5.2
Small lot and row house Residential Density, Minimum (units per net acre)
7.9
Interior or cul-de-sac lot
40
Single-family dwelling,
Standard lot
child care facility or group
40
Street
Corner lot
home 2
Frontage,
Minimum
Any other use
50
(feet)
Interior lot
40
Small lot and row house
Corner lot
50
Cul-de-sac lot
30
Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street, Minimum (feet)
203, 4
Nodal Residential Single -Family (RSN) - Site Development
Standards
Table 2.02C
Front Porch Setback, Maximum (feet)
10
Side Setback, Minimum (feet)
57,8
Rear Setback, Average
Primary structure
20 or 0
(feet)
Accessory structure
5
Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet)
5
Primary building height 16 feet or less
409
Lot Coverage,
Primary building height more than 16 feet
359
Maximum (percent)
Accessory structure
25 of rear yard 6,
9
Primary structure
35
Building Height,
Features not used for habitation
70
Maximum (feet)
Accessory structure
15
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 five feet 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
Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) - Site Development
Standards
Table 2.02F
Single-family dwelling,
Interior or cul-de-sac lot
4, 000'° 2
child care facility or group
Corner lot
5, 0002
home
Interior lot
3,0001
Lot Area,
Row house
Minimum
Corner or cul-de-sac lot
3,600
(square feet)
Duplex
8, 000 1
Multiple -family dwelling, child care facility, group home
87 9 20 1, 3
or nursing home
Any other use
Not specified'
Single-family dwelling,
Interior or cul-de-sac Lot
45 2
child care facility or group
home
Comer lot
60 2
Interior lot
20
Row house
Lot Width,
Corner or cul-de-sac lot
35
Minimum (feet)
Duplex
80
Multiple -family dwelling, child care facility, group home
2003
or nursing home
Any other use
Not specified'
Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group home
802
or row house
Lot Depth,
Duplex
90
Average (feet)
Multiple -family dwelling, child care facility, group home
200 3
or nursing home
Any other use
Not specified'
Interior lot
20
Corner lot
35
Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) - Site Development
Standards
Table 2.02F
Single-family dwelling,
child care facility, group
Cul-de-sac lot
30
home, or multiple -family
dwelling z
Street
Frontage,
Interior lot
20
Minimum (feet)
Row house
Corner or cul-de-sac lot
35
Duplex
80
Any other use
200
Single-family dwelling
7.9
Duplex or row houses
10
Minimum
Multiple -family dwelling
19
Residential
Any other use
Not specified'
Density (units
Multiple -family dwelling
24 7
per net acre)
Child care facility, group care facility
32 s 7
Maximum
or nursing home
Manufactured dwelling park
12 7
Any other use
Not specified'
Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group
20 2, 4
home
Abutting an arterial street
20 4
Front Setback
Row house
and Setback
Not abutting an arterial street
104
Abutting a
Street,
Abutting commercial or industrial
20 4
Minimum (feet)
zone, or collector or arterial street
Any other use
Not abutting commercial or
industrial zone, or collector or
104
arterial street
Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) - Site Development
Standards
Table 2.02F
10 plus 5 for
Abutting an RS zone
each story over 1
4
Row houses
To front parch
10
Front Setback
Duplex,
Abutting commercial or industrial
Not specified 3
and Setback
multiple -family
zone, or collector or arterial street
Abutting a
dwelling, group
Not abutting commercial or
Street,
home or nursing
industrial zone, or collector or
153
Maximum (feet)
home
arterial street
Any other use
Not specified
Single-family dwelling, child care facility or group
52
home
Row house
15!3, s
Abutting RS, RM,
16 or less
24
or PISP zone, or
Building
more than 16
Side Setback,
an existing single-
height
and less than
30
Minimum (feet)
All
family, duplex, or
(feet)
28
other
multiple -family
uses
dwelling
28 or more
36
Abutting NNC, or CG zone
108
Abutting SW[R zone
15
Accessory structure
Same as primary
16 or less
24 2,6
Single-family dwelling,
Building
more Than 16 and
Rear Setback,
child care facility ar
height
less than 28
30 2,6
Minimum (feet)
group home
(feet)
28 or more
36 2,6
Row houses
20 or 0"
Nodal Medium Density Residential (RMN) - Site Development
Standards
Table 2.02F
Any other use
Same as side
Accessory structure
5
Setback to a Private Access Easement, Minimum (feet)
5
Single-family
Primary building height 16 feet or less
401
dwelling,
Primary building height more than 16
35 2
Lot Coverage,
child care
Maximum
facility or
feet or less
(percent)
group home
Any other use
Not specified10
Primary structure
45
Building Height,
Features not used for habitation
70
Maximum (feet)
Accessary structure
15
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
Exhibit B
2.46 Accessory 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.
2.06.01
Applicability
2.06.02
Fences and Walls
2.06.03
Structures
2.06.01 Applicability
The following standards are applicable to accessory structures in all zones.
2.06.02 Fences and Walls
A. Location and Height Abutting a Street in Residential Zones
The height shall comply with the vision clearance area standards, Section
3,03.06.
2. The height shall not exceed 42 inches (3Y/2 feet) above the ground elevation
under the fence or wall located at the lot line abutting the street.
3. The height may increase one foot for each 6 feet of setback from the lot line
abutting the street. Fences may increase to their maximum height (7 ft) when
flush with the house or garage.
4. For corner lots, one frontage shall not exceed the standards in #2 above. The
alternative frontages are treated as interior lot line(s), allowing fencing in excess
of 42 inches up to, and equal with, the house frontage. The remaining frontage
shall not exceed the 42 inch limitation.
5. For through lots, abutting streets and/or alleys on two opposite frontages, the
rear frontage opposite the front is be treated as an interior lot line, allowing a
maximum height of 7 ft.
6. Fences and walls may be constructed in the special setback, provided the
property owner agrees to removal at such time as street improvements are
made.
B. Height in Yards Not Abutting a Street
In residential zones, the maximum height of a fence or wall other than for comer
and/or through lots, shall be seven feet, relative to the ground elevation under
the fence or wall.
Woodburn. Development Ordinance Section 2.06 Page 1
C. Height in Non -Residential Zones
1. In commercial, industrial, or public zones, the maximum height of a fence or
wall located in a yard abutting a street shall be 6 feet, relative to the ground
elevation under the fence or wall. Fence height may increase to 9 feet once
flush with the building face, or 20 feet from street right-of-way.
2. Fences and walls may be constructed in the special setback provided the
property owner agrees to removal at such time as street improvements are
made.
D. Fence Materials
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 fence is 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
6f 1.2 ft 18 ft 24 ft
Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 2.06 Page 2
4
Figure 2.06B — Stepped Fence or Wall
ce Areas .,
31/2 feet
yet .
6 feet —
�et
12 feet —
;et
18 feet --
�et 24 feet —
!et
a
r
Distance frorr
property line
Maximum
2.06.03 Structures
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 sig. feet.
Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 2.06 Page 3
EXHIBIT C
;. Community Development
Planning Division
.00DBURN 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, Oregon 97071 - (503) 982-5246
g Y
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING
Application Type
Type V Legislative Amendment
Application Number
LA 2016-01
Project Description
Revise Sections 2.05 Nodal Standards; 2.06 Fences and Walls; and
revise various sections to correct scrivener errors in the Woodburn
Development Ordinance
Area
Entire City
Zoning
All zones
Planner Assigned
,Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director
120 -Day Deadline
Not applicable to legislative decisions
Date of Staff Report
August 17, 2016
Date of Public Hearings
Planning Commission: August 25, 2016
City Council: September 12, 2016
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 to ad
dress scrivener errors, resulting in reformatting the WDO.
LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE1Staff report City Council
Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT C
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 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, fencing regulations in non-residential areas is similar to residential standards
and does not address security 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 address
scrivener errors, to their September 25th meeting. Those amendments will proceed to the
Council separately at its October 10, 2016 meeting.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT — Woodburn Development Ordinance
WDO 4.101 Decision 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 of such 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, 2916 on the proposal and makes a recommendation to the City
Council. The City Council then holds a final public 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 UPDATElStaff report City Council
Page 2 of 8
EXHIBIT C
Findings: Under Section 4.101.03, the City Council may initiate any type of land use action
by a motion 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 direction for 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 the Council approve
amendments to the fence and nodal standards contained in the WDO. Several people
presented both written and oral testimony in support of the proposed amendments to the
fence standards at the Planning Commission hearing.
The Director provided notice to the 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 was scheduled 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 recommended approval 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 proposal at its September 12,
2016 meeting. Any interested 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.
LA2016-01 WDO UPDATEIStaff report City Council
Page 3 of 8
EXHIBIT C
Conclusions: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on fence and nodal standards
at its August 25, 2016 meeting and made recommendations to the City Council. They
continued the portion of the public hearing on scrivener errors to their September 22nd
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, 2016 to 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 of the 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.
Conclusion: Notification requirements consistent with the provisions of the Woodburn
Development Ordinance and statutory requirements were met.
WDO 5.104.04 Zoning 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 with implementing 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 in 1978, and subsequently
amended several times. The Woodburn Development Ordinance was adopted 2008, and
most recently amended in 2013.
LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE1Staff report City Council
Page 4 of 8
EXHIBIT C
Conclusion: Amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the Woodburn
Development Ordinance will be evaluated for consistency with the 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 zone until
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 current fence and wall standards are restrictive for corner and through lots.
Additionally, fencing regulations in nonresidential areas, which at present are similar to
residential standards, do not address security needs for businesses. Property and business
owners continue to express frustration with the current regulations. While the City offers
free fence permits, homeowners and business 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 be primarily concerned about security.
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. Recent discussions with potential developers have highlighted the need to update
and revise the nodal standards. For example, while row housing is encouraged, current
standards discourage their development; lot standards (width and depth) should be reduced
in 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.
Conclusions: The amendments insure that the WDO implements the Comprehensive Plan.
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 UPDATE1Staff report City Council
Page 5 of 8
EXHIBIT C
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 out for quasi-judicial
rulings. The Planning Commission should ensure that any change it makes in
the Comprehensive Pian 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.
Conclusions: The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that plans and implementing ordinances
like the WDO continue to evolve and change over time. 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 Plan and
Transportation System Plan, and achieve a compact urban growth form."
Affected public agencies, including Marion County, have been notified on the proposed
amendments to the WDO.
LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE1Staf£ report City Council
Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT C
Findi_n_g_s: 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 notified by mail. Notice was
published in the Woodburn Independent.
Conclusion: The public hearing has been publicized as required by State statute and the
Woodburn Development Ordinance.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and the
Woodburn Development Ordinance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on August 25, 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 that portion of LA 2016-01
dealing with scrivener errors to September 22, 2016. Those amendments will come
separately for action at the City Council meeting on October 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 deals with scrivener errors, to October 10,
2016.
LA2016-01 WDO UPDATE1Staff report City Council
Page 8 of 8