Res 2093 - Initiating Legislative Amendments to WDO COUNCIL BILL O. 3031
RESOLUTION NO. 2093
A RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE
WOODBURN" DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) establishes the
standards that development is required to meet and that clarity of those standards
is critical as the community continues to grow and prosper, and
WHEREAS, periodic revisions and updates are necessary and expected to
correct inconsistencies, eliminate ambiguity and address current issues that insure
that the WDO is clear and concise, and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has identified a general list of
potential modifications to the WDO, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at their April 27, 2017 Workshop,
considered the list of potential modifications and indicated their support for having
the Council begin the process to amend the WDO, and
WHEREAS, Section 4.10.09 of the WDO requires the City Council to initiate the
consideration of any potential legislative amendments to the WDO by resolution; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WO URN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 4.10.09 of the WDC , the City Council initiates a
review of the potential legislative amendments to the WDO outlined in Exhibit "A", which
is attached to this resolution.
Approved as to form..
Date'
City Attorney P V
A"p
Approve 1:
Z y
Kathryn Fi ley; M r
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor M-0,4 d-0 11
Approved by the Mayor koa aoll
Hied in the Office of the Recorder )-,oil,
Page I - Council Bill No. 3031
Resolution No. 2093
ATTEST.
eather Pierson, City Recorder
City of 'Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Biii No. 3031
Resolution No. 2093
ExhibitA
Potential Legislative Amendments
Subject General description of issue
1. Signs Discuss/review removal date of non'conforming sign
provisions. Clarify temporary sign location requirements.
Z. Landscaping, This Section of the WDO has proven problematic to enforce.
Planting, Screening Several elements are inconsistent and unclear.
Specifically, need to clarify difference between buffer,
setback and planting requirements. Also,review and
consider modifying buffer requirements in each zone.
Option "D" in Table 3.06 D is ambiguous.
3. Flag lot setbacks Review for lack of clarity and flexibility. It is not clear how
front setbacks are to be determined. Some sections provide
for the architectural front of a dwelling on a flag to face the
vehicular entrance instead of the "parallel" road.
4. Outdoor dining Outdoor seating is permitted in DDC -but silent in all other
areas Districts.
5. Food carts/mobile Review regulations for"mobile food services" and "food
food services vending carts". Definitions are not clear. Mobile food
services are permitted in industrial areas; whereas
food carts are permitted in DDC.
6. Accessory Regulations lack clarity and are difficult to enforce. WDO
structures &lot has two layers of lot coverage related to accessory
coverage structures. They are included in both rear and total lot
coverage measurements. No lot coverage is provided for
small lots or non SFH developments.
7. Public schools in Not currently listed as a permitted use in P/SP zone.
P/SP Allowed as permitted use in all commercial zones and CUP
in residential zones. May need to modify school definitions
as well.
B. Mixed Use Specified in other commercial districts (under density
clarification calculations), but not explicit in DDC.
9� Parking in DDG Minor changes to clarify that no parking is required in the
DDC.
10. Type I decision Lack of clarity/ consistency:
making o Clarify that replacement structures also require
Type I review.
o Change language to be consistent with the Type I1
and III.
o Clarify grading permit requirements (needs
flexibility)
11. Significant tree Allow tree removal during winter.
removal
12. Rooftop equipment Inconsistent criteria that varies from district to district.
screening Language is vague and screening often expensive for
builders to provide.
13. Vision clearance Need to confirm effectiveness and options for more
area flexibility. Silent on measuring in situations where there is
no curb. Discuss alternative measurements.
14. Address new type of Current code prohibits a specific "new" recycling/retail use
recycling facility that appears to be appropriate in commercial areas,
15. Fence requirements Clarification necessary to distinguish commercial from
residential. Good time to review permitting process.
16. Required ROW WDO is unclear about applicability, proportionality and
improvements extent of improvements required with development. Need
to discuss fee in lieu.
17. Lighting in parking Applicants have expressed concern that it is difficult to
areas meet. Measurement and enforcement is challenging.
18. Alleys Nodal zone requires alleys - however Public Works and TSP
don't have alleys standards. Also, frowned upon by Fire
District.
19. Weather protection This requirements is not clear and compliance has proven
on commercial difficult. Need to review materials requirement and specific
buildings areas to be covered.
20. Density definition Modify WDO to match Comprehensive Plan definition c
21. Refund Review current code requires refunding 100% of the
requirements application fee prior completeness. Consider removing
from the WDO.
22. Setback in RM For Ml~, townhomes, and accessory structures side/rear
setbacks are between 24-36 feet same as rear. This can be
over-restrictive for narrow lots.
23. Pre-application Should be required for all complex applications, not just
conferences annexations.
*Minor scrivener's errors and revisions as determined necessary during the course of this
update may be included.