Agenda - 01/22/2001e
e
So
AGENDA
WOODB URN CITY CO UNCIL
January 22, 2001 - Z'OOp. m.
270 Montgomery Street ~ * Woodburn, Oregon
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. Woodburn Budget Committee Workshop; January 27, 2001, 9:00 a.m.
(1) Mid-Year Budget Review; (2) Supplemental Budget; (3) 2001-02
Budget Workshop.
Appointments: None
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Presentation:
Ae
Introduction of DEQ representatives who have worked on City Wastewater
Project.
B. Certificate of Achievement to Nicole Woodard.
Proclamations: None
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce.
B. Woodburn Downtown Association.
COMMUNICATIONS None
BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for
Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.)
CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine
and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at
the request of a Council member.
A. City Council minutes of January 8, 2001 regular and executive
meetings ...................................................... 8A
Recommended action: Approve Council minutes of January 8, 2001
regular and executive meetings.
Be
Draft Planning Commission minutes of January 11, 2001 .............. 8B
Recommended action: Accept draft Planning Commission minutes
of January 11, 2001.
C. Draft Recreation and Park Board minutes of January 9, 2001 ...; ...... 8C
Page 1 - City Council Agenda, January 22, 2001.
Recommended action: Accept draft Recreation and Park Board
minutes of January 9, 2001.
Police Department Activities Report for November 2000 .............. 8D
Recommended action: Accept November 2000 Report.
Boones Ferry Road speed zone investigation ........................
Recommended action: Accept speed zone investigation for Boones
Ferry Rd. north of Hwy. 214 to Hazelnut Drive.
8E
Status of Pedestrian Crossing on Highway 214 at Woodburn High
School ........................................................
Recommended action: Receive status report.
8F
TABLED BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
Supplemental Review of Site Plan Review 99-14, Boones Ferry Place
Retirement Facility ............................................ 10A
Recommended action: Conduct public hearing, receive public comment,
and instruct staff W prepare an ordinance reflecting Council's decision.
Policy Guidelines and Processing Fees for Liquor License Applications
Recommended action: Conduct public hearing and receive public
commenL
10B
11.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Ae
Council Bill No. 2284 - Resolution adopting licensing guidelines for
making recommendations on liquor license applications, allowing
opportunity for public comment on applications, and establishing
a processing fee ................................................ llA
Recommended action: Approve resolution adopting licensing guidelines
for making recommendation on liquor license applications, allowing
public comment on applications, and establishing a processing fee.
Be
Council Bill No. 2285 - Ordinance levying the assessment of costs for the
improvement of Parr Road from a point 100 feet west of Settlemier Ave.
to the west boundary of the School District property ................. llB
Recommended action: Approve ordinance levying assessment costs
for improvement of Parr Rd.
Council Bill No. 2286 - Ordinance vacating a certain portion of Oswald
Street right-of-way ............................................. llC
Recommended action: Approve ordinance vacating a certain portion of
Oswald Street right-of-way.
Page 2 - City Council Agenda, January 22, 2001.
12.
13.
14.
De
Ee
Council Bill No. 2287 - Resolution establishing a public hearing date for the
vacation of a portion of an existing 20 foot utility easement within the
Ironwood at Tukwila Subdivision ................................ llD
Recommended action: Approve resolution setting February 12, 2001 as
the public hearing date for the vacation of a portion of a 20foot utility
easement within the Ironwood at Tukwila Subdivision.
Modification to Housing Rehabilitation Program Procedures ......... liE
Recommended action: Authorize modification to Housing Rehabilitation
Program procedures.
Ee
Employee Recognition Program Policy ............................ llF
Recommended action: Determine Council policy regarding employee
recognition events.
PUBLIC COMMENT
NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions
that may be called up by the City Council.
Ae
Planning Commission Action on Site Plan Review 00-27, Chemeketa
Community College Addition, Chemeketa Community College,
applicant ..................................................... 14A
Be
Planning Commission Action on Site Plan Review 00-31, proposed
automobile storage lot located at 2257 Progress Way, John A.
Perdue, applicant ..............................................
14B
Ce
Planning Commission Action on Lot Line Adjustments 00-03 and 00-04,
property line adjustments on a single-family residential lot at
1045 N. 6t~ Street, John P. Smith, applicant ........................ 14C
15.
16.
17.
18.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to
negotiate real property transactions pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e)
ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 - City Council Agenda, January 22, 2001.
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
.0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 8, 2001.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
0020 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Jennings Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Chadwick Present
Councilor Figley Present
Councilor Kilmurray 'Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director
Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Police Chief Null, Finance Director
Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Library
Director Sprauer, Asst. City Engineer Torgeson, Asst. City Attorney Won, City Recorder
Tennant
.0082
City Attorney Shields introduced to the Council his newly appointed Asst. City Attorney
Deniece Won. He provided the Council with a summary of the selection process
followed along with Ms. Won's qualifications as an attorney. He stated that she will be
working part-time for the City averaging 2.5 days per week.
0200
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Martin Luther King holiday closures: City offices and the Woodburn Public
Library will be closed on Monday, January 15th, in observance of Martin Luther King day.
B) Public Hearing: On January 22, 2001, 7:00 pm., the City Council will hold a public
hearing on the remand from LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) relating to the Boones
Ferry Place development.
C) Public Hearing: On January 22, 2001, 7:00 pm, the City Council will also hold a
public hearing on OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission) licensing guidelines.
D) On January 22, 2001, the Geological Society of the Oregon Country will meet in the
City Hall Council Chambers from 2:00 pm until 5:00 pm.
APPOINTMENTS.
Mayor Jennings appointed the following individuals to City Boards and Commissions:
Recreation and Park Board Position llI: Richard Hammond with his term expiring on
December 31, 2003.
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
Planning Commission Position II: Carl Miller with his term expiring on December 31,
2004.
Human Rights Commission Position at Large: Donna Wood with her term expiring
December 31, 2003.
Human Rights Commission Position V: Scott Summers with his term expiring December
31, 2002.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS... endorse the Mayor's appointment selection to Recreation and
Park Board, Planning Commission, and Human Rights Commission. The motion passed
unanimously.
0326
PRESENTATION: WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
Park & Recreation Director Westrick stated that Luckey Company is proposing a
Wetlands Enhancement project at Hermanson Project RI. The developers have been
working with the Park Board and the affected neighborhood to develop the city property
in a partnership approach. The purpose of this presentation is to bring this idea before the
Council to solicit their views on the proposed project.
Paul Sedoruk, representing Luckey Company (developer of Bridlewood Estates), stated
that the developer was required by the Division of State Lands to find a site as close to
their development as possible to enhance the wetland within that same drainage corridor.
Since the City owned most of the land along that drainage corridor, Luckey Company met
with City staff, Park Board, and the neighborhood association to address concerns on this
issue. He stated that they would like to receive input from the Council as to whether or
not they are interested in a joint opportunity with the developer to mitigate wetlands and
enhance the parks. Additionally, this project may work into the City's storm water
management plan. The specific site is located on Mill Creek between Wilson St. and
Hermanson Pond. The area is an open meadow with a channelized stream and the
enhancements would include modifications to the grade to recreate a natural stream
condition, making twists and turns with waterfalls or drops, improving flood control, and
plant trees and shrubs conducive to improving the diverse habitat.
Mayor Jennings expressed his opinion that this type of project is a win-win situation for
the Parks & Recreation department plus it will beautify the City. The pond would not be
disturbed with the project and he is in support of moving forward with this project.
Councilor Figley stated that she had already heard this presentation at the Park Board
level and feels that it will be an attractive project which will enhance an underused city
park. Even though the area has suffered through neglect, it does have wildlife habitat
and, with enhancements, it will be more attractive and conducive to the wildlife.
Councilor Bjelland stated that parks include natural areas being preserved and he feels
that the City has a need for that type of area in our community. It would be a location in
which citizens could observe nature and it would be relatively low maintenance.
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
Councilor Nichols questioned if this area could be used as a workshop area for students in
looking at the vegetation and wildlife.
Mr. Sedoruk stated that the area could be utilized by the schools as a workshop area since
there will be a diversity in habitat.
Councilor Kilmurray expressed her opinion that the project looks attractive and feels that
the schools would be willing to take students out to the area.
Councilors Sifuentez and Chadwick also expressed their support for this project.
Mr. Sedoruk stated that Luckey Company will be paying for all of the mitigation
requirements and the Park Department will pay for other future enhancements such as a
walkway and/or a bridge. He reiterated that there will be a lot of enhancements such as
the landscaping, re-channelization, and diverse habitat that will be paid for by Luckey
Company.
FIGLEY/BJELLAND... Council go on record being supportive of this proposal and
would like to encourage both the Park and Recreation Board, Director, and City
Administrator to pursue this project. The motion passed unanimously.
1080
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Don Judson, Chamber President, stated that the first item being addressed by the
Chamber Board this year is finding a new Director to replace Jane Kanz who was the
Executive Director of the Chamber for the past 13 years. Chamber Board member, John
Brown, has developed a new job description and a brochure to send to applicants. The
advertisement will be going out this week and it is hoped that a new Director will be on
staff by March. He requested that the Council and public be patient with the Chamber as
they proceed with this transition. Upcoming Chamber events are as follows:
1) Business After Hours - Thursday, January 11th, 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm, at Curt's Car Star
on Hwy. 99E; January 25th, 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm at Woodburn Crossing; and February
15th, 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm, at the OGA Members Course restaurant.
2) Chamber Forum - Wednesday, January 17th, 12:00 noon, Woodburn Medical Center,
with guest speaker being John Brown regarding downtown development; and on February
21st at the Woodburn Crossing, guest speaker will be Mayor Jennings to talk about the
"State of the City".
3) On February 22ha, the Distinguished Citizen banquet will be held rather than a dessert
social. He stated that the Board has decided to go back to a banquet where attendees get
dressed up and do nice things to honor winners of these awards. The location will be
discussed at the next Board meeting.
4) The annual Chamber dinner was held last Thursday and over 100 people attended. In
the prior year, only 45 people attended the dinner.
He reiterated his thanks to Administrator Brown for his work in this recruitment process.
1348 Mel Schmidt, expressed his disappointment with the Council in not talking to the people
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
who live along Mill Creek prior to making their decision to move forward with the
enhancement project proposed by the Luckey Company. He expressed concern in that a
flood problem will be created with these changes to property lying adjacent to the creek.
1398
CONSENT AGENDA.
A) Council Meeting minutes of December 1 l, 2000;
B) Planning Commission minutes of December 14, 2000;
C) Museum Committee minutes of December 18, 2000;
D) Police Department Activities for August 2000 through October 2000;
E) Building Activity Report for December 2000;
F) Updated Planning Tracking Sheet; and
G) Claims for the month of December 2000.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... consent agenda be adopted as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
1422 PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF A PORTION OF OSWALD STREET.
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7:27 p.m..
Public Works Director Tiwari stated that a petition had been received from Chemeketa
Community College for the vacation of public right-of-way on Oswald Street located
between the Railroad and Doud Street. He reviewed the vacation process which includes
the petition by the abutting property owner, staff review of the proposed vacation, and a
public hearing on the issue. Following this hearing, if the Council decides to allow for
the vacation of the right-of-way, staff would draft an ordinance for Council consideration.
He stated that the proposed vacation of the street involves a 150' x 50' parcel of land
which would allow Chemeketa to have sufficient land to expand their facility.
He outlined the affected area (400' radius from termini in semi-circle and 200' parallel
from the roadway) in which property owners were notified by mail of this hearing. Prior
to this hearing, 85% of the property owners within the affected area have consented to the
proposed vacation. Of the remaining 15%, staff has not received any written objections
or comments from the property owners.
He reviewed the following staff recommendations:
1) existing sanitary sewer main within the area to be vacated shall be rehabilitated for
infiltration removal for continued use as a private line or it shall be abandoned;
2) existing storm sewer inlets be relocated in the modified right-of-way to provide for
proper drainage;
3) agreements and/or easements shall be provided to all franchised utilities service
arrangements and petitioner would be responsible for relocation of any utility in the
vacated right-of-way which may require relocation; and
4) traffic turn around facility acceptable to Public Works Department shall be provided at
the end of Oswald Street. It was noted that the turn around facility will be temporary all-
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
weather construction so that vehicles can turn around in this area rather than in the
driveways of property owners who have their residences on Oswald Street.
Jerry Vellesco, Facilities Director for Chemeketa, stated that the Oswald Street vacation
application will allow for sufficient parking spaces to meet code requirements for this
phase of their expansion project. Additionally, Chemeketa would like to do a second
phase on this building which would involve siting the building over Oswald Street and, at
that time, there are other utilities on Oswald Street that they would vacate by the
agreement of this staff report. He expressed his appreciation to City staff for their
assistance in working through this vacation process.
Jerry Watson, Chemeketa Board member, encouraged the Council to help the local
citizens in this area by allowing Chemeketa to build a larger campus thereby increasing
the number of courses offered to citizens in the surrounding area. He stated that a portion
of the facility proposed to be built will be used by other public service agencies under a
one-stop service concept to help meet a variety of needs for the local citizens.
Additionally, he expressed his opinion that the facility will enhance the downtown area
and should contribute to further re-development of the older downtown core.
JoAnn Beilke, Chairman of the Board of Chemeketa, stated that Chemeketa had passed a
$3.5 million bond issue in 1996 and a portion of the bond funds have been spent at the
main campus and Dallas campus. However, funds were also set aside to improve the
Woodbum campus. The building design was focused on blending into, yet enhancing,
the structures currently located in the downtown area. She also expressed her opinion
that their project is an excellent one for some Urban Renewal to go into that area and
feels that they will be a conerstone to show what can be done to enhance the downtown
area.
Harvey Franklin, Director of Chemeketa, Woodburn campus, stated that they have
received a lot of help from the community, local businesses, and surrounding property
owners to get as far as they have as of this date. To complete Phase I of the project, a
portion of Oswald Street will need to be vacated. He stated that the community will see a
definite enhancement of the area and the architects have done a fantastic job with the
design of the building. Once the project is underway, it is anticipated that it will take one
year to complete.
Councilor Figley stated that she is an owner of a piece of property located within the
affected area but west of the railroad tracks and, as a result of this vacation and/or
proposed development, will not realize any financial benefit or determent. She expressed
her support of the street vacation.
No additional testimony was received either in favor of or against the street vacation
proposal.
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing closed at 7:50 p.m..
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
3156
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
FIGLEY/KILMURRAY... instruct staff to draft an ordinance in favor of the vacation of
the requested portion of Oswald Street subject to the 4 conditions outlined in the staff
memo. The motion passed unanimously.
COUNCIL BILL 2282 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2273 TO
REMOVE AN ASSESSMENT FROM A NON-BENEFITTED PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN ALLEY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
8A
3562
Councilor Figley declared a conflict of interest since she is a property owner affected by
this proposed bill, therefore, she will abstain from taking part in any discussion and
voting on this bill.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2282. Recorder Tennant read the two
readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Mayor Jennings reminded the Council of the Charter provision which requires unanimous
vote of the Council in order to pass an ordinance on the first night it is introduced and
read. Since the final vote will include an abstention, he questioned the City Attorney as
to whether or not the final vote would be considered as a unanimous vote of all Council
members present.
City Attorney Shields stated that, in his opinion and based on prior case law, the
abstention would not affect the passage of the bill at this meeting provided that all of the
remaining Councilors voted in favor of the Council bill.
The Mayor stated that the City will be paying for the amount of the assessment which is
being removed from the assessment role.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed by a vote of 5-0-1 with Councilor Figley
abstaining. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2282 duly passed with the emergency
clause.
COUNCIL BILL 2283 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CLAIMS
PROCESSING FEE FOR BALLOT MEASURE 7 PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE
NO. 2276.
Council Bill 2283 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only
since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Bjelland questioned if the estimated appraisal cost of $1,640 would be
sufficient to cover an appraisal if a claim is made under Ballot Measure 7. His concern is
that if a bare land appraisal was over $2,000, then a claim under Ballot Measure 7 could
conceivably be greater than the bare land appraisal.
Finance Director Gillespie agreed that the appraisal fee is unknown at this time, however,
the ordinance adopted at the last meeting does allow the City Administrator to assess an
additional amount if the costs are in excess of the filing fee.
City Attorney Shields also stated that Section 2 in the Resolution before the Council gives
the City Administrator the ability to collect a higher fee.
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
Councilor Bjelland also questioned if the language in the ordinance and resolution would
allow for collection of additional fees to cover costs incurred that are in excess of the
initial filing fee since actual costs may not be known until such time as the work is
completed.
Administrator Brown also stated that it is staff's intent to collect the $3,000 fee up front
and if costs are higher than the initial fee collected, then the claim will be held up until
such time as the additional fees are paid. A provisional acceptance of the claim will be
made upon receipt of the $3,000 filing fee.
Councilor Bjelland expressed his concern in the timing of events since the language states
that the additional fees will be paid prior to the acceptance of the filing and he does not
want to have a timing problem involved with the payment of fees.
City Attorney stated that the intent of the language to allow for a higher filing fee is to
protect the City from incurring costs in excess of the filing fee. Even though there is a 90
day period to process and evaluate a claim, the claim will not be considered as filed until
all filing fees are paid.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared
Council Bill 2283 duly passed.
4346
ACCEPTANCE OF REAL PROPERTY, VISUAL CLEARANCE EASEMF~NT,
AND $27,490.77 FROM HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH (RE: Parr Road Local
Improvement District).
Staff recommended the acceptance of a warranty deed for a parcel of land abutting
Settlemier Avenue plus the acceptance of a visual clearance easement at the intersection
of Parr Rd. and Settlemier from Hope Lutheran Church as fulfillment of a prior agreed
commitment between the Church and the City. By accepting the property, the Church
will be assessed $27,490.77 in the Parr Road assessment.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... accept the deeded strip of land, easement for visual clearance,
and the Parr Road improvement assessment balance of $27,490.77 from Hope Lutheran
Church. The motion passed unanimously.
ACCEPTANCE OF REAL PROPERTY AND $9,802.23 FROM HAZEL M-
SMITH (RE: Parr Road Local Improvement District Project).
Staff recommended the acceptance of a warranty deed and $9,802.23 from Hazel M.
Smith in fulfillment of a previously agreed upon commitment between Ms. Smith and the
City. With this transaction, the City agrees that no assessments would be levied against
her property abutting Parr Road for costs associated with the recently completed Parr
Road improvement project. It was also noted that her property is located outside of the
city limits on the north side of Parr Road.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... accept the deeded strip of land parallel to Parr Road along with
$9,802.23 from Hazel Smith. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
4439 TRENCHING AT THE HIGH SCHOOL ENTRANCE ON HIGHWAY 214.
Mayor Jennings stated that it is still unknown as to the extent of the work to be done in
order to install street lights near the entrance, however, staff is requesting authority to
execute a contract with the lowest responsible bidder on this project in order to begin the
work before the next regular Council meeting. He stated that commitments have been
made to the public and moving forward with this project would be in the best interest of
the community.
FIGLEY/BJELLAND .... authorize staff to execute a contract with the low responsible
bidder to provide electrical power for lighting to be provided at the High School entrance
with Highway 214. The motion passed unanimously.
4533
BID #21-06: STEP VAN (Sewerline Maintenance).
Bids for a new step van were received from the following vendors: Friendly GMC,
$27,786.00; Gresham Ford, $27,862.50; Cascade Chevrolet, $30,280.88; DSU Peterbuilt
& GMC, $30,352.00; Miles Chevrolet, $30,588.00; and Gilchrist Chevrolet, $31,870.09.
Staff recommended that the bid received from Friendly GMC be rejected since it did not
comply with bid specifications.
FIGLEY/BJELLAND... reject the bid from Friendly GMC, Woodbum Bid g21-06, for
not being in compliance with specifications. The motion passed unanimously.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS... award City of Woodbum Bid g21-06 for a step van to the lowest
responsible bidder, Gresham Ford, in the amount of $27,862.50. The motion passed
unanimously.
4618
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - TAQUERIA GUADALARJARA, 966 N.
Pacific Highway.
Staff recommended the approval of the liquor license application submitted by Taqueria
Guadalarjara, Inc..
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve the restaurant liquor license (R) for Taqueria
Guadalajara located at 966 N. Pacific Highway. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor
Nichols voting nay.
4670
LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - DON PEDROS EXPRESS, 2515 Newber~
Hie,hway.
Staff recommended the approval of the liquor license application submitted by owners
Ramiro Sanchez and Raul Brambila.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve the restaurant liquor license (R) for Don Pedros
Express located at 2515 Newberg Highway. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor
Nichols voting nay.
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
4726
Preston Tack, 2197 Camilla Way, expressed his opinion that Chemeketa Community
College is a fine institution located within our community. He stated that he had taken
some computer courses at their facility several years ago and he periodically stops by
their campus to get help on computer problems.
4850
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS.
A) Site Plan Review 899-26: Request to build a women's health clinic at 693 Glatt
Circle - Robert Engle, applicant
B) Site Plan Review #00-13 and Partition #00-05: Proposed clinic to provide
ambulatory care to outpatients with chronic care needs at 1310 N. Pacific Hwy. - Salem
Hospital, applicant
C) Site Plan Review #00-22 and Conditional Use #00-04: Proposed Elmer's Restaurant
and office space on Amey Road next to Arby's - GSO, Inc., applicant
D) Lot Line Adjustment #00-05: Property line adjustment to comply with current
zoning standards - Capital Development, applicant
E) Site Plan Review g00-29: Renovation of Public Works maintenance building at 105
A Street - City of Woodbum, applicant
4860
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
A) Administrator Brown informed the Council that the City now owns the building
located at 347 N. Front Street (also known as the Salud Building). Nicoli Engineering is
about ready to put together 2 sets of designs one of which will be for a one-story building
and the other is for a two-story building. Those two designs will allow the City to go out
to bid for construction for either of those options depending the cost associated with each
bid.
B) At a prior meeting, the downtown visioning design component of the Spencer &
Kupper contract was removed (approximately $8,700.00) and this portion of the Urban
Renewal study would be contracted directly with Lloyd Lindley. He stated that he had
recently executed a contract with Mr. Lindley in an amount not to exceed $14,335. The
City will be receiving a $2,000 grant from the State to help offset costs associated with
the visioning design component of the project. The first of the downtown visioning
design workshops will be held at the Community Center on February 6~ from 4:30 pm to
6:30 pm and from 6:45 pm to 8:45 pm. The intent is to go through the program twice in
order to give interested citizens an opportunity to attend one of the two sessions. Another
consultant (Metropolatin Group) will soon launch the community wide outreach project
which will be fully funded through a state grant.
5221
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor Bjelland stated that he had attended the Mid Willamette Valley Area
Commission on Transportation last week and, as part of the meeting, a report was given
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
by John Russell, ODOT representative, on future activities and expectations of the
Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and a presentation of the draft Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). According to Mr. Russell, ODOT funding
sources are limited and they do not anticipate the legislature going forth with a gas tax
proposal. The OTC has established the following funding priorities: (1) bridge
maintenance and preservation, (2) pavement preservation, (3) safety related issues, (4)
modernization, and (5) new projects. He stated that each region also submits their top
projects for funding which makes it very difficult for large projects to get funded since
there can only be 1 or 2 potentially large projects funded each year and the OTC has been
reluctant to allocate those amongst the different regions. Therefore, the regions have
been submitting smaller projects for funding. Within the draft 2000-2005 STIP for the
Mid-Willamette Valley projects, included under the modernization listing, was the I-
5/Hwy 214 interchange project which will provide for construction of a right-mm lane on
Highway 214 and on-ramp improvements. Estimated costs are as follows: $300,000 pre-
engineering, $900,000 right-of~way acquisition, and $3 million for construction.
Hopefully, this project will move from the draft to the final STIP list.
Mayor Jennings stated that he, along with Administrator Brown, had met with Don
Jordan from ODOT and this was one of the topics of discussion in their meeting. It
appears that this proposed improvement will remain on the STIP list.
Councilor Bjelland also stated that he is a member of the multi-region Grant Committee,
sub-committee of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Development Partnership,
which awarded a multi-region grant for a scenic loop brochure driving guide for
Willamette Valley visitors. Several other areas of interest included (1) industrial
recruitment marketing activities to bring industries into the area, (2) micro-loan fund
matching which leverages federal dollars for small businesses, minority businesses, and
for businesses that may not normally qualify for commercial financing, (3) information
technology courses, and (4) monitor the development of state-wide telecommunications
program to protect local concerns.
Tape 2
Councilors Sifuentez, Chadwick, and Nichols each wished the citizens of Woodburn a
prosperous year.
Councilor Figley stated that there seems to be a movement toward a solution to our
freeway interchange problems which similar to what was suggested by the City's Public
Works Director. She expressed her opinion that this outcome shows how fortunate the
City is to have this high caliber of staff.
Councilor Kilmurray stated that she has heard some very positive feedback from citizens
on the collaboration between the City, School District, and ODOT.
Mayor Jennings stated that he had attended the first meeting of the Urban Renewal
Committee in which 14 people attended. They all were very positive and excited with
this proposed program.
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2001
TAPE
READING
The Mayor also stated that Parks & Recreation is sending out Request for Qualifications
to firms who would potentially assist the City with the design and development of a Skate
Park.
Mayor Jennings stated that the City's web site is now on-line and the agenda is on the
web. The website address is www.ci.woodburn.or.us.
0448 Public Works Director Tiwari introduced Asst. City Engineer David Torgeson.who
replaced Dean Morrison.
Mayor Jennings commended the Police Department on their professionalism citing in
particular their work at a homicide crime scene and at a recent drug raid.
0662
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Jennings called for an executive session under the statutory authority of ORS
192.660(1)(h) to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public
body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed, and ORS
192.660(1)(0 to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS .... adjourn to executive session. The motion passed unanimously.
The Council adjourned to executive session at 8:38 pm and reconvened the regular
session at 8:58 pm.
0672 Mayor Jennings stated that no final actions or decisions were made in the executive
session.
0715
ADJOURNMENT.
FIGLEY/BJELLAND... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 8, 2001
Executive Session
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 8, 2001
8A
DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 8, 2001.
CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 8:45 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
ROLLCALL.
Mayor Jennings Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Chadwick Present
Councilor Figley Present
Councilor Kilmurray Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Mayor Jennings reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is
not to be discussed with the public.
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attomey Shields, Asst. City Attorney Won, City
Recorder Tennant
The executive session was called under the following statutory authority:
1) ORS 192.660(1)(h) to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body
with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed; and
2) ORS 192.660(1)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.
ADJOURNMENT.
The executive session adjourned at 8:56 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Executive Session Minutes, January 8, 2001
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
January 11, 2001
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Young
presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Young P
Vice Chairperson Cox P
Commissioner Fletcher P
Commissioner Miller P
Commissioner Lima P
Commissioner Mill P
Commissioner Bandelow P
Commissioner Lonergan P
Commissioner Heer A
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner
8B
Chairperson Younq introduced and welcomed new Planning Commissioner Carl Miller.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioner Mill nominated Royce Young for Planning Commission Chairperson. Commissioner Lima
seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
Commissioner Bandelow nominated Jim Cox for Planning Commission Vice Chairperson. Commissioner
Lima seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
MINUTES
A__=. Minutes of December 14, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting
Vice Chairperson Cox, Commissioner Lima and Commissioner Mill refrained from voting on this because
they were not present at the meeting.
Commissioner Fletcher moved to accept the minutes as presented. Commissioner Bandelow seconded
the motion, which carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Robert Shields, City Attorney introduced Assistant City Attorney, Deniece Won. He explained that although
this is a part time position it will help the Planning Department, the City and the Planning Commission. He
indicated his office intends to take a more active role than they have in the past. Mr. Shields stated he plans
to have Deniece help him with a variety of things. Additionally, he said Deniece has worked before as a
Planner and has some experience as a lawyer. Mr. Shields reported they started with 35 applications for
this position. He provided a brief explanation of the process taken to arrive to the final applicant.
Chairperson Youn; commented he looks forward to working with Deniece.
Vice Chairperson Cox reported he has not seen Deniece Won for about 8-10 years but she was a very good
public employee of the Portland Metropolitan Boundary Commission before she was a lawyer.
Planning Commission Meeting - January II, 2001 Page I of 5
8B
COMMUNICATIONS
A_~. City Council Minutes of November 27, 2000
B__=. Special City Council Minutes of December 4, 2000
C__~. Letter to John Brown regarding the Plannin ~q Commission's concerns with the traffic flow
on Glatt Circle
Chairperson Youn.q reported there was discussion regarding this letter at the November 9, 2000 hearing
relating to Site Plan Review 99-26. Concerns were raised on the amount of traffic that would be generated
by this project. He stated it is up to the Commission whether they wish this letter be presented to Mr. Brown.
Vice Chairperson Cox commended Chairperson Young and Commissioner Mill for expressing the
Commission's concerns in the letter. He indicated he is pleased with the letter and that it should be sent
along to John Brown.
Commissioner Bandelow remarked we do need to get some striping or something to indicate where the road
actually goes.
Commissioner Lima referred to the eighth line on the second paragraph of the letter and commented it
should be "configuration".
PUBLIC HEARING
None
FINAL ORDER
A_=. Site Plan Review 00-27, proposed 20,000 square foot building addition to Chemeketa
Community College located at 120 E. Lincoln St., Chemeketa Community Colle_~e. aDr)licant.
Commissioner Mill commented he was not present at this hearing but he would like to see the project go
forward.
There was in-depth discussion regarding abstention from voting from those that were not present at the
headng.
Chairperson Youn.q reported Commissioner Lonergan claimed a conflict of interest and did not participate
in this headng.
Robert Shields stated the Commissioners should be able to vote on this order if they have read the material.
He remarked there is a provision in the City Charter that states that passage of something that comes in
front of the City Council requires a concurrence.
Commissioner Fletcher moved to approve Final Order SPR 00-27. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the
motion. Motion carried with Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Loner.qan abstaining from voting.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Lot Line Adjustment 00-03 and Lot Line Adjustment 00-04, request to adjust lines at 1045 N.
6~ St., John P. smith, applicant (Administrative aDoroval}
Vice Chairperson Cox moved to approve Administrative approval and that it not be called up for public
hearing. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion which unanimously carried.
B..~. Site Plan Review 00-31, proposed Impound yard located at 2257 Progress Way, John Perdeu,
applicant (Administrative a==roval)
Staff mentioned the site is not to be used as a junk yard. The allowable use is solely for vehicle storage.
Planning Commission Meeting - .lanuary 11, 2001 Page 2 of 5
8B
He indicated no type of dismantling or working on the vehicles should be done on this site.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired why was it necessary for the applicant to make an application on this project
since it was an outright permitted use with no changes whatsoever in the facility other than the use?
Staff replied the current Ordinance states a change of use requires Site Plan Review.
Commissioner Lima moved to accept Site Plan Review 00-31 administrative approval. Vice Chairperson
Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried.
C._~. Planning Commission Retreat
Staff stated at the last meeting there was discussion whether the Commission had interest in having a
Planning Commission Retreat in which they can receive some training and also discuss any issues that the
Commission might have. It was unanimous at that meeting that the Commission would like to have such
a retreat. Staff reported the City Attorney recommended Adriane Brockman, Attorney to provide a
presentation for the Planning Commission. He indicated February 22~, which is a regular Commission
meeting night, would work for Adriane. The workshop would go from 6-7pm. The regular Planning
Commission meeting would then begin at 7 p.m. Staff said agenda items would be kept light for that night.
A 15 or 20 minute break would be taken, adjourn back to the workshop and go on until no later than 9 p.m.
Commissioner Mill informed he will probably arrive late to this meeting since he commutes from Portland.
Vice Chairperson Cox reported he will not be at this meeting because he will be in Rome.
Staff indicated the City would provide dinner for the Commissioners on the night of the workshop. He
requested the Commission provide Staff with any items they would like Adriane to discuss.
A few of the items Commissioners requested be discussed at the workshop were: What are the areas that
the Commission can address when they have things remanded from City Council or LUBA back to them?
Liability of Commissioners? Discussion regarding Measure 7.
Robert Shields interjected Deniece will also be present at the workshop. He stated she will be fairly helpful
regarding Measure 7.
It was a consensus by the Commission that the workshop take place Thursday, February 22~ at 6 p.m.
REPORTS
A...~. Planning Prolect Tracking Sheet (revised)
Vice Chairperson. Cox remarked that any land use matters that have been heard by the Planning
Commission and then by the Council and is remanded back to LUBA, except in unusual circumstances,
should go back through the Planning Commission process again.
S .t,3ff interjected he agrees but due to the circumstances of this case, this was not possible.
Commissioner Bandelow requested an update on the status of the Kohl project.
Staff reported the application has been deemed complete as of December 29, 2000.
Commissioner Mill asked about the Woodbum Company Stores project.
Staff stated there have been discussions with the City Attorney and the applicant's attorney as far as
whether they can go forward with the Site Plan Review application or not since the Annexation and Comp
Plan Amendment are before LUBA. A decision is expected from LUBA in eady February.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 11, 2001 Page 3 of 5
B__=. Building Activity for December 2000
C__=. Cancellation of January 25, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
Staff suggested the January 25, 2001 meeting be canceled due to lack of agenda items.
Commissioner Fletcher moved to cancel the January 25, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Vice
Chairperson Cox seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Lima requested a mini dictionary of Planning acronyms be compiled for his use.
Staff will assemble a list.
Commissioner Loner,qan reported he has been asked to be a member of the Urban Renewal Committee.
This committee is looking at an urban renewal district made up of different parts of Woodburn. He
commented there are 16-17 people representing a lot of different areas of Woodburn. Commissioner
Lonergan stated this will come before the Commission some time this Fall in the form of a report. He said
they are basically looking at boundaries in downtown, up Young Street and down Highway 99 and different
areas of open space. Additionally, over a period of time, gaining tax monies from within that district that
would go back into special projects for renewal and development. Commissioner Lonergan stated he is
open for input or questions from the Commission as this project progresses. He announced there will be
a meeting scheduled for February 3r~.
Chairperson Young thanked Commissioner Lonergan for taking on this project. He asked Commissioner
Mill how the Shop-N-Cart fence project worked out?
Commissioner Mill stated as far as he can recollect the agreement was no breaks in that fence. He reported
they took the present break in the fence and essentially narrowed it down to the point where a shopping cart
can't get through the fence. He indicated that even though it has reduced the number of shopping carts, it
has not eliminated them entirely. Commissioner Mill indicated the summer might be a more accurate
barometer of things. He commented the appropriate way to fix this problem would be with a barrier that is
six or seven feet that goes all the way up to the main highway. He also remarked the church has expressed
a desire to try to mitigate undesirable activity as much as possible rather than totally restdct access to their
property.
Commissioner Lima remarked he was misquoted by the Statesman Journal as being a City Planner in a
recent article regarding the new speed limit on Highway 214 despite the fact that he cleady identified himself
as a member of the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairperson Cox suggested the traffic/radar counter be placed 300 or400 feet further west than where
it is located. Presently it is located at the far east end almost to the railroad underpass. He stated you are
practically through the area where you want vehicles to slow down. Vice Chairperson Cox further
commented it would be much more effective if the objective is to get people to look and slow down before
they get into the school area.
Commissioner Bandelow interjected the traffic/radar counter with the 35 mph displayed is creating a false
impression that the speed limit is 35 mph. She pointed out the speed limit is 20 mph when children are
present.
Chairperson Youn.q stated the intention was to bring awareness to the community that the speed limit has
been changed to 35 mph. He said it goes down to 20 mph anytime children are present. Additionally, he
commented some of the solutions that were discussed by the Commission several months ago is now being
brought to the forefront as a great idea. Chairperson Young said he is looking forward to seeing that come
8B
Planning Commission Meeting - January 11, 2001 Page 4 of 5
8B
about.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Mill made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lonerqan seconded the motion.
Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
APPROVED
ROYCE YOUNG, CHAIRPERSON
DATE
ATTEST
Jim Mulder,
Community Development Director
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - January 11, 2001 Page 5 of 5
Minutes-January Meeting
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board
January 9, 2001
DRAFT
8C
1. Meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Randy Westrick.
2. Randy officially introduced new member Richard Hammond. Richard Hammond told the
Board a little bit about himself and that he is happy to be on the Board.
3. Roll call: members present: Janet Greenwell, Melissa Tittle, Herb Mittman, Richard
Hammond, Kathy Figley, Patricia Watts
Members absent: Frank Anderson, Sharon Felix
Staff present: Randy Westrick, Kathy Willcox, Jennifer Goodrick, John Brown
4. Board Reorganization
Janet Greenwell was elected chair unanimously.
Herb Mittman was elected vice chair unanimously.
5. Minutes from the November meeting were approved unanimously.
6. Business from audience: There was none
7. Division Reports
Kathy Willcox reported that preparations are underway for the Woodbum Invitational at the
pool on Saturday-are expecting over 1000 people. Currently there are 85 fourth graders from
North Marion taking school lessons. Heritage will begin school lessons in February, then
Lincoln will begin in march. Pam Leder has been hired as a Water Safety Instructor (WSI), and
Kathy hopes to add more staff in preparation for summer. Kathy prepared an expenditure report
and a revenue report that were given to the Board. Both revenue and expenditures are on target
for the year. Attendance is up 4% from last year.
John Pitt and Brian Sjothun were absent, but their reports were distributed to the Board before
the meeting. Randy recapped from both reports. Dance Dance Dance and the did well this year
as well as AAU Basketball. Drop-In centers are doing well. The winter teen dance is this Friday
at the Community Center. Randy invited board members to drop by the Community Center
during the dance. There is now a bike path from Valor to Centennial Park. This pathway will
be extended into the park this spring. We are encountering some grading difficulties that will be
resolved. Parking lot is done and is great. Landscaping and security lighting will be put in this
spring. Now that orthodox Christmas is over the tree in Warzynski Plaza will come down this
week. We're down two custodians and are actively trying to fill those positions.
8C
8. Kathy Figley spoke about the wetlands project. The City Council has been advised about the
project and are enthusiastic about supporting it. The Council really liked the presentation by
Paul Sedoruk. A neighboring property owner has expressed concerns about flooding. The
Council thinks this should be addressed, but has asked the Recreation & Parks Board to move
forward on this project. Randy suggested scheduling another workshop, will work with Public
Works as far as flooding concerns/storm water storage is concerned. Developer won't build
pathways, but we can get scouting groups and other groups to build pathways for non-motorized
uses. Herb Mittman asked if the neighboring property owners are being apprized of these plans.
Randy assured the Board that they are. Richard Hammond asked about flooding. Randy stated
that these areas do not flood; they had a little flooding in '96, but that was mostly due to blocked
culverts and ditches. Janet Greenwell stated that improving flood control is in the plans as part
of the project. She invited neighbors watching to attend next weeks workshop. Randy assured
her that neighboring property owners would also be invited by mail.
9. John Brown spoke about the Urban Renewal Project. The thrust of the project is the
downtown area and encompasses the Young St corridor and. Downtown Woodburn is not
utilizing it's social, culture and economic potential. During '97 and '98 there was a push by
civic groups to cultivate an interest in downtown development, but they didn't reach out to
everyone in the community. Recommended $800,000 in improvements. The City Council
accepted the plan but did not provide for the financing. Creating an Urban Renewal District is
one way to fund such a project. Under this proposal, the amount of taxes the city collects for
general budgetary purposes are "frozen" at the current dollar amount. Any tax increases are
directed into a fund to finance improvements to that district. That money is usually small in the
beginning, and the city can bond to get more money. About 65 cities in Oregon currently have
Urban Renewal Districts in place at this time. The proposed District cannot include more than
25% of the city area, and the proposed area must have "blight" conditions as well. As a first
step, the City hired a consultant to do a study of the downtown area, the Young Street corridor
and the part of 99E that intersects with Young Street. That area didn't have enough value to
make the project worthwhile, so some raw land was added to create that value; both north and
south of the Young Street intersection, and an area on Hayes Street. Proposed URD is accounts
for approximately 10% of land and 3% of tax revenue for Woodbum. Estimated diverted tax
revenue for this project is 20 to 30 million dollars over 20 to 25 years. The City is now
progressing with Urban Renewal plan. A series of workshops and charette meetings are planned
for the next several weeks. A $10,000 grant has been acquired to hire a bilingual consultant and
to do a media campaign designed to get people to the meetings. By end of march we hope to
have a consensus on what people want to see happen downtown. Based on that feedback, a
panel of 17 will develop a financing plan, decide what kinds of projects to undertake, and
ultimately recommend an urban renewal plan to the City Council. Several options are being
considered by the panel. John said it was the hope of the panel to make all of these areas more
attractive.
Richard Hammond asked if the businesses being courted by this project will then be providing
the taxes to fund the program. John Brown replied yes, the City will be providing these
businesses a safe, attractive area in which to do business and those businesses should do well.
2
Richard asked if anything other than aesthetics was keeping us from being able to attract these
businesses. John Brown said there might be some infrastructure problems here and there, but no,
not really. Discussion ensured about the possible program details and requirements. Sacramento
and Fort Collins were discussed as examples where this kind of project has been successful.
John Brown reiterated that this would not be an overnight transformation. Two meetings will be
held at the Community Center on February 6; one at 4:30 and another at 6:30. These meetings
are to inform the public about this proposed project and all are welcome.
10. Ice Age Floods-Geological Society will have a meeting and slide show on January 22, 2001.
They are urging the National Park Service to choose Woodburn as the site for the proposed
interpretive center and museum. Randy said that after the National Park Service pitches this
project to Congress we will know more. Portland will be our competition for these facilities.
Randy is also considering the suggestion that we work with them rather than compete for these
facilities. There are several options for Congress to consider at this point-doing nothing, adding
wings to existing facilities or building one or more new facilities. The meeting on January 22
will be in the council chambers. Several Woodburn science teachers are excited and will be at
the meeting. Randy has a copy of the full report by the Geological Society if anyone is
interested.
11. Board business-Herb Mittman expresses concerns about the proposed skate park and new
Community Center; he doesn't want to let this drop but we will need to find more funding. Also
feels we need to choose a site for the skate park as soon as possible. Randy assured him we are
going ahead with design and location. The parking lot behind the Post Office has been put to the
forefront as a possibility. A good site possibility because it's centrally located, and has parking
and lighting. There are kids who are very interested in seeing this through, and parents are also
eager to help find designers and builders. Randy wants build this park to last 20 to 30 years, not
five or six.
12. Janet Greenwell adjourned the meeting by consensus at 7:50 pm.
8C
City of Woodburn
Police Department STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345
Date:
From:
To:
Thru:
January 11, 2001
~ul Null, Chief of Police
Mayor and Council
John Brown, City Administrator
Subject:
Police Depamnent Activities - November 2000
8D
The Consolidated Monthly Report is a monthly analysis of police department calls for service.
This report lists all police department incident investigations for the month, shows year to date
statistics, and comparisons to the previous year. The report is in conformance with Federal
Bureau of Investigations national guidelines for crime classifications and is reported to the State
of Oregon Law Enforcement Data System via the Regional Automated Information Network.
Should you have questions or wish further information, please contact me.
,e 4.
SD
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
City Council through City Administrator
Public Works Program Manager ~Y.,~
SUBJECT: Boones Ferry Road Speed Zone Investigation
DATE:
January 17,2001
At the direction of Council, staff submitted a speed zone request to the State Traffic
Engineer for Boones Ferry Road. The request was that the speed from approximately
0.2 miles north of Highway 214 to Hazelnut Drive, which is the north city limits, be
reduced from 45 MPH to 35 MPH. Since a portion of this road is adjacent to some lots
that are still in Marion County, ODOT required coordination with the county. The
county concurred with the city's request and they were added as a co-applicant with the
city for the speed zone request.
The city has received confirmation from the ODOT Traffic Management Section that
they have completed the speed zone investigation requested by the city and that they
are recommending that the request for reduction of the speed from 45 MPH to 35 MPH
be approved.
In accordance with ODOT's approval letter, the city has informed ODOT Traffic
Management Section that their recommendation is acceptable to the city. Marion
County must also notify the State Traffic Engineer that the speed change is acceptable
to the county. A check with Marion County Public Works has determined that they
have also send a letter to the state indicating that the speed reduction is acceptable.
After the letters from the city and county are received that the results of the speed zone
investigation are acceptable, the ODOT Traffic Management Section will complete a
speed zone order. This speed zone order will be provided to the city and county. The
city is ordering the necessary signs. After the speed zone order is received by the
city, public works street department personnel will place the new speed signs along the
affected section of Boones Ferry Road north of Highway 214 as shown on the attached
map of the area.
,--- --'--- URBAN GROWl H BOUNDARY
CLUB
COUNTRY CLUB RO
,~u~ fIDE
GRE[H I CHURCH
COURS{~
OGA
Speed Sign
,****** Affected Section
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City Council through City Administrator<':.~
Public Works Program ManagerJ'~'~'~'j
Status of Pedestrian Crossing on Highway 214 at Woodburn High School
January 18,2001
At the January 8, 2001 Council meeting, staff was authorized to award a contract to the
Iow responsible bidder for trenching and conduit installation work to provide electrical
power for lighting of a pedestrian crosswalk on Highway 214 at Woodburn High School.
The following bids were received:
Loy Clark Pipeline $ 8,968.00
Henkels & McCoy $11,805.00
W.G. Moe & Sons $13,945.00
The contract was awarded to Loy Clark Pipeline Company in the amount of $8,968.00.
They were scheduled to start work on Thursday, January 18, 2001 and take
approximately three days to do the work. The Woodburn School District has provided
the necessary easement for trenching work on school property and has also agreed to
share 50% of the cost of the trenching work.
Portland General Electric (PGE) will install electrical wiring in the conduit and place
wood poles with street lights. They have verified that materials are in stock to do the
work and will do the light installation after the conduit has been installed and inspected.
The cost for PGE to install wire in the conduit and do the required connections will be
$1,318.64. PGE is estimating that the lights and poles will be installed during the
week of January 29, 2001. In accordance with PGE street light schedules the monthly
cost of the poles and lights will be $31.44.
ODOT will be installing a pedestrian crossing island adjacent to the entrance to the
high school in the center tum lane of Highway 214. This will be a marked crossing
with the raised island providing a refuge area in the middle of the roadway. The island
will be 300 feet in length and the designated pedestrian crossing area will be near the
midpoint. The island will convert the high school entrance in a right in right out only
configuration. ODOT is currently scheduling to start the work on January 30, 2001 and,
with favorable weather, construction should be completed in two weeks.
10A
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodbum, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
January 22,2001
To:
From:
Subject:
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Developmen~~2
Supplemental Review of Site Plan Review 99-14, Boones Ferry Place
Retirement Facility.
REQUEST: The applicants for this proposal request supplemental review of specific
approval criteria for Site Plan Review99-14. This request is made in response to the State
Land Use Board of Appears (LUBA) final Opinion and Order No. 2000-050 which
remanded the City of Woodburn's decision to approve said application. The site plan
review application consists of a proposal to construct a 102 suite retirement facility on a
4.3 acre site on the west side of Boones Ferry Road and south side of Country Club Lane.
BACKGROUND: At their public hearings of September 23, 1999 and October 14, 1999,
the Planning Commission reviewed a request by Wally Gutzler and Anthony Kreitzberg to
annex 3.32 acres to the City of Woodbum. The applicants also requested a
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map change from Madon County Urban Transition Farm
(UTF) to City Multi-Family Residential (RM), and a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map
change for an adjacent tax lot of .98 acres from Single-Family Residential (RS) to Multi-
Family Residential (RM). The Planning Commission also considered the applicants'
request for approval of a Site Plan Review for Boones Ferry Place, a retirement center,
and the applicants' request for variances to the lot coverage and lot area requirements in
the RM zone.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 28, 1999, adopted a final order
recommending the City Council approve the proposed annexation and deny the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site plan review and variances.
This project was scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on November 22,
1999. However, the applicants submitted a letter on November 17, 1999 stating that they
had made substantial revisions to the proposed site plan in response to comments made
by the Planning Commission and adjacent neighbors. The applicants requested that the
City Council continue the hearing to a date certain and that the proposal be remanded to
the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation pertaining to the revised
proposal prior to the Council holding a hearing on this matter. The City Council granted
IOA
this request and continued their hearing to February 28, 2000 and remanded the revised
project back to the Planning Commission for a new public hearing.
The Planning Commission held this new public hearing on January 13, 2000. On January
27, 2000 the Planning Commission adopted a final order recommending that the City
Council approve Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02, Zone Change
99-06, and Site Plan Review 99-14 as revised by the applicant. Variance 99-07,
requesting two variances, was withdrawn as it became unnecessary due to the site plan
being revised.
The City Council held a public hearing on February 28, 2000 to consider the project and
on March 27, 2000, adopted Ordinance No. 2260 approving the project. The Council's
decision to approve the project was subsequently appealed to LUBA by Alan Hubenthal.
On November 3, 2000, LUBA issued its final Opinion and Order No. 2000-050 remanding
the city's decision for further review of two specific site plan review approval criteria.
DISCUSSION: LUBA's Opinion and Order cites the failure of the city to provide adequate
findings relating to two site plan review approval criteria. First, regarding Woodburn
Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Section 11.070(d), LUBA states, "On remand, the city must
supply a more complete explanation of its reasons for why it is not"possible" to deny direct
driveway access to Boones Ferry Road." Second, LUBA states, "On remand the city must
consider whether the proposed signs comply with WZO 11.070(h)."
To address these two issues, staff has provided a supplemental staff report containing
additional evidence and comments. This agenda item has been noticed as a public
hearing and the notice states that the City Council will accept written or oral testimony
pertaining only to the project's compliance with the specific approval criteria specified
above. Testimony relating to other approval criteria should not be accepted.
In regard to this proposal, the City Council has the following options to satisfy LUBA's
Opinion and Order:
(1)
Adopt supplemental findings which support approval of Site Plan Review 99-
14.
(2)
Adopt supplemental findings which support denial of Site Plan Review 99-14
and conclude the applicant failed to carry the burden of proof to approve the
application.
It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate your decision.
Attachments:
2
IOA
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Supplemental Staff Report, dated 1-22-01
Schematic Design Drawings - Exhibits A-G
Woodburn Fire District Letter, dated 12-18-00
Applicant's Supplemental Materials
Council Ordinance No. 2260
LUBA Final Opinion and Order No. 2000-050
3
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
SITE PLAN REVIEW 99-14
(January 22, 2001)
ATTACHMENT A] 0~lk
II.
III.
REQUEST: The applicants request supplemental review of specific approval criteria
for Site Plan Review 99-14. This request is made in response to the State Land
Use Board of Appears (LUBA) final Opinion and Order No. 2000-050 which
remanded the City of Woodburn's decision to approve said application. The site
plan review application consists of a proposal to construct a 102 suite retirement
facility on a 4.3 acre site on the west side of Boones Ferry Road and south side of
Country Club Lane.
RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 11, Site Plan Review:
Section 11.070(d) and Section 11.070(h)
ANALYSIS:
A. Woodbum Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Section 1t.070 Criteda for Evaluating a Site Plan. The following criteria
shell be used in evaluating a Site Plan:
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic
patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be allowed to
arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared with
adjacent uses of a similar nature.
STAFF COMMENT: Access to the site is proposed from two access
driveways located on (one each) Boones Ferry Road and Country Club
Road. Boones Ferry Road is a minor arterial and Country Club Road is an
access street. The access driveways are located far enough from the
intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road and are of
sufficient width so that traffic impacts will be minimized. The applicant
prepared and submitted a transportation analysis with the original
application which shows no adverse impact as a result of the driveways.
This traffic study was reviewed by the city's Transportation Manager. In his
memo, dated August 19, 1999, he concludes, 'The two access points
proposed are appropriate and are appropriately located in the site plan. I
concur with the conclusion reached in the traffic study that this development
will not have a substantial impact on the surrounding street system now or
in the future.'
Supl~ementa! Staff Relx~ - aPR ~-14 I
IOA
As stated in the above criterion, access to arterial streets shall not be
allow~l whenever possible. In this situation, it is not possible to deny direct
access to Boones Ferry Road for the proposed multi-family elderly housing
project because of public safety considerations. Robert Benck, Fire Marshal
for the Woodbum Fire District, informed city staff in his letter dated
December 18, 2000 that, "In order to serve this project in an efficient and
expeditious manner access off of Boones Ferry Rd. is imperative. Time is
always a major factor in fire and medical emergencies, and the logical
access point to provide this service is Boones Ferry Rd. In addition, the
proposed facility's size requires access to all sides in a fire emergency, this
is provided in the proposal and meets Oregon Uniform Fire Code
Requirements for both access and the location of fire hydrants."
The city relies on the Fire Marshal's experience and expertise in this area.
The Fire Marshal's position that it is imperative that the proposed project
have access off of Boones Ferry Road in order to provide fire protection in
an efficient and expeditious manner is substantial evidence that it is not
possible to deny the applicant access to Boones Ferry Road. In the interest
of public safety it is not possible here to deny direct driveway access to
Boones Ferry Road by the applicant for the proposed multi-family elderly
housing project. The Fire Code requirements conflict with the expressed
preference for limits on access to arterials.
Regarding shadng access with similar uses, the nature of the surrounding
uses is not similar to the proposed use in that they consist of single family
use to the south, utility company use to the north, and church use to the
west. In addition, it is not possible to share access in that the adjacent uses
have existing driveways which do not adjoin the subject site.
Based on the above discussion, criterion 11.070(d) is met.
(h) The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all
structures and signs are compatible with the proposed development
and appropriate to the character of the Immediate neighborhood.
STAFF COMMENT: The character of the immediate neighborhood is
primarily residential. The southern side, east side and southwest corner of
the subject property is bordered by single family homes. The northeast
corner of the s'ee borders the US West building and the northwest comer of
the site borders a I. DS church. There are two proposed signs within the see
plan. One sign will be at the entrance way to the assisted living facility off
of Boones Ferry Road (Assisted Living Community Sign) and the second
sign will be at the entrance way to the Alzheimer facility off of Count~j Club
Road (Alzheimer Building Sign). The two signs will be addressed separately
below:
Supplemental Staff Report- SPR 99-14 2
IOA
Assisted Living Community Sign: The site plan indicates that the
Assisted Living Community Sign will be at the entrance way to the
assisted living community off of Boones Ferry Road. The Assisted
Living Community Sign is compatible with the proposed development
because it is at the entrance way to the assisted living community and
directs and introduces people to the assisted living community. Other
developments in the immediate neighborhood such as Heritage Park,
Henry's Farm and Tukwila also have signs located at their access
entryways, so the location of the proposed sign is appropriate to the
character of the residential neighborhood.
The applicants have submitted design detail for the Assisted Living
Community Sign in their schematic design drawings. The Iow-profile
monument style design is compatible with the proposed elderly
housing because it has an elegant design similar to the attractive
architecture used for the proposed housing. The design is
appropriate to the residential character of the immediate
neighborhood because it is Iow-profile (standing approximately seven
feet in height) and has Iow voltage lighting which will not be
distracting to residential neighbors. The sign will be at least as
attractive as other currently existing signs in the immediate
neighborhood identifying Heritage Park, Henry's Farm, Village of the
Green, and the Tukwilla developments. The design is also
appropriate for the residential character of the immediate
neighborhood because of its Iow-profile and because of its Iow
voltage lighting which will not be-distracting to residential neighbors.
The applicant states that 'the Assisted Living Community Sign will
use a color scheme of natural earth tones and subtle natural colors
similar with and compatible with those used on the proposed elderly
housing.' The applicant's use of earth tones and subtle natural colors
will be similar and compatible to existing colors used for neighboring
residential homes. Therefore, the colors would be appropriate to the
character of the immediate neighborhood.
The applicant states 'The materials used in the Assisted Living
Community Sign will consist of painted concrete with a light sand
finish.' The sign which will consist of painted concrete with a light
sand finish should have an attractive texture and appearance that is
compatible with the proposed eldedy housing. The textured and
painted concrete and other materials are residential in character and
since similar materials are used in the construction of the buildings on
site and in neighboring residences they will be compatible with the
proposed housing and appropriate to the character of the immediate
residential neighborhood.
Supplemental Staff Report- SPR 99-14 3
IOA
Alzheimer Building Sign: The site plan indicates that the Alzheimer
Building Sign is located east of the entry way to the Alzheimer facility
off of Country Club Road. The location of the sign is compatible with
the proposed elderly housing because it is located at a convenient
spot to help direct visitors and residents to the Alzheimer facility. The
location of the sign adjacent to the access driveway is also
appropriate to the character of the residential neighborhood which
has similar signs located at the access ways for Heritage Park,
Henry's Farm, and the Tukwilla developments.
The applicants have submitted design details for the Alzheimer
building sign in their schematic design drawings. The Alzheimer
Building Sign is designed to be a Iow-profile monument sign
approximately six feet tall. It's elegant, attractive Iow-profile design
is compatible with the proposed eldedy residential development. The
Iow-profile wood sign is also appropriate to the residential character
of the neighborhood which also has similar signs for developments
such as Heritage Park, Henry's Farm, Village by the Green, and
Tukwilla.
The applicant states that ~The color scheme of the sign will be earth
tones and natural colors". Earth tones and natural colors are similar
and compatible to the coloring scheme used by the proposed elderly
residential housing which also uses these colors. Earth tones and
subtle natural colors are also used in the immediate residential
neighborhood so therefore, the proposed colors used in the sign are
appropriate to the character of the residential neighborhood.
The applicant states that 'The proposed Alzheimer Building Sign will
be made pdmadly out of wood and other residential materials.'
These proposed materials are compatible with the proposed elderly
residential housing, which will also use wood and other residential
materials. The proposed materials are also similar to materials used
in the immediate neighborhood therefore, the proposed materials
used in the sign are appropriate to the character of the immediate
residential neighborhood.
Both proposed signs h'm, ct the criteria set forth under WZO 11.070 (h).
CONCLUSION: This supplemental staff report provides substantial evidence to
conclude that the above approval criteria are met.
Supplemental Staff Report- SPR 99-14 4
CO0
zo-r
Zm
~m
>--< Io~
ATTACHMENT B
iJ~:[l~[J'a" j ! 'ili lll il' '~ ~!!!1 '':'"ii'
t~m
IOA
'il
1
COlO
ZOl:l:
~zlm
m ri1 I:.'.'.~
O~o~ I>
>301o
z~lm
Zm
.-I
,! .i~l , I'
./
,[
-:') 0 C:
lo
Wooclburn Fire Distriot
OE~!EL~p~EN'T OEP-I''
ATTACHMENT
Woodbum, OR. 97071
(.503) 982-7305 ext. 2013
(503)
F~: (503) g61
December 18, 2000
Jim Maulder, Planner
Planning Department
City of Woodbum
270 Momgomery St.
Woodburn, OR 97071
Dear Jim
This letter is in regards to the Boones Ferry Place Assisted Living complex. In order to serve this project in
an efficient and expeditious manner access off of Boones Ferry Rd. is imperative. Time is always a major
factor in fire and medical emergencies, and the logical access point to provide this service is Boones Ferry
Rd.
In addition, the proposed facilities size requires access to all sides in a fire emergency, ~ is provided in
the proposal and meets the Oregon Uniform Fire Code requirements for both access and the location of fire
ffyou have further concerns please feel flee to contact us at the noted number.
Robert Benck
Fire Mars~
WILUAId G. P,~LIt. U~
1931-1~99
F4x
ATTACHMENT D
--;~ HI'-L.;'U '~'
DEC 1. 2 2000
[)Ew!-:: ?P!v~.I'IT DEPT.
IOA
November 22, 2000
Sent Via Fax 503-982-5244
JAMES P. MULDER
Senior Planner
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn OR 97071
N. ROBERT SHIELDS
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn OR 97071
RE:
Boones Ferry Place
(Comp. Plan ~nt 9902, etc.)
Our File No. 10255001
Tiffs is our fl3nnal written request under ORS 227.181(2Xa) tlut ~ CRy of'
Wo(xllxtm proceed with the above-re~mced application on tartaric1. Hease
33'~ m~ 34' ~ af error in part, which wa'e ~ by ].,UBA ia it's
scope of lhe heaziag ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~. If
Tlmnk you for your assistance in ~hl, matter.
A :.iar
c: Warty Gutzler ($ruz Fax 503-375-0589)
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
IOA
TO:
FROM:
APPLICANTS:
DATE:
To Petition for Zone Map Change and Comprehensive Plan Map Change
APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED BOONE'S FERRY PLACE
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Site Plan Review
City Council of Woodburn
Anthony R. Kreitzberg of Garrett, Hemann, Robertson, Jennings,
Comstock & Trethewy, P.C. as agem for the Applicant.
Eugene R. Gascho and Judith A. Gascho, Trustees of the Eugene R.
Gascho Trust; Judith A. Gascho and Eugene R. Gascho, Trustees of the
Judith A. Gascho Trust, Willis A. Byers and Rachel L. Byers, husband
and wife; Rodney Lee Byers and Marcia Kathryn Byers, Trustees of the
Rodney Lee Byers Trust; and Marcia Kathryn Byers and Rodney Lee
Byers, Trustees of the Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust.
December 20, 2000
Re:
Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02,
Zone Change 99-06, and Site Plan Review 99-14
Our File No. 10255001
INTRODUCTION
On November 3, 2000, the Land Use Board of Appeals for the State of Oregon under
final Opinion and Order No. 2000-050 remanded this city's decision for further review of
specific criteria under WZO 11.070 (d) and WZO 11.070 (h). The following is adch'tional
information to assist with the review of the issues specifically remanded by LUBA.
DISCUSSION
1. WZO 11.070 (d). WZO 11.070 (d) requirea that "Access to the public streets shall
nu~imize the impact of traffic patterns. Wherever possible, direct driveway access shall not be
allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a
similar nature.''
LUBA remanded this decision for the following.reason:
"WZO 11.070 (d) requires that traffic impact be minimiTed and that "[w]herever
poss~le, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets." See n 14.
The city found the two driveways, one on Boones Ferry Road and the other on Country
Club Road, are far enough apart so as to create no traffic impact. Record 20.
However, the city's findings under WZO 11.070 (d) do not explain why direct
driveway access is allowed on Boones Ferry Road, an arterial street. Intervenors argue
the driveway access onto Boones Ferry Road is for the purpose of providing alternative
12/26/0015:18
10A
access as required by the city's fire chief. Intervenors' Brief 42. While it may be that
the fire chief expressed concerns that would provide a basis for the city finding that it is
not possible here to deny direct driveway access to Boones Ferry Road, the city's
findings addressing WZO 11.070 (d) do not express that position. We agree with
petitioner that the city's findings are inadequate to address the requirement of WZO
11.070 (d) that "[w]herever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to
arterial streets." On remand, the city must supply a more complete explanation of its
reasons for why it is not "possible" to deny direct driveway access to Boones Ferry
Road." Or LUBA Hubenthal v. Woodburn (No. 2000-050, November 3,
200O).
Response:
The primary reason it is not possible to deny direct access to Boones Ferry Road for the
proposed multifamily elderly housing is because of public safety considerations. Throughout
the development of the site plan the applicant's architect has worked with the city's fire
marshal to make sure the site plan meets Oregon Uniform Fire Code Requirements for both
access and the location of fire hydrants and meets other fire safety considerations. Robert
Benck, Fire Marshal for the Woodburn Fire District required access to the proposed elderly
housing from Boones Ferry Road because he felt that access off of Boones Ferry Road was
imperative in order to provide fire protection in an expeditious manner. In Robert Benck's
letter dated December 18, 2000 he states the following:
"... In order to serve this project in an efficient and expeditious manner access off of
Boones Ferry Road is imperative. Time is always a major factor in fire and medical
emergencies, and the logical ams point to provide this service ia Boonea Ferry Road. In.
addition, the proposed facility's size requires access to all sides in an emergency, this is
provided in the proposal and meets the Oregon Uniform Fire Code Requirements for both
access and the location of fire hydrants."
The requirement of the fire chief that the proposed multifamily elderly housing have
access off of Boones Ferry Road by itself is a reasonable basis for the city to conclude that it is
not "poss~le' to deny direct driveway access to Boones Ferry Road to the proposed
mul 'tffamily elderly housing.
1.1
City Policy. Additionally, WZO 11.070 (d) should not be considered in
isolation. Woodbum's Comprehensive Plan Policy A-11 requires that:
'Traffic from high density residential areas should have access to collector or
artet~ streets without going through other residential areas." (emphasis
added).
The proposed site plan provides for access to the site by two driveways, one located on
Country Club Road which is designated as an access street and one driveway is located on
Boones Ferry Road which is designated by the city as a minor arterial street. The proposed
site plan is consistent with this policy because it provides access for the multifamily elderly
177'26~0015:18
IOA
housing to Boones Ferry Road which is a minor arterial street without going through other
residential areas.
2. WZO 11.070 (h). WZO 11.070 (h) requires that "The location, design, color and
materials of the exterior of all structures and signs are compatible with the proposed
development and appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood." LUBA
remanded the decision in part under this criteria for the following reason:
" WZO 11.070 (h) also requires that the city consider the compatibility of the
proposed "signs." As far as we can tell the city did not do so. Intervenors cite to
pages in the record that show the proposed locations and design of two proposed entry
monument signs. Record 312, 316. Intervenors argue that based on this evidence we
may overlook the missing fmdings. ORS 197.835(11)(b) (LUBA may overlook
defective findings where "evidence in the record * * * clearly supports the decision").
We do not agree. The evidence cited by intervenors does not provide more than an
idea of what the proposed signs will look like. It is not evidence that clearly supports a
decision that the signs are, in the words of WZO 11.070 (h), "compatible with the
proposed development and appropriate to the character of the immediate
neighborhood." Moreover, whether any given particular sign complies with the
"compatibility" standard in WZO 11.070 (h) calls for the kind of highly subjective
judgment that generally makes reliance on ORS 197.835(11)(b) inappropriate. Waugh
v. Coos County, Or LUBA 300, 307-08 (1993). On remand the city must consider
whether the proposed signs comply with WZO 11.070 (h).' ~ Or LUBA ~
Hubenthal v. Woodburn (No. 2000-050, November 3, 2000).
The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all signs are compatible with
the proposed development and appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood for
the following reasons:
2.1
Character of Neighborhood. The character of the immediate neighborhood is
primarily resideptial. South of the proposed elderly housing is HenrY's Farm
Development, which is a single family home development. East of the site,
across Boones Ferry Road are single family homes. The southwest corner of
the site is also bordered by single family homes. The northeast corner of the
site borders the US West building and the northwest corner of the site borders a
LDS church.
2.2
Compatib'flity of Signs. There are two proposed signs for the elderly homing
commtmity. One sign will be at the entrance way to the assisted living facility,
off of Boones Ferry Road, as shown on the site plan submitted with the original
application, ("Assisted Living Community $ignD. The second sign will be at
the entrance way to the Alzheimer facility off of Country Club Road and is also
shown on the site plan submitted under the original application (~Alzheimer
Building Sign"). These signs will be addressed individually below:
Page 3 SUPPLI!MENTAL MATERIALS ~'Wq~k~10255001~ ma~mls~
12/26t0015:18
IOA
2.2.1. Assisted Living Community Sign. The location of the Assisted
Living Community Sign is compatible with the proposed development
because it is at the entrance way to the assisted living community and
directs and introduces people to the assisted living community. The
location is appropriate to the character of the residential neighborhood
because other developments in the immediate neighborhood such as
Heritage Park, Henry's Farm, and Tukwilla also have signs located at
their access entry ways, as shown in "Exhibit A'.
The proposed Assisted Living Community Sign is designed as a low-
profile monument sign. The design of the sign is set forth in great detail
in the schematic design site signage detail attached with the original
application. The low-profile monument style design is compatible with
the proposed elderly housing because it is elegant, and appropriate to
identify a residential housing building. The sign is designed to be
illuminated with low voltage lighting.
The monument style sign design is appropriate to the residential
character of the immediate neighborhood because it is low-profile
(standing approximately seven feet in height) and has low voltage
lighting which will not be distracting to residential neighbors. The
Assisted Living Community Sign will use a color scheme of natural earth
tones and subtle natural colors similar with and compatible with those
used on the proposed elderly housing. The color scheme of earth tones
and subtle natural colors will also be similar to and compatible with the
existing colors used for the siding of neighboring residential homes,
which will make the colors used appropriate to the character of the
immediate neighborhood.
The material.~ used in the Assisted Living Community Sign will collsist
of painted concrete with a light sand finish. The painted concrete, with a
light sand fini.~h will give the sign an attractive texture and .appearance
compatible with the proposed elderly homing and attractive and
appropriate to the character of the immediate residential neighborhood.
The textured and painted concrete and other materials are residential in
character, since similar materials are used in the coBstrllcfion of the
buildings on site and in neighboring residences.
2.2.2. Alzheimer Building Sign. The ^lzheimer Building Sign is
located east of the entry way to the Alzheimer facility off of Country
Club Road. The two-sided sign is facing east and west so that travelers
on Country Club Road can read it. The location of the sign is
compatible with the proposed elderly housing because it is located at a
convenient spot to help direct visitors and residents to the Alzheimer
facility. The location of the sign adjacent to the access driveway is also
Page 4 SUPPLI~HNTAL MATERIALS
12/26/0015:18
10A
appropriate to the character of the residential neighborhood which has
similar signs located at the access ways for Heritage Park, Henry's
Farm, and Tukwilla developments. The Alzheimer Building Sign is
designed to be a low-profile monument style and will be approximately
six feet tall. It's elegant, low-profile design is compatible with the
proposed elderly residential development and also appropriate to the
residential character of the neighborhood.
The color scheme of the sign will be earth tones and natural colors. This
will be a similar and compatible coloring scheme to the proposed
residential housing. The earth tones and subtle natural colors used in the
sign will be similar to the colors used in the residential neighborhood and
therefore appropriate to the character of the residential neighborhood.
The proposed Alzheimer Building Sign will be made primarily out of
wood and other residential materials. These residential materials are
compatible with the proposed elderly residential housing which also
utilizes wood and similar to other residential materials used in the
immediate neighborhood. Therefore, the materials used in the sign are
appropriate to the character of the immediate residential neighborhood.
GARRETT, HEMANN, ROBERTSON, JENNINGS,
COMSTOCK & TRETHEWY, P.C.
Of Attorneys for Applieanm
Pagc 5 SUPP~AL IVL~TERL~LS n:~wpdoc~0255001~ ma~*t~s.~oc~cam
12~t0008:21
IOA
IOA
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2034
ATTACHMENT E
ORDINANCE NO. 2260
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING INTO THE CITY OF WOODBURN 3.32 ACRES OF
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD AND WEST OF
BOONES FERRY ROAD; AMENDING THE CITY OF WOODBURN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM "RESIDENTIAL <12 UNITS/ACRE" TO
"RESIDENTIAL >12 UNITS/ACRE" FOR SAID PROPERTY AND AN ADJACENT 0.98
ACRE PARCEL CURRENTLY IN THE CITY OF WOODBURN; GRANTING A
CONDITIONAL ZONE CHANGE FROM MARION COUNTY "URBAN TRANSITION
FARM" (UTF) TO CITY OF WOODBURN "MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL"
(RM) FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; GRANTING A CONDITIONAL ZONE
CHANGE FROM CITY OF WOODBURN "SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" (RS) TO
CITY OF WOODBURN "MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" (RM) FOR THE
ADJACENT 0.98 ACRES; APPROVING A SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION; AND
ATTACHING CERTAIN CONDITIONS THERETO.
WHEREAS, the applicants, Wally Gutzler and Anthony Kreitzberg, submitted the
following applications: Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 99-02, Zone
Map Amendment 99-06, and Site Plan Review 99-14; and
WHEREAS, the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have established
certain land uses within the City of Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, the Woodbum City Council has reviewed the record pertaining to said
applications and heard all public testimony presented on said applications; NOW,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
See/ion 1. That the subject property is owned by Eugene IL Cmscho Trust, Judith A.
Crascho Trust, Willis A. Byers, Rachel L. Byers, Rodney Lee Byers Trust, and Marcia Kathryn
Byers Trust, and is legally described in Attachment "A', which is affixed hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Section 2. That the subject property is depicted on the Exhibit Map for Annexation
which is affixed hereto as Attachment "B" and is by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. That based upon the Findings in Support, which is affixed hereto as
Attachment "C' and is by this reference incorporated herein, the subject property is hereby
annexed to the City of Woodbum.
Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2034
ORDINANCE NO. 2260
IOA
Section 4. That the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby mended as to the
property described in Attachment "A" to this Ordinance from "Residential <12 units/acre' to
"residential >12 units/acre" (includes both the 3.32 and 0.98 acres) based upon the Findings in
Support, which is affixed hereto as Attachment "C".
Section 5. That the Woodbum Zoning Map is hereby amended as to the property
described in Attachment "A" to this Ordinance from Marion County "Urban Transition Farm"
(for the 3.32 acres) and from "Single Family Residential" (for the 0.98 acres) to City of
Woodbum "Multiple Family Residential" (RM) based upon the Findings in Support, which is
affixed hereto as Attachment "C".
Section 6. That the zone change granted by Section 5 above shall be conditional
contingent upon completion of the approved development in compliance with the conditions of
approval contained in Attachment "D".
Section 7. That the site plan review application for said property is approved based upon
the Findings in Support, which is affixed hereto as Attachment "C".
Section 8. That the zone change and site plan review approval are subject to the
conditions contained in Attachment "D", which is affixed hereto and incorporated herein, which
the Council finds reasonable.
City Attorney D~ite
Approved: ~
Passed by the Council
March 27, 2000
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST: ~
CityofWoodbum, Omgon
March 29, 2000
March 29~ 2000
March 29, 2000
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2034 '
ORDINANCE NO. 2260
IOA
ATTACHMENT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ANX 99-02, CPA 99-02, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14
(Parcels I, II, III, and IV consist of 3.32 acres and constitute the property to be annexed)
(Parcel V consists of 0.98 acres, is not a part of the annexation, but is part of the comprehensive
plan amendment, zone change, and site plan review)
PARCEL I:
Beginning at a point which is South 87° 44' 55' East 1035.90 feet along the South line
of Country Club Road and South 2° 15' 05' West 266.74 feet from the Northeast
corner of Lot 14, Block 23, Woodburn Senior Estates No. 2 and being in Section 7,
Township 5 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon;
thence South 87° 22' 47" East 349.36 feet to a point on the West line of Boones Ferry
Road; thence North 15° 45' 05" East along said West line 102.82 feet to the Southeast
corner of the Pacific Northwest Bell tract as recorded in Volume 640, Page 017,
Marion County Deed Records; thence North 87° 43' 46" West 200.01 feet along the
South line of said Bell Tract to the Southwest comer thereof; thence North 15° 45' 35"
East 173.75 feet along the West line of said Bell Tract to the Northwest Comer thereof;
thence North 87° 44' 55" West 213.92 feet along the South line of Country Club Road;
thence South 2° 15' 5" West 266.74 feet to the place of beginning.
SAVE AND EXCEPT the Easterly 4 feet along Boones Ferry Road dedicated to
Marion County for roadway purposes, ~ described in Warranty Deed, dated May 8,
1986, and recorded May 23, 1986, in R~I 464, Page 70, Microfilm R~ord~, Marion
Co~ ~, Oregon.
SAVE AND BXCI!~ all minerals and mineral fights more particularly desen'bed as,
but not limited to the following:
All minerals, coal, ¢~OOm, hydtxlcaI~n.q, oil, gas, clleillical denlenls ~ colnig)ulld8
whett~ in solid, liquid or gasem~ form, and all steam and Other forms of thermal
enerl~ on, in or under the above-descn'bed land. '
IOA
LEGAL DESCRItrFION OF PROPERTY:
PARCEL II:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Elmendor£ Acres,
thence North 86° 59' West along the South line of said lot, 348.50
feet, thence North 3° 01' East at right angles to the South line
of said Lot, 120.00 feet; thence South 86° 59' East parallel with
the South line of said Lot, 376.43 feet to the East line thereof;
thence South 16~ 07' West along the East lime of said Lot, 123.24
feet to the place of beginning.
PARCEL III:
Beginning at a point in the North line of the B.F. Hall Donation
L~nd Claim Township 5 South, Range 1 and 2 West of the Willamette
Meridian, Marion County, Oregon, at the intersection of said North
line with the center line of Boom's Ferry Road; thence South 13°
27' West along said center line 120.00 feet; thence North 87~ 25'
West. parallel with the North l~e of said Donation Land Claim,
300.00 feet; thence North 13° 27' East, parallel with the center
line of said road, 120.00 feet to the North line of said Donation
~d Claim; thence South 87e 25' East along said North line 300.00
feet to the place of beginning.
Bec3~--{-g at an iron pipe {- the North l~e of the B.F. Hall
Donat~onLand ClaimN~. 51, in~ection ?, Township 5 South, Range
I WesC of the Willamette Meridian ~-NarionCounty, Oregon, which
is 2365.59 feet South 87" 25' East from the~orthwest corne~ of
said Claim No. 51; thence South 2~ 33' 09" West 117.88 feet to an
iron ro~; thence South87"-24· 53~ East, parallel with the North
l~ne of saidCl~/mNo. 51, 57.06 feet to the Southwest oorner of
the KNa~ene ~as~ho, et al, traot described ~n Reel 185, Page ~254,
MarionCountyDeedReoords; thence North13" 23~ 0O" East~
para1191 with Boones Ferry Road, 120.00 feet to the Northwest
oorner of said Gascho tract; thence North 87~ 24' 53" West 79.61
feet to the plaoe of beg~mning.
IOA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
PARCEL V:
Beginning at a point which is South 02° 30' 44" West 117.87 feet
from the most Southeasterly corner of that parcel described in
Reel 205, Page 1954, Marion County Deed Records, Marion County,
Ore§on; thence South 02° 30' 44" West 115.00 feet; thence South
87° 22' 12" East 148.00 feet; thence South 02° 37' 48" West 12.00
feet; thence South 87° 22' 12" East 28.00 feet; thence North 02°
37' 48" East 12.00 feet; thence South 87° 22' 12" East 128.23 feet
to the West right of way line of Boones Ferry Road; thence:North
13° 24' 59" East along said West right of way line 117.07 feet;
thence North 87° 22' 12'~ West 326.37 feet to the place of
b egi',',,", lng.
ATTACHMENT "B"
EXHIBIT MAP FOR ANNEXATION 99-02
CoUIVTR¥ 6LUF~ ROAD
2
1000 ~ 1100
900 ~.
IOA
0
5O0 I~1
1200
1300
ATTACHMENT "C"
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
ANNEXATION 99-02, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 99-02, ZONE
MAP AMENDMENT 99-06, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 99-14
IOA
II.
BACKGROUND:
The original application was heard by the Planning Commission at public hearings
on September 23, 1999 and October 14, 1999. The original application was similar
to the revised proposal except that it required approval of variances to the lot
coverage and lot area requirements in the RM zone and consisted of a 12 unit
Alzheimer Facility, a 60 unit assisted living facility, and a 110 unit retirement facility.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 28, 1999, adopted a final
order recommending the City Council approve the proposed annexation but deny
the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site plan review and
variances.
The original proposal was scheduled for a public headng before the City Council on
November 22, 1999. However, the applicants submitted a letter on November 17,
1999 stating that they had made substantial revisions to the proposed site plan in
response to comments made by the Planning Commission and adjacent neighbors.
The applicants requested that the City Council continue the hearing to a date
certain and that the revised proposal be remanded to the Planning Commission for
their review and recommendation prior to the Council holding a hearing on the
matter.
The Council decided to continue their hearing to February 28, 2000 and remanded
the revised proposal to the Planning Commission for their review and
recommendation pertaining to the revised proposal for annexation, comprehensive
plan amendment, zone change and site plan review.
RELEVANT FACTS:
The revised proposal includes the elimination of Building 3 (110 suite retirement
fadr~y) and expands Building 2 (60 suite assisted living fa~ility) to accommodate 90
suites. This results in an overall reducaon of suites from 182 (includes Bulkling 1-12
suite Alzheimer facility) to 102 suites. This reduction in suites eliminates the nccd
for the two variances required with the original proposal.
The site plan indicates that Building 2 will initially consist of 70 suites with a 20 suite
addition to be constructed later as phase 2. The applicant requests approval of
phase 2 in conjunction with this proposal. This staff report assumes that phase 2
is a part of this proposal.
10A
Land area: Approximately 4.3 acres (3.32 acres outside city and .98 acres within
city).
The applicant's site is adjacent to the City Limits, south of Country Club and east
of Boones Ferry Road. The property is identified specifically as Tax Lots #400
(within city limits) and Tax lots 200, 300, 900, and 1000 (outside city limits), in NVV
1/4, T5S, RIW, Section 7.
The subject property is designated for residential development < 12 units per acre
on the VVoodburn Comprehensive Plan. The majority of the property (tax lots 200,
300, 900, and 1000) is currently zoned "Urban Transition Farm" (UTF) by Marion
County. The UTF zone is applied to land outside of the city, within the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB), to ensure that it remains undeveloped until annexation to
the city for development at urban densities. Tax lot 400, within the city limits is
zoned Single-Family Residential (RS).
Because the site is surrounded by development within the city, public facilities are
readily available to the site.
General description of the area:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Slopes - generally level
Vegetation - field with some trees
Drainage - generally sheet flow with no delineated channels
Flood area - there are no flood plains within the immediate area
Utilities - This development is proposing to relocate an east-west
sanitary sewer line and easement within the site (refer to Site Plan -
Exhibit D in application). Sewer,-water and other utilities exist in the
adjacent streets
Existing Land Use
2.
3.
4.
5.
No. single family units
No. multiple family units O
Commercial 0 Industrial 0_ Public Uses 0
Open space 0
Pole bams 2
Schools: The nearest school facilities are Unooln Elementary and French Prairie
Middle Schools located about 600 feet to the south of the site. Because of the
nature of the development- housing for aged pemons - there will be no school-aged
chlidren.
Park and Recreation Facilities: The applicant is proposing walkways, benches, and
substantial landscaping to create a park-like setting on the site.
No topographical or environmental constraints have been identified on the subject
prope .
F'mlnge ~1 euppo~ 2
IOA
III. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Ao
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan:
Chapter IX. Goals and Policies:
A. Residential Land Development Policies
D. Annexation Policies
G. Housing Goals and Policies
H. Public Services Goals and Policies
M. Growth and Urbanization Policies
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 8 General Standards
Chapter 9 Residential Standards
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedure
Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Chapter 26 Multiple Family Residential District
Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-lieu-of
C. Woodburn Landscaping Standards
D. Woodbum Sign Ordinance
E. Woodbum Transportation System Plan
F. Woodbum Access Management Ordinance
IV. FINDINGS:
A. Woodbum Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IX. Goals and Policies:
Residential Land Development Policies (IX-A):
A-1
Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood.
Neighborhoods should be an Identifiable unit bounded by arterial
non-residential uses, or natural features of the terrain. The
neighborhood should have a community facility, such as a
school, park, or privately owned oommunity facility to allow for
Interaction within the neighborhood.
FINDING: The proposed fadlity will not create a neighborhood but will
become part of the existing and developing neighborhood in the area.
The proposed uso will be compatible with surrounding existing
developments that are also south of Country Club Road and west of
Boones Feny Road. These developments Include single family
dwellings, a US West communioatlens facility, a church, and
apartments. All of these uses are part of the neighborhood and the
10A
A-2
proposed use will be consistent with this neighborhood.
To ensure that the zone change to RM will not allow for multiple family
development other than the proposed project, the zone change shall
be conditional upon completion of the approved site plan in
compliance with the conditions of approval. In the event that the
project is not completed in compliance with this approval, the zoning
will revert back to RS. However, the Comprehensive Plan designation
would remain Residential >12 units per acre. But, future development
would be subject to the RS zone regulations unless a zone change
were approved.
The applicant is proposing no specific community facility but the
development provides substantial open space and walkways to
encourage interaction and the neighborhood includes schools
(Lincoln Elementary and French Prairie Middle). The proposal
complies with this policy.
Living Environment - Developments in residential area be
constructed in such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate
over time. Zoning ordinances should be strictly enforced to
prevent encroachment of degrading non-residential uses.
Construction standards in the state Building Code shall be
vigorously enforced, and if necessary, additional standards the
City determines should be imposed to insure non-degrading
housing units, should be encouraged bY the City.
FINDING: The proposed development is designed and will be
developed in full conformance with the City of Woodbum Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable ordinances. The City's preliminary
and final reviews of the proposed development will help to secure
code compliance. Additionally, the City of Woodbum's building permit
process will assure that the busings built within this deveto~ am
established in comprance with appr~cablo City standards and the state
of Oregon Building codes. These factors combined will ensure that
the proposed development is a quarlty living environment, and that the
development will not seriously deteriorate over time. The proposal
Development should promote, through the use of moderate
density standards and creative design, a feeling of openness and
spaciousness with sufficient landscaped area and open space to
create a pleasant living environment.
FINDING: The proposal as revised will be developed at a moderate
density comparable to other retirement home and assisted IMng
complexes. The density of the revised preJeat will be 23.72 units per
Rndlngs in Support 4
IOA
acre as opposed to 42.33 units per acre in the original proposal. The
revised proposars design, which is residential and campus-like in
character helps create an open and spacious feeling.
The applicant, in their landscape plan, has shown open space,
shrubs, lawn, and trees thus providing a feeling of openness and
spaciousness. Approximately 50% of the total subject area will be
landscaped. The proposal complies with this policy.
A-5
Residential developments should strive for creative design which
will maximize the inherent values of the land being developed
and encourage slow moving traffic. Each residential
development should provide for lan~lscaping and tree planting to
enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhoods.
FINDING: The proposed development includes design elements (e.g.,
two access points) and the lack of traffic demand for the elderly which
encourages slow-moving traffic. Additionally, a landscaping and tree
planting plan has been established, and pedestrian connections are
provided to enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhood.
The landscaping plan provides for more than 99 new and existing
trees. The proposal complies with this policy.
A-10
High-density residential areas should be located so as to
minimize the possible deleterious effects on adjacent Iow-
density residential developments. When high density and Iow-
density areas abut, density should decrease in those areas
immediately adjacent to Iow-density residential land. Whenever
possible, buffering should be practiced by such means as
landscaping, sight-obscuring fences and hedges, and Increased
setbacks.
FINDING: The proposed development has bccn revised to
adequately minimize possible deleterious effects on adjacent Iow-
dens'~y residential developments. It accomplishes this with a
generous amount of landscaped yard (approximately 50% of the site)
with shrubs, lawn, and trees, with fences, and Iow profile residential-
appearing buildings. The setback to single-family lots ~on the south .
will be a minimum of 50 feet and to the west, 49 feel These setbacks
increase in most areas along the west and south property lines and
are greater than the minimum required (refer to FINDINGS under B,
Chapter 26, Section 26.050 of this Report). The fence will be a 7 foot
high sight obscuring ornamental fence on the property lines to further
reduce any impact. The buildings archite~tural features provide many
roof and wall variations to mitigate its mass. In addition, the
landscaping plan provides for the planting of a significant number of
large evergreen trees along the south property line.
Findings in Support 5
IOA
To ensure that the zone change to RM will not create any adverse
impacts on surrounding single family development in the event that
the proposed project does not develop as approved, the zone change
shall be conditional upon completion of the site plan in compliance
with conditions of approval.
A-11
Traffic from high-density residential areas should have access to
collector or arterial streets without going through other
residential streets.
FINDING: This proposed development will have direct access onto
Boones Ferry Road, an arterial and Country Club Road, an access
road that connects to Boones Ferry Road. No traffic will go through
the residential areas on the south or west to access this site.
Annexation Policies (IX-D):
D-1
Annexation policies are extremely important for the City. While
it is important that enough land is available for the necessary
development anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also
essential to prevent too much land being included in the city
limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling development.
Because of the need to plan for public improvements, the City
should insure that there is a five year supply of vacant land
within the City. Services should be provided to that land during
that five year period.
FINDING: The Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in 1980. This
boundary designates areas outside Woodbum's City Emits that could
bo annexed to accommodate growth to the year 2000. The
anriexation of this land is to accommodate the growth demands of the
City in a timely manner. The subject property is-contiguous to the
current city limits line on the west and south and.across Count~ Club
Road on the north. Because the site is almost an island sUrrounded
by the city, because city facilities are adjacent, and because there is
urban development on all sides of it, it cannot be considered
'sprawling'. The applicant states that the cc, cd for another retirement
center in the city and the surrounding development makes this a
timely annexation and development. This site is one of only a few
large parcels of land available for multi-family development without
substantial extension of urban services.
Housing Goals and Policies (IX-G):
G-1-1 The City will InsUre that sufficient land is made available to
accommodate the growth of the City. This requires that sufficient
land for both high density and Iow-density residential
nnd~ngs ~n support 6
IOA
developments is provided within the confines of the growth and
development goals of the City...
FINDING: Lands within the urban growth boundary and outside of the
city limits am available for development. The subject property has
been planned for residential development. Market conditions and
supply of developable land dictate what parcels within the city's
planning area are developed. The applicant states that the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Inventory (table 4) indicates that less
than 86 acres of multi-family zoned land was available in 1996, within
the city. Even less land may be available in 1999. The lack of many
large 4-5 acre parcels is apparent in the land use inventory. The
demand for this site and use indicates a need for the proposed
rezoning. Them is a lack of suitably zoned high-density land available
for the proposed use and the proposal complies with this policy.
G-1-2
It is the policy of the city to encourage a variety of housing types
to accommodate the demands of the local housing market.
FINDING: The proposed development provides for housing of aged
persons in a retirement home with an assisted living unit and an
Alzheimer's cam unit. This type of housing is a needed housing type
based on applicant's market study and the proposed use complies
with this policy.
Public Services Goals and Policies(IX-H):
H-1
Public Facilities and services shall be appropriate to support
sufficient amounts of land to maintain an adequate housing
market in areas undergoing development or redevelopment.
FINDING: Sewer, water, and storm drain, lines are available to the
property. It will be the responsibaity of the developer to construct the
infrastructure that is n¢cded for this development to occur.
Adequately sized lines will be required to provide sufficient capacity
to serve this area of the city. All sizing and location will be subject to
review and approval by the Public Works Department.
The applicant is proposing to remove and relocate a sewer line that
extends east-west through the property to serve points west. The
Pubrc Works Department has indicated that the project can be sewed
by the city. The proposal complies with this policy.
Growth and Urbaniz. ation Policies (IX-M):
FINDING: The developer will be required to pay systems development
cha~ges for their impact on the Infrastructure. The City of Woodbum
and Marion County have maintained a prooess for providing an
support 7
IOA
exchange of information relative to the proposed annexation. A
comment form and the application materials were forwarded to Marion
County so that they would have the opportunity to review and
comment on the annexation as part of the application review process.
Marion County stated that they did not have comments for this
proposal. Once the annexation takes place, the property will fall
under the City's jurisdiction.
The conversion of land within the urban growth boundary to a land
use that is planned and anticipated by the city's comprehensive plan,
subject to public facility improvements and other standards, is
acknowledged by the state and therefore conforms with the statewide
planning goals.
Review, Revision and Update (XlI):
Changes in the Land Use Plan 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:
e
FINDING: The application complies with this criteria based on
findings made under this Comprehensive Plan review section
of this report.
Compliance with the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan:
FINDING: The application complies with this criteria based on
findings made under this Comprehensive Plan review section
of this report.
3. Compliance with statewide goals and guidelines:
FINDING: The application complies with this criteria base on
findings made within other parts of this staff report, including
findings made under Chapter 16, Section 16.050(a) of this
report.
4. There is public need for the change:
FINDING: The application complies with this criteria based on
findings made within other pads of this staff report, including
findings made under Chapter 16, Section 16.050(c) of this
report.
$. This land best suites that public need:
Findings in Support 8
IOA
FINDING: The applicant has provided substantial evidence
that the proposed site best suites the public need for the
proposed use. The applicant states "the proposed site is
adjacent to Boones Ferry Road, which is an artedal street
serviced by public transportation. This will enable the
residents to easily utilize public transportation. Second, the
proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service,
which will greatly benefit the residents when they are in need
of emergency medical attention. The location is also
convenient to churches, business providing commercial
services and public city services." The land use inventory
(Table 4) in the Comprehensive Plan dated January 1996
indicates that there are less than 86 acres of multi-family
zoned land available for development within the city limits of
Woodbum. There are approximately 121 acres of multi-family
zoned land available within the urban growth boundary for
development. The land outside of the city, but within the urban
growth boundary, does not have the city services necessary to
support the proposed use. A review of the available parcels
within the City of Woodbum zoned for multi-family shows that
these parcels are either not listed for sale, have road access
problems, or are either too small or too large for the proposed
use. For these reasons, the proposed site best suits the public
nccd for the proposed use.
The land can not be suitably used as it is presently
designated:
FINDING: The applicant states that "the size and configuration
of the 4.3 acre property and it proximity to a commercial
building and church makes its development for single-family
residential homes unattractive and economically unsuitable.
Becky Miller, a neighbor, teslified ltmt 'the s'~ is not a place to
build single-farn~ homes because of the amount of traffic
going through Boones Ferry Road.' The proximity of the site
to commercial buildings, a church, ambulance service and a
very busy road. make the subject property unsuitable for
development as single-family housing. Development of the
site as single-family housing would cause a greater impact on
traffic during peak hours than under the proposed use.
Development of the site as single-family residential would
contribute to greater over crowding in the schools, whereas the
proposed use will have no negative impact on schools and will
increase property tax revenues available to fund the school
system. This criterion is met.
B. Woodbum Zoning Ordinanca:
FIm'lngs ~n euplxxt 9
IOA
Chapter 8 General Standards
Section 8.030 Dwellings to be Accessible to Public Streets.
If more than 4 dwelling units.. To be served by private
access driveway.., the following provisions shall apply:
(2) Two-way driveways shall have an improved width of
at least 22 feet and the inside radius at the curb
shall be 25 feet for any curves or corners.
FINDING: The proposed development shows two 24 foot access
driveways with a minimum 25 foot radius.
Section 8.040 Special Setback Distances.
1. To permit or afford better light, air, and vision, on the more
heavily traveled streets; protect the arterial streets and
highways; and to permit the expansion of street areas for
traveling purposes, or eventual widening of streets, every
building or structure exclusive of signs, flood light
standards, and the supporting members thereof, shall be
setback from the streets or parts of streets hereinafter
named the number of feet set forth below in the right-hand
column, measured at Hght angles to the center line of the
street as constructed and improved with a hard surface
pavement, and where not paved, then the actual center
line of the street, plus the required front yard setback for
the district or zone, via
(6)
Country Club Road, Hwy. 214 to Boones Ferry
Road ..... 30 feet.
In case the corporate boundaries of the city be extended
by annexations of additional territory, and the newly
annexed territory contains an extension of any street or
streets enumerated in this section, the setback or building
lines herein established for such street or streets shall
apply to such extension thereof.
FINDING: Building 1 shows a setback of mom than 30 feet from the
centerline of Country Club Road and therefore complies with this
policy.
Section 8.190 Vision Clearance
FINDING: Each driveway access with the public street shows a vision
clearance of more than 30 feet and therefore complies with this poli~y.
Rnd~ngs ~n Support 10
IOA
This standard will be enforced dudng review of access and building
permits.
Chapter 9 Residential Standards
FINDING: At such time that the building permits are issued, each
building will be reviewed for compliance with residential set back
requirements. Any new fencing will also be reviewed for compliance
with this section prior to permit issuance.
Section 9.045. Front Yard Setback. Every building shall setback
from lot lines adjacent to streets at least 20 feet...When by this
Ordinance or any other ordinance a greater setback or a front
yard of greater depth is required than specified in this section,
then such greater setback line or front yard depth shall apply.
FINDING: Both buildings exceed the minimum setback of 20 feet from
streets.
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards:
Section 10.050 Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements. Off-
Street automobile parking shall be provided in the amounts not
less than those listed below:
(i)
Convalescent Hospital, Nursing Home, Sanitarium,
Rest Home, Home for the Aged:
O)
One space per four beds for patients or
residents.
FINDING: A total of 102 suites are proposed consisting of a 12 sure
Alzheimer fadlity and a 90 sure assisted living facility. Some of the
suites will have more than one bed for a total of 120 beds in the 102
sure development. Accordingly, 30 paddng stalls (12014) are
required. The applicant is providing 49 parking stalls and therefore
complies with this requirement.
Section 10.060 Off-Street Loading Requirements
Off-Street loading spaces shall be provided in the amounts listed
below:
(a)
A minimum loading space size of 12 feet wide, 20
feet long, and t4 feet high when covered shall be
required as follows:
(1) For multi-family dwellings with 10 or more
10A
g
dwelling units - one space.
FINDING: The applicant's site plan illustrates that one loading space
that meets the dimensional standards above will be provided for each
building. The proposal complies with this standard.
Section 10.070 Parking and Loading Area Development
Requirements.
FINDING: The applicant's site plan meets all of the requirements with
respect to location, surfacing, bumper guards, size, access, fences,
lighting, and landscaping.
Section 10.080 Driveway Standards
(c) Driveway access for Multi-Family units with off-street
parking:
Dwelling Unit Maximum Width
11- 100 units Minimum of two accesses of 24
feet
FINDING: The applicant's site plan shows two accesses, each 24 feet
in width, one connecting to Boones Ferry Road and the other
connecting to Country Club Road. The proposal complies with this
standard.
Chapter t t Site Plan Review
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize
adverse impacts on adjacent uses
FINDING: The applicant states that 'Building 2 is positioned in the
middle of the subject property so it will have very little impact on
adjacent uses. Building 2 is also oriented on the property so that the
majority of the perking area and cars are shielded by the building from
. adjsoent properties.' The site plan and building elevations alsosh0w
that the buildings are offset and use angled walls, overhangs, and
dormers for a less obtrusive view from adjacent properties. The
proposed development has I:ccn revised to adequately minimize
possible deleterious effects on adjacent Iow-density residential
developments. It accomplishes this with a generous amount of
landscaped yard with shrubs, lawn, and trees, with fences, and Iow
profile resldenflaPappeadng buildings. The setba~k to single-family
lots on the south will be in~reased from a minimum 20 feet to a
minimum of 50 feet and to the west, from 17 feet to 49 feel These
Rndings ~ Support 12
IOA
setbacks increase in most areas along the west and south property
lines. The fence will be a 7 foot high sight obscuring ornamental
fence on the property lines to further reduce any impact. The
buildings architectural features provide many roof and wall variations
to mitigate its mass. In addition, the landscaping plan provides for the
planting of a significant number of large evergreen trees along the
south property line.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact on
adjacent uses; and
(c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its
aesthetic value.
FINDING: The applicant states that" . . . the proposed project will
have perimeter plantings, trees and ornamental fences to buffer the
development from adjacent lots." The applicant's landscaping plan
shows that the site will be planted with many new medium and large
trees. These trees are maples, hemlocks, cedars, ash, and other
species ~ which should help provide visual screening of the upper
walls and roofs of the development. Shrubs planted on three (3) foot
centers will screen (along with the fence) lower walls of the
development. The combination of trees, shrubs, and lawn will
maximize its aesthetic value. The applicant is proposing 50% of the
site in landscaping while 20% is required. The proposal complies with
this standard.
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of
traffic pattems. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be
allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be
shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature.
FINDING: Access to the site is proposed from two access driveways,
located on (one each) Boones Feny Road and Country Club Road.
The access drives are Io~ated far ~enough from the intersection of
those two roads and are wide enough so that no traffic impact should
occur. The applicant has prepared and submitted a transportation
analysis (Exhibit D) which shows no impact as a result of the
ddveways.
(e) The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the iml~ct
on the city's or other public agency's drainage facilities.
FINDING: The City has no improved storm sewer in the vi~nity except
an existing 10" diameter storm sewer at the intersection of Boones
Feny Road and Country Club Road that discharges to Miller Farm
Road. Public Works staff has indk=ated that this system may be
utilized temporarily if (~padty is available based on a hydraulic
Raa3ags ~ Support 13
IOA
analysis of the existing storm sewer. The permanent system will need
to discharge to Goose Creek by a piped system within Boones Ferry
Road as part of the ultimate street improvement. The applicant may
be required to share some of the cost of constructing this system.
(f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting
on the lot, and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic.
FINDINGS: Sidewalks will be provided throughout the facility and to
connect to both of the adjacent public streets. This and the bicycle
parking facilities for staff will provide the opportunity for staff or visitors
to walk or bike to the facilities. Proposed trees will help to shade the
buildings, and current insulation code requirements will ensure
minimum loss of heat through walls, roof, and windows.
(g) The proposed site development, including the architecture,
landscaping and graphic design, is in conformity with the site
development requirements of this ordinance and with the
standards of this and other ordinances insofar as the location
and appearance of the proposed development are involved.
FINDINGS: The applicant's proposal has complied with the standards
of the Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances as discussed in this
staff report.
(h) The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all
structures and signs are compatible with the proposed
development and appropriate to the character of the immediate
neighborhood.
FINDING: The applicant states that 'the project will use residential
type materials including painted, beveled siding, architectural
laminated shingle roofing and vinyl windows .with wood trim. The
design of the structures, by its nature and use, will be residential in
character. The color scheme will be earth tones, using subtle natural
colors on the siding, trim and roofing...The building facades are
designed to vary the wall plane for aeslheti~ value and to enhance the
residential nature of the buildings. Each building has wing ends which
arch gradually to provide a subtle transition for an aesthetically
pleasing design.' The proposal complies with this standard.
Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedures
FINDING: The zone change is necessary in order to reclassify the
area to be annexed from the current zoning of 'Marion County Urban
Transition Farm (UTF)' to a (~y designation of Multiple Family
Rnd~gs ~ Support 14
IOA
Residential (RM). It is also necessary to reclassify the small .98
parcel within the city from Single-Family Residential (RS) to Multiple
Family Residential (RM). The applicant is also requesting that the
plan designation be changed from Residential < 12 units per acre to
Residential > 12 units per acre through an amendment to the
Woodbum Comprehensive Plan. The FINDINGS for a change to the
Zoning map are the same as for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and are addressed in the following chapter (Chapter 16 - section
16.040).
Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure.
Section 16.040 Concurrent Zone Change Request. Plan changes
can be reviewed concurrently with Zone Change requests...
Section 16.050 Plan Amendment Criteria. Before a Plan
Amendment can be made, the Common Council must find that
the proposal meets the following criteria:
(a)
The proposal complies with all applicable Statewide Goals
and Guidelines:
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
FINDING: This goal requires that Plans be acknowledged by
the state LCDC, be coordinated with other agencies, and be
factually based and of sound policy. The city's Plan was
acknowledged by LCDC and found to be in compliance with
state Goals. The city is currently undergoing a periodic review
of its Plan at this time. The proposed development was
coordinated with Marion County and the Department of Land
Conservation and Development. FINDINGS for a decision on
the application provide a factual basis for amending the Plan
and meeting this Goal.
Goal 10: Housing
FINDING: This goal calls for land availability of adequate
numbers of n¢cded housing units, and allows for flexibility of
housing location, type, and density. The applicant is meeting
the goals of the city's housing nccds by providing retirement
housing. The city's compliance with the housing goal remains
intact, since the change is minor and driven by a r, ccd (refer to
FINDINGS under public nc, cd criteda below).
Goal t2: Transportation
FINDING: This goal is to provide and encourage a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system. A
Support 15
(b)
(c)
IOA
transportation study was conducted for the proposed
development by Associated Transportation Engineering and
Planning. The analysis concluded that the proposed use
would not have a significant impact on the street system and
all intersections within the area will operate at acceptable
levels of service during the peak hours of the road system.
The proposal is consistent with this goal and the city's
transportation goals.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
FINDING: This goal calls for land, and uses developed on the
land, to be managed and controlled so as to maximize the
conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principals. The proposed use borders an arterial
street. The location is convenient to commercial areas and
public services and vehicle access to the site is direct and
efficient. The site is convenient for public mass transit to local
services. Sidewalks and bicycle parking facilities will provide
the opportunity for staff or visitors to walk or bike to the
facilities. Proposed trees will help to shade the buildings and
current insulation code requirements will insure minimum loss
of heat through walls, roof and windows. The proposal is
consistent with this goal.
Goal 14: Urbanization
FINDING: This goal is to provide for an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use. The property is within
the city's urban growth boundary and is expected to be
urbanized over time. The proposal is entirely consistent with
this goal and with the city's growth and annexation goals.
The proposal complies with the remaining Goals and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The application complies with this criteria based on
FINDINGS made within other parts of this staff report (section
Vi-A).
There is a clearly demonstrated public need for the
proposed amendment.
FINDING: The applicant has provided substantial and
convincing evidence of a public nccd for the proposed use.
They state: 'Population demographics show that there are
21.157 people living within the zip code boundary of
Woodbum. There are 2,131 seniors, aged 75 and above,
within this area." Many of the ourrent assisted IMng preJeots
Fin~ngs ~n Supixxt 16
(d)
IOA
in Woodburn have avoided taking Medicaid residents who
require high levels of care. The proposed project will
accommodate level 4 and 5 Medicaid residents who need high
levels of care, including incontinence care. Further, there is a
Iow vacancy rate for existing retirement and assisted care
facilities in Woodbum - 4%. A 4% vacancy rate is indicative of
a tight market and a need for more units. With 265 residents
at existing facilities, 1,866 elderly seniors remain who may
need assisted living or retirement units. The proposed project
will provide units for approximately 10% of these persons.
The applicant states, "A new Alzheimer facility known as
"Countryside Living" was opened in Woodburn in August,
which was subsequent to the Applicant filing these land use
applications on June 19, 1999. However, this new facility is
relatively small and will have only 15 units. This new facility
does not change the fact that Woodburn still has a need for
additional AIzheimer care facilities...More than 3% of men and
women over the ages of 65 have some form of AIzheimer
disease. Thus, approximately 64 people in the Woodburn area
have some form of Alzheimer disease. The new facility will
provide assistance to 15 Alzheimer patients, which still leaves
a significant deficit in the number of Alzheimer care units
needed within the Woodbum area."
The proposal best satisfies the public need.
FINDING: The applicant states that the need 'will be best met
by the site which is close to medical services, public library, a
grocery, and other supporting commercial services". The site
is also close to an ambulance service which is critical for health
and safety considerations. The applicant is also in the best
position to meet the r, ccd because of their expertise in
managing retirement and assisted .living facilities. The
proposal is a comprehensive facility that will best meet the
nccds of the current and future population in the city of
Woodbum. Lastly, the site also best satisfies the nccd
because of its location on a minor arterial street and in close
proximity to city services. The Comprehensive Plan states that
multi-family land uses should be sited on artedal streets.
Section t6.080 Burden of Proof.
The following specific questions shall be given
consideration in evaluating requests regarding plan and
zoning amendments and are as follows:
Rn~gs ~ sup~o~ 17
IOA
(a)
To support an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, the applicant shall:
(1) Prove that the original Plan was in error;
(2)
Show that the community has changed since
the original plan was adopted; or
(3)
Show that there has been a change in the
planning and growth policy of the city.
FINDING: Only one of the above three criteria must be
met. The community's and society's demographics in
general are changing. As the aging of the population
increases, more facilities to serve this population will be
needed. When multi-family land was designated in the
original plan, it was not anticipated that such a change
would occur and that it would require multi-family zoned
land to provide those services. Based on the above
FINDINGS and those within the application, the
applicant has met cdtedon (2).
(b) To support a zone change, the applicant shall:
(1) Show there is a need for the use*proposed;
(2)
Show that the particular property in question
will best meet that need.
FINDING: The applicant has met this criterion through
FINDINGS made under Chapter 16, section 16.050 (c)
and (d) and the Comprehensive Plan Section XlI(5)
review portion of this reporL To ensure that the zone
change to RM .and the Comprehensive Plan Section
XlI(5) review portion will not allow for multiple family
development other than the proposed project, the zone
change shall be conditional upon completion of the
approved site plan in compliance with the conditions of
approval. In the event that the projec~ is not oomp~
in compliance with this approval, the zoning will revert
back to. RS. However, the Comprehensive Plan
designation would remain Residential >12 units per
acre. But, future development would be subject to the
RS zone regulations unless a zone change were
approved.
Chapter 26 Multiple Residential (RM) Distriot
Findings in Support 18
IOA
Section 26.010 Use
Within the RM Multi-Family Residential District no building,
structure, or premises shall be used, arranged or designed to be
used except for one or more of the following uses:
(b) Unlimited number of dwelling units as prescribed in
Section 26.080 including:
(6) Homes for the Aged;
(7) Retirement Homes;
(8) Rest Homes;
(9) Nursing Homes
FINDING: The proposed development is an allowed use.
Section 26.040 Height. In an RM District, no building or structure
shall exceed 35 feet or two and one-half stories in height, except
churches and public and semi-public buildings, where permitted
may be built to a height not to exceed 70 feet or six stories,
provided any such building sets back from every street and lot
line one foot for each foot of height of the building in excess of
35 feet, in addition to other yard and setback requirements herein
specified.
FINDING: The proposed development includes buildings of one and
two stories, thus meeting the maximum he'~ht standard of two and ½
stories. The tallest building (Building 2) will have a height of 25 feet
as defined by City code and a maximum height of 32 feet to the
ridgeline of the roof.
Section 26.050 Side and Rear Yards
There shall be a side yard and a rear yard on every lot in
a RM District, which yards shall have a minimum depth as
follows:
(1) One Story - 6 feet;
(2) Two Stories - 7 feet;
(3) Three Stories - 8 feet.
-Provided there shall be added to the side yard and rear yard
minimum requirements aforesaid, one foot for each multiple for
16 feet or portion thereof, that .the length of that side of the
building measures over 30 feet. Notwithstanding section 1.610,
the rear yard in an RM District shall be measured from the
property line.
Rnd~ngs ~ Supp~ 19
IOA
{b)
In lieu of subsection (a) above, side and rear yards may be
provided which will allow placement of portions of a main
building with offsets and jogs at varying yard depths,
provided that the said yards shall conform to the following
conditions:
H)
The minimum yard depth for any continuous wall
between offsets and jogs shall be computed and
provided as in (a) above for that portion of the wall
between offsets and jogs; provided the total yard
area equals that which would have been otherwise
provided in (a) above, which area shall be
determined by multiplying the length of the yard
times the depth of the yard.
(2) The minimum yard depth for any portion of a
building shall be six feet.
(c)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a and (b)
of this section, any side yard or rear yard adjacent to a
street shall have a minimum yard depth of 20 feet. No
parking shall be allowed within ten feet of the street
property line, provided, however, in no case shall parking
be allowed in a required rear yard abutting the parallel or
approximately parallel street of a through Iot~ For the
purpose of this subsection, "through lot" shall be defined
as a lot having frontage on two parallel or aPproximately
parallel streets.
(d) The yard depth between two or more main buildings on the
same lot shall be equal to that side yard depth measured
to an assumed property line drawn .between the buildings.
The yard depth between-the assumed,property line and
the building shall be not less than as provided in (a)
above.
FINDING: Building 1 has an east and west facade of 141 feet. Under
subsection (a) the side yard must be 5 feet (for a one-story building)
plus 8 feet (141-30115) for a total of 13 feel Its side yard setback is
a minimum-of 12 feet on the east and 84 feet on the west, thus
meeting the requirement on the west side. The east side is one foot
short of the minimum but meets the criteria under subssc~ion (b) in
that it provides offsets and jogs which provide a far greater yard area
than would be provided under subsection (a). The south facade is 70
feet which requires a minimum yard of 8 feet (70-30115+5). This yard
is well over 8 feet which meets the criteda under subsection (a).
IOA
Building 2 has a north facade of 226 feet. Under subsection (a) the
side yard must be 7 feet (for a two-story building) plus 14 feet (226-
30/15) for a total of 21 feet. Its side yard setback on the north is 26
feet, thus meeting the requirement. Building 2 has a west facade of
346 feet. The side yard must be 7 feet (for a two-story building) plus
23 feet (346-30/15) for a total of 30 feet. Its side yard setback on the
west is 113 feet at the nearest point, thus meeting the requirement.
Building 2 has a south facade of 215 feet (includes 20 unit Pha~e 2
addition). The side yard must be 7 feet plus 13 feet (215-30/15)for
a total of 20 feet. This yard is 50 feet, thus meeting the requirement.
Under subsection (c), yards adjacent to a street must be a minimum
of 20 feet. Both buildings have a street side yard of more than 20 feet
and thus meet the requirement.
Under subsection (d), yards between two or more buildings on the
same lot must also meet the side and rear yard setback requirements
of subsection (a). Buildings I and 2 must have at least a 29 foot (8
feet for Building I and 21 feet for building 2) yard between them per
subsection (a). These buildings meet this requirement with an 87 foot
yard.
Section 26.060 Front Yard. In an RM District, there shall be a
minimum front yard of 20 feet. No parking shall be allowed
within 20 feet of the front lot line.
FINDING: The site plan demonstrates that the front lot line on
buildings that front Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road
ex. cd 20 feet. and that the parking lot does not extend into this
setback with the exception of one parking space adjacent to Building
1. This parking space shall be eliminated and replaced with
landscaping.
Section 26.065 Solar Access. For the purpose of providing solar
access protection, development (including accessory structures
and fences) shall not cast a shadow on the south wall or any
solar access buildable area between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. on December 21st.
FINDING: The applicant has demonstrated through the shadow
pattem drawing (Exhibit F) that the buildings comply with this
standard.
Section 26.070 Landscaped Yards.
(a) In an RM District the following landscaped yards shall be
provided for residential uses other than single and two
family dwellings:
Findings In Support 21
IOA
(b)
(1)
For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms -
300 feet. One hundred additional square feet for
each bedroom over one,
In an RM District all required yards adjacent to a street
shall be landscaped, except that portion devoted to off
street parking. Such landscaping may be counted in
fulfilling the requirements of subsection (a).
FINDING: Assuming one bedroom and studio units, the minimum
required would be 30,600 square feet of landscaped yard. The site
plan shows over 94,000 square feet, and thus meets the landscaped
yard requirements.
Section 26.080 Lot Area and Width .... In an RM District the
minimum requirement for lot area for other uses shall be 5,000
square feet plus additional lot area computed as follows:
(a) For the first through fifth unit:
(1)
For each dwelling unit with one or fewer bedrooms
1,200 square feet.
(b)
For the sixth dwelling unit and each succeeding dwelling
unit, the following additional lot area shall be required:
(1)
For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms,
one story - 1,250 square feet.
(c)
No main building or group of main buildings shall occupy
more than 30 percent of the lot area...
(d)
Every lot in an RM District shall have a minimum of 60 feet
at the building line. The minimum lot area requirements
for buildings other than dwellings shall be an ama not less
than the sum of the area occupied by the building or
buildings, and the area required for yards herein, or 5,000
square feet, whichever is greater.
FINDING: The lot width is 214 feet on CounW Club Road and 462
fcct on Boones Ferry Road, far ex~cding the 60 foot width
requirement. The proposed development is less than the 30%
maximum lot 'coverage in that it covers 24% of the site (including
phase 2). The lot area required for the proposed development totals
132,250 square feet [5,000+(5x1,200)+(97xl,250)] which is less than
the lot area of 188,896 square feet.
Building 2 as proposed will be constructed a(~ross existing property
IOA
lines. The applicant anticipates that each building will be located on
its own lot. To address this issue, a condition of approval will require
that existing lot lines be removed or relocated by lot line adjustment
and/or lot consolidation prior to issuance of building permits.
8. Chapter 39 Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu
FINDING: A condition of approval specifies that the applicant shall
pay the required parks systems development charges in full as
building permits are issued for the proposed development.
Woodburn Landscaping Policies and Standards:
FINDING: The applicant is providing 50% of the site in landscaping and this
greatly exceeds the 20% requirement. The applicant is providing a
landscaped strip next to both public streets of at least 20 feet in width and
this exceeds the 5 foot requirement. Over 18% of the interior area will be
landscaped and this meets the standard.
The landscaping plan shows 15 large trees along the Boones Ferry frontage,
and 4 large trees and 2 medium trees along the Country Club Road frontage.
This meets the requirement.
At 8 trees per acre, this development is required to have a minimum of 34
trees exclusive of the frontage trees. It will have approximately 80, thus
meeting the standard. The landscape plan also shows that the required
small, medium, and large trees will be planted around the parking lot.
The applicant is complying with the 7 foot fence and 15 foot landscaped strip
adjacent to the west and south property lines (next to single-family
residential).
Woodbum Sign Ordinance
FINDING: The applicant is proposing an entry monument sign at the
driveway entrances along Boones Ferry and Count~ Club Road. Exhibit F
shows the profile of the signs and the Site Plan shows their location.
Woodbum Transportation System Plan
FINDING: Associated Transportation Engineering & Planning (ATEP)
prepared a traffic analysis for the original proposed development. This'
analysis was modified to reflect the revised proposal. The revised analysis
indicates that this proposal would generate approximately 232 trips per day
with 18 new trips during the p.m. peak hour. This is a significant decrease
in trips from the original proposal which would have generated 538 trips per
day.
Rnd~gs k~ Support 23 .: .:: ;.
IOA
Fo
The analysis concludes that the development would have no significant
impact on the surrounding traffic network and that no operational problems
are expected.
A condition of approval will be that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-
way on Boones Ferry Road and sign a non-remonstrance agreement to
participate in improvements to Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road.
Woodburn Access Management Ordinance
FINDING: Boones Ferry Road is classified a minor aderial with a 100 foot
driveway spacing standard. Country Club Road is classified an access street
with a 50 foot driveway spacing standard. As shown on the enclosed Site
Plan, both driveways will be over 300 feet from the intersection of the two
streets and meet driveway spacing standards.
CONCLUSION: The revised proposal satisfies all approval criteria relating to the
annexation, comprehensive plan map amendment, zone map amendment and site
plan review.
Support 24
IOA
ATTACHMENT "D"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ANNEXATION 99-02, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 99-02, ZONE
MAP AMENDMENT 99-06, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW 99-14
Zone Change:
The zone change to RM (Multiple Family Residential) is conditional contingent
upon completion of the approved development in compliance with the following
conditions of site plan approval. In the event that the approved development is
not completed in compliance with said conditions, the RM zoning of the site shall
revert back to RS (Single Family Residential). Any subsequent development
shall then be subject to RS zone regulations.
Site Plan Review:
Site Plan Review approval is subject to approval of the annexation, plan
amendment, and zone change.
The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits A,
B, E and G, all dated 11-9-99, and Exhibit F, dated 5-15-99, except as otherwise
amended by these conditions.
Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Said plans shall indicate the names (botanical and common), sizes and locations
of all plants and shall be prepared in compliance with all requirements of the
Woodbum Landscaping Polities and Standards. The final landscaping plan
shall include a significant number of evergreen trees along the south property
line to provide a sufficient buffer for the adjacent residences.
Garbage collection, loading and unloading areas, and other utility areas, shall
be screened around their perimeters by a buffer strip a minimum 3 feet wide or
by an opaque fence six foot in height.
All landscaping shall be maintained year round. Plantings shall be watered
regularly and in a manner appropriate for the specific plant species through the
first growing season, and dead and dying plants shall be replaced by the
applicant during the next planting season. No buildings, structures, storage of
material, or parking shall be permitted within the required landscape and buffer
areas. Ail landscape and buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of all
debris, weeds and tall grass.
Conditions of Approval for ANX 99-02, CPA 99-02, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14Page I
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
IOA
A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall indicate intensity of site
illumination and shall ensure that light impacts on adjacent uses are minimized.
The applicant shall comply with parking lot lighting and area and building lighting
as specified by the Woodburn Police Department.
Comply with the parking and loading area development requirements as
specified in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Meet vision clearance standards of Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Curbing, striping, sprinkler system, lighting and bicycle racks shall be kept in
good condition. Any damage shall be repaired in a timely manner.
At such time that building permits are issued, each building will be reviewed for
compliance with residential set back requirements. The new fencing will also be
reviewed for compliance with residential standards prior to permit issuance.
Comply with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, the Woodburn Transportation
Plan, the Woodburn Access Management Ordinance, the Sign Ordinance, and
the following chapters of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance: Ch5, Ch8, Ch9,
Ch10, Ch11, Ch15, Ch19, Ch26 and Ch39.
At least one bicycle rack with at least three spaces shall be installed at the
complex.
Pdor to occupancy permit issuance, the applicant shall comply with the
conditions of approval established by the Planning Commission and submit one
set of reproducible as-builts.
Existing lot lines shall be removed or relocated by lot line adjustment and/or lot
consolidation prior to issuance of building permits. New lot lines shall be
adjusted to ensure that all buildings meet required setbacks.
The site plan shall be revised prior to submittal of plans for a building permit.
The revised site plan shall show that the parking space within the 20 foot
setback along Country Club Road is removed and replaced with landscaping.
The System Development Charge required for parks shall be paid in full prior to
the issuance of the building permit.
Any conditions attached to the approval of the site plan shall be conditions on
the issuance of a building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be
considered a violation of the ordinance.
Conditions of Approval for ANX 99-02, CPA 99-02, ZC 99-436, SPR 99-14 Page 2
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
IOA
Fire District Conditions:
The following information shall be submitted prior to issuance of building
permits: occupant load, number of exits, exit hardware, exit signage, and
emergency lighting.
FDC shall be located off of the buildings and at a location agreed upon by the
Fire District, City of Woodburn and the developer.
Alarm system required in all facilities.
Premise identification shall meet city standards. Apartment numbering system
shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
An onsite water supply system shall be available, operational and acceptable to
the city prior to the construction of combustible buildings. Access during
construction shall support the weight of Fire Apparatus and allow access to the
facility.
Public Works Conditions:
Final construction plans shall be submitted to the city for review and approval
and shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
On-site existing water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be
abandoned by the applicant in conformance with all state regulations and
requirements. However, use of the existing water well for irrigation purposes
may be allowed subject to approval of the Woodbum Water Department and in
compliance with all city and state regulations.
All city maintained facilities located on private property will require a minimum 16
foot wide easement be conveyed to the city by the property owner. This is the
applicants responsibility to provide, not the city's.
The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state,
county and/or federal agencies which may require such permit or approval.
Ail work within the public right-of-way or public easement shall conform to the
City of Woodbum standard construction specifications and details. ,
The development shall be responsible for street improvements meeting city
standards on Countq/Club Road and Boones Feny Road. Pdor to any Building
permits being issued, the property owner shall be required to sign a non-
remonstrance consent form to participate and pay a fair share cost as
Conditions of Approval for ANX 99-02, CPA 99-02, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14Page 3
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
4.
35.
determined by the City Council, for street improvements meeting city standards
on Country Club Road and Boones Ferry Road.
The property owner shall dedicate to the city an additional 5 feet of property
along Boones Ferry Road for roadway purposes prior to any building permits
being issued.
Access improvements onto Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road if
installed prior to the street improvements, shall be designed to provide adequate
temporary ingress and egress traffic and shall be constructed of asphaltic
concrete. A permanent concrete approach meeting the City of Woodburn
commercial standard shall be required to be installed by the applicant in
conjunction with the future street improvements.
On-site storm water runoff detention shall be required meeting city standards.
This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on
adjacent properties.
The city has no improved storm sewer in the vicinity except an existing 10"
diameter storm sewer at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Country
Club Road that discharges to Miller Farm Road, this system may be utilized
temporally if capacity is available. The applicant shall provide a hydraulic
analysis of the development and existing storm sewer. The permanent system
shall discharge to Goose Creek by a piped storm sewer system within Boones
Ferry Road, this would be part of the Boones Ferry Road Street Improvements. If
the existing system does not have sufficient capacity the storm sewer system to
Goose Creek shall be installed by the applicant at this time. The applicant will be
responsible for the cost and size associated with the development, material cost
in over sizing would be the city's responsibility.
Sanitary sewer service to the property shall be installed by the applicant from the
existing sanitary sewer main within Boones Ferry Road. Currently an adequate
service is not stubbed to the property, the city may elect to provide this stub in
preparation for the upcoming street improvements, the applicant shall reimburse
the city for the cost of this installation at the time of building permit issuance.
The applicant shall comply with City of Woodbum Wastewater Department
regulations.
The sanitary sewer easement and sanitary sewer service proposed to be
relocated through the site is a private service and easement, not a city facility.
The applicant shall obtain the proper approvals from the beneficiary of said
easement.
IOA
Conditions of Approval for AN)( 99-02, CPA 99432, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14 Page 4
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
45.
IOA
The water main shown on the plan as an existing 12" D.I. water main to serve
this development is a 14" dia. concrete cylinder transmission line and shall not
be tapped to provide service to this development.
The applicant shall install an 8" diameter water main from the existing 8"
diameter main on the west side of Boones Ferry Road at its intersection with
Henry's Boulevard, along Boones Ferry to the intersection of Country Club
Road, then along the south side of Country Club Road to the existing water main
near the Northwest corner of this development. The proposed fire hydrants and
service lines can then be tapped from this line.
Domestic water meters shall be placed in the public right-of-way.
Comply with City of Woodburn Water Department standards in regards to proper
backflow devices. If the existing well is used for landscape irrigation, the
minimum backflow prevention on each service will be a reduced pressure
device,
Relocate the proposed vaults/meters and fire hydrant shown serving Building 2
near the northeast corner, to the north side of the entrance/approach onto
Boones Ferry Road.
Fire hydrant shown on Boones Ferry Road near the southeast corner of the
development shall be extended westerly and place next to the interior driveway
access. An easement will be required.
Install additional fire hydrant on the west side of the building and place on the
west side of the interior drive access near the existing water main.
Fire hydrants on Country Club Road shall be placed in the public right-of-way
and not on pdvate property as the site plan indicates.
On site construction shall not commence until the improvement plans have been
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department, and all right-of-way
permits, system development charges have been paid.
Building Department Conditions:
Applicant shall submit to the Building Dept. letters of 'Evacuation Capabilities" in
order to assign the appropriate occupancy classification to each st .mcture.
All required building permits shall be obtained pdor to start of work.
Conditions of Approval for AN)( 99-02, CPA 99-02, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14 Page 5
ATTACHMENT F 10A
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
ALLEN L. HUBENTHAL,
Petitioner,
VS.
CITY OF WOODBURN,
Respondent,
and
EUGENE IL GASCHO AND JUDITH A. GASCHO,
Trustees of the Eugene R. Gascho Trust,
JUDITH A. GASCHO AND EUGENE R. GASCHO,
Trustees of the Judith A. Gascho Trust
WILLIS A. BYERS, RACHEL L. BYERS,
RODNEY LEE BYERS AND MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS,
Trustees of the Rodney Lee Byers Trust, and
MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS AND RODNEY LEE BYERS,
Trustees of the Marcia Kathtyn Byers Trust,
Intervenors-Respondent.
LUBA No. 2000~050
FINAL OPRqlON
AND ORDER
Appeal from city °t~W~itm.' -~ ". '--
Donald M. Kelley, ~8ilv~a~n' fil~l tl~ petition for review and argued on behalf of
petitioner. With him on ~e bdef.~e Patrick E. Doyle and Kelley and Kelley.
No ~ by ~
Anthony IL ~.8alem, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of
intervenors-rezpondent. W'~h him on the brief was ~ Hematm, Robertson, Jennings,
Com k,=T a - y. ..
41 .. HOt,S aASS_...HbM_ maudC , amc, os,MmV,
42" ~~~'~~ ~ .... ~ ....
43
~ You ~ mfifl~ ~ j~ ~ of ~ ~=. j~ci~ ~ew is govm~ ~ me
47 pm~o~ of O~ 197.850.
Pnge I
10A
1 Opinion by Holstun.
2 NATURE OF THE DECISION
3 The challenged decision (1) annexes property to the city, (2) amends the city's
4 comprehensive plan, (3) grants conditional zone changes, (4) approves a site plan with
5 conditions, and (5) serves to permit the placement and construction of a multi-family assisted
6 living facility. The proposed facility would provide 102 "suites" and includes facilities to
7 house and serve 12 persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease.
8 MOTION TO INTERVENE
9 Eugene R. Gascho and Judith A. Gascho, trustees of the Eugene R. Gascho Trust;
10 Judith A. Gascho and Eugene R. Gascho, trustees of the Judith A. Gascho Trust; Willis A.
11 Byers; Rachel L. Byers; Rodney Lee Byers and Marcia Kathryn Byers, trustees of the
12 Rodney Lee Byers Trust; and Marcia Kathryn Byers and Rodney Lee Byers, trustees of the
13 Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust, the applicants below, move to intervene on the side of
14 respondent in this appeal. There is no opposition to the motion, and it is allowed.
15 FACTS
16 Thc essential facts regarding the proposed assisted living facility ar~ not in dispute,
17 The site for the proposed assisted living facility totals approximately 4.3 acres.
18 Approximately .98 acre of the subject property is already within the city. Approximately
19 3.32 acres are currently outside the city limits but within the city's urban growth boundary
20 (UGB). The 3.32 acres are annexed by the challenged decision.
21 The entire subject property is designated Low-Density Residential (I.,DR) on the
22 Woodbum Comprehensive Plan (WCP) map. The .98-acre portion of the property located in
23 the city is zoned Single Family Residential. The 3.32 acres located outside city limits are
24 zoned Urban Transition Farm by Marion County. The challenged decision changes the
25 comprehensive plan map designation for the entire 4.3-acre subject property to High Density
26 Residential (HDR) and rezones the property to Multiple Family Residential (MFR).
P~e 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
10A
The site is relatively undeveloped, with only two single-family units and two barns on
the subject property. There are two schools about 600 feet to the south of the property.
Boones Ferry Road runs north and south and borders the subject property on the east.
Country Club Road runs east and west and borders the subject property on the north.
Residential zoning and uses adjoin the subject property to the south and west.
The approved site plan proposes two buildings: "Building 1" consisting of 70 suites
and "Building 2" consisting of 12 Alzheimer's patient suites.~ The buildings will cover
approximately 24 percent of the site.
INTRODUCTION
The petition for review includes 34 assignments of error. In those assignments of
error, petitioner argues the challenged decision violates a total of 13 separate approval criteria
in various ways. The argument following petitioner's assignments of error frequently
includes criticisms of the city'S decision without developing those criticisms or making any
substantial attempt to relate the criticism to a relevant legal .standard. Attempting to
opinion, and we therefore do not do so: ']V°~e//v. Por~lm~'~ LGBC, 43 Or App 849,-
g51, 604 P2d 896: (1979); Neuberger ~. City of Portlamt, 37 Or-App 13, 19, 586 P2d 351
(1978), aff'd285 Or 1.55, 603 !r2d 771 (1979)..' re,..~.'.g,.den 28S.OrS$5 (t9807 .
Petitioner,s runny assignm~ of &xor ~e' three aspe~ 0f'th~ City's' deCiSion_
thr of mx i°n_ a e.fou h throug the
·. .~f.' ,t~/!, q :" , '~.~' ,"w,~.: .'~:,~r~'.~ .t' ..... ,- '-'~'; /". ~,[Cr. ~: '. :.3
tThe c. hall~ged deoision also approv~ an additional 20 ~ for Building 1, to be om~ruoted in a ~oond
phase in ~ho future.
how ~ mguments might relate to the mbsequent
P~e3 "
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-2~
24
25'
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
amendment. Finally, petitioner's remaining 15 assignments of error challenge the site plan
approval. We address petitioner's assignments of error under each of these three categories.
ANNEXATION (FIRST THROUGH THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR)
A. WCP Annexation Policy D-1
WCP Annexation Policy D-1 provides:
"Annexation policies are extremely important for the City. While it is
important that enough land is available for the necessary development
anticipated in the City of Woodbum, it is also essential to prevent too much
land being included in the city limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling
development. Because of the need to plan for public improvements, the City
should insure that there is a five year supply of vacant land within the City.
Services should be provided to that land during that five year period."
The challenged decision adopts the following findings addressing WCP Annexation Policy
D-l:
"The Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in 1980. This boundary
designates areas outside Woodburn's City Limits that could be annexed to
accommodate growth to the-year 2000. The annexation of [the subject
property] is to accommodate the growth demands of the City in a timely
- manner. The subject property is contiguous to the current city limits-line on
the west and south and across Country Club Road on the north. Because the
site is almost an' island-surrounded by-the city~ .be eau se city facilities tare
adjacent, and because there is urban development on aH sides of it, it cannot
- be considered-:s~'awlinE'. The applicant ~8t_~ that the need for another
retirement center in the city and the surrounding development [make] this a-
timely .annexation and development. This site is one of only a few large
parcels of land available for multi-family development without substantial
extension ofurban services.-" Record i~
Petitioner faults the above fmdinEs, because they do not explain why annexing the subject-
pwperty is necessary to maintain a five-year supply of vacant land in the city.
The ciW council does not adopt an express interpretation of Annexation Policy D-1.
Although it is possible to interpret Annexation Policy D-1 to require that the city include no
more than a five-year supply of land, as petitioner does, it is reasonably clear that the city
does not interpret Annexation Policy D-1 in that way. The city's findings focus on the
language in the policy that requires that the city not include "too much land" which could
lead "to inefficient, sprawling development." In other words, the city treats Annexation
Page 4
IOA
I Policy D-I as a general anti-sprawl standard rather than a precise five-year land supply
2 standard. Wc defer to thc city council's implicit interpretation. ~411iance for Responsible
3 Land Use v. Deschutes Cry, 149 Or App 259, 267-68, 942 P2d 836 (1997), rev dismissed 327
4 Or 555(1998).
5 The challenged fmdings explain why the subject property's contiguity with city limits
6 and existing development lead the city to conclude that annexing the subject property "cannot
7 be considered 'sprawling.'" Record 13. Petitioner does not challenge the adequacy of those
8 findings. We conclude they are both adequate and supported by substantial evidence.
9 Petitioner's challenge concerning Annexation Policy D-1 is rejected.
10 B. Failure to Address Plan Annexation Goals and Policies Other than Policy
11 D-1
12 As discussed above, thc challenged decision adopts findings addressing Annexation
13 Policy D-I. Petitioner argues thc city erred by failing to adopt findings addressing five other
14 WCP Annexation Goals and six other WCP Annexation Policies.
15 The WCP .Anne~____~i_'on Co-oais and Policies cited by petitioner were adopted and
17 filed and mnde complete? Thc challenged decision is a "permit,' as that term is defined by
18 ORS 227.160(2).~ Under ORS 227.178(3), Per, its and zone changes are subject to "the
19 standards and criteiia' that ~ app~cttble at'the ~ti~ne the application was first' s~bmil~L' '
20 Sunburst H Homeowners v. City of West//tm, 18 Or LIJBA 695, 700-01, aj~'d 101 Or App
21 458, 790 P2d 1213 0990). We agree with intervenors that the cited WCP Annexation Goals
22 and Policies are not applicable approval criteria in this matter. Therefore the city's failure to
23 address'these SUbsequently adoPted goals and policies is not err°r.
31t is no~ cl~ar'~ l~ application was submitted, but/t was de~ned "complete" on July 19, 1999, well
before ~he Octobe~ 1999 WCP ~m~dments took eff~:t. Re~ord 112.
4j&j rr. levang O1~ 227.160(2) provides that "'Lo]enntt' means discre6om~ approval of a plx~msed
Page 5
IOA
1 C. Marion County Opportunity for Comment
2 WCP Growth and Urbanization Policy M-6 provides as follows:
3 "Upon receipt of an annexation request or the initiation of annexation
4 proceedings by the City, the City shall forward information regarding the
5 request (including any proposed zone change) to the County for comments
6 and recommendations. The County shall have twenty days to respond unless
7 [it] request[s] and the City allows additional time to submit comments before
8 the City makes a decision on the annexation proposal."
9 Petitioner argues "It]here is no evidence in the record that the City ever forwarded the
10 Applicants' request for annexation to the county for its review and approval." Petition for
11 Review 8.
12 As an initial point, we agree with intervenors that the above-quoted WCP policy does
13 not require that the county review and approve annexation requests. It simply requires that
14 the city forward the request to the county and allow at least 20 days for the county to
15 respond. Intervenors cite a finding in the challenged decision that the proposal "was
16 coordinated with Marion County * * *" Record 22. Coordination requires an "exchange of
17 information" and a balancing of"Ihe needs of all governmental units." Rajneesh v. Wasco
18 County, 13 Or LUBA 202, 210 (1985). Petitioner cite~ no evidence in the record that would
19 call the cited finding into question. Absent such evidence, we reject petitioner's substantial
20 evidence challenge. ,~ee l~eathers v. Marion County, 144 Or App 123, 129, 925 P2d 148
21 (1 ~996) (absent some evidence to the contrary, recital in ordinance that required notice was
22 given is sufficient to establish that notice was given).
23 Petitioner's challenge regarding WCP Growth and Urbanization Policy M-6 is denied.
24 The first, second and third assignments of error are denied.
25 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA
26 (FOURTH THROUGH NINETEENTH ASSIGNME1VI~ OF ERROR)
27 Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 16 establishes the procedures and
28 criteria that apply where the city amends its comprehensive plan map and zoning map. WZO
P~e6
IOA
I 16.050 establishes comprehensive plan map amendment criteria,s WZO 16.080 establishes a
2 separate burden of proof that must be met to amend--the comprehensive plan map and the
3 zoning map.6 We address petitioner's challenges under these criteria below.
4 A. Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals (WZO 16.050(a))
5 WZO 16.050(a) requires that the city show "[t]he proposal complies with all
6 applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines." In his fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of
7 error, petitioner says the city failed to establish that the proposal complies with a number of
8 statewide planning goals.
SWZO 16.050 is as follows:
"Plan Amendment Criteria. Before a Plan Amendment can be made, the Common Council
must find that the proposal meets the following criteria:
"(a)
"Co)
The proposal complies with all applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines.
· The proposal complies with the remaining CJoals and Po!i¢ies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
"(c) Ther~ is a clcady dcm~ public need for Ihe'i~qx~sed amendment.
"(d) 'the p.oposal best safisrm ~e public need."
~WZO 16.080 provides ~s foUows:
*_~ of vnn£..~., fouo~ nnciac ~ dan-.b~ ~ ,~atio~ in
· ~ requests regarding plm end zoning mumdment~ ~ m*e ~ follows: . .
Pr°Ye t~ the original plan was in e~'ror;,
Show that fl~xe has been a change in ~e planning nd growth policy of the
To support a zone change, the applicant shell:
"(!) Show there is a need for the use lwoposed;
"(2) Show that the particular piece of propetW in question will best meet that
"(b)
Page 7
10A
1 1. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning)
2 Petitioner presents three cognizable arguments under this subassignment of error.
3 Goal 2 requires that the decision be supported by an "adequate factual base," that the city
4 "[evaluate] altemative courses of action," and that the city "coordinate" its decision with
5 "affected governmental units." Petitioner argues the challenged decision does not establish
6 compliance with these Goal 2 requirements.
7 We reject petitioner's "adequate factual base" argument under Goal 2. There is a
8 significant amount of evidence in the record. Other assignments of error in the petition for
9 review challenge the adequacy of that evidence to demonstrate compliance with criteria'other
10 than Goal 2. Where those assignments of error could provide a basis for remand, and are
11 sufficiently developed, we address them elsewhere in this opinion. However, petitioner
12 makes no attempt to explain why the three-volume evidentiary record in this matter is
~ 13 insufficient to comply with the more general Goat 2 requirement that a challenged plan
14 amendment be supported by an adequate factual base.
15 We also reject-petitioner's-argumentthat'the city did not "[evaluate]-alternative
16 courses of action." The directive in Goal 2 to consider alternative courses of action is a very
- 17 general directive. Intervenors identify fiRdings in the decision that explain how the proposal
18 will have advantages over single-fiunily development. Although those findings are not
19 specifically directed at Goal 2, they do show some ."evaluation of alternative courses of
20 action." Absent a more focused and developed argument by petitioner, wc fail to see how
21 this aspect of Goal 2 is violated by the challenged decision.
22 Finally, for reasons we have already explained under our prior discussion of WCP
23 Growth and Urbanization Policy M-6, we reject petitioner's "coordination" argument under
24 Goal 2.
P~e8
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
'19 '
20'
21
2. Goals 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) and 11 (Public
Facilities and Services).
Petitioner next claims violation of Goals 6 and 11 because the city did not specifically
address these goals in its findings. Goal 6 is a requirement to "maintain and improve the
quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." It says, among other things, that
waste discharges from future developments, in combination with existing developments, are
not to violate applicable environmental quality standards. Goal 11 requires that
comprehensive plans provide for the "timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." The city's
decision talks about public utilities and services, including storm drainage, in the context of
applicable plan and zoning ordinance criteria. That is, while the city's findings do not
include a direct discussion of Goals 6 and 11, the findings do address issues relevant to these
goals and to the services required for the proposed assisted living development.
Petitioner does not allege that this plan amendment affects the city's overall ability to
provide for clean air and water or public facilities and services? On its face, then, it does not
appear the City's plan amendment, annexation of tendtoF and approval of the ~ living
· facility affect the city's compliance with Goals 6 and 11 under its ac. Jmowiedged
com.mehensive plan. Nothing in the city's fmding-~ about needed services suggests the
some threshold showi-~ by petitioner th~ '~e city's complisn~ with Coals 6 ~t 11 is
affected by this plan map amendment, we decline to find reversible error in the city's failure
to address these goals specifi~y.
Petitioner'S Cmal 6 and Goal 11 argU~ent~ are rejected.
~ Petitioner does attsck ~he city's approval of the developmen_ _t site plan on ~he grounds ~he matter of storm
water was not properly addressed. Our wview of the city's findings and ~he record does not show ~he city's
treatment of this issue puts its delivery of public services at risk.
Sin fact ~he city relies in part on the ready availability of most public services to justify the challenged
decision.
Page 9
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
3. Goals 10 (Housing), 12 (Transportation), 13 (Energy
Conservation) and 14 (Urbanization)
Petitioner argues the challenged decision violates Goal 10, which requires that the
city provide "for the housing needs of citizens of the state." However, petitioner does not
explain how the annexation and designation of the subject property for multi-family use
upsets the city's compliance with Goal 10. Petitioner's argument about compliance with
Goal 10 centers on the city's claim that there is a "public need" for more land in the city that
is planned and zoned for multi-family use. We discuss the city's findings concerning "public
need" later in this opinion. We note, however, that nothing in petitioner's argument suggests
the city's action renders the city's supply of buildable land for needed housing inadequate.
To the contrary, petitioner argues the city already has an adequate supply of land planned and
zoned for multi-family use. Petitioner's unstated premise is that Goal 10 prohibits including
more land that is planned and zoned for multi-family use than the comprehensive plan
identifies as "needed." Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why he believes Goal 10
imposes such a maximum requirement, and we do not believe that it doe~? We therefore
reject petitioner's Goal 10 argument.
The city adopted relatively extensive findings about Goal 12, which requires the
provision and encouragement of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
Petitioner discounts the city's findinEs and the transport_~6on study supportinE the proposed
development and asserts the proposal will violate Goal 12 because it will clog intersections in
proximity to it. Petitioner cites a portion of the record in which one of the city planning
commissioners notes that Highway 214 at its intersection with Boones Ferry Road is
"running pretty close to capacity." Record 104. We are cited to no other evidence or
90f course, at some ~. int, including unneeded urban and urbanizable land within the UGB might violate
Goal 14 or other statewide planning goals. However, Goal 10 does not require the level of precision in
matching the ~upply of vacant buildable lands and the identified need for particular categories of needed
housing that petitioner nssumes is required under the goal.
Page 10
IOA
1 expression of opinion suggesting that this proposal will clog or even significantly affect the
2 city's transportation system.
3 The city's Goal 12 findings conclude the proposed use will "not have a significant
4 impact on the street system and all intersections within the area will operate at acceptable
5 levels of service during the peak hours of the road system." Record 22-23. The record
6 includes a traffic study. Record 258-308. That traffic study concludes the site will generate
7 approximately 538 vehicle trips per day, that the intersections along Boones Ferry Road will
8 operate at an acceptable level of service and that the development can be constructed with
9 minimal impact to the surrounding street system. Record 281. The city Public Works
10 Department reviewed the traffic study and agreed with it. Record 147. This evidence is
11 substantial evidence supporting the city's finding?° See Reeves v. Washington County, 24 Or
12 LUBA 483, 490 (1993) (information provided by a traffic count at a single location is
13 substantial evidence-absent evidence that it is unreliable). Petitioner cttes us to no evidence
14 of sufficient quality to' overcome this evidence. -That one planning commi.gsioner questioned
15 the.traffic study does not establish that the applicant,s .~ranzpottafion ~udy was ~,xong or is
-16 somehow unworthy of belfef by.reasonable' PerSOns. Petitioner's Goal 12 arguments are
jec c
18 Goal 13 cadls for land-uses to be man~ed-and controlled "so as to maximi~ the
19 conservation.of all fonn.~ of energy, based upon souml ec~omic principles.~ petitioner
20 attacks the city's compliance with Goal 13, arguing the access to the site is not direct and
21 efficient and that the level of congestion .shows it is likely the pioposed development will
a waste of energy ........
22 result in .
~ubstantial evidence exists to ~ a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would lmm_it
~ appellate body might make based on the same evidenee. Younger v. City of P~n'tland, 30:5 Or 346,
359, 752 P2d 262 (1988).'
Page 11 ~"-'
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-15
-16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
24
25
26
Goal 13 addresses energy conservation as part of the comprehensive planning
process. Even if the goal may have some bearing on relatively small individual development
decisions such as the one at issue in this appeal, petitioner's argument does not make any
attempt to explain how a development of this size will have any effect whatever on the city's
efforts to make efficient use of energy. The city addressed Goal 13, noting the placement of
the facility near public services including mass transit and commercial areas. The city's
findings also note that trees shade the buildings and that the current insulation and code
requirements will ensure minimum loss of heat. Record 21. Nothing in the record suggests
that a 102-unit assisted living facility bordering an arterial street, with nearby mass transit
and a clientele that will not be heavy users of automobiles, will waste energy or otherwise
affect the city's compliance with Goal 13. Petitioner's Goal 13 arguments are without merit.
Petitioner next alleges violation of Goal 14, which requires provision for "an orderly
and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Petitioner asserts the city violated Goal
14-by f~iling to explain how the proposed- use ensures an "orderly and efficient transition
frOm-rural to .urban land use.'~-~-n'~ae--proposal doesnmt-authorize development of rural areas or
authorize conversion of ruraLland to urban or urbanizable lan& The~territory to be annexed
is already within the city's urban growth boundary, which separates urban and urbanizable
lands from rural lands.-There is, then, no conversion from rural land to urban land associated
With this development. Rather, the subject property was "converted' "from rural to urban
land ttse" within the meaning of Goal 14, when the U(3B was established and the subject
property was included itmide, the established UGB. Petitioner's Goal 14 arguments are
without merit.
Petitioner's fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error are denied.
B. Compliance with Plan Goals and Objectives (WZ0 16.050Co))
Petitioner's seventh and eighth assignments of error complain that the city failed to
address the WZO 16.050(b) requirement that an applicant for a comprehensive plan
Page 12
IOA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
'12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
amendment must demonstrate that "[t]he proposal complies with the remaining Goals and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan." The city's findings addressing WZO 16.050(b)
incorporate by reference the findings in "section VI-A." Record 23. Petitioner's entire
argument under the seventh and eighth assignments of error is that "[t]here is no section 'VI-
A' in the city's decision * * *" Petition for Review 15.
Intervenors respond that the challenged finding mistakenly cited the wrong section of
the findings document. According to intervenors, the intended reference was to section IV-A
rather than section VI-A. Section IV-A includes several pages of findings addressing
comprehensive plan goals and policies. Record 10o 15.
Intervenors are correct. The mistaken reference in the finding could not have misled
petitioner, because there is no section VI-A and it is obvious that section IV-A addresses
comprehensive plan goals and policies.
Petitioner's seventh and eighth assignments of error are denied.
C. Public Need for the Proposed Amendment (WZO 16.050(e) and (d)and
WZO 16~080(b))
1. Introduction
WZO 16.050(c) and (d) and WZO 16.080(b) impose similar, but not identical, "public
need" criteria for comprehensive plan and zoning map amendmeats,n WZO 16.050(c) and
(d) require that a comp ..~ve plan map amendment be justified by a"clearly demonstrated
public need for the proposed amendment" and flaat the "proposal best satisf[y] the need."
Support for a zoning map amendment under WZO 16.080(b) requires showings that (1)
~ is ~ ~xl for tl~ ~ vro~7~.and (2) ~"~1~ parti~ pi~ of propexty .in qued'on
Dr,g'..'~; LI~llL'~',:.~:~' ... .~ .-' ~.,~'. ' ...... · '
will best m~t that n~d."
The city's "public need" standards are likely relies from Fasano v. Washington Co.
Comm., 264 Or 574, 581,507 F2d 23 (1973), which imposed similar standards as g~nGnally
"See n~ 5 and 6. Th~ WZO doos not define the term "public need."
Page 13
10A
1 applicable requirements for all quasi-judicial zoning map amendments. Burlington Northern
2 v. defferson County, 13 Or LUBA 274, 279 n 3 (1985). However, the Fasano "public need"
3 standards are no longer generally applicable land use criteria, and they apply only where a
4 local government's comprehensive plan or land use regulations impose them. Neuberger v.
5 City of Portland, 288 Or 155, 170, 603 P2d 771 (1979), rehearing den 288 Or 585 (1980);
6 Friends of Cedar Mill v. Washington County, 28 Or LUBA 477, 485 (1995). Of course here
7 the city's zoning ordinance does impose a "public need" standard. Importantly, however, the
8 city's "public need" criteria are now purely requirements of local law; and where the city
9 council expressly or implicitly interprets local law, those interpretations are entitled to
10 deference on review. Gage v. City of Portland, 319 Or 308, 317, 877 P2d 1187 (1994);
11 compare Forster v. Polk County, 115. Or App 475, 478, 839 P2d 241 (1992) (local
12 government interpretations of state law are not entitled to the deferential standard of review
13 required by ORS 197.829(1 ) and Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508, 836 P2d 710 (1992)).
14 Because the challenged decision's treatment of these criteria overlaps and the parties'
15 arguments do not always distinguish between WZO 16.050(c)and (d) and WZO 16,080(b), '
16 we also combine our discussion of the parties arguments concerning those criteria. The order
17 and manner in which the challenged decision addresses these criteria, and the manner in
18 which petitioner attacks and intcrvenors defend the decision, do not readily lend themselves
19 to analysis. To facilitate our analysis of the parties' arguments, we first consider WZO
20 16.080(a). Then we address the "public need" requirements ofWZO 16.080(bX1) and WZO
21 16.050(c). Finally, we consider the requirements under WZO 16.050(d) and WZO
22 16.080(bX2) that the proposal be the "best" solution to satisfy the identified need.
23 2. Change in the Community (WZO 16.080(a))
24 To approve a change in the comprehensive Plan map for the subject property, WZO
25 16.080(a) requires a threshold showing that one of three circumstances exists. See n 6. The
26 circumstance the city found to exist here is "that the community has changed since the
Page 14 ~.
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16'
17
18
-19
20
21
23
original plan was adopted." WZO 16.080(a)(2). Petitioner argues the city's findings
regarding WZO 16.080(a) are inadequate and are not supported by substantial evidence.
The city found that (1) as the age of the population increases, more facilities serving
this population will be needed, (2) the original comprehensive plan did not anticipate that
such a change would occur, and (3) it would require land designated for multi-family
development in order to provide the needed services. These findings are sufficient to provide
the rationale required by WZO 16.080(a).
In support of these findings, intervenors cite 1994 census data, which estimated the
Woodburn population of persons over 75 years of age to be 1,569 people.~2 Intervenors also
cite the applicant's survey, which shows some 2,131 people over 75 years of age in the
Woodburn area as of 1998. Record 229. These figures show an increase in the elderly
population of some 562 persons in the Woodburn area. The city relied on this increase in the
segment of the population over 75 years of age to conclude that the "community has
changed" criterion in WZO 16.080(a)(2) is met.
The criterion irnpo~ by WZO 16,08~a)(2) is ~ely subjective. A wide range
of cimumstances might be' sufficient to satisfy such a standard. - We conclude the city's
findings are sufficient to show the "community has changed since the original plan was
adopted," within the meaning of W7_~ 16.080(aX2).
3. Public Need for the U~e Proposed (WZO 16.080COX1))
W7_,O 16~080(bX1) requires that the applicant ~ for a change in zoning establi~ a
public need for the "use proposed." The focus under ~ 16.080COX1) appears to be on the
proposed use rather than on a need for more MFR-zonod land.
~' wcP 36.
Pnge 15
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
· 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In addressing WZO 16.080(b)(1), the city relies largely on findings that it adopts to
address other criteria. Record 25. Those findings explain the need for the proposed use by
identifying a need for assisted living projects for senior citizens. The city found there are
2,131 senior citizens aged 75 years and above and 265 residents of existing retirement and
assisted living facilities in the city. Record 23-24. According to the city
"[m]any of the current assisted living projects in Woodburn have avoided
taking Medicaid residents who require high levels of care. The proposed
project will accommodate level 4 and 5 Medicaid residents who need high
levels of care, including incontinence care." Id.
The city concludes that 1,866 elderly seniors remain who may need assisted living or
retirement units. The proposed project will provide housing units for about 10 percent of
these persons. The city finds there is a four percent vacancy rate at existing assisted living
facilities. According to the city such a vacancy rate indicates a "tight market and a need for
more units." Record 24.
The city adds that presently there is a 15-unit Al?heimer's care facility in the city. Id.
The city cites estimates that more than three percent of persons over the age of 65 have some
form of,S,l?heimer's disease. Fwm these figures, the city concludes that approximately 64
persons in the Woodburn area have some form of the-disease, id..We understand the city to
say that the total number of Alzheimer's patients is not served by the existing 1 S-unit care
We conclude the above findings are adequate to establish a public need for ~the "use
proposed," within the meaning ofWZO 16.080(bXl). It is apparent from the above findings
that the city interprets WZO 16.080COX1) as being met whei'e there is a statistical probability
that the segment of the population that the assisted care facility is intended to serve wffi need
the facility. We defer to that interpretation. In addition, while petitioner disputes the
sufficiency of the evidence that the city relied upon in adopting the above findings, we
conclude that it is substantial evidence.
The sixteenth and seventeenth assignments of error are denied.
P~el6
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
4. Public Need for the Proposed Amendment CvVZO 16.080(b)(1))
Petitioner argues the city erred as a matter of law in finding that the proposal
complies with WZO 16.050(c) because the city improperly focuses on a need for the
proposed use rather than a need for the proposed plan amendment. Petitioner also argues the
city's findings under WZO 16.050(c) are inadequate and unsupported by substantial
evidence.
Unlike WZO 16.080(b)(1), which focuses on the "use proposed," WZO 16.050(c)
requires a "clearly demonstrated public need for the proposed amendment." In other words,
following the approach taken by the city in this matter, having established a public need fOr
the "use proposed" under WZO 16.080(b)(1), the city must then show there is a public need
for more HDR-designated land to accommodate the proposed use, to comply with WZO
16.050(c).
Petitioner argues that because there is vacant HDR-designated land within the current
city limits, and additional vacant HDR-desiguated land outside the city limits and inside the
UCtB, there can be no need for additional HDR-d~ land as a ms,er of law. Petitioner
might be correct if the city were basln~g its decision on a general need for more HDR-
de~gnatod lamL However. the city based its ~on on (1) a specific need for'the pwpos~
use and (2) the ..unsuitability of existing. !-!DR .-dgsignated land within .the dty limits and
outside the city limits but inside the UGB. The city'S'~on and application of WZO
16.050(c) to allow d~ignation of additional HDR land to accomm°date such a special need
in such ~nmmstanoes is well within its intealx~ve discr~on under ORS 197.829(1) and
O~k.iWe: turn to ~petitioner's' ~
In addressing the related "best~ Site criterion in ~ i6.080CoX2), the city council
fon°,, g
"* * * The land use inventory * * * in the Comprehensive Plan dated January
1996 indi~at~s that th~ tw~ leas than 86 acres of multi-family zoned land
available for development within the city limits of WoodbullL Thore 8Io
approximately 121 acxes of multi-family zoned land within the urban growth
P~el7
IOA
1 boundary for development. The land outside of the city, but within the urban
2 growth boundary, does not have the city services necessary to support the
3 proposed use. A review of the available parcels within the City of Woodburn
4 zoned for multi-family shows that these parcels are either not listed for sale,
5 have road access problems, or are either too small or too large for the
6 proposed use. * * *" Record 16.
7 The relevant question under WZO 16.050(c) appears to be whether sites that are
8 already designated HDR are suitable for the needed use. The above findings explain why
9 none of the land that is inside the UGB and already planned and zoned for multi-family use
10 is appropriate for the proposed use. Assuming these findings are supported by substantial
11 evidence, we believe they are adequate to establish a need for additional HDR-designated
12 land to accommodate the identified need for a multi-family assisted living facility.
13 The findings are supported by an analysis that was submitted by the applicant.
14 Record 432-34. That analysis examined nine sites inside the urban growth boundary and
15 concluded for various reasons that none of those nine sites is suitable for the needed facility.
16 Although we might question some of the-reasons that were given to reject some of those sites
17 as unsuitable, petitioner does not specifically challenge the analysis. Absent such a
18 challenge, we conclude the analysis constitutes substantial evidence that additional
19 ItDR-designated land is needed to ac~commodate the proposed use.
20 The ninth, tenth and eleventh assiLmments of error are denied.
21 5. The Best prOposal and Best Site Criteria (WIX) 16.050(d) and
2:2 16.080(b)(2))
23 Petitioner alleges the city failed to demonstrate that the subject property is the best
24 site for the proposed use, as required by WZO 16.050(d) and 16.050(bX2). As an initial
25 point, we have some question whether the requirement under WZO 16.050(d) that the
26 "proposal best [satisfy] the public need" necessarily requires that the applicant demonstrate
27 that the subject property is the best site for the prol~osed use. H~wever, there can be no doubt
28 that WZ0 16.080(b)(2), which requires "that the particular piece of property in question will
29 best meet that need" does impose such a requirement.
P~eI8
IOA
Petitioner argues that the city's findings of compliance with WZO 16.050(d) and
2 16.080(b)(2) are inadequate because the city failed to examine every parcel in or near the city
3 that could allow, or be rezoned to allow, the proposed use. Further, petitioner argues that the
4 city's findings are impermissibly conclusory, because they do not explain in sufficient detail
5 why the parcels the city examined are not suitable for the proposed use.
The city findings state on this point:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
29
"* * * The applicant states 'the proposed site is adjacent to Boones Ferry
Road, which is an arterial street serviced by public transportation. This will
enable the residents to easily utilize public transportation. Second, the
proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will greatly
benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention.
The location is also convenient to churches [and] business[es] providing
commercial services and public city services.' The land use inventory (Table
4) in the Comprehensive Plan dated January 1996 indicates that there are less
than 86 acres of multi-family zoned land available for development within the
city limits of Woodburn. There are approximately 121 acres of multi-family
zoned land available within the urban growth boundary for development. The
land outside the city, but within the urban growth boundary, does not have the
city services necessary to~upport the proposed'use. _~1 review of the available
parcels within the City of Woodburn zoned for multi-family shows that these
parcels are either not listed for sale, have road access problems, or are either
too small or too large for the proposed use. For these reasons, the proposed
Site best suits the public need'for the proposed use.~ -Record 16 '(emphasis
added)?
The city approached the question of compliance with WZO 16.050(d) and
16.080(bX2) by first explaining why the subject property is well--suited for the proposed use,
and then examining certai~ other properties in or near the city to determine if any .were as
wall-suited. The city rejectod all multi-f~mily zoned lands outside the city, because such
lands lack city services. The city then rejected all multi-family zoned lands inside the city,
30 based on the .a~p,lican~'s ~.of those lands, because each imrcel had one or more features
31 that made it unavailable or otherwise inferior to the subject property.
t~fhe city's findings addre~ing WZO 16.080(bX2) incorporate the quoted findings by reference.
quoted findings address ~ WCP criterion flint is worded similarly to WZO 16.080('o)(2).
P~el9
Thc
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
- 1-5--
16
17
18
19
20
21 .
22
23
24
25
26
Petitioner does not explain why WZO 16.050(d) and 16.080(b)(2) must be interpreted
to require individual comparisons with all parcels in or near the city that could be rezoned to
allow the proposed use. The city's findings implicitly reject that view, and instead apply
these criteria to require comparisons only against land currently zoned for multi-family uses.
Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why that view of WZO 16.050(d) and 16.080(b)(2) is
inconsistent with the text, purpose or policy underlying those criteria, or otherwise "clearly
wrong." ORS 197.829(1); Alliance for Responsible Land Use, 149 Or App at 265.
In Alliance for Responsible Land Use, the Court of Appeals affirmed an implicit
county interpretation of a local approval criterion very similar to WZO 16.050(d) and
16.080(b)(2). The provision at issue in Alliance for. Responsible Land Use allowed property
to be rezoned if the need will be "best served" by the subject property "as compared with
other available property." 149 Or App at 262. The court held that it was not clearly wrong
for the county to interpret that provision to limit the scope of comparison to other property in
particular zoning classifications, and rejected the petitioners' argument that the provision .-
mUSt- be xead to require individual comparisons with all sites that could be re'zoned to allow
the proposed use. For the same reasons, we reject petitioner's challenge in the present case to
the city's implicit inteipretation of WZO 16.050(d) and 16.080COX2).
In Alliance for Responsible. Land Use, the court further rejected the petitioners'
challenge to the adequacy of the comparisons the county made, which approached the issue
inthe same manner the city does here: by explaining the virtues of the subject property, and
then rejecting other available property that lacked one or more of those virtues. Similarly,
petitioner does not explain in the present case Why;~under the city's approach, detailed site-
specific findings are required to demonstrate that the subject property "will best meet the
need." Under the city's approach, once the city has determined that other parcels,
individually or as a group, are inferior to the subject property for one or more reasons, there
is no point in further analysis of those parcels. We note that petitioner does not specifically
Page 20
IOA
I challenge any of the reasons the city adopted for finding other property less suitable for the
2 proposed use.
3 The twelfth, thirteenth, eighteenth and nineteenth assignments of error are denied.
4 SITE PLAN REVIEW (TWENTIETH THROUGH THIRTY-FOURTH
5 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR)
6 Petitioners final series of assignments of error challenge the city's compliance with its
7 site plan review standards, The standards for site plan review are set out at WZO 11.070.u
8 Petitioner disputes many of the city's findings addressing the site plan standards, arguing
9 they are conclusory or incorrect. We note at the outset that petitioner's criticisms often
10 ignore that many of the standards are not stated as absolute requirements. Rather they call
11 for efforts to minimize impacts on adjacent uses and traffic and do not require that such
12 impacts be eliminated.
.~(a)
"(c)
"(d)
~1~¥~ of-smlcan'cs, on ltle pmp~ty sh~ ~ adverse impact on
~ of ~ m~d bicycle red,ac. (Note: sp~ific solar ,access
Thc ~ site~ development, includin~ the m'chitecmrc, lmidscaping nd graphic
~ae standards of ~ and odmr e~linanc~ insofar as ~he location and
ai~earance of the propo~r~! development are involved.
The location, design, co[of and m_~__,~ials of the exteFior of aH slructures and signs
Page 21
IOA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 A.
2
Placement of Structures and Landscaping to Minimize Adverse Impacts
on Adjacent Uses (WZO 11.070(a) and (b))
With respect to the first two site review criteria, which require that "placement of
4 structures on the property shall minimize adverse impact on adjacent uses," and that
"[l]andscaping shall be used to minimize impact on adjacent uses," the city found:
"The applicant states that 'Building 2 is positioned in the middle of the subject
property so it will have very little impact on adjacent uses. Building 2 is also
oriented on the property so that the majority of the parking area and cars are
shielded by the building from adjacent properties.' The site plan and building
elevations also show that the buildings are offset and use angled walls,
overhangs, and dormers for a less obtrusive view from adjacent properties.
The proposed development has been revised to adequately minimize possible
deleterious effects on adjacent low-density residential developments. It
accomplishes this with a generous amount of landscaped yard with shrubs,
lawn, and trees, with fences, and Iow profile residential-appearing buildings.
The setback to single-family lots on the south will be increased from a
minimum of 20 feet to a minimum of 50 feet and to the west, from 17 feet to
49 feet. These setbacks increase in most areas along the west and south
property lines. The fence will be a 7 foot high sight obscuring ornamental
fence on the property lines to further reduce any impact. The [building'si
architectural features provide many roof and wall variations to mitigate its
mass. In addition, the landscaping plan provides for the planting of a
significant number of large evergreen trees along the south property line.
24 "* * * The applicant's landscaping plan shows that the site will be planted
25 with many new medium ired large trees. These trees are: maples, hemlocks,
26 cedars, ash, and other species - which should help provide visual screening of
27 the upper walls and roofs-of the development. Shrubs planted on three (3)
28 foot centers will screen (along with the fence) lower walls of the developmenC
29 * * * The applicant is proposing 50% of the site in landscaping while 20°/$ is
30 required. * * *" Record 19-20.
31 The findings clearly set out mitigatign measures. The proposal may not provide the
32 more extensive mitigation petitioner's~argUment suggests he desires, but we agree with
33
34
35
36
intervenors that the findings address the criteria adequately and that the findings are
supported by substantial evidence.
The twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second and twenty-third assignments of error are
denied.
Page 22
IOA
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14'
15
16
17'
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
B. Driveway Access (WZO 11.070(d))
WZO 11.070(d) requires that traffic impact be minimized and that "[w]herever
possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets." See n 14. The city
found the two driveways, one on Boones Ferry Road and the other on County Club Road, are
far enough apart so as to create no traffic impact. Record 20. However, the city's findings
under WZO 11.070(d) do not explain why direct driveway access is allowed on Boones Ferry
Road, an arterial street. Intervenors argue the driveway access onto Boones Ferry Road is for
the purpose of providing alternative access as required by the city's fire chief. Intervenors'
Brief 42? While it may be that the fire chief expressed concerns that would provide a basis
for the city finding that it is not possible here to deny direct driveway access to Boones Ferry
Road, the city's findings addressing WZO 11.070(d) do not express that position. We agree
with petitioner that the city's findings are inadequate to address the requirement of WZO
11.070(d) that "[w]herever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial
sueets." On rem~n4, the city must supply a more ~co....n)p!ete explanation of its reasons for why
it is not "pozsible" to deny direct dri'y~acce~ toBoones Ferry Road.
The twenty-fourth, twenty-~ and twmty-sixth assi~ments of error arezustained.
C. Drainage FacilRi~'es (WZO 11.070(e))
W7~ 11.070(e) requir~ that "It]he design of the drainage fa6~tiez ahall minimize
the impact on the City's or other public ageaeie~' drainage fadlities.~ The city adopted the
following findings addressing WZO 11.070(e):
~ ~ has no !~l,roved ~onn ~ in Se vicinity exe~t aa existing 10
[inch] ~ storm sc'war'at ~ ~oa'~<Jf~o0nez 'Ferry Road and
available based on a. hydraulic analysis of the existing ~ sewc~. The
~ system .will.need to discharge to Goose .C~. :by a piped system
within Boones Ferry Road as part of-the xdtimate street ~mprovement. The
'slntervem~a cite pages 103 and 242 of the record in support oftheir'e~mtention limt gte driveway accel., to
Boones Ferry Road was .required by the city fire chief. The cited pag~ of ~ record do not support mat
Page 23
IOA
1 applica~,~ may be required to share some of the cost of constructing this
2 system.' ~6 Record 20-24.
3 Reading the findings and conditions of approval together, we conclude they are adequate to
4 demonstrate compliance with WZO l l.070(e). Together they explain that Boones Ferry
5 Road will be improved to provide a permanent storm water solution for the proposed
6 development that discharges into Goose Creek. Impacts on the city storm water system will
7 be minimized by initially using the existing storm sewer that discharges to Miller Farm Road,
8 if it is shown to have sufficient capacity. If not, the permanent solution for storm water
9 discharge from the property via the Boones Ferry Road improvements will be used, with the
I0 city and applicant sharing the expense. Condition 30 explains that on-site detention will be
11 used to manage runoff, and condition 31 requires that the development "not cause storm
12 water runoff to be impounded on adjacent properties." The findings and conditions of
13 approval are sufficient to demonstrate how the proposal's drainage facility design "shall
14 minimize the impact on the City's or other pUblic agencies' drainage facilities."
15 The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth assi~onments of error are denied.
16 D. ~nergy Conservation (WZO 11.070(t))
17 WZO 11.070(0 requires that "[trae design encourage~'energy conservation, both in its
· 18 siting on the lot, and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic." PetitiOner argues
19 the'city's findings of compliance with WZO 11.070(0 are inadequate and unsupported by
'*The city also imposed the following relevant conditions of approval:
This develoPment shall n°t cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties.
* * * The applicant shall provide a hydraulic analysis of the developmeat and
existing storm sewer. ~ Thc permanent [storm water] system [for the pro~
development] shall discharge to Goose Creek by a piped storm sewer system within
Boones Ferry Road[.] IT]his would b~ part of the Boones Feny Road Street
Improvements. If the existing system doe~ not have sufficient capacity the storm
sew~ a~t~m to Goose Creek shall be installed by the applicant at ~his time. The
applicant will be ~le for the co~t and si~ a~ociated with thc development,
materitil co~t in over sizing would b~ the city's r~mns~ility." Record 35.
Page 24
IOA
I substantial evidence. The city's findings discuss sidewalks throughout the facility
2 connecting to both adjacent public streets. Record 21. They mention bicycle parking
3 facilities for staff, and address energy conservation in the facility itself by (1) pointing out the
4 building will be shaded by proposed tree planting and (2) noting compliance with current
5 insulation code requirements. Petitioner complains about the findings because they do not
6 address how the "siting" of the proposed buildings will encourage energy conservation.
7 The city's findings do address several matters that are relevant to energy conservation
$ under WZO 11.070(0. The reference in WZO 11.070(0 to siting of the building on the lot is
9 not explained. That is, WZO 11.070(0 is not clear about how siting of structures on the lot
10 may or may not promote energy, conservation. While the city's findings addressing WZO
11 11.070(f) do not specifically address energy conservation considerations in building siting, in
12 a separate finding addressing solar access the city does discuss building placement through a
13 requirement that the building not cast a shadow on the 'south wall or any solar access
14 buildable area during certain hours. -Record 28. Given the ambiguity in the ordinance energy
15 consetmlfion standard, the city's discussion of sidewalks, :solar access, shade tre~ and
16 laadseapln~ elsewhere in the final,? is sufficient to address the code sianda~t? Record 20,
17 21~ 28. ~
18 The twenty-ninth and thirtieth nssignments of error are denied.
19 E. Loeation and Appearance ~f the Development (W'ZO ll.070(g))..
20 WZO 11.070(g) requires "It]he proposed site development, including the architecatre,
21 landscaping and graphic desi~on; '[must be] in conformity-with the site development
· ~ ' : '~ ~?i '~ ' ~ ' '; · '..; ,.~" /~ '
23 the location and appearance of the proposed devetopment are involved." (F_~nphnsis added.)
24 The city's finding addressing this criterion is ns follows:
Sunny~ide ~Velghborhood v. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or ~, 21,569 P2d
Page 25
IOA
1 "The applicant's proposal has complied with the standards of the Zoni,n,g
2 Ordinance and other ordinances as discussed in this staff report [sic]. '~
3 Record 21.
4 Petitioner argues that this finding is inadequate because it fails to identify the
5 standards of the zoning ordinance and "other ordinances" with which the location and
6 appearance of the proposed development conform.
7 The short finding quoted above expresses the view that the findings the city adopted
8 elsewhere in its decision consider the location and appearance of the proposed development.
9 Whether they actually did or not is not important here, because petitioner makes no attempt
10 to attack the adequacy of those findings in his challenge under this assignment of error.
11 Instead, he appears to argue that the city must repeat those findings here as a separate
12 exercise. We reject the argument.
13 The thirty-first and thirty-second assignments of error are denied.
14 F. Structure Exteriors and Signs OVZO ll.070(h))
15 WZO l l.0700a) requires that "It]he location, design, color and materials of the
16 exterior of all structures and signs [must be] compatible with the proposed development'and
17 appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood." This criterion calls for a
18 subjective judgment about development aesthetics and whether the facility exteriors and.
19 signs are in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood.
20 Petitioner argues the city's findings addressing WZO 11.070(h) are defective.because
21 they do not discuss the immediate neighborhood, structure layout and business signs.
22 Findings adopted elsewhere in the decision describe the immediate neighborhood as
23 including single-family.dwellings, a US West communications facility, a church and
24 apartments. Record 10. Other findings address structure heights and setbacks and
25 landscaping. Record 19-20.
~SThe chali?~ed decision includes a number or references to "this staff report." The city council's and
planning commission's decisions in this matter incorporated much of the planning staff report without deleting
many of the internal refe/enc~ to ~ staff report."
Page 26
IOA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
WZO 11.070(h) is highly subjective and does not call for more than a generalized
aesthetic discussion. We do not agree with petitioner's apparent view that the city's findings
under this standard addressing the exterior of the structure are defective simply because a
description of the surrounding neighborhood is included under some other heading in the
findings. The city's findings viewed as a whole are sufficient to address the WZO 11.070(h)
compatibility requirement regarding "It]he location, design, color and materials of the
exterior of all structures * * *" We also reject petitioner's suggestion that the city was
obligated to specifically address in its finding every criticism of the layout of the structures
that was expressed during the local proceedings. Findings adopted to support a quasi-judicial
land use decision generally must specifically address relevant issues that are raised during the
proceedings. City of Wood Village v. Portland Metro. Area LGBC, 48 Or App 79, 87, 616
P2d 528 (1980); McConnell v. City of West Linn, 17 Or LUBA 502, 519 (1989). However,
findings need not specifically address every complaint that is voiced during, the. proceedings.
Petitioner simply cites to ~ree-pages of the record without making any attempt to identify
which eomplui-ts petitioner believes amount to "issues" that require speeitic respo~ in the
.- Finally, WZO 11.070Cu) also'requires that the city cousider the-compatibility of the.
proposed "sigus." As far as we eau tell the city did not do so. Iuterveuors cite to pages in the
record that show the proposed locafious and desigu of two proposed eutry mouumeut signs.
Record 312, 316. lntervenors argue that based ou this evidence we may overlook the mi.~ing
findings. ORS 197.83:5(11)(b)(LUBA may overlook defective findings where "evidence in
the record * * * clearly supports the decisiou"). We do not agree. The evidence cited by
intervenors does not provide more thau au idea of what the proposed signs will 'look like. It
is not evidence that clearly supports a decision that the sigus are, in the words of WZO
11.070(h), "compatible with the proposed developmeut aud appropriate to the character of
the immediate neighborhood." Moreover, whether any given particular sigu complies with
Page 27
10A
1 the "compatibility" standard in WZO 11.070(h) calls for the kind of highly subjective
2 judgment that generally makes reliance on ORS 197.835(11)(b) inappropriate. Waugh v.
3 Coos County, 26 Or LUBA 300, 307-08 (1993). On remand the city must consider whether
4 the proposed signs comply with WZO 11.070(h).
5 The thirty-third and thirty-fourth assignments of error are sustained in part.
6 CONCLUSION
7 Because we sustain the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth assignments of
8 error and sustain the thirty-third and thirty-fourth assignments of error in part, the challenged
9 decision is remanded.
10 The city's decision is remanded.
Page 28
Certificate of Mailing 10A
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 2000-050
on November 3, 2000, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof
contained in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney
as follows:
Anthony R. Krietzberg
Krietzberg Garrett Hemann et al
1011 Commercial Street NE, Suite 210
Salem, OR 97301
Donald M. Kelley
Attorney at Law
Kelley & Kelley
110 North Second Street
Silverton, OR 97381
N. Robert Shields
Woodbum City Attorney
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2000.
Temri Tennimou
Administrative Specialist
Kelly Btugess
Admini-_ntrative Specialist
City of Woodburn
Police Department
270 Montgomery Street
STAFF REPORT
Date:
From:
To:
Through:
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
January 4, 2001
John Brown, City Administrato?
(503) 982-2345
Subject:
Policy Guidelines, and Processing Fees for Liquor License Applications
Recommendation:
The city council approve a resolution adopting policy guidelines and
procedures for recommendations for renewal and issuance of liquor
license, and establish processing fees.
The 1999 Oregon Legislative Session passed House Bill 2892, which made significant changes
to licenses issued by the OLCC, and to the processes that cities and counties use to make
recommendations on liquor applications. These changes became effective January 1, 2001.
The new law allows local jurisdictions to adopt policy guidelines and procedures in making
recommendations to OLCC on license applications and establish processing fees. Attached you
will find the proposed policy guidelines and procedures. The new law also requires local
jurisdictions to hold a public hearing prior to adoption of such policy to allow for public
comment. Once the City Council adopts the policy by ordinance or resolution, the policy will be
sent to OLCC for final approval. OLCC will make available copies of local policies and
processing fee schedules to current licensees and future applicants.
On January 4, 2001, a letter was sent to every liquor license establishment in the City of
Woodbum notifying them of the public hearing. Each licensee was also provided a copy of the
proposed recommendation policy guidelines and processing fees.
Other changes that effect local government are:
Change in Liquor License Type
The new laws consolidate 12 existing retail license types into three new licenses,
and creates a Temporary Sales license for special events. The new license types
are Full On-Premise Sales License, Limited On-Premise Sales License, and Off-
Premise Sales License. The City Council will see the new license types during
the licensing renewal process.
10B
Application Process Time Limits
Once an applicant has submitted a liquor license application to the city for
recommgndation, the city has 30 days to process a new license request or 60 days
to process a renewal license request. If the city is considering an unfavorable
recommendation for a specific license or renewal request and needs additional
time to investigate, the city must file a request with OLCC that sets forth the
reasons the city is considering an unfavorable recommendation.
10B
Limitations on Processing Fees
The new law limits the fees that a local government can charge applicants. The
new fees are as follows: (current city fees are listed for comparison)
License Application Type Current Fee New Max. Fee
New License $173. $100.
Plus noticing cost in
the event of a denial
Change in Ownership $173. $75.
Plus noticing cost in
the event of a denial
Change in Location $54. $75.
Plus noticing cost in
the event of a denial
Change in Privilege $54. $75.
Plus noticing cost in
the event of a denial
License Renewal $54. $35.
Plus noticing cost in
the event of a denial
Temporary/Special Event $19. $35.
It is being recommended that at the Chief of Police discretion, license
processing fees for non-profit organizations may be waived.
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
2284
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING LICENSING GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED IN
MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATIONS UNDER
ORS CHAPTER 471; ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
ON APPLICATIONS; ESTABLISHING A PROCESSING FEE; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, ORS 471 provides procedures for local goveming bodies to make
recommendations on liquor license applications to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission
(OLCC); and
WHEREAS, a liquor license recommendation policy will assist in the fair and consistent
processing of liquor license applications; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a liquor license recommendation policy will protect the
interests of the general public and provide consistent direction to City of Woodburn staff in
processing liquor license applications; and
WHEREAS, the liquor license recommendation policy has been distributed to current
licensees within the City; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing before the City Council was held on January 22, 2001 in
order to hear public testimony regarding the liquor license recommendation policy; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION POLICY AND CHECKLIST OF
CRITERIA FOR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL
COMMISSION, which is affixed hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment "A," is hereby
adopted.
Section 2. That pursuant to ORS 471.166(a) the following processing fees are hereby
established and found to be reasonable and necessary to pay expenses of processing the City's
written recommendation:
New License Application
Change in Ownership
Change in Location
Change in Privilege
Renewal License
$100.00
$ 75.00
$ 75.00
$75.00
$ 35.00
llA
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
Approved as to form:
Robed Shield~,
City Attorney
Approved:
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
Date
Richard Jennings, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY OF WOODBURN
LIQUOR LICENSE.APPLICATION POLICY AND CHECKLIST OF CRITERIA FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION
A. Authority
Oregon Revised Statutes 471.164, 471.166, 471.313 and Oregon Administrative Rule 845
establishes the criteria local government use to make recommendations to the Oregon
Liquor Control Commission and establish maximum processing fees.
B. Criteria For New Licenses
(1) (a)
Is there a history_ of serious and persistent problems involving,
disturbances, lewd or unlawful activities or noise either in the premises
proposed to be licensed or involving patrons of the establishment in the
immediate vicinity of the premises, if the activities in the immediate
vicinity of the premises are related to the sale or service of alcohol under
the exercise of the license privilege?
"A history of serious and persistent problems" includes, but is not limited
to, obtrusive or excessive noise, music or sound vibrations, public
drunkenness, fights, altercations, harassment, unlawful drug sales,
trespassing on private property, public urination or prostitution."
Histories from premises currently or previously operated by the applicant
may be considered when it is reasonable to infer that similar activities will
occur as to the proposed licensed premises.
(b)
Does the applicant fail to demonstrate willingness and ability to control
problems described in (1) (a) above?
Does the applicant have the same problems with other current
licensed outlets?
Does the applicant fail to demonstrate willingness and ability to
control these problems?
Does the applicant have a corrective plan that is likely to be
effective?
Are there no license conditions or restrictions that would enable
control, as listed in Oregon Administrative Rules?
(2)
(a)
Will the hcensed premises be located in an area that has a "history_ of.
serious or persistent problems" with unlawful activities, noise or
disturbances?
llA
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(b) Does the applicant fail to show good cause, including but not limited to:
Showing that alcohol beverage sale or service at the premises will
not substantially contribute to the problems; or,
A plan demonstrating willingness and ability to adequately control
the proposed premises and patrons' behavior on or near the
premises?
(a)
Does the applicant have a histo _ry or record of using alcohol or other drugs
to excess?
(b)
Is the applicant unable to show discontinued uses of these substances to
excess and is unlikely to do so in the future as provided by Oregon
Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules?
Has the applicant been convicted of violating any of the alcoholic liquor laws of
the state, or been convicted of a felony, of a kind where there is a relationship
between the facts that support the conviction and fitness to exercise license
privileges as related to Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative
Rules?
Has the applicant provided false or misleading information to the Commission or
the City of Woodbum as provided by Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules?
Does applicant have a good record of compliance with the alcoholic liquor laws of
the state and the roles of the commission when previously licensed?
(a)
** Does the applicant propose to locate within 500 feet of the boundary
(measured property line to property line) of a(n):
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
licensed child care facility
elementary or secondary school
place of worship
hospital
nursing or convalescent care facility
park or children-oriented recreational facility, or,
alcohol and drug treatment or rehabilitation facility?
(b) If so, will the licensed premises adversely impact the facility?
(c)
Is there a good cause to overcome this criterion, including but not limited
to a showing by the applicant that the proposed operation is consistent
with the zoning and general character of the area and the adverse impact
will not unreasonably affect the facility as provided by Oregon
Administrative Rules?
llA
** NOTE:
Criterion (a) (sixth bullet) is not applicable to changes of
ownership with no change in license privileges or
operation.
(8)
Does or will the applicant have inadequate financial resources or facilities to build
and operate as provided by Oregon Administrative Rules?
(9)
Is there insufficient demand for the license? e.g.: Is there declining or static
population, business or industhal development the city, or decreasing sales or
patronage at other similarly licensed outlets in the city as described in Oregon
Administrative Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules?
B. Renewals
All of the above criteria for new licenses apply, except criteria (A)(7) and (A)(9).
And the following:
Did the applicant fail to build and operate the premises substantially as proposed
and approved as provided by Oregon Administrative Rules?
(2)
Are there persistent problems involving police calls related to the sales or service
of alcohol not stemming from calls for assistance from the licensed establishment
in the prior 12 months, concerning unlawful activities related to the sales or
service of alcohol, either on the licensed premises or in its immediate vicinity?
C. Application Process Time Limits
Once an applicant has submitted a liquor license application to the city for
recommendation, the city has 30 days to process a new license request or 60 days to
process a renewal license request. If the city is considering an unfavorable
recommendation for a specific license or renewal request and needs additional time to
investigate, the city must file a request with OLCC that sets forth the reasons the city is
considering an unfavorable recommendation. If the city has not requested additional time
or given a recommendation to OLCC within 30 days for a new license request or 60 days
for a renewal license request, OLCC will proceed with the license request as if a
favorable recommendation was given by the city.
llA
D. City Council Recommendation
The City Council may recommend approval of the application through the Consent
Agenda or as an Agenda Action Item. If the City Council recommends denial of the
application, it may schedule a public heating.
E. Authority
Review of liquor license application as provided by Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon
Administrative Rules.
F. Standards for Police Department Recommendations
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Oregon law provides criteria to be used by OLCC for license refusal which can be
adapted into criteria for police departments recommendations. The specific offenses are:
Fights or assaults
Liquor law violations by the licensee or their employees
Excessive or obtrusive noise
Illegal drug use or sales on the premises
Trespass on private property
Public Drunkenness
Failure of the Licensee to take appropriate action to prevent or control problems
caused by patrons on the premises or within the local vicinity.
Evaluation Guidelines and Criteria
A recommendation to deny the renewal application will be made when there are
persistent problems involving the types of police calls listed above related to the sales of
alcohol.
The Police Department will automatically recommend denial of a renewal application
when there is a record of ten arrests, in the prior twelve months, of employees or patrons
of the licensed business for unlawful activities related to the sale or service of alcohol
under the license either on the premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof.
Actions by the licensee which might tend to mitigate the problems shall be considered.
Examples of mitigating actions are seeking and following recommendations by the
OLCC or Police Department, and increased security measures.
In addition to the criteria previously outlined, a recommendation for denial of a license
renewal may be made when there are persistent problems involving police calls related to
the sales or service of alcohol not stemming from calls for assistance from the
establishment, within the preceding twelve months, concerning unlawful activities by
employees and patrons of the licensed business, either on the licensed premises or in the
immediate vicinity thereof.
The recommendation by the Police Department is only one component of the liquor
license recommendation process. Community input is a significant factor in a complete
review of applications. With all licensing activities, it must be remembered that the City
recommends and OLCC grants or denies.
llA
H. Procedures for Recommendation for Denial
(1)
In the event that the Police Department anticipates a recommendation for denial,
based on the preceding guidelines, the Chief of Police shall contact the City
Administrator, who shall meet with the Chief of Police to review the application,
circumstances surrounding it and any associated investigatory materials.
(2)
The review process described in (G)(1) above shall apply the criteria as provided
by Oregon Administrative rules of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission
(OLCC), in recommending appropriate action on the pending liquor license
application.
(3)
In the event the City Administrator concurs with a staff recommendation for
denial, the Police Department shall provide a copy of the appropriate police
records to the licensee, including the fact that the application has been reviewed
by the City Administrator.
(4)
In the event the City Administrator does not concur with a staff recommendation
for denial, the City Administrator and the Chief of Police shall meet with the City
Attorney in an attempt to reach consensus. If no such consensus is reached, that
fact shall be clearly conveyed to the City Council (see (H)(5) below).
(5)
Following the review process described above, the pending application shall be
placed on the earliest possible City Council regular meeting agenda for
consideration, at which time the Chief of Police shall present the'recommendation
to the City Council.
(6)
Upon receipt of a recommendation for denial, the City Council may set the matter
for public hearing at a subsequent meeting. If a public hearing is scheduled in
connection therewith, the City Recorder shall:
(a)
Cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the
City a notice of said heating. The notice shall specify the time, date and
location of the heating and the business name and address of the applicant.
The notice shall inform the public that testimony may be given, either for
or against the application, and further, that written comments will be
accepted by the City Administrator at any time prior to the scheduled
hearing; and,
(b)
Cause written notice to be served upon the applicant personally or by
certified mail postmarked not later than ten days prior to the hearing.
(7) The nohce to the applicant referred to in (H)(6)(b) above; shall contain:
(a) A statement of the time, date and phrase of the heating;
(b) A copy of the background materials supporting a recommendation for
llA
denial (if not previously provided pursuant to (H)(3) above; and,
(8)
(c) A, statement that the applicant may be represented by legal counsel at the
public heahng, but that no such legal counsel will be provided at public
expense.
At the time of the public hearing, in addition to the recommendation of the Police
Department and the City Administrator, the City Council may also consider
actions taken by the licensee to mitigate problems such as increased security
measures or seeking and following the recommendations of the OLCC or the
Police Department.
(9)
Following the public hearing, the City Council shall vote on its final
recommendation concerning the application, including any compliance plan
conditions, which shall constitute the City's formal recommendations to be
forwarded to the OLCC in the matter.
I. Established License Processing Fees
New License Application
$100.00
Change in Ownership
Change in Location
Change in Privilege
Renewal License
Temporary License
$75.00
$75.00
$75.00
$35.00
$35.00
(Atthed~cretionofthe ChiefofPolicg licensefeesfora
non-profitorgan~ation maybe waived)
llA
liB
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and City Council Through the
City Administrator ,~-~'/ ~/i.~
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director ~
Final Assessment for Parr Road LID
January 19, 2001
Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance adopting the final assessment for the Alley
LID.
BackRround: The City Council, at its October 23, 2000 meeting, conducted a public hearing
concerning the final assessment for the Alley LID. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Council
directed staffto prepare an ordinance establishing the final assessment. That ordinance is
attached.
Financial Implications: City funds were used to construct the project. Those funds will be
repaid from the assessments. The interest rate on the assessments is equal to what bonds could
have been issued for, plus one half of one percent to cover administrative costs. At the end of the
ten year period, the City's finances will be unaffected by the project.
I1B
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2285
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
PARR ROAD FROM A POINT 100 FEET WEST OF SETTLEMIER AVENUE TO THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Woodburn School District petitioned for the creation of a Local Improvement
District for the improvements to Parr Road; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of a method of assessment was declared in Resolution No. 1399, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 24, 1997 to receive input from affected
property owners and in receiving insufficient number of remonstrances to prevent the improvement,
Ordinance No. 2193 was passed creating the assessment district; and
WHEREAS, the assessment to each benefitted property has been based on its special and
peculiar benefit from the said improvement utilizing a defined formula for each parcel of land as
outlined in Ordinance No. 2193; and
WHEREAS, notice of each proposed assessment was mailed to the owner of each lot proposed
to be assessed at the address shown on the Marion County Tax Assessor's rolls; and
WHEREAS, the notice stated the amount of the proposed assessment and set October 23, 2000,
7:00 p.m., as the date and time set for a public hearing at which the Council considered testimony
regarding assessment amounts and the modification of certain proposed assessments in accordance with
this testimony; and
WHEREAS, the public heating was held on October 23, 2000, NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. BOUNDARY OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:
The property subject to the assessment of this district will be those properties within the city
boundary, fronting the unimproved portion of Parr Road, from the west boundary of the School District
Property and to a point 100 feet west of the centefline intersection of Parr Road and Settlemier Avenue.
The below-listed included properties are located in Section 13, Township 5 South, Range 2 West
of the Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO
ORDINANCE NO.
liB
TAX LOT NO.
5OO
102
103
OWNER
WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT # 103
DETOM GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
DETOM GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The below-listed included properties are located in Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 1 West of
the Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon.
1300
1100
3300
2400
2300
1400
3400
5700
5800
7400
7300
7200
7100
7000
6900
HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF WOODBUKN
HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF WOODBURN
LOPEZ, RAFAEL & MARGARITA
MARTINEZ, VIRGINIA
KRAXBERGER, DALE & DENISE
HILL, GLENN & VIRGINIA
YBARRA, MANUEL & PEDRO
SALAZAR, JAVIER & TERESA
BEJARANO, ALMA
CITY OF WOODBURN
LOPEZ, YOLANDA
VSHIVKOFF, LUKA & ANASTASIA
RIOS, EMILIO & HERMILINDA
BALBUENA, JUVENTINO & MARIA
LOPEZ, DAMASO & CATALINA
Section 2. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS:
Assessments are hereby levied against the following properties in the amounts listed, those
amounts being representative of the special and peculiar benefit which will be derived from the
improvement to each specific property:
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO
ORDINANCE NO.
lib
liB
Section 3. INTEREST RATE
Pursuant to Section 12 of Ordinance 2193, the interest rate is hereby established at 6.18% and the accrual
shall start from the effective date of this ordinance unless payment is made within 30 days of the effective date.
Section 4. METHODS OF PAYMENT, DURATION, AND AMOUNTS.
In accordance with ORS Chapter 223 (Local Improvements), benefitted property owners have the option
of paying their final assessments in the following manner:
l)
Full payment of the final assessment within 30 days of the effective date of this ordinance
without incurring interest charges;
2)
Installment payment plan over a ten (10) year period whereby semi-annual payments will
be made equal to 1/20 of the cost of their share of the assessment plus interest; or
3)
Installment payment plan whereby the semi-annual payment of the cost of their share of
the assessment, plus interest, will be amortized over a ten (10) year period. The semi-
annual payment amount will be an equal amount during the duration of the payment
period.
In the event an installment payment plan is elected by the benefitted property owner and the outstanding lien is to
be paid off before the end of the 10 year period, interest will be calculated to the date of the lien payoff.
Section 5. NOTICE
The City Recorder is hereby ordered to send notices of the assessments levied by this ordinance pursuant
to Ordinance No. 2105.
Section 6. 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.~, ~ ~1 ¢00~,
Approved as to form: ~ ~ D~te_~.3~
City Attorney
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodburn
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO
ORDINANCE NO.
llC
Memo
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
For Council Action, through the City Administrator '"' 9)~
Randy Scott, C.E. Tech III, through the Public Works Director
Oswald Street Vacation
January 19, 2001
Recommendation:
Pass the attached ordinance vacating a certain portion of Oswald Street tight-of-way.
Back~round:
The City Council, at it's January 8, 2001 meeting, conducted a public hearing
concerning the vacation of a certain portion of Oswald Street tight-of-way. At the
conclusion of that heating, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance
vacating the certain portion of Oswald Street tight-of-way. That ordinance is
attached.
llC
COVNClL BmL NO. 2286
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A CERTAIN PORTION OF OSWALD STREET RIGHT-
OF-WAY AND DECI~RING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, abutting property owners have submitted a petition requesting the City
Council to vacate a certain portion of Oswald Street right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1610 fixed the time, place a date of a public hearing to hear
the petition on whether that certain portion of Oswald Street described herein should be vacated;
and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2001 a public hearing was held and the petition was heard on
this question; and
WglEREAS, the City Council has considered the petition, the public testimony, the staff
reports, the need for the proposed street vacation, and the public interest herein, NOW,
THEREFORE,
CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLt,OWS:
Section 1. The tract of real property subject to the street vacation is legally described as
follows:
Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 7, Block 1, Doud's Second Addition in the Northeast
Quarter of Section 18, Towmhip 5 South, Range I West of the Willamette Meridian in the City of
Woodbum, Marion County ~: Theme South 48° 45' 00" East along th, northerly line of said
Block 1, a distame of 149.90 feet; Theme North 41 ° 15'00" East 50.00 fe~t to a point on the
northerly right-of-way line of Oswald Street; Thence North 48° 45' 00" West along said right-of-
way line, a distance of 149.90 fe~t to a point on the easterly line of Parcel 1 of Partition Plat No. 99-
84; Thence South 41 °15' 00' West along said easterly line a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of
beginning and containing 7495 square fozt of land, more or less.
A diagram of said tract is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit 'A' and, by this reference,
is incorporated herein.
Section 2. The Council finds the petition filed with the city conforms with the
requirements of ORS 271.080. The petition contains the consent of all abutting property and of
not less than two-thirds in the area of the real property affected there by. No oral objecaions were
made at the public heating and no written objections have been filed with city for the vacation of
right-of-way legally described in Section 1.
Section 3. The Council finds that the portion of right-of-way descnq~l in Section 1. is
vacated subject to aH of the following express conditions:
llC
a. The existing sanitary sewer main within the area to be vacated that serves Chemeketa
property shall be rehabilitated for infiltration removal for continued use as a private
line or it shall be abandoned. A standard manhole shall be constructed over the existing
main at the west end.
b. The existing storm sewer inlets shall be relocated in the modified right-of-way to
provide for proper drainage of the public right-of-way.
c. Agreements and or easements shall be provided to all franchised utilities for service
arrangements, if needed. The petitioner shall relocate any utility in the vacated right-
of-way which may require relocation.
d. A traffic turn around facility acceptable to Public Works Department shall be
provided at the end Oswald Street.
Section 4. Pursuant to ORS 271.150, a certified copy of this ordinance shall be filed with
the Marion County Clerk.
Section 5. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared exist and this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
APPROVED:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
EXHIBIT "A'
RIGHT.OF-WAY PETITIONED FOR VACATION
11C
PR~ VACATgD PORTION
MEMO
To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator
From:
Subject:
Date:
Randy Scott, C.E. Tech Ill, through the Public Works Director
Ironwood at Tukwila Easement Vacation
January 2, 2001
RECOMMENDATION:
Initiate vacation proceeding by approving the attached resolution setting a public hearing date on
the vacation of a portion the existing 20 foot wide public utility easement within the Ironwood at
Tukwila Subdivision for the regular schedules meeting of February 12, 2001
BA(~KGROU, N~,,:
The owners of the majority of the affected area have requested in writing, the outside 10 foot
portion of the existing 20 foot wide public ut'flity easement adjacent to the public right-of-way
within the Ironwood at Tukwila Subdivision be vacated. This request does not appear to meet the
requirements of a petition as defined in ORS 270.080. Therefore the city attorney has advised
staff that the vacation process be initiated by the governing body. The notice publication costs and
other required costs will be paid by Centex Homes.
The developer of the referenced subdivision, Centex Homes, provided a 20 foot wide public
utility easement adjacent to all lots fronting public streets within the referenced subdivision. The
industry standard and the citys requ/rement for an easement along the public fight-of-way is a
strip that is lO feet wide.
The additional 10 feet in width is currently not being utilized by franchised utilities or city, nor is
the add/tional width required for future needs. The easement is however creating placement and
title conflicts for some of the structures on the lots. Therefore it is being recommended council
initiate vacation proceeding at the request of the owners of the majority.
VACATION PROCESS:
In accordance with ORS 271.130, the City Governing Body may initiate vacation
proceedings, by resolution ~ fixing a time and place for a formal hearing upon the
question.
2. Notice of public hearing shall be posted and published in conformance with ORS 271.110.
3. The public hearing is held on the specified date and _time.
After the hearing, if the findings comply the requirements of ORS 271.130 and the council
fin& in favor of the vacation, then the determination will be made a matter of record by
The ordinance vacating the portion of the public easement shall be filed with the Marion
County Clerk, County Assessor and the County Surveyor.
llD
liD
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2287
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR TI/E VACATION OF A
PORTION OF AN EXISTING 20 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN THE IRONWOOD AT
TUKWILA SUBDIVISION AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO GIVE PUBLIC
NOTICE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has the legal authority to initiate a vacation proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the majority of prope~ owners in the affected area have submitted in writing a request
to vac~ the outside 10 feet of a 20 foot utility easement within the Ironwood at Tukwila
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, City staffhas recommended that Council establish a time and place for a public
hearing to start the vacation process, NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The tract of real property subject to thc proposed easement vacation is legally described as
follows'
All that property subject to ~l~ 20 foot wide public utility easement along the f~ntag¢ of all lots and
tracts abutting the public streets as plattrd per the Ironwood at Tukwila Subdivision, located in lot 10
of thc Tukwila Planned Unit Development in the Northeast ~A, Section 7 and the Northwest %,
Section 8, Tovotnhip 5 South, Range 1 Wea% of the Willamme Meridian, City of Woodbum, Marion
A diagram of said tract is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A' and is incorpomt~ hereh~
Section 2. That 7:00 P.M. on February 12,2001 in the Woodbum City Coumil Chambers, 270
Montgomery Strut, Woodbum, Oregon, is the time and place for the public hearing on ~ thc
above described easement shall be vacated.
Seetion 3. That tho City P~dex is dirocted to give notice of the public ~ as provkkxl by law.
City Attom Oate
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
liD
P~ssed by the Council
Submitted to th~ Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the offic~ of the Recorder
APPROVED:
Richard J~nnings, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Ro~order
City of Woodbum, Orogon
Page 2 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
llD
lie
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246
January 22, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development~r?
Modification to Housing Rehabilitation Program Procedures
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize, by motion, the following change to
the Housing Rehabilitation Program procedures.
Background:
As part of the closing out of the Housing Rehabilitation Program, the State of Oregon
has stipulated that the City of Woodburn amend its approved program procedures to
reflect how the program was actually administered. To accomplish this, a change to
one of the steps is necessary. Step 11 of the procedures reads, "Program
Coordinator... Prepares Construction Contract, Note, Trust Deed, Truth in Lending, and
Right of Recission." This step should be changed to read, "Program Coordinator...
Prepares construction contract if applicable and Trust Deed, Promissory Note, Truth in
Lending and Right of Recission if total job amount is known prior to job start. In the
event that total job costs are not known until project completion, Program Coordinator
will prepare documents as required."
The procedure as originally written would have required that all work be done with
general contractors. The City, in the previous Housing Rehab grant, opted to avoid the
use of general contractors and allow the homeowners to hire sub contractors directly.
The cost savings allowed the City to offer the program to several more residents that
otherwise would have been possible. This practice was continued in the current grant.
The language in the grant contract contemplated using a general contractor. This
change provides the option of not using general contractors and hiring sub contractors
directly.
Financial Implications:
None
11F
MEMO
To:
FROM:
VIA:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
Employee Recognition Event Committee
Matt Smith, Management Analyst
John C. Brown, City Administratorff~
January 18, 2001
Employee Recognition Event Committee Recommendation
Recommendation:
Staff asks Council to determine Council policy regarding Employee Recognition
Events.
Background:
In late summer last year, the City Administrator sent out a survey to all City
employees to discover whether they are interested in the continuation of Employee
Recognition Events, and if so, what type of event they would prefer. Based on the results
of the survey in favor of continuing the annual event, the City Administrator established an
employee/management working group called the Employee Recognition Event Committee
to develop a recommendation for an appropriate event to meaningfully recognize employees
for their contribution to the City.
The first in a series of Employee Recognition Committee meetings was held in
August, with follow-up meetings in November, December, and January. The following
recommendation represents the results of their efforts.
Recommended Event:
Event. The recommended event would be a sit-down, catered dinner, tentatively
scheduled for early May, with a target date of Wednesday, May 2ad, 2001.*
The' event would take place at the St. Luke's banquet hall. The doors would open at
5:30pm, and dinner will be served at 6:lSpm. The early opening and dinner times will
encourage employees who live outside of the area to stay for the event.
The Committee would prefer to hold the event on Tuesday, February 13m, per tradition in
previous years where the event was held on, or near, the birth date for the city of Woodburn, February 14t~.
The Committee indicated that this tradition should be continued, but due to the short time frame, the
Committee suggested that a later date would be acceptable this year.
llF
Setup and takedown for the event could be provided by a service organization who is
interested in a fundraising opportunity. The Committee recommended approaching the
Key Club or scout groups to perform setup\takedown activities. Child care should be
provided to encourage parents to attend, either on site or at the Aquatic Center. Recreation
management has indicated that this service could be provided by Recreation staff.
The Committee believes that all employees should be invited to attend (i.e., full-time,
part-time, and temporary), and interested Council members are welcome as well. With the
budget in mind, attendance would be limited to the employee and one guest.
Entertainment would be included, such as a pianist or a harpist for background
music. A program would be distributed at the door, containing a listing of merit award
winners from each department. The Committee indicated that recognizing merit award
winners in the program only would be appropriate, to avoid emphasizing differences in how
each department approaches this activity.
The dinner would be catered, and serving would be handled by the caterer. The
awards ceremony would follow the dinner, and awards would be presented by department
heads and supervisors, as appropriate. The ceremony should be short, and all departments
should be allotted a similar length of presentation time to avoid the appearance of
favoritism.
Awards. Awards would be selected by recipients weeks before the event ,from an
approved list, to provide time for shipping and engraving, where necessary. The awards
would be classified based on cost, and a variety will be made av_~il_a_ble for recipients to
choose from. Suggested awards and price ranges are as follows:
· 1-year family pool membership $5-25 5
· City logo mug
Acrylic award
Pen w/engraved case
Sro_~ll Leatherman tool (engraved)
$35-55 10 & 15
· Sm~l! clock (engraved)
· Large Leatherrnan tool (engraved)
$65-85 20 & 25
Large clock (engraved)
Watch (engraved)
Ring (engraved)
Desk set
$95-115 30, 35 &40
The award list is not comprehensive, and will be expanded based on further research. The
intent is to provide recipients with a choice of quality, meaningful, and useful awards.
Awards would be presented to employees who reached their anniversary dates after the
last awards ceremony (held in April 1998), and before March 31, 2001. Costs for the awards
have traditionally been borne by the awarding department. The Committee recommends
that this practice is continued.
Event Budget. The budget for the event is estimated as follows:
Item Number Unit Cost Total Cost
Dinner 150 $16 $2,400
Decorations (materials) 1 $180 $180
Setup/Takedown (labor) 17 $10 $170
Facility Rental 1 $425 $425
Entertainment 2 $75 $150
Total Event Cost
$3,325
Costs for the event would be borne by the Council budget. Costs for the awards would be
borne by the rewarding departments. The estimated budget per department is as follows:
~W Recorder 0 0 2 $~0
FMmce 2 1 2 $~5
~br~ 1 4 2 $~5
Ponce 3 3 3 $405
Pubhc Works 3 10 5 $870
Recreation md P~ks 9 1 0 $180
llF
Total Awards Cost
$2,175
TOTAL OVER~IJ.
COST I}57500
llF
Conclusion:
The Committee concluded that the Employee Recognition Event is an important
tradition to maintain and improve, and will serve to significantly improve employee morale
if implemented properly. Committee members roundly voiced the belief that the event
should be reviewed and improved each year, to avoid becoming stale and predictable.
14A
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodbum, Oregon 97071
(503) 982~5246
Date:
To:
January 22, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrato;~'~t~
From:
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Planning Commission's Action on Site Plan Review 00-27,
Chemeketa Community College Addition
At their meeting of January 11, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted a final order
approving a 20,000 square foot addition to Chemeketa Community College located at
120 E. Lincoln Street. This decision is final unless the City Council calls this decision up
for review.
Applicant:
Chemeketa Community College
Jerry Vessello, Director of Facilities
4000 Lancaster Drive NE
Salem, OR 97309
Property Owner: Same
NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant requested site plan review approval to
construct a 20,000 square foot addition to the existing Chemeketa Community College
building located at 120 East Lincoln Street.
RELEVANT FACTS: The site is located at 120 East Lincoln Street, further described
on Marion County Tax Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section
18AB, tax lot #6200. Tax lot #6200 contains approximately 2.73 acres.
The subject site is zoned Commercial General (CG) and designated Commercial on the
Comprehensive Plan Map.
The property to the south and east of the subject site is zoned CG and designated
Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The property to the north of the
Chemeketa Community College site (across E. Lincoln Street) is zoned CG and
designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Industrial. The property to the west of
the subject site (across Front Street) is zoned Downtown Design and Conservation
District (DDCD) and designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Existing
residential homes are located to the east and north (across E. Lincoln Street) of the
14A
applicant's property. A lumber storage yard is located to the south of the site. Railroad
tracks separate the subject site from Front Street on the west.
Chemeketa Community College plans to significantly increase its presence at the 120
East Lincoln Street site by adding parking, landscaping and a new building to the site.
The proposed new building will be tied into the existing building in such a way as to
create what will functionally be a single structure. The applicant states that "...this
proposed 20,000 square foot addition will also provide space for five partners, including
Oregon Departments of Employment and Adult and Family Services, Workforce
Integration, Oregon Human Development Corporation, and Catholic Mental Health. It
will also allow Chemeketa to eliminate an existing old house and modular building that
are currently on the site and used as classrooms and computer labs..."
Trade and vocational schools and government office uses are permitted outright in the
CG zone.
2
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
14B
270 Montgomery Street
Woodbum, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
To:
January 22, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator-z~'J
From:
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development
Subject: Planning Commission's Action on Site Plan Review 00-31
At their meeting of January 11, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the Planning
Director's decision to approve a site plan for an automobile storage yard on an industrial
site. This decision is final unless the City Council calls this decision up for review.
Applicant:
John A. Perdue
725 Garfield Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Property Owner:
Mercer Industries/Dan Mercer
10760 SW Denney Road
Beaverton, OR 97008
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant is proposed a small automobile
storage lot for a towing business within an industrial district. The area to be used for
storage is vacant with a paved surface and is surrounded by chain-link fencing.
Automobiles are to be stored within a designated area, each automobile stored on a
temporary basis, and there is to be no repair or dismantling of vehicles on the site.
RELEVANT FACTS: The property is located at 2257 Progress Way, further described
as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 8B Tax Lot 1300. The designated zoning
for the site is Industrial Park (IP) with a Comprehensive Plan Map designation of
Industrial.
The entire property is 4.55 acres in size and is virtually fiat. There is an existing
industrial building on the site approximately 51,000 square feet in size. The property is
paved and has landscaping along the street and in front of the building. There are two
accesses from Progress Way, and the north one is closed off with a chain-link gate.
The space to be designated for automobile storage is approximately 4,000 square feet
in area. There is fencing surrounding this area. The applicant is not proposing to
provide any new structures or alter the site in any manner. The proposal is only to
establish the new use of outdoor automobile storage.
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
14C
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
To:
January 22, 2001
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator
From:
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development
Subject: Planning Commission's Action on Lot Line Adjustments 00-03 & 00-04
At their meeting of January 11, 2001, the Planning Commission accepted the Planning
Director's decision to approve two property line adjustments on a single-family
residential lot. This decision is final unless the City Council calls this decision up for
review.
Applicant:
John P. Smith
4688 Treeside Drive NE
Salem, OR 97305-2258
Property Owner:
John & Jeanette Smith
1045 N. 6th Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant requested administrative approval for
two property line adjustments on a single parcel. The adjustments are being made to
comply with existing lines of occupation and to meet setback requirements to existing
structures. Both property lines would line up with existing fences. The existing property
line to the south has a house and carport across it, as well as two accessory structures
on the south side of the property line. The applicant is proposing to move this southerly
property line further to the south so that said structures are on the applicant's property
and meet setback requirements.
RELEVANT FACTS: The subject site is located at 1045 N. 6th Street, further described
on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 7CA,
Tax Lot 7800. The affected adjacent properties include the parcel to the south,
addressed at 615 Fir Street, and the parcel to the north, addressed at 1263 Mt. Hood
Avenue. These can be identified on County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South,
Range 1 West, Section 7AC Tax Lot 7900 and Township 5 South, Range 1 West,
Section 7DB Tax Lot 1000.
Lot Line Adjustment 00-03 is for the slight relocation of the north property line into the
adjacent property. Lot Line Adjustment 00-04 is for the relocation of the south property
1
14C
line. The subject property is zoned Single. Family Residential (RS) and has an existing
single-family dwelling with a carport and two accessory structures. The affected
property to the south is within the same zone, and the affected parcel to the north is
zoned Multi-Family Residential (RM). The Seventh Day Adventist Church is located on
the property to the north, and all other surrounding properties are zoned and used as
single-family residential.
The subject property is flat and is 0.16 acres (6,970 square feet) in size. With the
requested lot line adjustments, the size of the property would be expanded to 0.21
acres (9,148 square feet). The use of the property would not change as part of this
application. The proposed adjustments would bring non-conforming situations on the
property into compliance with current zoning standards.
2
OPENING STATEMENT FOR LAND USE HEARINGS
REQUIRED BY ORS CHAPTER 197
This is the time set for public hearing in Site Plan Review #99-14. The nature of the application is a petition for
supplemental review of specific approval criteria for Site Plan Review 99-14. This request is in response to the
State Land Use Board of Appeals final opinion and order No. 2000-050 which remanded the City of Woodburn's
decision to approve the said application. The site plan review application consists of a proposal to construct a 102
suite retirement facility on a 4.3 acre site. In conjunction with the public hearing, the City Council will accept
written or oral testimony pertaining only to the projects compliance with the specific approval criteria specified
below.. The applicants are Wally Gutzler and Anthony Kreitzberg.
The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The applicable substantive
criteria is listed in the notice of public hearing and is as follows:
A. WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE, Chapter 11, Site Plan Review
Section 11.070. Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan. The following criteria shall be used in evaluating
a Site Plan:
(d)
Accessto the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Wherever possible,
direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access
shall be shared with adjacent uses of similar nature.
(h)
The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all structures and signs are
compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character of the immediate
neighborhood. (For this hearing, testimony will be accepted as pertains to signs only and not
other structures.
,,1'. The full text of all listed criteria is printed in the staffreport which has been distributed prior to this hearing
and is also available now for inspection by any interested persons.
~2. All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use
regulation which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Please relate your testimony to the listed
criteria.
,3. The failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the City Council and
the parties, an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that
issue.
.~$. The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval
with sufficient specificity to allow this Council to respond to the issue precluded an action for damages in circuit
court.
Page 1 - Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings
5. Any participant may request, before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, an opportunity to
present additional evidence or testimony. The City Council shall grant the request by either:
(a) continuing the public hearing to a specific date and time at least seven days from the date of the
initial evidentiary hearing, or
(b) leaving the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence or testimony.
If the hearing is continued and new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request,
prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit
additional written evidence or testimony to respond to the new written evidence. If the record is left open rather
than continuing the hearing, any participant may file a written request to reopen the record to respond to new
evidence submitted while the record was left open and the City Council shall grant that request.
The applicant is allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties, to submit final written
arguments, but not new evidence, in support of the application.
~61 If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the City Council may allow any party to the
hearing a continuance of the hearing, or leave the record open, to allow the party a reasonable opportunity to
respond.
~. Everyone addressing the City Council is requested to come forward, use the microphone, and begin by giving
your full name and address. We wish to hear from everyone who is interested in the proposal. (For those of you who
wish to testify, please be sure to fill out the "Hearing Testimony Sign-Up Sheet" located on the table in the hallway).
We will now proceed with the staff report.
Page 2 - Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings