Loading...
Agenda - 07/09/2001270 Mon~ome~ S~t ~ ~ ~oodburn~ Or. on CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: Ae Be Ce Vacancy on the Planning Commission: Position 8, term expires December 31, 2001. Applications are available in the Mayor's office. Saturday, August 18, 2001 - Walt's Run - 5k Run/Walk, 1 Mile Jaunt 8:00 a.m. at Centennial Park, 900 Parr Road. Contact Woodburn Recreation and Parks. Music in the Park: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at Library Park: The Maharimbas Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. at Library Park: Steve Krupicka's Pudding River Band. Appointments: 4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentations: A. Friends oftl~ Parks Awards: Donna Gramse and Joe Pardo Proclamations: B. Parks and Recreation Month ..................................... 4B 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce. B. Woodburn Downtown Association. 6. COMMUNICATIONS - None 7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) 8. 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. page 1 - July 9, 2001 Woodburn City Council Agenda e 11. Be Ce Council minutes June 18, 2001 special meeting and June 25, 2001~-- regular meeting ................................................ Recommended action: ,4pprove the Council minutes of June 18, 2001 special meeting and June 25, 2001 regular meeting 8A Planning Commission minutes of May 24 and June 14, 2001 ........... Recommended action: Accept the Planning Commission minutes of May 24 and June 14, 2001. 8B Community Center Planning Committee minutes of June 28, 2001 ...... 8C Recommended action: Accept the Community Center Planning Committee minutes of June 28, 2001 De Summer water use information ................................... 8D Recommended action: Receive report. Ee Shuttle bus service for Drums of Fire .............................. 8E Recommended action: Receive report. Fe Status report on general liability, property and worker's compensation insurance coverage for FY 2001-02 ................................ 8F Recommended action: Receive status report. Ge Building Activity Report for June 2001 ............................. 8G Recommended action: Receive the Building Activity Report for June 2001. TABLED BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None GENERAL BUSINESS Ae Council Bill No. 2332 - Ordinance affirming the Woodburn Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review 00-12, Variance 01-04, and partition 01-01 to construct a retail shopping center on a 10.36 acre site located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Highway 99E and Highway 211 .......................................... llA Recommended action: Approve the ordinance. Be Council Bill No. 2333 - Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2272 (the 2000-2001 Master Fee Schedule) to increase the non-resident library card fee for non-residents of the City residing inside the CCRLS system boundaries ...................................... Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance. liB Ce Handicap parking request for Cupid's Court ....................... llC Recommended action: Approve the installation of one handicap parking space on the west side of Cupids Court at the south end near the stop sign. Page 2 - July 9, 2001 Woodbum City Council Agenda 12. 13. 14. De go 15. Right-of-way acceptance, Harvard Drive ~ Recommended action: Accept the right-of-way as being conveyed by Capital Development Company. llD Acceptance of utility easements, Montebello subdivision ............. Recommended action: Accept the utility easements as conveyed by Capital Development Company. liE Liquor license application - change of ownership and business name from the Pier Restaurant to the Ranch Restaurant and Lounge ....... llF Recommended action: Approve the liquor license application. Ge Sound amplification permit for Flor Y Canto for a community performance on Saturday, July 14, 2001 from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. at Library Park ............................................... llG Recommended action: Approve the sound amplification permit. Sound amplification permit for Centro Cristiano Church for Sunday, July 15, 2001 from 5:00 p.m - 8:30 p.m. at 257 W. Lincoln St .. llH Recommended action: Approve the sound amplification permit. Executive employee performance evaluations ....................... 1 lI Recommended'action: provide an opportunity for public comment on the form and process for evaluating the City Administrator and City Attorney. PUBLIC COMMENT NEW BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions that may be called ~ by the City Council. Planning Commission approval of Site Plan Review 01-04 and Lot Line Adjustment 01-04 for property located on the west side of Hwy 99E between Alexandra Avenue and Mt Jefferson Avenue at 1333 N. Pacific Highway ..................................................... 14A CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. 17. 18. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS EXECUTIVE sESSION ADJOURNMENT Page 3 - July 9, 2001 Woodburn City Council Agenda ~erea¢, in Oregan; ye are fartunate to ~ave a variety armyart;systems Fa~Wmff caunt~s recreaZ~a' ~_~_£a_W~varl~nitZes far ra~a~nts amWv~fftarsj~am arauna; ~F~reac, ourwar~ ~e~ to~rreser~e ad~rotect t~e nat~raf anarcufturaf re~aurcey a~Orqan an~a~ 'za~ facL~t~ ~ffn~.~bacant J~r~audn~s fa~ bZeure activit~c, re~z~at~ ana~asitive recreatZam~e~er~nce~; ad W~erea~,~arganarrecreat~n~ra~ram reacg mL4~ af cg~a~e~ a__~ruf~ ahar st~rs t~rau~ faci~t~s anarj~ra~ram t~at_~___~__~t~s mc~ ~aes ay yautg-at-r~g ~me~s~, qi~ num't~m ana~ea~cat~' aha~ ~erea$, t~e ~ecreat~n anar~ar~ ~Te~artment ~ v~?af in def~in~ ta nude ~Ooa~urn a ffreat ~zce to Sianedth 9 day of Jm;~ 2oo~ SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2001 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JUNE 18, 2001. CONVENED. The special meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding. 0007 ROLLCALL. Mayor Jennings Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Chadwick Present Councilor Figley Present Councilor Mc Callum Present Councilor Nichols Absent Councilor Sifuentez Present (7:03 pm) Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Public Works Manager Rohman, Community Development Director Mulder, City Recorder Tennant Consultants Present: Terry Moore, ECO Northwest; Greg Winterowd, Winterowd Planning Services 0049 Mayor Jennings state_Od that this special meeting has been called for the purpose of receiving the Woodbtrrn Economic Development Strategy which is the second phase of the Economic Development study. Administrator Brown stated that his staff report provides the background on this study along with the direction being considered based on the Council's vision of the City's economic future. This involves creating more opportunities for people to work in the community in higher paying jobs rather than commuting outside the community which broadens the housing opportunities that can be provided to the residents in our community. It will assist in making the City more competitive and attractive to the kinds of businesses that will allow the City to meet that type of economic future. Terry Moore, ECO Northwest, stated that they are close to completing the economic element of the City's Comprehensive Plan which is necessary to meet state standards as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. In May 2001, the Council provided the economic vision from which the economic strategy is developed. Since then, they have met with staff and the State for technical review of the economic development strategy and are now in the process of responding to those comments. He reiterated that the Economic Opportunity Analysis looks at facts about the economy and the Economic Development Strategy provides for Council vision on which direction to take, issues involved in Page 1 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, June 18, 2001 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2001 TAPE READING accomplishing that vision, and strategies to be pursued in the future. He summarized the vision outlined in the Economic Development Strategy with the main components being (1) encouraging economic development and growth, (2) avoid becoming a bedroom community, (3) attract businesses that provide higher wage jobs, and (4) provide diversity with good services and amenities for a wide-range of household and business types. To achieve the vision, businesses will need buildable land, water and sewer services, better transportation service, and skilled workers. The City policy would then be to take action to provide these services at competitive prices in order to attract new businesses to Woodbum and help businesses that are already in Woodburn to expand. The key issues breakdown into the following five categories: (1) Land Use - with the main issue being availability of suitable sites; (2) Infrastructure and services; (3) Workforce - with the main issue being increasing the skills of Woodbum residents and assist in finding suitable workers; (4) Business development - with the main issue being supporting existing firms and offering competitive and effective incentives; and (5) Coordination - with the main issue bing working effectively with other economic development organizations. He stated that, within the report, each of the issues describe the policy, why the City would want that policy, when the City would have to implement that policy, who would do it, how much it might cost, and how you would know if you achieved your goal. He briefly outlined the sub-categories within each of the key issues that are provided for within the report. In regards to land use, it was noted that the Council would need to review zoning design~a~tions and, if applicable, expand the Urban Growth Boundary. This issue would also involve providing land for a range of housing types and the adoption of an urban renewal district. In regards to Infrastructure and Services, sub-categories include (1) improving key intersections and corridors, (2) providing adequate water, sewer, and stormwater service, (3) constructing new facilities as needed, (4) implementing the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and (5) maintaining efficient public services. Since the City does not have primary responsibility for education of workforce, this issue focuses on working with those organizations to make sure they recognize what the City's objectives are with respect to developing a training package that would help retain existing firms and attracts other firms. A series of policies associated with business development include supporting business expansion, encourage higher wage jobs, and encourage development of social and cultural amenities. Another economic policy relates to financial issues and it is suggested that the Council look not only at capital costs but the on-going maintenance costs. Additionally, the City needs to ensure adequate and fair financing for infrastructure including transportation funding and creation of a renewal district. Lastly, the coordination issue would provide for the development of a City inter- organization team and coordinate with other organizations to develop strategic partnerships. Due to the large amount of work required to follow through with the Page 2 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, June 18, 2001 8A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2001 TAPE READING economic strategy, he recommended that the City hire an economic development specialist since City staff already has a full workload and this program will take a considerable amount staff time. He also stated that this study integrates with various studies in the land use plan and updates will be made accordingly over the next year. 1578 2257 Mayor Jennings questioned if the County will reallocate the population forecast and increase the Woodburn population since St. Paul has recently pulled back their population forecast. Mr. Moore stated that local jurisdictions have the ability to adopt policies that might provide for more or less growth than what has been its historical fair share. If the Council adopts the policy before them, they are encouraging more growth within the community which may result in a larger share of employment than what has been accounted for in the past. Mayor Jennings also stated that the School District also received a large grant for distance learning and he questioned if that would fit in with the workforce issue. Mr. Moore stated that distance learning would work as part of the coordination factor with the schools doing the workforce training. Councilor Bjelland stated that, even though the City does have some updated documents, population projections for many of these plans will be seriously understated which is justification for m-examining some of the projections of population and employment as it relates to the periodic review process. The data suggests a need to expand the Urban Growth Boundary to_support the projections which may involve going back to the County to see if Woodburn should receive a higher population projection. He also felt that the City needs to continue working toward the improvement of the I-5/Highway 214 interchange in order to become more attractive to industry. In the future, the City may also need to look at a southern by-pass which involves coordination with the County and State. He also felt that the City needs to build an inventory of sites that the City should have in order to accomplish its growth plans which will help drive the land use decisions that the City will need to make in the future. Mayor Jennings stated that the City is working on the issue of appearance and image. He also stated that the Mayor's coalition is trying to get the Salem Economic Development Corportion (SEDCOR) to change its name since SEDCOR would like to serve the entire geographic area but people tend to associate SEDCOR with Salem rather than the communities to the north. He also suggested that the Council be very careful with potential financial incentives to bring industry into Woodbum as it relates to delaying tax payments and/or waiving development fees. Councilor Mc Callum stated that he had attended a SEDCOR meeting last week and was told that Woodbum is one area businesses would like to locate in, however, Woodburn does not have enough land to provide for the industry development. One of his interests is quality of life in Woodburn and he questioned how much weight is placed on this issue Page 3 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, June 18, 2001 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2001 TAPE READING 2896 3659 by the business decision makers. Mr. Moore stated that quality of life issues is important to development, however, it is difficult to have a quality of life without having economic resources. The reports he has seen on how households make location decisions include the amount of space they can get, lot size, and quality of schools. The businesses care about the location in that (1) there is a trade off for them in how much they have to pay employees and (2) what those employees have to pay for indirectly through other amenities. Councilor Mc Callum questioned how workforce training is merged into this process in order to attract businesses to the area. Mr. Moore stated that Woodburn is located between Salem and Portland which provides a variety of sources to obtain workforce training, however, a policy could be established that addresses the availability of more localized training specific to the types of industries that the City is trying to attract. This policy would give businesses additional assurances that the City is committed to help create the labor force for the business. Councilor Mc Callum also stated that he was pleased to see that the report made reference to training managers which could result in partnerships with 4-year colleges to assist students in obtaining training. Councilor Figley stated that she felt that the document fairly represents the issues that need to be addressed by the Council. She also expressed her opinion that the document accurately describes the Council's vision. Councilor Sifuentez stated that her concern is the transportation piece since improvements are n~essary before further development can take place. She also mentioned that the Oregon Youth Authority has a program in which they have partnered with Western Oregon University to train staff which results in a 4-year degree for their employees. Councilor Chadwick reiterated that transportation improvements are necessary. In her opinion, a second interchange is required somewhere in the vicinity of Woodburn to help relieve traffic congestion. Mayor Jennings stated that he did not believe that Woodburn would ever see a second interchange within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. He suggested that the second interchange be left in the Transportation System Plan, however, it not be site specific in the plan. In his opinion, the Council seems to be committed to expanding the Urban Growth Boundary and the steps necessary to pursue this expansion are outlined in the document. Councilor Bjelland stated that the key is coordination with all of the parties involved in this process and working at it in a non-confrontational approach. The City is in a position to move forward since the two major barriers before the City are lack of available land and transportation. Mayor Jennings stated that communication is a necessity in order to gain support and, in his opinion, City staff is a major contributor to the City's improved communications Page 4 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, June 18, 2001 8A SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2001 TAPE READING between the County, Fire District, School District, and numerous state agencies. He also suggested that the City have an informal meeting to discuss expansion possibilities and invite representatives from the cities of Donald, Mt. Angel, Gervais, St. Paul, and Aurora to gain their input on this issue. 4220 FIGLEY/BJELLAND... accept the report and direct staff to begin the steps to implement the report. The motion passed unanimously. 4326 ADJOURNMENT. FIGLEY/BJELLAND... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. 8A APPROVED RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, R~order City of Woodburn~, Oregon Page 5 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, June 18, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 8A TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JUNE 25, 2001. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding. 0020 ROLLCALL. Mayor Jennings Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Chadwick Present Councilor Figley Pm.~nt Councilor Mc Callum Present Councilor Nichols Absent Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, Asst. City Attorney Won, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Deputy Chief Russell, Finance Director Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Library Director Sprauer, Building Official Nelson, City Recorder Tennant Mayor Jennings stated that City Attorney Shields' father recently passed away, therefore in his place, Asst. City Attorney Deniece Won is present at this meeting. 0068 ANNOUNCEMENTS. Mayor Jennings stated that, once again, Administrator Brown will be riding his bicycle for the benefit of the American Diabetes Association and he is in the process of raising donations for this cause. He informed the public that contributions can be made out to the American Diabetes Association and donations can be either sent to or dropped off at the Administrator's Office at City Hall. Administrator Brown stated that he has raised $755 to date and he is hoping to receive a match from Silverton Hospital. A) All City offices, the Aquatic Center, and the Library will be closed on July 4th. 0178 CONSENT AGENDA. A) Council regular and executive session minutes of June 11, 2001; B) Planning Commission minutes of May 24, 2001; C) Claims for the month of May 2001; D) Removal of large hazardous tree located in the public right-of-way on Country Club Road adjacent to a city-owned well site; E) Police Department activity report for May 2001. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 2~, 2001 TAPE READING FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 0231 .0600 PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW g00-12, VARIANCE 04, AND PAR'IITION g01-01 (Safeway Shoooim~ Center) Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7:10 p.m.. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197. Councilor Mc Callum stated that, in reviewing the documents related to this issue, he discovered that the appellant is represented by Davis, Wright, Tremalne of Portland. Since his wife and daughter both work for this attorney firm, he is not going to participate in the discussion nor the vote on this matter. For the record, Councilor Figley also stated that she is very familiar with the site and has driven by the location to view the site since it became apparent that it would be on this agenda. Community Development Director Mulder stated that the purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding a proposal to construct a shopping center on a 10.38 acre parcel of land located in the vicinity of the Highway 99E and Highway 211 intersection. The proposed shopping center would include a 57,860 sq. foot grocery store, a 12,000 sq. foot retail building, a gas station, a fast food restaurant, and a bank building. The applicant had also requested 6 variances that all relate to signage on the site, and a request to consolidate the three existing lots into one large lot to ~commodate the shopping center. The Planning Commission approved their final order in April and found that the proposal met all approval criteria relevant to approving the site plan, variances, and the partition. The approval was subsequently appealed by Northwest Real Estate Services and the notice of appeal listed some statement of errors as to how they felt the Planning Commission erred in their decision. Alleged errors were that the Planning Commission approved the project and imposed a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate property it did not own. He stated that the appellant referenced Condition #20 and//22, and maintains that the City is requiring that an approach permit from Oregon Dept. of Transportation (ODOT) be obtained prior to approval of building permits for the project and that land be dedicated necessary to construct improvements on both Highway 214 and Highway 211. He stated that staff interprets the Planning Commission's condition to mean that the dedication of land is adjacent to the project site which is property owned by the applicant, and that the applicant is required to obtain an approach permit. Based on this interpretation, staff feels that the appellants arguments that the Planning Commission erred has no merit and should be rejected by the Council and the let the Planning Commission's decision stand. Councilor Figley questioned if the City would grant the permit but ODOT does not grant an approach permit, what is the end result for the applicant. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING Director Mulder stated that ODOT has the jurisdiction over the highway and failure to approve an approach permit would result in the City not issuing the permits. The applicant could then go back and work with ODOT to obtain an approach permit or they could revise their project and re-submit the project to the City. Councilor Figley questioned the location and nature of the access to the development, and the location and extent of the signage requests by the applicant. Director Mulder stated that one access point would be located on Highway 99E which would provide for a fight-in/right-out only with a median to be installed as required by ODOT. The second access point would be on Highway 211 which is an unrestricted access point. In regards to signage, the applicant is requesting variances from the sign ordinance 1) to allow a 52 sq. ft. directional sign at the Highway 211 driveway entrance which exceeds the maximum allowed of 12 sq. ft. to accommodate a price sign for a gas station; and 2) to allow 5 wall signs for the Safeway store that does not exceed the overall area allowed for wall signage on each place. This development is considered as an integrated business center which only allows 1 free-standing sign for the entire shopping center. The applicant is proposing to place one sign at the intersection but, under the City's sign ordinance, it would not allow for signage at either of the entrances to the development which are significant distances from the intersection. Mayor Jennings reiterated that the appellant is objecting to Conditions g'20 and g22. 1422 Attorney Mike Robinson, representing the applicant, Pac Trust, stated that he would review the merits of~e appeal and legal issues to be addressed and that the applicant, along with some of their consultants, would be able to answer questions relating to specifics of this project. He stated that the Planning Commission had approved the application as outlined in the staff report. In regards to access, he stated that the access points shown on the site plan are a minimum that make a center of this size work and they had hoped to have more right-in/right-out accesses onto Highway 99E but that was not agreed to by ODOT. The full-turnout will be on Highway 211 which is agreeable to ODOT. In regards to signage, he stated that they would not generally ask for that many variances under the City' s sign ordinance, however, there were a number of reasons as to why the variances were applied for. For example, the bank building will be located near the street rather than being a part of the larger retail building and it made more sense to have signs for the bank on both the street side and parking lot side. The variance for the Safeway signs would allow for the name Safeway on each side of the building and the S logo. In this case, the Safeway signs would not exceed the total area that the sign code provides but the number of permitted signs would be in excess of code requirements. He stated that the appeal focuses on whether it is a proper condition imposed by the Planning Commission, at the request of ODOT, that might require some take of property on the north side of Highway 211. Attorney Robinson stated that they had worked closely with ODOT and the City to develop a set of conditions that would satisfy both agencies. The Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 2~, 2001 TAPE READING applicant understands that they need an approach road permit from ODOT and, if that is not approved, they will need to come back to the City to seek a different approval or seek a different approval from ODOT. In his opinion, Condition//22 does not require anybody's particular property to be taken except for the applicant's. They are in agreement with dedicating the 7' of property as provided for in the condition and some improvements will be need to be made along Highway 211. If those improvements cannot be made, the applicant will work with ODOT to seek an alternative and the applicant will then come back to the City with the alternative. In his opinion, the condition is entirely appropriate and it does not run with, nor impose a burden, on the property on the north side of Highway 211. He stated that they are willing to work with all parties, private and public agencies, in order to satisfy all of the conditions so that the development can be built within the near future. He also mentioned that the appeallant purchased the northeast corner of property along Highway 211 after they knew what ODOT's conditions would be and they inserted themselves into the process. Additionally, he expressed his opinion that their legal argument was rejected by the Land Use Board of Appeals in a 1993 case (Choban v Washington County) whereby the County could correctly impose a condition on property not controlled by the applicant. LUBA's decision was that it is the applicant's burden to satisfy the conditions of approval and, if the applicant is unable to do so, then the applicant needs to go back to the approving agency and seek modifications to the conditions or come back with another plan that would not require the same set of conditions. He stated that the appellant could still challenge ODOrs issuance of a road approach permit. Lastly, he mentioned that there are a series of letters between the appellant, Northwest Real Estate Services, to Truss-T Structures and a responding letter from Truss-T Structures regarding the potential sale of land to Northwest Real Estate Services for the purpose of building a retail facility and to meet ODOT ingress/egress requirements. Attorney Robinson stated that the responding letter from Truss-T Structures stated that they are interested in having the intersection improved per ODOT requirements and they felt that the Pac Trust development was in the best interest of the City as well as to Truss-T Structures. He reminded the Council that the appellant is not complaining about the quality of the center, access points, nor ODOT improvements. In his opinion, there is no basis under the City's code for granting this appeal since the provision cited in Chapter 11 has nothing to do with this issue rather it addresses criteria relating to driveways rather than improvements to Highway 211. He asked that the Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision and reject the appeal. 2308 Councilor Bjelland stated that the issue seems to be whether or not additional property is necessary to do the improvements at the Highway 211/99E intersection. He questioned if the only property needed to make the improvements is that owned by the applicant. Attorney Robinson stated that the only property that is specifically mentioned in the Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 TAPE READING 2738 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 conditions is the 7 feet adjacent to Highway 211 on the applicant's property. In order to make the intersection improvements required by ODOT, there will be additional property required. Even though additional property is needed on the north side of Hwy. 211 to improve the intersection under the current ODOT approved design, obtaining the additional land is not a part of the condition imposed by the Planning Commission. He stated that Pac Trust will need to negotiate with the appellant for the property and, if Pac Trust is unsuccessful in their negotiations over the next year, they will re-evaluate their plan and try to come back with a different site plan that will meet City and ODOT needs. Andrew Jones, Vice President of Pacific Realty Associates (PAC Trust), stated that he had been involved with this property since 1992. Initially, the storm sewer capacity held back development of this site and, after working with the City's Public Works staff, they were able to install a storm sewer line system last summer. Other issues addressed in planning this development included maintaining wetlands and meeting ODOT's requirements for the approach road permits. A traffic analysis was completed and, based on the analysis, they were able to mitigate the effects of the new trips in the traffic system which resulted in additional left turn lanes and signal modifications. Fairly late in the process, it was determined that some additional right-of-way would be necessary on the north side of Highway 211. He has been trying to obtain the necessary property on the north side but has been unsuccessful in his negotiations with the property owned by Northwest Real Estate Services. He stated that he would like to continue to work towards a solution that would...make this development a reality. In his opinion, this development will be an asset to the-City. He reminded the Council that they have their consultants present at this meeting to answer any questions the Council may have on this project. Councilor Figley questioned if the intersection improvement shown on the map is the improvement required by ODOT involving the dedication of land on the north side of Highway 211 and, if that property is not available, what other options are available to the applicant. Beth Wimple, Kittleson & Assoc, stated that the map shows a widening of the intersection that involves property on the north side of Highway 211. Kittleson & Assoc. has developed another concept that would modify the design so that the property on the northside of Highway 211 does not have to be acquired by the applicant. However, this concept has not been worked out with ODOT as of this date and they anticipate meeting with ODOT in the near future on this concept. She stated that the roadway design shown on the map is a longer term design as more properties develop in the area but the concept will still maintain the traffic service level. Dan Frickey, ODOT, confirmed that ODOT is working with the applicant for potential alternative designs. The design on the map before the Council are the necessary improvements for those identified in the original traffic study and the conditions only require the acquisition of permits and completion of the improvements that are required 8A Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING by the permits. In addition, conditions//38 through 041 were conditions that ODOT had requested to deal with the same basic issues and he reiterated that the permits must be acquired and improvements completed prior to opening of the center. ODOT understood that there would be a need to obtain property on the north side of Highway 211 which is the applicant's responsibility. If they are not able to obtain the property, then additional options would be considered that would provide the same level of performance out of the highway without needing the additional right-of-way and they are working on that issue with the applicant. 3220 Stan Chelton, representing the Woodburn Valley Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses (property owner to the south of the proposed development), confirmed that their dealings with PAC Trust have been very good and issues they had brought forth have all been met. They are very appreciative of PAC Trust's cooperation and they see some asset in the type of development being proposed. Additionally, they appreciate the traffic safety concerns expressed by ODOT. 333.___.~9 Chris Koback, attorney representing Northwest Real Estate Services, Inc, (appellant), stated that his client owns North Park Plaza which includes the building Safeway is currently leasing. He stated that his client's motives for purchasing the property located on the northeast corner of Highway 211 was to protect the business opportunities of the tenants at North Park Plaza. He also stated that Safeway has a long term lease on the building they are currently occupying and they will not be leasing the building to a competitor. In his opinion, the conditions read differently than staff's interpretation and improvements required by ODOT will include property currently owned by his client as designated by the plans before the Council. He referred to the condition of approval that states that the development shall substantially conform to the drawings in the site plan. He did not feel that the purchase of the property to protect their existing property and their tenants is immaterial as commented on earlier by the applicant. He agreed that conditions are appropriate to assure compliance but a condition must be feasible in order to assure compliance. In his opinion, Condition 022 is not feasible since it is conditioned upon acquiring all of the property required by ODOT. Since neither ODOT or the applicant had submitted evidence in the record that there was an alternative, he felt that the record should be decided upon what is in the record versus what is being discussed at this time. He stated that the Kittleson & Assoc. report shows that the Hwy. 211 intersection currently operates at a level E and, once the development is in place, he feels that it will have a negative impact with the additional traffic. He stated that his client is challenging a condition that, which they believe as written, requires acquisition of property that the applicant does not own. Therefore, the condition is not feasible and would not assure compliance with the applicable criteria for approval. Unless there was an alternative on the table to make it feasible at this time, he expressed his opinion that Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 8A 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING the Council should reject the application and send it back to the drawing board. Mayor Jennings questioned Attorney Koback as to whether or not the development would occur if the road approach permit is not granted. Attorney Koback agreed that the development would not be constructed if the road approach permit is not granted by ODOT. 3818 4582 Andrew Jones, Pac Trust, stated that he has had prior experience with Safeway's real estate department and it has been their practice to look for other retail businesses to sub- lease buildings no longer being used by Safeway. He assured the Council that Safeway does care about the community and will do the best they can to get the building occupied by another non-competing business. He disagreed with Attorney Koback's statement that the tenants at North Park Plaza will be going out of business once the Safeway store moves their operation to the new facility. He also stated that Northwest Real Estate Services, Inc., has also been looking at parmering up for an Albertson's anchored shopping center at the northeast comer of Highway 211. If a competing store was located across the street from Safeway, it may hurt their business which is why they are looking for a non-competing business. In regards to the pumhase of the right-of-way belonging to Northwest Real Estate Services, Inc., he stated that they felt that they would be able to purchase the property necessary to make the improvements on Hwy. 211 as shown on the design, however, they are now having to look at an alternative design that will meet ODOT requirements. Councilor Bjelland qgestioned the length of lease remaining on the building currently being leased by Safeway. Mr. Jones stated that they are in their first or second of a series of 5 year options and their control is for at least another 20 years. Since Safeway will be making a substantial investment in the new development, they will not be looking for a competing business to sub-lease the North Park Plaza building space. Jeff Parker, Safeway Real Estate Manager, stated that they will be investing a tremendous amount of money in the long term lease of the land plus also a majority of the cost to construct the Safeway store. He reiterated that they will probably not sub-lease the property to a competitor, and they control the property until August 31, 2029 which is when the last option on the existing store expires. Even though they could leave the building vacant based upon the lease agreement, however, it is not a good business practice to leave the space vacant and continue to pay rent. Beth Wimple reviewed different scenarios relating to traffic levels of service as provided for within their report. She stated that the scenario being considered would also provide a service level D and maintains a volume to capacity ratio of .82 which is required by ODOT in order to develop the site. Mike Robinson concluded the applicant's rebuttal by stating that, in his opinion, the competitive issues do not fall into the approval criteria. He reiterated that Safeway does Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 TAPE READING 5074 5574 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 look for businesses to locate in buildings they have vacated rather than leaving the building vacant. In his opinion, the language in Condition g22 is broad enough so that either the improvement on Hwy. 211 is completed as currently designed or an alternative solution be required by ODOT and the improvement be made accordingly in order to maintain the traffic level of service. He also stated that the City does not have a Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) issue on this case and he encouraged the Council to reject the appeal and approve the development. Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing closed at 8:16 p.m.. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she had been concerned with the potential long term vacancy of the building currently being leased by Safeway, however, the reassurance from Mr. Parker that Safeway will look for building tenant(s) has lessened her concern on this issue. She also felt reassured that ODOT and City staff will make sure that the traffic improvements made will meet all requirements. Councilor Bjelland felt that Condition g22 could be interpreted broadly from the standpoint as to what property it refers to, based on the Commission and staff's report, the intention of the wording of that statement was intended to mean the property that is controlled by the applicant. Another issue brought up relates to the Commission's right to approve something that does not have a chance of going into existence without significant changes to the site plan that was approved. He questioned staff if the plan would be referred back to the Planning Commission if there was a significant change in the traffic diagrams and for handling the increased traffic at that intersection. Director Mulder stat~l that Condition #1 states that the proposed development must be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted. Ultimately, the Planning Director makes the determination on substantial conformance and, if it does not meet substantial conformance, it would go back to the Planning Commission for review. As a Planning Director, he stated that anything major such as accesses or obtaining right-of-way on the north side of property, the applicant would be required to go back to the Planning Commission in a public hearing process. Councilor Bjelland stated that, based on information brought up at this meeting, an alternative might be to move a portion of Hwy. 211 further south to accommodate the lanes of traffic needed and work out the alignment with Hwy. 99E/211 when further development is made in the area. Councilor Figley reminded the Council that economic competition is not regulated by the Council, and she does not read into the conditions that the applicant is required to work with the agency that has control over the abutting state highways. Based on testimony from ODOT and Kittleson, she did not have any problem with the proposal on its merits, however, she felt that they may be back before the Commission if they need to make changes to the road design which impacts the site plan as originally submitted. At this time, she agreed with the conditions in the Site Plan. 8A Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING Mayor Jennings stated that he had been concerned with having another vacant building within the City. However, he felt that Safeway would be looking for a tenant to fill the building rather than paying a large annual lease payment. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... Council concur with the Planning Commission's final order and approve Site Plan Review//00-12, Variance g01-04, and Partitioning g01-01, and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance substantiating this decision. On roll call vote, the motion passed 4-0 since Councilor Mc Callum had declared a conflict of interest at the beginning of this hearing. 6371 Mayor Jennings recessed the meeting at 8:28 pm and re. convened the meeting at 8:34 pm. 6430 COUNCIL BILL 2326 - ORDINANCE ANNEXING 1.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THF~ EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 99E SOUTH OF THE WILLAMETTE 6600 VALI.EY RAH.ROAD, DESIGNATING A COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) ZONE, AND ATTACHING CERTAIN CONDITIONS (Woodburn Carcraft, 220 S. Pacific Hwy). Council Bill 2326 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2326 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL 23.27 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING CERTAIN STATE SPECIALITY CODl~.q, SETTING FORTH POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES AND FEES, AND ESTABLISHING PENALTY PROVISIONS. Council Bill 2327 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The two readings of the bill were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the City had received any feedback from the public on the change in the automatic sprinkler requirements for apartments. Building Official Nelson stated that one contracted had expressed concern on this requirement, however, it was also noted that the Fire Marshall can grant a variance. Most of the agencies in the metro area have adopted this new requirement but the City would be one of the first in our area. Director Mulder stated that he had seen a study relating to costs and the new requirement would increase the per unit cost by $700, however, he was unsure if the cost savings for fewer fire hydrants were factored into the cost increase. Mayor Jennings stated that the Fire District does not have the ability to issue citations but they can send the City's Code Enforcement Officer to the location and, if necessary, issue a citation for violation of the code. Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING Tape 2 _0328 0383 Councilor Bjelland stated that the sprinkler system is a worthwhile safety measure but it does add to the cost of a building apartment complex. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2327 duly passed with the emergency clause. COUNCIL BILL 2328 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING THI~ 2001-02 CITY BUDGET. cMAKING APPROPRIATIONS, AND LEVYING TAXES. ouncilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2328. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2328 duly passed with the emergency clause. COUNCIL BILL 2329 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO A SITE LEAS~; AGREEMENT WITH VOICESTREAM PCS 1, LLC FOR Tme~ PLACEMENT OF AN ANI'ENNA ON THE WATER TOWER. Council Bill 2329 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Figley questioned as to the number of antennas that would be allowed on the tower. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that this would be the last antenna to be placed on the water tower. On roll call vote for f~nal passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared the bill duly passed. 0504 COUNCIL BILL 2330 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2245 (TI-IF, MASTER gEE SCH ~;l~ULE) TO INCREASE TH1Z~ NON-RESIDENT LIBRARY CARD FEE FOR NON-RESIDENTS OF THE CITY RF~IlDING WTI'H !N TH ~; CCRLS SYSTEM BOUNDARIILS Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2330. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only. Councilor Figley questioned if non-resident patrons living outside of the CCRLS district are affected by this increase. Library Director Sprauer stated that the ordinance would increase the non-resident library fee from $25 to $40 annually to those non-residents who reside within the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS). Non-residents who live outside of the CCRLS boundary are currently being charged $75 annually which is covered in the current master fee schedule. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2330 duly passed with the emergency clause. 8A Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING 0712 COUNCIL BILL 2331 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION 0749 1224 TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-02. Council Bill 2331 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2331 duly passed. I4ERMANSON PARK 3 - WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT PLAN. Mayor Jennings stated that the Council had instructed the Park Board to pursue this concept with the developer and the Board now has a recommendation before the Council to consider approval of a wetlands enhancement plan. Councilor Figley stated that she had attended a few meetings involving the Park Board and the developer, Luckey Company, and she is aware of the effort made to secure neighborhood input and address neighborhood concerns. From the initial proposal, some changes were made to address security concern. She expressed her appreciation to the respondents within the neighborhood and to Paul Sedomk, representing Luckey Company, for his work with the Park Board, staff, and residents in preparing a plan that accommodates as many of the residents as possible. Janet Greenwell, Park Board Chairperson, stated that the Board had been working with Paul Sedoruk since last October on the wetland mitigation project. The Board has had 3 workshops with neighbors and changes were made based on neighborhood concerns. The Board is recommending that the Council approve the wetlands mitigation project. Director Westrick stated that the neighborhood workshops began in November 2000 and concerns expressed by the neighbors at that time included flooding, insects, and security. The Board had asked Mr. Sedoruk to meet with the neighbors and an informal door-to- door survey was conducted with a neighborhood volunteer which helped Mr. Sedoruk to design a plan that would address some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated that the planting plan being proposed is less than the amount originally planned which will reduce the amount of denseness, and some of the plant materials are completely eliminated. He also stated that, in working with the Division of State Lands, it is necessary to bring two sets of ideas together in order to make this mitigation work. Before any development can take place, the developer will need to obtain a floodway encroachment permit from the City. Mel Schmidt, 840 Hermanson, stated that the plan that he finally saw a few days ago does have some merit, however, there are some things that are not spelled out in the plan and he does have questions on these issues. He stated that this project has been discussed with the Meadowpark Homeowners Association and the following questions/issues are as a result of items brought up at the Homeowners meeting and before the Park Board: 1) what, if any guarantee, is that the area would be maintained on a regular basis; 2) he objected to the Luckey Co. being able to pick the site of wetlands mitigation rather Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING 1910 than letting the Ci'ty electors deciding the location; 3) he questioned the reduction Park maintenance labor hours if the project is allowed; 4) notification of residents within the neighborhood did not encompass ail of those residents, therefore, not all residents were given an opportunity to comment on the project; 5) the plan still provides for thicket areas that the Police Chief expressed opposition to during the April 5t~ meeting; 6) the survey form was completed by 8 of 37 residents and a more concerted effort should have been made to get the residents to complete the survey; 7) in his opinion, the summary to the Parks Board represented the feelings of those who returned the surveys; 8) he objected to the findings submitted by Paul Sedoruk regarding the cooling of stream since the stream only has water in it about 3 months of the year otherwise it is dry; 9) removal of the dirt will create a water detention area and he questioned if the water will have a drainage system in which in can flow back into the stream or will it be trapped in that-area and become stagnet and create a mosquito breeding area; 10) by requiring an encroachment permit, will homes be potentially damaged by flooding when the existing wetlands area is changed; 11) as a natural resource area, he questioned how much work, if any, the Parks department will do in this area since he did not want it to be an area that is overgrown and unusable by the public; and 12) he questioned wl~y Luckey Company was not required to repair the damage to the wetlands they had originally damaged. He stated that the project has merit if done correctly, however, he did not want any loose ends on this project. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve the Wetlands Enhancement Plan and authorize the Luckey Company to use the park to make subject improvements subject to obtaining a floodway encroachment permit through the Public Works Department. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the creek overflows, will the grading be such that the water will flow back into the creek. Paul Sedoruk, representing Luckey Company, stated that the water will not drain back into the original channel. This project will create a swale that will go downhill all of the way and drain into the Wilson Street culvert. The reduction of the grade will purify the water by slowing down the flow of the water. Dirt will be removed from the property in order to accomplish the designed grade level. Councilor Bjelland questioned the future maintenance of the wetlands. Mr. Sedoruk stated that the plan is to mow the west side since there is no mitigation occurring in that area whereas the east side would revert into a forested passive open space that has low maintenance requirements. 8A Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING Councilor Bjelland questioned why the amount of trees on the original plan was cut in half as shown on the current plan. Mr. Sedomk stated that, as a result of the informal survey, most of the neighbors did not want a densely forested site which is why the trees are placed in groves. Most of the trees on the site are Ash and the trees to be planted will be diverse as suggested by the neighbors. Councilor Mc Callum questioned if the Division of State Lands (DSL) had accepted this plan. Mr. Sedomk stated that is has not been accepted as of this date but they are closely watching the progress. In his opinion, the DSL will accept the final plan as a good mitigation plan. It was noted that this is a restoration and enhancement project. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the design and grading takes into account a bicycle and/or pedestrian path in this greenway. Mr. Sedoruk stated that this was discussed and the enhancement project is in a small portion of the park itself and the location of the pathways could be placed on either side of the-creek. Director Westrick stated that recent plans do not show any pathways and he is fairly confident that the City will be able to put in a pathway without compromising the enhancement program. He also noted that master plans are needed for the greenway system which would make the Park Board's decision making easier since they would be looking at whether or not the project fulfill the master plan. Councilor Bjelland slated that by having a path location in place the City might be able to use some of the dirt ttfat was being removed as a ramp from Wilson Street down to the creek without disturbing vegetation. Director Westrick stated that the area will not require as intensive maintenance as Settlemier or Legion Park. The grass will be mowed periodically and they will maintain the area to insure that the plants growing in the area will thrive. Plants that compromise the natural resource can be removed. Mayor Jennings stated that, in years past, residents in that area had routinely complained about the open space not be mowed and, in his opinion, the City should consider making some improvements to the east side at some future date. The vote on the motion to approve the Wetlands Enhancement Plan passed unanimously. 3033 GENERAL LIABILITY, PROPERTY, AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-02. Recorder Tennant briefly reviewed the staff report which was distributed at this meeting. In summary, quotes were being reviewed by the staff and the City's Agent of Record and staff is recommending that the Council authorize the City Administrator to secure the insurance contracts once the proposals have been reviewed and the decision has been made as to which coverages best meet the needs of the City. There will be an increase in Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING/V~NUTES JUNE 2~, 2001 TAPE READING the cost for liability and property insurance with an additional cost adjustment necessary if liability coverage limits are increased to either $3 million, $4 million, or $5 million. In regards to workers' compensation insurance, consideration is being given to changing from a retrospective plan to a guaranteed cost plan which may, or may not, have a deductible program to reduce up front costs. BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ... authorize the City Administrator to secure insur .ance contracts for fiscal year 2001-02 for general liability, property, and worker's compensation coverage following further analysis of quotes received from the insurance companies. The motion passed unanimously. 3273 REAPPORTIONMENT OF CITY'S WARD BOUNDARIF~S. Administrator Brown reviewed his staff report summarizing the City's responsibilities under the Charter to examine the ward boundaries after each decennial census. He reviewed the statewide reapportionment criteria cited in ORS 188.010 and recommended that the Council utilize that same criteria in performing their own reapportionment process with the addition that each incumbent's residence should be retained within the same ward. In the past, the City has contracted with the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (COG) to do the reapportionment work. Staff is proposing to contract with COG for this reapportionment and the budget for 2001-02 does include a $7,000 appropriation for this project. Since this project needs to be completed before the end of the calendar year, he requested that the Council approve a set of criteria so that COG can begin work on this project. He also stated that a letter was received from Anthony Veliz, representing the Oregon Latino Voter Registration Education Project (OLVREP), informing the Council of their desire to be a part of the reapportionment process to have a fair and equitable redistricting process and to ensure that Latino voting strength is not diluted. It was noted that the criteria outlined in the staff report would be consistent with the goals of the OLVREP. Administrator Brown suggested that the Council meet in a workshop with COG, along with inviting this group and the community, to review the initial boundary designations and, based on comments received, either accept the initial boundary designation submitted by COG or look at other alternatives before any final decision is made by the Council. Mayor Jennings stated that no ethnic group should be diluted by this process. Councilor Figley expressed her appreciation to OLVREP for their proposal, however, before information is sent to COG, other groups or individuals interested in submitting a proposal should do so as soon as possible so that it can be taken into consideration. Brief discussion was held regarding the proposed contract with COG for this service. It was noted that the proposed contract would allow for a base cost of $3,750 with an additional $1,000 for attendance at meetings if that becomes necessary. Since this is a time sensitive project, he requested that additional proposals from the public be submitted to him by the last regular meeting in July. Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 8A 8A TAPE READING 4175 4204 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 BJELLAND/MC CALLUM... utilize the criteria included in the ward boundaries memo to the Council as the criteria for reapportioning the City's Wards and authorize the City Administrator to execute an agreement with the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments to update Woodburn's ward boundaries in an amount not to exceed $4,750.00. The motion passed unanimously. ACCEPTANCE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BOONES FERRY ROAD. Staff recommended the acceptance of the right-of-way being conveyed by the Woodburn School District for future street widening in conjunction with the Boones Ferry Road street improvement. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... accept the fight-of-way as being conveyed by the Woodburn School District as described on Auachment "A" under agenda item 11J. The motion passed unanimously. ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG BOONES FERRY ROAD. 4235 4376 4418 Staff recommended the acceptance of the utility easement being conveyed by the Woodburn School District which will allow for relocation and undergrounding of franchised utilities in conjunction with the Boones Ferry Road street improvement. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... accept the utility easement being conveyed by the Woodburn School District as described on Attachment "A" under agenda item 11K. The motion passed unanimously. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ...approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute an employment agreement with the Public Works Director effective June 26, 2001. Mayor Jennings stated that both employment contracts before the Council at this meeting are fulfilling a Council goal of having contracts with all of the City department heads. Administrator Brown stated that there will be 3 more employment contracts before the Council over the next couple of months. The motion passed unanimously. EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR THE CITY RECORDER. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute an employment agreement with the City Recorder effective June 26, 2001. The motion passed unanimously. CONTRACT AWARD: SAFETY GRATING AT MILL CREEK PUMP STATION. Quotations for this project were received from the following contractors: Sunhawk International LLC, $6,500.00; and Nichols Welding-Metal Fabrication, $7,500. Staff recommended the acceptance of the quote from Sunhawk International II£. Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE .R AD O FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... award the contract for safety grating at Mill Creek pump station to Sunhawk International, LLC, in the amount of $6,500.00. The motion passed unanimously. 4453 4502 4540 4607 SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT AND EXTENSION OF LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR TI-IE~ 4TM OF JULY CELEBRATION. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve a sound amplification permit for July 4, 2001 from 10:00 am to 11:00 pm, and to extend City liability insurance coverage for the Woodburn 4t" of July Celebration. The motion passed unanimously. The event will be held at Woodburn High School. SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT FOR PCUN COMMUNITY FORUM FIGLEY/SiFUENTEZ... approve a sound amplification permit for PCUN for Sunday, July 8, 2001, from 4:00 pm until 7:00 pm.. The motion passed unanimously. The event will be held at 300 Young Street. 8OUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT FOR WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY. FIGLEY/SIFUENI'EZ... approve a sound amplification permit for the Woodburn Public Library for each Tuesday, July through August 2001, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; and June 20, June 27, July 11, 18, 25; July 10, 2001 from 10:30 am to 12:00 noon; and August 2, 2001 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm, at Library Park. The motion passed unanimously. ~ The events will include "Music in the Park" and outdoor Youth events. CITY RESPONSE TO HIGHWAY 99E CORRIDOR SAFETY STUDY. Councilor Bjelland expressed his opinion that the City's responses to this study were well done and he intends on passing these responses onto ODOT. BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ... receive the attached Highway 99E Corridor Safety Report. The motion passed unanimously. ~674 Preston Tack, 2197 Camilla Way, stated that he had been in contact with individuals involved with the State redistricting office and was made aware a computer program that has 295 bits of information that contain all of the information from the census. He presented the Council with a map that would provide possible redistricting boundaries based on population only. He stated that he was impressed as to how quickly information could be obtained once the boundaries were put into the computer. He stated that it was a great process and that it is the same one the Council of Governments will be using to work on the City's project. He presented Administrator Brown with a floppy disk which, he was told, had all of the information COG needs to fit into their software program. 8A Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 TAPE READING 5220 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 Councilor Bjelland stated that he appreciated the comments made by Mr. Tack and agreed that it is amazing as to what the GIS software will do once the information is in the system. Mark Wolfe, part-owner of North Park Plaza, gave his perspective on the Safeway issue which was decided by the Council following the public hearing held during the first part of this meeting. He stated that his firm owns the Safeway building but not the Rite-Aid building which is currently vacant. They have had a good rapport with Safeway and, up until this issue came up, he felt that Safeway had similar feelings towards his finn. In his opinion, this issue has affected his firm in other locations. He is very upset with comments made by Mr. Jones regarding his disingenuous about the concerns of his tenants and that it was a financial issue. He stated that he is very concerned about his tenants and he knows every tenant within his company's 800 properties. He invited the Council to talk to the businesses at North Park Plaza to verify their good rapport with those business owners. He expressed his concern on the affect Safeway will have on those businesses since they rely on customers visiting Rite-Aid and Safeway to shop at their business. He stated that they had submitted a bid for the property to put a theater on the property under former Planning Director Steve Goeckritz. They had approached ODOT to obtain access off of Highway 99E, however, at that time, ODOT refused to allow for an access. When Pac Trust approached ODOT at a later date since Albertson's was interested in a building, once again, ODOT would not allow access onto Highway 99E. He became aware of the most recent proposal by reading the local newspaper and he was very surprised~with ODOT's change in position. He had requested for an opportunity to be included in the ODOT meetings, however, they were never invited to attend those ODOT meetings. He also stated that Safeway could expand their current location towards Highway 99E rather than building a new store. Albertson's would still like to come to Woodbum and would like to be located in the building currently being used by Safeway, however, Safeway is unwilling to allow a competing store to occupy the site. He stated that he had purchased the comer property for the purpose of looking at development possibilities in which they could build a development that would provide an Albertson's store along with other retail businesses. He asked that the Council try to understand their position on this issue since they are concerned about the businesses that remain at North Park Plaza. Mayor Jennings stated he partially agreed with the statements made by Mr. Wolfe, however, he felt that many of the businesses will not suffer as much as what is being anticipated due to the type of business they conduct at North Park Plaza. Mr. Wolfe stated that he would not disagree with the Mayor's statements, however, the point of sale indicates that less than V2 of the sales come from local residents. 8A Page 17 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 25, 2001 TAPE READING Mayor Jennings assured Mr. Wolfe that the City does not want to see the buildings empty and we continue to work toward finding businesses that would be interested in bringing their businesses to Woodburn. 654O CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Administrator Brown expressed his appreciation to the Public Works Director and City Recorder for their willingness to enter into an employment contract since it is a big step in moving from a civil service slot to serving "at-will". 6600 Tape 3 0027 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS Councilor Chadwick stated that she had attended the RSVP Recognition Stawberry Social last Friday at the Methodist Church. There was a large attendance at this annual event and guest speakers were Mayor Jennings and Administrator Brown. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she would not be in attendance at the next regular meeting. Councilor Mc Callum stated that he was looking forward to the 4t~ of July Celebration and feels that it will be another great day in Woodburn. He also complimented the staff for the quality of the reports, both written and orally, which gives a great deal of background and helps him to get caught up with what is going on in the City. Councilor Figley stated that, once again, she will be handing out small flags to attendees at the 4t~ of July Celebration. She encouraged local citizens to participate and/or volunteer at this event. Mayor Jennings complimented the Community Development Director for his politeness towards developers even though the Director has to tell the developer that something cannot be done without going through a process. 0182 ADJOURNMF, NT. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m.. 8A APPROVED RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 18 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 25, 2001 WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION May 24, 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 (Arrived late) Commissioner Fletcher A Commissioner Miller P Commissioner Lima A (On vacation) Commissioner Mill P Commissioner Bandelow P Commissioner Lonergan P Commissioner Heer A Staff Present: Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner Chairperson Young provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. MINUTES A._= Minutes of May 10, 2001 Planning Commission Meefin.cl Commissioner Bandelow moved to accept the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 10= as written. Commissioner Loner.qan seconded the motion which carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_.=. City Council Minutes of April 23, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING A_=. Site Plan Review 01=04 and Lot Line Adjustment 01-04, proposed commercial building totaling 12,268 sq. ft. that shall be known as "The Home Center", 1300 N. Pacific Highway, Pamela Brooks, applicant (Included is the request by the applicant for a continuance of this public hearing to the June 14, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting). Commissioner Loner,qan moved to continue the hearing to the June 14, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandelow. Motion unanimously carried. Vice Chairperson Cox made a notation for the record that there is nobody in the audience to speak on this headng. FINAL ORDER A_~. Site Plan Review 01-03, Variance 01-03 and Variance 0t-05, develop and operate a 96 unit congregate cars facility, a 40 unit assisted living facility and 8 independent retirement cottages and Variance requests to provide a 3-story structure in lieu of a 2 I/~-story structure and to reduce special setback on Evergreen Road from 40 feet to 37 feet, located south of West Hayes St., north of Evergreen Road and east of Harvard Drive, Crown II Development LLC, applicant. Commissioner Mill commented he was not present for this hearing but he did do a site visit, reviewed the initial site packet, the minutes and the Final Order. 8B Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2001 Page 1 of 3 Commissioner LonerRan indicated he too missed the Public Headng. However, he also reviewed the initial site packet, the minutes and the Final Order. He stated he felt he could vote on this project at this time. V~ce Chairperson Cox moved to accept the Final Order as presented by Staff and requested it be signed by the Chairperson. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carded. DISCUSSION ITEMS V"me Chairperson Cox commented there are provisions in the Zoning Code as far as streets in new subdivisions that the Planning Commission is supposed to have a hand in the naming of those streets. Vice Chairperson Cox stated this has not always happened in the past and he is not sure what the Ordinance states about selecting names for streets in areas which are not part of new subdivisions. He stated the naming of streets should not be a Staff decision. Vice Chairperson COx used as reference the naming of 'Harvard Street" and inquired what is the process in selecting names for streets? Staffexplained "Harvard Street' is actually an extension of the Montebello subdivision and the property to the west of the Evergreen Retirement is a continuation of that street. She further indicated it is part of the recorded plat on the Montebello subdivision just to the south of Evergreen Ddve. Staff indicated she will look into the process of street naming. REPORTS A_~. Plannin.q Proiect Trackin_~ Sheet (revised 5-14-01) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Mill complained that the weeds on the K-Mart property are getting really high. He stated he contacted the developer and was told the K-Mart corporate office would take care of it. Commissioner Mill indicated it has been a couple of weeks now and nothing has been done. He indicated this is an invitation of all types of other problems and it really needs to be addressed. Additionally, he reported Shop-N-Cart are not making everyday trips to pick up shopping carts that are left on the streets. Staff will look into the weeds issue. Commissioner Bandelow reported a parson can be mistaken about the way the road goes when you go around to the cable company on Glatt Circle. She stated if you are headed to the cable company it looks like the street goes right into the cable company when the reality is the circle comes around into it. Additionally, Commissioner Bandelow comfnented people go in onto Meridian, make their left onto the Circle and go straight into the cable company cutting right across the traffic pattern for the circle. She remarked a yellow line would make a big difference because the street actually goes into almost like a court and that is not part of the street. Vice Chairperson Cox pointed out this is the fourth time this issue has been brought up and a letter regarding this issue was sent to John Brown. He inquired if anything at all has been done regarding this issue? Vice Chairperson Cox expressed his irdtation at the fact that something should be done about a problem and/or issue once it has been pointed out. The Commission expressed their concerns that they have not seen any report of what has been done on their previous request to John Brown that this issue be looked into. Commissioner Bandelow inquired whether there is any plan at all to change the intersection between Boones Ferry and Highway 214 at the same time the widening project takes place? Additionally, she reported one of the manufactured home lots has permanent signage up every ten feet. She stated she would like the Ordinance Officer to look into this issue. Commissioner Mill commended the Ordinance Officer for the success with Pizza Hut. Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2001 Page 2 of 3 8B ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mill moved to adjoum. Vice Chairperson Cox seconded the motion which unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. ROY(~E ~OUNG, SON A'r'rEST Jim ' Comm~n'~j Development Director City of ~oodburn, Or~on DATE ~-21-01 Date Planning Commission Meeting - May 24, 2001 Page 3 of 3 WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION June 14, 2001 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Vice Chairperson Cox presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Young A Vice Chairperson Cox P Commissioner Fletcher A Commissioner Miller P Commissioner Lima P Commissioner Mill A Commissioner Bandelow P Commissioner Lonergan A Commissioner Heer A Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Vice Chairperson Cox commented since there are only four Commissioners present the Ordinance allows for the Planning Director to count as a fifth member for purposes of constituting a quorum. Vice Chairperson Cox reported he will chair the meeting tonight because Chairperson Young has a conflict this evening and could not attend. MINUTES A._= Minutes of May 24, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Bandelow noted correction be made to indicate that it was Commissioner Lonergan whom seconded the motion for the approval of the Minutes of May 10, 2001 not Commissioner Fletcher. Commissioner Bandelow moved to accept the Planning Commission meeting minutes of May 24~' with the noted correction. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion. Motion carded. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A._,. City Council Minutes of May 14, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING A.~. Site Plan Review 01-04 and Lot Line Adjustment 01-04, proposed commercial building totaling 12,268 sq. fL that shall be known as "The Home Center", 1300 N. Pacific Hiahwav, Pamela Brooks, applicant. Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval of the proposals subject to the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report. Commissioner Miller inquired how high the bushes in the front will be and will that preclude vision clearance? Staff replied there will be maple trees planted in planters and will be about 15 feet back from the sidewalk which would meet any vision clearance. Commissioner Miller also questioned whether it would be more advantageous for people going in and out 8B Planning Commission Meeting - June 14, 2001 Page 1 of 5 to have a little bit more room to negotiate since the highway is pretty busy? S_.~_._~ff commented if the driveway is too narrow, vehicles would then have to slow down and almost COme to a stop to make the turn. He indicated this would obviously provide for COngestion on the highway. However, if there is a flare in the driveway, it would allow vehicles to get off into the ddveway easier. EX PARTE CONTACTS _Commissioner Bandelo,,,, reported she spoke with two different residents in the area and simply mentioned that they would try to attend tonight's hearing. She stated the only COnversation she had was that they always hope that the residents in the area COme to Planning Commission meetings. She further indicated the merits of the project were not discussed and she has no COnflicts. Commissioner Lim~ also reported he visited the site and also lives near the proposed project but he has not discussed the project with anyone. _Commissioner Miller stated he only visited the site. Commissioner Bandelo,;: referred to Staff comments contained on page 6 of the Staff Report regarding the length of the parking stalls. She asked if Staff is referring to hanging over into landscaped area? Sta_____ff answered the paved portion of the stall may only be 17 feet but the extra 2 feet may be provided over landscaping. He indicated in this case it is provided over a walkway and also over a portion of the landscaping along the north side of the property. Staff stated most vehicles will park in that space and not overhang because there is no need to. _Commissioner Lim~ asked if the applicant is anticipating that this project is a done deal or is grading something that can ~)e authorized before coming to the Planning Commission? Sta__._.ff replied he would have to ask the applicant as far as what their anticipation is. Secondly, he indicated the City does not require grading permits and there is no Ordinance preventing someone to grade their site. Staff reported this is something they are developing in the new Development Code where they would require a permit before you may go out and grade a site. Vice Chairperson Cox_ questioned what is the status regarding the proposed requirement that they grant an easement in favor of the adjac_~nt property? He inquired if this will be a reciprocal easement? Staff responded the intention is that it would be reciprocal. He clarified it is not reciprocal at this point and it will only be the subject property owner granting it to the adjacent property. Staff indicated they do not have the ability to require the adjacent property to grant it back to them at this point. He explained this would happen at such time the adjacent property did something that would require Site Plan Review and at that point then we would be in a position to require that to be done. Staff remarked they have only the ability to require the applicant to provide the easement on their portion of the property. ~ce Chairperson Cox inquired if the form of the grant of the easement is a document that is prepared by Staff or does Staff review it for accuracy?. Sta____ff answered the form is prepared by the applicant and reviewed by Staff. _Commissioner Lim~ asked if the applicant is required to build a fence even though one already exists? Sta____ff replied affirmatively. He explained they have the obligation to buffer themselves from the adjacent Property owner and not vice versa. He remarked the adjacent residential property owners could take their fence down if they want to or if the fence becomes dilapidated over the years. Staff further indicated that Planning Commission Meeting - June 14, 2001 Page 2 of 5 the residential property owner does not have the obligation to provide the buffedng from the commercial use. Commissioner Lima. requested clarification regarding the location of the south fence. Staff stated there is no fence on the south side other than the fencing around the trash enclosure. He said there will be no fence and there is no requirement that there be any buffedng in that area. TESTIMONY BY APPLICANT Jeff Tross, 1720 Liberty St. SE, Salem, OR 97302 stated he is providing a presentation on behalf of the applicant. He remarked the Staff Report is very thorough and goes through all the criteria. Mr. Tross commented they have no objections of what was stated in the Staff Report and the applicant has no objections to any of the conditions of approval and are acceptable as written. Additionally, he said this is a very straightforward proposal that is commercial use that is permitted in the CR zone. The applicant has worked with Staff to provide the plans and sufficient details to show everything that is required including the parking area, number of parking spaces, location of the building and the landscaping plan. Mr. Tross referred to the question raised regarding the access easement and stated they understand the concept behind that. He commented it is pretty typical these days in planning practice to try to consolidate access points on arterial streets. Mr. Tross stated that although at this time it does seem to be a one-sided affair where this property owner has to grant an access to the advantage of an adjoining property owner without a reciprocal easement. Furthermore, he remarked someday and at some point the opportunity for the other half of the easement to be granted back may exist. Mr. Tross reported they do not object to that at this point in time because the applicant understands the reasoning and concept behind it. In closing, he emphasized that the fencing and arborvitae hedge along the west property line will be built as a part of Phase 1. He stated that under the conditions of approval all phases have to be underway within three years of approval but the fence and the landscaping along the west property line is to be a part of Phase 1. Lastly, Mr. Tross indicated there seems to be a little bit of discrepancy between the width of the driveway that is allowed by City code which is 28 feet and the turning radius and width of the apron that ODOT requires. He stated this is a technical detail that will be worked out between the applicant and the City at the time building permits are requested. Commissioner Lima asked if this project will be a two or three phase project. Jeff Tross answered it will be a two phase project. He stated technically speaking the first part of the easterly 6,000 square foot building will be built and then there will be an addition onto that. He explained it is considered one phase because it is all going to be one building. The back westerly building is considered the second phase but technically you could consider it three phases because the entire project will be built in three segments. Commissioner Lima questioned what will the types of uses be for these buildings? Jeff Tross replied it is intended to be various types of home furnishing or home improvement types of businesses, i.e., cabinets, fixtures perhaps custom made furniture and upholstery, draperies etc. Mr. Tross stated it is all intended to be a 'Home Center'which is furniture and accessories for the home. He clarified it is not a home improvement type store in the manner of a Home Depot. Mr. Tross said they intend to start the project as soon as the approval becomes official and building permits can be issued. He stated the intent is to build it this construction season. PROPONENTS Cindy Vetter, 1650 Alexandra Ave., Woodbum, OR 97071 stated she lives directly behind the proposed facility and said she favors the project. However, being directly behind it she would like the fence to be taller than seven feet because they have been able to see what her house is going to look from the back now that the site has been graded. Ms. Vetter commented her backyard has completely changed now that the trees have been removed from the site. She remarked the higher fencing would be beneficial to her because it 8B Planning Commission Meeting - June 14, 2001 Page 3 of 5 would serve as a noise buffer since there is already a sound problem in that area. OPPONENTS None DISCUSSION Vice Chairperson Cox closed the Public Headng and opened discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Lima commented this is a straightforward application and does not see any problems with it. He further added it is a permitted use and is well laid out. Commissioner Lima said he does not oppose the project. Commissioner Bandelow concurred with Commission Lima. However, she hopes that the building to be constructed as second phase will mitigate some of the noise coming through from Highway 99E. She stated she has no objections with the project. Commissioner Miller stated he also has no objections to the proposed project. He said the building will act as a nice buffer. Vice Chairperson Cox agreed with his fellow Commissioners. He remarked that he hopes that the neighbors would work with the applicant regarding the fence height issue. Staff explained the arborvitae will grow much higher than the seven foot fence and will actually provide some softening of the back of the building wall. Commissioner Lima moved to approve Site Plan Review 01-04 and Lot Line Adjustment 01-04 with the recommendations as outlined by the Staff Report and instruct Staff to return with a Final Order. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion which unanimously carried. Commissioner Bandelow remarked she would like to see the neighbors work as a neighborhood with the business if they have a problem with noise in a particular area. FINAL ORDER None ~ DISCUSSION ITEMS A_.=.. 'Lot Line Adjustment 01-05, replat Lots 20 and 21 to consolidate into one lot at Flora Meadow,~ located at 1050 and ¶ 062 Elana Drive, Nancy Oster.qaard, al~31icant (Administrative Approval). Staff reported this is a Lot Line Adjustment application. However, it is actually a replat to merge two lots together and the Lot Line Adjustment process is being utilized for that. Commissioner Lima moved to accept the administrative approval of Lot Line Adjust 01-05. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. REPORTS A_ Building Activity for May 2001 BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Lima reported he has been approached by many residents in the area of Woodbum Fertilizer claiming poor state of repair of the railroad crossing and that Cleveland St., Young St. and Hardcastle Ave. crossings have been all graded. He stated he has driven by that area and if he had a small car he would have lost a tire because the road is horrible. Commissioner Lima indicated he does not understand why this crossing is the only one that has not been fixed out of the four crossings in town. Planning Commission Meeting - June 14, 2001 Page 4 of 5 Staff responded this issue was just on the City Council agenda this past Monday night and Public Works provided a report regarding the Hardcastle crossing. Staff indicated Public Works has been in contact with the railroad and that the railroad is planning on replacing the crossing with concrete. He explained he believes the railroad has jurisdiction within two feet of either side of the right-of-way. Staff stated the Commission may contact Staff if they want a copy of the report contained in the City Council packet. Commissioner Bandelow requested an update regarding the status of a response to the letter sent to John Brown regarding the problem with the traffic pattern on Glatt Circle. Staff reported the City Administrator received the letter and has forwarded it to the Public Works Department. He indicated he is not aware of any response to it and therefore, he has no further status to report to the Commission at this point. Commissioner Bandelow commented it is an issue that needs to be addressed quickly before someone gets hurt Vice Chairperson Cox remarked the lack of a response is unacceptable. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion which carded. APPROVED RO'~CL~JYOUNG, (~AIRPER~O ' DATE 8B ATTEST Jim Muller, Commd~r~ty Development Director City of ~oodbum, Oregon (,,-21-ol Date Planning Commission Meeting - June 14, 2001 Page 5 of 5 Minutes COMMUNITY CENTER PLANNING COMMITTEE June 28, 2001 7:00 p.m. Woodburn Community Center, Fireside Room -I ..I _l _l -I ..I -I -1 -I -I 8C 1. Call to Order Chair Flurry Stone called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. Members present included Flurry Stone, Sharon Felix, Joan Garren, Carmen Ramirez, Kevin Hendricks, Preston Tack. Staff'present included Randy Westrick. Randy said he would mail the packet to all members not in attendance. With the Committee meeting weekly, mailing packets to the membership in a timely manner is difficult. Flurry asked if staffcould keep minutes for the meetings. Randy stated that tonight he will and in the future Jennifer Goodrick will attend to keep minutes. 2. Project Schedule A. Meeting Schedule The Committee reviewed the schedule of meeting dates between now and November 1, 20~. Randy will ask each member to consider their schedules and cross off the dates that they cannot attend. Based on the dates that members indicate attendance, a final meeting schedule will be set. The Committee agreed to meet next on July 19, 2001. However, meetings will be held on the Project Milestone dates of August 16, August 30 and November 1, 2001. B. Project Milestones Timeline The Committee reviewed the Project Milestones Timeline that sets dates for critical decisions. Joan moved that for adoption of the schedule and Preston seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Building Program Bond Plan - Powerpoint Presentation Randy presented to the Committee a Powerpoint presentation that was used to provide information on the Parks and Community Facilities Bond. The presentation described the visioning process that the Recreation and Parks Board used to develop the Building Program. Proposed Phasing Plan The Board reviewed a Phased Building program that divided phasing into three categories. Major elements of the first phase include a large multipurpose room, activity room, classroom and a suite of offices. The major element of the second phase includes the exhibition/recreation pavilion and the third phase is the performing arts theater. The Committee agreed that this is a logical phasing program and discussed in depth the program for the first phase. Below are the modifications that the Committee will consider for the first phase building program. o Make sure the 50'x50' Activity Room is included. Provide at least six offices with at least one designated as a "visiting services office." o The multipurpose room should accommodate banquets for 400. That could result in a room of 6,000 sq. ft. o The kitchen should allow cooking from "scratch." o The Committee should consider a stage or performance platform in the multipurpose room (permanent or portable). o The restrooms should include dressing areas or dressing rooms should be considered as a part of the multipurpose room. o The design needs to make sure that mechanical and storage rooms are large enough to accommodate building needs. The Committee agreed that the first phase footprint should be 15,000 sq. fi. The architect analyzing building sites should consider a 15,000 first phase development that is expandable to include at least the second phase. The site analysis will be due on August 16 with the Committee finalizing a site on August 30, 2001. If the four sites under consideration are not suitable, other sites will be considered after August 30, 2001. The architect will provide the Committee with a comprehensive list of site opportunities and constraints at the August 16, 2001 meeting. 4. Building Sites The Committee agreed that the following sites should be given first consideration. If none of these sites are determined to be suitable for Community Center construction, others will be considered after August 30, 2001. o Settlemier Park o Centennial Park o Legion Park o Park Avenue (community Garden) 8C $C 5. Preliminary Funding Options The Board reviewed a list of project funding opportunities that include selling City property, bonds, fund raising, grants and the use of Parks Systems Development Charges. Flurry said he had talked with Chris Breshears who was active with the WMAC fund raising campaigm She may be interested in helping with the Community Center. Kevin moved to recommend to the City Council selling the Woodburn Community Center. Sharon seconded the motion. The Committee discussed the implications of selling the property. Concerns were expressed about dispersing eurrem programs and uses throughout Woodburm Randy stated that the Committee's action would only he advisory and would probably support a future Council decision. Placing the building on the market will take about three months and no one knows how long a sale might take. Randy told the Committee that the first step to a sale is an appraisal and that the City is in the process of securing quotes from qualified appraisers. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Adjournment The Committee will meet next on July 19, 2001. MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council Through City Adminstrator Public Works Program Manager ,~ ~"~-~' Summer Water Use Information for the Public July 3, 2001 8]) The City of Woodburn has an adequate supply of water to supply the needs of its residents. During prolonged streaks of hot weather in the summer, when water use is at its highest, the city suggests that residents make some adjustments to how they use water for outside uses such as watering of yards and gardens. Water use during the hottest part of the summer is often three to four times the quantity used during the winter. Lawn watering dudng the cool parts of the day, generally before 10:00 am, is best since it reduces the amount of water that evaporates and reduces the potential for disease. A good way to see if the lawn needs watering is to step on the grass. If the grass is stepped on and it springs back it does not need water. If it stays flat it is time to water. When watering do it long enough for the moisture to soak down to the roots where it will do the most good. A good guide is to water long enough to fill up an empty tuna fish can with water. Also position sprinklers so water lands on the lawn or garden and not on paved areas. Other hints to reduce outside water consumption include sweeping your driveway and sidewalks instead of hosing them off with water. Do not run the hose while washing the car. Also check for leaks fl'[at may be present in the sprinkling system or other outside water devices. Occasionally, although it hasn't happened yet this year, in the summer in the afternoon and evening between 4:00 pm and 10:00 pm city water use will exceed the amount that the wells can produce and the water tank is drawn down to make up the difference. By reducing outside water use for watering of yards and gardens during the hottest part and peak use period of the day from 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm Woodburn residents can insure that there is an adequate supply of water for use by residents and sufficient reserve capacity to meet potential fire protection needs. Once again there is no shortage of water for domestic use. MEMO TO: FROM: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager SUBJECT: Shuffle Bus Service for Drums of Fire DATE: July 5, 2001 The city transit service has provided shuttle service to the Drums of Fire drum and bugle corps event at Legion Park for several years. The most recent event, On July 2, 2001 saw the highest utilization of the service to date. The shuttle was provided from Senior Estates Clubhouse and the High School. Although no passenger figures were taken the drivers estimated that approximately 250 persons were transported from the High School and Senior Estates. Service was provided from approximately 5:30 P.M. until all riders were returned after the event. Utilization of the bus service alleviates parking on residential streets in the vicinity of the stadium. Bruce Thomas, who coordinates the shuttle for Drums of Fire, indicated that from his perspective the operation went well. Two vehicles were used with one providing service from the high school lot only and the second vehicle providing service to both locations. One modification that may be made to the service next year will be that one shuttle will run to both locations startin_~_g approximately one hour before the anticipated end of the show. Due to the length of the show some people wanted to return to their vehicles early and this was not possible since the plan was to operate the shuffle for return trips starting when the show ended. The city receives reimbursement for driver participation. The transit service is pleased to provide this service for this community event. MEMO TO : THROUGH : FROM : DATE : SUBJECT : Mayor and Council John Brown, City Administrator Mary Tennant, City Recorder ~ July 5, 2001 Status Report on General Liability, Property, and Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage for FY 2001-02 Following the June 25~h Council meeting, staff completed the evaluation process of quotes received from City County Insurance Services (CIS) and Northland Insurance for the insurance coverages listed above. Final quotes received provided for a minimal difference in cost for general liability/auto physical damage between the two companies, however, CIS provides for broader coverage in addition to coverage limits being on a per occurrence rather than aggregate limit. Attached is a copy of the letter submitted to our Insurance Agent of Record, Huggins Insurance, which authorized them to bind insurance coverage for fiscal year 2001-02 as follows: City County Insurance Services: Northland Insurance : General Liability/Auto and Workers' Compensation Property Financial Impact: With the increase in general liability and auto physical damage insurance rates, along with increased coverage limit to $5 million per occurrence, the City will pay approximately $124,775 which is an increase of $26,4'I8 from FY 2000-01, and property insurance will increase by $5,420.00. BuRN Incorporated 1889 8F June 29, 2001 Chuck Huggins Huggins Insurance Agency P.O. Box 270 Salem, OR VIA: Fax RE: Liability, Auto, Property, and Workers Compensation Insurance July 1, 2001 - June 30, 2002 Dear Chuck: After reviewing the insurance quotes received for the above insurance coverages, the City is hereby authorizing your firm to bind coverage with the following companies: City County Insurance Services: General & Auto Liability/Errors & Omissions, Employment Practices Coverage, Auto Physical Damage, and Workers' Compensation. The single limit liability coverage will be $5 million and the City will participate in the Workers' Compensation guaranteed cost plan. Northland Insurance: Property insurance We appreciate your assistance in securing the final premium costs for the above insurances. Sincerely, John C. Brown City Administrator Office of the City Recordex 270 Montgomen/ Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Ph.~03-982-5210 · Fax 503-982-5244 CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: To: From: Subject: July 5, 2001 Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Building Department Building Activity for June 2001 1999 2000 2001 Dollar Dollar Dollar No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount New Residence Value 16 $2,035,874 2 $238,327 16 $1,548,931 Multi Family 2 $6,300,000 0 $0 0 $0 Residential Adds & Alts 0 $0 I $25,000 2 $179,000 Industrial 0' $0 0 $0 0 $0 Commercial Value I $400,000 0 $0 1 $774,400 Signs, Fences, Driveways 11- $19,240 2 $17,348 7 $18,800 Manufactured Homes 3 $142,065 2 $74,000 1 $49,000 TOTALS 33 $8,897,179 7 $354,675 27 $2,570,131 July 1 - June 30 Fiscal Year To Date $38,100,496 $28,662,078 $17,940,436 I:~Comrnunity Development~ldg~Building Activity~Building Activity - 2001~activity - June 2001 ,wpd CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development MEMORANDUM llA 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: July 9, 2001 To: From: Subject: Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development/~ V Ordinance Affirming Planning Commission's Approval of Site Plan Review 00-t2, Variance 01-04, and Partition 01-01 (Pacific Realty Associates) RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached ordinance affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review 00-12, Variance 01-04, and Partition 01-01. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its June 25, 2001 meeting, conducted a public headng concerning an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the above referenced project. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan Review 00-12, Variance 01-04, and Partition 01-01 and adopting findings in support of the Council's decision. That ordinance is attached. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2332 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AFFIRMING THE WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW 00-12, VARIANCE 01-04, AND PARTITION 01- 01 TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER ON A 10.36 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 99E AND HIGHWAY 211; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant, Pacific Realty Associates, requested approval of land use applications for site plan review, variance, and partition to construct a retail shopping center on a 10.36 acre site located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Highway 99E and Highway 211; and WHEREAS, The Woodburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at their regularly scheduled meeting of March 22, 2001 and adopted a final order on April 12, 2001 approving said applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the Woodbum City Council by Northwest Real Estate Services, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has reviewed the record pertaining to said appeal and heard all public testimony presented at the appeal heating; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the decision of the Woodbum Planning Commission approving Site Plan Review Case No. 00-12, Vaff'ance Case No. 01-04, and Partition Case No. 01-01 is affirmed based upon Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, affixed hereto as Attachment "A". Section 2. That 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. Appr°ved as t° f°rm 't"~' e)r¥"~""~ 7- ~- 20~1 City Attorney Date Approved: Richard Jennings, Mayor Passed by the Council llA Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AI'I'AGHMENT 4 F~Qe ! of ~ llA BEFORE THF~ CITY COUNCIL FOR ~ CITY OF WOODBURN In the Matter of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision in that land use permit application known as Planning Department File Nos. Site Plan Review 00-12, Variance 01-04, and Partition 01-01 ("the Application") ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) ) ) Introduction Pacific Realty Associates ("Applicant") submitted the Application to the City. On April 12, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted an order approving the Application with conditions, which the City mailed to parties of record on April 13, 2001. On April 23, 2001, Northwest Real Estate Services, Inc. ("Appellant") fried with the City a Notice of Intent to Appeal the Commission's decision ("the Appeal"). At its June 25, 2001 meeting, the Council rendered a tentative decision denying the Appeal and approving the Application, subject to conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. These findings and conclusions supplement those set forth in the following, each of which the Council adopts as its own and incorporates herein by this reference: the Planning Commission's April 12, 2001 Final Order regarding the Application (''the Commission Decision"); the March 22, 2001 Staff Report to the Planning Commission; and the June 25, 2001 memorandum to the Council from Community Development Director JimMulder. To the extent that a conflict exists between the findings and conclusions set forth herein and those set forth in those ancillary documents, the former prevail. Procedural Matters Description of Application A description of the Application is set forth in Mr. Mulder's June 25, 2001 memorandum to the Council, which description the Council hereby adopts as its own. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the application at its regularly scheduled meeting on March 22, 2001. Some Commission members described various ex pane contacts Portl~ 1-2078.548.2 0075701-00233 Woodburn City Council Page ~ of Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 llA regarding the application. No party requested further information regarding or an opportunity to rebut those contacts. At the March 22 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted the initial evidentiary hearing on this application. The Commission took evidence and argument, written and oral, from various persons at that time. No person requested that the Commission continue its hearing or leave the record open for additional written comment. The Planning Commission concluded the public hearing that evening and rendered a tentative decision to approve the application subject to various conditions. The Planning Commission adopted a written order approving the Application, with conditions, at its regularly scheduled meeting on April 12, 2001. Description of the Appeal The Appeal asserted only one error in the Commission's decision, viz., that two conditions of that approval "are beyond the control of the Applicant and are therefore improper." The two conditions cited by Appellant read as follows: Condition No. 20: "Access and improvement requirements on Highway 99E and Highway 211 is contorlled and conditioned by the Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOI). Applicant shall obtain road approach permit from ODOT. " ~ Condition No. 22: "Dedicate a minimum of 7 aclditional feet right-of-way along Highway 211 adjacent to subject property. However, the actual dedication shall include all of the property needed to construct the improvements on both Highway 211 and Highway 99E as required by ODOT. Provide an additional lO foot wide public utility easement adjacent to such dedication for location of franchised utilities." The Appeal went on to assert that, stripped of these conditions, the record does not evidence compliance with WZO § 11.070(d). Council Decision Por~lnd1-2078548.2 0075701410233 2 ATTAGHMEI~I' /~J PaGl® ~ of /iQ Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 /lA The City Council considered the Appeal at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 25, 2001 with Mayor Jennings and Councilors Figley, Sifuentez, Bejelland, Chadwick, and McCallum present. Councilor McCallum stated at that time that, because certain of his immediate relatives are employed at the law finn that represents Appellant, he would recuse him~lf from the proceeding, which he did. When asked by the Mayor, no person asserted that the Council lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter, nor that any Councilor should stand down for any reason. The City Recorder read the statements required by ORS 197.763(5) regarding the conduct of a quasi-judicial land use hearing. The Mayor then opened the public hearing. During the Council hearing, Mr. Mulder presented an oral report. He noted that staff had delivered to each Councilor before the hearing his memorandum dated June 25, 2001. That memorandum included the following exhibits: the March 22, 2001 Staff Report to the Planning Commission; minutes of the March 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Application; the Commission Decision; the Appeal; and the June 7, 2001 letter from Applicant commenting on the Appeal. The emirety of the Planning Department's file on the matter was made available to and placed before the Council. All of these documents form the record of the City's proceedings to the date of the Council hearing. %'At the hearing, the Council heard testimony from the following people: Andrew Jones of Pacific Realty Associates, LP, Michael Robinson, attorney for Applicant, Beth Whemple, traffic engineer, Dan Fricke of ODOT, and Christopher Koback, attorney for Appellant. No party requested that the Council either continue its hearing or leave open the written record. Nor did anyone ask the Council to reject any evidence that had been presented to it. The Council rejected none of the evidence presented. The Council concluded the public hearing and closed the record to all evidence and argument at the same June 25, 2001 meeting. Councilors proceeded immediately to discuss the matter. Upon such discussion, Councilor Figley moved the Council to render a tentative decision denying the Appeal and approving the Application, subject to conditions adopted by the Planning Commission, and directed City staff to prepare fmdings supporting the decision 3 Portlndl-2078548.2 0075701-00233 Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 llA for presentation to the Council at its July 9, 2001 meeting. Councilor Sifuentez seconded the motion. All Councilors present - the Mayor is not a Councilor - voted to approve the motion. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that no party asserted an error in the procedures by which the City considered the Application, much less asserted that such procedural error prejudiced that party's substantial right to prepare and present its case for consideration. That is, no party asserted any of the following: that the public notices of the Planning Commission hearing were insufficient; that the Planning Commission failed, upon request, to continue its hearing or leave the written record open; that the Commission improperly rejected any of the evidence and argument presented to it. The Council specifically Concludes that all persons were given a full and fair opportunity to raise any and all issues regarding the Application and its compliance or lack there of with applicable law. Scope of Council's Review The Council reviews the Application de novo. Substantive Issues Approval Condition Nos. 20 and 2~ "Section l l.070(d) of Chapter 11 of the C~ty's Code (Site Plan Review) requires that access to public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. "fl]he Planning Commission approved Applicant's request with conditions [Nos. 20 and 22] that Applicant dedicate property Applicant does not own or control. The conditions are beyond the control of the Applicant and are therefore improper." The Appeal, pages 2-3. 4 Potllnd1-2078548.2 0075701-00233 A'I'TACI-~I F.['~' .~_~- Page ~ of /o Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 llA The Appeal implicitly recognizes that, under the framework set forth in Burghardt v. Molalla, 29 Or LUBA 223 (1995), the City must reach one of two conclusions regarding each criterion in order to approve the Application. "A local government may properly grant permit approval based on either (1) a finding that an applicable approval standard is satisfied, or (2) a finding that it is feasible to satisfy an applicable approval standard and the imposition of conditions necessary to ensure that the standard will be satisfied." Id. at 236. The Council's task in considering Appellant's assertion, therefore, is two-fold. We must first determine whether the City may lawfully impose Condition Nos. 20 and 22 on its approval of the Application. If so, then we must determine whether it is feasible to satisfy WZO § 11.070(d) and whether the conditions ensure that it will be satisfied. However, if we determine that those conditions are not lawful, then we must determine whether WZO § 11.070(d) is satisfied. LUBA has set forth a two-prong test for the validity of permit conditions. "[C]onditions attached to land use approval must support some legitimate planning purpose, and the local government must have authority under its comprehensive plan or land use regulations to impose the conditions." Davis v. City of Bandon, 28 Or LUBA 38, 48 (1994). Appellant presented no evidence or argument that Condition Nos. 20 and 22 fail either prong of this test. We note that these conditions require improvements to the City's transportation infrastructure and that such improvements will be made as required by ODOT. We further note Compreheff~sive Plan policies that call for improvement of public facilities through the development process and coordination in that endeavor with other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Plan Policy K-l-2 ("Develop a street system wherein arterial streets are of sufficient width to accommodate traffic flows without interruption."); Plan Policy K-l-3 (''To insure that state and federal highways with routes through the City are improved in accordance with projected traffic volumes and the elements contained within this plan."); Plan Policy K-l-10 ("In order to bring Highway 214 and Highway 99E into compliance with the Access Management Policy guidelines, the City of Woodburn shall coordinate with ODOT .... ") Appellant does not appear to dispute the City's authority, as a general matter, to approve a land use permit application subject to conditions. The Council finds that such authority is set forth at WZO § 11.030(b): "Any conditions attached to approval of the Site Plan shall be conditions on the issuance of a building permit." Indeed, as the Applicant noted 5 Pottlndl-2078548.2 0075701-00233 pA ACqM =N'r llA Woodburn City Council age ~ of. /o _ Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 014)4/Partition 014)1 in its testimony to the Council, ORS 197.522 mandates the Council to "impose reasonable conditions.., to make the propos[al] consistent with the plan and applicable regulations." Appellant appears to assert that Condition Nos. 20 and 22 are unlawful because they require "that Applicant dedicate property that it does not own." Appellant fails, however, to provide any explanation of why such a requirement, as a condition of permit approval, is unlawful. Appellant fails even to present evidence that these conditions require the Applicant to dedicate property that it does not own. As an initial matter, the Council notes that Condition Nos. 20 and 22 specify merely the extent to which additional right-of-way is needed. They do not, individually or collectively, specify the property that must provide that right-of-way. Furthermore, Applicant provided testimony from experts in the field of traffic engineering, Beth Whemple of Kittelson and Associates, Inc. and Dan Fricke of ODOT. Ms. Whemple and Mr. Fricke testified to their familiarity with the traffic intersection at issue and to the fact that they have identified means of completing the needed improvements without using any portion of Appellant's property. Each rendered an expert opinion that it is feasible to satisfy the approval conditions without constructing improvements on Appellant's property. We find that testimony both credible and persuasive in rebutting Appellant's contention, and conclude that the Condition Nos. 20 and 22 do not require Applicant to dedicate property that it does not own. Finding that its essential factual premise - that Applicant can satisfy the conditions only if it dedicates property that it does not own - is wrong, we reject Appellant's argument and conclude that Appellant has failed to demonstrate that Condition Nos. 20 and 22 are unlawful. Notwithstanding this conclusion we will assume, for purposes of argument, that Appellant can establish that, indeed, in order to satisfy Condition Nos. 20 and 22, Applicant must dedicate property that it does not own or control. Appellant cites us to, and we find, no law to support a conclusion that an approval condition that an applicant is able to satisfy only upon obtaining a property interest from another entity is unlawful. In fact, such an argument has been rejected by the state's Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA"). In Choban v. Washington County, 25 Or LUBA 572 (1993), the applicant requested approval of a construction project in which wetlands would be filled. The County approved 6 Pot'dnd 1-2078548.2 0075701-00233 Page_Z._ of Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 1lA the project pursuant to a wetland mitigation plan that included property owned by an entity other than the applicant. Petitioner asserted that there was insufficient assurance that the mitigation plan could be implemented. LUBA disagreed, finding the approval conditions "adequate to ensure [applicant] will have the right to control the land upon which the off-site improvements will be constructed .... "Choban, 25 Or LUBA at 585-86. We thus conclude that it is not unlawful for the City to impose an approval condition that c. an be met only if the applicant obtains property from another entity. Finding no proscription in law, it is possible that Appellant simply invites the Council, in deciding this case, to adopt a City policy against such conditions. We find that such a policy choice by the Council would be unwise and we decline to adopt it. The City's ability to require public facility improvements as a condition of project approval is critical to building and maintaining adequate public facility infrastructure. Appellant went on to present other reasons, unrelated to any approval criteria, why the Council should not uphold Condition Nos. 20 and 22. We are thus left to determine whether, as urged by Appellant, there are reasons for the Council not to uphold the Planning Commission's use of this authority. In its oral testimony to the Council, Appellant asserted that Condition Nos. 20 and 22 bind Appellant's use of its property. The conditions do not run with Appellant's property. Rather, they bind only Applicant's ability to use and develop its property in the manner approved in the permit. Appellant is free to refuse to work with Applicant to implemem the highway improvements. Nothing in the Planning Commission's decision forces the Appellant to accept on its property im~-ovements that it does not want. The Transportation Planning Rule The Appellant then raised the issue of compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule, OAR 660-012-0000, et.seq. Neither the Staff Report nor the Commission Decision identifies any provision of the TPR that it believes constitutes a relevant approval criterion to this Application. The Appellant failed to identify the specific TPR provision that it believes applies to the Application. The Council notes that the TPR is the LCDC administrative rule that implements Goal 12, Transportation. The Council also notes that the TPR consists mainly of directives for City action (i.e. to adopt a TSP), rather than regulatory criteria. The Council also notes that the City has addressed the TPR through adoption of a Transportation System Plan (TSP) 7 Portlnd 1-2078548.2 0075701-00233 ATTACI.~ENT r~ Page ~ of to Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 014)4/Partition 014)1 llA OAR 6604)12-0060 applies directly to post-acknowledgment plan amendments, of which the Application is not. As such, the TPR clearly applies to plan amendment and zone change applications. Without citation by Appellant to a specific provision of that role that it believes to apply, Appellant fails to raise this issue with specificity sufficient for us to address the issue. Based upon the foregoing, the Council concludes that the TPR is not a criterion applicable to the Application. Impact on Adjacent Property Appellant asserted that approving this Application will cause the existing Safeway store to go vacant. This issue clearly does not relate to the City's authority to approve the Application subject to Conditions 20 and 22. Appellant does not identify, and the Council does not find, a criterion to which this assertion relates. Rather, the Council finds that the assertion relates primarily to regulation of business competition, an issue upon which it specifically declines to judge the Application. The Council thus concludes that Appellant's assertion that approval of the Application will tend to force the existing Safeway to become vacant is not relevant to the Application. WZO § 11.070(d) As noted above, the Council concludes that the City may lawfully impose Condition Nos. 20 and 22 on approvagof the Application. Therefore, in order to approve the Application, we must conclude that it is feasible to satisfy WZO § 11.070(d) and that the approval conditions ensure that it will be satisfied. WZO § 11.070(d) reads as follows: "Access to public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Whenever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature." This criterion regulates the placement of access from private property to public rights- of-way. Specifically, it requires that driveways be placed in locations that minimize impact to traffic on the adjacem road. 8 Ponind1-207854&2 0075701-00233 ATTAC. I-IM ?~IT Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 11A Appellant presented no evidence regarding the extent to which placement of driveways on the site would negatively affect traffic flow on public streets. The Council has reviewed the traffic study submitted by Kittelson. The study describes the site's access locations and the safety and efficiency of traffic operation. It concludes that placement of those access driveways does not undermine such safety and efficiency. This testimony was ullrebutted. We fred it credible and persuasive in demonstrating that the site's access driveways minimize impact to traffic on the adjacent road. Appellant implies that this criterion regulates the extent to which traffic generated by a proposed development may affect traffic patterns. Assuming for purposes of argument that this is the case, the criterion does not prohibit such affect, but merely requires that it be reasonably minimized. As such, the focus of inquiry is the sufficiency of the Applicant's mitigation plan. Specifically, does the plan mitigate to the extent practicable the impact of traffic generated by the proposed development? The criterion also enumerates two specific impact-mitigating techniques that must be investigated. The Council has reviewed the traffic study submitted by Applicant. The study estimates the amount of traffic that the project will generate and the impact that added traffic would have on the surrounding street system. No party rebutted that testimony. We find it credible and persuasive. The March 22 Staffd~eport (pages 7-9) describes ODOT's review of the Application and the highway improvements that the agency suggests are necessary to mitigate the above- described traffic impacts. We find ODOT's comments regarding traffic impacts and mitigating road improvements to be highly credible and not effectively rebutted. We are persuaded, based upon those comments as summarized in the March 22 Staff Report, that it is feasible for the Applicant to comply with this criterion and that Condition Nos. 20 and 22, which implement the mitigation plan suggested by ODOT, ensure such compliance. Appellant appears to suggest that it is infeasible for Applicant to satisfy the conditions themselves because they require Applicant to dedicate property that it does not own. We conclude above that, contrary to Appellant's assertion, satisfaction of Condition Nos. 20 and 22 does not necessitate dedication by Applicant of property that it does not own. For example, the conditions could be satisfied by alternative intersection improvements. We further conclude above that, assuming that those conditions do make that requirement, the City remains authorized to impose them. Ponlnd 1-2078548.2 0075701-00233 9 ATTACHMENT I~ge /~ ~f Woodburn City Council Supplemental Findings Re: Site Plan Review 00-12/Variance 01-04/Partition 01-01 llA We now conclude that, assuming Condition Nos. 20 and 22 require Applicant to dedicate property that it does not own, it is feasible for Applicant to satisfy those conditions. Feasibility is a determination of technical capability (e.g., whether it is feasible for a site's soils to accommodate the development without eroding away). Appellant presents no evidence that Applicant is incapable of completing an acquisition of the property from Appellant (or any other property owner). The unwillingness of a present owner to sell does not render a land purchase "infeasible." IX. CONCLUSION The Council hereby approves the Application subject to the conditions set forth in the Commission Decision. 10 Portlnd 1-2078548.2 0075701-00233 July 5, 2001 llB TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council ~.-~--.--.--.--.--.--~ John C. Brown, City Administratm Increase in Non-Resident Librar~ Card Fee Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council pass the attached ordinance amending the 2000-2001 Master Fee Schedule to increase the non-resident library card fee. Background: At your last meeting, the City Council authorized an amendment to the 2000 - 2001 Master Fee Schedule to increase the non-resident library card fee applicable to non-residents of the City residing inside the CCRLS system boundaries from $25.00 to $40.00 per household. However, because the ordinance number of the 2000 - 2001 Master Fee Schedule was incorrectly stated, it was necessary to redraft the ordinance. The ordinance submitted to you with this staff report correctly references the 2000 - 2001 Master Fee Schedule and increases the non-resident library card fee. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2333 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2272 (THE 2000 - 2001 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE) TO INCREASE THE NON-RESIDENT LIBRARY CARD FEE FOR NON- RESIDENTS OF THE CITY RESIDING INSIDE THE CCRLS SYSTEM BOUNDARIES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, libraries in the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS) area are coordinating an increase in the non-resident library card fee for non-residents of their jurisdiction living inside the CCRLS system boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Public Library Board has recommended the fee increase to the City Council of this fee; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Ordinance No. 2272 (the 2000 - 2001 Master Fee Schedule) is hereby amended to increase the non-resident library card fee applicable to non-residents of the City residing inside the CCRLS system boundaries fi.om $25.00 to $40.00 per household for use of the full range of library services. Section 2. 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 MaNor. Approved as to form:'e'~') ~ e~P~-' ~ City A~ttorney 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 Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. llB liB To: From: Date: Re: ODBUgN lncorF, oratear ~88q Woodburn City Council and Mayor through John Brown, City Admininstrator Woodburn Public Library Board through Linda Sprauer, Library Directo June 6, 2001 Increase in the out-of-city resident fee Background Information: For the past 25+ years city libraries in Polk, Yamhill and Marion counties have provided library services to out-of-city residents through a contract with the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS). This service is supported by city and out-of-city residents through property taxes of eight cents (8¢) per $1,000 assessed valuation, or $8 a year for a $100,000 home. In addition, city residents supporting a public library within CCRLS pay an average of sixty-two cents (62¢) per $1,000 assessed valuation or $62 a year for a $100,000 home. This tax inequity has prompted the majority of cities in CCRLS to institute a user fee for out-of-city residents. This fee has been endorsed by the CCRLS Advisory Council, library governing boards and city councils. Explanation: In 1999, several CCRLS libraries, including Woodbum's, began to charge a $10 fee to adjust for the disparity between the amount city and Silver Falls Library District residents were paying for library service when compared to residents of unincorporated areas. The intention last year in moving from $10 per year per household to $25 per year per household (approx. 50%) was that the library would continue to increase the fee to 75% of parity (approximately $40 per year per household) in the 2001-2002 fiscal year, and to100% of parity (approximately $60 per year) in fiscal year 2002-2003. These increases allow Woodburn to remain consistent with most other libraries within CCRLS thus reducing confusion of patrons who encounter different amounts being charged by libraries for essentially the same services and also to bring the library closer to 'equity' with the amount paid by city residents through their taxes for this level of library services. To 'ease the pain" of this increase somewhat, the Library Board further recommends the library join with most of the libraries throughout CCRLS in instituting a "Kid's Card," also beginning July 1, 2001. Recommendation: The Woodburn Public Library Board recommendation: · / The fee charged for library service to out-of-city residents, beyond the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS) basic service (one item checked out and one hold at a time per card holder), be increased from $25 per household to $40 per household effective July 1, 2001 for the fiscal year of 2000-2001; and ,/ The Woodburn library issue Kid's Cards to out-of-city resident youth ages infant through age 14. To increase the fee, Council will need to amend the 2000-2001 Master Fee Schedule. Woodburn Public Library' 280 Carfield Street" 'ilTootlbum, Oregon 97071 Ph. 503-982-52~3 ° Ftoc 503-982-5258 TO: FROM: Subject: DATE: MEMO City Administrator for Council Action Julie Moore, C.~e~h HI through Public Works Director Handicap parking request for Cupid's Court July $, 2001 llC RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended Council approve the installation of one handicap parking space on the west side of Cupids Court at the south end near the stop sign, to allow more convenient access to the adjoining church. BACKGROUND: Members of the Christian Science Society requested a handicap parking space be provided along Cupids Courts so their members who have walking problems could have easier access to the ramp up at the front of the church. Currently, the church has permission to use the Chemeketa parking lot across the street but it is diffi~ for some members to walk that far. The church on the corner of Doud and Lincoln Streets also uses the same parkin~ lot. Both churches have no off street parking. The church provided a petition signed by all but one property supporting their request. They have not been able to contact the residents of the last property but will continue to doso. Cupids Court is a gravel stree~ which hms north of Lincoln Street and serves as access to five homes and the church. The right-of-way width varies from 38 to 40 feet. Currently there is no parking along the east side of the street so that emergency vehicles could access the properties. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices does not have any specific requirements for the placement of restricted parking signs. But with the installation of one space closest to the intersection there would still be room for at least three other cars to park by the church. The Police Department does feel a parking space is appropriate for this locatiom The department does have volunteers who do enforce these spaces on a very limited basis. Therefore, it is recommended that a l~mdlcap parking space be established along the west side Cupids Court near the south end to allow pexking closer to the entrance of the church. Attachments: Map of area Letter from Church Petition '0 ~ 0 ~0~ 0 i · · llC RECEIVED JUN 2'6 ZOO1 PUBLIC WORKS 11C June 26, 2001 Mr. Frank Tiwari Director Public Works 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 Dear Mr. Tiwari: Since our conversation a week or so ago, my thought is that it would be more to the advantage of our members who have a walking problem if a handicap zone could be located nearest the Lincoln Street and Cupid Court intersection as the access ramp is close. Also those who have the most trouble could come in one car in the case of bad weather. Another thought that could work is to have a zone for handicapped drivers at the back door of the church. I mentioned the existing concrete steps are in our plans to be replaced as they are old and badly eroded. The plan is to replace the concrete steps with a wooden structure that will have lower risers and broader steps that will not be so steep and easier to climb. It may be as long as two years before we can undertake that project. One of our members has volunteered to call on some of the neighbors to ask them to sign their names and addresses to show their approval. Respectfully yours, Horace E. Bixby End. Copy to Julie Moore 11C TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I approve the City of Woodbum assisting the Christian Science Society by providing temporary parking space during their church services at 195 East Lincoln St. Woodbum, OR. $~llle Address Date /o 6/as /o~ o I0. II. 12. MEMO To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator From: Randy Scott, C.E. Tech III, through the Public Works Director OdL~-- Subject: Right-of-Way Acceptance, Harvard Drive Date: June 19, 2001 llD RECOMMENDATION: It is being recommended that the City Council accept the Right-of-Way as being conveyed by the Capital Development Company and as descn"oed on Attachment "A". BA~KGROUND: The right-of-way is being conveyed by Capital Development in conjunction with the Montebello Subdivision, Phase One Improvements. The fight-of-way being conveyed is 70 feet in width and provides for the extension of Harvard Drive between Evergreen Road and West Hayes. Included as Attachment "A" is the properly signed Quitclaim D~,.ed. Included as Attachment "B" is a map showing the location of the right-of-way. ATTACHMENT "A" QUITCLAIM DEED - ROADWAY DEDICATION KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS. that Capital Development Company.. hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto City of Woodburn hereinafter called grantee, and unto grantee's heirs, successors and assigns all of the grantor's right, title and interest in that certain real property with the tenements. hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining, situated in the County of Marion. State of Oregon. described as follows, to-wit: A parcel of land situale in the A. Oubois Donation Land Claim No.61 S.W ¼ of section 12. Township 5 South. Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian. Marion County, City of Woodburn. Oregon. said parcel is more parhculady described as follows Commencing at a 518' iron rod at the Southwest corner of the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No. 98 in said Township and Range: Thence North 32015'09- East 243722 feet to the True Point of Beginning: Thence 27 91 feet along a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 20 00 feet a delta angle of 79°57'15" a chord length 25.70 feet with a bearing of North 40°48'47" East to a point: Thence Nodh 0050'09 Easl, a distance of 469.22 feet to a point; Thence South 88°52'09'' East, a distance of 70.00 feet to a point: thence South 00°50'09" West, a distance of 453.28 feet to a point; Thence 33 54 feet along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius counterclockwise curve to the left a delta angle of 96°05'02" a chord length of 29.75 feet with a bearing of South 47°12'22" East to a point: Thence 109.74 feet along the arc of a 1587 foot radius counterclockwise curve to the left a delta angle of 3°57'43- a chord length of 109.72 feet with a bearing of South 82°46'16" West to a the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 33810 square feet, more or less. liD THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES. To Have and to Hold the same unto the said grantee and grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. The true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated in terms of dollars, is $1.00. In construing this deed, where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made se~that this deed shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals. Capital DevelOpme'n! Co., Inc. Robed L. Blume - President on .2001 State of Washington ) County ofT~,,.l~.~,'{'o,,~) S.S. Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodbum. Oregon Be it remembered that on this "~ I'~-{--day of ~/~,,,,w . 2001 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. personally appeared Rober{ L. Blume to me personally known, who did-say that he, Robed L Blume is president and of Capital Development Company, Inc. and that this agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors and said Robed L Blume does hereby acknowledge execution of this instrument to be a free act and deed. In witness thereof I set my hand and affix my stamp. My Commission Expires: After Recording Return to: City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 · liD. ATTACHMENT "B" RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION CARE CENTER WEST HAYES ST EVERGREEN MONTEBELLO 8UBDIVSION MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: For Council Action, through the City Administrator Randy Scott, C.E. Tech m~ through the Public Works Director]r~' Utility ~ent Acceptance, Montebello Subdivision llE It is being recommended that the City Council accept the Utility Easement as being conveyed by the Capital Development Company and as described on Attachment "Al"," A2", "A3" and "A4". BA(~GR0~: The Utility Easements are being conveyed by Capital Development Company in conjunction with the Montebello Subdivision, Phase One Improvement. Al, easement varies in width, between approximately 74 and 60 feet and is currently being used for the storm sewer and sanitary sewer serving the development. The easement is also located in the proposed alignment of the future street extensions. A2, easement 24 feet wide, specifically for storm sewer and sanitary sewer serving MontebeHo Subdivision. A3, easement 60 feet wide, specifically for storm sewer and sanitary sewer serving Montebello Subdivision. A4, easement approximately 70 feet wide, specifically for storm water detention pond serving Montebello Subdivision. Included as Attachment "Al" through "A4' is the properly signed Utility Easements. Included as Attachment "B 1" through "B4" is the corresponding map showing the location of the UTILITY EASEgENT ATTACHMENT "Al" KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that The Capital Development Company, for the consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable considerations to them paid, the receipt whereof hereby is acknowledged, hereby do forever grant unto the CITY OF WOODBURN, a Municipal 'Corporation of Marion County, Oregon referred to herein as the CITY, a permanent right-of- way and easement over and along the full width and length of the premises described as follows, to wit: A parcel of land situate in the A. C)ubois Donation Land Claim No.98, in the S.W. % of section 12, Township 5 South. Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, Madon County, City of Woodbum, Oregon, said parcel is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 5/8' iron rod which marks the South West comer of the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No.98. in said Township and Range; Thence No~th 32015'09- East 2437.22 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence 21.82 feet along the arc of a clockwise curve to the fight with a radius of 1587.00 feet a delta angle of 0O47'16' a chord length of 21.82 feet and a bearing of North 81°11'02- East to a point; Thence South 00049'42- West 98.91 feet to a point; Thence 35.12 feet along the arc of a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 20.00 feet a delta angle of 100036'58- and a chord length of 30.78 feet with a beadng of North 49°31'13- West to a point; Thence 1482.56 feet along the arc of a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 1513.00 feet a delta angle of 58°08'34' with a chord length of 1423.95 feet and a chord beadng of South 52°08'17- West to a point; Thence 39.63 feet along the arc of a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 20.00 feet a delta angle of 113°32'13- a chord length of 33.46 feet with a beadng of South 32°42'07- East to a point; Thence South 89°28'13- East 1070.87 feet to a pointL.Thence South 89°28'13- East 17.39 feet to a point; 'Thence 28.62 feet along the arc of a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 170.00 feet a delta angle of 9038'42- a chord length of 28.58 feet with a bearing of North 85042'26- East to a point; Thence NoAh 80053'05- East 78.75 feet to a point; Thence 27.96 feet along the arc of a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 20.00 feet a delta angle of 80005'08- a chord length of 25.74 feet with a beadng of NoAh 40O50'11' East to a point; Thence North 00°47'17- East 94.78 feet to a point; Thence North 79024'20- East 61.20 feet to a point; Thence South 00°47'17- West 208.37 feet to a point; Thence North 89012'43- West 60.00 feet to a point; Thence 34.87 feet along a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 20.00 feet a delta angle of 99°54'12- with a chord length of 30.62 feet with a bearing of North 49009'49- West to a point; Thence South 80o53'05- West 61.29 feet to a point; Thence 38.72 feet along the arc of a clockwise curve to the right with a radius of 230.00 feet a delta angle of 9o38'42- a chord length of 38.67 feet with a beadng of South 85042'26- West to a point; Thence North 89°28'13- West 17.66 feet to a point; Thence NoAh 89°28'13- West 1109.94 feet to a point; Thence 24.64 feet along the arc of a counterclockwise curve to the left with a radius of 20.00 feet a delta angle of 70O35'17' a chord length of 23.11 feet with a bearing of South 55°14'09- West to a point; Thence North 70o03'30- West 74.00 feet to a point; Thence 1685.40 feet along the arc of a clockwise curve to the right with a radius of 1587.00 feet a delta angle of 60050'54- and a chord length of 1607.31 feet with a bearing of NoAh 5(7°21 '57- East to the point of beginning Said parcel contains 210901 square feet, more or less. with the right, privilege and authority, to said City, to construct, maintain, replace, reconstruct, remove, and add to, utility pipeline or pipelines, with all appurtenances incident thereto or necessary therewith, in, under and across the said premises, and to cut and remove from said right-of-way any trees and other obstructions which may endanger the safety or interfere with the use of said pipelines, or appurtenances attached or connected therewith; and the right of ingress and egress to and over said above described premises at any and all times for the purpose of doing anything necessary or useful or convenient for the enjoyment of the easement hereby granted. THE CITY SHALL, upon each and every occasion that such utility facility is constructed, maintained, replaced, reconstructed or removed, or added to, restore the premises of the Grantors, and any improvement disturbed by the City, to as good condition as they ware in prior to any such installation or work, but if not practicable, then pay to Grantors reasonable compensation. THE GRANTORS, heirs and assigns, reserve the right to use the premises for walkways, driveways, planting, and related purposes, and all utility facilities shall be at a depth consistent with these purposes. EXCEPTION: No structure shall be placed within the easement, or within 45° projection upward from the bottom of the pipe. liE Accepted by the Woodbum City Council on ,., 2001 State of Washington ) County 0~ S.S. Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn. Oregon Be it remembered that on this ~/"a~Lday of ~v/~t'., 2001 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Robert L. Blume~to me personally known, who did say that he, Robert L. Blume is president and of Capital Development Company, Inc. and that this agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors and said Robert L. Blume does hereby acknowledge execution of this instrument to be a free act and deed. In witness thereof I set my hand and affix my stamp. ~ My Commission Expires: .///~/~'-"O ~ llE ATTACHMENT "B 1" liE ATTACHMENT "A2" liE UTILITY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that The Capital Development Company, for the consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable considerations to them paid, the receipt whereof hereby is acknowledged, hereby do forever grant unto the CITY OF WOODBURN, a Municipal Corporation of Marion County, Oregon referred to herein as the CITY, a permanent right-of-way and easement over and along the full width and length of the premises described as follows, to wit: A parcel of land situate in the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No.98, in the S.W. % of section 12 and the NW. ¼ of section 13. Township 5 South, Range 2 West. Willamelte Meridian. Marion County, City of Woodbum, Oregon. said parcel is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 5/8" iron rod marking the Southwest comer of the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No.98, in said Township and Range; Thence North 1°03'22" East a distance of 2299.55 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence North 35°53'54" East, a distance of 24.58 feet to a point; Thence South 41°39'49" East, a distance of 774.45 feet to a point; Thence 24.03 feet along the arc of a counter clockwise curve to the dght with a radius of 1587.00 feet a delta angle of 0°52'04' and a chord length of 24.03 feel with a beadng of South 51°17'33- West to a point; Thence North 41°39'49" West, a distance of 767.91 feet to the Point of Beginning. said parcel contains 18508 square feet, more or less. with the right, privilege and authority, to said City, to construct, maintain, replace, reconstruct, remove, and add to, utility pipeline or pipelines, with all appurtenances incident thereto or necessary therewith, in, under and across the said premises, and to cut and remove from said right-of-way any trees and other obstru~ons which may endanger the safety or interfere with the use of said pipelines, or appurtenances attached or connected therewith; and the right of ingress and egress to and over said above described premises at any and all times for the purpose of doing anything necessary or useful or convenient for the enjoyment of the easement hereby granted. THE CITY SHALL, upon each and every occasion that such utility facility is constructed, maintained, replaced, reconstructed or removed, or added to, restore the premises of the Grantors, and any improvement disturbed by the City, to as good condition as they were in prior to any such installation or work, but if not practicable, then pay to Grantors reasonable compensation. THE GRANTORS, heirs and assigns, reserve the right to use the premises for walkways, driveways, planting, and related purposes, and all utility facilities shall be at a depth consistent with these purposes. EXCEPTION: No structure shall be placed within the easement, or within 45° proj~fion upward from the bo...Eom of the pipe. Ca--pital Development Co., Inc. Robert L. Blume - President on ,2001 State of Washington ) County o~ S.S. Man/Tennant, City Recorder . City of Woodbum. Oregon Be it remembered that on this ~ 1~.~ day of ~i4ta~4 , 2001 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Robert L. Blun~e to me personally known, who did say that he, Robert L. Blume is president and of Capital Development Company, Inc. and that this agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors and said Robert L. Blume does hereby acknowledge execution of this instrument to be a free act and deed. In witness thereof I set my hand and affix my stamp. My Commission Expires: //"'/? -~3 After Recording Return To: Stale of Wa~.l~ SANrJRA E. BURNGS MV Appolnl,'nent Expl~e~ Nov. 19, City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery St >t ATTACHMENT "B2" 0 12O0 pA;:~I=L t ~1.91 AC I "\ ~ £' 103 O0 03 UTILITY EASEMENT lie oooooo UTILITY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that The Capital Development Company, for the consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable considerations to them paid, the receipt whereof hereby is acknowledged, hereby do forever grant unto the CITY OF WOODBURN, a Municipal Corporation of Marion County, Oregon referred to herein as the CITY, a permanent right-of-way and easement over and along the full width and length of the premises described as follows, to wit: A parcel of land situate in the M. Lore Donation Land Claim No.61 and the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No.98. in the S.W. ~ of section 12, Township 5 South. Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian, Madon County, City of Woodbum, Oregon, said parcel is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 5/8' iron rod marking the Southwest comer of the M. Lore Donation Land Claim No.61 in said Townsip and Range, North 1°03'22- East a distance of 2299.55 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence North 54°06'06" West, a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; Thence North 35°53'54" East, a distance of 48.13 feet to a point on the right of way of Interstate Highway no. 5; Thence North 35'57"00" East along the right of way of Interstate Highway no. 5, a distance of 248.21 feet to a point; Thence South 88°52'09" East along the north line of reel 882, page 388 Madon County Deed records recorded September 9"' 1991 to Captial Development Company, a distance of 73.06 feet to a point; Thence South 35°56'20" West, a distance of 336.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 18913 square feet, more or less. with the right, privilege and authority, to said City, to construct, maintain, replace, reconstruct, remove, and add to, utility pipeline or pipelines, with all appurtenances incident thereto or necessary therewith, in, under and across the said premises, and to cut and remove from said right-of-way any trees and other obstructions which may endanger the safety or interfere with the use of said pipelines, or appurtenances attached or connected therewith; and the right of ingress and egress to and over said above described premises at any and all times for the purpose of doing anything necessary or useful or convenient for the enjoyment of the easement hereby granted. THE CITY SHALL, upon each and every occasion that such utility facility is constructed, maintained, replaced, reconstructed or removed, or added to, restore the premises of the Grantors, and any improvement disturbed by the City, to as good condition as they were in pdor to any such installation or work, but if not practicable, then pay to Grantors reasonable compensation. THE GRANTORS, heirs and assigns, reserve the dght to use the premises for walkways, driveways, planting, and related purposes, and all utility facilities shall be at a depth consistent with these purposes. EXCEPTION: No structure shall be placed within the easement, or within 45° proje/~tion upward from the bottom of the pipe. Capital Development Co., Inc. Robert L. Blume - President on ,2001 State of Washington ) County of"l~,.,,s~o,~) S.S. Ma~/Tennanl, Cb Recorder City of Woodbum. Oregon Be it remembered that on this '-~J'~t-day of l~A.a~ , 2001 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Robert L. Blume to me personally known, who did say that he, Robert L. Blume is president and of Capital Development Company, Inc. and that this agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors and said Robert L. Blume does hereby acknowledge execution of this instrument to be a free act and deed. In witness thereof I set my hand and affix my stamp. My Commission Expires: After Recording Return To: SANORA E. BURNES } y_~. 5~l:~,n_t,~-~ t_E~ I_m~: Nov:.~_. 19.20~ City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery St llE ~03 O0 0 FIOTI~ - 11418 AP.F_A AGSEfi, GI~D WITH TAXLOT 290 ON I.(AP 0~2W-13 UTILITY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that The Capital Development Company, for the consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable considerations to them paid, the receipt whereof hereby is acknowledged, hereby do forever grant unto the CITY OF WOODBURN, a Municipal Corporation of Marion County, Oregon referred to herein as the CITY, a permanent right-of-way and easement over and along the full width and length of the premises described as follows, to wit: A parcel of land situate in the M. Lore Donation Land Claim No.61 and the A. Dubois Land Claim No. 98, in the S.W. % of section 12, Township 5 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian. Marion County, City of Woodbum. Oregon, said parcel is more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a 5/8' iron rod marking the Southwest comer of the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No.98. in said Township and Range; Thence North 1°03'22' East a distance of 2299.55 feet to a point; Thence North 54°06'06' West a distance of 30.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence South 35°53'54" West, a distance of 782.89 feet to a point; Thence North 54'06'06" West, a distance of 69.96 feet to the right of way of Interstate Highway No.5; Thence North 35'53'54" East along said right of way, a distance of 887.32 feet to a point; Thence South 00°31'55" West along said right of way, a distance of 69.04 feet to a point; Thence South 35'53'54" West, a distance of 48.13 feet to a point; Thence South 54°06'06" East, a distance of 30.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 57820 square feet more or less. with the right, privilege and authority, to said City, to construct, maintain, replace, reconstruct, remove, and add to, utility pipeline or pipelines, with all appurtenances incident thereto or necessary therewith, in, under and across the said premises, and to cut and remove from said right-of-way any trees and other obstructions which may endanger the safety or interfere with the use of said pipelines, or appurtenances attached or connected therewith; and the fight of ingress and egress to and over said above described premises at any and all times for the purpose of doing anything necessary or useful or convenient for the enjoyment of the easement hereby granted. THE CITY SHALL, upon each and every occasion that such utility facility is constructed, maintained, replaced, reconstructed or removed, or added to, restore the premises of the Grantom, and any improvement disturbed by the City, to as good condition as they were in prior to any such installation or work, but if not practicable, then pay to Grantors reasonable compensation. THE GRANTORS, heirs and assigns, reserve the right to use the premises for walkways, driveways, planting, and related purposes, and all utility facilities shall be at a depth consistent with these purposes. EXCEPTION: No structure shall be placed within the easement, or within 45° p~~upward from the bottom of the pipe. ~ .~'/~_ ~ "~ Accepted by the Woodbum City Council Capital Development Co., Inc. Robert L BLume - Preside~ on ,2001 State of Washington ) County of~ S.S. Mary Tennant, City Recorder Cily of Woodburn, Oregon Be it remembered that on this '~/'l~-'day of ~V[ ~-v , 2001 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally ap .pe~ed Robert L. Blum~ to me personally known, who did say that he, Robert L. Blume is president and of C~pital Development Company, Inc. and that this agreement was signed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its board of directors and said Robert L. Blume does hereby acknowledge execution of this instrument to be a free act and deeck In witness thereof I set my hand and affix my stamp. My Commission Expires: After Recording Return To: SANDEA E. BURNES City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery St liE ATTACHMENT "B4" Il) lie 5,00 '31 ' 55 69 Oa' EXH.[B ~[T UTILITY EASEMENT 'NORTH 1 "=300 DETENTION EAE City of Woodburn Police Department 270 Montgomery Street STAFF REPORT Woodburn OR 97071 (503) 982-2345 Date: From: To: July 3, 2001 Paul Null, Chief of Police Mayor and City Council Through: John Brown, City Administrator Subject: Liquor License Application - Change in Ownership and Business Name Applicants: JB-DB and Company LLC P.O. Box 21780 Keizer, OR 97307 Location: Jack and Donna Babbitt 1896 Modoc St. Keizer, OR 97307 Ranch Restaurant and Lounge (formerly The Pier Restaurant and Lounge) 980 N. Pacific Hwy. Woodbum, OR 97071 Ph. 503-981-7112 Licence Type: Full On-Premise Sales - Allows for the sale of Distilled Spirits, Malt Beverage, Wine, and Cider Recommendation: The V~oodbum City Council approve a Full On-Premise Sales liquor license for the Ranch Restaurant and Lounge. On June 26, 2001, the police-~epartment received an application for a liquor license from Mr. and Mrs. Babbitt, owners of the Ranch Restaurant and Lounge. The department has completed an extensive background and criminal records investigation on the applicants. The applicants have no criminal record and nothing of a questionable nature was found in their backgrounds. Mr. Babbitt was contacted during the course of the investigation in regards to the operational plan for his establishment. Mr. Babbitt's business hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday. Mr. Babbitt advised he has also made application for an Oregon Lottery license. Mr. Babbitt advised he will continue to operate the restaurant as established with a dinning room and separate lounge; no live music or pool tables. A police records check of the business revealed the police department has responded to this location four times in the last year on minor calls for service. The police department has received no communication from the general public or surrounding businesses in support of or against this establishment receiving a liquor license. lit: cc OLCC Applicant 1.1G City of Woodburn Police Department 270 Montgomery Street Staff Report Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2352 Date: From: To: July 3, 2001 Chief Paul Null ( [~. ~1~/ Mayor and City Council Through: John Brown, City Administrator Subject: Sound Amplification Permit - Flor Y Canto - Library Park Ordinance 1900, 3, (5) The use or operation of an automatic or electric piano, phonograph, loudspeaker or sound-amplifying device so loudly as to disturb persons in the vicinity thereof or in such manner as renders the same a public nuisance; provided however, that upon application to the Council permits may be granted to responsible persons or organizations to broadcast programs of music; news speeches or general entertainment. Christina Torres, on behalf of Flor Y Canto who perform Aztec dance and Mexican Folkloric music, has submitted a letter to the City requesting an amplified sound permit for a community performance on Saturday, July 14, 2001 from 4:00 p.m. to 11 '.00 p.m. at Library Park. The groulS'has applied for a park use permit for this event through the Parks Department. The applicant has amended the park use permit from 4:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. Recommendation: The City Council approve a sound amplification permit for Flor Y Canto, on Saturday, July 14,2001, from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. at Library Park. cc Randy Westdck - Parks Dept. CHRISTINA TORRES MARTIN, D.C. llG 752 Hawthorne Ave. N.E. Salem, OR 97301 Telephone: [503) 3 ! 5-8448 Fax: (503) 589-9914 June 20, 2001 Paul Null, Chief of Police Police Department City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 503-982-5222 503-982-5243 FAX Dear Chief Null: Our group, Flor y Canto, is applying for a~anp~ed Sound Permit. Our group performs Aztec dance and Mexican Folkloric music. We are planning a community event at Library Park, scheduled for July 14, 2001, 4:00 p.m. tol 1:00 p.m. As an aside, we rent space fi~om the City of Woodburn, Recreation and Parks Department. We will have drums, microphones, speakers and amplifiers. I do not know the decibel level, but do know that it would only be enough to project the folk musical instruments, song, and drum to the audience. We are in the p~x~3cess of applying for the Park Use Permit with the Recreation & Parks Rental Department. This morning, I spoke with Jennifer and she said that the above date is available and that she foresees no problems with permits. I also spoke with Kay Vestal as to the process. We would like to be put on the agenda for the the Council Meeting on Monday, June 25, 2001, 7:00 p.m. If you have any questions please contact me at 503-315-8448. Sincerely, Christina Torres, D.C. City of Woodburn Police Department 270 Montgomery Street Date: From: To: Through: Subject: Staff Report Woodburn, Oregon 97071 July 5, 2001 Paul Null, Chief of Police Mayor and City Council John Brown, City Administrator Sound Amplification Permit - Centro Chistiano Church (503) 982-2352 11H Ordinance 1900, 3, (5) The use or operation of an automatic or electric piano, phonograph, loudspeaker or sound-amplifying device so loudly as to disturb persons in the vicinity thereof or in such manner as renders the same a public nuisance; provided however, that upon application to the Council permits may be granted to responsible persons or organizations to broadcast programs of music; news speeches or general entertainment. The police department has received a request for a sound amplification permit from Noe Pineda, Pastor of Ce~tro Cristiano, to accommodate two outdoor services. The request is for Saturday, July 14, 2001, from 4:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at Library Park and on Sunday, July 15, 2001 from 5:00 - 8:30 p.m., at Centro Cristiano, 257 W. Lincoln Street. The Parks Department has already scheduled an event at Library Park for Saturday, July 14th and cannot accommodate Pastor Pineda's request for that day and time. Recommendation: The City Council approve a sound amplification permit for Centro Cristiano for Sunday, July 15, 2001, from 5:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at 257 W. Lincoln Street. cc Randy Westrick, Parks Dept. llH C .N'I'RO CRIS IANO 257 W. Llncol~ St. ~, PO BOX 476 ~, Woodbum, Oregon 97071 e Country Phone 503. 931-1744 ~, Ernail nnr197(~laol.com July 03, 2001 City of Woodburn 270 Montgmry Woodbum, Oregon 97071 Dear City Hall, Greeting in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I pause for a moment to express first of all my gratitude for your service and dedication to this growing community. I'm praying God's will be done and God would prosper Woodburn. I know he will. It's that time of year that we at Centro Cristiano plan for an outdoor event. We are asking for a City permit to have an out door service, July 1~, 2001 at the platform of the Public Library from 4:00 P.M.- 8:30 P.M. Saturday afternoon. Also Sunday July 1~', 2001 at Centro Cristiano 257 W. Lincoln St. Woodburn from 5:00 P.M.-8:30 P.M. Both events would be having live music and require a PA System. Sincerely, Pastor Noe Pineda July 9, 2001 11I TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council City Administrator Executive Employee Performance Evaluations Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council provide an opportunity for public comment on the form and process for evaluating the City Administrator and City Attorney. Backeround: In each of the last two years, the City Council discussed a form and process for evaluating the City Administrator and City Attorney. State statute requires an opportunity for public comment on the process for evaluating the City Administrator. The City Attorney suggested the same opportunity for public comment be given before the Council evaluated his performance. An evaluation format was approved and used for the Attorney and the Administrator. The approved form allowed you to rate your executive managers on the basis of how well we perform our job responsibilities, on our work methods, and our personal work characteristics. It also allowed you to establish a performance development plan for us for the coming evaluation period. The plans are the basis for subsequent evaluations. The form also defined criteria and provided a framework for compensation adjustments. Based on comments received during last year's evaluations, the compensation portion of the form has been revised. Forms used in 1999 and 2000 provided for five percent (5%) salary increases upon a finding of satisfactory performance, and allowed for negotiation of a higher percentage with findings of better than satisfactory performance. Revisions eliminate the 5 percent for satisfactory performance, and base any salary increase on negotiation. Discussion: Attached is the revised evaluation form. It is provided for your review and comment, prior to that evaluation, so any changes you want to make can be publicly discussed. You are again requested to approve the evaluation format. Each of you will complete the form prior to evaluations of the City Attorney and myself. Mr. Shields' evaluation is scheduled for July 23, 2001. My evaluation is scheduled for September 10, 2001. Evaluations are conducted in closed session unless either of us requests an evaluation in open session. You will discuss your individual rating responses and comments in the evaluation session, and assign, by consensus, an overall rating. Compensation adjustments will be based on that consensus and the result of negotiation. Actions to be taken in conjunction with the evaluations will occur in open session. Conclusion: Your July 9, 2001 meeting offers opportunity for public comment on the evaluation process required by statute, prior to Mr. Shields' evaluation in July, and my evaluation in September. Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the proposed form or evaluation process, please contact me at your earliest convenience. JCB CITY OF WOODBURN EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Name Title/Classification Evaluation Date Department/Division Time in Classification Date of Last Evaluation 11I Part 1. Rating on Performance of Job Responsibilities. List in priority the four or five job responsibilities performed by the employee, referring to job description for the classification. Evaluate and assign the standard which best relates to the employee's performance during the review period. State the reasons for your selected rating in the space provided for comments. Part 2. Rating on Work Methods and Desirable Characteristics. Rate the Employee on the work being performed and on achievement of desirable work characteristics by assigning the standard which best relates to the employee's performance during the review period. State the reasons for your selected rating in the space provided for comments. Ratings should be awarded based on employee's performance for the entire rating period, and not based on an isolated incident. Part 3. Summary of Overall Performance. Rate the employee's overall performance, based on the ratings assigned in Parts I and 2. Part 4. Compensation Adjustment. Indicate, based on overall performance whether employee's performance warrants a merit increase or other compensation adjustment. Compensation adjustments shall not be gran~d for overall performance which does not consistently meet job requirements. Compensation adjustments may be granted for performance which consistently meets or exceeds job requirements, and shall be negotiated between the City Council and the executive employee. Part 5. Performance Development Plan. A. Detail areas where improvement in employee's performance is required. B. Indicate specific goals and objectives to be achieved by employee durin~l coming rating pedod. C. Identify, with employee's assistance, actions to be taken, and resources needed to assist employee in improving performance and achieving goals and objectives for the coming period. Executive Employee Pedorrnance Evaluation Page I of 6 11I 1. Unique and exceptional performance achieved by very few individuals. The employee consistently exceeded all key performance expectations: required practically no direction and work quality and quantity were consistently excellent. With this rating, you are recognizing really outstanding worth to the organization. This performance category should be reserved for performance that clearly exceeds expectations in all key areas. 2. Performance that consistently meets and frequently exceeds job requirements. The employee fully met and frequently exceeded performance expectations: quality and quantity of work were very good and minimal supervision was required, assignments were completed on time or ahead of schedule, and extra projects and tasks were taken on while principal responsibilities were done well. This rating means the employee clearly achieved more than a manager might have been reasonably expected to achieve. 3. Performance that consistently meets job requirements. The employee met and sometimes exceeded performance expectations with a normal amount of supervision: completed projects and programs on time and with normal follow-up required while quality and quantity of work were good. This rating is for those who have surpassed expectations in some elements of performance while meeting or even occasionally falling short of expectation in others. Since this category represents fully competent performance and it will be given to about half of the employees, it should be viewed as a good appraisal rating. 4. Performance where improvements are needed to meet some job requirements. The employee is performing slightly below the minimum requirements for the position: improvement is needed to meet the normal performance requirements to remain in the current position. This rating indicates that without significant improvement in the near future, termination should be considered. J 5. Performance which is unacceptable. The employee did not meet several performance expectation: assignments were not accomplished as scheduled or quality of quantity of work was unacceptable and intensive direction and corrective counseling were required. This rating signifies that, overall, the work was not satisfactory and immediate significant improvement required if the employee is to remain in the position. Executive Employee Performance Evaluation Page 2 of 6 11I Job Responsibilities I 2 3 4 5 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Executing Work I 2 3 4 5 Job Knowledge [] [] [] [] [] Quality of Work [] [] [] [] [] Quantity of Work [] [] [] [] [] Timeliness of Work [] [] [] [] [] Overall Rating for Category~ [] [] [] [] [] Comments: Personal Work CharacteristicS: t 2 3 4 5 Judgement and Decision Making [] [] [] [] [] Ethics [] [] [] [] [] Attitude [] [] [] [] [] Initiative [] [] [] [] [] Problem Solving and Creativity [] [] [] [] [] Accessibility [] [] [] [] [] Taking Calculated Risks [] [] [] [] [] Executive Employee Performance Evaluation Page 3 of 6 Stability Under Pressure I-'] [] I'~ [-i Political Skills [] [] [] [] [] Overall Rating for Category [] [] [] r-i [] Comments: 11I Interpersonal Relations 1 2 3 4 5 Teamwork [] [] [] [] [] Communication [] [] [] [] [] Customer Service [] [] [] [] r-I Overall Rating for Category [] [] [] [] [] Comments: Management and Supervisory Skills I 2 3 4 5 Financial Management [] [] [] [] [] Resource Management [] [] [] [] [] Leadership [] [] [] [] [] Supervising and Motivating Su-T:)ordinates [] [] [] [] [] Overall Rating for Category [] [] [] [] [] Comments: Other Skills Specific to this Position I 2 3 4 5 [] [] [] [] [] 2. [] [] [] [] [] 3. [] [] [] [] [] Overall Rating for Category [] [] [] [] [] Comments: Executive Employee Performance Evaluation Page 4 of 6 11I Overall Rating (Check One) i 2 3 4 5 - Comments: Recommended Compensation Adjustment % Areas where improvement in employee performance is required: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. J Goals and objectives for coming rating period: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Actions and resources to assist employee in improving performance and achieving goals and objectives for the coming period. 1. 2. 3. Executive Employee Performance Evaluation Page S of 6 11I o Rater's Signature Date Employee Signature Date Employee Comments (if any): Executive Employee Pedormance Evalua#on Page 6 of 6 CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development MEMORANDUM 14A 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: July 9, 2001 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator From: Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development/~r2'J! // Subject: Planning Commission Action on Site Plan Review 01-04 and Lot Line Adjustment 01-04. At their meeting of June 14, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a final order approving a proposal to construct two (2) commercial buildings totaling 12,600 square feet on a 0.96 acre site. The Planning Commission's action will be final unless called up for review by the City Council. APPLICATION IN FORMATION: Applicant: Trifan Kamas 13029 NE Miller Road Gervais, OR 97026 Property~Owner: Pamela J. Brooks 7585 Arbor Glen Court Wilsonville, OR 97070 NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant requests Site Plan Review approval to construct two (2) commercial buildings totaling 12,600 square feet on a 0.96 acre site. The site is proposed to be utilized as a home furnishing and equipment retail center. The site is currently made up of two (2) separate parcels, and the applicant further proposes to consolidate the parcels into one (1) through a Lot Line Adjustment. RELEVANT FACTS: The subject property is located on the west side of Hwy 99E between Alexandra Avenue and Mt. Jefferson Avenue at 1333 N. Pacific Hwy. The property is further described on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range I West, Section 8DB, Tax Lots 2100 and 2200. 14A The size of each parcel is 0.48 acres (70 x 300 feet). Once consolidated into a single parcel, the property will be 0.96 acres (140 x 300 feet) in size. The property is virtually fiat with some existing trees along its southern portion. The applicant proposes to remove these trees for the development and replace them as part of the required landscaping. The applicant proposes to develop the site in two phases. The first phase is to include an approximate 6,000 square-foot building space for carpet retail. The second phase is to include a 2,700 square-foot addition onto said building and a separate 3,600 square-foot building on the rear of the property, both to be utilized as future retail spaces for home products. The 3,600 square foot building on the west side of the site is to consist of separate tenants for each of its five (5) spaces. The property is zoned Commercial Retail (CR) District, and the proposed use is permitted outright. The adjacent properties to the north and south are under the same CR zone, and the properties to the west are zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) District. The property to the east (across Hwy 99E) is zoned CR. The front portion of the adjacent property to the south is developed with a dental clinic, and the property to the north has a multi-tenant professional center. The two adjacent properties to the west have single-family homes. P~e2