Loading...
Minutes - 11/13/2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 13, 2001. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding. 0018 ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Jennings Bjelland Chadwick Figley McCallum Nichols Sifuentez Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Police Chief Null, Finance Director Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, City Recorder Tennant 0043 Mayor Jennings stated that he will include an item under New Business for Council action relating to emergency repair work to be performed on an eroding bank along the Pudding River. He also stated that he will be reversing the order of the public hearings and the hearing on the Vacation of Public Easements in conjunction with the Wal-Mart expansion (agenda item lOB) will be held prior to the hearing on the Review of the Planning Commission's decision on Site Plan Review Modification No. 01-10. 0099 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Closure of City Offices - Thanksgiving Holiday: In observance of Thanksgiving Day, the City Hall offices, Library, and Aquatic Center will be closed on Thursday, November 22od. The Library and Aquatic Center will re-open on Friday, November 23rd. B) Public Hearing: The City Council will hold a public hearing on November 26,2001, 7:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers, regarding a Cable TV franchise agreement with Direct Link. C) Public Hearing: A public hearing on a proposed Community Development Block Grant will be held before the City Council on November 26,2001, 7:00 pm., in the City Hall Council Chambers. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING 0131 PRESENTATION: HUMAN RIGHTS AWARD. Doyne Deos, Human Rights Commission member, stated that the Commission presents Human Rights Award to citizens who have worked to bridge the diversity and culture within our community. This award was presented to Elida Sifuentez, City Councilor, who has served on the Council since 1985, and has been a member of numerous boards and commissions including the US Commission on Civil Rights, Woodburn School District Strategic Planning Committee, St. Luke's Parish Council, Oregon Youth Authority, Hispanic Advisory Council, Love Santa Project, and other state and local committees. Ms. Sifuentez works at MacLaren Youth Correction Facility as their V olunteer Coordinator and as a Nurse. Councilor Sifuentez expressed her appreciation to the Commission for the award. 0320 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. City Administrator Brown stated that the following Chamber events are scheduled: 1) Business After Hours - Thursday, November 15th, 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm, at Tukwila Center for Health & Medicine, 693 Glatt Circle. 2) Chamber Forum lunch will be held on November 21 5t with the guest speaker being Police Chief Paul Null who will be presenting a program on "Protecting Your Business from Modem Threats". The location for the forum is the Woodburn Crossing Conference Center, Rose Room, beginning at 12:00 noon. 0411 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT. A representative from the School District informed the public that the District teachers and principals will be participating in McTeacher's Night at McDonalds, 2910 Newberg Hwy., on November 15th from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm. A portion of the sales will be donated to the Schools to benefit education and the public is encouraged to attend this fundraiser. 0520 LETTER FROM MARION COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. City Administrator Brown read the letter requesting public input on organizational issues such as a change from a general law County to a home rule County. The next hearing date for obtaining public input is scheduled for Monday, November 19,2001,5:30 p.m., at the Senator Hearing Room at the County's Courthouse Square. Informational packets can be obtained through the Council Commissioner's office. Councilor Figley stated that she did check out the website and found the it to be very interesting. Additionally, interested persons can respond on-line to the Commissioners. 0664 CONSENT AGENDA. A) Approve the regular Council minutes of October 22, 2001 and the workshop minutes of October 15,2001; B) Accept the Planning Commission minutes of October 11, 2001; Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING C) Accept the Community Center Planning Committee minutes of October 25,2001; D) Approve claims for the month of October 2001; E) Report update on arsenic limit for drinking water; F) Police Department Activity Report for August and September 2001; G) Building Activity Report for October 2001; and H) Report on Rainier Road traffic analysis and planned action. FIGLEYINICHOLS... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 0691 PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WAL-MART EXPANSION. Mayor Jennings stated that Exhibit A, B, and C maps show "Lawson Street" but the street name should be "Harvard". He has brought this to the attention of Public Works and the maps will be corrected when the final ordinance is drafted for Council consideration. Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7:16 p.m.. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that the public easement is proposed to be vacated and the applicable infrastructure lines relocated to City requirements. There are three easements affected by this vacation process: 1) Hayes Street utility easement; 2) a sanitary sewer force main, and 3) a water main. The sanitary sewer force main and the water main will be relocated and the size of the line will be increased at the expense of the developer (Wal-Mart). He stated staffhas met the requirements established by state law and he reiterated that, if the vacation is approved, new easements will be provided by the property owner to replace the existing easements. He reviewed the staff recommendation, along with the conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report. 1268 Scott Franklin, representing Wal-Mart Stores (petitioner), stated that they have worked closely with City staff on the relocation of the infrastructure and agree with the findings of the staff report including the conditions of approval. He also provided a visual aid of the location of the easements in relationship to the store site. No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposed vacation of public easements and no written comments were received. Mayor Jennings closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. FIGLEYINICHOLS... instruct staff to prepare an ordinance vacating the two utility easements and a portion of the sanitary sewer easement subject to the conditions outlined in Randy Scott's memo dated October 31, 2001. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the enlargement of the lines at the developer's expense is included in the report. Director Tiwari stated that the increase size of the lines are included in the City's approved plans which have been agreed to by the petitioner. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING 1452 PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON SITE PLAN REVIEW MODIFICATION NO. 01-10 (Woodburn Company Stores). Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7:28 p.m. The Mayor declared an ex-parte contact prior to the filing ofthe appeal. Since then, he has taken 5 of the 6 Councilors to view the site to better acquaint them with the issue before them. He stated that he has worked on this issue over the last 30 days trying to get the public hearing established and requesting the Council to bring it up for a public hearing. Other than that, he has not tried to convince Councilors to vote one way or the other nor would he attempt to do so. Councilor Figley stated that she was taken on a site visit to see what was going on and being talked about as far as the road specifically. Councilor McCallum also declared that he had visited the site, discussed it with the Mayor, and discussed it with City staff. Councilors Nichols, Sifuentez, and Chadwick also declared that they had visited the site with the Mayor. City Attorney Shields stated that this is also the time for anyone to challenge anyone's right to participate or rebut anything that has been put into the record. Since there were no challenges stated for the record, Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required by ORS Chapter 197. 1950 Mayor Jennings stated that the intent for re-opening this hearing is to discuss the ruling by the Planning Commission which denied the applicant's request to be relieved of building of the road on Arney Lane. Community Development Director Mulder stated that the Council had called this item for review and as such, it has been noticed as a de novo public hearing which will allow new evidence and testimony to be presented by any party. The Planning Commission considered a request by Craig Realty Group to amend two conditions of approval for Phases II and III of Woodburn Company Stores which were previously imposed on Site Plan Review #00-18. The applicant has proposed the following modifications to the approved site plan #00-18: 1) eliminate the westerly driveway and fire department turnaround; 2) construction of road consisting of a 44-foot wide travel surface with curb, gutter, sidewalk and planting strip on each side of Arney Lane between Arney Road on the east and the west end of the easterly driveway on Arney Lane; 3) dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way to accomplish the modified improvements; 4) widen the easterly driveway to 36 feet to provide for truck access to and from the Woodburn Company Stores since the original plan had a driveway at a different location; 5) dedicate the necessary public easements in favor of the City; and 6) no right-of-way be dedicated for Arney Lane west of the west end of the easterly driveway nor to make any public improvements beyond the easterly driveway. At the October 11 th meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a final order amending Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING the conditions of approval that would approve all of the applicant's requests except for the proposal to not dedicate right-of-way nor make any public improvements beyond the easterly driveway. The Planning Commission determined that the right-of-way dedication and improvements were to be made which were voluntarily proposed by the applicant, and approved by the Planning Commission, under Site Plan #00-18. It was noted that Site Plan #00-18 requires dedication of land and improvement of Arney Lane from existing Arney Road westerly to the west boundary of the subject property. The Planning Commission's decision also allowed for the deferral of dedication and improvement of Arney Lane to occupancy of Phase III which the applicant, at the hearing, stated that it would be several years into the future. Subsequent to the Council's calling this action up for hearing, staff has had discussions regarding potential defense of the Planning Commission's decision if it were to be challenged. It is the consensus of staff that the City would have a strong case to uphold the Planning Commission decision based on the argument that the applicant waived its right to challenge the conditions of approval on the original decision when it did not appeal that decision. The staff report in the Council packet also goes into some analysis of potential legal issues and provides the Council with some alternatives that could be considered. The Council has the following options in regard to this hearing: 1) concur with the Planning Commission's final order amending certain conditions of approval in Site Plan Review 00-18; 2) amend the conditions of approval in a different manner; or 3) choose not to amend the conditions of approval in Site Plan Review #00-18. 2458 Mayor Jennings questioned if the property to the north and west of the subject property is outside of the city limits and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Director Mulder confirmed that the area identified by the Mayor is outside the city limits and however, as part of the UGB, the property to the west is within the UGB but the property to the north is outside the UGB. Councilor Figley questioned how Phases II and III would be served by delivery trucks. Director Mulder stated that delivery trucks for Phases II and III would enter from Arney Lane, go through the drive aisle to the back of the building. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the extension of Arney Lane is intended to serve the property to the west of the subject property that is within the UGB. Director Mulder stated that the extension would provide a second public access to the property west of the subject property which is designated as high density residential. The Mayor stated that, off of Woodland Avenue, there is also a dedicated area that is outside of the UGB and, ifin fact the 2 parcels outside of the city limits but within the UGB want to develop, it will not benefit Woodburn Company Stores. According to the Transportation System Plan, the only way Company Stores would benefit is if the road would go east all of the way across to Woodland Avenue. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING Councilor Bjelland stated that the parcels do require access and Arney Lane would be an access point. Director Mulder stated that Sprague Lane does provide an access to one parcel while the second access, which would required under the City code for anything over 10 apartment units, would be Arney Lane. Additionally, the Transportation System Plan (TSP) shows that Arney Lane will extend westerly but the Transit System plan part of the TSP actually shows a connection all of the way across to Woodland Avenue. 2751 City Attorney Shields distributed a memo that he had prepared earlier today regarding the legal parameters of this land use application. He stated that the memo was prepared for the purpose of outlining procedural issues that the Council needed to be reminded of with this particular application. The property is building permit eligible, however, Craig Realty has submitted an application to modify two conditions. This application looks at two specific conditions of approval. The Planning Commission concluded that, as a legal matter, the applicant has waived its legal opportunity to object to a condition that was previously imposed. This waiver issue can be litigated in Oregon and there would be a legal argument to be made on that if this case is appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Options available to the Council are: 1) Do not modify the Original Conditions in Site Plan Review 00-18; 2) Modify the original conditions as decided by the Planning Commission in Site Plan Review 01-10; 3) Modify the original conditions to require the applicant to propose a dedication and sign a non-remonstrance agreement. This option was discussed by staff after the Commission had made their decision for the purpose of providing a resolution to this issue. This modification would not require the improvement at the this time but there would be a potential requirement for the applicant to participate in an improvement district if there is a later Local Improvement District (LID) and the issue of dedication for future planning would be taken care.; and 4) Eliminate the requirements of the original conditions and Craig Realty would have no requirement to dedicate and improve old Arney Road. As a matter of procedure, the waiver argument will need to be addressed in options 1, 2 & 3. The Council has the option continuing the hearing and directing Planning and Engineering staff to supplement the record to better document the facts concerning the waiver issue and why the dedication and/or improvement is justified. City Attorney Shields also stated that this is a new hearing since, under the City's procedure, in a de novo hearing the Council has the authority to look at that application even though the Planning Commission has held a hearing and made a decision. He reiterated that this is a brand new application and a brand new hearing on a very limited application which is to modify two conditions on a pre-existing approval. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING 3575 Steve Craig, managing partner of Craig Realty Group LLC, stated that the map he had on display was prepared to demonstrate what improvements have been made as a result of Phase I approval. He stated that all property owners contiguous and abutting Woodburn Company Stores have access including the Stampley property. He stated that the agreement he had reached with Mr. Stampley, whose property is within the Urban Growth Boundary but outside ofthe current city limits, required his company to put a rock base down and, in some future time when Mr. Stampley would elect to sell or develop his property, Mr. Stampley would build the roadway up to the existing paved surface of what is known as Arney Lane. It was also noted that Mr. Stampley has access to Woodland Avenue. In regards to parking, there is adequate parking on-site to take care of the needs of Woodburn Company Stores and it is his understanding that it exceeds the code requirements regarding parking per 1,000 square feet. He stated that all of the parking area included in Phases II and III is installed and he reviewed the traffic flow for truck deliveries. To enter the parking lot, they have found that 80% of the motorists turn at the first entrance at the south end of the parking lot, however, they hope to get more of the motorists to use either the second or third access once the next phases are built. The store management has tried to get motorist to use Arney Road north to exit, however, motorists tend to use major arterials located south of the development. In regards to Arney Lane, the issue he remembers being voluntary about the roadway was the parking along the side of the road. The roadway was included from staff meetings with his engineering group and the City engineering staff's decision to create a package of roads around it. He came in after this and said that if the road had to be built then he wanted to have parking along the roadway which isn't allowed on Arney Rd in front of the mall. He disagreed with the supposition made by property owner Marty Rohrer in his letter dated October 31, 2001 regarding direct route and value. He does not feel that there is a need that is being created by Woodburn Company Stores nor that the mall is generating that need. Other concerns brought up by Mr. Rohrer include the employee parking area and potential tie-up of traffic trying to exit to the north of the development. He stated that they have minimal problems to date with the accesses to the north since most motorists use the most southerly access. In the future, if the property owners on the north side of the mall property elect to build commercial, high density housing, or housing tracts, the City Council may want to look at the demand being created by those uses and then consider a traffic signal for Arney Lane since they believe most of the traffic generated would be for those uses rather than the outlet mall. Mr. Craig also took exception to a comment made in the letter that infers that Craig Realty bargained public approvals in exchange for the Arney Lane roadway. He expressed his opinion that some property owners have seen the success of the mall and they now have aspirations to change their property to another use thereby building off of the infrastructure that was built by his company. He shared with the Council some of the projects that his company did in conjunction with mitigating the impacts determined by the City and State along with the costs associated with these Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING projects. Even though the project has been successful to the general public, it has not been an economic success and, if he would have to do it allover again, he would approach it completely differently. It was his intent to provide the Council with factual information on costs pertaining to this project which far exceeded original projections. He assured the Council that his company has extremely good financial statements that are updated monthly. As his company began to move forward with Phase II, and bids were received for the project, they were unable to build this particular condition which is the extension of Arney Lane. They cannot do it economically and they do not feel that they should do it. They believe that they have very little use of that roadway and, for the most part, it is a private driveway for some of the neighbors. If, and when, one of the property owners has a significant development, that would be the time in which the roadway needs to be improved. That new development would create a need which would then trigger the need for improvements. He stated that he is willing to work with the City by entering into an agreement that would dedicate the necessary right-of-way at no cost at the time an LID is formed provided that they would not be contributing anymore than the land they are giving, which is approximately 1 acre, and the plans which have already been completed which is approximately $50,000 - $60,000 in engineering costs. In exchange, they would ask that the time period for their Site Plan approval be extended and run parallel in conjunction with the LID with period of time not to exceed 10 years. He expressed his opinion that his proposal is a fair resolution to this situation and that it is fair in regards to traffic generation. Additionally, should the property owners wish to develop their property, they will have quality access provided that they significantly participate in those costs. Mayor Jennings questioned Mr. Craig as to why he would want to wait to dedicate the right-of-way if it will need to be done in the future anyway since he would not be paying taxes on dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Craig stated that his concern is that the roadway might not be built and the result is having property that is not maintained once it is dedicated without having to obtain right of entry permits. If an agreement is negotiated, he feels that language could be included that would require them to maintain the property. 6368 Mike Robinson, attorney representing Craig Realty Group, spoke on the legal issues involved in this application. In reference to Figure 29 of the Transporation System Plan (TSP), it shows a connection from Arney Rd by Arney Lane back to the west. In Figure 32 in the Transit Plan, it shows this same area. In his opinion the TSP is not revelant to the Council's decision since the TSP is a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and not incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance. He stated that Figure 29 shows that Arney Lane is a potential local street connection and there is no definitive requirements in the TSP that the connection be built nor does it show how it is going to be developed to the west. Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING Tape 2 0008 Attorney Robinson stated that TSP Section 9.2.3 lists required street upgrades and Arney Lane is not on the list, and even though it may be a potential street, it is not shown as an upgrade. Another point he made is that in Figure 32 of the TSP Transit Plan, it shows as a dash line with a notation that it is an optional bus routing in future as area develops. In regards to the elimination of the westerly driveway on Arney Lane, the applicant will be enhancing the paving back through the parking lot so that emergency vehicles and trucks can use it without having the paving break up. He reviewed comments that he made at the Planning Commission which included his statement that 1) Arney Lane is not needed to serve nor does it benefit Woodburn Company Stores and 2) with the change in the economy, this is not a cost that Woodburn Company Stores should have to bear at this time. He reviewed the following 5 reasons for which the City should approve the application: 1) there is no code requirement that requires either the dedication or the improvement; 2) there is no need for the improvement to the west since the properties currently have accesses in place; 3) the road is not needed to serve anything that is going on in Woodburn Company Stores; 4) all of the traffic studies have shown that access is more than sufficient from Arney Road and it has reduced the impact on Arney Lane; and 5) the proposed condition of approval will still leave Craig Realty Group in a position to where they will have to give up property and make an improvement at some point in the future that has no connection to the impact of the store. He stated that he had distributed copies of his November 13th letter to the Council and, made the point that, assuming all of properties get developed and come into the City, there is no reason why they cannot build the road. He suggested that they could negotiate with Woodburn Company Stores to acquire the right-of-way just like Woodburn Company Stores negotiated with Mr. Sprague and Mr. Stampley. For the record, Attorney Robinson asked that the entire Planning Department file which is before the Council be part of the record for this hearing since LUBA has ruled that the entire file is before the governing body. He disagreed with the City's position that the applicant had waived the Dolan issues by not raising the road extension in the 2001 hearing. He stated that a new application has been made and, under Oregon law, they are entitled to raise new issues. In all fairness, he expressed his opinion that there is no evidence that shows that the road is needed for Woodburn Company Stores and he stated that Mr. Craig has worked with the City and State in making public improvements. Craig Realty Group should not have to bear the expenses for this road improvement. He asked that the Council affirm the Planning Commission's decision in general but remove the condition of approval that they have recommended that the right-of-way be dedicated and the road be constructed west of the east driveway. Lastly, it is his understanding the City Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING Attorney is asking that the public hearing be continued to the next meeting. He stated that he has a problem with that potential request in that if the hearing is continued until November 26th, the staff report is due November 20th which is one day before businesses are closed for Thanksgiving and he will not see the report until November 26th. He feels that if there is evidence that would substantiate this improvement, it should have been presented before this hearing date. Even though the Council can continue the hearing, he requested that the Council vote on this issue tonight. If the hearing is continued, he requested that it be continued to another date after November 26th which would give them time to respond to the staff report. 0602 Mayor Jennings stated that the intent has been to look at potential reliefto Woodburn Company Stores for having to build this road at this time but that the applicant would join in an LID at such time as the UGB is changed and the road is required. The issue is now becoming adversarial and it may be best that the hearing is continued. His initial reaction was that this would be a simple issue in which an agreement could be reached regarding the road improvement and right-of-way dedication. Attorney Robinson stated that they had offered to corne down to meet with the staff just prior to this meeting to try and resolve this issue. Mayor Jennings stated that he was under the impression that Attorney Robinson was going to recommend that this issue be appealed to LUBA in the event they are not able to get the Council to agree to their terms, therefore, it would be in the City's best interest to continue the hearing for the purpose of preparing a staff report. Attorney Robinson stated that, at the night of the Planning Commission meeting, no one had told him that the City Attorney's office was going to inform the Commission that the applicant had waived appeal rights (Dolan case). Therefore, it is plausible that both sides are now feeling adversarial. He reiterated that they offered to come down at 6:00 pm this evening to meet with staff but there was not a desire on the part of staff to meet at that time. Of the 4 options the staffhas recommended, the only one he thinks is legally defensible is the one that does not require the original conditions. On the other hand, the applicant has indicated that he is willing to do something other than the 4 options listed in the City Attorney's memo dated November 13,2001. If the hearing is continued, he suggested that the Council direct staff to sit down with the applicant to try and resolve this issue. So far, only staff reports and opinions have been forwarded to his office and their has been no real attempt to meet with the applicant to resolve this issue. Mr. Craig stated that he had been in town last week at the mall and he had no intention of meeting with the Mayor but he happened to be there and they did have a discussion which has been declared at the beginning of this hearing. At that time, he had told the Mayor that Attorney Robinson had not received any return calls from the City staff with respect to this matter and, at that time, he had expressed to the Mayor what he was willing to do to resolve the issue. He suggested that staff members may not have been pleased with his challenging this particular point and he feels that they may have resentment towards him. Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING He suggested that staff looks at having developers pay full cost for improvements whereas he feels that improvement costs should be paid for by those generating a demand for the improvement. In this case, he does not feel that Woodburn Company Stores is generating a demand for the road improvement west of the easterly driveway on Arney Lane. He feels strongly that they should not be responsible for the improvement and he is willing to stand by his position and the question is whether all parties want to take it to the next step or try and resolve the issue. He stated that maybe he should have been more aggressive in regards to originally going after this condition and having it removed, and, after having difficulty with every property owner to the north abutting Arney Lane since none of the property owners would sign a right-of-entry permit so that the work could be done, they began questioning why the improvement should be done in the first place. Upon receipt of the final estimates of cost, it was decided to pursue a modification of the conditions relating to the roadway improvement. He expressed his hope that this issue can be resolved without going any further. Discussion was held regarding time limits in which this issue needs to be acted upon by the Council. Attorney Shields stated that this land use application is subject to the l20-day rule, however, the applicant could provide a waiver which would give the City more time to make a decision on this issue. Attorney Robinson stated that Mr. Craig is not willing to give a waiver. 1221 Marty Rohrer, owner of a farm abutting Arney Lane, stated that he hoped that the City would complete the process on the UGB study and his property would eventually be included within the UGB. He expressed his opinion that time lines are difficult on the UGB process and he would not like to see the Council place a time frame on when the road would need to be built even though right-of-way dedication is involved at this time. His preference is to have the road built at this time, however, if this is not the case, he would agree to the applicant's newest proposal with no time frame. He stated that the property owners have had to give up a direct access to the freeway when the mall was constructed. He agreed that there was nothing in writing about how Arney Lane was going to be improved, however, there were some general discussions where the developer promised that the abutting property owners would be happy with the improvements and they would be back in a position as good as what it was before. A comment was made by the applicant that Woodburn Company Stores does not need an improved roadway west of the easterly access. This is because they have designed it so that they do not need the roadway, however, if they had an access at the west end of the property, he suggested that employees would use that access. Under the current proposal, the employees will have to drive through the parking lot from the west parking area and will need to enter/exit from the one driveway on Arney Lane. There will also be future exit problems at Arney Lane when more motorists use the Arney Lane/Arney Road intersection. If the road is put Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING in, he assumed that Woodburn Company Stores would be approaching the City for an application to allow an exit on the west end of their property. Lastly, he stated that he had spoken to Mr. King from SDC Deacon regarding the right-of-entry permit and he did not object to signing a permit, if it had been forwarded to him, so that work could be done on his property. Mayor Jennings did not feel that employees would use Crosby Road as a alternate exit due to the amount of additional time it takes to get back into town. He also questioned Mr. Rohrer ifhe felt it was fair for all benefitted property owners to pay their fair share of improvement costs. Mr. Rohrer agreed that fair share is applicable, however, he feels that there is a reason for getting this issue decided at this time because he does not want to see future arguments on this issue. 1821 Attorney Robinson expressed his feeling that staffhas not had any problems with the design of Arney Lane/Arney Road and how the traffic will flow. If Arney Lane is extended, he feels that more traffic will be generated past the single family homes on Arney Lane. Mr. Craig stated that during Phase I planning, Marion County had submitted a design speed limit requirement of 30 MPH for this interchange area. The design speed then required a complete re-design of the Arney Lane/Arney Road intersection and it will now be a 90 degree connection. The new property owner near the Arney Lane intersection is uncooperative in terms of the exchange of a certain portion of property in order to make the required improvement. Frank King, SDC Deacon, stated that he had approached the property owners to let them know what is going on and to obtain a permit-of-entry. He stated that, other than Mr. Stampley, no one gave him a permit-of-entry to do grade level and similar types of work. He did contact Mr. Rohrer as a common courtesy, however, Mr. Rohrer did not have any work that needed to be done on his property that would require a permit-of-entry. Mr. Craig stated that the permit-of-entry was, more specifically, for driveway approaches. Many of the property owners want a driveway approach that was in excess of what they currently have. In regards to the Stampley property, they had a pre-existing agreement which related to the 42-inch wide drain lines, roadway, and providing an easement in exchange for the wetlands mitigation. He stated that he has made his offer and, after tonight, the offer will be that they give no property, will not participate in an LID, and will probably aggressively object to UGB additions to the City. He apologized for the way this is turning out, however, he was willing to come back later this evening after other city business is conducted in hopes to get this matter resolved. Councilor McCallum questioned the amount of time left within the 120-day period. Attorney Shields stated that the 120 days expire on December 26, 2001. Councilor Figley stated that, based on the City Attorney's comments, staff has some Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING issues that they need to communicate to the Council before the hearing is closed and a decision is made. She did not want to put the City at a disadvantage nor did she want to be unfair to the developer since they have made some points that have a great deal of merit. Even though this may not be a win-win situation, she feels that there are some issues that need to be addressed as a matter of fairness. She questioned the impact on staff to complete a report if the hearing is continued to either the next meeting or the first meeting in December. Administrator Brown stated that continuing the hearing to the next meeting does not give the applicant much time to complete his analysis of the staff report. The staff would do their best to get a staff report out earlier. The report that is before the Council at this time went out a week ago and the City just heard back on it this morning. He suggested that the first meeting in December would be a better date for the continued hearing. This would then require staff to prepare a couple of different sets of findings and ordinances ready for the first meeting so that the Council would be prepared to adopt an ordinance based on their decision at that meeting. It would also insure that findings were adopted before December 26th. A special session could be called after the December 10th meeting. He stated that there were some issues raised during this hearing that he wished to respond to and requested that he be given some time to make some comments before the hearing is closed. 2629 Mayor Jennings expressed his opinion that the road should not be built ifit is not going to be used by the applicant. If the property owners to the west were to develop, they would be responsible for the improvements since it benefits there property. The road that has been looked at is outside of the UGB, therefore, that road would require County permission in order to construct it. He reiterated that he did not feel that developers need to build a road that goes nowhere and he concurred with Mr. Craig that it is a driveway at this time. He would like to see a resolution to this issue such as the road does not need to be built but there is a need for the dedication and a non-remonstrance agreement for a future LID. This does not take away the right of Woodburn Company Stores to argue about the formula or computation if that should occur. He stated that for what he thought was not very complicated issue has now turned into something very convoluted. Councilor McCallum stated that he felt that the Planning Commission did a good job in looking at the economics and at the fact that Woodburn Company Stores has been an excellent neighbor and addition to our community. He thought the staff had prepared some good options for the Council to look at. However, he is extremely disappointed whenever someone comes to the table with issues that need to be resolved just prior to the meeting. He stated that it is best to try and resolve issues before additional measures are taken. Staff has always been willing to work with people even though they are not going to sell the store. There is a need to resolve issues and he feels that there is an opportunity available for both parties. If one party says that this is it and a decision has to be made tonight, then he stated that he knew what his decision would be on this issue. Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 T COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING Councilor Nichols agreed with Councilor McCallum's comments. He stated that the Council needs to be very careful about not tying the hands of future Councilors. He felt that the Council could finalize this issue by the middle of December rather than doing it at this meeting. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she had come into the meeting thinking it would be a very simple issue that could be taken care of at this meeting, however, it has now become an issue that needs more consideration. This would include working with City administration in order to do what is best for the City. Councilor Bjelland stated that he had several questions before he made a decision on this issue. He expressed his concern when he hears comments that say a resolution will be brought to the Council whereas he feels that the Council's decision is the resolution and it is not something that can be decided prior to the Council meeting and consideration at the public hearing. He suggested that a joint recommendation would be acceptable but a resolution is the Council's responsibility. He is also concerned about establishing a precedent from the standpoint of approvals that access needs to be made to abutting properties so that it does not inhibit development of adjoining properties. He sees the extension of a road as a necessary transportation element for the City to address the needs of the property to the west which is within the UGB and zoned for high density family. Development of this property would require more than a lane or driveway in order to achieve a site plan approval from their standpoint. The question is then what is the obligation of a property owner to provide that access to adjoining properties when an approval of a site plan has been conditioned upon a set of agreements and understandings. He did not feel that is was fair to come back to the Council to change those conditions unless there was strong evidence that it is justified. Therefore, he would want further evidence to exactly show what the City's requirements are in dealing with this type of property development and the applicant's obligation to provide access to adjoining properties. He was also curious on the status of the Phase II and III site plan review in as much as can Woodburn Company Stores build those phases without resolution of this issue. He reiterated that this is a significant decision since it will have potential ramifications on other issues of properties that come before the City and not just dealing with this particular issue. Councilor Figley stated that on the merits of the request, she feels that the applicant had addressed her concern regarding the construction of Arney Lane sufficient to deal with the delivery and emergency service issues for the site. The Council needs to be very careful about what is requested ofth~ applicant since the additional roadway is not needed at this time. However, two issues in the public policy arena and a responsibility of the Council are as follows: 1) an adjoining property who has satisfactory access for the current use of his property but will not have satisfactory access in the event the property is developed at a greater density; and 2) the City has experienced past problems on poor planning, lack of connectivity, and other issues and the Council would be remiss if it is Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING allowed to happen only because the Council agrees that the applicant should not have to build all of this road. She stated that the Council needs to consider that there may be future development in the area and those benefitting from future development should pay the majority of costs. She also stated that private party agreements, some of which have been required in the past, are not always in the best interest of the City and other parties. She felt that any decision made should be made based on public policy to be applied even-handily to all of the applicants. She expressed her opinion that Mr. Craig should not have to build the whole road, however, there should be a dedication of property and some written assurance that he will not object to a future LID. Her primary concerns are the access issue, the way in which the transportation plan fits into the overall scheme, and giving staff sufficient time to bring forth additional information on the waiver issue. Mayor stated that, when the TSP was being developed, the plan showed the road as "potential" since the area was outside of the UGB. He did not feel that there would be connectivity to Woodland Avenue since there would be a multitude of residents objecting to the increased traffic level on Woodland Avenue. 3899 Attorney Robinson requested that the Council take a la-minute break so that he could discuss an issue with his client now that he has had the benefit of hearing the Council's comments. Mayor Jennings called for a break at 9:33 pm and reconvened the meeting at 9:43 pm. 3927 Attorney Robinson expressed his appreciation for being giving the opportunity to address the Council on comments made during Council discussion. He stated that he has never suggested that he could make decisions for the Council. When he said "resolve the matter", he meant to say to discuss with staff and corne up with a joint recommendation and he respects their position. Another point he wanted to bring up is that Mr. Craig has placed onto the record what he is willing to do and it is his feeling that they are not as far apart as the Council might seem. He reiterated that the applicant is willing to dedicate the land and willing to do the waiver of remonstrance as long as everyone understands that the value of the dedication (approximately 1 acre ofland) and the value of the improvement drawings constitutes Woodburn Company Stores obligation under the LID. He stated that Woodburn Company Stores does not want to be in a position to spend more money to build another facility. If they have an opportunity to talk to staff before the continued hearing date, staff may then be able to bring back a recommendation to the Council that they would be able to agree with. They would like the opportunity to meet with staff on this issue. The last point he made was that he represented Wal-Mart and there were last minute issues with the road improvements. They were able to talk with City staff and resolve those issues so that they were able to present to the Planning Commission a recommended condition of approval that staff and the applicant had agreed on. It is his hoped that they will be able to do something similar in this case. In regards Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 to a waiver of remonstrance, he stated that he had told staff last week that Mr. Craig would not agree to the waiver but, since then, Mr. Craig has stated that he would agree to it if it is done in his way. He reiterated that they want a resolution to this issue and it is not their desire to file an appeal to LUBA. To date, they have not had to file an appeal on anything that the City has done which is a record that more cities should have. Overall, all parties are close but the piece that is outstanding relates to future road improvement if abutting property is developed. They do not know what the LID would look like and, by signing a non-remonstrance agreement, the applicant has no control over future costs. He stated that he felt strongly about trying to resolve the issues so that there is not an appeal. If this can be done, he felt everyone's time can be better used over the next 2 or 3 weeks to accomplish this. If the hearing is continued, he would appreciate the continuance to December 10th in order to give him time to respond to the staff report. Mayor Jennings requested clarification on the meaning of a non-remonstrance agreement. Attorney Robinson stated that a property owner signing a waiver of remonstrance is essentially saying that the owner has agreed, for purposes of counting property that goes into the LID, that the owner is a yes vote on the LID. The owner can still go to the Council when the LID is established to express an opinion on the improvement requirements or on the methodology of assessing costs. Steve Craig stated that his past history with the reimbursement district issue has had a significant economic impact on his company. They are currently in litigation over one property owner, another property owner has only paid a portion of the assessed costs, and a third property owner has decided to pull all of his permits and will not be participating. His company has been left to pay for the majority of costs from the mall to Woodland A venue which is a cost they should not have had to incur and, for the record, if it ever came back up again and they had the right to change it, he would have objected vigorously and the shopping center would not have been built had the condition been imposed on his company. This is why there are such hard feelings at this meeting since damage has been severely done to his company over this and there is mistrust as to what the Public Works Dept. will come up with as far as a proportionate amount of cost that their property would be encumbered with and, ifhe was to sign the waiver tonight, it would give them the ability to assess any cost. This is why his proposal is to accept their plans and accept their property but, in as much as the road does not benefit their property beyond what they are doing, let the property owners who do benefit from it pay for the improvement costs. He reminded the Council that his company is already building about 20% of Arney Lane and all of those costs will be lost when an LID is finally formed. He urged the Council to consider his comments as to why he has taken his current position. Attorney Robinson suggested that they will be returning to the Council in about 1 month and, if it is possible, he would like to meet with staff before the staff report is prepared to see what options might be possible and the staff could understand their position on this issue with the hope of providing a recommendation that they could agree with. Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING Mayor Jennings questioned if they would reconsider an extension of the 120 day rule. Attorney Robinson stated that if extra time is needed to try and resolve this issue, they would be willing to give an extension of the 120 day rule. 4995 Administrator Brown stated that he was a little disturbed that there may have been a some indication that the staff has not been cooperative enough. He requested an opportunity to provide some history to the Council on this development. In his position, he has the opportunity to talk to staff and applicants on a one-to-one basis to see where everyone is coming from whereas the Council is limited to the exposure to information in the hearing and to make decisions based on the record. He feels that he has a better idea of what the motivations and intentions are from staff than most people along with how staff has worked through this project. He stated that staff members take into consideration the consistent application of city codes and the rules and regulations the Council have established. The Community Development Director tries to balance these issues when making recommendations to the Commission and Council, the City Attorney looks at these issues for the purpose of protecting the City, and the Public Works Director tries to adhere to Council policy that development is going to pay for itself when possible and at the greatest amount of public benefit that can be gained from the kinds of decisions that recommended to the Council. He does not feel that this project is any different than others that have been before the City. Since he came to the City in September 1998, the staff has made this project their highest priority every time something came up and, over the last 3 years, this has been a very needy project which has taken a large amount of staff time to bring the mall to the opening and try to resolve some of the problems that have surfaced. He is not going to argue with Mr. Craig's comments that he has spent a tremendous amount of money building this project, however, this project has been built with business in mind and much of what has been done, if not all, is a cost of doing business. At a number oftimes along the way, City staff involved itself in this project in order to try and make some of the conditions of approval work for the developer. In regards to the wetlands mitigation, along with the storm drain culvert, the City streamlined the opportunity for the developer to get the various permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and he felt that the City's involvement moved the process along faster than if the developer did it on his own. The sound wall was only going to be extended to a certain point since the condition was not specific. The City moved forward and contributed money to the wall to extend it to the length that the commenting public had intended to see it to, along with getting a wall that would be aesthetically pleasing, and the City and applicant worked together on this issue. The taper on Woodland Avenue required the City to take on some small level of paving which was done without any objection from staff. Additionally, when the initial building permits were to be taken out for this project, the staff administratively deferred the acceptance of system development charges and traffic impact fees for several months which allowed the applicant to Page 17 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING maintain some level of interest earnings on the money instead of putting it into the City's funds. The reimbursement district has been brought up as a sore spot by the developer but what is forgotten is that the original condition of approval required the applicant to form an LID and he ran up against opposition from the property owners in the area, in addition to legal issues, because of property being located either inside or outside of the city limits. The City made it possible for the establishment of the reimbursement district. It may not be working to everybody's satisfaction, however, the opportunity to receive the reimbursement is a consequence of the efforts the City put forth in trying to develop the reimbursement district. He agreed that there have been legal fees associated with this district since some of the property owners in the district do not want to pay for the benefit they are receiving from this improvement. The waterlines were a joint project of Craig Realty Group and the City since there was benefit that would be extended to the area outside of the development. There has been a number of special hearings over the years to try and accommodate people's travel schedules and to accommodate the need to get things done within certain time frames that were entirely related to this project. A soft opening was held before conditions of approval were completely fulfilled and temporary occupancy permits were issued to allow the mall to open and begin generating revenue. Until recently, some the conditions of approval from Phase I had not been signed off by the City. He reiterated that the staff has worked with this applicant all along to try and make this project move along and yet make it a quality project that will benefit everyone including the public. In this particular matter, the Planning Commission made a decision about the road which, he has been told, was because the applicant had proposed to build this road. The applicant indicates that he was coerced into the requirement and staff will be looking into this over the next couple of weeks. Presuming that this is true, staff looks at it a little differently than if it had been offered up as an option. The applicant had contacted him a few months ago to let him know that there were financial concerns and had asked staff for assistance in what could be done to reduce costs. Staff then looked at the engineering plans to see if costs could be saved such as manhole covers, drainage system, roadway width, etc.. Staff did recommend a number of changes to the applicant that included one recommended to the Planning Commission that would delay improvement until Phase III. The applicant chose to propose just eliminating the road improvement. As it comes back to staff, they are balancing what the Planning Commission has said it wants, what the Council has said it wants, what the applicant has said what they are planning to do with this, and the reliance the public and other public agencies may have had and the actions they have taken in respect to this project. When the Council called the issue up for a hearing, staff began looking at options and, in his opinion, there is no real justification for having this applicant build the full roadway improvement to the end of their property. The roadway has stopped at the driveway and the remainder of the roadway area would not service property and, from an equity and fairness standpoint, he personally does not feel that the applicant should pay for the Page 18 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING roadway. In thinking about the reliance other property owners or other agencies have had on what has been proposed to the City and approved based on those proposals, on the Transportation System Plan, and development standards referred to by Councilor Bjelland, staff believes that it is appropriate for the Council to require that this particular piece of property be dedicated right-of-way for future road extension. Staff also believes that if there is any road to be built, there will most likely be some level of benefit that goes to the mall property. Staff did not purposely give Council a recommendation rather they provided four different options to be considered. Staff believes that the applicant should dedicate the right-of-way and participate in some level of LID and the value of their participation should be at the time the LID is formed. If it is appropriate at that time to apply the cost of the engineering work that has been done if that road which has been engineered will be constructed, then staff will take that into account in all fairness. The City has tried to be fair and tried to participate and partner wherever the City could in respect to this particular project. The staff is certainly able and willing to work with the applicant but time is needed over the next couple of weeks to make sure that the record will support the decision that the Council will make whether it supports an agreement that staff reaches in the meanwhile or supported of a role that the City will need to play if it goes to LUBA or some other area. He recommended that the hearing be continued to December 10th and a special meeting could be held to continue the decision making process prior to Christmas. If a decision is made at this meeting, it will leave staff in a weak position and with a project that may not be as good as what it could be. He reiterated that the staff is working for the Council, with developers, and with the public benefit first and foremost in mind. For the record, the Mayor clarified his poor choice of words made earlier relating to the Council deciding in advance. He assured the public that the Council did not have any secret meetings nor has it been discussed in private. He apologized for his choice of words and will try to be more careful in the future. 6500 Discussion was held regarding a date in which to continue the hearing since, unless there is an extension granted by the applicant, the 120 day period will expire on December 26th. Tape 3 It was also the consensus of the Council that the final decision on this application be made at a Council meeting in which all of the Councilors are present. Attomey Robinson expressed concern regarding the 6-month expiration of the site plan approval. Attorney Shields stated that, by virtue of this application, there is no need to extend the expiration date. Attorney Robinson stated, that in the spirit of cooperation, the applicant will agree to an extension of the 120 day rule provided that there is some cutoff date well in advance of the continued hearing date in order to give them an opportunity to review and respond to the staff report. He suggested that a late December date in which the staff report is due Page 19 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING thereby giving them time to submit a final written argument. In this way, the Council will see all of the staff and applicant responses at their January 14, 2002 Council meeting. It was agreed that the staff report would be forwarded to the applicant by December 17th and then the deadline for all input is January 4, 2002. Attorney Robinson stated that, based on that schedule, the applicant is granting an extension of the 120 day period until 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2002. Discussion was held as to what will be allowed at the hearing on January 14th. It was agreed that the written arguments must be submitted by January 4,2002, however, verbal testimony can be submitted into the record on January 14, 2002. 0723 FIGLEYIMCCALLUM... continue the public hearing to January 14, 2002 subject to the following additional dates as discussed previously: 1) City of Woodburn staff report will be available by December 17, 2001; 2) the opportunity for submission of evidence by the applicant and/or others will be allowed until January 4, 2002; and 3) the 120 day rule will be extended until January 30, 2002 in order to allow the Council to make a decision. Attorney Shields requested that the applicant, once again, put into the record that the motion is being made in reliance upon their extension until 5:00 p.m. on January 30, 2002. Attorney Robinson stated that, on behalf of the applicant, they are extending the 120 day clock until January 30, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. and they understand that Councilor Figley's motion was made on reliance of that extension of the clock. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 0888 COUNCIL BILL 2356 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARION COUNTY FOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL PROGRAM. Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2356. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Mayor Jennings stated that this program will allow the City to take plumbing and electrical permit applications for the County which will make it more convenient for the public. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared the bill duly passed. 1020 COUNCIL BILL 2357 - ORDINANCE AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF SUBDIVISION #01-01 AND VARIANCE #01-06 TO SUBDIVIDE TWO RESIDENTIAL PARCELS INTO 5 LOTS (1810 and 1820 E. Hardcastle). Page 20 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING Council Bill 2357 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The two readings of the bill were 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 2357 duly passed with the emergency clause. 1137 AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TRANSIT BUS. Staff recommended the utilization of an existing contract from Basin Transit Service in Klamath Falls, OR, as authorization to purchase a transit bus from Schetky Northwest Sales in the amount of$138,125.00. FIGLEYINICHOLS... authorize utilizing an existing public agency contract with Basin Transit Service for the purchase of a transit bus from Schetky Northwest Sales for $138,125.00. The motion passed unanimously. 1155 REOUEST FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT: Woodburn Company Stores. A request was submitted by Woodburn Company Stores for the purpose of allowing for live musical entertainment in conjunction with their Christmas tree lighting ceremony. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve a sound amplification permit for Woodburn Company Stores on Sunday, November 18,2001, from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm. The motion passed unanimously. 1180 LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION: SALVADOR'S BAKERY 111.320 N. Pacific Hiehway. Police Chief Null recommended the approval of the limited on-premise liquor license application submitted by Salvador Larios DBA: Salvador's Bakery III. Mayor Jennings expressed concern that so many businesses are submitting applications for liquor licenses within the City. FIGLEYIBJELLAND.... Approve a limited on-premise liquor license for Salvador's Bakery III located at 320 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. 1258 COUNCIL BILL 2358 - ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REAPPORTIONMENT OF WARD BOUNDARIES AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 2075. Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2358. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only. Mayor Jennings expressed his appreciation to Community Development and Public Works staff in getting the maps ready for this meeting. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2358 duly passed with the emergency clause. Page 21 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING 1418 NEW BUSINESS: EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO ERODED BANK ALONG THE PUDDING RIVER IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE W ASTEW A TER TREATMENT PLANT DISCHARGE LINE. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that some emergency work needs to be done to protect the Pudding River Bank. Dean Morrison, Project Engineer, reviewed the staff memo along with the attached contour map which shows that erosion is taking place along the Pudding River bank and it is necessary to perform emergency rip-rap work prior to slope failure. It is anticipated that permission to complete the work from the Division of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers is expected during the week of November 12,2001. FIGLEYINICHOLS... City acts as general contractor and hire sub-contractors to accomplish the emergency river bank rip-rap work prior to slope failure at an estimated cost of$27,000.00. Director Tiwari stated that funds are available to perform this emergency work. The motion passed unanimously. 1734 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS: A) Approval of Variance 01-11 to increase the size of an existing free-standing sign for an additional sign panel and to add a wall sign for Silverton Hospital Urgent Care Center located at 1014 Newberg Highway B) Approval of Partition 01-04 to partition a 148.76 acre lot into 2 parcels located west of Harvard Drive and south of Evergreen Road C) Approval of Partition 01-05 to partition a .91 acre property into 2 lots located along Stark Street and "A" Street Mayor Jennings stated that with the approval of Variance 01-11 the sandwich board sign will be removed from that location. No action was taken by the Council on these Planning Commission actions. 1806 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Financial System Purchase: City Administrator Brown stated that if the Council is agreeable to the financing of the new computer financial system in-house rather than a lease purchase, it will commit the Council to a budget transfer and supplemental budget hearing in January 2002. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the purchase as recommended by staff. 1861 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Nichols invited the community to attend the Homeschooler's program that is being presented at the Nazarene Church on Saturday, November 17th, at 1 :00 pm and 4:00 pm. Page 22 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING Councilor Figley thanked those who were responsible for getting the new City Logo sign in the City Hall Council Chambers. Councilor McCallum stated that he had attended the League of Oregon Cities conference and he felt that it was very worthwhile program. Councilor McCallum also stated that Woodburn Together will be presenting a Community Forum on December 3rd relating to Modem Threats. This forum is based on the forum in which Sheriff Raul Ramirez had presented several weeks ago in Salem for community leaders. A location has not been decided upon as of yet but presenters will include Police, Fire, Marion County Emergency Management, Red Cross, Public Health, Schools, and the Justice Department. It is anticipated that the program will be about 1 ~ hours is duration. Councilor Bjelland stated that MW ACT had a special meeting called to address the prioritization of projects since Keizer, which had been the #2 project on the small project list, had been bounced off at the Region II meeting due to concerns with some issues on their original application. They submitted a revised application for a $500,000 project rather than the initial $2 million project and they asked MW ACT to reconsider that application along with some other issues during discussion ofthat project. MW ACT was also informed that the Transportation Commission was asking that Regions submit an "A" list and a "B" list with the "A" list representing those project which would use the money that was allocated to the Regions for modernization and preservation. The "B" list would be submitted in case any of the projects on the "A" list were not funded at the amount originally estimated or removed from the list. He feels that he was successful in getting the Woodburn Interchange project to be included in at least the "B" list assuming that the City could look at exploring some phasing of the project. Staff has had some preliminary discussions with ODOT on this issue. Administrator Brown stated that City staff is trying to get a meeting with ODOT staff members scheduled for November 14th and, ifnot, there will be a meeting before the end of the week. 2261 Councilor Bjelland questioned if, in the recent civil infraction ordinance, the $500 penalty is the actual amount levied or is it an amount in which the Judge has the discretion to levy. Attorney Shields stated that the Judge takes the position that, if the defendant makes an appearance, she has discretion on how much a defendant is fined. Councilor Sifuentez invited the Council, staff, and interested persons to an Open House at MacLaren on November 16th, to celebrate their 75th Anniversary. In order to attend, she does need to be contacted in advance so that names can be entered on the list of attendees. Page 23 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13, 2001 TAPE READING There will be a program lasting about 45 minutes and tours ofthe facility will follow. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she also attended the League of Oregon Cities conference and did obtain a lot of information that she can share with the School District regarding youth programs. Councilor Chadwick also stated that she felt that the LOC conference was very informative this year. Councilor Nichols also thanked the Parks & Recreation Department for the Tee shirts that will be given out and sold as part ofthe Veteran's Day activities at the Aquatic Center. 2636 Mayor Jennings stated that, by the end of the year, the Human Rights Commission will have 7 of 9 positions vacant. He is concerned with the lack of active members and he is unable to find anyone interested in serving on this Commission. He requested Council assistance in either finding new members or to come up with an alternative plan. He also stated that he will be submitting a list of City Board and Commission appointments for Council consideration at the next regular meeting. Councilors Nichols and Figley stated that they will not be in attendance at the November 26th Council meeting. 2860 Police Chief Null stated that Woodburn Company Stores is participating in a nation wide event known as "Recognition of Heroes". Woodburn Company Stores has elected to recognize both the Police and Fire Departments and they plan on donating up to $2500 to both agencies. To date, 25 different stores will donate 1% of their November 17th and 18th daily proceeds to this event. The Police Department will be at the mall on those days as part of this event. Mayor Jennings encouraged Councilors who have not visited the new Tukwila Medical Center to do so on November 15th as part of the Chamber Business After Hours. He also thanked Councilor Bjelland for all of his efforts in trying to get funding for I-5/Hwy. 214 improvements. The staff also worked hard to get funding for this much needed project and, even though the City is not on the "A" list, it is still on the "B" list for consideration. EXECUTIVE SESSION. Attorney Shields stated that an executive session would not be necessary for this meeting and he will talk to Councilors individually if necessary. Page 24 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 13,2001 TAPE READING 3111 ADJOURNMENT. FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11 :03 p.m.. APPROVED_~..o.. flM'4 L. ~ RI HARD JENNING , MANOR ATIEST ~--r;:..,,~ Mary Tenn , Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 25 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2001