The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - 03/11/2002 AGENDA WOODB URN CITY CO UNCIL MARCH II~ 2002- 7.00P. M. 270Montgomery Street ~ ~ ~Voodburn~ Oregon CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. Election Day on March 12, 2002 to consider Woodburn Urban Renewal Project. City Hall is designated as an official ballot drop-off location for this election. Ballots may be dropped off from 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. on March 12, 2002 at City Hall. B. Public Hearing on March 25, 2002"at 7:00 p.m. on the Woodburn ~ Development Ordinance. C. Library Board meeting for March has been moved to March 20, 2002 at noon at City Hall Council Chambers. D. United Disposal announcement of Woodburn City Clean-Up Date ...... 3D E. Filing period for Mayor and Council positions ....................... 3E Appointments: PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Presentation: A. Highway 214 sidewalk in the vicinity of Woodburn High School. Proclamations: - None COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce. B. Woodburn Downtown Association. COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments regarding voting seat on COG Board of Directors ............................. 6A Page 1 - City Council Agenda of March 11, 2002 Letter from PGE regarding Enron bankruptcy and current issues ...... 6B e Se BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. City Council minutes of February 4, 2002 workshop and February 25, 2002 regular meeting ................................ 8A Recommended actions: Approve the City Council minutes. Be Planning Commission minutes of February 13, 2002 .................. 8B Recommended action: Accept the Planning Commission minutes. 11. Ce Community Center Planning Committee minutes of February 21, 2002.. 8C Recommended action: Accept the Community Center Planning Committee minutes. Planning Project Tracking Sheet dated March 4, 2002 ................ 8D Recommended action: Receive the Planning Project Tracking Sheet. Ee Building Activity Report for February 2002 ......................... 8E Recommended action: Receive the Building Activity Report. Fe Claims for the month of February 2002 ............................ 8F Recommended action: Accept the claims. TABLED BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. City of Woodburn Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Supplemental Budget ....... 10A Recommended action: Conduct public hearing and receive public input. Be Woodburn Development Ordinance .............................. 10B Recommended action: After opening the public hearing, continue to March 25, 2002 at 7:00p. m. GENERAL BUSINESS Ae Council Bill No. 2375 - Ordinance adopting a supplemental budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 ........................................ Recommended action: Adopt the Ordinance. llA Council Bill No. 2376 - Resolution entering into a new public highway crossing agreement for the Settlemier Avenue Railroad crossing Page 2 - City Council Agenda of March 11, 2002 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. in the City of Woodburn with Union Pacific Railroad. ,~ ...... .,~ ......llg Recommended action: Adopt the Resolution. Liquor license application: El Campecino Restaurant ............... Recommended action: Approve a Compliance Plan as a condition of approval for a liquor license for El Campecino Restaurant; and approve a conditional limited on-premise sales liquor license for E1 Campecino Restaurant. llC Right-of-way acceptance, Evergreen Road ......................... Recommended action: Accept the right-of-way conveyed by Capital Development Company for Evergreen Road extension. liD Em Rejection of bids for pole barn building at Wastewater Treatment Plant ........................................................ liE Recommended action: Reject all bids received on City of Woodburn Bid Number 22-20for a pole barn at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. PUBLIC COMMENT NEW BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions that may be called up by the City Council. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Ao Be Award of Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan and Water/Wastewater Financing Loan Program loans for the City of Woodburn water treatment and storage project ............................................ 15A Boones Ferry/Settlemier/Highway 214 intersection project ........... 15B MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION A. To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(h). B. To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(0. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 - City Council Agenda of March 11, 2002 United Disposal Servi e, Inc. P.O. BOX 608 · 2215 N, FRONT STREET ""-~ WOODBURN, OREGON 9707t-5999 II RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - RECYCLING TELEPHONE 503-981-1278 FAX 503-982-7930 I~ttp:/Iwww.uniteddisposal.c, om FOR -IMMEDIATE RELEASE WOODBURN CITY CLEAN-UP DATES SCHEDULED United Disposal'Service 'Inc., in'coopera~on with the Marion County Solid Waste Department, has 'scheduled ~nnual Yard Debris/Woo. d and Scrap Metal/Appliance clean-up dates. Clean-up date will be April 20,2002 7 A.M. - 4 P.M. at The United Disposal Service Woodburn facility, 2215 N, Front St., Woodburn. Cities included are; Woodburn, Gervais, Hubbard, Aurora, Scotts Mills, Proof of residency required ~and will be checked prior to unloading materials. Accepted materials witt 'be yard debris, wood, scrap metal and appliances. A charge will be assessed for appliances containing freon such as refridgerators, freezers and air conditioners. For more information contact United Disposal Service. Phone: (503) 981-1278. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MIFIDIV TOTAL P. 01 -Mg. MOKANDUM T~ Cra, o~~ OODBURN 3E To~ Through: From: Date: Subject: Mayor and Council John Brown, City Administrator _f Mary Tennant, City Recorder ~ March 6, 2002 FILING PERIOD FOR MAYOR AND COUNCIL POSITIONS The filing period for Mayor and Council candidates is now open and nom~ation petitions will be accepted until Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 5:00 p.m.. The positions to be voted upon by the City electors are as follows: Mayor Councilor - Ward III Councilor - Ward IV Councilor - Ward V At-large position To qualify as a candidate for Mayor, a person must be a registered voter and a resident of the City during the 12 months immediately preceding the November 5~ General Election. To qualify as a candidate for Councilor, a person needs to be a registered voter, a resident of the City during the 12 months immediately preceding the November 5th General Election, and a resident of the Ward from which he or she is elected. Anyone interested in filing for office can obtain a packet of election materials at the City Recorder's Office during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm). Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments 105 HIGH STREET S.E. Telephone (503) 588-6177 SALEM, OREGON 97301-3667 FAX (503) 588-6094 E-Mail mwvcog @open.org VICE CHAIR: JON "RANDY" BROWN MARION COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT #1 CHAIR: MAYOR STEVE LITTRELL CITY OFTURNER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: DAVID A. GALATI February 26, 2002 Mayor and Council Members City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 9707! Mayor 3ennings and Councilors: In accordance with the Agreement of the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, the City of Woodburn, by virtue of its status as the second largest municipality in Marion County (excluding the City of Salem), is entitled to a voting seat on the MWVCOG Board of Directors. Since the City of Woodburn is currently not a member of the COG and has indicated that it does not intend to rejoin the COG in the foreseeable future, ! am hereby authorized by the MWVCOG Board of Directors to inform you that we are extending an invitation to the next most populous city in Marion County to fill the vacant Board seat. Zf, at some point in the future, the City of Woodburn expresses a desire to rejoin the COG, we will gladly welcome you as a member of the Board of Directors. In the meantime, we wish the City of Woodburn success as it strives to enhance the quality of life for its citizens. Sincerely, David A. Galati Executive Director II~IEMBER~ GOVERNMENTS:--COUNTIES: Marion, Polk, Yamhill. CITIES: Amity, Aumsville, Aurora, Cadton, Dallas, Dayton, Detroit, Donald, Dundee, Falls City, Gervais, Hubbard, Idanha, Independence, Jefferson, Keizer, Lafayette, McMinnville, Monmouth, Mt. Angel, Newberg, Salem, Scotts Mills, Sheridan, Silverton, St. Paul, Stayton, Sublimity, Turner, Willamina, Yamhill. SPECIAL DISTRICTS: Chehalem Park & Recreation District, Chemeketa Community College, Marion County Fire Distdct #1, Salem Area Transit District, SalerrVKeizer School District 24J, Willamelte Education Service District, Yamhill Education Service District, Yamhill Soil & Water Conservation District. INDIAN TRIBE: Confederated Tdbes of the Grande Ronde Community. Portland General Electric Company 121 SW Salmon Street · Portland, Oregon 97204 6B March 5, 2002 Mr. John Brown City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery St. Woodbum, OR 97071 Dear Mr. Brown: At PGE, we like Oregonians to think of us because of the job we do and our involvement in the community, not because of the headlines we make. Nonetheless, we've had more than our share of news coverage lately. Given the attention we are receiving, I thought I'd write you and other community leaders to give you my perspective on some current issues. The bankruptcy of our parent company has dominated the local and national news landscape. The hardest issue, and the one that has affected PGE most directly, is the losses our employees have suffered in their 401(k) plans. This has been very difficult for all of us. Yet through it all, our employees have remained resilient and dedicated to Job One: delivering safe, reliable power to our customers. I can't begin to tell you how proud I am of my co-workers. What's more, we have a solid future. PGE is a financially healthy, solvent company with valuable assets. As an independent subsidiary, Enron owned our common stock, but our operations are not affected by Enron's bankruptcy. We continue to be managed locally, by business leaders who are known and trusted in our community. All of our business practices, from our accounting to our energy trading practices, have been conducted with the highest legal and ethical standards. PGE's future will remain strong, no matter what company owns us. If the proposed transaction with NW Natural is completed, we can look forward to the benefits of combining these two great, local companies. If we remain with our parent company, we would expect to be an independent subsidiary of a restructured, asset-based organization. The newly restructured company would have a new focus and new management. As long as we remain a private utility, our customers will continue to be protected by our state regulatory process. Connecting People, Power and Possibilities Portland General Electric I am convinced that keeping PGE a private, investor-owned utility is in the best interests of our customers. It makes no sense to me, given the budget pressures facing our state and city, to consider turning PGE into a government-run utility. Our current structure is working well and will continue to work for our customers and our community. On another note, I have good news about electricity prices. Assuming wholesale prices · remain steady, PGE expects our retail rates to go down, beginning Jan.- 1, 2003. As always, our rates directly reflect the price we pay for power and when those rates drop, we pass the savings on to our customers. I'm proud of how well our staff has managed our business during an extremely difficult and volatile period in the energy market. For example, at the height of the energy crisis, PGE purchased one-year contracts, not the five-year and 10-year contracts plaguing other utilities. This is one reason we can bring down prices as early as next year. It's true that we face uncertain times. But through it all, our employees have remained focused on delivering safe, reliable power to our customers. At the same time, they participate actively in our community. Last year, PGE workers volunteered 105,000 hours to community service. The company continues to invest in the community through charitable giving and active participation in public policy discussions. Just as PGE has done for nearly 112 years, we'll continue our commitment to providing reliable service for our customers and making a difference in our community. I look forward ~6 working with you and other business leaders in the years to come. Sincerely, Peggy Y. Fowler COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2002 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF wOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 4, 2002. CONVENED. The workshop convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding. The purpose of the workshop was to meet with the Community Center Planning Committee and receive a update on the work relating to construction of a new Community Center and/or Performing Arts Center. 0020 ROLL CALL. ' Mayor Jennings Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Chadwick Present Councilor Figley Present Councilor MeCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, Recreation & Parks Director Westdck, City Recorder Tennant Community Center Planning Committee Members Present: Flurry Stone, Sharon Felix, Preston Tack, Joan Garren Also Present: Randy Saunders -RSS Architecture Tape 1 Side A Flurry Stone, Committee Chair, stated that this workshop will give the Council an opportunity to become familiar with the Committee's progress and to give the Committee further direction before a preliminary recommendation is presented to the Council. Director Westrick stated that the site plan design criteria consisted of developing a building footprint, identifying parking needs, and outdoor spaces. The Cormnittee has continued to keep in mind the comments made by citizens in order to design a facility that the citizens will be proud of. The project consists of 2 phases with Phase I being a Community Center with a large multi-purpose room and PhaselI being a Performing Arts Center. Phase I is a building footprint of 24,164 square feet which includes a 7500 square foot divisible multi-purpose room, 2 classrooms, activity room, fitness center, and offices. Total land requirement for Phase I, which includes parking and outdoor areas, is 4.14 acres. Phase II would provide for a 800 seat theater and the total land requirement for this phase is 2.88 acres. If these facilities are located at the same location, there would be Page 1 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, February 4, 2002 8A COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2002 TAPE READING some savings in the land requirement since parking area could be Combined. Director Westrick stated that the Committee has identified 3 site options for consideration. Those options are as follows: 1) Front & Oak Street just east of the Aquatic Center; 2) Centennial Park (also known as the Water Division property); and 3) property on the west border of Centennial Park. The site options 1 & 2 will only accommodate 1 of the Phases whereas site option 3, provided that the property could be purchased, would accommodate both Phases. In regards to the Front & Oak Street property, the tennis court would have to be relocated due to commitments made when the tennis courts were originally constructed.' In regards to Site Option 2 (Water Division property), the City would have to purchase the property from the Water Division since system development funds were used to purchase the property, if this site is selected, Public Works will need to look for other available property for the future water treatment facility. In regards to Site Option 3 (west border of Centennial Park), the City will need to pursue acquisition of some property and it is unknown at this time if the City would need to purchase the full 25 acres or if they could purchase just a portion of the property. Current cost estimates for Phase I is $5.4 million for the building with some additional costs for property acquisition. Funding sources have been tentatively identified as a combination of grant funds, system development charges, sale from surplus property, fundraisers, and a general obligation bond. The bond amount is estimated at $3.5 million which equates to $.26 per $1,000 of assessed value or, for a $150,000 home, approximately $39.00 per year. In the event a bond issue is submitted to the voters in November 2002, the Committee has time to work on the funding details since the City has until late August to pass an ordinance calling for the election. Lengthy discussion was held on site location since Councilors were concerned about insufficient space, expansion, parking, and locating Phase I and II at either the same or different sites. Another site brought up for discussion was the former K-Mart building located on Mt. Hood Avenue. Committee members expressed concern regarding purchasing this property and renovating it to meet the needs of a Community Center. They felt that the building was substantially larger than what is needed (approximately 86,000 square feet) plus it would be taken out the of commercial zone and offofthe City tax rolls. The Committee strongly recommended that the Council consider building a new building at a site location that will meet the needs of our community. Flurry Stone, Committee Chair, stated that the Committee is interested in utilizing available land in the downtown area. They felt that the Community Center would complement the Aquatic Center and provide a more centralized area for recreational facilities. The Committee is in agreement that the facility should be located centrally and the Performing Arts Center constructed at a different location at some date in the future. It was noted that placement of the Community Center at the sites adjacent to Centennial Park will increase the cost of the facility since there is no infrastructure currently serving that area. 8A Page 2 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, February 4, 2002 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2002 TAPE READING Side B Tape 2 Flurry Stone stated that the Committee will bring back more detailed information to the Council on the K-Mart option. He stated that the goal is to replace and existing Community Center and, beyond that, the Committee has looked at a Performing Arts Center. Other issues that could be addressed in the future are indoor basketball courts and skate parks, however, there is a cost to all of these projects and the Committee has been focusing on replacing the facility at an amount that would be acceptable to the taxpayers. Randy Saunders, RSS Arhitecture, stated that placing a Community Center in the K-Mart building can be done but it will be very difficult. o Director Westrick stated that the proposed facility will serve as a Community Center for the next 40 years and, if another Center is needed, it can be located in another area of town. He reiterated that it is not uncommon for larger communities to have more than one Community Center. Flurry Stone stated that the proposed facility will be functional and well-designed. He complimented the Committee members on their contributions to develop a preliminary plan that includes not only the building footprint but outdoor spaces that will beautify the area. Randy Saunders presented the building footprint, building placement, and parking area that would be used at each site. Discussion was held regarding the parking needs if the facility is located at Front & Oak Street. It was noted that there will be parking spaces added to this site, however, there will be reliance on other parking locations such as the city parking lot across City Hall and off-street parking. Another option is to purchase some property in the area for parking purposes. The building footprint is designed to service a population of 50,000. If the Front & Oak Street site is selected, there is an opportunity to utilize the ground level for the mechanical room and outdoor play area. The building footprint will provide for a dividable multi-purpose room in order to maximize usage of the facility. Flurry Stone stated that the Committee designed the space needs based on the success other Community Centers had experienced. The Committee felt that the building footprint could support both service population and projected activity level. He stated that the Committee will continue to look at making general space available to the public for activities rather than making a space specifically designated for an activity that would be competing with private businesses. The Committee's next step will be to work on layout of costs and estimated dollar amounts associated with each funding method to pay for the facility construction. Based on discussion items at this meeting, the Committee will formulate a recommendation for Council consideration. Page 3 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, February 4, 2002 8A COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 4, 2002 TAPE READING The workshop concluded at 8:55 p.m. 8A APPROVED RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, OR Page 4 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, February 4, 2002 TAPE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 25, 2002. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding. 0020 ROLL CALL. Mayor Jennings Present Councilor Bj elland Present Councilor Chadwick Absent Councilor Figley Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Police Chief Null, Finance Director Gillespie, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, City Recorder Tennant 0040 Mayor Jeunings stated that both Councilors Chadwick and Sifuentez are not in attendance at this meeting due to illness. 0084 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Public Hearing: The City Council will hold a public hearing on a 2001-02 Supplemental Budget at their regular meeting on March 11, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.. B) Public Hearing: The City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed Woodburn Development Ordinance on Monday, March 11, 2002, 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Jennings stated that he will be opening the public hearing as advertised, however, he will be requesting the Council to continue the hearing until March 25, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.. C) Special Election on March 12, 2002: Ballots can be deposited in the ballot box located in Woodburn City Hall during regular business hours, however, on March 12t~, City Hall will remain open until 8:00 p.m. in order to give voters an opportunity to drop off their ballot before the closing time. 0139 PRESENTATION: HIGHWAY 214/BOONES FERRY ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that the engineering report is in the development process, however, as part of this presentation, he showed the preliminary design of the intersection which has been prepared in consultation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). He stated that this intersection is currently at a "D" level and, if Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING something is not done to improve the intersection, it will slowly deteriorate to a "F" level which is an unacceptable level. He explained that intersections should be at a "C" level and, even though a "D" level is acceptable, it reflects a slower time period in which crossings can be made by a pedestrian and in the flow of traffic. He stated that it is important that the City continue to improve this intersection even if the State does not elect to participate in funding for the improvements. He stated that staff's goal has always been to keep Settlemier Avenue aesthetically pleasing since it is a residential area lined with trees. However, there are certain trees close to the intersection which are not of any unique species that will need to be removed if the intersection is improved based on the preliminary design. In reviewing the design, the roadway, would be widened both north and south of Hwy. 214 by providing for 2 lanes in each direction plus a center turn lane. Additionally, a bikelane would be installed and the traffic signal would be upgraded. ODOT had strongly suggested that a median strip in the area of Settlemier Ave. and Church Street be installed in order to reduce traffic back-up close to the intersection and this suggestion was incorporated into the preliminary design. The estimated cost for the intersection improvement is $494,722. To date, the City has not received any commitments from ODOT to assist with the funding of this improvement. The plans, however, have now been approved by ODOT and, if the City elects to proceed with this project and construction is to begin this summer, he suggested that the poles be ordered soon since it takes 4 months to receive the poles once they have been ordered. He reiterated that there are 3 trees on the east side of Settlemier Ave. that will need to be removed if the improvement is made as provided for in the preliminary design. In regards to funding sources, he suggested that the City utilize revenues from Street Capital Improvement Fund, Traffic Impact Fees, ODOT, and ISTEE (federal funds distributed to City through ODOT on state-approved projects) and the City not assess properties through a local improvement district. Councilor Bjelland questioned the compatibility of this improvement with the future widening of Highway 214. Public Works Director stated that the City has conveyed to ODOT that they want the improvement to match ODOT's plan for future widening, and according to ODOT, the plans meet their future plans. The only unknown aspect is the bike lane and, by including it in the improvement at this time, it will at least provide some additional area for ODOT to adjust lane size when Hwy. 214 is widened in the future. Councilor McCallum questioned if staff had looked at all possibilities regarding the trees near the intersection. Director Tiwari stated that he had delayed the tree issue for so long in order to see if there were any other alternatives available to make the improvements that would need to be compatible with Hwy. 214 and Boones Ferry Road. Councilor McCallum stated that the widening is necessary at that intersection in addition to improvements that will make the area safer for children crossing Hwy. 214 to the Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING 1288 schools located on Boones Ferry Road. Councilor Figley questioned where the tapering would begin to occur on Settlemier Avenue to meet the width of street from Lincoln Street south. Director Tiwari stated that the tapering will start at Church Street to Harrison Street and it will remain as 3 lanes from Harrison Street to Lincoln Street then 2 lanes south as it is currently. Councilor Nichols stated that he was glad to see the removal of the triangular island since children mn across that traffic lane and motorists do not always pay attention to the pedestri .an crossing. o CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Kristi Olson, Chamber Board President, informed the public that the Chamber was in support of the Urban Renewal Project which is being submitted to the voters. She highlighted the following issues the Chamber feels are positive aspects in support of the program: 1) Urban Renewal will not raise property taxes, 2) it will improve traffic circulation throughout the City, 3) it will improve the livability of Woodburn, 4) it will enhance the image of Woodburn and will become a continuing source of community pride, 5) the Urban Renewal area represents only 3% of property taxes but 11% of total property, 6) it will increase the value of property in surrounding neighborhoods, 7) it will increase employment opportunities throughout the City, and 8) the School District will not lose current funding. Without Urban Renewal, certain areas within the district may continue to deteriorate, require more subsidies from City, risk blight expansion, make our community less safe thereby requiring more police and fire protection - all of which will result in higher taxes for the taxpayer. Upcoming Chamber events include: 1) the Distinguished Service Award dinner on Friday, March 1st, in the Starlight Room at Woodbum Crossing; and 2) Business After Hours at Colonial Gardens Residential Living Center on March 14th from 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm. 1432 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the Council regular and executive session minutes of February 11, 2002; B) accept the Planning Commission minutes of January 24, 2002; C) accept the Livability Task Force minutes of February 19, 2002; D) accept the Library Board minutes of February 13, 2002; E) accept the Gervais Community Learning Center Agreement for library services; F) receive the status report on the 347 N. Front Street building rehabilitation; and G) receive the status report on the Settlemier Ave/Hayes Street pedestrian crossing improvement. FIGLEYfNICHOLS... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING 1488 COUNCIL BILL 2374 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPROVE EAST HARDCASTLE AVE. FROM PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99E TO THE EAST CITY 1658 BOUNDARY, ADOPT THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ADOPT THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, AND ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE. Council Bill 2374 was introduced by Councilor Bjelland. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Mayor Jennings stated that a revised last page was given to each Councilor at the start of this meeting which changes the public heating date to April 8, 2002. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that public notice will be given as required under the local improvement district ordinance and each property owner will receive a letter explaining the methodology and giving them the amount of their estimated assessment. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2374 duly passed. COMMUNITY CENTER PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Park & Recreation Director Westrick began his report by providing a chronological background on this planning project which was established as a Council goal in January 2001. The Community Center Planning Committee was appointed in May 2001 and they have been working on site selection, development of a site plan and floor plan, and developing a funding program. Initially, the Committee had looked at 3 phases to this project with Phase I being a Community Center complex, Phase II being a Gymnasium, and Phase III being a Performing Arts Center. Additionally, site locations were focused on currently owned city property rather than purchasing property with the locations being Centennial Park (also known as the Water Division property), Settlemier Park, Legion Park, and the Community Garden site (located on Park Avenue near the Woodburn Armory). Following Committee review of the sites, they recommended to the Council that the current Community Center and Community Garden be declared as surplus property with the proceeds from the sale of these properties to be earmarked towards the construction of the new Community Center. The Committee also utilized the professional services of RSS Architecture to work on the building footprint, acreage requirements, parking needs and outdoor facility needs. The Committee conducted some site visits in the Portland metro area from which they developed their own plans for a community center. In October 2001, the Council and Committee met in a workshop to review the Committee's progress and the Council refined the mission to 1) look beyond the 4 sites originally looked at by the Committee, and 2) look at combining the 3 phases into 2 phases by segregating the Performing Arts Center and combining the community center complex and gynmasium. He stated that the Committee has developed a plan that would work for a population of 35,000 - 40,000, and the design would accommodate multi-purpose uses. Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING 3846 The recommended floor plan would provide for a 7,500 square foot activity pavilion with a commercial kitchen, a 3,300 square foot activity room, three classrooms, and offices for the Park & Recreation Dept. and building management. It was noted that Phase I, as recommended by the Committee, will require 3.24 acres of land which includes the building, parking, and outdoor spaces. In regards to Phase II, the Performing Arts Center would provide for an 800 seat theater and it would require 2.89 acres of land for the building and parking. He reviewed building construction costs along with any additional property costs that may be required for each of the 4 alternatives identified by the Committee. It was noted that each alternative was either slightly higher or lower than $5.8 million. In regards to a funding package for Phase I, the Committee has identified a portion of systems development charges, surplus property sales, grants, fundraisers, and a general obligation bond as sources of revenue to pay for this project. He stated that the Committee is proposing that the Council provide preliminary approval of Alternative #1 which would provide for a Community Center (Phase I only) at the Front and Oak Street site located east of the Aquatic Center. This location would provide for a campus complex thereby making the recreation services more accessible to patrons. It was noted that the tennis courts currently located at Front and Oak Street would be relocated and there would be no encroachment onto the existing Settlemier Park ballfield or tree picnic area. He also stated that the Committee does not want to pursue the Performing Arts Center at this time since the estimated cost is $8 million. However, they would like to keep this opportunity open for future consideration since there may be joint development options with other agencies or districts such as Chemeketa or the Woodburn School District. Director Westriek also stated that the Committee had discussed the acquisition and remodeling of K-Mart in lieu of building a new Center. The Committee did not feel that this would be cost effective nor is it centrally accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. The estimated cost to acquire, remodel, and landscape the area is $9 million. Additionally, the building is substantially larger than what is needed since it is 86,479 square feet and the combination square footage requirement for both Phase I and Phase II is 60,165 square feet. Concern was also expressed by the Committee in that the Comprehensive Plan could be comprised since the City would be taking the acreage out of the commercial zone in addition to the loss of approximately $80,000 in annual property taxes. Flurry Stone, Committee Chair, stated that alternative 1 will finish the work started at the Aquatic Center by placing the Community Center adjacent to the Aquatic Center and it will keep the City services in the City Center. He solicited comments from the Council on the work done to date and questioned if any other issues needed to be addressed before the Committee submits a design and location for final approval. Joan Garren stated that the Committee had made the recommendation to locate the building at Front & Oak Street since they felt it complemented the Aquatic Center. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING 4850 Additionally, showers and locker rooms were not included in the Community Center since those facilities are provided for in the Aquatic Center. Patti Eamons stated that this alternative also complements the Park & Recreation Department in that it provides for consolidation of offices at a central location. She also expressed her opinion that having all of the city offices downtown will give our City a more professional look as it continues to grow in size. She also felt that this alternative complements the Urban Renewal Plan and placement of the new Center in the downtown area will make this area a showpiece just like Settlemier Avenue is a showpiece in a . residential area. In regards to usage of the shower facilities at the Aquatic Center., Director Westrick stated that this is an operational issue that has not yet been developed. The Center does include a changing room so that participants at the Center could change their clothes before and/or after an activity. Mayor Jennings questioned if Public Works is willing to sell the 5 acre parcel adjacent to Centennial Park. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that if the property is the selected site for the Center, the Parks Department would need to pay the Water Department for the cost of the property. The Water Department would then need to purchase another parcel of land in that area for placement of a water treatment facility. If the Council elects to use the Water Department property for the new Center, then Public Works staff will move quickly to analyze options and new sites that would meet the needs of a treatment facility. It was also noted that placement of the Center on the Water Department site will require infrastructure improvements in addition to building and land acquisition costs. Councilor McCallum questioned if it might not be advisable for the City now to look into acquiring property that would accommodate a future Performing Arts Center at current market value rather than waiting until such time as the City is ready to build the Performing Arts Center and paying the land value costs at that time. Councilor Bjelland expressed his opinion that it would be best to concentrate on Phase I at this time and, after that has been approved, begin the long term analysis of Phase II and what other ways of merging that type of Performing Arts Center with complementary facilities. Councilor Figley agreed with Councilor McCallum from the point of view that the Council needs to analyze long range issues as this Community Center plan is being developed and funding sources obtained so that the best policy decision can be made that will benefit the City in the future. She stated that she is concerned about expansion and parking issues in addition to neighborhood impact. She expressed her interest in being provided with information that Councilor McCallum has brought up for consideration. Director Westrick stated that the Committee has had the same discussion as the Council over the last month. He stated that staff has not approached the property owner to the west of Centennial Park to see if they would be willing to sell a portion of their land. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING 6430 Tape 2 0091 Councilor Bjelland stated that placement of the Community Center at either Alternative 1 (Front & Oak Street) or Alternative 2 (Water Department property) will necessitate the placement of Phase II (Performing Arts Center) at a location away from the Community Center. He felt that the decision as to whether or not additional funds are included in a general obligation bond issue for acquisition of property for Phase II could be made by the Council within a relatively short period of time. Councilor Nichols expressed his opinion that the bond issue should include funds for future land acquisition. He also expressed his support for the location and building footprint recommended by the Community Center Planning Committee. ~ Flurry Stone stated that the Committee's primary work has been. focused on replacing the Community Center which is beyond its life. The Committee did discuss short term/long term future and, in the long term future, the Committee did not want to tie themselves to a specific parcel of land since it may be several years before a Performing Arts Center could obtain funding approval. BJELLAND/MCCALLUM... give preliminary approval to Alternative #1 as submitted by the Community Center Planning Committee. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings stated that the Committee had done an excellent job in providing the 3 alternatives for Council consideration and he thanked them for their time and effort spent so far on this project. Councilor Bjelland suggested that contact be made with the City of Sweet Home who recently built a new Community Center on a limited budget and they had used some creative ways to obtain grant funds and contributions from local businesses. Flurry Stone stated that they had looked at Community Centers in Portland for the purpose of determining design but they will be looking at smaller cities to see what they did in putting together funding methods. REQUEST FOR COUNICL DIRECTION ON FUNDING HIGHWAY 214 AND SETTLEMIER AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. Page 7 FIGLEY/NICHOLS... direct staff to improve the Highway 214 and Settlemier Avenue intersection, including the traffic signal device, without the use of a property assessment. Councilor Bjelland requested clarification of the motion since the recommendation is to plan to make the improvement versus actually moving forward with the improvement without knowing all of the available funding sources. Administrator Brown stated that staff is asking for a decision to take this project out of the assessment district consideration for funding. The City will be as aggressive as they can be in order to obtain funding participation from ODOT and, if the assessment method is not used, it may help the City to get funding assistance. Councilor Figley stated that it was her intent in the motion do what is needed at this time other than establishing a local improvement district. The motion passed unanimously. - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A TAPE .READING 0290 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Brown stated that at the mid-year budget review, staff had requested an additional $15,000 to finish offthe work on the 347 N. Front Street property. He stated that no work has been done over the last two weeks since there is a need for the City and contractor to come to terms on a change order associated with the work in the building. The change order will require approximately $20,000 more than originally estimated. He stated that there have been a number of structural problems that have surfaced that could not have been foreseen until the building was torn down and the largest cost is associated with the re-design of the front-and rear portions of the building to accommodate the '~ design work previously submitted to the Council. Other items in the change order which increase the cost relate to tying into the existing walls, sheathing the elevator shafts, and reconstructing stairwells. He stated that he would like to implement the change order and come back with the funding appropriation next month as part of the supplemental budget. He reminded the Council that this phase will only close the building, make it weather tight, and dean up the parking lot. Funding for the next phase will make the building usable. It was the consensus of the Council to move forward with the change order as outlined by the Administrator. 8A 0724 B) Administrator Brown stated that he had received a letter from the Tulip Festival Committee inviting the Council to participate in the kick-off day festivities which includes a parade. This event will be held on April 13th and he requested that if the Mayor and/or Council is interested in participating they should contact Kezia Merwin who will arrange for the cars. He stated that there will be a number of activities scheduled for that day which include a pancake breakfast at the Elk's Lodge, a Cruise-In Car Show at Lennon Implement, and various activities at the Wooden Shoe Bulb site. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Nichols congratulated the recipients of the Distinguished Service Awards - David Christoff, Ann Finch, Paul Null, Sr. Carolyn Hall, Mike Bergeron, Brian Bauman, and Lisa Ellsworth - who, by their efforts and volunteering, have made the community a much better place to live. Councilor Figley also extended her congratulations to the recipients, especially to Paul Null and Mike Bergeron who are City employees. Councilor McCallum expressed his congratulations to the recipients of the various service awards. He also stated that Fire Marshall Bob Benck is retiring after 17 years of service for the Woodburn Fire District and there is reception scheduled for March 11a from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm at the Fire Station. Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2002 TAPE READING Councilor McCallum expressed his appreciation to public works for the fine job being done on smoothing the pavement approach to the Hardcastle railroad crossing. Mayor Jennings stated that the last 3 recipients of the Senior First Citizen awards have been members of the Kiwanis and the last 3 recipients have been members of Toastmasters. The Mayor also stated that local resident Don Sprague, Sprague Sales, recently won the Oregon Garden & Patio "Best of Show" award at the Portland Convention Center. Mayor Jennings also stated that the Fire Training Center at Brooks is close to completion and our Fire Chief is willing to take the Mayor and Council for a tour of this state of the art training center. The local Fire District will be contracting wilh them to do the training of Fire District personnel. The Mayor also stated that the City Attorney has informed him that an Executive Session is not needed at this meeting. 1009 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/FIGLEY... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.. APPROVED RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 25, 2002 8B WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 2002 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a special session at 7:10 p.m. with Chairperson Cox presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Cox P Vice Chairperson Lima P Commissioner Young P Commissioner Grosjacques P Commissioner Mill A Commissioner Bandelow A Commissioner Lonergan P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community De,~elopment Director Scott Clark, Assistant Planner ~ Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney Also Present: Roger Budke, Planning Consultant Chairperson Cox announced Irv Fletcher's resignation to the Planning Commission. MINUTES A-- Woodburn Planninq Commission Minutes of January 24, 2002 Chairperson Cox noted the name Eric Moyer should be spelled Mohrer. Commissioner Grosiacques moved to approve the minutes with the noted correction. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A._~. Council Minutes of January 14, 2001 It was a consensus among the Commission that Item 5A of the Agenda be placed last and they skipped ahead to Item 6A of the Agenda. ITEMS FOR ACTION A.~. Partition 01-08, Lot Line Adjustment 02-01 and Lot Line Adjustment 02-02, request to divide a t5,145 sq. ft. parcel into two (2) lots and to adjust the property lines of two (2) adiacent parcels, 1690 Laurel Ave., Ivka Cam, applicant (Administrative approval). Staff reported there is no code provision that prevents from having a concrete slab on a vacant property and therefore, that is not an issue. He indicated he does not know whether they can actually build a house on it or not. The Building Official has not inspected it and does not know if that would satisfy the building code requirements for a house. Commissioner Young stated it was his understanding that it would be a similar structure, i.e. shop and not a dwelling. Commissioner Grosjacques moved to accept Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Lonerqan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 1 of 11 8B DISCUSSION ITEMS None REPORTS A_~. Building Activity for January 2002 Bo Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 1-31-02) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION None PUBLIC HEARING A._: Zone Text Amendment 01-01 and Zone Change 01-06, a proposal to adopt the Woodburn Development Ordinance and chanqe zoning designations on certain parcels, City of Woodburn, applicant (continued from January 24, 2002). Staff provided the Commission with a handout with a draft recommendation which.provides a summaryof the comments made at the previous meeting and/or received, with an initial response to those comments and a potential Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Roger Budke identified Section 3.101 Public Improvements of Streets and Density as items that were not included in the handout. He indicated these issues need further discussion. Mr. Budke provided a review of the handout. Staff reported it has been indicated to him that the Council may continue their hearing of March 11, 2002 because one Council member will not be available for that meeting. However, testimony will be allowed on that day but the hearing will be continued to take additional testimony at the second meeting in March. Staff explained this means the Council will not make a decision in March which will allow the Commission additional time to provide their recommendations to the Council. Staff estimated the Council's deliberation to take place some time in April. Chairperson Cox commented it seems to him to be a more orderly process if the Council has the Commission's recommendation before they start to hear testimony. Additionally, he related Staff has met with several people who appeared at the last meeting and reviewed some of the issues raised of which were included in the handout. However, those persons have not submitted any further suggestions or requests other than what was before the Commission previously. Chairperson Cox also stated he also met with Staff and reviewed an earlier version of the handout provided to the Commission which resulted in the end product. He pointed out the Commission is only going to be making a report to the City Council and there is nothing that requires the Commission to address every single issue. Furthermore, he said the Commission does not have anything before them in regards to the architectural review matter and the local street improvements and therefore, the Commission can not do anything other than say that additional work needs to be done on that and the City Council needs to decide. Staff interjected he would like to hear from the Commission if they have a problem with the way it is proposed now on addressing street improvement requirements in the code now. Commissioner Youn.q remarked he sees it as an effective tool for when the developer comes to the area. Additionally, if we can have that flexibility addressed to it, it is not something that is going to make or break a review for single family dwellings but just a tool that puts developers on notice. Commissioner Young stated we are trying to be progressive with our standards. He also commented the zone map item and the composition of the design review board membership are decisions and policies that are going to be formed at the City Council level. Chairperson Cox further commented the issue regarding what should be done with Simonoff's property that is going to be zoned Public and the issue pertaining to lot requirements would require Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 2 of 1 1 8B Amendments. He stated it has already been decided that this process is not going to be clouded by Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Chairperson Cox agreed with Commissioner Young in that it is a City Council decision and he does not know what to do other than bat the ball back to them. Furthermore, he remarked there is a bit of a misnomer about architectural review of single family dwellings. He reported there will not be architectural review in the sense that each single family house is going to have to file an application for approval and come in before the Planning Commission or the Architectural Review Board, if it is activated. What they are talking about however, is establishing standards to make a better quality of housing in the City. They do not want it to be a broad subjective standard, i.e., it should be attractive, because that triggers it into a full scale administrative hearing and the formalities that go along with that. We are trying to keep it objective standards which is basically a checklist of items that need to be complied with in order to obtain a permit. However, that raises the issues brought up by Mr. DeSantis about new technology and things that do not always fit. Chairperson Cox said there has to be some way to allow the variations without making each single application come in and go through a full scale hearing like you would for an apartment complex. In order to do that, Staff is working on some type of process that would still maintain a basic checklist but will allow deviations from it with something less than a full scale hearing like you would for a Variance. Chairperson Cox questioned what to say to the Council whether the Commission is in favor of this concept of keeping the standards but providing a procedure to make the flexibility easier? Roger Budke took the lead from the Commission and said there has been a recommendation basically to go in the direction of the architectural review and pointed out that there needs to b~ some work on this particular property where the City is initiating the zone change where there may be a comprehensive plan later on. Chairperson Cox asked if there is something else that can be used instead of an architectural review? RoRer Budke clarified we are talking about meeting certain architectural standards. He indicated it is a new concept and they are recommending later on some actual specific changes to some of the criteria. Mr. Budke referred to the issue contained on page two of the handout regarding the issue of where the sidewalk goes and if there are street trees. He stated there are three ways to look at that 1) look at the standard that requires every new street to have street trees, and if they do 2) require it next to the street or on the house side of the sidewalk, 3) not require street trees. Mr. Budke indicated Council should deal with this issue. It is an issue that needs to be discussed but Staff did not feel that we had a clear enough idea and it is pretty much a choice. He referred to the issue regarding the 8,000 sq. ft. lot versus 6,000 sq. ft. lot and indicated it is not proposed to change that at this time. Chairperson Cox interjected the companion issue regarding street trees is the question to where the sidewalk should be whether that be on the curb or back on the property line which leaves a planting strip. He remarked this is a policy decision. RoRer Budke further explained some jurisdictions allow two standards i.e., one is to have the planting strip and the other is to have the sidewalk at the curb, and state one of the two standards have to be met and leave it to the developer to choose and other jurisdictions standardize it i.e, all sidewalks at the curb or at the property line. Mr. Budke stated you can either specify it at the curb, at the property line or allow it to be on a case by case basis and subdivision by subdivision basis. Additionally, he stated sometimes you get an s- curve in there because one subdivision when it matches another one you have to flow bend in the sidewalk in order to get them to match up. Chairperson Cox remarked the way it is drafted before the Commission it requires sidewalks at property line with a planting strip and it does require trees. He asked the Commissioners if they are happy with that based on things heard from the audience and on the Commission's own analysis or do they want to see some of the other possibilities mentioned by Mr. Budke? Commissioner Lonerqan suggested to do away with the tree requirement if we leave the sidewalks at the property line. Historically, trees are extremely disruptive and not maintained. Planning Commixsion Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 3 of l 1 8B Commissioner Grosiacques agreed with Commissioner Lonergan. Additionally, he commented if we are going to use the trees, we need to take a better look at what trees are used. He indicated, being a nurseryman before, there are trees that are more columnar, there are trees that hold their leaves and all drop at the same time so you do not have that long leaf dropping period. Vice Chairperson Lima also concurred with his fellow Commissioner's. He feels the option to choose whether trees are planted or not would be a good compromise. Commissioner Younq said from a transportation point of view, it is difficult at times to have clear vision because of trees that are at street line or up against driveways. He thinks trees are great because they do really good things but to him it is difficult to get a good vision line and he has some objection to that. Chairperson Cox pointed out we have required street trees for all new subdivisions, commercial and multifamily developments for as long as he has been on the Planning Commission. He stated he is not anxious to get rid of that requirement because he thinks this requirement is a good idea. However, the list of approved trees which is presently being used, may be revised. Chairperson Cox further commented he is not generally in favor of trees in narrow planter strips Roger Budke suggested the best position at this point is that all the Commissioner's issues be referred to Council and tell them that it is a policy issue that needs to be dealt with. ' Staff interjected the other approach is that this is the best opportunity to have the Commission's voice heard to the Council when they make their decision. He said if the Commission has a united recommendation, obviously that is going to carry more weight with the Council than just saying this is a concern but we do not have a consensus on it so do what you want to do. Staff left it up to the Commission as to how they wish to approach this. Commissioner Grosiacques questioned if trees would be required in the landscaping? Staff indicated this would not affect commercial development. Roger Budke remarked there is no requirement for landscaping for single family development right now. There are requirements for landscape when you have a structured parking area, whether that be multi-family, commercial or industrial and for industrial/commercial there are additional requirements for landscaping the site. He reiterated there is no landscaping requirement for single family Commissioner Loner,qan inquired if the Thundercloud tree species is on the list of the approved Woodburn trees? '° Staff replied affirmatively. Commissioner Loner,clan expressed concerns with having an appro{/ed list of trees and that tree is conducive to a lot of damage and they are not maintained. He stated that is one of the reasons why he is voting not to have any trees out there. Staff remarked the list has been around longer than he has been working for Woodburn. He also commented the tree species list may be updated if that is the issue. Commissioner Grosjacques stated he would like to see that the Commission leave it strictly up to the developer on the issues of trees. Commissioner Lonergan agreed with that. Commissioner Young suggested Staff recommend choice available.if chosen to develop by design i.e., sidewalk, planting strip on the outside or inside, no planting strip. If the developer wants to design an area Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 4 of 1 1 8B and approaches Staff and states their vision is to have the planting stdp so there is a safety strip between the sidewalk and the street, then Staff can then say, based on that, these are the tree species available from the list that will be updated to more modern choices. Roqer Budke interjected there is an A standard-curb line sidewalk and a B standard-with property line sidewalks that would allow for trees and they get to pick by their design which of those they want to implement. Commissioner Young stated you would have the specifications that if they choose to have the safety strip between the street and the sidewalk that would be at a certain distance, that the trees would be specific to column type, leaves fall at the same time and maintained at a certain way. Chairperson Cox stated he thinks it is appropriate to require the trees and it is appropriate, as a general rule, to have property line and sidewalks recognizing that there can be situations where curb sidewalks are better but that can always be handled by a Variance or deviation of some kind. He expressed satisfaction with what is here now. However, there are some members of the public who testified that are not and apparently 4 out of 5 of the Commissioners are not and that should be the recommendation. Commissioner Loner,qan moved to make the recommendation that we make the minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Youn,q questioned whether there would be a problem with density issues? Staff indicated to make that commitment at this point in time may cause us preblems down the read with the State as far as pursuing potential UGB expansion. He stated there are a bunch of hoops we have to jump threugh before we get to the point i.e., buildable lands inventory, housing needs analysis. Staff said they are in the process of updating the Trensportation Systems Plan and we are also going to be preparing land use alternatives which will work off the Trensportation Systems update to provide alternatives for grewth in the City to accommodate transportation and growth. Furthermore, he remarked if we determine that we need to expand the UGB, we have to look at making the existing land use more efficient and minimize the need to expand our UGB. Therefore, by increasing lot sizes, we are not meeting that goal of making our selves more efficient. Staff indicated a policy decision was made when they were going threugh this that they did not want to raise that red flag at this point in time. He explained if the State challenges us on that item, that could potentially hold this up. Staff expounded as we go threugh these other studies if we believe that we can expand the UGB and raise lot sizes to 8,000 sq. ft. and do it in a comprehensive manner, there is nothing that stops us from amending the code in a year and putting that in there. Chairperson Cox added when this revised land use zoning ordinance is adopted it still has to be approved by the State level. He asked the Commissioners whether they would be satisfied if the recommendation to the Council indicated that they would like to see an 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for new residential construction, we recognize the time may not be right to do it now but we want that not to be forgotten. Commissioner Grosiacques stated he would like to have something in there if at all possible. Commissioner Lima reported he received 12 telephone calls regarding this issue and he is representing those people in that they want bigger lots. He stated he personally would not like smaller lots. Commissioner Loner.qan commented if it is going to take Woodburn to step up and face the State eventually, so be it. He further stated there has to be other communities that are considering the same thing. Commissioner Lonergan said it would certainly make a big improvement in VVoodburn. RoRer Budke explained it is really a timing issue to get your facts in order to support it. What you have now as policy in the Comp Plan and Land Use Inventory does not really provide that support. He' further added you have to go out and create that platform to support it on. There are communities out there that have larger lots than 6,000 sq. ft. and that is not to say you should not have that option or requirement. However, what Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 5 of 1 1 r r 8B we are saying is that the timing is not right but then again, do not lose sight of the fact that is what you want. Commissioner Lima requested clarification regarding the time span to revise the 6,000 sq. ft. requirement. Roger Budke responded there is really no limit on when you can come back, it is a matter of when you are ready to come back and you have the supporting documentation. Basically, the Comprehensive Plan, Inventory of Land Needs for the 20 year Urban Growth Boundary~is all nested on_the fact that you assumed and that your policy was that you were going to require 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Furthermore, he stated if you are now going to require somewhere in the range of 20-25% more land per lot, you are going to use up your inventory faster and you will not have a 20 year supply. Commissioner Lima commented one of the compromises mentioned to him by people is livability. If you pack too many in an area, that is detrimental to what we would like to accomplish. RoRer Budke interjected it is not all acreages, it is a matter of what you are trying to achieve as a community. You go and make the documentation in the case and right now you have a real narrow spectrum of choices and what you are trying to do is to make sure you have a broader spectrum. He explained there are all sorts Q[ rationale for it, the only issue they are saying is that the rationale is not all composited and clear to make the case. Mr. Budke indicated any developer is not precluded from having larger lots. It was a consensus of the Commission on the lot size issue for single family dwellings that their report will be that they will go along with the 6,000 sq. ft. but would recommend 8,000 sq. ft. if we had the right to do it at this point because we recognize there are some practical legal problems and timing. Rog, er Budke explained State Statute states there should not be any more than two of any profession and we are just changing that. The other error noted by Mr. Budke that the proposal is to reduce the size of the Commission from nine to seven and therefore their quorum would be four. He indicated these need to be changed. Mr. Budke clarified R1S stays as it always has which is fine for Woodburn Estates but for any new developments there would be no further R1S zoning it would probably be done by a Planned Unit Development RS. It is recommended that an average setback rather than the closest distance be used for rear yard setbacks with a deviation no greater than 5 feet. - Staff interjected what is proposed here is similar to what was discussed which allows the potential of an average setback but setup a maximum amount from which you can deviate from the setbacks. Chairperson Cox interjected Senior Estates is being left out of this because it is a historical zone and it is fully developed. RoRer Budke said the inl~ent was not to create any probability of creating a nonconforming situation. Commissioner Young made reference to odd shaped lots and commented to have a little bit of flexibility of an average but still have a standard where we want to maintain some distance between property development would be beneficial. Commissioner Lonerqan inquired about lot coverage, RoRer Budke explained it may have been deleted from the list because the intent of setbacks is to provide for light, air and circulation in a certain amount of space between people and separation and privacy. Whereas, the lot coverage deals with bulk and mass. He indicated it is primarily a matter of esthetics. Staff also interjected what is proposed here is a change from what the current code is which only allows a maximum of 35%. It was bumped up to 40% which should address most situations for developers. Chairperson Cox commented he personally has no objection to a lot coverage or setback limitation as we have had them in the past and have worked pretty well. He stated lot coverage is not a difficult thing to Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 6 of 1 1 8B enforce but it is a question of whether it is a good policy. Chairperson Cox reiterated he believes it is a good policy. RoRer Budke moved on to the issue of pets and pet accommodations found on page three of the handout. He stated the consensus was that the Council will consider issues connected with keeping pets in the context of the ordinance that deals with pets and not land use. Comm ssioner YounR remarked he would like this to be a land use issue. RoRer Budke also reviewed the issue of buffer walls between zones of different intensity. This recommendation backs off of that and the intent was to use buffer walls only between industrial property and commercial to residential property. He explained rather than having a standard that absolutely has to happen every time. It is a guideline to determine when you look at the site plan review process you determine what the compatibility is and at that point you have the ability to require a wall if it is necessary. Mr. Budke further explained this has not yet been written but will be written once the Council receives the final word to be adopted. Commissioner Grosjacques questioned if a commercial general and a residentiak :would be brought before the Commission at that time? Staff interjected there would be a wall between commercial and residential. RoRer Budke explained you need guidelines to make a discretionary decision. The decision lies with what level the site plan review occurs. He went on to the review items on page four of the handout. Comm ssioner Youn,q asked if we could allow a 34 foot driveway for commercial if we allow a 34 foot driveway for residential or is it determined by ODOT? Roger Budke replied it is not determined by ODOT. He explained you can set the standards for City streets and when it comes to a State street, the State has something to say about it. The 34 foot standard for a triple garage only relates to residential. . Staff interjected you can get a wider driveway the wider the lot based on the width to the percentage of the lot width. RoRer Budke remarked we can relate it to lot frontage so that it will avoid the curb to curb for a driveway. The idea is to accommodate the driveway but also scale it to the lot frontage. Chairperson Cox made a recommendation to allow 34 foot driveways as long as it does not exceed more than a stated percentage of the lot frontage. Commissioner Lonerqan questioned if we are looking at 68 ft. if there are adjoining residences that share a driveway? RoRer Budke stated they will work on that issue. Staff stated whatever portions is on that property. If you are allowed 26 ft. right now, you could have a 52 ft. wide driveway on each lot. RoRer Budke further explained there is supposed to be a separation between driveways at least a car length so if they were to combine the driveway with one access point for two lots then it requires some special consideration. Right now the standard states the driveway should be separated by a distance. He stated the idea was originally not to get the whole street frontage paved with driveways. Planning Com/nission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 7 of 1 1 8B Commissioner Young included in the recommendation each of a percentage up to 34 ft. RoRer Budke will craft this percentage not to exceed and put in the shared lot aspect. He moved on to the foundation standards and architectural standards for single family and multi-family. Itwas stated by Mr. Budke that the architectural standards allow shakes, shingles and building material that has the visual appearance of lap siding because some of the hardy board type systems show an overlap. This recommendation will go with the visual appearance and not the actual physical fact that you overlap with the reveal to be 3" to 8". Commissioner Lima requested the word "modern" be stricken. Commissioner Lonerqan expressed concerns with the inclusion of the word "horizontal" siding. Staff indicated part of the focus was trying to get away from T1-11. Roqer Budke explained the idea was that this standard fit both residential and multifamily. Commissioner Lonerqan commented the picture of the home passed around at the hearing by Mr. DeSantis was not T1-11 but it had vertical siding on it. He expressed concerns with the elimination of vertical siding. Staff commented it was talked about building some sort of adjustment to allow for some material that otherwise would look good but was not addressed. Commissioner Lima remarked Commissioner Lonergan's concerns could be addressed by the first item contained on page 1 of the handout. Staff interjected the reality is that homes like Mr. DeSantis' are going to come through once or twice a year. Whereas, homes with T1-11 will be more predominant which is what lead the focus group to give the direction that they want to get rid of T1-11 in order to raise the quality of development. The proposed adjustment process would provide a relief to someone that is innovative or has an architect design their home with.special materials that may not meet the standard. Commissioner Loner,qan also questioned if this covered roof standards? RoRer Budke reported the State standard requirement is 3/12 in manufactured dwellings. Commissioner Loner,qan asked what problems would we have if the roof pitch is not specified? Staff explained it is pretty much industry standard dght now to have 5/12th roof pitch but the proposed standard is more or less to deal with some problem subdivisions. This is a combination of elements, not any one element is going to give you an attractive home but the combination of these elements makes it much more likely that it will be a higher quality type home. Comm ss oner Young felt that he does think that this is so restrictive that someone would look at that on paper and say they can not do it. There are provisions that say that the quality and the design meet the State standards, they are attractive and there is some criteria that would allow that to be built. RoRer Budke indicated this deals with both ends of the spectrum and the design home unique features falls outside the center space of all these issues. Chairperson Cox suggested what needs to be said is that although the draft before us now would prohibit those kinds of homes unless you went through a full scale Variance and you might have a hard time meeting the Variance standards. If you come up with a good process for these deviations, then those types of innovative houses would have a procedure by which they could ask for approval because we have this great architectural design. He commented if you do not have some kind of standard they are all going to wind up Planning Commission Meeting o February 13, 2002 Page 8 of 11 8B being these little cracker boxes that look like glorified manufactt inclination to keep some kind of standards in here even though will have to be deviated from for the extra good development Staff indicated he will defer the interpretation of building materi an expert on these materials. Commissioner Youn.q questioned if we are borderline in the Bull, in the range of materials? Staff replied we are supplementing the Building Code in that it be utilized. Deniece Won interjected the distinction between traditional land these kinds of controls is land use versus esthetics. Staff stated we are looking at esthetics quality and not the stru, Roger Budke said part of the intent of the group at the time w~ lasted longer. Mr. Budke reviewed the final page of the hando~ Commissioner Grosjacques asked if you could not park agaim Roger Budke indicated that was unclear before but they have ¢ against the wall or you can park up against the wall on the in required landscaping on the interior yards. He stated they pro[ pages that describe certain phrases that depending on which pl "shall" if it is mandatory so that you know what that format rr ~red homes. Chairperson Cox expressed his 'e know that they are not perfect and that they ~d at least keep the really bad ugly stuff out. als to the Building Official because he is not lng Code and away from the Zone Ordinance floes not indicate what type of materials can use where you might be controlling uses and ;tural quality of the materials. s to raise the bar and get higher quality that lt. t the wall before? larified that you can put your access way up :erior and not facing the street. There is no ,osed to place a footnote on every one of the ~th you take i.e., "should" if it is discretionary, eans. Mr. Budke indicated there were two instances of issues that were pointed out that did not make the li~t thatStaff put together, one on zoning in the industrial area. He point out Staff did not address that be~ ,use the intent of revising the ordinance was not to alter the use list from the zones that were there already..The other issue not addressed by Staff was the question raised by Mr. Krupicka regarding his RS property o ~ the Comprehensive Plan and he would like it to be office. It was not addressed because it is not in the con :ext. However, they intended to address the issue raised by Mr. Krupicka about a series of contractor uses that are now allowed in the CG zone that were left out and Staff has no objection to include those. ' Commissioner Younq referenced Commissioner Grosjacques Concerns regarding the ability to park'at the property line i.e., Tukwila Women's Health Center where it is landscaped on the clinic side of the building but not on the Hallmark building side? Commissioner Grosjacques questioned if it was burned down over 60% and you had to go back in and build, would you be able to park up against the curb or not or would y~ou lose all the parking? Staff replied you would be required to upgrade it to whatever tile current standards are. RoRer Budke remarked you can build a building to zero lot line in a commercial. If you do not, you have to set it back 5 feet. Therefore, that 5 feet has to be landscaped if it iS not built upon or used for hard surface like parking. He explained the landscaping requirement in commerCial/industrial if you do not have a building on it or paving over it i.e., access way, parking lot, pedestrian way, and it is not a storage yard you landscape the yard. If you put in a solid wall, then you do not have to landscape the yard. Commissioner Grosjacques expressed concerns that if one buil~ling totally burned down and it is the one that does not have the landscaping then you have to go back and put landscaping back in there and that woul.d leave no room for parking left. Planning Co/nmission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 9 of 1 1 8B Staff indicated that is a decision that has to be made as to how to get nonconforming sites, uses and buildings to conform. He explained you can let them remain "grand fathered" if you do not want them to conform ever. Chairperson Cox remarked the philosophy regarding "grand fathered" uses has been that they are only there by grace with the idea that ultimately things will conform. Staff stated generally when these types of ordinances are adopted you are envisioning buildings that are really old because they can build another like building if you do not have that in place. Commissioner Grosiacques stated he would like something to be done regarding this issue. Commissioner Lima inquired if you can ask for a Variance in this hypothetical case? Deniece Won replied as it is drafted now there are no Use Variances and to deal with nonconforming use would fit into the category of a Use Variance, which is not allowed. She explained it is intentionally drafted to be our own and not a traditional Variance language that had been interpreted by the Courts. Therefore, we get difference in how we interpret what the terminology and the standards mean. Additionally, in review to LUBA, they have not been reversing Variance decisions. It was a consensus of the Commission that the Variance works. Chairperson Cox stated we are not eliminating the industrial/sales district but combining them all in one zone just for purposes of what the letter is as it appears on the zoning map. There is still the distinction that is maintained within a number of feet of the highway as to what kinds of uses are allowed. The retail/sales type uses will still be allowed only in that portion of the industrial zone which is now labeled IS. He indicated we are really not limiting the uses that would be allowed on Mr. Baranzano's property by changing the zone designation and we really are not increasing the uses that would be allowed there, He said those uses are already allowed in the IS zone and General Industrial uses are also now allowed in the IS zone. Chairperson Cox remarked it was specifically stated that we would not get into zone change issues in this project. He recommended we should stick to Staff's recommendation regarding this issue. Staff commented the Comprehensive Plan needs to be revisited at some point in the future to look at the different land use alternatives to meet the Buildable Lands requirements and potential UGB expansion. Chairperson Cox there is always the alternative for the property owner to apply for a zone change amendment. Commissioner Loner,qan did not feel it would be out of'line to request to the Council that within 6 months they look at zone change. Deniece Won interjected the City is in Periodic Review and we have a work plan with specified work tasks and deadlines. These buildable lands and commercial inventories and meeting land needs are all related to the documentation for the 8,000 sq. ft. lot size discussion and deciding what appropriate plan and zoning designations might be in the future are all tied together in those projects. She stated our deadline date to complete those tasks was last March. Commissioner Lima commented Irv Fletcher provided positive contribution to the Commission and he will be missed. Chairperson Cox remarked aside from the specific concerns, recommended changes and specific areas the Commission are in favor of the WDO and would like to see it adopted with those changes. Staff will return at the next meeting with the compiled recommendations for Commission review and at that point, a motion will be made to forward it to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 PagelOof 11 8B ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Grosiacques, which carried. APPROVEDcLAU~IO LIMA, VICE/~ERSON DATE ATTEST Cor~mCnity Development Director CityTWoodburn, Oregon Date Plamfing Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Pagellof 11 NOTES Community Center Planning Committee Regular Meeting Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:00pm 400 S Settlemier Ave 8C 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:10pm by Flurry Stone. Roll Call Members present: Sifuentez. Flurry Stone, Joan Garren, Preston Tack, Patty Eamons, and Elida Staff present: Randy Westrick, Director.; Jennifer Goodrick, AA, 3. February 25, 2002 Council Meeting: Randy walked the group through the staff report that has been prepared for the city Council meeting on Monday, February 25, 2002. This report is an overview of all the work the Community Center Planning Committee has done since it was created on June 19, 2001. The CCPC is asking the Council for a policy decision: will the new community center be a continuation of the a recreation complex that began with the aquatic center, or will it be the first phase of a new complex at Centennial Park. Randy will present the report to the Council and then if the Council has any questions they will ask them of the CCPC. 4. Staff Report a. Oak & Front Site: There was some discussion about the way the costs were calculated for this site, as well as the necessity of purchasing all four houses currently incorporated in the site plan. Since there is some flexibility with this site being located in the downtown core the Committee decided to present the parking lot in the site plan as a possible option for parking. b. Centennial Park Site: Discussion ensued regarding the west option as to whether the estimate of $325,000 for property acquisition was accurate since there is no VC~iy to know if the property owner would be willing to sell or at what price. After a thorough discussion, the consensus was to go ahead and present the findings to the City Council on Monday, but with the caveat being that more investigation would be needed to determine the true cost of building west of Centennial Park c. Funding Program: Upon recommendation from the City Council, the CCPC will develop more specific costs and a more specific funding program. A $600,000 grant that the CCPC will apply for was omitted from thc staff report in error, and will be included in the final report lhat will be presented to the City Council on February 25. 8C 5. Future Committee Business Next meeting is March 7, 2002 6. Adjournment-meeting was adjourned at 8:50 8D CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development MFMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Date: March 4, 2002 To: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director From: Building Division Subject: Building Activity for February 2002 (503) 982-5250 2000 2001 2002 i. Dollar Dollar Dollar No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount New Residence Value 6 $544,848 11 $1,45~,417 12 $1,598,656 Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 1 $4,500,000 Residential Adds & Alts 1 $600,000 2 $190,700 4 $38,800 Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Commercial Value 3 $1,487,000 0 $0 2 $5,542,204 Signs, Fences, Driveways 4 $23,598 10 $33,570 3 $9,095 Manufactured Homes 0 $0 0 $0 3 $189,558 TOTALS 14 $2,655,446 23 $1,683,687 25 $11,878,313 July 1 - June 30 Fiscal Year To Date $25,682,887 $11,485,197 $48,517,077 ¥ - ¥ - Februaw 2002.wpd A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF ,FEBRUARY 2002 CHECK NO 58906 58907 58908 58909 58910 58911 58912 58913 58914 58915 58916 58917 58918 58919 58920 58921 58922 58923 58924 58925 58926 58927 58928 58929 58930 58931 58932 58933 58934 58935 58936 58937 58938 58939 58940 58941 58942 58943 58944 58945 58946 58947 58948 58949 58950 58951 58952 58953 DEPARTMENT POSTAGE MTR-VARIOUS PAYROLL- LIBRARY SERVICES-WTR VOID VOID VOID SERVICES.LIBRARY REFUND-BUILDING REFUND-PARKS SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES- POLICE SERVICES-COURT REFUND-POLICE REFUND-POLtCE SERVICES-STREET SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-BUILD SERVICES-PARKS SERVICES-PARKS SUPPLIES-WWTP SERVICES-ENG SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-WATER SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-ADMIN SERVICES-WWTP SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-WATER SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVICES-COURT SERVICES-FINANCE SERVICES-WWTP SERVICES-WWTP SUPPLI ES- MAI NT SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-POLICE SUPPLIES-WWTP SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES-ENG SERVICES-FINANCE SUPPLI ES-LIBRARY SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES-WWTP SERVICES-PLANNING SUPPLIES-WWTP VENDOR NAME VENDOR NO US POSTAL SERV 020089 SHIRLEY LINN NONE VALLEY MAILING 021044 VOID VOID VOID VOiD VOID VOID ANNE L STERRY NONE ROTH HEATING NONE GRACIELLA JARAMILLO NONE LOWES TROPHY NONE RIVERHOUSE NONE OR ASSOC FOR COURT NONE DISCOTECA JALISCO NONE SALVADOR BAKERY NONE EVENT SOLUTIONS NONE CC PUBLIC SAFETY NONE OMOA NONE A&A PEST CONTROL 000011 ACE SEPTIC 000031 ABIQUA SUPPLY 000034 AEROTEK 000080 AMERICANA PUB 000370 ARAMARK UNIFORM 000534 ARCH WIRELESS 000535 ASSOC ADMIN 000562 AWARDS & ATHLETICS 000580 AT&T 000623 BM CLEANING 001030 BACKFLOW MANAGEMENT 001033 BAY MEDICAL ALVBINA BLAINE CANBY TELEPHONE CHERRY CITY CLIFFS SM ENGINE COASTAL FARM COMM BUSINESS COMPAQ FIN SERV COMPLETE WI RELESS CUMMINS NORTHWEST DAVES UPHOLSTERY DLT SOLUTIONS DP NORTHWEST EDUC CLEARINGHOUSE EL HISPANIC NEWS EMERY & SONS CONST ENDRESS + HAUSER ESRI INC ESTACADA OIL 001167 001293 002062 002424 002578 002625 002710 002724 002735 002935 003070 003246 003264 004078 004119 004153 004170 004272 004275 DATE 2/1/02 2/6/O2 2/7/O2 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 ~2/~/02 2/8/02 ~/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/O2 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 2/8/02 AMOUNT $1,200.00 $1,062.99 $1,017.20 $o.oo $o.oo $o.oo $220.00 $230.05 $287.50 $6.25 $278.20 $35.00 $45.00 $30.00 $290.00 $25.00 $25.00 $52.50 $249.0O $397.00 $350.00 $66.2O $28.46 $24O.39 $115.00 $150.90 $14.87 $200.OO $2,500.00 $47.99 $240.00 $39.90 $478,36 $34.50 $239.96 $180.95 $118.54 $397.00 $343.00 $798.50 $3,324.00 $19,091.00 $69.95 $290.84 $2,783.00 $912.27 $410.56 $373.65 Page I ....... t r r-r A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2002 58954 58955 58956 58957 58958 58959 58960 5896] 58962 58963 58964 58965 58966 58967 58968 58969 58970 58971 58972 58973 58974 58975 58976 58977 58978 58979 58980 58981 58982 58983 58984 58985 58986 58987 58988 58989 58990 58991 58992 58993 58994 58995 58996 58997 58998 58999 59000 59001 59002 59003 SUPPLIES- MAI NT SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLI ES-LI BRARY SERVl CES- LIB RARY SUPPLI ES-WATER SUPPLIES-MAINT SERVlCES-MAINT SERVICES-WATER SERVl CES-WWTP SERVICES-MAI NT SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLI ES-LI BRARY SERVlCES-ADMIN SERVICES-LIBRARY SUPPLIES,NON DEPT SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SERVICES-COURT REIMBURSE-POLICE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SERVICES-RSVP SERVICES-WWTP SUPPLIES-MAINT SERVICES-PUB WKS REIMBURSE-BUILDING SERVICES-ADMI N SUPPLIES-MAINT SERVICES-MAINT SERVICES.VARIOUS SUPPLIES-POLICE PAYROLL-VARIOUS S ERVI CES. PO LI CE SUPPLI ES-WATER SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLI ES-WWTP SUPPLI ES-VARIOUS SERVICES.VARIOUS SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SU PPLI ES- PARKS SU PPLI ES- MAI NT SUPPLIES-MAINT SERVICES-LI BRARY SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLI ES-WWTP REIMBURSE-POLICE FASTENAL CO 005067 2/8/02 $253.44 FRYS ELECTRONICS 005405 2/8/02 $128.98 GALE GROUP 006015 2/8/02 $45.30 GENERAL BINDING 006076 2/8/02 $250.00 WW GRAINGER 006283 2/8/02 $158.25 GW HARDWARE 006405 2/8/02 $537.42 CJ HANSEN 007055 278/02 $1,743.35 HDR ENGINEERING 007112 2/8/02 $1,020.00 HIRE CALLING 007240 2/8/02 $2,216.80 HUBBARD PLUMBING 007323 2/8/02 $200.00 IND WELDING 008100 2/8/02 $87.20 I NGRAM DIST 008116 2/8/02 $3,062.78 JOBS AVAILABLE 009105 2/8/02 $147.20 KIWANIS CLUB 010054 2/8/02 $30.00 LAZERQUICK 011177 2/8/02 $575.75 LEGACY LAB SERV 011188 ~ 2/~702 $34.00 LEGIS COUNSEL 011200 2/8/02 $344.00 MSI GROUP 012015 '2/8/02 $125.00 NITA J MARR 012232 2/8/02 $36.05 MARSHALL CAVENDISH 012235 2/8/02 $1,271.85 METROFUELING 012448 2/8/02 $1,353.32 MID WILL VALLEY SENIOR 012473 2/8/02 $22.00 MOLALLA COMM 012563 2/8/02 $49.90 NATIONAL CHEMSEARCH 013030 2/8/02 $1,517.65 NATL SOCIETY OF ENG 013100 2/8/02 $181.00 DAN NELSON 013151 2/8/02 $83.97 NORCOM 013198 2/8/02 $6,960.79 N COAST ELECTRIC 013215 2/8/02 $23.24 NW ELEVATOR 013275 2/8/02 $3,050.00 NW NATURAL 013350 2/8/02 $13,476.32 OR DMV 014240 2/8/02 $65.00 OREGON PERS 014424 2/8/02 $98.08 OREGONIAN PUBLISH 014653 2/8/02 $426.51 US FILTER 015065 2/8/02 $4,477.62 PORT GENERAL ELEC 015420 2/8/02 $54,837.58 PRAXAIR DIST 015480 2/8/02 $15.08 PUBLIC WKS SUPPLY 015648 2/8/02 $3,729.58 QWEST 016202 2/8/02 $3,647.37 QWEST DEX 016203 2/8/02 $114.23 RADIO SHACK 017030 2/8/02 $8.99 RECORDED BOOKS 017102 2/8/02 $180.00 RED WING SHOES 017138 2/8/02 $745.85 RUSSIA ONLINE 017373 2/8/02 $118.40 S&S WORLDWIDE 018017 2/8/02 $744.28 LES SCHWAB TIRE 018300 2/8/02 $539.48 SEW & VAC CTR 018405 2/8/02 $1,409.30 SIERRA SPRINGS 018460 2/8/02 $63.50 SILVA TECH 018469 2/8/02 $600.00 M LEE SMITH PUB 018566 2/8/02 $157.00 SARAH SNYDER 018585 2/8/02 $23.90 Page 2 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH Of FEBRUARY 2002 590O4 59005 59006 59O07 59008 59009 59010 59011 59012 59013 59014 59015 59016 59017 59018 59019 59020 59021 59022 59023 59024 59025 59026 59027 59028 59029 59O30 59031 59032 59033 59034 59035 59036 59037 59038 59039 5904O 59041 59042 59043 59044 59045 59046 59047 59048 59049 59050 59051 59052 59053 SERVICES-MAINT SUPPLI ES-PUB WKS SERVICES-ENG SUPPLIES-POLICE SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-MUSEUM SUPPLIES-POLICE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY S ERVl CES- FI NANCE REI M B U RSE. PARKS SERVICES-PLAN SUPPLtES-MAINT SERVlCES.MAINT SUPPLI ES-CABLE TV SERVICES-MAI NT SERVICES-WATER SERVICES- POLICE SERVlCES.MAINT SUPPLIES-RSVP SERVICES-FINANCE SERVlCES-WTR PETTY CSH-VARIOUS VOID VOID VOID REFUND-WTR/SWR SERVICES-PARKS REFUND-BUS LIC REFUND-SOL LIC SUPPLI ES-C GARAGE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-COURT SERVICES-POLICE SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES-ENG SERVICES-ENG SERVICES-WTR SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SU PPLI ES-WATER SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLI ES-STREET SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-TRANS SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVlCES-WWTP SERVICES-WWTP SONITROL 018605 2/8/02 $55.00 STATESMAN JOURNAL 018760 2/8/02 $62.40 TEK SYSTEMS 019046 2/8/02 $368.00 TERRITORIAL SUPPLIES 019060 2/8/02 $12.50 UNOCAL:ERNIE GRAHAM 020010 2/8/02 $385.76 UNITED'DISPOSAL 020020 2/8/02 ' $2,909.00 UNIV OF OREGON 020040 2/8/02 $104.00 VERIZON WIRELESS 021124 2/8/02 $47.77 VIKING OFFICE 021180 2/8/02 $93.10 VISIONS 021203 2/8/02 '" $218.33 WI LL BROADBAND 022326 2/8/02 $315.00 KATHY WI LLCOX 022390 2/8/02 $36.06 WINTERBROOK PLAN 022438 2/8/02 $2,326.04 WITHERS LUMBER 022445 2/8/02 $77.25 WOLFERS 022460 2/8/02 $140.20 WCAT 022547 ~ 2~8/02 $40,000.00 WBN INDEPENDENT 022630 2/8/02 $182.00 WBN PLUMBING 022695 ~2/8/02 $2,748.88 WBN 24HR TOWING 022755 2/8/02 $50.00 XEROX CORP 023020 2/8/02 $125.35 YES GRAPHICS 024025 2/8/02 $180.00 OR NATURAL STEP 014370 2/13/02 $195.00 VALLEY MAILING 021044 2/14/02 $618.00 CITY OF WOODBURN 015255 2/14/02 $140.63 V 0 I D VOI D $0,00 V 0 I D VOI D $0.00 V 0 I D VOI D $0.00 DEAN MITCHELL NONE 2/15/02 $38.02 DO NOVAN REYNA NO NE 2/15/02 $150.00 WBN AM PM NONE 2/15/02 $25.00 FRANCISCO CHAVEZ NONE 2/15/02 $53.00 TRACY PENNINGTON NONE 2/15/02 $150.00 LEON FLICK POETRY NONE 2/15/02 $29.40 VALLEY RIVER INN NONE 2/15/02 $203.67 OR MUNI JUDGES NONE 2/15/02 $75.00 OREGON LECC NONE 2/15/02 $55.00 IND WASTE PRETREAT NONE 2/15/02 $49.00 A&E IMAGING 000017 2/15/02 $364.65 AEROTEK 000080 2/15/02 $200.00 ALEXIN ANALYTICAL 000124 2/15/02 $1,520.00 AMERICANA PUB 000370 2/15/02 $43.00 A-1 COUPLING 000409 2/15/02 $87.09 AUTO ADDITIONS 000558 2/15/02 $874.94 LANGUAGE LINE SERV 000659 2/15/02 $280.29 BEN-KO-MATIC 001200 2/15/02 $88.99 BIMART CORP 001275 2/15/02 $86.53 BIO-MED TESTING 001280 2/15/02 $43.50 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM 001310 2/15/02 $206.65 BOBS BACKHOE 001325 2/15/02 $7,040.80 BROWN & CALDWELL 001573 2/15/02 $1,394.79 Page 3 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF-, FEBRUARY 2002 8]:;' 59054 59055 59056 59057 59058 59059 59060 59061 59062 59063 59064 59065 59066 59067 59068 59069 59070 59071 59072 59073 59074 59075 59076 59077 59078 59079 59080 59081 59082 59083 59084 59085 59086 59087 59088 59089 59090 59091 59092 59093 59094 59095 59096 59097 59098 59099 59100 59101 59102 59103 SERVICESIpLAN SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-WWTP SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVICES-WATER SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-PUB WKS SERVICES-FINANCE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-PARKS SERVICES-STREET SERVlCES-ADMIN SU PPLI ES-LI BRARY SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLI ES- PARKS SERVICES-WWTP SERVl CES-WWTP SERVICES-PARKS SERVlCES.WWTP SERVICES-MUSEUM SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLI ES-STREET SUPPLIES-TRANS SERVlCES-WWTP SERVlCES-ENG SER¥1CES-ADMIN SERVICES-POLICE SERVlCES-WWTP SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-BUILDING SUPPLI ES- LIBRARY SUPPLI ES-LIBRARY SERVICES-STREET SERVl CES- LIB RARY SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-PARKS SUPPLI ES- PARKS SUPPLI ES-STREET SUPPLIES-TRANS SUPPLI ES-C GARAGE SUPPLIES-PARKS SUPPLI ES-DAR SUPPLI ES-PARKS SUPPLIES-LI BRARY ROGER BUDKE 001580 2/15/02 $1,885.00 BUSINESS JOURNAL 001632 2/15/02 $85.00 COFFEY LAB 002630 2/15/02 $2,855.00 CRYSTAL SPRINGS 002919 2/15/02 $44.00 CSUS FOUNDATION 002921 2/15/02 $120.00 DAILY JOURNAL 003020 2/15/02 $131.62 DEHAAS & ASSOC 003108 2/1'5/02 $6,640.95 DEQ 003205 2/15/02 $728.61 DP NO RTHWEST 003264 2/15/02 $440.00 ENTERTAIN M ENT 004203 2/15/02 $59.40 ESCHELON TELECOM 004264 2/15/02 $823.50 4 SEASONS SWIMWEAR 005003 2/15/02 $162.00 FARM PLAN 005062 2/15/02 $100.00 FIRST CASCADE CORP 005130 2/15/02 $45,091.62 GALE GROUP 006015 2/15/02 $74.84 GREY.HOUSE PUB 006325 2/15/02 $149.50 HACH CHEMICAL 007030 2/15/02 $86.20 HIRE CALLING 007240 2/15/02 $2,010.30 IND MACHINING 008080 2/15/02 $1,100.00 lOS CAPITAL 008118 2/15/02 $265.00 IKON OFFICE 008119 2/15/02 $54.49 JOHN PILAFIAN 009130 2/15/02 $6.50 LEGIS COUNSEL 011200 2/15/02 $45.00 MARION CTY SHERIFFS 012190 2/15/02 $796.00 MARION CTYTREASURY 012223 2/15/02 $65.63 MAULDING CONST 012305 2/15/02 $385.00 METROFUELING 012448 2/15/02 $264.84 MOLALLA COM M 012563 2/15/02 $2,366.45 MULTI TECH ENG 012682 2/15/02 $7,541.00 NICOLI ENG 013192 2/15/02 $4,340.00 NORCOM 013198 2/15/02 $29,881.43 NORTH COAST ELEC 013215 2/15/02 $877.00 OACP 014008 2/15/02 $175.00 OFFICE DEPOT 014029 2/15/02 $179.28 ONE CALL CONCEPTS 014054 2/15/02 $63.90 OR BUILDING OFFICIALS 014125 2/15/02 $118.70 OXMOOR HOUSE 014710 2/15/02 $24.91 PACIFIC HORTICULTURE 015032 2/15/02 $71.00 PNPCA CON EDUC 015358 2/15/02 $250.00 PORT GENERAL ELEC 015422 2/15/02 $257.00 QWEST 016202 2/15/02 $90.71 RADIO SHACK 017030 2/15/02 $70.51 RECREONICS 017105 2/15/02 $194.68 SAFFRON SUPPLY 018020 2/15/02 $81.24 LES SCHWAB 018300 2/15/02 $429.62 SEARS 018318 2/15/02 $502.46 SETON 018400 2/15/02 $377.20 SKAGSS UNIFORMS 018515 2/15/02 $61.65 SOS LOCK 018608 2/15/02 $8.75 SPORTS ILLUSTRATED 018696 2/15/02 $119.25 Page 4 ., A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2002 ' gF 59104 59105 59106 59107 59108 59109 59110 59111 59112 59113 59114 59115 59116 59117 59118 59119 59120 59121 59122 59123 59124 59125 59126 59127 59128 59129 59130 59131 59132 59133 59134 59135 59136 59137 59138 59139 59140 59141 59142 59143 59144 59145 59146 59147 59148 59149 59150 59151 59152 59153 SUPPLIES-POLICE SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVICES-ENG SUPPLIES-WWTP SERVICES-POLICE SERVlCES-PARSK SUPPLIES-POLICE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SERVICES-CABLE TV SERVlCES-WWTP SERVlCES.WWTP SUPPLIES.POLICE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLI ES-WATER SU PPLI ES- PARKS SERVICES-WATER VOID VOID VOID SERVICES-SELF INS SERVICES-ADMIN SUPPLI ES-NON DEPT SERVICES. POLICE SUPPLIES-WWTP SERVICES-WATER SERVlCES-VARI OUS SERVICES.PUB WKS SUPPLIES-STREET SUPPLIES-POLICE SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLI ES-WATER SERVICES-SELF INS SERVICES. POLICE LOAN PAY-WWTP SERVICES-WWTP SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLI ES-STREET SU PPLI ES-LI BRARY SERVICES-ADMIN SERVICES-WWTP SERVICES-WWTP SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-POLICE REI M B U RSE-LI BRARY SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SU PPLI ES-STREET SUPPLI ES-C STORES SERVI CES-ADM I N SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-WWTP TAYLOR MOTORCYCLE TECHNIKA TEK SYSTEMS TROJAN TECH VALLEY PACIFIC VERIZON WIRELESS VIKING OFFICE WEISS RATINGS WCAT WBN FAMILY CLINIC WBN INDEPENDENT WORK N WEAR WORLD MEDIA YES GRAPHICS PEPSI BOTTLING VALLEY MAILING ~:, VOID VOID VOID LYNA FLU ODAA DONUT FACTORY ABBYS PIZZA ABIQUA SUPPLY ALEXIN ANALYTICAL AT&T AWWA BEN-KO-MATIC BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM BUREAU OF LABOR CASCADE RIGGING CIS CITY CTY INS COMM SEAT COVERS DEPT OF ENV QUALITY ENDRESS + HAUSER ENGELMAN ELECTRIC ENVIRO CLEAN E(~UIP GE CAPITAL HENEBERRY EDDY HIRE CALLING IND MACHINING lOS CAPITAL KEY INVESTMENTS DONNA MELENDEZ METROFUELING NES TRENCH NETWORKS I NC NEW WORLD SYSTEMS NEXTEL COMM NC ANALYTICAL 019033 2/15/02 $89.90 019042 2/15/02 $1,443.90 019046 2/15/02 $552.00 019256 2/15/02 $224.00 021046 2/15/02 $45.95 021124 2/15/02 $58.07 021180 2/15/02 $107.19 022128 2/15/02 $197.00 022547 2/15/02 $1,350.00 022587 2/15/02 $330.00 022630 2/15/02 $30.00 022802 2/15/02 $103.00 022815 2/15/02 $20.95 024025 2/15/02 $440.00 015225 2/21/02 $117.75 021044 2/21/02 $511.60 VOl D $0.00 V 0 I D - $0.00 V 0 I D $0.00 NONE 2/22/02 $30.00 NONE 2/22/02 $160.00 NONE 2/22/02 $64.00 000027 2/22/02 $65.85 000034 2/22/02 $545.00 000124 2/22/02 $525.00 000623 2/22/02 $58.05 000665 2/22/02 $112.00 001200 2/22/02 $39.99 001310 2/22/02 $38.50 001605 2/22/02 $67.50 002229 2/22/02 $100.00 002488 2/22/02 $8,852.24 002715 2/22/02 $150.00 003205 2/22/02 $1,084,428.00 004170 2/22/02 $1,562.13 004190 2/22/02 $41.33 004206 2/22/02 $236.25 006079 2/22/02 $184.01 007140 2/22/02 $1,341.03 007240 2/22/02 $1,248.07 008080 2/22/02 $240.00 008118 2/22/02 $1,006.33 010080 2/22/02 $3,700.42 012420 2/22/02 $164.81 012448 2/22/02 $1,125.18 013157 2/22/02 $75.00 013163 2/22/02 $795.00 013168 2/22/02 $14,258.00 013188 2/22/02 $1,008.88 013216 2/22/02 $1,007.00 Page 5 ,~. A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2002 59154 59155 59156 59157 59158 59159 59160 59161 59162 59163 59164 59165 59166 59167 59168 59169 59170 59171 59172 59173 59174 59175 59176 59177 59178 59179 59180 59181 59182 59183 59184 59185 59186 59187 59188 59189 59190 59191 59192 59193 59194 59195 59196 59197 59198 59199 59200 59201 59202 59203 SUPPLI ES-WWTP SUPPLIES-PARKS SUPPLIES.STREET SERVICES-PUB WKS REIMBURSE-LIBRARY SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES.STREET SUPPLIES-RSVP SUPPLIES-WATER SUPPLIES-FINANCE SERVICES-CABLE TV VOID VOID VOl D REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-WTR/SWR REFUND-PARKS SUPPLIES-PARKS SERVICES-POLICE REFUND-POLICE SERVlCES-ENG SERVICES- PARKS SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-RSVP SERVlCES-ENG SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVlCES-MAINT SERVICES- ENG SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLI ES-PARKS SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SU PPLI ES- PARKS REIMBURSE-WATER SUPPLI ES-VARIOUS SU PPLI ES- FI NANCE SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLI ES-PARKS SUPPLIES-PARKS OBC NORTHWEST PEPSI COLA PHOENIX ASPHALT PUBLIC WORKS SPLY LINDA SPRAUER STATESMAN JOURNAL UNOCAL:ERNIE GRAHAM US POSTAL SERV VlESKO QUALITY VIKING OFFICE WCAT VOID VOID VOID RENAISSANCE HOMES TRISH BATCHELOR" ERNEST RlSiNGER LEONARD PARRA SANDSTRUM HOMES THE LUCKEY CO TONY PETERSON ERIC BERKEY JAMES LIND THE LUCKEY CO Zl NA REUTOV FRANZ FLOWERS THE LUCKEY CO CRISELDA BRAVO STAYTON SPORTS F.B.I MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW ASPHALT PAVEMENT TVYFL WBN CLEANERS GRATITUDES OR WATER RESOURCES A&A PEST CONTROL ACE SEPTIC AEROTEK ARAMARK UNIFORM AWARDS & ATHLETICS AT&T BATTERIES NW HOUSEHOLD BANK SCOTT BERGREN BI MART CORP BLACK BOX CORP CASE AUTOMOTIVE CASCADE COLUMBIA CASCADE POOLS 014013 2/22/02 015225 2/22/02 015268 2/22/02 015648 2/22/02 018710 2/22/02 018760 2/22/02 020010 2/22/02 020090 2/22/02 021140 2/22/02 021180 2/22/02 022547 2/22/02 VOID VOID VOID NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE ~/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 000011 2/28/02 000031 2/28/02 000080 2/28/02 000534 2/28/02 000580 2/28/02 000623 2/28/02 001159 2/28/02 001199 2/28/02 001244 2/28/02 001275 2/28/02 001286 2/28/02 002190 2/28/02 002218 2/28/02 002226 2/28/02 $171.60 $343.15 $5,795.00 $6OO.O0 $82.71 $229.96 $333.32 $388.OO $265.00 $46.6O $2,314.43 $o.oo $o.oo $o.oo $7.59 $11.64 $17.43 $17.12 $82.05 $57.08 $30.14 $59.oo $34.60 $27.34 $30.42 $27.25 $26.97 $150.00 $210.00 $120.00 $3.00 $100.00 $175.00 $48.50 $32.50 $55.O0 $141.25 $249.00 $200.00 $792.88 $13.00 $31.88 $310.90 $405.31 $74.00 $621.27 $139.30 $829.55 $1,422.00 $651.90 Page 6 · A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2002 59204 59205 59206 59207 59208 59209 59210 59211 59212 59213 59214 59215 59216 59217 59218 59219 59220 59221 59222 59223 59224 59225 59226 59227 59228 59229 59230 59231 59232 59233 59234 59235 59236 59237 59238 59239 59240 59241 59242 59243 59244 59245 59246 59247 59248 59249 59250 59251 59252 59253 SU PPLI ES-FI NANCE SUPPLI ES-STREET SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-MAINT SUPPLI ES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-ADMIN SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-FINANCE SERVlCES-WWTP SERVICES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-MAINT SERVlCES-MAINT SERVlCES-C GARAGE SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLI ES-POLICE SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES-STREET SERVICES-WATER SERVlCES-WWTP SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-PARKS SUPPLI ES-PARKS SERVICES-STREET REIMBURSE-ADMIN SUPPLI ES- FI NANCE SUPPLI ES-VARIOUS SERVICES-MAI NT SUPPLI ES-WATER SERVICES-BUILDING SERVICES-ADMIN SUPPLIES-ENG SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-PARKS SUPPLIES4PARKS SUPPLIES-WATER SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVICES-VARIOUS SERVICES-FINANCE SUPPLIES-MAINT SUPPLIES-WWTP SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-PARKS SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLIES-VARIOUS REIMBURSE-PARKS SERVlCESoMAINT CDW GOVERNMENT 002320 2/28/02 CHEVRON USA 002430 2/28/02 COASTAL FARM 002625 2/28/02 COASTWl DE LAB 002626 2/28/02 CTL CORP 002926 2/28/02 DAVISON AUTO PTS 003080 2/28/02 DELL COMPUTER 003113 2/28/02 DEPT OF ENV QUALITY 003205 2/28/02 DP NORTHWEST 003264 2/28/02 EMERY & SONS 004153 2/28/02 ENGELMAN ELEC 004190 2/28/02 FAMILIAN NW 005030 2/28/02 FARM PLAN 005062 2/28/02 FLECKS FLOOR 005170 2/28/02 FOTO MAGIC 005258 2/28/02 FRYS ELECTRONICS ~?_~'005405 2/28/02 GRAY SUPPLY 006292 2/28/02 GW HARDWARE 006405 2/28/02 HILLYERS MID CITY 007228 2/28/02 HI RE CALLING 007240 2/28/02 IND WELDING 008100 2/28/02 IKON OFFICE 008119 2/28/02 ITT FLYGT CORP 008395 2/28/02 L&L BUILDING 011010 2/28/02 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT 011250 2/28/02 MARION ENV SER 012227 2/28/02 MARSH MCBIRNEY 012240 2/28/02 KF_ZIA MERWlN 012a. a.O 2/28/02 MICROWAREHOUSE 012459 2/28/02 MR P'S AUTO PTS 012510 2/28/02 NEXTEL COMM 013188 2/28/02 NORLIFT OF OR 013200 2/28/02 OR BUILDING OFFICIALS 014125 2/28/02 OR NATURAL STEP 014370 2/28/02 PACIFIC AUTOMATION 015042 2/28/02 PAULS AUTO BODY 015185 2/28/02 JD PENCE 015223 2/28/02 PEPSI COLA 015225 2/28/02 PLATT ELECTRIC 015340 2/28/02 POCKET PRESS 015368 2/28/02 QWEST 016201 2/28/02 QWEST 016202 2/28/02 RADIO SHACK 017030 2/28/02 JACK RAWLINGS 017054 2/28/02 RtNGEYS RADAR 017210 2/28/02 ROTHS IGA 017340 2/28/02 SANITAIRE ROYCE 018176 2/28/02 LES SCHWAB TIRE 018300 2/28/02 BRIAN SJOTHUN 018456 2/28/02 SONITROL 018605 2/28/02 $528.02 $86.8o $1,071.65 $1,697.26 $377.0O $107.92 $1,671.00 $265.00 $2,258.00 $4,206.00 $1,182.57 $107.80 $2,092.93 $108.00 $96.33 $80.26 $415.95 $847.89 $30.02 $1,402.94 $30.90 $9.21 $3,870.30 $262.24 $655.53 $12.20 $821.37 $126.06 $421.52 $231.46 $509.96 $52.79 $150.00 $30.0O '$2~7.00 $1,000.00 $15.15 $540.75 $56.28 $356.30 $177.10 $227.88 $27.76 $252.00 $104.97 $256.58 $10.20 $498.10 $168.00 $276.95 Page 7 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2002 8];' 59254 59255 59256 59257 59258 59259 59260 59261 59262 59263 59264 59265 59266 59267 59268 59269 59270 59271 59272 59273 59274 59275 59276 59277 59278 59279 59280 59281 59282 59283 59284 59285 59286 59287 59288 59289 5929O 59291 SERVICES- MAI NT SERVICES.C GARAGE SUPPLI ES- PARKS SU PPLI ES-WATER REIMBURSE-RECORDER SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLI ES-STREET SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-POLICE SERVICES-POLICE SU PPLI ES- PARKS SERVICES-PLANNING GRANT-NON DEPT SUPPLIES-WWTP SUPPLIES-PARKS SERVICES-WATER SERVlCES- MAI NT REIMBURSE-RSVP REI MBURSE-RSVP REI MBURSE-RSVP REI M BURSE-RSVP REIMBURSE-RSVP REIMBURSE-RSVP REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR REIMBURSE-DAR PETTY CASH-VARIOUS SERVICES-WATER DONATIONS-NON DEPT SERVICES-VARIOUS SOS LOCK SERV SPENCER ENVI RO SPORTS SUPPLY TECHNICAL SYSTEMS MARY TENNANT CORPORATE EXPRESS UNOCAL:ERNIE GRAHAM UNITED RENTALS VALLEY PACIFIC VERIZON WIRELESS WALKERS CYCLE WILL CHAP RED CROSS WlNTERBROOK PLAN WBN CHAMBER OF COMM WBN FERTILIZER WBN SCHOOL DIST WYEAST ENVIRON XEROX CORP BILL FAULHABER DONNA GRAMSE VADA OWENS MARIAN REED JUNE WOODCOCK JAY WOODS DOROTHA BORLAND SALLY BUSE CORNELIUS DONNELLY LEONARD GIAUQUE AGNES HAGENAUER FRED HAYES BEULAH JORDAN CALVIN KOLLASH J WARD O'BRtEN GERTRUDE REES CITY OF WOODBURN VALLEY MAI LING WBN POLICE ASSOC ASSOC ADMINISTRATORS 018608 2/28/02 018691 2/28/02 018694 2/28/02 019040 2/28/02 019055 2/28/02 019100 2/28/02 020010 2/28/02 020033 2/28/02 021046 2/28/02 021124 2/28/02 022023 2/28/02 022328 2/28/02 022438 2/28/02 022510 2/28/02 022590 2/28/02 022745 2/28/02 022835 2/28/02 023020 2/28/02 035240 2/28/02 035260 2/28/02 035590 2/28/02 035615 2/28/02 035648 2/28/02 035763 2/28/02 045100 2/28/02 045110 2/28/02 045230 2/28/02 045290 2/28/02 045310 2/28/02 045315 2/28/02 045320 2/28/02 045330 2/28/02 045497 2/28/02 045545 2/28/02 015255 2/28/02 021044 2/28/02 NONE 2/28/02 000562 2/28/02 $45.00 $170.00 $2,631.40 $1,839.80 $52.56 $1,833.37 $149.47 $410.00 $51.90 $1,075.16 $204.35 $45.00 $371.00 $8,800.00 $34.35 $20.00 $750.00 $65.35 $35.00 $31.00 $18.00 $8.00 $16.00 $35.00 $61.69 $79.98 $158.10 $163.68 $105.40 $321.78 $105.71 $48.67 $54.56 $22.63 $144.00 $390.80 $2,431.70 $120.00 $1,526,826.95v'// Page 8 iOA To*- Date: Subject: Mayor and Council D ~ h~/~ March 5, 2002 2001-2002 Supplemental Appropriations Background: Each year in January staffperforms a thorough review of financial operations and recorranends changes to the budget based on current estimates of revenue and expenditures. Financial Implications: This revision to the 2001-02 budget adjusts Beginning Fund Balance to actual for all funds where the variance is greater than $10,000. For all other funds the difference is immaterial and no change is proposed. The City began 2001-02 with $2,533,544 more in Fund Balance than what was anticipated in the budget. (1) The purchas9. 6fthe replacement financial system is budgeted this year and is funded by cash ($115,000) and a lease ($181,000). A current analysis shows that they General Fund has sufficient cash to complete the purchase without the use of a lease. This would keep the transaction entirely internal and eliminate the lease origination costs. The Council has agreed to funding the purchase internally, which will avoid obligating funds in future years. (2) Qwest has refused to pay franchise fees based on a court case in the State of Washin~on. The case is still being litigated in Oregon. Although the outcome of that case in uncertain, the prudent action is the conservative action. Qwest Franchise Fees are reduced $130,000 to zero. (3) The City entered into an employment contract with the Recorder that included a provision that the City would pay both the employee and the employer portion of retirement contn'butions. The additional cost to the City is estimated to be $2,500. (4) In October 2001, the police department was awarded an ODOT. grant ($9,000) to pay overtime wages for officers to enforce seatbelt and DUII laws. (5) Earlier this year the Woodburn School District requested police security services at Woodburn High School because of bomb threats and a kidnap of a student. This service was provided by offduty police officers on an overtime basis at a cost of $3,263. (6) In May of 2001, the police department received a grant ($1,467) for the purchase of bullet proof vests fi.om the Department of Justice. (7) The police department and city attorney's office are in the process of developing a new noise ordinance, which should be ready for City Council review after the first of the year. The iOA ordinance establishes decibel levels for certain events and times of day. In order to enforce the ordinance the police department is proposing the purchase of two decibel meters and training in their use ($5,000). (8) The Woodbum Police Department currently shares a records management system with a consortium of 24 other police agencies in a tri-county area (RAIN). Through the Marion-Salem Data Center RAIN provides both records management and connectivity to LEDS. Because the current RAIN technology and records management system are outdated and lack integration capabilities, RAIN plans to abandon the current system in favor ora Web-based information system that will provide the ability to search existing data within member agencies. As noted above, the Marion-Salem Data Center also provides a LEDS connection which allows access to arrest warrants, records of stolen property, and lists of gang members. Due to the critical need to maintain connectivity to LEDS, the police department must establish connectivity prior to the disconnecting from the Marion-Salem Data Center on July 1, 2002. ~ The police department is currently researching connectivity options and costs. At this point the best estimate of connectivity costs is $8,000. (9) . Last year the Parks SDC Fund generated a deficit, which will be erased this year. Part of the shortage was due to grant reimbursements lagging behind expenditures ($96,507). The reimbursements will catch up this year. Part of the deficit was the result of over spending the budget ($114,683). This shortage will be covered this year from the unanticipated SDC revenue from the Evergreen Retirement Facility. Procedures are being developed that will avoid a recurrence of this situation. (10) Accounting for Parks capital projects is moved from the Parks SDC Fund to the General Capital Improvement Fund. Originally Parks had only one capital project (Centennial Park), and that was funded entirely by SDC's. Given those conditions accounting for the project in the Parks SDC Fund was appropriate. Last year, however, several other projects were added to the Parks CIP list and the funding became more complex. Revenue sources now include grants, donations, and General Fund support. Accounting for all this in the SDC Fund makes is difficult to report clearly the SDC activity. Consequently, the Parks construction activity is being transferred the General CIP Fund. One of the major funding sources of the construction will be transfers of SDC monies from the Parks SDC Fund. (11) Insurance premium quotes were considerably higher than the previous year. Even al~er negotiating final figures costs for liability and auto insurance increased by 25%. Additionally, the City changed workers' comp coverage fi.om a retrospective plan to a guaranteed plan, which resulted in up front payments of premiums rather than deferred premiums based on actual expenses. Consequently the insurance budget needs to be increased by $60,000. This is funded from the reserves built up in the Insurance Fund over the last few years. These reserves are intended to cover uninsured losses or unanticipated premium cost increases. Although the interfund revenue was budgeted in the Insurance Fund, the corresponding transfer was not budgeted in the General Fund. That account is increased by $17,000 to accommodate the increased premium costs. (12) IOA At its last meeting the Council approved the revised Personnel Policies Manual. Copies of this document will need to be provided to each employee. The cost to print and bind 200 copies is estimated to be $1,000. (13) The City intends to liquidate two properties that are either unused or underutiliTed, and apply the proceeds of those sales to the Community Center Project and potentially to the Association Building renovation. These properties are the existing Community Center property, and the community garden property. Appraisals have been performed on these properties, as have preliminary environmental assessments. Those assessments have recommended more detailed environmental sampling, as due diligence before placing these properties on the market. Phase II assessments are estimated to cost a total of $15,000: Gatch Street - $5,000 and Community Garden- $10,000. (14) Current estimates of the cost to complete rehabilitation of the Association Building (formerly the Salud Building) exceed the original project budget ($300,000) by $35,000. An additional $15,000 is transferred to fi.om the General Fund to the General CIP Fund, and $20,000 of Contingency is transferred fi.om the General CIP Fund. The project costs are budgeted in the General CIP Fund. (15) This was the first year the Municipal Court was budgeted as a separate department. In segregating that budget, the expense of the Corn Interpreter was inadvertently let~ out. In Woodburn the interpreter is essential to the Court's ab'flity to administer justice. $4,000 is added to the Municipal Court budget to cover those costs. (16) In the prior year a Parks Maintenance utility vehicle was stolen. The expense of replacement was covered in last year's budget. However, the vehicle was not delivered until this year. $5,700 is added to Capital Omlay to cover the replacement cost in this year's budget. (17) The following table is a tabulation of the proposed budget changes by fund: BEGINNING FUND CONTIN- FUND No. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENSES GENCIES General 001 302,618 (116,270 ) 267,930 Gen Op Reserv 092 66,182 Transit 110 10,228 Building 123 19,251 . Rev Shadng 135 50,974 Housing Rehab 137 159,706 RSVP 138 (11,000) Street 140 94,789 City Gas Tax 169 29,643 GF CIP 358 765,604 765,604 Sp Assessmt 360 133,107 St/Storm CIP 363 233,056 Parks ClP 364 (344,921) 514,975 170,054 TIF 376 398,875 (81,562) 66,182 10,228 19,251 50,974 159,706 (11,000) 94,789 29,643 0 133,107 233,056 0 398,875 Storm SDC 377 Sewer CIP 461 Sewer Constr 465 Water 470 Sewer 472 Water SDC 474 Sewer SDC 475 Insurance 581 T & E 582 Library Endowmt 690 59,355 23,558 692,691 94 679 230 389 137 153 77 461 17 997 36 746 10 632 59,355 23,558 692,691 94,679 230,389 137,153 77,461 (42,003) 36,746 10,632 2,523,169 I 164 309 1,28.3~.588 , 2,403,890 Since the budget revisions were published the comractor on the Association Building has proposed a change order for $20,000. The City's engineers concur with the need for the increase, and the proposed budget revision includes that appropriation. Also, in the published tabulatio~ the total for "Total General Fund CIP Revenue Adjustment" was correct, but line item, "Transfer fxom General Fund $196,000", was omitted. This amount is necessary to make the total correct. Contingencies in the General Fund are reduced $81,582. The remaining Contingencies are $685,808 which represems 9.2% of the expenditure budget. These changes are consistent with Oregon budget law. IOA CITY of WOODBURN MID YEAR BUDGET REVISION 2001-02 Description ~_ ~.ERAL FUND Account Expenditures Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 001 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Interfund TranstoGen'tCIP 001 199 910 358 Purchase of Financial System Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Franchise Revenue--Quest 001 000 420 013 Quest's refusal to pay franchise fees Recorder-Retirement 001 131 543 000 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Contract change Non-depart-supplies & printing 001 199 616 319 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Printing Personnel Manual Non-depart-EngineeringServices 001 199 616 411 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Environmental assessments of three properties to be sold. Non-depart-lnsurance,GenLiabilit~001 199 616 463 contingencies 001 000 921 000 Increased premium costs InterfundTransfertoGen'iCIP 001 199 910 358 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Association Bldg Renovation Police-Overtime 001 211 520 000 DUll Grant 001 000 450 039 Seatbelt and DUll grant Police-Overtime 001 211 520 000 School District Reimbursement 001 000 450 181 School District's request for additional Police security Police-Uniform Allowance 001 211 607 000 DoJ Grant 001 000 450 084 DoJ body armor grant Police--Miscellaneous Equip 001 211 711 052 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Two decibel meters to enforce noice ordinance Police-OtherComm Services 001 211 616 429 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 LEDS connection 302,618 -181,000 181,000 -130,000 2,500 -2,500 1,000 -1,000 15,000 -15,000 17,000 -17,000 15,000 -15,000 9,000 3,263 1,467 5,000 -5,000 8,000 -8,000 Revenue 302,618 -130,000 9,000 3,263 1,467 -1 -2 -3 -13 -14 -12 -15 -5 -7 -8 -9 IOA ......... ~'? Er Description Account Court--Other Comm Services 001 182 616 429 Contingencies~' 001 000 921 000 Court interpreter Parks Maint-Equip Replacement 001 411 710 010 Contingencies 001 000 921 000 Replace stolen equipment GENERAL OP RESERVE FUND Contingencies 092 000 Beginning Fund Balance 092 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 000 405 000 TRANSIT FUND Contingencies 110 000 Beginning Fund Balance 110 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 B. UILDING FUND ContingencIes 123 000 Beginning Fund Balance 123 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 REVENUE SHARING FUND Contingencies 135 000 Beginning Fund Balance 135 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 HOUSING REHAB FUND Contingencies 137 000 Beginning Fund Balance 137 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 RSVP FUND ContingencIes 138 000 Beginning Fund Balance 138 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 STREET FUND Contingencies 140 000 Beginning Fund Balance 140 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 CITY GAS TAX FUND Contingencies 169 000 Beginning Fund Balance 169 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 405 000 000 GENERAL FUND CIP Administrator-Financial System 358 121 Interfund Transfer from Gen'l Func 358 000 Purchase of Financial System 745 002 490 001 Expenditures 4,000 -4,000 5,700 -5,700 66,182 10,228 19,251 50,974 159,706 -11,000 94,789 29,643 181,000 Revenue 66,182 10,228 19,251 50,974 159,706 -11,000 94,789 29,643 181,000 -16 -17 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 IOA r'r Description Account Interfund Transfer to Parks CIP Contingencies Transfer 2000-01 activity 358 121 910 364 358 000 921 000 Contingencies Interfund Trans from Parks ClP Ore State Parks Grant 358 000 921 000 358 000 490 364 Contingencies Interfund Trans from Parks CIP Evergreen Ret Cntr SDC's 358 000 921 000 358 000 490 364 Parks-Legion 358 491 713 101 Parks-SkatePark 358 491 713 102 Parks-Greenway 358 491 713 103 Parks-Centennial 358 491 713 104 Parkd-N Front Playground 358 491 713 105 Parks-Community Center 358 491 713 106 Interfund Transfer from Parks CIP 358 000 490 364 SDC Transfer current year projects from Parks Interfund Transfer from Gen'l Func 358 000 490 001 Association Building 358 121 722 109 Association Bldg Renovation Contingencies 358 000 921 000 Association Building 358 121 722 109 Association Bldg Renovation ~PECIAL ASSESSMENT, FUND Contingen~es 360 000 Beginning Fund Balance 360 000 A~ust Beginning Fund Balance to actual 921 000 405 000 STREET/STORM CIP FUND Contingencies 363 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 363 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual PARKS CIP FUND Contingencies 364 000 921 000 Centennial 364 412 742 008 Greenway 364 411 722 003 Beginning Fund Balance 364 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual Contingencies Interfund Transf from Gen'l CIP Transfer 2000-01 activity 364 000 921 000 364 000 490 058 Interfund Transfer to Gen'l CIP Or Parks & Rec Grant 2000-01 grant 364 412 910 358 364 412 450 131 Expenditures 221,975 -221,975 96,000 125,975 41,550 150,000 48,079 93,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 -20,000 20,000 133,107 233,056 -293,000 -25,000 -26,921 221,975 96,000 Revenue -10 96,000 -10 125,975 -10 347,629 -11 15,000 -15 -15 133,107 -1 233,056 -1 -344,921 -1 221,975 -11 96,000 -10 iOA DescHption Account Revenue InterfundTransfertoGen'lClP 364 412 910 358 Contingencies 364 000 921 000 SDC's 364 412 460 038 Evergreen Ret Cntr SDC's Legion 364 411 722 001 Skate Park 364 411 722 002 Greenway 364 411 722 003 Centennial 364 412 742 008 N Front Playground 364 413 710 003 Community Center 364 414 722 001 Interfund Transfer to Gen'l CIP 364 411 910 358 Transfer current year projects to Gen'l CIP TRAFFIC IMPACT, FEE FUND Contingencies 376 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 376 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual STORM WATER SDC FUND Contingencies 377 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 377 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual ,S, ~/ER CIp FUND Contingencies 461 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 461 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual SIEt/VER CONSTRUCTION FUND Contingencies 465 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 465 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual WATER FUND Contingencies 470 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 470 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual SEWER FUND Contingencies 472 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 472 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual WATER SDC FUND Contingencies 474 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 474 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual Expend~ures 125,975 71,025 -41,550 -150,000 -48,079 -93,000 -5,000 -10,000 347,629 398,875 59,355 23,558 692,691 94,679 230,389 137,153 197,000 398,875 59,355 23,558 692,691 94,679 230,389 137,153 -10 -11 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 iOA Description Account Expenditures Revenue SEWER SDC FUND Contingencies 475 000 Beginning Fund Balance 475 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual I ,h~RANCE FUND, 921 000 405 000 Contingencies 581 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 581 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual Insurance-Auto 581 131 Insurance-Workers' Comp 581 131 Insurance-General Liability 581 131 Contingencies 581 000 Increased premium costs 641 000 641 025 641 060 921 000 T & E FUND Contingencies 582 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 582 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual LIBRARY ENDOWMENT Contingencies 591 000 921 000 Beginning Fund Balance 591 000 405 000 Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual Total 77,461 77,461 17,997 17,997 5,000 35,000 20,000 -60,000 -1 36,746 36,746 10,632 10,632 · 3~687,478 3,687~478 -1 -12 -1 -1 iOA CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development MEMORANDUM lOB 2~0 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: March 11, 2002 To: From: Subject: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator J~ll~: UWI~ rd'b~i~e c~e~ fo ~ °ml~t Uonldt~i n~ ~Vc~l ° P m e n t~ RECOMMENDATION:' Itis recommended 'that the city Council continue the public heating on this matter to March 25, 2002. PROPOSAL: This is a proposal initiated by the Woodburn City Council to revise the text of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, rename it the Woodburn Development Ordinance, and to change the zoning on certain parcels. BACKGROUND: A public headng before the City Council on this matter was noticed for March 11, 2002. The City Council at its meeting of February 25, 2002 indicated that it intended to continue the public hearing to March 25, 2002. The Planning Commission held a public headng on this matter on January 24, 2002 and adopted a final order on February 28, 2002. The final order contains the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council on the draft development ordinance. The draft Woodburn Development Ordinance, the comparison of the existing zoning ordinance and draft Woodbum Development Ordinance, and the map of proposed zone changes were previously provided to the City Council and are available for public review upon request. The Planning Commission's final order, all other staff reports, minutes and testimony submitted to the Planning Commission, and any testimony received subsequent to the Planning Commission's decision are attached to this memorandum for Council review and are available for public review upon request. A staff report discus.~ing the Planning Commission's recommendations and other relevant issues will be provided to the City Council prior to the March 25, 2002 meeting. Attachments: Exhibit "A" -. Draft Woodburn Development Ordinance (previously Council and available upon request) provided to City Exhibit"B"- Comparison of Existing Zoning Ordinance and Proposed Woodburn Development Ordinance (previously provided to City Council and available upon request) Exhibit "C" - Map of Proposed Zone Changes (previously provided to City Council and available upon request) Attachment "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 1/24/02, including Exhibits "D-l" through "D-7" and Exhibits "D-8", "D-9" and "E" presented at the hearing (provided to City Council and available upon request) Attachment "B' - Memo to Planning Commission, dated 2/14/02, including Exhibits "D- 10' and "F' (provided to City Council and available upon request) ^ttachment "C" - Planning Commission Final Order (provided to City Council and available upon request) ^ttachment "D' - Planning Commission Minutes from 1/24/02, 2/14/02, and 2/28/02 meetings (provided to City Council and available upon~mquest) ~ Attachment "E" -Testimony Received Subsequent to Planning Commission Decision (provided to City Council and available upon request) 10B WDO 2 II. WDO CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 24, 2002 ATTACHMENT A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 0'1-01 ZONE CHANGE 0'1-06 PROPOSAL: This is a proposal initiated by the Woodburn City Council to revise the text of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, rename it the Woodburn Development Ordinance, and to change the zoning on certain parcels. RELEVANT FACTS: The 1999-2000 City budget provided funds and established a goal of updating the City Zoning Ordinance and other development ordinances. A focus group was established in the summer of 1999 to provide policy direction to update the City development ordinances. This focus group consisted of Kathy Figley, City Councilor; Jim Cox, Planning Commissioner; and Dave Christoff, local real estate' broker. A planning consultant, Roger Budke, was retained to draft the new development ordinance. The process of updating the zoning ordinance began in late summer 1999. City staff participating in the process primarily consisted of the City Administrator, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Senior Planner, Public Works Director, Senior Civil Engineering Technician and Assistant City Attorney. The focus group, consultant, and City staff met regularly from September 1999 to November 2000. At that time a working draft was completed based on policy direction from the focus group. From that time to the present, the working draft has been refined based on review of the City Attorney's office, and planning and public works staff. The focus group was reconvened the past few months to provide final policy direction on refinements to' the draft development ordinance proposed by City staff. The draft Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) was presented to the City Council at its December 10, 2001 meeting and to the Planning Commission at its December 13, 2001 meeting. "Notice of Proposed Amendment" was delivered to the State Department of Land Conservation and Development on December 10, 2001. Notice of public hearings to be held before the Planning Commission on January 24, 2002 and before the City Council on March 11, 2002 was mailed to all property owners within the City of Woodburn in compliance with Measure 56 requirements. These notices were mailed on December 21, 2001. Notice of said public hearings was published in the Statesman Journal and Woodburn Staff Report I III. IV. Independent in compliance with City ordinances. The draft WDO was posted on the City's web site and was made available for public review at the City Library and City Hall. The Planning Commission held work sessions to discuss the draft WDO on January 10, 2002 and January 16, 2002. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IX. Goals and Policies Woodburn Zoning Ordinance - Procedural Requirements, Chapter 7 ANALYSIS: The Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) has been reformatted to include the provisions in the following ordinances: Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Woodburn Access Management Ordinance (WAMO) Subdivision Ordinance (WSO) (Ordinance No. 1807) (Ordinance No. 2186) (Ordinance No. 2076) The Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) is a "Community Development Ordinance," not just a zoning ordinance. The City has adopted landscaping standards by resolution, not by ordinance. These landscaping standards are incorporated in the WDO. Finally, the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) contains recommended implementation regulations that were not adopted when the TSP was adopted, but the City has stated its intent to adopt those recommendations into its regulations. The WDO combines zoning, landscaping, transportation, land division and annexation requirements in one document with a single set of uniform development standards. The WDO does not affect the Woodburn Sign Ordinance. The sign ordinance will be revised in a separate process later. The above listed ordinances will be repealed concurrent with adoption of the WDO. The WZO has been subject to only minor revisions since it was first adopted in 1983. Since then, applicable state law has changed significantly, and the practice of land use planning has evolved. The WDO was restructured to make the ordinance more modern, internally consistent, clearer and easier to use. The zoning ordinance proposed in the WDO restructures the WZO into an interrelated system. For example, the landscape provisions are all in one place instead of scattered among several sections; provisions for telecommunications facilities, manufactured dwelling parks, historically and architecturally significant sites have been incorporated into a more logical structure. Generally speaking, the rules have not changed, they are relocated. There were several different ordinances controlling development in Woodburn. There were inconsistencies in the criteria among the ordinances. Those inconsistencies are resolved in the WDO. WDO Staff Report 2 WDO The WDO was revised to be consistent with changes in state law (statewide goals, legislation and case law). Included in this category are changes relating to manufactured dwelling parks, provisions relating to the 120 day rule, procedural and notice requirements for processing applications and conducting public hearings, provisions related to child care facilities and residential care facilities, and provisions for residential sales offices. Relatedly, the intent is to state all the applicable rules in one document so there can be a clear understanding of what is required and one place to look for the applicable substantive and procedural requirements. Some standards are made more explicit to clarify what is required. Several chapters in the WZO have not been incorporated into the WDO since they were deemed either not necessary under current circumstances or not consistent with recent case law. These chapters include Chapter 17, Solar Access Recordation; Chapter 20, Conservation and Renewable Energy Housing; Chapter 38, Adult Entertainment; and Chapter 39, Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-In-Lieu-Of. Some changes were made to reflect policy choices that will achieve a more livable community. Such changes include changes in parking standards to permit more efficient land use, better screening from the street for commercial parking, better buffers between marginally compatible uses, more specific and more thorough landscaping standards, protection of existing trees, required private and common open space in multiple family developments and allowing a little higher fencing next to a street. Matters that have been on-going issues have been addressed, these include new provisions related to money transfer services, mobile food services, PUD procedures and a method to consolidate parcels. The PUD procedures allow a PUD to include all uses permitted outright, specifically or conditionally. Included in the WDO are changes that are proposed because the City is now more urban than it was when the WZO was adopted. Such items include street naming criteria, drive-thru business standards, more functional flag lot access and setbacks, no barbed wire, and grading permits. Where the WDO contains more restrictive standards, they are intended to increase the livability of the subject property, neighboring properties and the community as a whole, and consequently improve the value and sustainability of development. Some standards contain alternatives. Such provisions are intended to provide greater flexibility to meet site and market conditions while meeting overall land use policy objectives. Only changes that are supported by goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are proposed in this WDO. The City has some studies that are in process, as part of its periodic review work program, that may result in future amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and to the WDO, such as the inclusion of a mixed use zone. The City has determined that it would benefit from modernization of the WDO now and that when ongoing studies are concluded, implementing Introduction 3 amendments to the new WDO can be made in the future. No changes are proposed that require an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The only change that relates to the statewide goals is the significant wetlands overlay district, which is new. In general, the standards in the WZO are continued into the WDO. changes occur as the result of consolidating zones and standards. was not to make any existing uses nonconforming. However, The intent Features of the WZO that have never been used have been eliminated. Unused zones have been eliminated (RD, RH and IH). Zones that were very similar have been consolidated (RL, RM; CR, CG; CB, DDC; PA, PC, PE, PH, PP & PS). The RM zone, the only WDO multiple family zone, now has different provisions for three housing types: manufactured dwelling parks, assisted living facilities and apartments. The WDO allows slightly higher densities for assisted care facilities than for apartments. Fewer loading spaces are required for very small businesses. New features of the WDO are architectural review and a significant wetlands overlay district. If a PUD is approved with CC&Rs that address the intent of all architectural review factors, the lots within the PUD are exempt from City architectural review. The WDO provides for the establishment of a Design Review Board to review site plan applications involving buildings over 1,000 square feet in area. The Planning Commission will function as the Design Review Board unless a separate board is appointed by the City Council. The WDO provides for the reduction of the Planning Commission from nine members to seven. The standards in the WDO are consistent with policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but do reflect higher standards, smarter growth and sustainability. The zoning map is being amended concurrent with adoption of the WDO to make the map consistent with the text amendments. All land zoned CR and ID will be changed to the CG zone, except for CR zoned property located at the northeast corner of Highway 214 and Boones Ferry Road which will be changed to the CO zone. All land zoned CB will be changed to the CO zone. All land zoned IS will be changed to the IP zone. The one parcel designated RL will be changed to RM. The WDO includes dedication and improvement standards for streets. It requires all accesses to be connected to a public street. The dedication and improvement standards vary depending upon the functional classification of the street to be accessed. Private streets are allowed only in manufactured dwelling parks. WDO Introduction 4 If complying with the standards violates an applicant's constitutional rights the applicant may apply for an exception from the standards. The WDO requires the applicant for an exception to provide information on the impact of the proposed development on the traffic system and the costs of providing the level of improvement proposed by the applicant. The decision-maker may not approve an exception to street dedication and improvement standards that allows a street that is less than the specified minimally safe and functional street. If compliance with the minimum street standard violates an applicant's constitutional rights, the applicant may apply for a variance from the applicable street standard. An attachment to this staff report contains a detailed comparison of the existing WZO with the proposed WDO. Generally, the comparison follows the format of the WDO. To eliminate redundancy, some subjects that apply to two or more zones are discussed in a section that is generally applicable to the zones, rather than in each zone. This comparison has several purposes. First, it identifies the major changes that are made in the WDO compared to the WZO to aid interested persons in understanding what effects the changes have on the use of land in the various zones in the City. Second, it identifies state laws that constrain the decisions of the City where the City is required to comply with statutory provisions. Third, it serves as a document containing the City's findings about the effects of the new ordinance. Fourth, it is intended to serve as a legislative history of the intent of the drafters of the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a final order recommending that the City Council adopt the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance and approve the proposed zone changes. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Draft Woodburn Development Ordinance (previously provided to Planning Commission) Comparison of Existing Zoning Ordinance and Proposed Woodburn Development Ordinance (previously provided to Planning Commission) Map of Proposed Zone Changes (previously provided to Planning Commission) Written Testimony received prior to 1/24/02 public hearing: D-l: Letter from Richard Baranzano, received 1/3/02 D-2: Letter from D-3: Letter from D-4: Letter from D-5: Letter from D-6: Letter from D-7: Letter from Richard Baranzano, received 1/7/02 Ron Halter, received 1/8/02 Terry Will, received 1/8/02 Ron Halter, received 1/8/02 Richard Baranzano, received 1/10/02 Richard Baranzano, received 1/17/02 WDO Introduction 5 IFf ATTENTION: James P. Mulder, Community Development Director, City of Woodburn 1/02/01 SENT VIA FAX 503-982-5246 FROM: Richard Baranzano, owner of Tax Lot//700, Map 051W08A, R106977, Marion County, Oregon, 2917 N Pacific Highway, Woodburn, Oregon( Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot). ,.,~,JO o~U RI'~ GOMh~UNt'FY DEVELOPMEN'I' OEP'I'- RE: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS,; OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 01-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 01-06 1) CHANGE 1N ZONING DISTRICT IN THE "WDO" IS to CG 2) CHANGE IN THE WOODBURN OFFICIAL ZONING MAP All land zoned IS will be changed to CG ADD TO CG ZONE, SPECIAL PERMITTED USES, SECTION 2.106.02, PARAGRAPH [ F. Industrial Sales subject to Section 2.203.14 ] CHANGE SPECIAL USE STANDARDS, INDUSTRIAL SALES, SECTION 2.203.14, PARAGRAPH [ B. Location. The site for the use shall be located in an CG zone both within 500 feet of Pacific Highway 99E and 1200 feet of Industrial Way. ATTENTION: James P. Mulder, Community Development Director, City of Woodburn 1/02/01 SENT VIA FAX $03-982-$246 FROM: Richard Baranzano, owner of Tax Lotg 700, Map 051W08A, R106977, Marion County, Oregon, 2917 N Pacific Highway, Woodburn, Oregon( Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot). RE: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS, OFFICIAL · ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PROPOSAL TO MODIFY PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 01-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 01-06 1) CHANGE IN ZONING DISTRICT IN THE "WDO' IS to CG 2) CHANGE IN THE WOODBURN OFFICIAL ZONING MAP All land zoned IS will be changed to CG ADD TO CG ZONE, SPECIAL PERMITTED USES, SECTION 2.106.02, PARAGRAPH [dj~ industrial Sales subject to Section 2.203.14 ! CHANGE SPECIAL USE STANDARDS, INDUSTRIAL SALES, SECTION 2.203.14, PARAGRAPH [ B. Location. The site for the use shall be located in an CG zone both within 500 feet of Pacific Highway 99E and 1200 feet of Industrial Way. I g 1~ I r Jarl 07 02 10:47a Richard Rver~ Baranzano 503-227-4778 p. 1, REC'D Richard Baranzano Owner, 2917 N. Pacific Highway(Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot) Box 505 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 JAN 0 7 2002 WOODBURN COMMUNITY ,DEVELOPMENT DEPT. January 7, 2002 SENT VIA FAX: 503-982-5244 & 503-982-5243 Woodburn Planning Commission and James P. Mulder, Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Commission Members, I was first notified at or around Christmas of a proposal to down-zone my Property from Industrial Sales District to the Industrial Park District. Upon inquiry, I was informed by Mr. Muldcr and Mr. Shields that the proposal originated entirely from the work ora "Focus Group". Yet, any defense was impossible since no minutes were kept of their meetings. In fact, the City Web Site has akeady dropped the present Development Code from the Web Site in favor of the proposed Development Code. So much for Public Process driving the Stealthy Christnms Attack that caused us to drop our family vacation plans in order to defend the major source of our income. Thanks. Is the purpose of this proposal a directive for a need to consolidate zones? Such a proposal would be over-simplistic and suspect. Unfortunately, it is not possible to consolidate the Industrial Sales Zone with the Industrial Park Zone. The only real similarity between the Industrial Sales and Industrial Park Zones is the word industrial with both areas largely developed and used quite differemly. In fact, the properties in the Industrial Sales District fronting 99-E are being used for retail sales whereas, None of the properties in the Industrial Park District are being used for retail sales. Sere're vacancies and obsolete buildings presently populate the existing Industrial Park District. Instead of down-zoning the successful Industrial Sales District, attention should rather be given to promoting existing vacant industrial buildings and under-utilized industrial lands in the Industrial Park Zone. Conversely, the Industrial Sales District has been very successful witlfin the City, enjoying a policy of consistently expanding the use of this Zone in response to demand. Within thc framework of the present Comprehensive Plan, no valid justification exists for changing the Industrial Sales District to Industrial Park District. Woodbum has served as a service center for surrounding communities. Actually, the Factory Sales Outlet, Al's Garden Center, and a Wallmart SuperCenter have a regional draw. Furthermore, it cm~ be argued that, John Deer, Goodwill, Manufactured Home Sales, and the DMV also have a regional draw. On the other hand, Safeway is not PAGE I of 2 3an 07 02 10:48a R~chard Rverw Baranzano 503-~7-4776 p.8 regional. The Industrial Sales District has created jobs and services and, has drawn other people to the Communities that would of otherwise traveled in other directions. This regional draw has created a need to project more Commercial Property Demand and to allow more flexibility for Commercial Uses in the Industrial Sales Zoning District as a necessary step in recognizing and promoting this part of the City. The need exists for further recognition of uses in this Industrial Sales Zone and to make existing non-co~fforming uses, conforming uses. Goodwill Industries, Santiam Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot and Finance Centcr, AG West Farm Store and Equipment Sales, Familian Northwest Plumbing Supply and the Woodburn DMV Office are thriving as Retail, Office, Supply Service Uses. According to the Fasano Justifications, Is there 1) A public need for the change from IS Zoning to IP Zoning and 2) Can this need best be serve by changing the zoning classification of IS property to IP property compared with other available property? Fact: 1) No. Industrial Sales District Zoning has proved to be a very successful transition zone to Traditional Commercial Type Uses. Furthermore, this strip of properties between 99-E and National Way is not wide enough or large enough to attract industrial uses, 2) No. Presently there exists large vacant industrial buildings and parcels zoned for industrial use. Furthermore, bold opportunities exist for industrial parcel expansion in other parts of the City. Within the Urban Growth boundary another 126.1 acres of industrial property is available as part of Woodburns Land Use Inventory. Access, highway improvements, parcel size, use and exposure to 99-E has proved to be a winning formula and has resulted in low vacancy rates in the Industrial Sales Zoning District. The present proposal is arbitrary and is judicial in nature. On the other hand, an opportunity does exists to allow the Industrial Sales Zoning District to recognize and legitimize non-conforming uses and to allow for the continued attractive evolution of this unique and successful part of the City. Also, service uses convenient to employees with very important 99-E visibility and accessibility to thc Community such as convenience"stores, gas stations, offices, clothing stores, banks, auto related uses, and services such as print shops, office products, furnishings, fast foods need to be encouraged and codified at this time. I trust that we can work together and allow this to be another opportunity in continuing to expand uses in the Industrial Sales District Zone. Respectfully, Richard Baranzxno(o~ Cc: Robert Shields, City Attorney PA(_31'; 2 of 2 FROM : HALTER BUSINESS GROUP PHONE NO. : 50~6945995 Jan. 08 200~ 09:G?AM P1 HALTER BUSINESS GROUP 7885 SW FAIRWAY DR. WILSONVILLE, OR, 97070 PHONE:503-694-5086 CELL:503-201-6424 FAX'. 503-694-5995 'A" REC'D 'b' JAN 0 8 2002 WOOD2URN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Jan. 7, 2002 Woodburn Planning Commission and James P, Mulder, Community Development Director 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, Or. 97071 vai Fax to: 503-982-5244 Dear Director and Commissioners, I am writing to strongly express our disagreement with your stated intentions to down- zone our property and to protest what has the appearance of a cavalier attitude of nonchalance toward the property rights of all of the owners of IS zoned property. I represent Woodburn Discount Foods, Inc., Halter Oil Co. Inc., and Greater Oregon leasing & Development, Inc, Collectively we are the owners of 4 parcels that would be devalued by your proposed down-zoning to IP. It is unfortunate that your "focus Group" apparently did not include at least one affected property owner. It may have helped them to understand the history of the Woodburn Industrial Park. We purchased the last unsold lot from the developers (Bountiful Farms). That purchase took place almost twenty years after the lots were first developed and offered for sale, At that time the zone had already been changed to Industrial Sales because it was apparent that there was no market for the land as IP zoned. The City at that time rightly recognized that the highway 99E frontage was an asset to retail businesses and a detriment to strictly industrial users. Had the zoning of our lots not been changed to IS we would not have purchased them because of the more restrictive nature of the IP zone. It seems to us that a better solution would be to expand the allowed uses in the IS zone to reflect the reality of current use and to remove the problem of any preexisting non-conforming uses that might now be in place If it is your intention to eventually force the uses back to only those allowed under the FROM : HALTER BUSINESS GROUP PHONE NO. : 5036945995 Jan. 08 ~00~ 09:38AM P2 ~P zone then that would constitute an unacceptable taking. If that is not the intention, then there can exist no valid reason to make such a change other than convenience. A change to CG would make more sense but we understand that that would involve changing the comprehensive plan, something you may not be ready to attempt at this time. It is our understanding that the Planning Commission will hold a workshop to discuss the mater on Jan, 10, 2002. We further understand that public testimony will not be allowed at that workshop and that the next opportunity for owners to be allowed public input will not occur until the Planning Commission meeting of Jan 24, 2002. We note that the Notice of Public Hearing has this mater before the full City Council on March 11. The timing seems to indicate that the commission has already decided on the recommendations it will be making to the Council. If that is tt~e case, we find it troubling. If it is not the case, scheduling the Council hearing for only 11 wo. rking days after your Commission meets is equally troubling. Both yourselves and the affected landowners should be afforded sufficient time to prepare a thoughtful presentation for the Council. If we are in error on these matters will you please advise us as to the correct plan of discussion and decision. It is our hope that upon reftection the Commission will reconsider this proposal. We can only assume that this issue has arisen because the existence of the IS zone is somehow causing or will cause problems for the City. We would be happy to make ourselves available to meet with you in a spirit of cooperation to help resolve those problems while at the s~tme time preserving the rights and property values of the owners. Sincerely, December 3 I, 2001 Mr. Jim Mulder 270 Montgomery Woodburn, OR 97071 JAN 0 WOOD, URN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP~, Dear Mr. Mulder: Please include this letter as written testimony for the Woodburn Planning Commission's public hearing scheduled for January 24, 2002. My testimony will be on the following: 1. 1.105 Planning Commission-page 1.1-24 B- Composition of Commission 3. No more than one voting member shall be engaged principally in the buying, selling, or developing of real estate for profit as an individual or be a member of any corporation that is engaged principally in the buying, selling or developing of real estate for profit. No more than one voting member shall be engaged in the same kind of business, trade or profession. Response: Item 3 is simply not needed. The Mayor submits the names of potential commission members for approval by the city council. The Mayor and council should have knowledge of a persons trade or profession and if there is a conflict, the name(s) are withdrawn. 2. 1.105.02 Organization of the Commission-page 1.1-25 A. Officers 1. The Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair. The terms of office shall comply with the rules and regulations of the Commission and City Council. Response: The current rules require the election of officers in January and I am assuming this rule will not be changed. It should not be the responsibility of the commission members to ask for an election. I believe the reminder for the election should be put on the agenda by staff. 3. 1.106 Design Review Board-page 1.1-28 B. Composition of the Board. 2. Voting membership of the Board shall include at least three design professionals or persons with experience and/or knowledge of design. No more than one voting member shall be engaged in the same kind of business, trade or profession. Response: I just do not understand section two. The requirement is 3 professionals in the design field, but only one is allowed on the board as a voting member. The requirement is too strict and there is a potential for conflict of interest. Page 2 Mr. Jim Mulder 4. 3.104 Access-page 3.1-15 B. Access to City Streets, Permit Required-page 3.1 .-15 2. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) may be required by the Public Works Director prior to approval of a City access or street construction permit when the Director estimates a development proposal may generate either 100 or more additional, peak hour trips, or 1,000 or more additional daily trips, within ten years of a development application. A TIA shall evaluate the traffic impacts projected of a development proposal and the estimated effectiveness of potential traffic impact mitigation measures. The methodology for a TIA shall be consistent with Public Works Department guidelines. Response: It is my understanding that Public Works does not have a published guideline for Traffic Impact Analysis. Will the public have access to a published TIA prior to approval of the Woodbum Development Ordinance? 5. Table 3.1.2 Off Street Parking Ratio Standard-page 3.1-29 Response: Perhaps I missed it, but I could not find any parking ratio standards for a community center or parks. The referenced parking ratio standards need to be included because the city is currently considering building a new community center and adequate parking area has to be included. Thank you for including my letter in the public hearing process. Sincerely yours, Te~L~~. ill FROM : HALTER BUSINESS GROUP PHONE NO. : 5036945995 HAL T E R., B U SIN'E S S.',G:RO U P 7885 SW'FAIRWAY .DR. WILSONVILLE, . OR. 97070 PHONE:503~694-5086 CELL:503.201.-6424 FAX: 503-694;5995 Jan. 08 2002 03:56PM P1 ,~, REc'D JAN 0 8 200Z WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Jan. 8, 2002 Woodburn Planning Commission and James. P. Mulder, CommunitY Development Director 270 MOntgomery St. Woodburn, Or. 97071 via Fax to; 503-982-5244 Dear Director and CommiSsioners, Thank'you the rapid response to my letter and'for poinling .ou( the error I made as to the date of the City Council meeting. I inadvertently marked' it' on the February. calendar page Father than the March page as is correct. That of course' leaves 31 working days which is clearly sufficient time for both the, City and the Lahdowner$ to consider the issue. I apologize for the implications that-my'error caUsed me to consider. You have also advised me that the current IP Zone has been updated from what it used to be so that it now includes all of the permitted uses that the .IS zone aflows.· I again apologize for r)ot being current in mY-knowledge of the zoning.ordinance. That. said, we still have some concerns abou! the.issue and we intend 'to participate in the public discussion. I again repeat my offer to share our concerns with y°uin a Spirit ofco°peration , .. Obviously this is a matter of enormous concern to us and to all affected ownersl Sincerely, Ron Halter Richard Bara~?ano Owner, 2917 N. Pacific Highway(Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot) Box 505 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 REC'D JAN 1 0 200: WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. January7,2002 SENT VIA FAX: 503-982-5244 & 503-982-5243 Woodburn Planning Commission and James P. Mulder, Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Commission Members, I was first notified at or around Christmas of a proposal to down-zone my Property from Industrial Sales District to the Industrial Park District. Upon inquiry, I was informed by Mr. Mulder and Mr. Shields that the proposal originated entirely from the work of a "Focus Group". Yet, any defense was impossible since no minutes were kept of their meetings. In fact, the City Web Site has already dropped the present Development Code from the Web Site in favor of the proposed Development Code. So much for Public Process driving the Stealthy Christmas Attack that caused us to drop our family vacation plans in order to defend the major source of our income. Thanks. Is the purpose of this proposal a directive for a need to consolidate zones? Such a proposal would be over-simplistic and suspect. Unfortunately, it is not possible to consolidate the Industrial Sales Zone with the Industrial Park Zone. The only real similarity between the Industrial Sales and Industrial Park Zones is the word industrial with both areas largely developed and used quite differently. In fact, the properties in the Industrial Sales District fronting 99-E are being used for retail sales whereas, None of the properties in the Industrial Park District are being used for retail sales. Severe vacancies and obsolete buildings presently populate thc existing Industrial Park District. Instead of down-zoning the successful Industrial Sales District, attention should rather be given to promoting existing vacant industrial buildings and under-utilized industrial lands in the Industrial Park Zone. Conversely, the Industrial Sales District has been very successful within the City, enjoying a policy of consistently expanding the use of this Zone in response to demand. Within the framework of the present Comprehensive Plan, no valid justification exists for changing the Industrial Sales District to Industrial Park District. Woodburn has served as a service center for surrounding communities. Actually, the Factory Sales Outlet, Al's Garden Center, and a Wallmart SuperCenter have a regional draw. Furthermore, it can be argued that, John Deer, Goodwill, Manufactured Home Sales, and the DMV also have a regional draw. On the other hand, Safeway is not PAGE I of 2 regional. The Industrial Sales District has created jobs and services and, has drawn other people to the Communities that would of otherwise traveled in other directions. This regional draw has created a need to project more Commercial Property Demand and to allow more flexibility for Commercial Uses in the Industrial Sales Zoning District as a necessary step in recognizing and promoting this part of the City. The need exists for further recognition of uses in this Industrial Sales Zone and to make existing non-conforming uses, conforming uses. Goodwill Industries, Santiam Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, AG West Farm Store and Equipment Sales, Familian Northwest Plumbing Supply and the Woodburn DMV Office are thriving as Retail, Office, Supply Service Uses. According to the Fasano Justifications, Is there 1) A public need for the change from IS Zoning to IP Zoning and 2) Can this need best be serve by changing the zoning classification of IS property to IP property compared with other available property.'? Fact: 1) No. Industrial Sales District Zoning has proved to be a very successful transition zone to Traditional Commercial Type Uses. Furthermore, this strip of properties between 99-E and National Way is not wide enough or large enough to attract industrial uses, 2) No. Presemly there exists large vacant industrial buildings and parcels zoned for industrial use. Furthermore, bold opportunities exist for industrial parcel expansion in other parts of the City. Within the Urban Growth boundary another 126.1 acres of industrial property is available as part of Woodbums Land Use Inventory. Access, highway improvements, parcel size, use and exposure to 99-E has proved to be a winning formula and has resulted in iow vacancy rates in the Industrial Sales Zoning District. The present proposal is arbitrary and is judicial in nature. On the other hand, an opportunity does exists to allow the Industrial Sales Zoning District to recognize and legitimize non-conforming uses and to allow for the continued attractive evolution of this unique and successful part of the City. Also, service uses convenient to employees with very important 99-E visibility and accessibility to the Community such as convenience stores, gas stations, offices, clothing stores, banks, auto related uses, and services such as print shops, office products, furnishings, fast foods need to be encouraged and codified at this time. ! trust that we can work together and allow this to be another opportunity in continuing to expand uses in the Industrial Sales District Zone. Respectfully, Richard Baranzano Cc: Robert Shields. City Attorney PAGE 2 of 2 / ,/ .]an 17 02 1;2: 15p Eichard Rver~l Baranzano b[J3-22'/-4'/'/6 p. 1 EY, , ,A, REC'D'b Richard Baranzano Owner, 2917 N. Pacific Highway(Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot) Box 505 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 JAN 1 ? 2002 WOODBURN CoMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, January lT, 2002 SENT VIA FAX: 503-982-5244 & 503-982-5243 Woodburn Planning Commission and James P. Mulder, Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Commission Members, Thank you for the opportunity to speak at your last workshop on January 10, 2002. Since we do not have much tirr~, I hope that you understand that I need to be direct. Allow me to reinterate my comments, whereas the present proposal: 1) Invites the location of small and possible noxious industrial uses along Woodburns most attractive "Northern Gateway". Is this a good result of the purposeful proposal directing for the need to consolidate zones.'? 2) Does not recognize the need and reality to recognize the spectrum of uses existing in this Industrial Sales Zone and to make these existing non-conforming uses, conforming uses simply by permitting them only as conditional uses. Goodwill Industries, Santiam IIomes Sales Lot and Finance Center, Larnplighter Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, AG West Farm Store and Equipment Sales, Familian Northwest Plumbing Supply and the Woodburn DMV Office are thriving as Retail, Office, Supply Service Uses. Access, highway improvements, parcel size, use and exposure to 99-E have proven to be a winning formula and have resulted in low vacancy rates in the Industrial Sales Zoning District. The present proposal is arbitrary and is judicial in nature. As much as I tried to comprehend, I could neither understand the Consultants explanation for his proposals nor could I detect any sensitivity regarding the econonfic success of this area. On the other hand, an opportunity clearly doe~ exists to allow the Industrial Sales Zoning District Properties, especially the Properties fronting 99-E to recognize and legitimize non- conforming uses by codifing them as conditional uses in order to allow for the continued policy of guiding the attractive evolution of this unique and successful part of the City. Allowing these conditional uses( retail~ office~ service uses ) does not constitute a major revision in Woodburns Comprehensive Plan. ,rRespe~ctfillly' d B~a~ara~~ Cc: Robert Shields. City Attorney Jan 23 02 03:58p Richard Rver~ Baranzano Richard Baranzano Owner, 2917 N. Pacific Highway(Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot) Box 505 Tualatin, Oregon 97062 January 23, 2002 503-227-4778 p. 1 REC'D JAN 2002 · ,,vOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVEtOPMEN7 DEP'[ SENT VIA FAX: 503-982-5244 & 503-982-5243 RE: Proposed Zoning Text Amendments and Zoning Map Changes. Woodburn Planning Commission and James P. Mulder, Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Commission Members, Zoning Text Amendments are being proposed that will change and expand both Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses in the present CR Zone. Building Material Sales(444), Hotels and Motels(72111 ) and Bed-and-Brcakthst Inns(721191) arc now proposed to be Permitted as Outright Uses while, Tractor and Heavy Equipment Dealers, Used Merchandise Stores(4511), Manufactured Home Dealers(453930), and Pawn Shops(522298) are now proposed to be allowed as Conditional Uses. Goodwill Industries, Santiam Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, AG West Farm Store and Equipment Sales, Familian Northwest Plumbing Supply and the Woodburn DMV Office are thriving as Retail, Office, Supply Service Uses in the IS Zone. Access, highway improvements, parcel size, use and exposure to 99-E have proven to be a winning [brmula and have resulted in low vacancy rates in the Industrial Sales Zoning District. The opportunity clearly exists to allow the Industrial Sales Zoning District Properties, e~ecially the Properties fronting 99-E to recognize and legitimize non-conforming uses by codifying them as conditional uses in order to allow for the continued policy of guiding the attractive evolution of this unique and successful part of the City. I will again state that allowing these conditional uses( retail, office, service uses ) docs not constitute a major revision in Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan( see OAR 660-015-0000(9) and Administrative Rules Division 009 ) otherwise, changing all IS Zoned Property to IP Zoned Property would constitute a down-zoning of the IS Zoned Property. Your proposal also further dilutes and down-zones the IS Property by allowing Tractor and Heavy Equipment Dealers and Manufactured Home Dealers as Conditional Uses in the present CR Zone. Respec)fully, Richard Baranzano Cc: Robert Shields, City Attorney Z c 0 · ~ _~ o ~ · Z.~ ~ 0 ~ 0~ ~'~ c 02~ b.¢~ z-~¢ z 9~.go ~ ~ '~0 o .~ 0 o ¢'¢ ~N .. ~ = C o 0 ~ O~ ·C o~ E~~ =-E~ ~ 'E ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ O~d E 0 =-~= ~EE~0 0"~.~ O~ m~o~ ' E~oo C~.. Z (D r r ~8:~: ~E~ '1:3 '-- c- O 0 ~ ~ ~ C~ 0~ ' ~ . ~ - =~ ~ ,~ - ~ E ~- 0 c- o ~ c- o L ~ 0 (D ~ ~ ~ o~ z~ __. ~ .o o ILl ,~ 0 c o.~ ~-- 0 ~ ~ o ~'~ ~N ~. 0 o 0 ~.~ .9~ .~ o E oo~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ c 0 ~_~° r- ~D C -oo-~ ~ · 0 o ._E~_~ _.9. '~.oo I .I \ '-.1~ © m~o ~>~- 0 E ~. ~ ~ O~~ .J MEMORANDUM OPINION NO. 2002-01 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: N. ROBERT SHIELDS, CITY ATTOPxNEY JAN 2 4 2OO2 'C, ODZ UFiN COMMUNITY ~_',7 qiLOPMENT DEPT AUTHORITY TO REGULATE ADULT BUSINESSES DATE: JANUARY 23, 2002 I. QUESTION Can the proposed Woodbum Development Ordinance (WDO) contain requirements regulating adult businesses? II. ANSWER No. In Ci_ty of Portland v. Tidyman, 306 Or 174 (1988), the Oregon Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that directly regulated adult businesses by requiring them to "locate at least 500 feet distant fi.om any residential zone or any public or private school and, in some zones, at least 1000 feet from any other adult business" as unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution. III. DISCUSSION For many years, Oregon cities regulated adult businesses in the same manner as cities in other states. However, in the late 1980s, the Oregon Supreme Court abandoned the practice of deferring to the U.S. Constitution, and determined that all major forms of speech are protected under the Oregon Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Oregon Supreme Court found that obscene speech has the same protection under the Oregon Constitution as political, artistic, and commercial speech. This new legal approach, and the specific ruling of the Court in the Tidyman case, have effectively prevented Oregon cities from passing regulations in this area. In response to the Oregon Supreme Court rulings, and at ithe urging of the City of Portland, the 1999 Oregon Legislature referred Measure 87 to the November 7, 2000 statewide election ballot. Measure 87 would have given local governments the legal power to regulate adult businesses to the extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution. However, the Oregon voters rejected Measure 87. IV. LEGAL PARAMETERS Given the current state of Oregon law, my legal advice is that the City not attempt to regulate adult businesses through the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO). I believe that to do so could result in civil liability for the City and potential individual liability for the elected and appointed City officials involved. Attachments: Summary of Portland v. Tidyman; Ballot Title for Measure 87. Page 1 Citation/Title 759 P.2d 242, 306 Or. 174, City of Portland v. Tidyman,- (Or. 1988) *242 759 P.2d 242 306 Or. 174, 57 USLW 2060 Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation, Petitioner on Review, V. John TIDYMAN and the Flick Bookstore, an assumed business name of Daniel Cossette, Ltd., an Oregon corporation, Defendants, Third-Party Plaintiffs, Respondents on Review, V. HOOVER ENTERPRISES, LIMITED and Albert Krikorian, aka Ara Apregiam, Third-Party Defendants. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation, Petitioner on Review, V. Betty L. SMITH and Herbert L. Newmark, Defendants, Albert Bedrosian, aka Albert Peterson and Theland, Inc., an involuntarily dissolved Oregon corporation, dba Adult Center Bookstore, Defendants-Respondents on Review. CITY OF PORTLAND, a municipal corporation, Petitioner on Review, V. Christ D. MAKAROUNIS and Adele Makarounis, Defenda. nts, C & H Cattle Company, dba CaPs Bookstore, Defendant-Respondent on Review. TC A8305-03194, TC A8305-03190, TC A8305-03192; SC S34556. Argued and Submitted Jan. 20, 1988. Decided July 12, 1988. CA A34453; City brought consolidated actions to enjoin as public nuisance the operation of "adult bookstores" in locations prohibited by city ordinance. The Circuit Court, Multnomah County, William Riggs, J., entered judgment for bookstore owners. City appealed. The Court of Appeals, 87 Or.App. 488, 742 P.2d 1202, affirmed (unpublished opinion). City's petition for review was allowed by the Supreme Court, which held, per Linde, J., that city ordinance imposing location and spacing restrictions on "adult businesses" was invalid restraint on free expression under State Constitution. Affirmed. Gillette, g., concurred in part and specially concurred in part and filed opinion. Jones, J., specially concurred and filed opinion. Copyright (c) West Group 2002 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works Page 2 759 P.2d 242, 306 Or. 174, C~ty of Portland v. Tidyman, ~(Or. 1988) West Headnotes [1] Zoning and Planning 414 .... 41411 Validity of Zoning Regulations 414II(B) Regulations as to Particular Matters 414k76 Particular Uses. Charter provision empowering city to regulate use and management of buildings authorized ordinance imposing location and spacing restrictions on "adult businesses," subject to constitutional limitations. [2] Zoning and Planning <~21 414 .... 414II Validity of Zoning Regulations 414II(A) In General 414k21 Validity of Regulations in General. While city need not await actual occurrence of substantial harm to neighborhood before it invokes nonpunitive, purely locational land use restriction, when terms of such restriction includes specified harm from particular forms of expression then application of ordinance necessarily requires showing of reality of threatening effect at place and time. Const. Art. 1, § 8. [3] Constitutional Law ~90.4(1) 92 92V Personal, Civil and Political Rights 92k90 Freedom of Speech and of the Press 92k90.4 Obscenity and Pornography 92k90.4(1) In General. [See headnote text below] [3] Zoning and Planning ~76 414 .... 414II Validity of Zoning Regulations 414II(B) Regulations as to Particular Matters 414k76 Particular Uses. City ordinance requiring "adult businesses" to locate at least 500 feet distant from any residential zone or any public or private school and, in some cases, at least 1000 feet from any other adult businesses, was invalid restraint on free expression under State Constitution; operative text of ordinance did not specify adverse effects that constituted nuisance attributable to sale of adult materials and therefore did not apply only when those adverse effects were shown to occur or imminently threaten to occur. Const. Art. 1, § 8. [306 Or. 175] Paul C. Elsner, Portland, filed a brief and appeared on behalf of petitioner on review. Copyright (c) West Group 2002 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works 0 0 0 0 > 0 <2> CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 Date: February 13, 2002 To: From: Subject: Planning Commission Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development ~/~l /I Continued hearing on Zone Text Amendment 01-~ and Zone Change 01-06 (Woodburn Development Ordinance) This item was continued from the Planning Commission's meeting of January 24, 2002. Public testimony was received at the previous hearing and the Planning Commission closed the hearing, but allowed written testimony to be submitted until February 8, 2002. One letter was received and has been attached to this memorandum. The draft minutes of the last meeting are included with this meeting's agenda to allow the Commission to review comments made at the hearing on this matter. Staff has provided a summary of comments from the last hearing to assist the Commission in considering those comments. At this meeting, staff recommends that the Commission discuss public comments that it believes have merit and any other comments the Commission would like to raise, and to come to a consensus on recommended changes to the Woodburn Development Ordinance to be forwarded for City Council consideration. Staff will then prepare a final order that contains the recommended changes and present them for the Commission's review at its February 28, 2002 meeting. Attachments: Exhibit "D-10" - Letter from Richard Baranzano, dated 2/6/02 Exhibit "F" - Summary of Comments from 1/24/02 Public Hearing Richard Baranzano Owner, 2917 N. Pacific Highway(Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot) Box 505 Tualatin, Oregon 97062, Phone 503-330-8100 FEB 06 2000 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. February 6, 2002 HAND DELIVERED, PAGE 1 OF 2 RE: Proposed Zoning Text Amendments and Zoning Map Changes. Woodbum Planning Commission and James P. Mulder, Community Developmem Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 Commission Members, The Economic Elemem of Woodburn's standing Comprehensive Plan outlines that, "The overall approach of the City to its economic problems is to work to remove barriers to the free and effective operation of market forces"(page 34, City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan). Furthermore, the Industrial Land Need Elemem of Woodburn's standing Comprehensive Plan specifically recognizes the need "to diversify to include industries which are less subject to the fluctuations" and establishes that, "we are seeing a transition to manufacturing and service oriented business"(page 45, City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan). In support of service oriented businesses and, the integrity and intent of the Presem Comprehensive Plan, I Propose to: 1) not change the Zoning Map designating the Industrial Sales District, 2) allow the Industrial Sales District to cominue as a distinctly different district by cominuing to designate as Industrial Sales (IS) in a proposed Section 2.111 and to keep Section 2.203.14 Industrial Sales, Page 2.2-15 as a Special Permitted Use in the IS zone, 3) modify the Proposed Conditional Uses outlined on Page 2.1-54-55 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance Draft to be applied to new Section 2.111 and enable the following Changes as drafted and attached as Exhibit "A": Cc: Robert Shields, City Attorney ~~. c~s¢~lly' Richard Bar~ EXHIBIT "A" Proposed Conditional Uses for Industrial Sales Zoning District 2.111 Industrial Sales (IS) 2.111.03 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the IS zone subject to the applicable development standards of the WDO and the conditions of the conditional use approval: Professional Services 2. 3. 4. Professional, scientific, technical services. (541) Educational services. (611) Ambulatory health care services. (621) Hospitals. (622) B. Finance and Insurance Credit intermediation and related activities. (522) Insurance carriers and related activities. (524) C. Food Services Food services and drinking places (722) EXCLUDING mobile food services. Food and beverage stores. (445) D. Other Services 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Furniture and home furnishing stores. (442) Health and personal care stores. (446) Gasoline stations. (447) Office supplies and stationary stores. (45321) Used merchandise stores. (4533) Information and data processing services. (514) Personal and laundry services. (812) Government and public utility buildings and structures EXCLUDING uses Permitted in Section 2.111.1 and telecommunications facilities subject to Section 2. 204. 03. Discussion Draft: Draft WDO: January 25, 2000 Comments by Citizens and Planning Commission to Date ICOMMENT ] RESPONSE [Potential Response] Various Citizens January 24 Planning Commission Hearing Adult Entertainment: Do something. Take comments to City Council Adult Entertainment: Reinitiate Measure 87 Adult Entertainment: Do something. Take comments to City Council Adult Entertainment: Do something. Take comments to City Council You asked for comments; why do you Following the statutes on notice consider things that reduce property values? My enclave annexed 7 acres is rezoned P/PS, a) Initiate your own change with Comp. too restrictive. Plan/zoning request; b) Leave in County UT- ~- Farm DeSantis January 24 Planning Commission Hearing p. 1.1-28, 1.106.01.B.2. Three persons design pro's, only one in each profession. DeSantis: Requested Clarification. P.C.: Suggests delete design pro requirement to give Council flexibility. p. 2.1-7, TABLE 2.1.1 a) 8,000 sf lots, 9,000 comer & b) 40' cord for front of flag lots p. 2.1-9, 2.102.07.C.2.a) Keep bldg. height in terms of "stories" as above: average rear yard setback to account for geometrics of lots and houses p. 2.1 - 10, 2.102.07.C. Architectural review of SFD: EXEMPT existing neighborhoods, i.e., infill houses p. 2.1-11, 2.102.07.G. Delete SFD lot coverage requirement, rely on setbacks [clarify and/or modify] [a) not in scope, Comp Plan & b) WDO so states] [Possible but not definitive] [a) use adjustment 5.102.03 {City needs to set a reasonable fee to make this work} b) create an average depth with a minimum dimension.] [Possible to account for some but not all situations, i.e., what is infill?] [It's about bulk and mass] Page 1 of 7 p. 1.1-28, 1.106.01.B.2. Three persons design pro's, only one in each profession. DeSantis: Requested Clarification. P.C.: Suggests delete design pro requirement to give Council flexibility. p. 2.1-15, TABLE 2.1.3 Lot size 5000 sf, comer 6000 sf. 40 foot cord on f-lots. [clarify and/or modify] [May make some existing lots nonconforming, and what's the point if it is built out already?] Page 2 of 7 '"'-~ T'T ff T I COMMENT IRESPONSE [Potential Response] DeSantis (continued) Januar~ 24 Planning Commission Hearing p. 2.1-17 2.103.07.F Delete property line sidewalks and street trees p. 2.1-18, 2.103.07.G Delete SF lot coverage, as above in RS p. 2.1-24, TABLE 2.1.7 a) doesn't like walls, anti-graffiti or not attract paint; b) delete walls residential to residential; too much plant materials [cited Parr Road example] p. 2.1-25, 2.104.07.C.2. Clarify that existing MHP/MDP's are exempt from arch. standards for new dwellings due to non-conforming status p. 2.1-32, TABLE 2.1.9. delete wall between DDC and CG relative to CO p. 2.1-41, TABLE 2.1.11 delete landscaping abutting a wall, park to the wall. p. 1.1-22, 2.104.03.B. When a building is damaged more than 60%, you should be able to build back on the same foundation with the same parking and landscaping. p. 2.1-57, TABLE 2.1.16 30 ft. setback for industrial to residential is good. p. 2.1-74, The Shapiro wetlands inventory should not be used to identify wetlands because the City has never had a public hearing to enable citizens to challenge the data prior to its official use by the City. [Possible, or make it an acceptable, but not mandatory design treatment] [same] [possible] [should be done] [possible] [possible] A new building is subject to "Design Review" and compliance with all standards of Section 3.1 [5.102.02.C. and 5.103.02.C.] {NOTE: 5.102.02 should also include all "applicable provisions of WDO, such as use. } OK DSL has already recognized it as the definitive source document. The City could not reference the particular study. {No reference results in the DSL sanctioned map by default due to applicable OAR} Page 3 of 7 COMMENT RESPONSE [Potential Response] Break/Testimony by Other Citizens January 24 Planning Commission Hearing p. 2.1-35, 2.106, CG Zone, uses pertaining to special building trades, WZO 30.010(e), were deleted from the new CG Property across the street from the mortuary proposed for CO from CR should also be changed from RM to CO Marion/Polk Home Builders have issues, and seek a meeting to clarify. Civil disobedience is appropriate to resolve moral issues IP zone, 2.109.03, particularly with respect to the IS area, should be expanded to include office and service commercial uses as conditional uses. Development industry needs more time to review. How do landscaping requirements impact SFD? What is charge for design review? Development industry needs more time to review. Need larger lots, average setbacks for SFD, fee for adjustment is too great to be useful Development industry needs more time to review. Correct, worthy of re-evaluation, possibly as entirely within a building. Requires Comp Plan change, confirmed by Mulder upon reviewing the Plan map. Project is on a schedule, and PC President doubts Focus Group is available to meet under the current schedule. Out of order [No, but could maintain IS zone if it helps avoid confusion, and it cuts back on the area available for "heavy commercial" on 99-E to what it is now.] No landscaping requirement in RS or R1S EXCEPT street trees in public ROW. {& Tree Preservation} Arch. review is folded in to existing site plan review. Page 4 of 7 J~ T I I COMMENT RESPONSE [Potential Response] DeSantis (continued) January 24 Planning Commission Hearing p. 2.2-4, 2.202.03 a) Height offence should be measured above underlying grade to account for slope, not from curb elevation; b) What happened to WZO 9.085 regarding fences on corner lots? [pride of authorship]; fence setbacks should be measured from the curb, not the property line p. 2.2-6, 2.203.03 Providing pad for RV's out of front yard is good. p. 2.2-13, 2.2-3.12. G Prohibition of parking vehicles with commercial license plates should be universal in RS and R1 S, not 'for just Home Occupations p. 2.1-16, 2.203.15.B.3. Setback for MDP is okay p. 2.1-18, TABLE 2.2.1 does not apply to existing "parks" p. 3.1 -4, 3.101.02.G Block length should be allowed up to 1200 feet in all cases. p. 3.1-29 TABLE 3.1.2 All SFD required to have a garage, the right idea, all SFD including manufactured should be treated the same. 3.1-36, 3.106.03 A. Street trees should not be required by the City. 3.1-41, 3.107.03 Throw out architectural review. Design components serve to exclude both the low and high end of housing units. It is why there are CC&R's 3.1-41, 3.107.03.A. Foundation elevation does not work does not allow day light basements 3.1-41, 3.107.03.B. Roofing, 5/12 pitch is a fad, pitch should not be regulated, or the quality of shingles due to cost OK [possible] OK [TPR] This table is error due to state requirements. [This is probably the state manufacture dwelling standard, should be fixed.] [possible] Page 5 of 7 COMMENT RESPONSE [Potential Response] DeSantis (concluded) January 24 Planning Commission Hearing 3.1-41, 3.107.03.C. Exterior siding, does not include vertical or shingles, over lap of 3 to 6 "too confining." 3.1-42, 3.107.03.D. Garages do not allow effectively for 3-car type. 3.1-43, 3.107.03.F. !%% windows eliminates designed housing. 3.1-43, 3.107.03.H .Eave overhang eliminates designed housing. 3.1-47, 3.107.05.2. Siding materials, same comment as for SFD. 3.1-20, 3.104.05.B Driveway width does not allow for 3 car garage, should allow up to 34 feet, so can back out directly. [Expand list of materials, add vertical (non- grooved), shakes and shingles, increase lap to 8", etc.] Page 6 of 7 COMMENT RESPONSE [Potential Response] Plannin§ Commission Comments p. 1.1-21, 1.103 Need to clarify which is the official zoning map, and where it can be found, like in the Recorder's office. Work Sessions ofJanuar7 10 and 16 {Explain that the Zoning Map is a component of the WDO and the Official copy is found in the Recorder's office.] p. 1.1-24, 1.105.01 .B.3 Modify membership [Two per profession are what is the enabled of PC to allow two from each profession, by statute, correct scrivener error.] p. 1.1-26, 1. I05.03C. Scrivener error [Correct the mistake.] p. 1.1-28, 1.106.01.B.2 Modify membership [possible] of Design Review as noted previously p. 2.1-1, 2.101.01 Scrivener error [Correct the mistake.] p. 2.1-6, 2.102.05.E Eliminate pet control and [possible] deal with in an other ordinance, Same goes for RM. Same comments as DeSantis on variable [possible] setbacks and no property line sidewalks. Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT C ODBURIN Incorporated 1889 IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 01-01 ZONE CHANGE 01-06 FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, a proposal was initiated by the Woodburn City Council to revise the text of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, rename it the Woodburn Development Ordinance, and to change the zoning on certain parcels, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at their regularly scheduled meeting of January 24, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to recommend that the City Council approve the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance and associated zone changes and instructed staff to prepare recommended revisions and comments for City Council consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance as contained in Exhibit "A", subject to the Planning Commission Recommendations contained in Exhibit "B", and adopt the proposed zone changes as shown on Exhibit "C", which are attached hereto and by referen ce.,ip~rporated her,e~. ' Approved: / ~ t_/"v"-( Claudio Lima, Vice-C~ir~erson Date ZTA 01-01, ZC 01-06 Community Development Department 270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, Oregon 9707 Ph. 503-q82-524b · Fax 503-982-5244 Exhibits "A" and "C" previously provided to the Planning Commission 0 0 ~ I~ c,,i ~4 I:= 0 0 ,~ 0 ,4.°- .-~ o 'F~ ATTACHMENT D WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION January 24, 2002 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Cox presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Cox P Lima P Young P Fletcher P Grosjacques P Mill P Bandelow P Lonergan P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Scott Clark, Assistant Planner Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney Also Present: Roger Budke, Planning Consultant Alvina Blaine, Spanish Language Interpreter MINUTES A__=. Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of January 10, 2002 Commissioner Bandelow moved to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Mill seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_~. Special City Council Minutes of December 19, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING A. Zone Text Amendment 01-01 and Zone Chanqe 01-06, a proposal to adopt the Woodburn Development Ordinance and change zoning desi.qnations on certain parcels, City of Woodburn, applicant. Chairperson Cox provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. He explained this is a legislative hearing which is different from a quasi-judicial land use hearing and therefore, there is no need for the Commission to go through the business of ex-parte contacts. Chairperson Cox stated we do have an opinion from the City Attorney's office regarding the portion of the ordinance that pertains to adult entertainment. The City Attorney's opinion indicates the existing ordinance is unconstitutional and would not withstand a challenge if someone attempted to set up this type of business and the City were to deny that request. It was reported by Chairperson Cox that there is a clear strong opinion of the City Attorney's office that the City would lose the case in court. He felt that regardless of how we might individually feel, we would be wasting the Commission's time and the public's time to go into great depth in talking about this issue because he will not override the City's Attorney's opinion or recommend to the City Council that they adopt something that the City Attorney says is unconstitutional. Staff reported a few requests were received for Spanish language interpretation services. He introduced Plamdng Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 1 of 12 Alvina Blaine, language interpreter and stated primarily the presence of an interpreter at tonight's hearing is to provide interpretation from anyone testifying as well as provide any dialog back between the Commission and the person testifying. Chairperson Cox entered into the record that the interpreter is in the back of the room simultaneously interpretin9 in Spanish to several people as the meeting proceeds. Staff entered the following items into the record: Exhibit D-8 (Letter from Richard Barranzano); Exhibit D-9 (A petition signed by approximately 360 people regarding the adult entertainment issue). The petition was passed around to the Commission. Exhibit E (Legal Opinion from City Attorney pertaining to Regulation of Adult Businesses). Staff read the City Attorney's legal opinion. Commissioner Mill requested clarification as to whether the City has looked into every possible way to see if there is any way around this or does it pretty much reach a conclusion that we are out of luck because the Oregon Supreme Court is going to over rule anything and everything unless it is a legislative change. Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney responded the particular example of the limitations in Portland's ordinance that was rejected dealt with some distances of the businesses from other uses but the court's opinion was really discussing the constitutional protection of all kinds of expression, i.e., dancing or pictures. The constitution protects all kinds of expression and therefore the general consensus in the legal community is that it would not be possible to draft a regulation that was directed at adult businesses as a kind of activity that would not run into constitutional problems under the protection of expression. Chairperson Cox interjected the people of the State of Oregon said No when asked to amend the constitution of the State to change the rule to allow the location of adult entertainment businesses to be regulated. Staff provided a summary of the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance as reflected in the Staff Report. In conclusion, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take testimony and direct Staff to prepare a Final Order recommending that the City Council adopt the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance and approve the proposed zone changes. Commissioner Lonergan questioned if we are inviting industrial uses next to retail outlets by including the IS zone into the IP zone? Staff replied affirmatively. He stated that would allow industrial park uses in the IS zone but the IS zone currently incorporates most of the industrial park uses to begin with. Staff reported you can actually do heavier industrial type uses in the IS zone right now. Chairperson Cox remarked testimony regarding the adult entertainment zoning will not make any difference as far as this meeting is concerned. He indicated the fact that people are concerned about this issue is already very clear in the record with the entry of the petition. Chairperson Cox further commented the City has no leeway on doing anything about it. Commissioner Young commented the audience's presence tonight is a demonstration of the unity of the opposition to this type of business. The Planning Commission must follow the constitution of this State and it is part of the oath they take upon accepting the role of Commissioner. They pledge to plan positive direction for the community they live and work in. Additionally, he remarked their requests to the Commissioners will be manifested by their pledge to them to effectively plan for the future with the tools they have been provided. In closing, Commissioner Young said what is being reviewed tonight are the tools that will help them do that and plan positive things for the community. Commissioner Bandelow interjected all of the Commissioners care a great deal about the community and nobody wants to see our community change or see anything come in that would be considered a real detriment. She stated the Commission tries their best to prevent any of those things. However, because they Planning Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 2 of 12 can not do anything as far as regulating adult entertainment in this City, she feels it is best that the Commission not take testimony on something that they simple have no power to change. Commissioner Mill echoed the comments and opinions of his fellow Commissioners. He stated he is personally of the opinion that there is no place for this type of business in the City of Woodburn but as Commissioner Young pointed out, the City's hands are tied. Additionally, Commissioner Mill commented they do not like what laws sometimes do, but unfortunately they are the laws and we are a country of laws and we have to be abide by them even though they may, in our opinions, be unjust and not reflect a moral code. Chairperson Cox ruled that testimony concerning the proprietary or to allow the ability of zoning for the location of adult entertainment businesses would be out of order and will not be heard tonight by the Commission. He hoped it has been made clear that this is not intended to try to put anyone down. Furthermore, he indicated this does not reflect his or individual Commissioner's personal feelings about these types of businesses. He reported the route for anyone that wants to change this law would be by amending the Oregon Constitution which would have to be done via an initiative proceeding. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Bob Day, 1032 Stanfield Rd.~ Woodburn, OR questioh&d if there is somebody within the City of Woodburn that has the authority to set guidelines, rules and regulations to govern that type of business? He also questioned whether an adult entertainment store could be established by the elementary school? Chairperson Cox replied the City does not have the authority to set guidelines, rules and regulations pertaining to adult entertainment. Staff clarified a person could not put in an adult entertainment business next to an elementary school unless there was a commercial zone next to it that would allow commercial businesses in general. Nancy Kirksey, 1049 McKinley St., Woodburn, OR said she is as frustrated as everybody out there is. She informed she was on the City Council when they got the ordinance. They knew at that time it was probably a bluff ordinance and knew that if it was tested in court it might not hold up. However, they said let's do what we can do. Ms. Kirksey indicated she feels very passionately about this and thinks there is no place in our society for businesses that exploit people, especially women. Unfortunately, the voters of Oregon had an opportunity to pass Measure 87 and they didn't. She stated she believes it is time to get together to get another measure on the ballot and this time pass it to protect our communities from these kinds of businesses. Tim Doman, 450 Smith Dr., Woodburn, OR understands the Commission's hands are tied however, there are ways to make it difficult for this type of business. Chairperson Cox interjected Mr. Doman is out of order and reiterated he does not want to hear about this issue anymore. Commissioner Mill stated there is a law that is unjust in the opinion of many people and something that is certainly unmoral. However, the Oregon Supreme Court says that this is the situation and we are stuck with the way that laws work. He said you probably could go ahead and put some type of a bluff ordinance in but it would not be worth the paper it was printed on and anybody and everybody would in fact open up the City to a whole volume of lawsuits and other problems. Tim Doman commented it seems one has to jump through a lot of hoops when somebody wants to develop something nice but when somebody wants to put in something bad it seems to get through pretty quick. Chairperson Cox understood everyone's disappointment but again requested testimony be confined to other issues pertaining to the Woodburn Development Ordinance other than adult entertainment. Planning Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 3 of 12 Dale Nelson, Highway 219, Woodburn, OR pointed out the Public Hearing Notice states public testimony will be considered. He stated although he understands where the Commission is coming from it does not seem like testimony is being considered tonight. There is a consideration that the public is not being allowed. Secondly, he remarked he is concerned that the City is considering endorsing something that will reduce the value of something that he owns when he has tried so hard to clean his property up, keep things painted and put a lawn in that wasn't there before. He expressed puzzlement as to why the City would consider doing something that will have a negative impact on his property. Chairperson Cox clarified the language of the Public Hearing Notice is required by State statute. The City of Woodburn is required to send out a notice that includes that statement to every property owner in the City. He explained in most cases and probably all cases, as far as he knows, it will not effect the values of property because it is not going to change the basic allowable uses. Dale Nelson questioned if there is going to be an effect, will he be able to go to a governing body and ask how is this going to physically effect the value of my property? Geor.qe Simonoff, 1420 Commerce Way, Woodburn, OR concurred with Mr. Nelson. He commented it seems the statement is like a disclaimer. Mr. Simonoff said the City will have to pay for his property if the City wants to reduce his property value. Mr. Simonoff indicated the City has already reduced his property value when the property was annexed into the City limits. His property is zoned public and the use of the property has been reduced because he no longer can have domestic animals. He related he purchased the property in 1991 and it was known as the dump of Woodburn. It took him three years to clean the property up and make it nice. Furthermore, he indicated he was promised the zones would change if the property was annexed into the City. However, the zone is now public and it was suggested to him that he open a graveyard. He also remarked the City does not maintain Legion Park which is right behind his property and he is witness to a lot of illegal activity. The annexation only changed County regulations to City regulations and the zone remained the same. He referred to the zone map and pointed out his property to the Commission. In closing, he stated something needs to be done because the property is just hanging and he can not do anything with the property other than grow grass. Chairperson Cox questioned Staff what is the proposed zoning on that property? Staff responded it is proposed as public because the Comprehensive Plan designation is public. The only way to do any other type of zoning would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that is not being proposed to be done as part of this process. He stated for whatever reason when the City established it's Comprehensive Plan back in 1980, they designated that property and some of the adjacent properties as public. Staff reported it is difficult to get two means of access to do any type of multi-family development on that property. He also commented the City will be looking at, in the next two years, land use and zoning in the City and what the appropriate zoning should apply because we have not had a major overhaul or update of zoning in at least 20 years. He also reported every property owner has the opportunity to actually apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Zone Change if they want to do something more imminently. Additionally, he indicated it takes quite a bit of analysis to actually figure out parcel by parcel what the appropriate land use is and that was beyond the scope of adopting a new development ordinance. He stated trying to go parcel by parcel through the city would be an overwhelming task and is a separate project in itself. Chairperson Cox commented one option might be to recommend to the Council that they leave the property Urban Transition Farm rather than Public. Staff replied that is an option. Mick DeSantis, 173 McLau,qhlin Dr., Woodburn, OR referred to page 1.128 item 1.106.01. B.2 Design Review Board of the proposed Development Ordinance and commented it does not make any sense to have three design professionals or persons with experience and/or knowledge of design and no more than one voting member shall be engaged in the same kind of business, trade or profession. He stated something needs to Planning Commissioa Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 4 of 12 1'!- be done to change this because if a review board were put together you would have to have people that have knowledge but they have to be able to vote. Additionally, Mr. DeSantis made reference to page 2.1-7 Table 2.1.1 and said he understands the effort made to try to make Woodburn a better place to live by upgrading the community standards. He commended the effort and direction taken but he personally feels there is only one way that one can upgrade the community in the housing industry. He does not think it is by materials because that is something everybody has the right to do what they want as long as it is within Uniform Building Code. He indicated he feels the lot size standard should go from 6,000 sq. ft. to 8,000 sq. ft. for an interior lot and 9,000 sq. ft. for a corner lot because the people that move to Woodburn want that rural and more spacious feel than jammed together like in Portland. Mr. DeSantis stated a 40 ft. corner needs to be adopted in the ordinance. He went on to refer to section 2.102.07.2.A item 2.1-9 and reported rear yard setbacks are geared by the height of the building which are now governed by single story and two-story. He recommended to keep the same setback standards that exists now which is 24 ft. on a one-story home and 30 ft. on a two- story home because we do not need to hire a height cop to run around and measure how high buildings are and how far away they have to be from lots to make sure they conform. Furthermore, Mr. DeSantis felt you should have the ability to average the rear setback on an irregular shaped lot because sometimes you have a configuration that will not allow you to get your 24 ft. or 30 ft. but from the one corner you may be 50 ft. and logic has to come in and needs to be addressed in the ordinance. He suggested a formula be incorporated into this i.e., take the outside and center points and measure perpendicular from the rear of the house, add them together and divide by three on a single story. Mr. DeSantis also addressed page 2.1-10 section 2.102.07.C. 1 Development Standards and said the overlay district is not subject to the architectural design standards. He commented in an in-fill situation, they should not be subject to a design review. Senior Estates, Smith or Johnson Additions are homes that were built ranch style and lower pitched. He remarked he does not feel that if a home burns down that you can not go in and build a like house similar to what was there before because it is going to blend in much better than to come in with something with a steep pitched roof etc. Section 2.102.07.G. 1 and 2 page 2.1-11 was also addressed by Mr. DeSantis. He feels there should be absolutely no percentage of maximum lot coverage because one should be allowed to build anything that they want within the footprint of front, side and rear yard standards. Mr. DeSantis pointed to Page 2.1-15 Table 2.1.3 and commented the requirement for lots in the RS-1 zone are absolutely ridiculous. He reported you could not build a home at 3,600 sq. ft., especially on a corner lot, wider than 25 foot. He personally felt that footage should be 5,000 ft. and 6,000 on a corner lot because you have a 20 ft. setback on both streets. A larger lot is needed to accommodate those setbacks. It was recommended by Mr. DeSantis to go from 3,600 ft. to 5,000 ft. on interior lots and 6,000 on a corner lot. Reference was also made to Section 3.105. F. 1 page 2.17and he remarked he is against sidewalks on the property line because he feels they should be out on the curb. He indicated there is no need for a strip running down that nobody takes care of. Additionally, he expressed he is adamantly opposed to mandating trees because they obstruct cars, people walking down the street and later on as they grow, they obstruct the street lights and heave the sidewalks. He expressed his feeling that street trees should not be mandatory and it should be up to the developer of a subdivision as to whether they want trees in. Furthermore, he said trees damage, block the vision from the lights and they swat you in the face and scrape your car. He referred to 3.106.G Lot Coverage page 2.1-18 and stated percentages in the RS-1 zone should be scratched. Mr. DeSantis objected to the item contained on Page 2.1- 24 Table 2.1.7 Wall. He commented a wall is just a bulletin board for graffiti and we do not need to be segregating ourselves from everybody else. He felt we should not wall off developments unless you are in the extreme contrast of land use abutting one another, i.e., industrial that butts up to single family. Mr. DeSantis also addressed Section 2.104.07.C.1 page 2-125 and requested clarification if it is an existing dwelling within a manufactured home park that it would meet the same criteria that it did when it was put in and was built under. Roger Budke, Planning Consultant explained if the standards change, what was becomes non-conforming or grand fathered and that probably applies to manufactured home parks particularly because it is a unit and therefore, everything that happens within that unit is bound by the previous rules. Mr. Budke stated Staff will check that out and clarify it. Mick DeSantis made reference to table 2.1.9 and stated he feels CG and DDC zones should not require a wall because these are very much like uses and why build a wall if it does not serve any purpose. The more open Planning Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 5 of 12 we are able to keep the community, the better we are. He expressed his confusion regarding you are not required to landscape it if you put a wall up but yet you have to have a 10 foot setback requirement for a CO or RM. Roger Budke interjected the buffering part was the wall, the visual part would not be seen and therefore, it preempted you from having to landscape something that could not be seen. Mick DeSantis made the observation that if you are putting in a buffer wall you should be able to park up to that buffer wall and utilize the space for parking. Why have a 10 foot setback when you have made that separation? He pointed out you would lose half of the parking space with this new rule. In essence, lose half of the building because you have to provide parking for the building. Commissioner Mill asked Mr. DeSantis if it were worded as such that a replacement building would be allowed to fit within the footprint of the original building if a loss occurred to commercial or residential property, i.e., became destroyed or unusable, and it necessitated that it be rebuilt? Mick DeSantis replied this would not satisfy him because you are required a certain amount of parking for the footage of the building. Commissioner Mill inquired if Mr. DeSantis would be satisfied if it were all grand fathered in? Mick DeSantis responded it would satisfy him if it were all grand fathered in. Additionally, he stated you know what you are dealing with if you are building new and you have to build within the new standards. However, when you start coming up with new standards, one should be able to redo what it was when you have done it within the standards. Roger Budke referred to page 1.122 Non-conforming Uses and Development Standards and explained the grand fathered rights are gone at a certain percentage. The existing ordinance has provisions in it and they need to look at that issue if need be. Mick DeSantis felt it does need to be looked at because a legal non-conforming use should be allowed to rebuild even it was 100% destroyed if it was conforming at the time that it was built. Furthermore, he referred to page 2.1-57 Table 2.1.16 and commented the 30 ft. setback for drastic differences in uses i.e., industrial type situation and they are butting up to residential is excellent. He went on to reference page 2.1-74 Wetlands. Mr. DeSantis expressed his confusion regarding the overlay and voiced concerns that a piece of legislation is being addressed that he does not know when it ever happened because they were never notified and they were affected property owners. Staff interjected it has not been adopted by the City Council. However, it is intended to go forward for adoption. He explained his understanding of the process is that notice was sent to all of the affected property owners before the consultant finalized the mapping. The Division of State Lands have their own guidelines as to what is a wetland. They involve the cities in the process in trying to establish significant wetlands because that allows different standards to be applied than if you have non-significant wetlands. Ro.qer Budke pointed out the issue is to define the areas of concern. The intent of the rule in looking at the areas that the State requires that the City has to pick up anything that is less significant than what the State thinks is significant. He reported the intent of this rule is try to satisfy the law without creating another layer of analysis on wetlands other than the State level. Mick DeSantis commented if the State mandates something that a person should have that right to his/her day in a hearing no differently than you do before the City. This is an issue that definitely devalues property. He moved along to Section 2.03 page 2.2-4 Chairperson Cox asked Mr. DeSantis if it would be okay to inierrupt his presentation out of courtesy to the other people that want to testify and wish to leave? Planning Co~nmission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 6 of 12 Mick DeSantis replied he does not have a problem with that as long as he is allowed to be heard tonight. 5-MINUTE BREAK Ed Krupicka, 1012 Newberq Hwy., Woodburn, OR said the proposed permitted uses in CG is void of mentioning special contractor establishment occupancies and wonders what will be done with these? Roger Budke responded those uses were not rolled over into the new zone. He recommended the Commission give it serious thought to include those back in the CG zone and look at them to see if there is any particular impact that they have over other types of uses that need some sort of special consideration. Ed Krupicka remarked he presumed they will be getting some advance notice before a final decision is made. Chairperson Cox explained the Planning Commission will discuss issues and will make a report and recommendation to the City Council. That report will be a public document and there will be a hearing before the City Council on March 11"~. He indicated perhaps this issue will be resolved to Mr. Krupicka's satisfaction by the time it reaches the City Council level. However, if it is not, he instructed Mr. Krupicka to appear before the City Council and express his concerns regarding this issue. Ed Krupicka said the northeast corner of Boones Ferry Road and Highway 214 has been changed from CR to CO zone. He requested the Commission look at the entire intersection and give consideration to changing the RM zone of the southwest corner of the intersection to also be a CO zone. Mr. Krupicka pointed to the map and indicated it would make sense that it would at least go over to Leisure St. and have the entire section as a CO zone. He stated if that were CO zoned property and developed as such, it would certainly have a much better appearance for our community than what we are looking at there now everyday. He looked forward to some changes. Roger Budke pointed out for the record that is the same issue that was approached earlier tonight about the enclave that was brought into the City and the Comprehensive Plan designation probably does not support that. The regimen of this process was not to go outside the Comprehensive Plan but it can certainly be checked out. Mr. Budke reported that was commercially designated Comprehensive Plan property and it is a matter what is the appropriate commercial designation. Eric Moyer, 385 Taylor St. NE, Salem, OR represents the Marion Polk Building Industry Association. He pleaded to the Commission that as the professionals, builders, designers and contractors who are going to be living with this for the next many number of years be given an opportunity to have an opportunity to visit with Staff and the Consultant and go through some of the issues that Mr. DeSantis and others are bringing up. Mr Moyer deferred the rest of his time to Mr. DeSantis. Chairperson Cox explained the Commission has to complete their work and make their recommendation to the City Council in time for their public hearing on this ordinance which is scheduled for March 11, 2002. He expressed concerns about the practicality of a focus group and keeping the public hearing open for the purpose of receiving a written report. Chairperson Cox suggested Mr. Moyer make his pitch to the City Council because there is not quite the time problem at Council level that there is at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Bandelow interjected it is possible that a lot of things that Mr. Moyer would be addressing in his presentation to City Council they may find the Planning Commission's recommendation would already be in line with that. She stated a lot of the issues brought up tonight have already been marked in the ordinance during previous workshops held for the Commission. Deniece Won agreed with Chairperson Cox and does not have an alternative idea other than trying to Planning Commission Meeting - January 24. 2002 Page 7 of 12 sandwich it in within the time frame before the Commission makes their final decision. Eric Moyer apologized for coming in late and stated his goal would be to sit down with Staff and come back to the Commission and say that everything is fine. He does not wish to create another wish list of changes and alterations but to obtain clarification. Mr. Moyer stated he was alerted by Mr. DeSantis a few days ago and he has been getting up to speed since then. He indicated he will visit with Staff and try to interface with them as much as possible. Suzanne Ybarra, 1460 Geor.qe St., Woodburn, OR made reference to Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus and indicated these are examples of men that made civil disobedience stands. She offered the Commission hope that there are always options even when you feel like it is a moral issue but you can not do anything about it or even if you feel like there is no purpose of even discussing it because the voters have said something. Chairperson Cox interrupted Mrs. Ybarra and stated she is intentionally violating the ground rules that were laid down for this meeting and asked her to please take her seat unless she had some specific comment about a specific point of the proposed Woodburn Development Ordinance other than adult entertainment businesses. Rich Barranzano, 2917 N. Pacific Hwy., Woodburn, OR asked the Commission if they had any comments or refuting of any of the points made in his correspondence? Commissioner Bandelow remarked she feels there may be more discussion on the properties specifically along Highway 99 and the points brought up by Mr. Barranzano about commercial sales being along the Highway and not mixing them with the industrial before a recommendation is made by the Commission. Rich Barranzano asked Staff which changes are being made in the plan that are making some non- conforming uses more conforming? He also requested several examples be given. Roger Budke replied there is not a purpose of why these changes were made and it may happen by default. He stated there is no checklist, inventory or cross referencing to find out if in fact that has happened. There are some uses that were actually taken out which would create non-conformities, which will be looked at again. Rich Barranzano requested Staff read his letter dated January 23, 2002 between this meeting and another, if there is one. He pointed to the Comprehensive Plan and stated certain land uses includes a variety of office retail and service uses. Mr. Barranzano indicated the IS zone land uses describes manufacturing and warehousing activities, i.e., utilities, contracting services and wholesaling. He said this is not happening all along Highway 99E in the IS zone. He questioned if the addition of additional conditional uses would constitute a Comprehensive Plan change? Ro,qer Budke interjected he believed Mr. Barranzano will not find an answer to that question but Staff will certainly accept the question. Rich Barranzano suggested the question be posed to the City Attorney. He further commented he does not see how this would be any different from some of the other more severe things he is seeing in the total proposal. It was reported by Mr. Barranzano the IP zone allows conditional uses for service retail office along Highway 99E which would be a little incentive to begin to allow some of those uses in there. Additionally, he pointed out he needs to start thinking of what he will do next because the manufactured home industry is not doing too well. He said he has not received any feedback or comments from Staff or anyone about this. He expressed concerns in that although this plan took two years, the public has not been involved in it. In closing, he stated it would be appropriate that there be a conduit through the conditional use process to allow more conditional uses in the IP zone to recognize the evolution of that area and in response to what is occurring in the town. Mr. Barranzano referred to section 2.109.03 Conditional Uses in the IP Zone and suggested to Planning Commissioa Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 8 of 12 allow a spectrum of service uses, offices and service retail. Dean Auqustusl 32862 S. Orchard Lane, Woodburn, OR reported he has been in this community since 1957 and has been in the lumber/building industry for many years. He commented this is an important issue and Mr. DeSantis has some good points. Furthermore, he remarked how could this issue be worked on one night when Staff has worked on this project for 2 ~ years and felt it is too important of an issue to settle in one night. Mr. Augustus expressed his feelings that there are a few issues contained in the proposed development ordinance that are outside the Uniform Building Codes. Pat Taylor, 683 W. Clackamas Circle, Woodburn, OR requested clarification regarding the architectural review and landscaping. Additionally, she inquired if there is an added cost to building new construction associated with the architectural review? Roger Budke clarified there are no landscaping requirements in single family RS-1 and RS zones. The landscaping requirements do not effect you if you are a single family property owner. There are some requirements for Multi-family property owner and on out. Chairperson Cox interjected the architectural review would be part of the design review process and will still apply to the same types of projects that it already applies to. Staff stated architectural review is already being done. The new proposal would give more specific guidelines and will help Staff give more certainty to the developer as to what to expect. Monte Miller, 5816 St. Louis Rd., Gervais, OR commented Mr. DeSantis has brought up a lot of good points. He questioned how many people who developed the proposal are developers or builders? Additionally, he inquired how many really understand what is behind this document and the impact it will have on the people that will have to live with it? Mr. Miller stated he found it quite interesting that the City can tell him what type of siding he could put on a house but the City can not disallow some deviant activity. Furthermore, he remarked the City may plant trees in their right-of-way if they want trees and should not require the developer or the builder to plant them. He did not understand what the hurry is in getting this proposal to the City Council by March 11t". Chairperson Cox reported the City decided to send out one notice setting the time for both hearings on the same notice in order to cut down expenses. The Council hearing is already set for March 11t" and once the Council starts their hearing there is no time limit for them to finish it. Chairperson Cox further explained the hearing has to start on March 11 ~" or else the City would have to spend several thousand dollars more sending out a new notice to every property owner in the City. He pointed out that nobody is tryin_g to press anythi.ng through without adequate opportunity for public consideration. Chairperson Cox communicated there will be additional opportunity for Mr. Miller to make his pitch for more time at the City Council level. Ro.qer Budke explained the Council put together a focus group consisting of three citizen members (a Council Person, a Realtor and a Planning Commissioner) as well as Staff and his assistance in the area of technical writing. The goal was to try to establish a new base for land use control in this community and not necessarily reinvent and it took 2 ~ year period to get to where we are at tonight. Monte Miller expressed concerns that the people that have to live with the proposal should not just have to bite it off in two or three meetings if it took a group that was dedicated to this document over 2 years to develop. He commented the setbacks need to be adjusted if it is decided to leave the smaller lot sizes because it is really hard with small lot sizes to fit decent, livable sized houses on those lots with the existing setbacks. Mr. Miller stated he rather see th'e 8,000+ sq. ft. lots however they will also need the averaging on odd shaped lots that were addressed by Mr. DeSantis. In closing, he indicated there needs to be some kind of latitude written in for Staff to be able to make some adjustments once in a while. Chairperson Cox stated there always has been and there always will be a Variance procedure to cover strange Planning Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 9 of 12 situations. The new code has a provision in it that would specifically allow for certain types of minor deviations where Staff is allowed to modify the more simply and less expensive procedures than a Variance procedure. Dean Auqustus suggested the Commission recommend City Council delay their meeting because the community needs more time. Edwin Troyola, 1121 Garfield St., Woodburnl OR said he worked in the business community for over twenty years. He commented it is unacceptable to ask the community to read this document in 30 days and have the Commission recommend to the City Council to do something with it. He pointed out the City is worried about the cost of sending out another notice. However, nobody gives it any thought of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be put on the builders to manipulate and try to figure out how to get around this. Mr. Troyola suggested that the City Council recommend that this be delayed until mid-summer or fall to give the builders the opportunity to provide technical review. Mick DeSantis referred to page 2.2-4 section 2.202.03 and stated a given setback needs to be setup rather than property because that means absolutely nothing. There is no conformity whatsoever when you use that terminology. Additionally, section 9.085 of the original Woodburn Zoning Ordinance was not included in the Proposed ordinance. Mr. DeSantis explained this is a needed item for people that have a corner lot because they have no rear yard to speak of. It was originally adopted because this is a means to give them some rear yard and it needs to be included in the proposed ordinance as it was in the original. He expressed ¢oncerhs with what else is being left out. It was pointed out by Mr. DeSantis that it is very deceiving when you start using the dimensions from the curb line that you can be 42" high. He reported you can not put a fence up because your slope is greater than the 42" that you are allowed to build if you have an incline of 1 to 3 slope. The issue should be addressed not as a matter of the height of the curb but a matter from the existing grade of the property. Reference was also made to page 2.3-6 section 2.200.03.A-B by Mr. DeSantis and thought this is an excellent item in the ordinance. He believes people should have the ability to store their RV's and such at their place of residence. However, they should be out of sight and not sitting in the street or driveway in front of the house. Mr. DeSantis stated this is a way that the community can be cleaned up and look much better. Additionally, he mentioned Page 2.2-13 Section 2.2.12 and commented it is a very good ordinance but it needs to be expanded to include all trucks with a commercial license, not just the vehicles of a home business, not be allowed to park overnight in a residential driveway. Page 2.2-16 Section B-3 was addressed as well and Mr. DeSantis remarked this is a good ordinance because it gives you a buffer that you would have if it were a single family with a larger setback that the State does mandate. He indicated he has a real problem with Page 3.1-4 G Block Standards, the length being more than 600 feet. He explained the last lots to sell have always been the corner lots because people want a back yard and do not want two front yards. Furthermore, he indicated when you are developing you would have more desirable lots that the community wants. Mr. DeSantis stated you do not want to slice and dice the land because you are creating a situation where kids can be hurt darting out on the intersections and recommended the distance you have between should be 1,200 to 1,500 feet and not 600 feet. He touched on page 3.129 Table 3.12 and commented this is the only section of the ordinance that was addressed properly. He conveyed that is the only place that it states that a house and a manufactured home on a lot are required to have a garage. Everywhere else in the ordinance it states "...or carport" for a manufactured home. Mr. DeSantis indicated we have been told that a manufactured home is no different than a house and that it should sit on a lot. Therefore, if it is going to sit on a lot, it should be treated in the same manner that a stick built home is. He expressed his feelings that manufactured homes belong in parks and not in subdivisions. However, if they are going to be in a subdivision setting, they should adhere to the same rules that a stick built home does. Roger Budke interjected State requirement allows manufactured dwellings on a free standing lot to have a carport. He indicated this issue has been discussed with the Planning Commission. Mick DeSantis mentioned he is adamantly against the trees. He stated people think that if you jam a place full of plants that you have done the ultimate. However, it is the exact opposite because you can not walk on the sidewalks because there are so many plants that are growing over the sidewalk. Mr. DeSantis said there is absolutely nothing that looks better than green fertilized grass. He agreed that you do need plants but Planning Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 PagelOof 12 people want to plant too many plants in an area and they overgrow and turn into a jungle. It was observed by Mr. DeSantis that the City should not be forcing people into making their developments look like a jungle and the City should lighten up on the amount of plant units in the landscape requirements. Mr. DeSantis went on to page 3.1-41 and commented the entire key section should be thrown out. He argued that the City should not even be involved in such a thing and that is why you have CC&R's. People live in different developments because they want to live in that development which requires certain things. He thought this is a free country and we should have the right to have whatever we want on our home because our home is our palace. It is unfortunate that in the City's attempt to eliminate the ghetto, they are also doing away with high end development. Mr. DeSantis explained it is very hard to try to regulate by materials of what the construction is as to what you end up with. A picture of a home was passed around to the Commission by Mr. DeSantis and asked the Commission if they felt the home is something that is acceptable in the community? He reported the home was the recipient of the 1990 Home and Landscape Award for the Community by the City of Woodburn. Mr. DeSantis indicated the home violates everything that the City wants to implement of a house having. He remarked the statement "the foundation shall be placed on an excavated backfill foundation and enclosed that perimeter such that the dwelling is located no more than 12 inches above the grade of the elevation facing the street" should be stricken because it is foolish and makes no sense whatsoever. Additionally, the City should not be restricting roof pitch or types of materials and telling people that they can not afford a house because the City has a set. sta. ndard. Commissioner Mill questioned whether all of the items on that particular page are covered under the State Building Code anyway? Mick DeSantis answered No. He explained you have to have a siding material that is going to shed the water but it does not tell you what kind. Mr. DeSantis noted the City should be in the Uniform Building Code and not trying to set the standards. He suggested if we want to set the standards of the type of buildings that we have in this community to do it by lot size and not by what you can put on it. He disagreed that a manufactured home can get by with a 3-12 pitch while everybody else has to have a 5 pitch because if a manufacture home is going to be in a subdivision, they should have the same requirements the surrounding homes have to have. Item C-1 Site Built Dwelling was also addressed by Mr. DeSantis and commented the siding requirements should not be included. He talked about item D-1 where a garage has to either face at a 90 degree so the garage door does not face the front of the building. Mr. DeSantis pointed out on a lot of the size the City is talking about in this ordinance, it is virtually impossible because there isn't enough room to make the arch to get into the garage. Additionally, the ordinance states the garage can not be more than 50% of the front of the building. Those regulations should not be there because anybody should have the right to have a 3-car garage if they so wish. Furthermore, the requirement of having 15% of the face should have windows is ridiculous and should not be dictated by the City as to how many windows are allowed. Mr. DeSantis expressed his disagreement regarding overhangs and eaves. He remarked architects are not cookie cutters and they try to design and build homes that are unique and the City is eliminating that in trying to implement these requirements. Commissioner Fletcher excused himself from the hearing. M ick DeSantis discussed items on page 3.1-46 C 1-F "all habitable rooms except bathrooms facing a required front yard should or shall..." Mr. DeSantis requested clarification as to why "should" or "shall" are included in there. RoRer Budke clarified State requirements says, in this case, before you can have discretionary standards or guidelines that say "shall" you have to have an absolute standard. The applicant has to be given an opportunity to go with the absolute criteria, based on up or down. If they want to go through a review process, it is more discretionary, then this is just a guideline "should". Mick DeSantis pointed out the original ordinance stating a 2-car driveway may not exceed 26 ft. wide as well as that a 3-car garage may have up to a 34 ft. wide driveway was not listed in the proposed ordinance and should be incorporated. Planning Co~mnission Meeting - January 24, 2002 Page 11 of 12 Roger Budke interjected it is included in section 3.104.05 on page 3.120. Mick DeSantis stated the problem there is that is addressing a 2-car garage and is exactly what he said is not included. The 34 ft. for the 3-car garage has to be included. He remarked there is no reason why one has to try and maneuver over their landscaping to get into their garage. Mr. DeSantis concluded his testimony and asked that the curb cuts and the driveways be left the way they are. It was a consensus by the Commission that the hearing be left open only for written testimony for the next regularly scheduled meeting, February 14, 2002. Chairperson Cox announced any additional written testimony will be submitted by 5 p.m. Friday, February 8, 2002. Conflicts with the meeting date were noted by Commissioner Lonergan and Commissioner Grosjacques. Commissioner Grosiacques moved to change the meeting date to February 13, 2002 at 7 p.m.. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Bandelow moved to close the public hearing tonight, leaving the record open for written testimony only until February 8, 2002. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lonerqan. ITEMS FOR ACTION None DISCUSSION ITEMS None REPORTS None BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION None ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Loner,qan moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. APPROVED ~ ~z'%~/~- ~/~'~' ",1~_ ¢'M^IDD~D~t~N ATTEST [/'~,' ~-~//~/~'~ ~- / '~ -O ~, Jim M/~ld~r, v . . . Date Com~n~mity Development Director City bf'Woodburn, Oregon DATE Planning Commission Meeting - January 24, 2002 ~, ,,r, ~T Pagel2of 12 WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION February 13, 2002 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a special session at 7:10 p.m. with Chairperson Cox presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Cox P Vice Chairperson Lima P Commissioner Young P Commissioner Grosjacques P Commissioner Mill A Commissioner Bandelow A Commissioner Lonergan P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Scoff Clark, Assistant Planner Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney Also Present: Roger Budke, Planning Consultant Chairperson Cox announced Irv Fletcher's resignation to the Planning Commission. MINUTES A.~. Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2002 Chairperson Cox noted the name Eric Moyer should be spelled Mohrer. Commissioner Grosjacques moved to approve the minutes with the noted correction. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_~. Council Minutes of January t4, 2001 It was a consensus among the Commission that Item 5A of the Agenda be placed last and they skipped ahead to Item 6A of the Agenda. ITEMS FOR ACTION A. Partition 01-08, Lot Line Adiustment 02-01 and Lot Line Adjustment 02-02, request to divide a 15,145 sq. ft. parcel into two (2) lots and to adiust the property lines of two (2) adjacent parcels, 1690 Laurel Ave., Ivka Cam, applicant (Administrative aDDroval). Staff reported there is no code provision that prevents from having a concrete slab on a vacant property and therefore, that is not an issue. He indicated he does not know whether they can actually build a house on it or not. The Building Official has not inspected it and does not know if that would satisfy the building code requirements for a house. Commiss oner YounR stated it was his understanding that it would be a similar structure, i.e. shop and not a dwelling. Commissioner Grosjacques moved to accept Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Lonerqan seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 1 of 11 DISCUSSION ITEMS None REPORTS A_._~. Building Activity for January 2002 Plannin~ Proiect Trackin.q Sheet (revised 1-31-02) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION None PUBLIC HEARING A.~. Zone Text Amendment 01-01 and Zone Change 01-06, a proposal to adopt the Woodburn Development Ordinance and change zoning designations on certain parcels, City of Woodburn, applicant (continued from January 24, 2002). Staff provided the Commission with a handout with a draft recommendation which provides a summary of the comments made at the previous meeting and/or received, with an initial response to those comments and a potential Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Ro.qer Budke identified Section 3.101 Public Improvements of Streets and Density as items that were not included in the handout. He indicated these issues need further discussion. Mr. Budke provided a review of the handout. Staff reported it has been indicated to him that the Council may continue their hearing of March 11, 2002 because one Council member will not be available for that meeting. However, testimony will be allowed on that day but the hearing will be continued to take additional testimony at the second meeting in March. Staff explained this means the Council will not make a decision in March which will allow the Commission additional time to provide their recommendations to the Council. Staff estimated the Council's deliberation to take place some time in April. Chairperson Cox commented it seems to him to be a more orderly process if the Council has the Commission's recommendation before they start to hear testimony. Additionally, he related Staff has metwith several people who appeared at the last meeting and reviewed some of the issues raised of which were included in the handout. However, those persons have not submitted any further suggestions or requests other than what was before the Commission previously. Chairperson Cox also stated he also met with Staff and reviewed an earlier version of the handout provided to the Commission which resulted in the end product. He pointed out the Commission is only going to be making a report to the City Council and there is nothing that requires the Commission to address every single issue. Furthermore, he said the Commission does not have anything before them in regards to the architectural review matter and the local street improvements and therefore, the Commission can not do anything other than say that additional work needs to be done on that and the City Council needs to decide. Staff interjected he would like to hear from the Commission if they have a problem with the way it is proposed now on addressing street improvement requirements in the code now. Commissioner Youn.q remarked he sees it as an effective tool for when the developer comes to the area. Additionally, if we can have that flexibility addressed to it, it is not something that is going to make or break a review for single family dwellings but just a tool that puts developers on notice. Commissioner Young stated we are trying to be progressive with our standards. He also commented the zone map item and the composition of the design review board membership are decisions and policies that are going to be formed at the City Council level. Chairperson Cox further commented the issue regarding what should be done with Simonoff's property that is going to be zoned Public and the issue pertaining to lot requirements would require Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 2 of 1 1 '' lr'T r ~F Amendments. He stated it has already been decided that this process is not going to be clouded by Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Chairperson Cox agreed with Commissioner Young in that it is a City Council decision and he does not know what to do other than bat the ball back to them. Furthermore, he remarked there is a bit of a misnomer about architectural review of single family dwellings. He reported there will not be architectural review in the sense that each single family house is going to have to file an application for approval and come in before the Planning Commission or the Architectural Review Board, if it is activated. What they are talking about however, is establishing standards to make a better quality of housing in the City. They do not want it to be a broad subjective standard, i.e., it should be attractive, because that triggers it into a full scale administrative hearing and the formalities that go along with that. We are trying to keep it objective standards which is basically a checklist of items that need to be complied with in order to obtain a permit. However, that raises the issues brought up by Mr. DeSantis about new technology and things that do not always fit. Chairperson Cox said there has to be some way to allow the variations without making each single application come in and go through a full scale hearing like you would for an apartment complex. In order to do that, Staff is working on some type of process that would still maintain a basic checklist but will allow deviations from it with something less than a full scale hearing like you would for a Variance. Chairperson Cox questioned what to say to the Council whether the Commission is in favor of this concept of keeping the standards but providing a procedure to make the flexibility easier? Roger Budke took the lead from the Commission and said there has been a recommendation basically to go in the direction of the architectural review and pointed out that there needs to be some work on this particular property where the City is initiating the zone change where there may be a comprehensive plan later on. Chairperson Cox asked if there is something else that can be used instead of an architectural review? Ro.qer Budke clarified we are talking about meeting certain architectural standards. He indicated it is a new concept and they are recommending later on some actual specific changes to some of the criteria. M r. Budke referred to the issue contained on page two of the handout regarding the issue of where the sidewalk goes and if there are street trees. He stated there are three ways to look at that 1) look at the standard that requires every new street to have street trees, and if they do 2) require it next to the street or on the house side of the sidewalk, 3) not require street trees. Mr. Budke indicated Council should deal with this issue. It is an issue that needs to be discussed but Staff did not feel that we had a clear enough idea and it is pretty much a choice. He referred to the issue regarding the 8,000 sq. ft. lot versus 6,000 sq. ft. lot and indicated it is not proposed to change that at this time. Chairperson Cox interjected the companion issue regarding street trees is the question to where the sidewalk should be whether that be on the curb or back on the property line which leaves a planting strip. He remarked this is a policy decision. Roger Budke further explained some jurisdictions allow two standards i.e., one ~s to have the planting strip and the other is to have the sidewalk at the curb, and state one of the two standards have to be met and leave it to the developer to choose and other jurisdictions standardize it i.e, all sidewalks at the curb or at the property line. Mr. Budke stated you can either specify it at the curb, at the property line or allow it to be on a case by case basis and subdivision by subdivision basis. Additionally, he stated sometimes you get an s- curve in there because one subdivision when it matches another one you have to flow bend in the sidewalk in order to get them to match up. Chairperson Cox remarked the way it is drafted before the Commission it requires sidewalks at property line with a planting strip and it does require trees. He asked the Commissioners if they are happy with that based on things heard from the audience and on the Commission's own analysis or do they want to see some of the other possibilities mentioned by Mr. Budke? Commissioner Loner.qan suggested to do away with the tree requirement if we leave the sidewalks at the property line. Historically, trees are extremely disruptive and not maintained. Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 3 of 11 Commissioner Grosiacques agreed with Commissioner Lonergan. Additionally, he commented if we are going to use the trees, we need to take a better look at what trees are used. He indicated, being a nurseryman before, there are trees that are more columnar, there are trees that hold their leaves and all drop at the same time so you do not have that long leaf dropping period. Vice Chairperson Lima also concurred with his fellow Commissioner's. He feels the option to choose whether trees are planted or not would be a good compromise. Commissioner Young said from a transportation point of view, it is difficult at times to have clear vision because of trees that are at street line or up against driveways. He thinks trees are great because they do really good things but to him it is difficult to get a good vision line and he has some objection to that. Chairperson Cox pointed out we have required street trees for all new subdivisions, commercial and multifamily developments for as long as he has been on the Planning Commission. He stated he is not anxious to get rid of that requirement because he thinks this requirement is a good idea. However, the list of approved trees which is presently being used, may be revised. Chairperson Cox further commented he is not generally in favor of trees in narrow planter strips. Roger Budke suggested the best position at this point is that all the Commissioner's issues be referred to Council and tell them that it is a policy issue that needs to be dealt with. Staff. interjected the other approach is that this is the best opportunity to have the Commission's voice heard to the Council when they make their decision. He said if the Commission has a united recommendation, obviously that is going to carry more weight with the Council than just saying this is a concern but we do not have a consensus on it so do what you want to do. Staff left it up to the Commission as to how they wish to approach this. Commissioner Grosjacques questioned if trees would be required in the landscaping? Staff indicated this would not affect commercial development. Roger Budke remarked them is no requirement for landscaping for single family development right now. There are requirements for landscape when you have a structured parking area, whether that be multi-family, commercial or industrial and for industrial/commercial there are additional requirements for landscaping the site. He reiterated there is no landscaping requirement for single family Commissioner Loner,qan inquired if the Thundercloud tree species is on the list of the approved Woodburn trees? Staff replied affirmatively. Commissioner Loner.qan expressed concerns with having an approved list of trees and that tree is conducive to a lot of damage and they are not maintained. He stated that is one of the reasons why he is voting not to have any trees out there. Staff remarked the list has been around longer than he has been working for Woodburn. He also commented the tree species list may be updated if that is the issue. Commissioner Grosiacques stated he would like to see that the Commission leave it strictly up to the developer on the issues of trees. Commissioner Loner.qan agreed with that. Commissioner Young suggested Staff recommend choice available if chosen to develop by design i.e., sidewalk, planting strip on the outside or inside, no planting strip. If the developer wants to design an area Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 4 of 1 1 and approaches Staff and states their vision is to have the planting strip so there is a safety strip between the sidewalk and the street, then Staff can then say, based on that, these are the tree species available from the list that will be updated to more modern choices. Ro.qer Budke interjected there is an A standard-curb line sidewalk and a B standard-with property line sidewalks that would allow for trees and they get to pick by their design.which of those they want to implement. Commissioner Younq stated you would have the specifications that if they choose to have the safety strip between the street and the sidewalk that would be at a certain distance, that the trees would be specific to column type, leaves fall at the same time and maintained at a certain way. Chairperson Cox stated he thinks it is appropriate to require the trees and it is appropriate, as a general rule, to have property line and sidewalks recognizing that there can be situations where curb sidewalks are better but that can always be handled by a Variance or deviation of some kind. He expressed satisfaction with what is here now. However, there are some members of the public who testified that are not and apparently 4 out of 5 of the Commissioners are not and that should be the recommendation. Commissioner Loner.qan moved to make the recommendation that we make the minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ff. Commissioner Younq questioned whether there would be a problem with density issues? Staff indicated to make that commitment at this point in time may cause us problems down the road with the State as far as pursuing potential UGB expansion. He stated there are a bunch of hoops we have to jump through before we get to the point i.e., buildable lands inventory, housing ne~ds analysis. Staff said they are in the process of updating the Transportation Systems Plan and we are also going to be preparing land use alternatives which will work off the Transportation Systems update to provide alternatives for growth in the City to accommodate transportation and growth. Furthermore, he remarked if we determine that we need to expand the UGB, we have to look at making the existing land use more efficient and minimize the need to expand our UGB. Therefore, by increasing lot sizes, we are not meeting that goal of making our selves more efficient. Staff indicated a policy decision was made when they were going through this that they did not want to raise that red flag at this point in time. He explained if the State challenges us on that item, that could potentially hold this up. Staff expounded as we go through these other studies if we believe that we can expand the UGB and raise lot sizes to 8,000 sq. ft. and do it in a comprehensive manner, there is nothing that stops us from amending the code in a year and putting that in there. Chairperson Cox added when this revised land use zoning ordinance is adopted it still has to be approved by the State level. He asked the Commissioners whether they would be satisfied if the recommendation to the Council indicated that they would like to see an 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size for new residential construction, we recognize the time may not be right to do it now but we want that not to be forgotten. Commissioner Grosiacques stated he would like to have something in there if at all possible. Commissioner Lima reported he received 12 telephone calls regarding this issue and he is representing those people in that they want bigger lots. He stated he personally would not like smaller lots. Commissioner Loner.qan commented if it is going to take Woodburn to step up and face the State eventually, so be it. He further stated there has to be other communities that are considering the same thing. Commissioner Lonergan said it would certainly make a big improvement in Woodburn. Roger Budke explained it is really a timing issue to get your facts in order to support it. What you have now as policy in the Comp Plan and Land Use Inventory does not really provide that support. He further added you have to go out and create that platform to support it on. There are communities out there that have larger lots than 6,000 sq. ft. and that is not to say you should not have that option or requirement. However, what Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 5 of 11 we are saying is that the timing is not right but then again, do not lose sight of the fact that is what you want. Commissioner Lima requested clarification regarding the time span to revise the 6,000 sq. ft. requirement. Roger Budke responded there is really no limit on when you can come back, it is a matter of when you are ready to come back and you have the supporting documentation. Basically, the Comprehensive Plan, Inventory of Land Needs for the 20 year Urban Growth Boundary is all nested on the fact that you assumed and that your policy was that you were going to require 6,000 sq. ft. lots. Furthermore, he stated if you are now going to require somewhere in the range of 20-25% more land per lot, you are going to use up your inventory faster and you will not have a 20 year supply. Commissioner Lima commented one of the compromises mentioned to him by people is livability. If you pack too many in an area, that is detrimental to what we would like to accomplish. Roger Budke interjected it is not all acreages, it is a matter of what you are trying to achieve as a community. You go and make the documentation in the case and right now you have a real narrow spectrum of choices and what you are trying to do is to make sure you have a broader spectrum. He explained there are all sorts of rationale for it, the only issue they are saying is that the rationale is not all composited and clear to make the case. Mr. Budke indicated any developer is not precluded from having larger lots. It was a consensus of the Commission on the lot size issue for single family dwellings that their report will be that they will go along with the 6,000 sq. ft. but would recommend 8,000 sq. ft. if we had the right to do it at this point because we recognize there are some practical legal problems and timing. Roger Budke explained State Statute states there should not be any more than two of any profession and we are just changing that. The other error noted by Mr. Budke that the proposal is to reduce the size of the Commission from nine to seven and therefore their quorum would be four. He indicated these need to be changed. Mr. Budke clarified R1S stays as it always has which is fine for Woodburn Estates but for any new developments there would be no further RlS zoning it would probably be done by a Planned Unit Development RS. It is recommended that an average setback rather than the closest distance be used for rear yard setbacks with a deviation no greater than 5 feet. Staff interjected what is proposed here is similar to what was discussed which allows the potential of an average setback but setup a maximum amount from which you can deviate from the setbacks. Chairperson Cox interjected Senior Estates is being left out of this because it is a historical zone and it is fully developed. Roger Budke said the intent was not to create any probability of creating a nonconforming situation. Commissioner Young made reference to odd shaped lots and commented to have a little bit of flexibility of an average but still have a standard where we want to maintain some distance between property development would be beneficial. Commissioner Lonergan inquired about lot coverage. Roger Budke explained it may have been deleted from the list because the intent of setbacks is to provide for light, air and circulation in a certain amount of space between people and separation and privacy. Whereas, the lot coverage deals with bulk and mass. He indicated it is primarily a matter of esthetics. Staff also interjected what is proposed here is a change from what the current code is which only allows a ~aximum of 35%. It was bumped up to 40% which should address most situations for developers. Chairperson Cox commented he personally has no objection to a lot coverage or setback limitation as we have had them in the past and have worked pretty well. He stated lot coverage is not a difficult thing to Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 6 of 1 1 enforce but it is a question of whether it is a good policy. Chairperson Cox reiterated he believes it is a good policy. Roger Budke moved on to the issue of pets and pet accommodations found on page three of the handout. He stated the consensus was that the Council will consider issues connected with keeping pets in the context of the ordinance that deals with pets and not land use. Commissioner Younq remarked he would like this to be a land use issue. RoRer Budke also reviewed the issue of buffer walls between zones of different intensity. This recommendation backs off of that and the intent was to use buffer walls only between industrial property and commercial to residential property. He explained rather than having a standard that absolutely has to happen every time. It is a guideline to determine when you look at the site plan review process you determine what the compatibility is and at that point you have the ability to require a wall if it is necessary. Mr. Budke further explained this has not yet been written but will be written once the Council receives the final word to be adopted. Commissioner Grosjacques questioned if a commercial general and a residential would be brought before the Commission at that time? Staff interjected there would be a wall between commercial and residential. RoRer Budke explained you need guidelines to make a discretionary decision. The decision lies with what level the site plan review occurs. He went on to the review items on page four of the handout. Commissioner Young asked if we could allow a 34 foot driveway for commercial if we allow a 34 foot driveway for residential or is it determined by ODOT? Roger Budke replied it is not determined by ODOT. He explained you can set the standards for City streets and when it comes to a State street, the State has something to say about it. The 34 foot standard for a triple garage only relates to residential. Staff interjected you can get a wider driveway the wider the lot based on the width to the percentage of the lot width. RoRer Budke remarked we can relate ,it to lot frontage so that it will avoid the curb to curb for a driveway. The idea is to accommodate the driveway but also scale it to the lot frontage. Chairperson Cox made a recommendation to allow 34 foot driveways as long as it does not exceed more than a stated percentage of the lot frontage. Commissioner Lonergan questioned if we are looking at 68 ft. if there are adjoining residences that share a driveway? Roger Budke stated they will work on that issue. Staff stated whatever portions is on that property. If you are allowed 26 ft. right now, you could have a 52 ft. wide driveway on each lot. RoRer Budke further explained there is supposed to be a separation between driveways at least a car length so if they were to combine the driveway with one access point for two lots then it requires some special consideration. Right now the standard states the driveway should be separated by a distance. He stated the idea was originally not to get the whole street frontage paved with driveways. Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 7 of 1 1 Commissioner Young included in the recommendation each of a percentage up to 34 ft. Ro.qer Budke will craft this percentage not to exceed and put in the shared lot aspect. He moved on to the foundation standards and architectural standards for single family and m ulti-family. It was stated by Mr. Budke that the architectural standards allow shakes, shingles and building material that has the visual appearance of lap siding because some of the hardy board type systems show an overlap. This recommendation will go with the visual appearance and not the actual physical fact that you overlap with the reveal to be 3" to 8". Commissioner Lima requested the word "modern" be stricken. Commissioner Loner.qan expressed concerns with the inclusion of the word "horizontal" siding. Staff indicated part of the focus was trying to get away from T1-11. Ro,qer Budke explained the idea was that this standard fit both residential and multifamily. Commissioner Loner.qan commented the picture of the home passed around at the hearing by Mr. DeSantis was not T1-11 but it had vertical siding on it. He expressed concerns with the elimination of vertical siding. Staff commented it was talked about building some sort of adjustment to allow for some material that otherwise would look good but was not addressed. Commissioner Lima remarked Commissioner Lonergan's concerns could be addressed by the first item contained on page 1 of the handout. Staff interjected the reality is that homes like Mr. DeSantis' are going to come through once or twice a year. Whereas, homes with T1-11 will be more predominant which is what lead the focus group to give the direction that they want to get rid of T1-11 in order to raise the quality of development. The proposed adjustment process would provide a relief to someone that is innovative or has an architect design their home with special materials that may not meet the standard. Commissioner LonerRan also questioned if this covered roof standards? RoRer Budke reported the State standard requirement is 3/12 in manufactured dwellings. Commissioner Loner,qan asked what problems would we have if the roof pitch is not specified? Staff explained it is pretty much industry standard right now to have 5/12th roof pitch but the proposed standard is more or less to deal with some problem subdivisions. This is a combination of elements, not any one element is going to give you an attractive home but the combination of these elements makes it much more likely that it will be a higher quality type home. Corn missioner Youn.q felt that he does think that this is so restrictive that someone would look at that on paper and say they can not do it. There are provisions that say that the quality and the design meet the State standards, they are attractive and there is some criteria that would allow that to be built. Roger Budke indicated this deals with both ends of the spectrum and the design home unique features falls outside the center space of all these issues. Chairperson Cox suggested what needs to be said is that although the draft before us now would prohibit those kinds of homes unless you went through a full scale Variance and you might have a hard time meeting the Variance standards. If you come up with a good process for these deviations, then those types of innovative houses would have a procedure by which they could ask for approval because we have this great architectural design. He commented if you do not have some kind of standard they are all going to wind up Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 8 of 11 = ~ 'T lr 'IT- 'I being these little cracker boxes that look like glorified manufactured homes. Chairperson Cox expressed his inclination to keep some kind of standards in here even though we know that they are not perfect and that they will have to be deviated from for the extra good development and at least keep the really bad ugly stuff out. Staff indicated he will defer the interpretation of building materials to the Building Official because he is not an expert on these materials. Commissioner Younq questioned if we are borderline in the Building Code and away from the Zone Ordinance in the range of materials? Staff replied we are supplementing the Building Code in that it does not indicate what type of materials can be utilized. Deniece Won interjected the distinction between traditional land use where you might be controlling uses and these kinds of controls is land use versus esthetics. Staff stated we are looking at esthetics quality and not the structural quality of the materials. RoRer Budke said part of the intent of the group at the time was to raise the bar and get higher quality that lasted longer. Mr. Budke reviewed the final page of the handout. Commissioner Grosiacques asked if you could not park against the wall before? RoRer Budke indicated that was unclear before but they have clarified that you can put your access way up against the wall or you can park up against the wall on the interior and not facing the street. There is no required landscaping on the interior yards. He stated they proposed to place a footnote on every one of the pages that describe certain phrases that depending on which path you take i.e., "should" if it is discretionary, "shall" if it is mandatory so that you know what that format means. Mr. Budke indicated there were two instances of issues that were pointed out that did not make the list that Staff put together, one on zoning in the industrial area. He point out Staff did not address that because the intent of revising the ordinance was not to alter the use list from the zones that were there already. The other issue not addressed by Staff was the question raised by Mr. Krupicka regarding his RS property on the Comprehensive Plan and he would like it to be office. It was not addressed because it is not in the context. However, they intended to address the issue raised by Mr. Krupicka about a series of contractor uses that are now allowed in the CG zone that were left out and Staff has no objection to include those. ' Commissioner Young referenced Commissioner Grosjacques concerns regarding the ability to park at the property line i.e., Tukwila Women's Health Center where it is landscaped on the clinic side of the building but not on the Hallmark building side? Commissioner Grosiacques questioned if itwas burned down over 60% and you had to go back in and build, would you be able to park up against the curb or not or would you lose all the parking? Staff replied you would be required to upgrade it to whatever the current standards are. RoRer Budke remarked you can build a building to zero lot line in a commercial. If you do not, you have to set it back 5 feet. Therefore, that 5 feet has to be landscaped if it is not built upon or used for hard surface like parking. He explained the landscaping requirement in commercial/industrial if you do not have a building on it or paving over it i.e., access way, parking lot, pedestrian way, and it is not a storage yard you landscape the yard. If you put in a solid wall, then you do not have to landscape the yard. Commissioner Grosiacques expressed concerns that if one building totally burned down and it is the one that does not have the landscaping then you have to go back and put landscaping back in there and that would leave no room for parking left. Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 9 of 1 1 Staff indicated that is a decision that has to be made as to how to get nonconforming sites, uses and buildings to conform. He explained you can let them remain "grand fathered" if you do not want them to conform ever. Chairperson Cox remarked the philosophy regarding "grand fathered" uses has been that they are only there by grace with the idea that ultimately things will conform. Staff stated generally when these types of ordinances are adopted you are envisioning buildings that are really old because they can build another like building if you do not have that in place. Commissioner Grosjacques stated he would like something to be done regarding this issue. Commissioner Lima inquired if you can ask for a Variance in this hypothetical case? Deniece Won replied as it is drafted now there are no Use Variances and to deal with nonconforming use would fit into the category of a Use Variance, which is not allowed. She explained it is intentionally drafted to be our own and not a traditional Variance language that had been interpreted by the Courts. Therefore, we get difference in how we interpret what the terminology and the standards mean. Additionally, in review to LUBA, they have not been reversing Variance decisions. It was a consensus of the Commission that the Variance works. Chairperson Cox stated we are not eliminating the industrial/sales district but combining them all in one zone just for purposes of what the letter is as it appears on the zoning map. There is still the distinction that is maintained within a number of feet of the highway as to what kinds of uses are allowed. The retail/sales type uses will still be allowed only in that portion of the industrial zone which is now labeled IS. He indicated we are really not limiting the uses that would be allowed on Mr. Baranzano's property by changing the zone designation and we really are not increasing the uses that would be allowed there. He said those uses are already allowed in the IS zone and General Industrial uses are also now allowed in the IS zone. Chairperson Cox remarked it was specifically stated that we would not get into zone change issues in this project. He recommended we should stick to Staff's recommendation regarding this issue. Staff commented the Comprehensive Plan needs to be revisited at some point in the future to look at the different land use alternatives to meet the Buildable Lands requirements and potential UGB expansion. Chairperson Cox there is always the alternative for the property owner to apply for a zone change amendment. Commissioner Loner,qan did not feel it would be out of line to request to the Council that within 6 months they look at zone change. Deniece Won interjected the City is in Periodic Review and we have a work plan with specified work tasks and deadlines. These buildable lands and commercial inventories and meeting land needs are all related to the documentation for the 8,000 sq. ft. lot size discussion and deciding what appropriate plan and zoning designations might be in the future are all tied together in those projects. She stated our deadline date to complete those tasks was last March. Commissioner Lima commented Irv Fletcher provided positive contribution to the Commission and he will be missed. Chairperson Cox remarked aside from the specific concerns, recommended changes and specific areas the Commission are in favor of the WDO and would like to see it adopted with those changes. Staff will return at the next meeting with the compiled recommendations for Commission review and at that point, a motion will be made to forward it to the City Council. Planning Commixsion Meeting - February 13, 2002 PagelOof 11 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn the meeting. which carried. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Grosiacques, APPROVED -~~----"- ~~---' CLAUDIO LIMA, VICE CHAIRPERSON DATE ATTEST Cor~m~nity Development Director CityTWoodburn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - February 13, 2002 Page 1 1 of' 1 1 ITEMS FOR ACTION ---~ A.~. -01 and Zone Chan,qe 01-06, a proposal to adopt the Final Order for Zone Text Amendment Woodburn Development Ordinance and change zoning designations on certain parcels, City of Woodburn, applicant. Commissioner Loner.qan commented Staff did a really good job in covering the Commission's comments and concerns. He wished the City Council a lot of luck in covering this project. Commissioner Lonergan moved to accept Zone Text Amendment 01-01 and Zone Change 01-06. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Grosiacques, which unanimously carried. None DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORTS None BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Mill felt it is time, as a Commission, compose a letter and route it to the City Council asking them to at least to start actively discussing putting some type of moratorium on growth until some infrastructure that has the ability to handle present student load without great hardship can catch up. Commissioner Loner.qan thought that is a good idea and he stated he would support something like that. Staff interjected he verified that the City Council is very aware of this issue and they have been working very hard, as Staff has, in trying to address traffic issues. He stated he can have the Assistant City Attorney come to the next meeting to address the legal pitch regarding moratoria. Staff stated he believed we could not implement a moratorium just to stop development. He explained State Statutes and Legislation preclude us from doing that. It was explained by Staff that under the Comprehensive Plan, the City has planned for growth with designated land uses on properties. He said we can not now say that the property can not be developed. Furthermore, Staff stated the City has adopted a Growth Management Ordinance that sets out criteria for when we Annex new property and add new land use designations and allow new development. However, everyone that is currently zoned has a right to develop unless they can not provide the infrastructure i.e., sewer/water. There isn't anything present that could prohibit it because of lack of capacity at City wide type facilities. Staff remarked it is the City's responsibility to provide that based on the current Comprehensive Plan. He indicated although the school issue is primarily a State issue, it is also a local issue because the local citizens can vote to provide further facilities. Vice Chairperson Lima commented we can initiate the conversation and try to become significantly more politically active in sensitizing the community of the need. Additionally, he stated we can not stop the growth but we can work together to find solutions for the immediate problem we are facing due to growth. Commissioner Bandelow stated a moratorium would be like trying to keep a child from growing and that is not the healthy way to go. Commissioner Loner.qan referred to the Montebello development and inquired how could we ask one developer to do one type of fencing and another developer to do something else in the same area? He questioned the fairness of requiring one developer put up a block wall and not requiring the other to do the same. Staff replied this issue was raised to the developer and he alerted them that the Commission may raise the block wall as an issue. He explained the requirement of a block wall in that area were unique to that situation because any other situation where we have had multiple apartments next to single family we have not required a block wall. Furthermore, he explained it made sense to put up a block wall because residences backed up to the main arterial instead of having a wood fence which would deteriorate over time and look ugly. Staff Planning Commission Meeting - February 28, 2002 Page 5 of 6 W' ATTACHMENT "E" TESTIMONY SUBMITTED AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Har 06 02 11:35a Richard Rver~ Baranzano 503-22?-4??6 Richard Baranzano Owner, 2917 N. Pacific Highway(Lamplighter Homes Sales Lot) Box 505 Tnalatin, Oregon 97062, Phone 503-330-8100 March 6, 2002 Attention: Kay Vestal Sent Via Fax 503-982-5244, PAGE 1 OF 3 RE: Proposed Zoning Text Amendments and Zoning Map Changes. Woodburn City Council and James P. Mulder, Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Council Members, The Economic Element of Woodbum's standing Comprehensive Plan outlines that, "The overall approach of the City to its economic problems is to work to remove barriers to the free and effective operation of market forces"(page 34, City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan). Furthermore, the Industrial Land Need Element of Woodburn's standing Comprehensive Plan specifically recognizes the need "to diversify to include industries which are less subject to the fluctuations" and establishes that, "we are seeing a transition to manufacturing and service oriented business"(page 45, City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan). In support of service oriented businesses and, the integrity and intent of the Present Comprehensive Plan, I Propose to: !) Not change the Zoning Map designating the Industrial Sales District, 2) Allow the Industrial Sales District to continue as a distinctly different district by continuing to designate as Industrial Sales (IS) in a proposed Section 2.111 and to keep Section 2.203.14 Industrial Sales, Page 2.2-15 as a Special Permitted Use in the IS zone, 3) Modify the Proposed Conditional Uses outlined on Page 2.1-54-55 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance Draft to be applied to new Section 2.111 and enable the following Changes as drafted and attached as Exhibit "A". Har 06 02 ]1:35a Richard Rver~ Baranzano 503-22?-4??6 p.2 AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL LANDS Existing IP Zoned Property in the vicinity of subject IS Zoned Property is poorly situated and configured for today's industrial environment. High vacancies presently exist and the addition of industrial properties along I-5 will further depress the demand in this Area. Changing the IS Zone to the IP Zone flies in the face of facts as they now exist. This down-zoning, once established, threatens to usher-in noxious industrial uses( see Condition Uses in the Industrial Park Zone ) into the very visible and attractive northern gateway to Woodburn. Furthermore, the Staff's Proposed Industrial Sales District(IS) Change to Industrial Park(IP) is being used as a zoning scapegoat and, could interfere with both existing uses and necessary future flexibility. FUNCTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL SALES(IS) ZONE The Existing IS Zone has proven to be extremely successful in attracting a variety a goods and services to the Area. This Area has great visibility and convenient access to 99-E. The IS Zone! Properties also have a street grid system that supports this variety of uses and allows full access to small Tax Parcels that are too small for conventional industrial uses. EXISTING USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL SALES(IS) ZONE Goodwill Industries, Santiam Homes Sales Lot and Finance Center, Lamplighter Homes Sales lot and Finance Center, AG West Farm Store and Equipment Sales, Familian Northwest Plumbing Supply and the Woodburn DMV Office are thriving as Retail, Office, and Supply Service Uses in the IS Zone. STAFF PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS CHANGING AND EXPANDING PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL RETAIL DISTRICT(CR) AND THE CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL DISTRICT(CG) Building Material Sales(444), Hotels and Motels(72111), and Bed-and-Breakfast Inns(721191) are now proposed to be permitted as Outright Uses while, Tractor and Heavy Equipment Dealers, Used Merchandise Stores(4511 ), Manufactured Home Dealers(453930), Pawn Shops(522298) are now proposed to be allowed as Conditional Uses. These Proposed Changes further water-down the Present Industrial Sales(IS) Zolleo Cc: Robert Shields, City Attorney ~ Resl/ectfully, Mar 06 02 ]1:35a Richard Rver~ Baranzano 503-22?-4??6 EXHIBIT "A" Proposed Conditional Uses for Industrial Sales Zoning District 2.111 Industrial Sales (IS) 2.111.03 Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the IS zone subject to the applicable development standards of the WDO and the conditions of the conditional use approval: A. Professional Services 2. 3. 4. Professional, scientific, technical services. (541) Educational services. (611) Ambulatory health care services. (621) Hospitals. (622) B. Finance and Insurance Credit intermediation and related activities. (522) Insurance carriers and related activities. (524) C. Food Services Food services and drinking places (722) EXCLUDING mobile food services. Food and beverage stores. (445) D. Other ~ervices 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Furniture and home furnishing stores. (442) Health and personal care stores. (446) Gasoline stations. (447) Office supplies and stationary stores. (45321) Used merchandise stores. (4533) Information and data processing services. (514) Personal and laundry services. (812) Government and public utility buildings and structures EXCLUDING uses Permitted in Section 2.111.1 and telecommunications facilities subject to Section 2.204.03. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2375 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, Oregon State Statute 294.480 allows for the adoption of a supplemental budget during a fiscal year to meet changes in financial planning, and WHEREAS, the Notice of Supplemental Budget Hearing and Financial Summary was published in the Woodbum Independent on February 27, 2002 as required under State budget law; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 11, 2002 to give citizens an opportunity to comment on the proposed 2001-2002 supplemental budget, now, therefore, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the supplemental budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 is hereby adopted as set forth below. follows: Section 2. That fiscal year 2001-2002 revenues and appropriations are adjusted as Revenues Appropriations GENERAL FUND Revenue Adjustments: Beginning Fund Balance Franchise Revenue - Qwest DUll Grant Dept. Of Justice Grant Woodbum School District - Security Total General Fund Revenue Adjustments Appropriation Adjustments: City Recorder's Office - Personnel Services Municipal Court - Materials & Services Non-Departmental - Materials & Services Police Department - Personnel Services Materials & Services Parks Maintenance - Capital Outlay Interfund Transfer - General Fund CIP Operating Contingency Total General Fund Appropriation Adjustments 302,618 (130,000) 9,000 1,467 3,263 186,348 2,500 4,000 33,000 12,263 14,467 5,700 196,000 (81,582) 186,348 llA Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 11A GENERAL OPERATING RESERVE FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Genl. Operating Res. Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Net Genl. Operating Res. Fund Appropriation Adjustment TRANSIT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Transit Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Transit Fund Appropriation Adjustment BUILDING FUND: Revenue Adjustments: Beginning Fund Balance Total Building Fund Revenue Adjustments Appropriation Adjustments: Operating Contingency Total Building Fund Appropriation Adjustments STATE REVENUE SHARING FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total State Revenue Sharing Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total State Revenue Sharing Appropriation Adjustment HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Housing Rehabilitation Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Housing Rehab. Fund Appropriation Adjustment Revenues 66,182 66,182_ 10,228 10,228 19,251 19251 50,974 50,974 159,706 159,706 Appropriations 66,182 66,182 10,228 10,228 19,251 19251 50,974 50,974 159,706 159,706 Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. llA RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER FUND (RSVP): Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total RSVP Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total RSVP Fund Appropriation Adjustment STREET FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Street Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Street Fund Appropriation Adjustment CITY GAS TAX FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total City Gas Tax Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total City Gas Tax Appropriation Adjustment GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Interfund Transfer From Parks CIP Interfund Transfer From Parks CIP Interfund Transfer From Parks CIP Transfer from General Fund Total General Fund CIP Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Capital Outlay - Financial System Capital Outlay - Misc. Park projects Capital Outlay - Association Building Interfund transfer to Parks CIP Operating Contingency Total General Fund CIP Appropriation Adjustment SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Special Assessment Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Special Assessment Fund Appropriation Adjustment Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Revenues (11 ~000) (11,000) 94~789 94,789 29,643 29,643 96,000 125,975 347,629 196,000 765,604 133,107 133,107 Appropriations (11,000) (11,000) 94,789 94,789 29,643 29,643 181,000 347,629 35,000 221,975 (20,000) 765,604 133,107 133,107 11A STREET/STORM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Street/Storm CIP Fund Revenue Adjustments Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Street/Storm CIP Fund Appropriation Adjustment PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance System Development Charges Transfer from General Fund CIP Oregon Parks & Recreation Dept. Grant Total Parks CIP Fund Revenue Adjustment Expenditure Adjustment: Capital Outlay- Greenway Capital Outlay - Centennial Capital Outlay - Legion Capital Outlay - Skate Park Capital Outlay - N. Front Playground Capital Outlay - Community Center Interfund Transfer to General Fund CIP Total Parks CIP Fund Appropriation Adjustment TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Traffic Impact Fee Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriations Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Traffic Impact Fee Fund Appropriations Adjustment STORM WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Working Capital Carryover Total Storm Water SDC Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriations Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Storm Water SDC Fund Appropriations Adjustment Revenue 233~056 233,056. (344,921) 197,000 221,975 96,00Q 170,054 398,875 398,875 59~355 59,35__~5 Appropriations 233,056 233,056 (75,000) (118,000) (41,550) (150,000) (5,000) (10,000) 569,604 170,054 398,875 398,875 59~355 59,355 Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. llA SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Sewer CIP Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriations Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Sewer CIP Fund Appropriations Adjustment SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance ' Total Sewer Construction Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriations Adjustment: '~ Operating Contingency Total Sewer Construction Fund Appropriation Adjustment WATER FUND: Revenue Adjustment Beginning Fund Balance Total Water Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriations Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Water Fund Appropriations Adjustment WASTEWATER FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Wastewater Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Tdtal Wastewater Fund Appropriation Adjustment WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Water SDC Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Water SDC Fund Appropriation Adjustment Revenues 23,558 23,558 692,691 692,691 94,679 94,679 230,389 230,389 137,153 137,153 Appropriations 23,558 23,558 692,691 692,691 94,679 94,679 230,389 230,389 137,153 137,153 Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. T'~ gr 11A SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Sewer SDC Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Sewer SDC Fund Appropriation Adjustment SELF-INSURANCE FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Self-Insurance Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: ,, Materials & Services Operating Contingency Total Self-Insurance Fund Appropriation Adjustment TECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total T & E Services Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total T & E Services Fund Appropriation Adjustment LIBRARY ENDOWMENT FUND: Revenue Adjustment: Beginning Fund Balance Total Library Endowment Fund Revenue Adjustment Appropriation Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Building Maintenance Fund Appropriation Adjustment Revenues 77,461 77,461 17,997 17,997 36,746 36,746 10,632 10,632 Appropriations 77,461 77,461 60,000 (42,003) 17,997 36,746 36,746 10,632 10,632 Section 3. That the City Recorder shall file a true copy of the supplemental budget as finally adopted in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 294.555. Section 4. That if any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance for any reason shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment is rendered. Page 6 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. llA Section 5. This ordinance being necessary for 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. Approved as to Form: City Attomey Date Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon APPROVED RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR Page 7 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager Public Highway Crossing Agreement with Union Pacific for Settlemier Avenue Railroad Improvements DATE: March 5, 2002 liB RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into a public highway crossing agreement with Union Pacific Railroad Company for use of railroad property for [he Settlemier Avenue railroad crossing improvements. BACKGROUND: The city in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is modifying the Settlemier Avenue railroad crossing. ODOT has awarded a contract for completion of this work which will be completed by July 31, 2002. As part of the overall evaluation of right of way availability during design of the project it was determined that additional Union Pacific right of way was required for the Settlemier Avenue improvements. The primary need was for sidewalks on the north side of the roadway but there were also some requirements for additional space on the south side as well. Union Pacific Railroad developed a new public highway crossing agreement that adds the additional right of way required for the realigned and widened Settlemier Avenue crossing. Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign the public highway crossing agreement on behalf of the city. liB COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 2376 A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO A NEW PUBLIC HIGHWAY CROSSING AGREEMENT FOR THE SETTLEMIER AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSING IN THE CITY OF WOODBURN WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, The City of Woodburn desires to make street improvements to the Settlemier Avenue railroad crossing in the City, and WHEREAS, The Union Pacific Railroad Company owns property on which a portion of the proposed street improvements will be constructed, and WHEREAS, The City and Union Pacific Railroad Company have agreed to a public highway crossing agreement for the property that is required for the desired street improvements, and WHEREAS, The City must complete a public highway crossing agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company to utilize the property for the desired street improvements to the Settlemier Avenue railroad crossing; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into a new public highway crossing agreement, which is affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, for the Settlemier Avenue railroad crossing in the City of Woodburn with the Union Pacific Railroad Company. Section 2. That the City Administrator of the City of Woodburn is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. liB Approved as to form: City Attorney Date APPROVED: Richard Jennings, Mayor Passed by the Council ~ Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. ~'uull¢ Illgllway I..:lros$111g OIS,'I.J,'UI Ui" IKeal L$1.al¢ i'-olOc~ ~No 2024-07 Form Approved, AvP-Law Agreement Number NEW PUBLIC HIGHWAY CROSSING AGREEMENT liB Settlemier Avenue Mile Post 734.48 - Brooklyn Subdivision Woodburn, Marion County, Oregon THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of ,200 by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation to be addressed at Real Estate Department, 1800 Farnam Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102 (the "Railroad") and the CITY OF WOODBURN, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon to be addressed at :270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, OR 97071 (the "Political Body"), RECITALS: The Political Body desires to undertake as its project the reconstruction and widening of the existing Settlemier Avenue at-grade public road crossing (hereinafter the "Project"). The Political Body desires the right to use for the Project that portion of the right-of-way of the Railroad located in Woodburn, Marioni County, Oregon at Mile Post 734.48 on Railroad's Brooklyn Subdivision (the "Crossing Area') shown on the prints and legal description, marked Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: ARTICLE 1 - RAILROAD GRANTS RIGHT For and in consideration of the compensation to be paid by the Political Body as set forth in Article 2 and in further consideration of the Political Body's agreement to perform and abide by the terms of this Agreement, including Exhibits A, B, and B-l, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, the Railroad hereby grants to the Political Body, the right to establish, construct, maintain, repair, renew, and use a public highway at grade over and across the Crossing Area. together with the right of entry to control and remove from the Railroad's right-of-way - on each side of the Crossing Area. the weeds and vegetation which may obstruct the view of motorists approaching the Cros.sing Area to any trains that may also be approaching the Crossing Area. ARTICLE 2 - COMPENSATION In consideration of the rights granted herein, the Political Body hereby agrees to pay to the Railroad the sum of SEVEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY-TWO DOLLARS ($7,292.00), upon the execution and delivery of this Agreement. ARTICLE 3 - CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT - INSURANCE A. If the Political Body will be hiring a contractor or contractors to perform any work involving the Project (including initial construction and any subsequent relocation or maintenance and repair work), the Political 2024-07 City of Woodbum, OR Page I Scttlemier Avenue January 29, 2002 t'ut).c ltlgllway Crossing Ob/J.~/uI Ut' Kcal -t:sl. atc I'olOcr No.: 2024-07 Form Approvcd, AVP-L~w Body shall require its contractor(s) to (i) execute the Railroad's then current Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement; (ii) obtain the insurance coverage described in Exhibit B-I hereto attached; and (iii) provide the insurance policies, certificates, binders and/or endorsements to Railroad that are required in Exhibit B-I before allowing any of its contractor(s) and their respective subcontractors to commence any work in the Crossing Area or on any other Railroad property. B. The Political Body acknowledges receipt of a copy of Railroad's current Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit C and hereby made a part hereof, and confirms that it will inform its contractor(s) that it/they and their subcontractors are required to execute such form of agreement before commencing any work on any Railroad property. Under no circumstances will Political Body's contractor(s) or any subcontractors be allowed on to Railroad's property without first executing the Railroad's Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement and obtaining the insurance set forth therein and also providing to Railroad the insurance policies, binders, certificates and/or endorsements described therein. C. All insurance correspondence, binders, policies, certificates and/or endorsements shall be sent to: Union Pacific Railroad Company Real Estate Department 1800 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102 ATTN: Director Contracts UP Real Estate Folder No. 2024-07 D. If the Political Body's own employees will be performing any of the Project work, the Political Body may self-insure all or a portion of the insurance coverage subject to Railroad's prior review and approval. ARTICLE 4 - FEDERAL AID POLICY GUIDE If the Political Body will be receiving any federal funding for the Project, the current rules, regulations and provisions of the Federal Aid Policy Guide as contained in 23 CFR 140, Subpart I and 23 CFR 646, Subparts A and B are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. ARTICLE 5 - WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY RAILROAD The Political Body agrees to reimburse the Railroad for one hundred percent (100%) of all actual costs incurred by Railroad in connection with the Project including, but not limited to, actual costs of procurement of materials, manpower and deliveries to the job site and the Railroad's normal and customary additives associated therewith. ARTICLE 6 - EFFECTIVE DATE~ TERM This Agreement shall become effective as of the date first herein written, or the date work commences on the Project, whichever is earlier, and shall continue in 'full force and effect until terminated as provided in this Agreement. llB 2024-07 City of Woodbum, OR Page 2 Scttlernicr Avcnuc January 20, 2002 I'uOl~C 1 tlgl~way Crossing 013/13/01 UP Real Lstal¢ t'older No: 2024-07 Form Approved, AVP-Law IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed induplicate as of the date first herein written. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY llB By¸ Asst. Vice President-Real Estate ATTEST: CITY OF WOODBURN By Title: (Seal) Pursuant to Resolution/Order No. hereto attached. dated: , 200 2024-07 City of Woodburn, OR Sctllcmicr Avcnuc Page 3 January 29, 2002 Attachment "A" 1 1 t3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description~ Location & Detail Prints t 's TO SAN FRANCISCO X~A achment"A" ~x ' ~x~ ~ FRONT Gm~' ~ TO PORTLAND N~'4 -- OGLE ST. Z-SLOPE & SIDEWALK AREA = 2,546 SO FT± (0.06 AC~=) SEC 1 3 T.5 S., R. 2 W. SEC 18 T.5 S., R. 1 e SIDEWALK & SLOPE EASEMET = 0.06 AC~ u SLOPE EASEMENT = 0.01 AC± LEGEND: SIDEWALK & SLOPE EASEMENT SHOWN[~ SLOPE EASEMENT SHOWN ........... UPRRCO. R/W OUTLINED ................ / v~ ,~ i PCL 3 = 0.01 AC~ ~ S24 ] PCL 4 = 0.06 AC~ TOTAL AREA = 0.07 ACs CADD WOODBURN FILENAME P:SPENG/OR/1OS/17/ORV17S24 SCAN FILENAME NOTE: BEFORE YOU BEGIN ANY WORK, SEE AGREEMENT FOR FIBER OPTIC PROVISIONS. EXHIBIT "A" UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY WOOOBURN, MARION COUNTY, OREGON M.P. 734.48 - BROOKLYN SUB TO ACCOMPANY AGREEMENT WITH SCALE: 1' = 100' OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE OMAHA, NEBRASKA DATE: 08-21-2001 MFH FILE: WOODBURN Attachment "A" 1 lB SLOPE AND SIDEWALK EASEMENT A tract of land located in Southwest one-quarter of Section 18, Township 5 South, Range I West, Willamette Meridian, in Marion County, Oregon located within the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the northwesterly fight-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad and the easterly fight-of-way of Settlemier Avenue; thence North 42o54'40" East along said northwesterly right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad, 18.14 feet; thence leaving said northwesterly right-of-way, South 2 I°42'08" West, 85.81 feet; thence South 18°59'21" East, 15.10 feet; thence South 21042'08" West, 95.14 feet to the southeasterly fight-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad and the northwesterly right-of- way of Ogle Street; thence South 42o54'40" West along said northwesterly right-of-way of Ogle Street, 45.34 feet to a point on the eastedLright-of-way of Settlemier Avenue, said point being 30.00 feet when measured at a right, angle from the Centedine of Settlemier Avenue; thence North 21°42'08'' East along the easterly .right-of-way of Settlemier Avenue, 30.00 feet easterly and parallel to the centerline of Settlemier Avenue and said centerline extended, 217.77 feet to the point of beginning, 'containing an area of 2546 square feet, 0.06 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT A Expires 12/31/01 f REGISTERED ~ PROFESSIONAL! A,~ND SURVEYOR J OREGON ,~t¥ l~. 2000 DAVEN E. COATE 52735LS Exhibit to Aooo~tlsmny Description 'llB L ocoted Within City of Woodburn, Morlbn Count/ Ore,on SW 1/4 Sect/Dh 1~ Townsh/~ 5 South, ~onge I West, / / ~ / ' RiGHT-OF-WA Y OF /POINT O; / / / THE UN/ON PACIfiC 7 ~ / I ~1 % C / 2546 SO. rr ir / / 7/ / / - ~/ ~ ~/ / / / / / ¢7 / / 0~./~ Expires 12/3 / / ~ / ~~ ~'~' '/ ~,s~ / ~ / %// / P~OrESS~ONAL / /~- / ~ / /~ND SURVEYOR / / ,,e ' / .' / 1~%~ . / rVUl~T ~ OAV[~' ~.' 'COA*[ s~;t. 30o - A~C Ce~te~ S/O~e ~ Side WO/k ~ D E HAAS ~o s.w. Commerce Circle Wilsonville. Oregon 97070 '=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-: ssoeiates, Inc. August 8, 200~' ~ PHONE: (505) 6B2-2~50 ~IY~ Nm FAX: 682-4018 95. 654. Attachment "A" llB SLOPE EASEMENT A tract of land located in Southwest one-quarter of Section 18, Township 5 South, Range I West, W'dlamette Meridian, in Marion County, Oregon located within the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly Southeast comer of Lot 7, Block-2 of BRANDYWINE, a subdivision recorded in Townplat Book 29, Page 28, Marion County, Oregon; thence along the southeasterly line of said BRANDYWINE, North 41 o 17' East, 26.00 feet to the westerly fight-of-way of Settlemier Avenue, a 60.00 foot right-of-way; thence along said westerly right-of-way South 20° 14'52" West, 86.13 feet to the northwesterly fight--of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said westerly right-of-way South 20° 14'52" West, 73.26 feet; thence leaving said westerly fight-of-way North 07°49'21" West, 34.79 feet to said northwesterlgdght-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad and ,thesoul:heasterly line of Lot 17, FLORA MEADOWS, a subdivision recorded in Townplat Book 42, Page 53, Mm'ion County, Oregon; thence along said northwesterly right-of-Oay and said southeasterly line of Lot 17, FLORA MEADOWS, North 41o17' East, 45.60 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 600 square feet, 0.01 acres more or less. EXHI.BIT A Exhibit ocoted Within 1~4 Sec [/'on Attachment "A" Accompany DeScription c/Ox of Woodburn, AXorzbn Coun t~ 'Oregon /~, Township 5 South, /Eonge / West, liB NOR THW~S f~-t~l Y RIGH T-OF- OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD N 0;. LOT 17 of "FL ORA MEADOWS" 600 SQ. FT. ~_~.o.~ Expires 12/31/01 f REGISTERED ~'~ PROFESSIONALI -~LAND SURVEYOR ~ OREGON ~ JULY ~ 2. 2000 OAVFN £. COATE 52735LS 5co/e.' I '~ 20' LOT 8. BLOCK 2 of "BRAND Y~NE" ~ MOST SOUTHERLY SOUTHEAST ~. -CORNER OF LOT Z BLOCK 2 EXHIBIT A NOTE: Searings and distances shown hereon ore per the plot of L~RANOY~ANE. recorded at Volume 2g. Page 28. 8oak of Town Plots. Morion Coun ry. Oregon HAAS 94so s.w. Commerce Circle Wilsonville. Oregon 97070 sociates, Inc. Consulting Engineers & Surveyors PHONE: (505) 682-2450 FAX: 682-4018 S/ope Eosemen! DATE August 8, 2001- FILE No. 95. 654.555 Attachment "A" 118 EXHIBIT B Terms and Conditions Pubhc Ihghway Crossing 08/I .1/01 Slandard Form Approved. AVP-Law SECTION I -CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS Attachment "A" EXHIBIT B TO PUBLIC HIGHWAY CROSSING liB a) The Railroad makes no covenant or warranty of title for quiet possession or against encumbrances. The Political Body shall not use or permit use o! the Crossing Area for any purposes other than those described in this Agreement. Wilhout limiting the foregoing, the Political Body shall not use or permit use of the Crossing Area for railroad purposes, or for gas,. oil or gasoline pipe lines. Any lines constructed on the Railroad's properly by or under authority of the Political Body for the purpose of conveying electric power or communications incidental to the Political Body's use of the property for highwQy purposes shall be constructed in accordance with specifications and requirements of the Railroad, and in such manner as not adversely to affect communication or signal lines of the Railroad or its licensees now or hereafter located upon said property. No nonparty shall be admitted by the Political Body to use or occupy any part of the Railroad's properly without the Railroad's written consent. Nothing herein shall obligate the Railroad to give such consent. b) The Railroad reserves the right to cross the Crossing Area with such railroad tracks as mQ7 be required for its convenience or purposes in such manner as not unreasonably to interfere with its use as a public highway. In the event the Railroad shall place tracks upon the Crossing Area, the Political Body shall, at its sole cost and expense, modify the highway to conform with the rail line. c) The right hereby granted is subject to any existing encumbrances and fights (whether public or private), recorded or not, and also to any renewals thereof. The Political Body shall not damage, destroy or interfere with the property or rights of nonparties in, upon or relating to the railroad property, unless the Political Body at its own expense settles with and ol~tains releases from such nonparties. d) The Railroad reserves the right to use and to grant to others the dght to use the Crossing Area for any purpose not inconsistent with the right hereby granted, including, but not by way of hrnitafion, the fight to construct, reconstruct, maintain, operate, repa/r, alter, renew and replace tracks, facilities and appurtenances on the property; also the right to cross the Crossing Area with all kinds of equipment. The Railroad further reserves the right to attach signal, communication or power lines to any highway facilities located upon the property, provided that such attachments shall comply with Political Body's specifications and will not interfere with the use of the Crossing Area. e) So far as it lcn~ully may do so, the Political Body will assume, bear and pay all taxes and assessments of whatsoever nature or ~ (whether general, local or special) levied or assessed upon or against the Crossing Area, excepting taxes levied upon and against tt property as a component part of the Railroad's operating property. ir) H any property or rights other than the right hereby granted are necessary for the construction, maintenance crud use of the highway and its appurtenances, or for the performance of any work in connection with the Proiect, the Political Body will acquire all such other property and fights at its own expense and without expense to the Raikoad. SECTION 2 -CONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY a) The PoliQcal Body, at its own expense, will apply for and obtain all public authority required by law, ordinance, rule or regulation for the Project, and will furnish the Railroad upon request with satisfactory evidence that such authority has been obtained. b) Except as may be otherwise specifically provided herein, the Political Body, at its own expense, will furnish all necessary labor, material and equipment, and shall construct and complete the highway and all appurlenances thereof. The appurtenances shall include, without limitation, all necessary and proper highway warning devices (except those installed by the Railroad within its fight-of-way), and all necessary and proper drainage facilities, guard rails or barriers, and right of way fences between the highway and the railroad tracks. Upon completion of the-Project, the Political Body shall remove from the Railroad's property all temporary structures and false work, and will leave the Crossing Area in a condition satisfactory to the Railroad. c) The Railroad will receive no ascertainable benefit from the construction of the Project, and, excepl as may be specifically provided herein, shall not be required to pay or contribute any port of the cost thereof. [f the Project is to be financed in whole or in port by Federal funds, all construction work by the Political Body shall be performed, and any reimbursement to the Railroad for work it performs shall be made, in accordance with the applicable Federal acts, regulations, and this Agreement. d) All construction work of the Political Body upon the Railroad's properly (including, but not limited to, construction of the highway and all appurtenances and all related and incidental work) shall be performed and completed in a manner satisfactory to the Vice President- Engineering Services of the Railroad or his authorized representative and in accordance with detailed plans and specifications prepared by and at the expense of the Political Body, and approved in wriling by the Railroad's Vice President-Engineering Services. e) All construction work of the Political Body shall be performed diligently and completed within a reasonable time, and in any even II:\DATA\Favontcs~grccmcnt Forms\l'ublic Road Crossing I'agc I I{xhib~l I~ Agrccmcnt doc .......... t + ~w I'ubhc H~gnway L~rossmg 08/I 3/01 Standard Form Approved. AVP-Law Attachment "A" wx.i'dn three (3) years from the effective date of this Agreement, or within such iurther period of time as may be specified in writing lty]li~ Railroad's Vice President-Engineering Services. No p~rt of the Project shall be suspended, discontinued or unduly delayed withoul the Railroad's written consent, and subject to such reasonable conditions as the Railroad may specify. Il is understood Ihat the Railroad's trcacks cat and in the vicinity of the work will be in conslcant or frequent use during progress of the work and that movement or stoppage 'me~ trains, engines or cars may cause delays in the work of the Political Body. The Political Body hereby assumes the risk of any such .days and cagrees that no claims for damage on account of can¥ delay shall be made against the Railroad. I) If the Project includes construction of a structure over which trains are to be operated, or for which the Railroad has any responsibility lot maintenance, the Political Body shall furnish the Railroad permanent reproducible prints of all design and shop drawings as soon as possible carter approval by' the Vice President-Engineering Services al the Railroad or his authorized representative. Upon completion of construction, the Political Body shall furnish the Railroad two sets of 'as constructed" prints and. in addition, upon request of the Vice President-Engineering Services of the Railroad, 'as constructed" permanent reproducible prints of all or any portion of the structure. SECTION 3 - INIURY AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY 1[ the Political Body, in the performance of cany work contemplated by this Agreement or by the failure to do or perform anything for which the Politiccal Body is responsible under the provisions of this Agreement, shall injure, damage or destroy any property of the Railroad or of cmy other person lawfully occupying or using the property of the Flcrikoad, such property shall be replaced or repaired by the Politiccd Body at the Political Body's own expense, or by the Raikoad at the expense of the Political Body. and to the satisfaction of the Railroad's Vice President-Engineering Services. SECTION 4 - PAYMENT FOR WORK BY THE RAILROAD COMPANY . ~ a) Bills for work and materials shall be pcaid by the Political Body promptly upon receipt thereoL The Railroad will submit to the Political Body current bills for flagging and other protective services and devices during progress of the Project. The Railroad will submit final billing for flagging and other protective services within one hundred and twenty (120) days after completion of the Project, provided the Political Body advises the Railroad of the commencement of the 120-day period by giving the Raikoad written notification of completion of the Project. b) The Railroad may contract for the performcmce of any of its work by other than mikoad forces. The Railroad shall notify the Political Body of the contract price within ninety (90) days after it is awarded. Unless the Railroad's work is to be performed on a fixed price basis, the Political Body shall reimburse the Railroad for the amount of the contract. ,, ~--~TION $ - MAINTENANCE ca) If the Project involves ca grade crossing: 1) The Political Body shall, at its own sole expense, rnaintaln, repair, and renew, or cause to be maintained, repaired and renewed, the entire Crossing Area, except the portions between the track tie ends, which shall be maintained by and at the expense of the Railroad. 2) If, in the future, the Political Body elects to have the surfacing material between the track tie ends, or between tracks if there is more than one railroad track across the Crossing Area, replaced with paving or some surfacing material other than timber planking, the Railroad, at the Political Body's expense, shall install such replacement surfcacing, and in the future, to the extent repair or replacement of the surfacing is necessitated by repair or rehabilitation of the Railroad's tracks through the Crossing Area, the Political Body shall bear the expense of such repairs or replacement. b) If the Project involves a public highway crossing under the Railroad's tracks: 1 ) The Political Body shall, at its own sole exl~nse, rn~intain, repair, and renew, or cause to ~ maintained, rep<tired and renewecl, the entire substructure of the highway-railroad grade separation structure. 2) The Railroad shall, at its own sole expense, maintain and repair, or cause to be maintained and repaired, the entire superstructure of the highway-railroad grade separation structure. c) If the Project involves a public highway crossing over the Railroad's tracks, the Political Body shall, at its own sole expense, maintain, repair, and renew, or cause to be maintained, repaired, and renewed, the entire highway-railroad grade separation structure. SECTION 6 -CHANGES IN GRADE ![ at cany time the Bcailroad shall elect, or be required by competent authority to, raise or lower the grade of (nil or any portion of the '~[:k or tracks located on the Crossing Area, the Political Body shall, at its own expense, conform the public highway in the Crossing Area : )n[orm with the change of grade of the trackage. /,:\OATA\Favorilcs~Agrccmcnt Forms\Public Road Crossing Page 2 I.;xhibi! B Agreement.doc Public Highway Crossing 08/13/0 I $1andard Form Approved. AVP-Law Attachment "A" SECTION 7 - REARRANGEMENT OF WARNING DEVICES lib If the change or rearrangement of any warning device installed hereunder is necessitated for public or Railroad convenience o?""'-, account of improvements for either railroad, highway or both, the parties will apportion the expense incidental thereto bet~ themselves by negotiation, agreement or by the order of a competent authority before the change or rearrangement is undertaken. SECTION 8 - SAFETY MEASURES; PROTECTION OF RAILROAD COMPANY OPERATIONS It is understood and recognized that safety and continuity of the Railroad's operations and communications are of the utmost importance; and in order that the same may be adequately safeguarded, protected and assure~l, and in order that accidents may be prevented and avoided, it is agreed with respect to all of said work o[ the Political Body that the work will be performed in a safe manner and in conformity with the following standards: a) Definitions. All references in this Agreement to the Political Body shall include the Political Body's contractors, subcontractors, officers, agents and employees, and others acting under its or their authonty: and all references in this Agreement to work of the Political Body shall include work both within and outside of railroad property. b) Compliance With Laws. The Political Body shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and enactments affecting the work. The Political Body shall use only such methods as are consistent with safety, both as concerns the Political Body, the Political Body's agents and employees, the officers, ,agents, employees and properly of the Railroad and the public in general. The Political Body (without limiting the generality of the foregoing) shall comply with all applicable state and federal occupational safety and health acts and regulations. All Federal Railroad Administration regulations shall be followed when work is performed on the Railroad's premises. If any failure by the Political Body to comply with any such laws, regulations, and endctments, shall result in any fine, penalty, cost or charge being assessed, imposed or charged against the Railroad, the Political Body shall reimburse and indemnify the Railroad for any such fine, penalty, cost, or charge, including without limitation attorney's fees, court costs and expenses. The Political Body further agrees in the event of any such action, upon notice thereof being provided by the Railroad, to defend such action free of cosL charge, or expense to the Railroad. c) No Interference or Delays. The Polilical Body shah not do, sulfer or permit anything which will or may obstruct, endanger, interfere with, hinder or delay maintenance or operation of the Railroad's tracks or facilities, or any communication or signal lines, installations or any appurtenances thereof, or the operations o! others lawfully occupying or using the Railroad's property or facilities. d) Supervision. The Political Body, at its own expense, shall adequately' police and supervise all work to be performed by the PolitY( Body, and shall not inflict injury to persons or damage to property for the safety of whom or of which the Railroad may be responsible, or to property of the Railroad. The responsib~ty of the Political Body for safe conduct and adequate policing and supervision of the Project shall not be lessened or otherwise affected by the Railroad's approval of plans and specifications, or by the Railroad's collaboration in performance of any work, or by the presence at the work site of the Railroad's representatives, or by compliance by' the Political Body' with any requests or recommendations made by such representatives. If a representative of the Railroad is assigned to the ProjecL the Political Body win give due consideration to suggestions and recommendations made by such representative for the safety and protection of the Railroad's property and operations. e) Suspension of Work. If at any time the Political Body's engineers or the Vice President-F..ngineering Services of the Railroad or their respective representatives shall be of the opinion that any work of the Political Body is being or is about to be done or prosecuted without due regard and precaution for safety and security, the Political Body shall immediately suspend the work until suitable, adequate and proper protective measures are adopted and provided. [) Removal of Debris. The Political Body shall not cause, suffer or perm/t material or debris to be deposited or cast upon, or to slide or fall upon any. property or facilities of the Railroad; and any such material and debris shall be promptly removed from the Railroad's property by the Political Body at the Political Body's own expense or by the Railroad at the expense of the Political Body. The Political Body shall not cause, suffer or permit any snow to be plowed or cast upon the Railroad's property during snow removal from the Crossing Area. g) Explosives. The Political Body shall not discharge any explosives on or in the vicinity of the Railroad's property without the prior consent of the Railroad's Vice President-Engineering Services, which shall not be given if, in the sole discretion of the Railroad's Vice President-Engineering Services, such discharge would be dangerous or would interfere with the Railroad's property or facilities. For the purposes hereof, the "vicinity of the Railroad's property' shall be deemed to be any place on the Railraad's property or in such close proximity to the Railroad's property that the discharge of explosives could cause injury to the Railroad's employees or other persons, or cause damage to or interference with the facilities or operations on the Railroad's property. The Railroad reserves the right to impose such conditions, restrictions or limitations on the transportation, handling, storage, security and use of explosives as the Railroad. in the Railroad's sole discretion, may deem to be necessary, desirable or appropriate. In addition to any conditions, restrictions or limitations as may be specifically imposed: 1) Unless the Railroad's Vice President-Engineering Services agrees otherV, nse. the Political Body shall provide no less than ' II:\DATA\Favorites~Agrccment Forms\Public Road Crossing Page 3 Exhibi! B Agreemcnt.doc Public Itighway Crosstn§ 08/I 3/01 Standard Form Approvcd, AVP-Law Attachment "A" hours' notice, excluding weekends (~nd holidays, before discharging any explosives. llB 2) Any explosives loaded in holes or placed or otherwise readied for discharge on a day shall be discharged on the same day during daylight hours, and at mutually acceptable times. 3) The Political Body. al its own expense, shall take all precautionary measures and conslruct all temporary shelters necessary to guard against danger of damage, destruction or interference arising out of or connected with any blasting or any transportation, handling, storage, security or use of explosives. 4) The Political Body shall require explosives Io be transporled, handled, stored or olherV,'Use secured and used in a manner satisfactory to the Railroad and in accordance with local, state and Federal laws, rules and regulations, including, without limitation, United States Deportment o! Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards, Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR Part 1518, Subpart U -- "Blasting and the Use o[ Explosives": and Occupational Safety and Health Administration Occupational Safety and Health Standards, 29 CFR Part 1910. Subpart H -- "Hazardous Materials". h) Obstructions to View. Except as olherw/se specifically provided herein, the Political Body shall not cause or permit the view along the tracks of the Railroad to be obstructed, nor place any combustible material on the premises, nor erect any structures thereon. [f public law or regulation requires control or removal of weeds or vegetation on each side of the Crossing Area, the Political Body will perform such control or removal work without expense to the Railroad or, if the Pohtical Body may not lawfully perform the control or removal work, reimburse the Railroad for the cost of performing such control or removal, if the crossing is not equipped with automatic train activated warning devices with gate arms: 1) The Political Body shall control or remove weeds and vegetation within and on each side of the Crossing Area so that the view of approaching motorists to approaching trains is not obstructed by weeds or vegetation; &nd 2) Insofar as it may lawfully may do so, the Political Body will not permit non-padies to construct sight obstructing buildings or other permanent structures on property adjacent to the right-of-way. i) ~on. The Political Body shall not excavate from existing slopes nor construct new slopes which are ez:cessive and may create hazards of slides or falling rock, or impair or endanger the clearance between existing or new slopes and the tracks of the Railroad. The Political Body shall not do or cause to be done any work which will or may disturb the stability of any area or adversely affect the Railroad's tracks or facilities. The Political Body, at its own expense, shall install and maintain adequate shoring and cribbing for all ~-.~ion and/or trenching performed by the Political Body in connection with construction, maintenance or other work. The shoring i cribbing shall be constructed and maintained with materials and in a rnanner approved by the Railroad's Vice President-Engineering ,.~ervices to withstand all stresses likely to be encountered, including any stresses resulting from vibrations caused by the Railroad's operaiJons in the vicinity. j) Drainaqe. The Political Body, at the Political Body's own expense, shall provide and maintain suitable facilities for draining the highway and its appurtenances, and shall not suffer or perrn/t drainage water therefrom to flow or collect upon property of the Railroad. The Political Body, at the Political Body's own expense, shall provide adequate passageway for the waters of any streams, bodies of water and drainage facilities (either natural or artificial, and including water from the Railroad's culvert and drainage facilities), so that said waters may not, because of any facilities or work of the Political Body, be impeded, obstructed, diverted or caused to back up, overflow or damage the property of the Railroad or any part thereof, or property of others. The Political Body shall not obstruct or interfere with existing ditches or drainage facilities. k) Notice. Before commencing any work, the Political Body shall provide at least ten (10) days prior notice (excluding weekends and holidays) to the Railroad's Manager-Track Maintenance. 1) Fiber Optic Cables. Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Railroad's property. Protection of the tiber optic cable systems is o[ extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss of revenue and profits. Political Body shall telephone the Railroad during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday, except holidays) at 1-800-336-9193 (also a 24-hour, 7-day number for emergency calls) to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on the Railroad's premises to be used by the Political Body. If it is, Political Body will telephone the telecommunications company(les) involved, arrange for a cable locator, and make arrangements for relocation or other protect/on of the fiber optic cable prior to beginning any work on the Railroad's premises. SECTION 9 -INTERIM WARNING DEVICES If at anytime it is determined by a competent authority, by the Political Body, or by agreement between the parties, that new or improved train activated warning devices should be installed at the Crossing Area, the Political Body shall install adequate temporary warning devices or signs and impose appropriate vehicular conlrol measures to protect the motoring public until lhe new or improved '~"ices have been installed I'J:\l)ATA\FavorileskAgrccmcnt [:o~ms\Pubhc Road Crossing Page 4 [:.xhibil Il Agrccmcnt.doc t'ubhc ltlghway Crossing 08/13/01 Slandard Form Approved, AVP-Law S~_~--"TION 10 - OTHER RAILROADS Attachment "A" lib AIl protective crud indemnifying provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit o[ lhe Railroad and any other railroad company i~vfull¥ using Ihe Railroad's proport~ or facilities. SECTION 11 - REMEDIES FOR BREACH OR NONUSE t a) If the Pohtical Body shall fail refuse or neglect to perform and abide by lhe terms of this Agreement, the Railroad, in addition to any other rights and remedies, may perform any work which in the judgment of the Railroad is necessary to place the highway and appurtenances in such condition as will not menace, endanger or interfere with the Railroad's facilities or operations or jeopardize the Railroad's employees; and the Political Body will reimburse the Railroad for the expenses thereof. b) Nonuse by the Political Body of the Crossing Area for public roadway purposes continuing at any time for a period of eighteen (18) months shall, at the option of the Railroad, work a terminalion of this Agreement and of all rights of the Political Body hereunder. c) The Political Body will surrender peaceable possession of the Crossing Area upon termination of this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement shall not affect any rights, obligations or liabilities of the parties, accrued or otherwise, which may have arisen prior to termination. SECTION 12 - MODIFICATION - ENTIRE AGREEMENT - No waiver, modification or amendment of this agreement shall be of any force or effect un]ess made in writing, signed by the Pohtical Body and the Railroad and specifying with particularity the nature and extent of such waiver, modification or amendment. Any waiver by the Railroad of any default by the Political Body shall not affect or impair any right arising from any subsequent default. This Agreement and Exhibits attached hereto and made a part hereof constitute the entire understanding between the Political Body and the P,n:ilroad and ccmcel and supersede any prior negotiations, understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the work or any part thereof. SECTION 13 - ASSIGNMENT; SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS This Agreement shall not be assigned without the written consent of the Railroad. Subject hereto, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns. H:\DATA\Favorites~grcement Forms\Public Road Crossing Agreement doc Page $ Exhibit B Pubhc Highway Crossing Og/I MOl Form Approved, AVP-Law Attachment "A" EXHIB B- 1 '- 11 B TO PUBLIC HIGHWAY CROSSING AGREEMENT INSUP, ANCE FLEQUIREMENTS For purposes of this Exhibit B- 1, oil references to the term "Contractor" shall be deemed to be oll conlraclors hired by the Political Body and all subcontractors of any such Contractor. Contractor shall at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain dunng the life of this Agreement the tallowing insurance coverage: Commercial General Liability insurance· This insurance shall contain broad form contractual liability with a single limit of at least $5,000,000 each occurrence or clcfim and an aggregate limit of at least $10,000.000. Coverage must be purchased on a post 1998 ISa or equivalent form, including but not limited to coverage for the following: · Bodily injury including death and personal injury · Properly damage · FLre legal/dab/lily (Not less than the replacement value of the portion of the premises occupied) · Products and completed operations The policy shall also contain the following endorsements which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: · 'For purposes o! this insurance, Union Pacific Railroad payments related to the Federal Employers Liability Act or a Union Pacific Wage Continuation Program or similar programs are deemed not to be either payments made or obligations assumed under any Workers Compensation. disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or similar law.' · The exclusions for railroads (except where the lob site is mom than filly feet (50) from any railroad including but not limited to tracks, bridges, trestles, roadbeds, terminals, underpasses or crossings), and explosion, collapse and underground hazard shall be removed. · Coverage for Contractor's (and Railroad's) employees shall not be excluded · Waiver of subrogation Business Automobile Coveraqe insurance. This insurance shall contain a combined single limit of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence or claim, including but not limited to coverage for the following: · Bodily injury crud property damage · Any and an motor vehicles including owned, hired and non-owned The policy shan also contain the following endorsements which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: · 'For purposes of this insurance, Union Pacific Railroad payments related to the Federal Employers Liability Act or a Union Pacific Wage Continuation Program or similar programs are deemed not to be either payments made Or obligations assumed under any Workers Compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or similar law." · The exclusions for railroads (except where the Job site is more than fifty feet (50') from any railroad including but not limited to tracks, bridges, trestles, roadbeds, terminals, underpasses or crossings), and explosion, collapse and underground hazard shall be removed. · Motor Carrier Act Endorsement- Hazardous materials clean up (MCS-90) if required by law. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability insurance including but not limited to: · Contractor's statutory liability under the workers' compensation laws of the state(s) affected by this Agreement · Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 each employee [f Workers Compensation insurance will not cover the liability of Contractor in states that require particil:~tion in stole workers' compensation fund, Contractor shall comply with the laws of such states. If Contractor is serf-insured, evidence of state approval must be provided along with evidence of excess workers compensation coverage. Coverage shall include liability arising oul of the U. $. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, the Jones Act. and the Outer Continental Shell Land Act, if applicable. The policy shall also contain the following endorsement which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: · Alternate Employer Endorsement Umbrella or Excess Policies In the event Contractor utilizes Umbrella or excess pohcies, these policies shall "follow lotto" and - Exhibit B-I Fl:\DATA\FavortteskAgreement Forms\Public Road Crossing Page I Agreementdoc Pubhc IJl§hway Crossm§ Og/I 3/01 Form Approved, AVP-Law Attachment "A" afford no less coverage than the primary policy. llB Railroad Protective [.,/ability insurance normng only the Railroad as the insured with a combined single limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence with a $6,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be broad form coverage for "Physical Damage to Property" (ISa CG 00 35 07 98 or equivalent). A binder stating the policy is in place must be submitted to the Railroad until the original p~ is forwarded to the Railroad. Other Requirements F. Punitive damage exclusion must be deleted, which deletion shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Contractor agrees to waive its right of recovery, and its insurers, through policy endorsement, agree to waive their right of subrogation against Railroad. Contractor further waives its right of recovery, and its insurers also waive their right of subrogation against Railroad for loss of its owned or leased property or property under its care, custody and control. Contractor's insurance shall be primary with respect to any insurance carried by Railroad. Ail waivers of subrogation shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. All policy(ies) required above (excluding Workers Compensation) shall provide severability of interests and shall name Railroad as an additional insured. Severability of interest and naming Railroad as additional insured shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Prior.to commencing the Work, Contractor shaU furnish to Railroad original certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the'required coverage, endorsements, and amendments. The certificate(s) shaU contain a provision that obligates the insurance company(les) issuing such policy(les) to notify Railroad in writing of any cancellation of material alteration. Upon request from Railroad, a certified duplicate original of any required policy shall be furnished. Any insurance policy shall be written by a reputable insurance company acceptable to Railroad or with a current Best's Insurance Guide Rating of A- c:md Class VII or better, and authorized to do business in the state(s) in which the service is to be provided. Contractor WARRANTS that this Agreement has been thoroughly reviewed by Contractor's insurance agent(s)/brokeds), who have been instructed by Contractor to procure the insurance coverage required by this Agreement and acknowledges that Contractor's insurance coverage will be primary. The fact that insurance is obtained by Contractor or Railroad on behalf of Contractor shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Contractor, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. Damages recoverable by Rcrilroad shall not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage. H:\DATA\FavontcsVkgrccment Forms\Public Road Crossing Agreement.doc Page 2 Exhibit B-I Attachment "A" 11~ EXHIBIT C Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY ~l~enl R. D. Uhrich Assislanl Vice President O. O. Brown General Direclor - Real Estate J. P. Gade Director' - Facilily Managemenl 1800 Farnam Streel Omaha, Nebraska 68t02 Fax: (402) 997-3601 J. L. 1 1 B General Director - Real Estate Operations M. E. Heenan Director - Real Estate Operations T. K. Love General Direclor - Real Estate G.L. Pinker Direclor - Contracts January 29,2002 Folder No. 2024-07 To the Contractor: Before Union Pacific Railroad can permit you to perform work on its property for the reconstruction and widening of the existing S~-tlemier Avenueat-grade public road crossing, it will be necessary to complete two originals of the enclosed Rigill of Entry Agreement as follows: 1. Fill in the complete legal name of the contractor in the space provided on Page I of the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement. If a corporation, give the state of incorporation. If a parmership, give the names of all partners. 2. Fill in the date construction will begin and be completed in Article 5, Paragraph A. Fill in the name of the contractor in the space provided in the signature block at the end of the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement. 'If the contractor is a corporation, the person signing on its behalf must be an elected corporate officer. 4. Return all copies of the Conlxactor's Right of Entry Agreement together with your Certificate of Insurance as required ( , in Exhibit B-1, in the attached, self-addressed envelope. Check made payable to the Union Pacific Raikoad Company in the amount of $500.00. If you require formal billing, you may consider this letter as a formal bill. In compliance with the Internal Revenue Services' new policy regarding their Form 1099, I certify that 13-6400825 is the Railroad Company's correct Federal Taxpayer Identification Number and that Union Pacific Railroad Company is doing business as a corporation. After approval of the Right of Entry Agreement and insurance certificate, one fully executed counterpart of the agreement will be returned to you. In no event should you begin work until you have received your counterpart of the fully executed agreement. Under Exhibit B-! of the enclosed Contractor's Right of Entry, you are required to procure Railroad Protective Liability Insurance (RPLI) for the duration of this project. As a service to you, Union Pacific is making this coverage available to you. If you decide that acquiring this coverage from the Railroad is of benefit to you, please contact Ms. Nancy Savage at (402) 271- 2215. If you have any questions concerning the agreement, please contact me at (402) 997-3620. Have a safe day! Sincerely, PAUL G. FARRELL MANAGER CONTRACTS Contraclor's Right of Entry - 07130/01 Folder No: 2024-O7 Form Approved. AVP Law Attachment "A'.' CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the __ day of _, 200__, by and between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (the "Railroad"); and llB (State of Incorporation) RECITALS: (Name of Contractor) corporation (the "Contractor"). Contractor has been hired by the City of Woodburn to perform work relating to the reconstruction and widening of the existing Settlemier Avenue at-grade public road crossing (the "work"), with ali or a portion,'of such work to be performed on property of Railroad in the vicinity of, which work is the subject of a contract dated between Railroad and the City of Woodbum, Oregon. Contractor has requested Railroad to permit it to perform the work on the portion of Railroad's properly shown on the print marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof, and Railroad is agreeable thereto, subject to the following terms and conditions. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the Railroad and Contractor, as follows: ARTICLE 1 - DEFINITION OF CONTRACTOR. For purposes of this agreement, all references in this agreement to the Contractor shall include the Contractor's contractors, subcontractors, officers, agents and employees, and others acting under its or their authority. ARTICLE 2 - RIGHT GRANTED; PURPOSE. The Railroad hereby grants to the Contractor the right, during the term hereinafter stated and upon and subject to each and ali of the terms, provisions and conditions herein contained, to enter upon and have ingress to and egress from the property described in the Recitals for the purpose of performing any work described in the Recitals above. The right herein granted to Contractor is limited to those portions of Railroad's property specifically described herein, or as designated by the Railroad Representative named in Article 4. ARTICLE 3 - TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN EXHIBITS A, B, C AND D. The terms and conditions contained in Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C and Exhibit D, attached hereto, are hereby made a part of this agreement. ARTICLE 4 - ALL EXPENSES TO BE BORNE BY CONTRACTOR; RAILROAD REPRESENTATIVE. A. The Contractor shall bear any and all costs and expenses associated with any work performed by the Contractor, or any costs or expenses incurred by the Railroad relating to this agreement. B. The Contractor shall coordinate all of its work with the following Railroad representative or his or her duly authorized representative (the "Railroad Representative"): 2024-07 City opf Woodbum. OR Page I Scttlcmicr Avcnue January 29. 2002 Contractor's Right o£ ..f~ltry - O 113uIt) l I~oldcr No.: 2024-07 Form Approved - AVP L~w Attachment "A" Jim Curt/ss Manager Track Maintenance Union Pacific Railroad Company 1619 North River Street Portland, OR 97227 Phone: 503-249-2323 FAX: 503-249-2592 C. The Contractor, at its own expense, shall adequately police and supervise all work to be performed b)~ the Contractor and shall ensure that such work is performed in a sate manner as set forth in Section 7 of Exhibit B. The responsibility of the Contractor for safe conduct and adequate policing and supervision of the Contractor's work shall not be lessened or otherwise affected by the Railroad's approval of plans and specifications involving the work, or by the Railroad's collaboration in performance of any work, or by thc presence at the work site of the Railroad Representative, or by compliance by the Contractor with any requests or recommendations made by the Railroad Representative. ARTICLE 5 - TERM; TERMINATION. A. The grant- of right herein made to Contractor shall commence on the date of this agreement, and continue until , unless sooner terminated as herein provided, or at such time as Contractor has completed its work on Railroad's property, whichever is earlier. Contractor agrees to notify the Raikoad Representative in writing when it has completed its work on Railroad property. B. This agreement may be terminated by either patty on ten (10) days written notice to the other party. AR~I'ICLE 6 - CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE. A. Before commencing any work, Contractor will provide Railroad with the insurance binders, policies, certificates and/or endorsements set forth in Exhibit C of this agreement. B. All insurance correspondence, binders, policies, certificates and/or endorsements shall be directed to: Union Pacific Railroad Company 1800 Farnam Street Omaha NE 68102 Attn.: Director Conlmcts Folder No.: 2024-07 ARTICLE 7 - DISMISSAL OF CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR EMPLOYEE. At the request of Railroad, Contractor shall remove from Railroad properly any employee of Contractor or any subcontractor who fails to conform to the instructions of the Railroad Representative in connection with the work on Railroad's property, and any right of Contractor shall be suspended until such removal has occurred. Contractor shall indemnify Railroad against any claims arising from the removal of any such employee from Railroad property. ARTICLE 8 - ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. Contractor shall pay to Railroad FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) as reimbursement for clerical, administrative and handling expenses in connection with the processing of this agreement. ARTICLE 9 - CROSSINGS. No additional vehicular crossings (including temporary haul roads) or pedestrian crossings over Railroad's trackage shall be installed or used by Contractor without the prior written permission of Railroad. 2024-0'/City opf Woodbum. OR Page 2 Scttlemier A venue Jamtary 20. 2002 llB Contraclor's Right o! I=mry - U I/3U/UI I.oldcr No 2024-07 Form Approved - AVP L~w Attachment "A" ARTICLE 10- EXPLOSIVES. Explosives or other highly flammable substances shall not be stored on Railroad property without the prior written approval of the Railroad. llB IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this agreement in duplicate as of the date first herein written. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY By: Manager Conlracts WITNESS: (Name of Contractor} By:. Title: 2024-07 City opf Woodbum, OR Scttlem~¢r A venue Page 3 January 29, 2002 c.ollllaclOl s I~,tJL. L.X[J /j,JlJjLJ1 Form Approved. AVP-Lcn, v TO CONTHACTOR'$ RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT llB Section I. NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK - FLAGGING. ~.,'"'"'~ A The Contractor agrees to notify lhe Railroad Represenlative al leasl ten (10) working days in advance of Contraclor commencing ils work and at least ten (10) working days in advance of proposed performance of any work by the Contraclor in which any person or equipment will be within lweniy-five (25) feet of any track, or will be near enough Io any Irack Ihat any equipment extension (such as, but nat limiled to, a crane boom) Wtll reach to w~thm lwenly-[ive (25) feel of any lrack. No work of any kind shall be performed, and no person, equipment, machinery, tool(s), material(s), vehicle(s), or thing(s) shall be located, operated, placed, or stored within twenly-five (25) feet of any of Railroad's lrack(s) at any time, [or any reason, unless and unlil a Railroad flagman is provided 1o watch for trains. Upon receipl of such ten (10)-day notice, lhe Railroad Representative will delermine and inform the Contractor whelher a flagman need be presenl and whelher lhe Contractor need implement any special protective or safety measures. Ii' flagging or other special proleclive or safety measures are performed by the Railroad, such services will be provided at Contractor's expense wilh the understanding lhat if the Railroad provides any flagging or other services, the Conlractor shall not be relieved of any of ils responsibililies or liabilities set forth herein. Contractor shall promptly pay to Railroad all charges connected wfth such services within thirty (30) days after presentation of a bill. B. The rate of pcv/per hour for each mcm will be the prevailing hourly rate in eflect for an eight hour day for the class of men used during regularly assigned hours and overtime in:accordance w~th Labor Agreements and Schedules in effect at the time the work is performed. In addition to the cost of such labor, a composite charge for vacation, holiday, health and welfare, supplemental sickness, Railroad Retirement and unemployment compensation, supplemental pension, Employees l...iabflity and Property' Damage crud Administration will be included, computed on actual payroll. The composite charge will be the prevailing composite charge in effect on the dc~' of execution of this agreement. One and one-half times the current hourly rate is paid for overtime, Scr[urdays and Sundc~s; two and one-half times current hourly rate [or holidays. Wage rates are subject to change, at any time, by law or by agreement between the Railroad and its employees, and moa/' be retroactive as o result of negotiations or a ruling of cm authorized Governmental Agency. Additional charges on labor are also subject to change. If the wage rate or additional charges are changed, the Contractor shall pay on the basis of the new rates and charges. C. Reimbursement to the Railroad will be required covering the full eight hour day during which any flagman is furnished, unless he can be assigned to other Ratlroad work during a portion of such day, in which event reimbursement will not be require'"'~ for the portion of the day during which the flagman is engaged in other Railroad work. Reimbursement will also be required fl any day not actually worked by said flagman following his assignment to work on the project iai which the Railroad is required to pay the flagman and which could not reasonably be avoided by the Railroad by assignment of such flagman to other work, even though the Contractor may not be working during such time. When it becomes necessap/for the Railroad to bulletin and assign an employee to a flagging position in compliance with union collective bargaining agreements, the Contractor must provide the Railroad a minimum of five (5) days notice prior to the cessation of the need for a flagman. If five (5)-days notice of cessation is not given, the Contractor will still be required to pay flagging charges for the live (5)-cloy notice period required by union agreement to be given to the employee, even though flagging is not required for thai period. An additional ten (10) days notice must then be given fo the Railroad if flagging service are needed again after such live day cessation notice has been given Railroad. Section 2. LIMITATION AND SUBORDINATION OF RIGHTS GRANTED A. The foregoing grant of right is subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right and obligation of the Railroad to use and maintain its entire property including the right and power of the Railroad Io construct, maintain, repair, renew, use, operate, change, modify or relocate railroad tracks, roadways, signal, communication, fiber optics, or other wirelines, pipelines and other facilities upon, along or across any or all parts of its property; all or any of which may be freely done at any lime or times by the Railroad without liability to the Contractor or to any other party for compensation or damages. B. The foregoing grant is also subject to all outstanding superior rights (including those in favor of licensees and lessees of Ihe Railroad's property, and others) and the right of lhe Railroad to renew and extend lhe same, and is made without covenant of title or for quiet enioyment. Section 3. NO INTERFERENCE WITH OPERATIONS OF RAILROAD AND ITS TENANTS. A. The Contractor shall conduct its operalions so as not to interfere wilh the continuous and uninterrupted use and operation of lhe railroad Iracks and property of the Railroad, including withoul limilation, the operations of Ihe Railroad's lessees, licensees or others, unless specifically aulhorized in advance by the Railroad Represen[ative. Nolhing shall be done or permitled to be done.....~ by lhe Contraclor al any time that would in any manner impair the safely of such operations When not in use. Contractor'j ~1 (~L*llt~nl [',t,~ge I []xhiLql 1~, T "~'' IT r Form Approved. AVP-[x:n,v machinery (:md materials shall be kept ol leasl fifty (50) feet from the cenlerline of Ihe Railroad's nearest track, and there shall be ,. ' vehicular crossings of Railroads tracks excepl at ~ll~l:~li~pt.t~i~: crossings lib B. Operations of the Railroad and work performed by the Railroad personnel crud delays in the work to be performed by the Contractor caused by such railroad operations and work ore expected by the Conlractor, and Contractor agrees that the Railroad .~]Fhall have no liability to Contractor, frs subcontractors or any other person or entity for any such delays. The Contractor shall [ )ordinate ils activities with those of the Railroad and third parties so as to ovoid interference with railroad operations. The safe 'Operation af the Railroad tokes precedence over any work to be performed by lhe Contractor. Section 4. LIENS. The Contractor shall pay' in full all persons who perform labor or provide materials for the work lo be performed by Contractor. The Conlractor shall nol create, permit or suffer any mechanic's or m01erialmen's liens of any kind or nature to be created or enforced against any property of the Railroad [or any such work performed. The Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the Railread from and against any and all liens, claims, demands, costs or expenses of whatsoever nature in any way' connected with or growing out of such work done, labor performed, or materials furnished. If the Contractor fails to promptly cause any lien to be released of record, the Railroad may, at its election, discharge the lien or claim of lien at Contractor's expense. Section 5. PROTECTION OF FiBER OPTIC CABLE SYSTEMS. A. Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on the Railroad's property. Protection of the fiber optic cable systems is of extreme importance since any break could disrupt service to users resulting in business interruption and loss, of revenue and profits. Contractor shall telephone the Railroad during normal business hours (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday, except holidays) crt 1-800-336-9193 (also cz 24-hour, 7-day number for emergency cqlls) to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on the Raikoad's premises to be used by the Contractor. If it is, Contractor will telephone the telecommunications company(Yes) involved, make arrangements for a cable loc01or and, if applicable, for relocation or other protection of the fiber optic cable. The Contractor shall not commence any work until all such protection or relocation (if applicable) has been accomplished. B. In addition to other indemnity provisions in this Agreemenl, the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold the Railroad h~mless from (:md against afl costs, liability and expense whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, court costs and expenses) arising out of cmy act or omission af the Contractor, its contractor, agents and/or employees, that causes or contributes to (1) cmy damage to or destruction of any telecommunications system on Railroad's property, and/or (2) any injury to or death of ~y person employed by or on behalf of any telecommunications company, and/or its contractor, agents and/or employees, on ] lroad's property. Contractor shall not have or seek recourse against Railroad for any claim or cause of action for a~,,eged loss ~, profits or revenue or loss of service or other consequential dcanage to a telecommunication company using Railroad s property or a customer or user of services of the fiber optic cable on Raikoad's property. Section 6. PERMITS - COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. In the prosecution of the work covered by this agreement, the Contractor shall secure any and all necessary permits and shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and enactments affecting the work including, without limitation, all applicable Federal Railroad Administration regulations. Section 7. SAFETY. A. Safety of personnel, property, rail operations and the public is of paramount importance in the prosecution of the work performed by the Contractor. The Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining and supervising all safety, operations and programs in connection with the work. The Contractor shall at a minimum comply with the Railroad's safety standards listed iff Exhibit D, hereto attached, to ensure uniformity with the safety 'standards followed by the Railroad's own forces. As a part of the Contractor's safety responsibilities, the Contractor shall notify the Railroad if the Contractor determines that any of the Railroad's safety standards are contrary to good safety practices. The Contractor shall furnish copies of £×hibit D to each of its employees before they enler on the job site. B. Without limitation of the provisions of paragraph A above, the Contractor shall keep the job site free from safety and health hazards and ensure that its employees are competent and adequately trained in all safely and health aspects of the job C. The Contractor shall have proper firsl aid supplies available on the job site so lhat prompt first aid services may be provided to any person injured on the job site. The Contractor shall promptly notify the Railroad of any U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration reportable injuries. The Contractor shall have a nondelegable duty to control its employees while they are on the job site or any other property of the Railroad, and to be cerlain they do not use, be under the influence of, or have in their '? '~ession any alcoholic beverage, drug or other substance Ihat may inhibit the safe performance of any work. II'kDATA~'~'"uvtxilom'~u~'eemo,. I',~',nsU'h~blic It,.~(I (h(.:{s,,~q Page 2 [-:xhibit B Form Approved. AVP-Lcrw D. If and when requested by the Railroad, the Conlraclor shall deliver lo the Railroad a copy of the Contractor's safely plan i "conducting the work (Ihe "Safety Plan"). Railroad s[ilgl:tlid~llg'~['l~,~ut not the obligation, to require the Contractor to cgq'i~qt :,:,cmy deficiencies in the Safety Plan. The terms of this agreement shall control if there~are"cmy inco~istencies betWeelalfll~ agreement and the Safety Plan. Section 8. INDEMNITY. ~ A. To the extent not prohibited by appliccib[e statute, the Contractor shah indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Railroad. its affiliates, and its and their officers, agents and employees ('IndemniIied Parties') from and againsi any and all loss. damage, injury, liability, c[cnm, demand, cost or expense (includin9, without limitation, ~Iorney's, consultant's and expert's fees. and court cosls), fine or penalty (collectively, 'Loss") incurred by any person (inc]udin9. wilhout limitation, any Indemnified Party. the Contractor. or any employee of the Contractor or al cra,/Indemnified Party) arising out at or in any mcmner connected with (i) cay work performed by the Contractor, or (ii) any act or omission at the Contractor, its officers, agents or employees, or (iii) any breach af this agreement by the Contractor. B. The right to indemnity under this Section 8 shall accrue upon occurrence of the event giving rise to the Loss. and shall apply regardless of any negligence or strict liability of any Indemnified Party. except where the Loss is ccaised by the sole active negligence of an Indemnified Party as established by Ihe final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The sole active negligence of any Indemnified Party shall not bar the recovery of any other Indemnified Party. C. The Contractor expressly and specifically assumes potential liability under this Section 8 for claims or actions brought by the:.C, ontractor's own employees. The Contractor waives cmy immunity it mc~/have under worker's compensation or industrial insurance acts to indemni~ the Railroad under this Section 8. Contractor acknowledges that this waiver was mutually negotiated by the parties hereto. D. No court or jur7 findings in any employee's suit pursucmt to any worker's compensation act or the Federal Employers' Liability Act against a party to this agreement mc~/be relied upon or used b7 the Contractor in cmy attempt to assert liability against the Ratlroad. E. The provisions of this Section 8 shall survive the completion of any work performed by the Contractor or the termination or expiration of this agreement. In no event shall this Section 8 or cm¥ ath~r provision at this agreement be deemed to limit any liability the Contractor may have to any Indemnified Party by statute or under common law. Section 9. RESTORATION OF PROPERTY. ~r In the event the Railroad authorizes the ~_,ontractor to take down any fence of the Railroad or in any manner move or disturb any of the other property of the Railroad in connection with the work to be performed by Contractor, then in that event the Contractor shall, as soon os possible and at Contractor's sole expense, restore such fence and other property to the same condition as the same were in before such fence was taken down or such other property was moved or disturbed. The Contractor shall remove all of Contractor's tools, equipment, rubbish and other materials from Railroad's property promptly upon completion of the work, restoring Railroad's property to the same state and condition as when Contractor entered thereon. Section 10. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. Waiver by the Railroad of any breach or default of any condition, covenant or agreement herein contained to be kept, observed and performed by Ihe Contractor shall in no way impair the right of the Railroad to avail itself of any remedy for any subsequent breach or default. Section 11. MODIFICATION - ENTIRE AGREEMENT. No modification of this agreement shall be effective unless made in writing and signed by the Contractor and the Railroad. This agreement and the exhibits mtached hereto and mode cz part hereo[ constitute the entire understanding between the Contraclor and the Railroad and cancel and supersede any prior negotiations, understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the work to be performed by the Contractor. . Section 12. ASSIGNMENT- SUBCONTRACTING. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract this agreement, or cmy interest therein, without the written consent of the Railroad. The Contractor shall be responsible for the acts (:md omissions of all subcontractors, and shall require all subcontractors to maintain the insurance coverage required to be maintained by the Contractor as provided in this agreement, and to indemnify the Contractor and the Railroad to the same extent as the Railroad is indemnified by the Contractor under this agreement. Page 3 I:xl'nb,I [3 Form Approved - AVP Law liB TO CONTRACTOR'S RIGHI OF ENTRY AGREEMENT Union Pacific Railroad Company Insurance Provisions For Contractor's Riqht of Entry Agreement Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following insurance coverage: Commercial General Liability insurance. This insurance shall contain broad form contractual liability with a single limit of at least $5,000,000 each occurrence or claim and an aggregate limit of at least $10,000,000. Coverage must be purchased on a post 1998 I$O or equivalent [arm, including but not limited to coverage lot the following: · Bodily injury including death and personal injury · Properly doamage · lqre legal liability (Not less them the replacement value of the portion of the premises occupied) · Products and completed operations The policy shall also contain the following indorsements which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: · 'For purposes of this insurance, Union Pacific Railroad payments related to tl~e Federal Employers Liability Act or a Union Pacific Wage Continuation Program or similar programs are deemed not to be either payments made or obligations assumed under any Workers Compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or similar law.' · The exclusions lor railroads (except where the Job site is more than fifty feet (50') from any railroad including but not limited to tracks, bridges, trestles, roadbeds, terminals, underpasses or crossings), and explosion, collapse and underground hazard shall be removed. · Coverage for Contractor's (and Railroad's) employees shall not be excluded · Waiver of subrogcrtion Busine~ Automobile Coverage insurance. This insurance shall contain a combined single limit of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence or claim, including but not limited to coverage for the following: Bodily injury and property damage Any and all motor vehicles including owned, hired and non-owned The policy shall also contain the following endorsements which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: · "For purposes of this insurance, Union Pacific Raikoad payments related to the Federal Employers Liability Act or a Union Pacific Wage Continuation Program or similar programs are deemed not to be either payments made or obligations assumed under any Workers Compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or similar law.' · The exclusions for railroads (except where the lob site is more than fifty feet (50') from any railroad including but not limited to tracks, bridges, trestles, roadbeds, terminals, underpasses or crossings), and explosion, collapse and underground hazard shall be removed. · Motor Carrier Act Endorsement- Hazardous materials clean up (Mcs-90) if required by low. C. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability insurance including but not limited to: Contractor's statutory liability under the workers' compensation laws of the state(s) affected by this Agreement Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000 disease policy limit $500,000 each employee If Workers Compensation insurance will not cover the liability of Contractor in stales that require participation in state workers' compensation fund, Contractor shall comply with the laws of such states. If Contractor is self-insured, evidence of state approval must be provided along with evidence of excess workers compensation coverage. Coverage shall include liability adsing out of the U. S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, the Jones Act, and the Outer Continentcd H:s~DATA'~Fo~ocile~V~eecnenl Fo~,m~s',Jh~blic Roa~J Crossing Page I of 2 Exhibit C Form Approved- AVP [.(~v Do Shelf Land Act, if applicable, Attachment "A" ~" 11 B The policy shall also contain the following' endorsement which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: · Alternate Employer Endorsement Umbrella or Excess Policies In the event Contractor utilizes Umbrella or excess policies, these policies shall "follow fo~'. and afford no less coverage than the primary policy. Railroad Protective Liability insurance naming only the Railroad as Ihe insured with a combined single limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence with a $6,000,000 aggregate. The policy shall be broad Iorm coverag_e for "Physical Damage to Property" (ISa Form CG 00 35 07 98 or equivalent). A binder stating the policy is in place must be submitted to the Railroad until the original policy is forwarded to the Railroad. Other Requirements F. Punitive damage exclusion must be deleted, which deletion shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Contractor agrees to waive its right of recovery, and its insurers, through policy endorsement, agree to waive their right of subrogation against Railroad. Contractor further waives its right of recovery, and its insurers also waive their right of subrogation against Railroad for loss of its owned or leased property or property under its care, custody and control. Contractor's insurance shall be primcn'y with respect to any insurance carried by Railroad. All waivers of subrogation shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. All policy(les) required above (excluding Workers Compensation) shall provide severability of interests and shall nme Railroad as an additional insured. Severability of interest and naming Railroad as additional insured shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Ko Prior to commencing the Work, Contractor shall furnish to Railroad original certificate(s) of insurance evidencing the required coverage, endorsements, and cn-nenclments. The certificate(s) shall contain a provision that obligates the insurance company(les) issuing such policy(les) to notify Railroad in writing of any cancellation or material alteration. Upon request from Railroad, a certified duplicate original of any required policy shall be furnished. ~ Any insurance policy shall be written by a reputable insurance company acceptable to Raikoad or with a current Bes Insurcmce Guide Rating of A- and Class VH or better, and authorized to do business in the state(s) in which the service is to be provided. Contractor WARRANTS that this Agreement has been thoroughly reviewed by Contractor's insurance agent(s)/broker(s), who hove been instructed by Contractor to procure the insurance coverage required by this Agreement crud acknowledges that Contractor's insurance coverage will be primary. The fact that insurance is obtained by Contractor or Railroad on behalf of Contractor shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Contractor, including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement. Ekn'nages recoverable by Railroad shall not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage. H:~DATA~F~'ltea~,greomenl ['o~ms~ut)lic [load Crossirw~ Page 2 o[ 2 Extubd C TO CONTRACTOR'S RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT llB MINIMUM SAFETY REQUIREMENTS The term 'employees' as used herein refer to all employees of the Contractor as well as all employees of any subcontractor or agent of the Contractor. I. Clothing All employees of the Contractor will be suitably dressed to perform their duties safely and in a manner that will not interfere with their vision, hearing, or free use of their hands or feet. Specifically, the Contractor's employees must wear: (i) (ii) (iii) Waist-length shirts with sleeves. Trousers that cover the entire leg. If flare-legged trousers are worn, the trouser bottoms must be tied to prevent catching. Footwear that covers their ankles and has a defined heel. Employees working on bridges are required to wear safety-toed footwear that conforms to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) c~d FRA footwear requirements. Employees shall not wear boots (other than work boots), sandals, canvas-type shoes, or other shoes that have thin soles or heels that are higher than normal. Employees must not wear loose or ragged clothing, neckties, finger rings, or other loose jewelry while operating or working on machinery. Personal Protective Equipment The Contractor shall require its employees to wear personal protective equipment as specified by Railroad rules, regulations, or recommended or requested by the Railroad Representative. (i) (ii) (iii) Hard hat that meets the American National Standard (ANSI) Z89.1 - latest revision. Hard hats should be affixed with the contractor's or subcontractor's company logo or nome. Eye protection that meets American National Standard (ANSI) for occupational and educational eye and face protection, Z87.1 - latest revision. Additional eye protection must be provided to meet specific job situations such as welding, grinding, etc. Hearing protection, which affords enough attenuation to give protection from noise levels that will be occurring on the job site. Hearing protection, in the form of plugs or muffs, must be worn when employees are within: (iv) · 100 feet of a locomotive or roadway/work equipment · 15 feet of power operated tools · 150 feet of jet blowers or pile drivers · 150 feet of retarders in use (when within 10 feet, employees must wear dual ear protection - plugs and 'muffs) Other types of personal protective equipment, such as respirators, fall protection equipment, and face shields, must be worn as recommended or requested by the Railroad Representative. III. On Track Safety The Contractor is responsible for compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration's Roadway Worker Protection regulations - 49CFR214, Subpart C and Railroad's On-Track Safety rules. Under 49CFR214, Subpart C, railroad contractors are responsible for the training of their employees on such regulations. In addition Ia the instructions contained in Roadway Worker Protection regulations, all employees must: II:~ATA~J'ov~ites~.eoment Forma~:~ubaic Rood Crossing Page I o! 2 Exhibi! D Form Approved. AVl~ Law (i) (~) (~) Maintain o distcmce of twenty-five (~/l~i~l[~ess the RoJlrood .l~epresent~ive is present to out~<~r~e movements. ~ ~' Wear cm orcmge, reflectorized workwear approved by the Railroad Representative. Participate in a ]ob briefing that will specify the type of On-Track Safety [or the type of work bein9 performed. Contractors must take special note of limits of track cmthority, which Irc~cks may or may not be fouled, 1 clearing the track. The Contractors will also receive special instructions relating to the work zone aro~. machines and minimum distances between machines while workin9 or traveling. Equipment It is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure that all equipment is in a safe condition to operate. If, in the opinion of the Railroad Representative, any of the Contractor's equipment is unsafe [or use, the Contractor shall remove such equipment from the Railroad's property. In addition, the Contractor must ensure that the operators of all equipment are properly trained and competent in the safe operation of the equipment. In addition, operators must be: Familiar and comply with Railroad's rules on lockout/ragout of equipment. Trained in and comply with the applicable operating rules if operating cmy hy-rail equipment on-track. Trained in and comply with the applicable air brake rules if operating any equipment that moves rail cars or any other railbound equipment. All sell-propelled equipment must be equipped with a first-aid'kit, fire extinguisher, and audible back-up warning device. Co Unless otherwise authorized by the Railroad Representative, all equipment must be parked a minimum of twenty- five (25) feet from any track. Before leaving any equipment unattended, the operator must stop the engine and properly secure the equipment against movement. Crones must be equipped with three orange cones that will be used to mark the working area of the crone and the minimum clearances to overhead powerlines. General Safety Requirements The Contractor shall ensure that all waste is properly disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. The Contractor shall ensure that all employees participate in and comply with a job briefing conducted by the Railroad Representative, if applicable. During this briefing, the Railroad Representative will specify safe work procedures, (including On-Track Safety) and the potential hazards of the job. If any employee has any questions or concerns about the work, the employee must voice them during the job briefing. Additional job briefings will be conducted during the work as conditions, work procedures, or personnel change. All track work performed by the Contractor meets the minimum safety requirements established by the Federal Ratlroad Administration's Track Safety Standards 49CFR213. D. All employees comply with the following safety procedures when working around any railroad track: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (v0 Always be on the alert for moving equipment. Employees must always expect movement on any track, at cmy time, in either direction. Do not step or walk on the top of the rail, frog, switches, guard rails, or other track components. In passing around the ends of standing cars, engines, roadway machines or work equipment, leave at least 20 feet between yourself and the end of the equipment. Do not go between pieces of equipment of the opening is less than one car length (50 feet). Avoid walking or standing on a track unless so authorized by the employee in charge. Before stepping over or crossing tracks, look in both directions first. Do not sit on, lie under, or cross between cars except as required in the performance of your duties and only when track and equipment have been protected against movement. All employees must comply with all federal and state regulations concerning workplace safety. II:~DATA~C'ovorltes~A9reemenl Fo{ms~CMblic Road Ctos~lng Ag*eemeel doc Page 2 al 2 Exhibi! D City of Woodburn Police Department STAFF REPORT 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum OR 97071 Date: March 4, 2002 ~ From: Paul Null, Chief of Poli To: Mayor and City Council Through: John Brown, City Administrator Subject: Liquor License Application - E1 Campecino Restaurant Applicants: Eliseo Leon Beltran 445 W. 6a Av. Junction City, OR 97448 Patricia Rocha Lemus 445 W. 6th Av. Junction City, OR 97448 (503) 982-2345 Location: E1Campecino Restaurant(FormerlyKatya's Restaurant) 553N. Front Stre~ Woodbum, OR97071 Ph. 503-982-0099 llC Licence Type: Limited On-Premise Sales - Allows for the sale of Malt Beverage, Wine, and Cider on premise. Recommendation: The Woodburn City Council approve a Compliance Plan as a condition of approval for a liquor license for E! Campicino Restaurant; approve a conditional Limited On-Premise liquor license for El Campecino Restaurant. . On February 19, 2002, the police department received an application for a liquor license from Eliseo Leon Beltran and Patricia Rocha Lemus, owners of the E1 Campecino Restaurant. The department has completed an extensive background and criminal records investigation on the applicants. Neither applicant has a criminal record and nothing of a questionable nature was found in their backgrounds. Mr. Beltran was contacted during the course of the investigation in regard to the operational plan for his establishment. Normal business hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Mr. Beltran advised he may extend his hours of operation to accommodate special events or private functions. On March 1, 2002, I met with Mr. Beltran and Ms. Lemus to discuss the City's concerns ~- regarding their application of a liquor license due to the history of serious and persistent problems of previous businesses at that location. I also advised the applicants that due to zoning restrictions, bars, taverns, and pool halls are not allowed in the downtown business district. The applicants agreed to change the atmosphere of the establishment by physically removing the bar and pool tables from the rear of the restaurant and replacing them with dinning tables. Mr. Beltran and Ms. Lemus also worked with the police department in the development of a Compliance Plan to prevent previously identified problems from recurring at this business location. I explained to the applicants that the compliance plan will become a condition of liquor license approval and will stay in effect until removed by council action. 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. llC cc OLCC Applicant llC Eliseo Leon Beltran Patricia Rocha Lemus 553 N. Front Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Woodbum Police Department 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 El Campecino Restaurant O.L.C.C. Compliance Action Plan Recognizing that the City of Woodbum and local business owners are striving to make downtown area a safe and viable business district; and the fact this location has a history of serious and persistent problems under previous ownership, Eliseo Leon Beltran and Patricia Rocha Lemus, owners of E1 Campecino Restaurant, and the Woodbum Police Department have worked together to. develop a plan to prevent criminal activity from oc~arring at the licensed establishment. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Alcoholic beverages will be served only with meals ordered and consumed on the premises; and be restricted to (3) three drinks per customer. No alcoholic beverages will be sold before 10:00 a.m., nor after 10:00 p.m. Require all employees to attend and successfully complete an alcohol servers class approved by the OLCC prior to serving any alcoholic beverage to any customer. No dancing will be allowed in the establishment. No public telephone inside or outside the business. No one will be allowed to use premise phone unless they have an emergency. Check ID of any one who orders an alcoholic beverage and appears under the age .of 30. Live music is limited to non-amplified bands. Designated manager or owner will be on premises at all times. For special functions (private parties), applicant shall provide notification of such an event to the Chief of Police seven days in advance. Owner or employees will bar any patron(s) who are reasonably suspected of, or observed engaged in, illegal drug or criminal activity. Owner(s) will permanently remove bar from premises. Page 1 of 2 llC 12. Owner(s) will permanently remove pool tables from premises. 13. Owner(s) or employees will notify police of any patron(s) who are reasonably suspected of, or observed engaged in illegal drug activity, criminal activity, or who cause or initiates fights, create disturbances, or trespass upon the premises. :If an arrest is made, the owner or employee will sign a citizens arrest form when applicable. 14. Employees who knowingly violate store policies, OLCC laws, Administrative Rules, or State Statutes, in course of business, will be terminated. I understand that this Compliance Plan is a condition of approval for a Liquor License, and shall stay in effect until removed by City Council action. /E~, Owner E1 Campecino Restaurant 3-/-o2_ Date Paul E. Null, Chief o~'~Police Woodbum Police Department ,34 -o2__ Date Patricia Rocha Lemus, Owner E1 Campecino Restuarant 3 Date cc OLCC File Richard Jennings, Mayor City of Woodburn Date Page 2 of 2 MEMO To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator ~-~ '- From: Randy Scott, Senior Engineering Technician, through the Public Works Directo~m/~ Subject: Right-o£-Way Acceptance, Evergreen l~oad Date: March 6, 2002 liD RECOMMENDATION: It is being recommended that the City Council accept the Right-of-Way as being conveyed by the Capital Development Company and as described on Attachment "A". BACKGROUND: The right-of-way is being conveyed by Capital Development in conjunetio'n with the Wal Mart Expansion. The right-of-way being conveyed is 74 feet in width and provides for the extension of Evergreen Road to allow for the proposed south access from Wal-Mart. Included as Attachment "A" is the properly signed Quitclaim Deed. Included as Attachment "B" is a map showing the location of the right-of-way. QUITCLAIM DEED - ROADWAY DEDICATION -~EVERGREEN ROAD KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Capital De~Velopment Company., hereinafter called grantor, for the consideration hereinafter stated, does heriaby remiss, release and quitclaim unto City of Woodburn hereinafter called grantee, and unto grant+e's heirs, successors and assigns all of the grantor's right, title and interest in that certain r~al property with the tenements. hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in an)~ way appertaining, situated in the County of Madon. State of Oregon, described as follows, to-wit: A parcel of land situate in the A. Dubois Donation Land Claim No.§l S.W. % of section 12, N.W. % of section 13, 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 md at the Nodhwest comer of Lot 52, Mentebello 1 (Volume 44. Page 38 Madon County Book of Town Plat~), In said Township and Range Ther~ :e South 89°12'43" East along the northerly line of Lot 52 a distance of 6.55 feet to a point in the west righl -of-way of Harvard Ddve; thence North 0°47'17' East along the westerly right-of-way of Harvard Drive ani 1 a distance of 183.21 feet to a point; thence North 0°50'09' East alon~ 1 a rile'fence ot 8351 feet to a point in the nortl3edy fight-of-way of Eve along the northerly right-of-way of the Evergreen Road a counterclock~ 1587.00 feet a delta angle of 12~26'41' a chord lenglh 344.02 feet and I the westady boundary of Montebello the westerly boundary of Montabe. llo green Road; thence 344.70 feet. se curve to the left wff, h a radius of ~ chord bearing of South 75'~21'Z0' West to a point, the northwest corner of a proposed Partition Plat, the 'rue Point of Beginning; thence 81.81 feet along the nodherly right-of-way of Evergreen Road a counts'clockwise curve to the left with a radius of 1587.00 feet a delta angle of 2°58'4~'', a chord length 81.60 6 et and a chord bearing of South 67"39'36' Wast to · point; Thence South 23°48'4T' East, a dis~.ance ~ '4.OO feet to a point In the south rig~-of-way of Evergreen Road; thence 48.30 feet along the southerly i dockwtse curve to the fight with a radius of 1513.00 feet, a delta angle feet and a chord bearing of North 67~'0~'05' East to a point in the west plat; Thence Nodh 0'47'17' East along the westerly line of the propose iht-of-way of Evergreen Road a )f 1°49'45', a chord length of 48.30 ,riy boundary c4 a proposed partition partition plat a distance of 79.92 feet to the Point of Beginning. t Said pamal contains 4808 square feet (0.11 acres), more or less. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE I: :[OPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAV S AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSOI~ 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 granlee's heirs, successors and assigns forever. true and actual consideration paid for this transfer, stated~n terms of dollars, is $1.00. In construing this deed, where the context so requires, the ~lngular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this deed shall ap~ly equally to corporations and to State of Washtngtpn ) County of'TZ,.~_~'/-a,.4 S.S. ~ccepted by the Woodtmm City Council ,2002 klary Tennm~ City Recortler bity of Wooclbum, Oregon Be it remembered that o~ this ~ day of _~,+~.c.~. i , 2002 before me a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, personally appeared Robert[L. Blume to me personally known, who did say that he, Robert L Blume is president and of Capita! Development Company, Inc, and that this agreement was signed on behalf of said cgrpQratiQn bt autho/i~ of its board_~f.d!radors arld'~"~;d Robed I~. *Blu~*cI'c~s here~y acknowteci~le exeCUtion of~this instrument to be a free act and deed, In witness thereof I set my hand and affix my stamp. ; My Commission Expires: //'/~'~-~ After Recording Return to: City of Woodbum 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 SAN~RA I~. BURNE$ liD $00 ', N ./ i' ~0'47 , ~0 SO 'GO ' 09" N 11D llE MEMO TO: FROM: City Council through City Administratcn-~~t/ Frank Sinclair, POTW Superintendent through Frank Tiwari Public Works Director SUBJECT: Rejection of Bids for Pole Barn Building at Wastewater Treatment Plant DATE: March 6, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: Reject all bids received on City of Woodburn Bid Number 22-20 for a pole barn at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.' BACKGROUND: The City requested Bid Number 22-20 for the design and construction of a pole barn to use for storage of equipment used in the poplar plantation and at the lift stations. The bids were opened at 1:30 on March 1, 2002 and the results were as follows: Bidder Amount Bid MS S Inc. $42,182.00 The wastewater treatment plant sent out nine bid packages and advertised in the Statesman Journal, Woodburn Independent, and the Daily Journal of Commerce. The only bid received was in excess of 20% over the engineers estimated cost. Staff is recommending that all bids for Bid Number 22-20 be rejected. The bid specifications will be reviewed and the project will be readvertised. MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Public Works Program Manager/~'~ Award of Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan and Water/Wastewater Financing Loan Program Loans for the City of Woodburn Water Treatment and Storage Project (Information for your use in council meeting) DATE: March 5, 2002 15A The attached letter announces that the City of Woodburn has been awarded three loans for use in design and construction of the water treatment arid storage project. The city has been awarded $4,000,000 from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and $12,400,000 from the WaterNVastewater Financing Program. The city applied for $4,000,000, the maximum loan amount available, from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund in July 2000. The city received notification of selection for this loan in October 2000. The city then began working with the Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OECDD) on finalizing the various requirements for the safe drinking water loan as well as identifying other sources of Iow interest loans for the remaining $12,400,000 of funding required for the water treatment and storage project. Working with OECDD, funding from the WaterNVastewater Financing Program was identified to fund the remaining cost. This financing program funding will consist of $4,000,000 from the direct loan portion of the WaterNVastewater Financing Program and $8,400,000 from the bond loan portion of the WaterNVastewater Financing Program. Utilization of these loans saves the city loan issuance costs as well as providing the city Iow interest rate loans to fund the water treatment and storage project. The additional $2,900,000 in funding required for the water treatment and storage project will be derived from system development charge and other revenues. Staff is confident that these additional revenues will be available and there will be no requirement for the use of bonding authority or additional loans. OECDD will be providing contract documents for these loans in a short time. These documents will be presented to council at a future meeting for a formal resolution to enter into these loan funding contracts with the State of Oregon. February28,2002 15A Honorable Richard Jennings Mayor ofWoodbum 270MontgomeryStmet Woodbum, OR 97301-1280 Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, Project No. S02010, ($4,000,000), and Water/Wastewater Financing Program, Project No. G02030, ($12,400,000), Award, Woodbum Water System Improvement Project Dear Mayor Jennings: We are pleased to make the official announcement that on February 15, 2002, your jurisdiction was awarded $16,400,000 from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and the Water/Wastewater Financing Programs. The award is to assist the city in making improvements to its water system to allow compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The $4,000,000 Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund award and the $4,000,000 direct loan portion of the Water/Wastewater Financing Program award will be amortized over 20 years at 4.21 percent interest. A promissory note will accompany the award contracts and the first annual loan payment will be due December 1, of the year in which the loan funds are drawn down. The $8,400,000 bond loan portion of the Water/Wastewater Financing Program award will be amortized over 25 years at an estimated 5.50 percent interest. The bond loan will be financed through the Oregon Bond Bank, a pooled revenue bond anticipated to be sold by the state in the spring of 2003. A promissory note will also accompany this award contract and the first annual loan payment will be due December 1, of the year of the bond sale. The enclosed staff report presents our analysis of your application and describes the Special Conditions of Award. Please note that the Water/Wastewater Financing Program funds are subject to availability of an Oregon Bond Bank Sale and a Lottery Bond Sale. Actual funding is subject to negotiation of the contracts between your jurisdiction and the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. Contract documents will be sent to you in a short time for your signature. This offer will be extended 60 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please call Laird Bryan, Regional Coordinator, at (503) 986-0138. Sincerely, Bett~y P ngracz, Manager Valley/Mid-Coast Team Enclosure c: John C. Brown c: Randall Rohman Tom Fox Health Division 775 Summer St., NE · Salem, OR 97301-1280 · http:h~vww.econ.state.or.us Phone and TTY 503-986-0123 · 1-800-233-3306 · Fax 503-581-5115 Governor John A. Kitzhaber The departmenl is an AA,'EEO employer, iN compliance with Section 504 of the Rehab Act of 1973 DATE: January 31, 2002 To: FROM: Betty Pongracz, Valley/Mid-Coast Team Manager Yvonne L. Addington, Business & Community Finance Manager Laird Bryan, Valley/Mid-Coast Team Regional Coordinator J"~ . I Tom Nelson, Business & Community Finance Public Finance Officer INTEROFFICE MEMO SUBJECT: Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund & Water/Wastewater Financing Program, Staff Report, ID No. 033001769, ($16,400,000), Woodbum Water System Improvement Project RECOMMENDATION: Amount I Amount · Requested I Recommended Amount Requested $16,400,000 (100%) i~ Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund ~ ~ ~ ~gi ~'~ ,'...;;: ~-~: $ 4,000,000 (24%) Water / Wastewater Lotten/Funded Direct Loan* ~ ~ $ 4,000,000 (24%: Water/Wastewater Bond Loan ** (83%) ~ , ~,~. ,.. 6,070,000. (43%; Financing Program Collateral Loan *** (17%) ~ ~/ ~ 1,430,000 (0%: · ota Wm Loans (100%) Total Department Funds 16,400,000 (100' o, I 16,400,000 (100%) City Funds (System Development Charge) 2,900,000 ~ 2,900,000 Total Project Cost $ t9,300,000 ~ $ t9,300,000 = $ 3,412,000 I Non-Cash Grant = $139,400 Estimated Savings I * The Water Wastewater Lottery Bond Funded Direct Loan will be drawn-down first. ** (A waiver is required to exceed the maximum Water/Wastewater Financing Program Loan Amounts. Also, this portion of the project is a preliminary award based on the applicants projected need in 2003 and 2004, and subject to an Oregon Bond Bank Sale or Lottery Bond availability at that time) *** (The Collateral Loan is subject to department funds being available from Oregon Lottery Bond Sale) NEED: The City of Woodburn has received complaints on taste, odor, and staining of fixtures and clothes for many years due to high levels of iron and manganese in its drinking water. Although levels of iron and manganese are at or above the maximum levels allowable, both are considered more of a nuisance than a health threat. Of greater threat to health are the trace amounts of arsenic in the drinking water. Since 1995, city well test results have varied from 5 to 13 parts per billion, with recent sampling showing consistent readings of 12 parts per billion. The maximum contaminant level of 50 parts per billion for arsenic was based on standards established in 1942, and no longer achieve the Environmental Protection Agency's goal of public health protection. New standards were published in January 2001 that require public water suppliers to reduce arsenic levels to l 0 parts per billion by January 23, 2006. Long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Non-cancer effects of ingesting arsenic can include cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunological, neurological, and endocrine (e.g., diabetes) effects. F:~USER~Finanoe~Tom'~. ~LFtWoodlxJm~Final SR. wpd City of Woodburn January 31, 2002 ' Page 2 of 10 SOLUTION: I ' The city amended its Water Master Plan earlier this year to emphasize improvements to the quality of water in order to meet all health and safety standards. The city further demonstrated its commitment to this effort by conducting a pilot study to demonstrate the performance of various treatment processes in removing iron, manganese, and arsenic. The pilot study concluded that these elements can be effectively reduced to acceptable levels using potassium permanganate oxidation treatment followed by pressure filtration. 15A Using this design criteria and a combination of city, state, and federal financing, the city is ready to begin construction on a $19,300,000 Water System Improvement Project. The proposed project will allow the city to comply with the future regulations effecting the city's water supply system and would enhance the ability of the city to provide safe and adequate drinking water to residents and businesses. CONDITIONS OF AWARD: Based upon the following analysis, we recommend that the City of Woodbum be awarded $16,400,000, consisting of a $4,000,000 direct loan fi.om Lottery Bond proceeds, a $6,970,000 bond loan and a $1,430,000 collateral loan fi.om the Water/Wastewater Financing Program and a $4,000,000 loan from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, subject to the following conditions: I. General Fund as a Source of Repayment The Loan shall be payable fi.om the general fund of the Borrower and shall be a full faith and credit obligation of the Borrower which is payable fi.om any taxes which the Borrower may levy within the limitations of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. B. Net Revenues of the System - Senior Lien or Parity Position The principal of and interest on the Loan shall be payable fi.om the revenues of the Borrower's Water System ("System") which remain after payment of operation and maintenance costs of the System (the "Net Revenues"). The Borrower hereby grants to the State a security interest in and irrevocably pledges its Net Revenues to pay all of the obligations owed by the Borrower to the State under the Loan Agreement. Pursuant to ORS 288.594, the pledge of the Net Revenues hereby made by the Borrower shall be valid and binding from the date of this Loan Agreement. The Borrower shall not incur any obligation payable fi.om or secured by a lien on and pledge of the Net Revenues that is superior to or on a parity with the Loan unless the Net Revenues exceed one hundred ten percent (110%) of the aggregate annual debt service on the Loan and all such senior lien and parity obligations. Prior to the issuance of any senior lien or parity obligations, the Borrower shall deliver to the Department a certificate demonstrating that the requirements of this paragraph are satisfied. F :tU S E R1,Finar~Tom'e Projec~SDWR. LI~WocxE:xal't~F inal City of Woodburn February 14, 2002 Page 3 of 10 15A The Borrower shall charge rates and fees in connection with the operation of the System which, when combined with other gross revenues, are adequate to generate Net Revenues each fiscal year at least equal to one hundred ten percent (110%) of the annual debt service due in the fiscal year on the Loan, any outstanding senior lien obligations and any additional obligations issued on a parity with the Loan pursuant-to paragraph 2 above. The Borrower may establish a debt service reserve fund to secure repayment of the obligations that are issued on a parity with the Loan pursuant to paragraph 2 above, provided that such debt service reserve fund is not required to be pledged to the payment of the debt service on the Loan if the Net Revenues of the System are deposited into such debt service reserve fund only after provision is made for the payment of debt service on the Loan during the current fiscal year. The Net Revenues pledged pursuant to paragraph 1 above and hereafter received by the Borrower shall immediately be subject to the lien of such pledge without physical delivery or further act, and the lien of the pledge shall be superior to all other claims and liens whatsoever, except as provided in paragraph 2 above, to the fullest extent permitted by ORS 288.594. The Borrower hereby represents and warrants that the pledge of Net Revenues hereby made by the Borrower complies with, and shall be valid and binding from the date hereof pursuant to ORS 288.594. The loan portion of this project will be in the Oregon Bond Bank t~..~ Pre-funding of this project is anticipated (See financial section of this report) Approve project and recommendation as submitted Approve project and recommendation with the following modifications: Betty Pongracz, Manager Valley/Mid-Coast Team Date Yffor~ne Li ,~dc~ingt~, M~a e~) Business & Community Finance Date F :~JSER~..AI RD~WempF liciT empO008.~,4~l DATE: TO: FROM: February 15, 2002 William C. Scott, Director Oregon Economic and Community Development Department Yvonne L. Addington, Manager Business & Community Finance 15A INTEROFFICE MEMO SUBJECT: Water/Wastewater Financing Program, Waiver Consideration, ID No. 33001769, ($16,400,000), Woodbum Water System Improvement Project The combined staff report from the Valley/Mid-Coast Team and the Business & Community Finance Team recommends a direct loan of Lottery Bond proceeds of $4,000,000, a bond loan of $6,970,000 and a collateral loan of $1,430,000 from the Water/Wastewater Financing Program to accompany a request of $4,000,000 from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. The water system improvement project is needed to remove iron, manganese, and arsenic from its drinking water. The award may be further divided into two separate bond sales or direct Lottery Bond Funded Loans to allow the City of Woodbum and the department more flexibility with the financing of this water system improvement project. The Water/Wastewater Financing Program rules currently place the maximum financing limits at $500,000 for collateral loans, and direct loans. In order to provide the maximum flexible financing with affordable user rates to construct these much needed improvements, we are requesting a waiver of the following loan maximums: 1. The maximum collateral loan of $500,000. 2. The maximum direct loan of $500,000. For the above reasons, I recommend that as Director, you waive the Water/Wastewater Financing Program Guidelines for the City of Woodbum project to exceed the maximum bond and collateral financing limits. X Approved __ Disapproved Date William C. Scott, Director Oregon Economic and Community Development Department F :~U SE R~F karo*loc[Tom's Projec~DWRJ.FWVoodl~m~W~ived~,~no. doc City of Woodbum February 14, 2002 Page 4 of 10 The project analysis and engineering feasibility sections of this report were prepared by Laird Bryan, of the Valley/Mid-Coast Team. The financial feasibility sectitn of this report was prepared by Tom Nelson, of Business & Community Finance. Please refer to the enclosed final application from the City of Woodbum. PROJECT DESCRIFrlON: Community_ Background: Woodburn is located in the Willamette Valley approximately 17 miles north of Salem in the Pudding River basin. The topography is relatively flat, sloping slightly to the northeast with an elevation range of 150 to 200 feet above sea level. The geology of the area consists of Troutdale formation materials and Willamette silts overlying Columbia River basalt. The depth to basalt is thought to be approximately 600 feet. The TroUtdale formation,consists of alternate layers of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The city obtains its water supply from the Troutdale aquifer, with wells that extend to depths of between' 186 to 333 feet deep. The city has received complaints on taste, odor and staining of fixtures and clothes from the water for many years. As the city population has grown, the number of complaints has also increased. The city has grown from 13,404 residents in 1990 to a revised estimate of 20,310 as of July 1, 2000. II ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY: General Background: , The City of Woodbum has been supplying city residents for decades with drinking water with no treatment and no disinfection. The city draws its water from the Troutdale Aquifer with six wells producing an average of 1,780,000 gallons of water per day. The water'is then pumped directly into the distribution system through approximately 66 miles of water pipe which varies in size from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. The system has only one 750,000 gallon reservoir in operation that serves as a system pressure regulator, provides peak demand storage, emergency reserve, and hydraulic gradient control for the system. The city has not been required to treat or disinfect its groundwater source. However, enhanced water regulations and customer complaints regarding water quality is changing that. The high levels of iron and manganese creates objectionable taste and odor in the drinking water. The combination also causes staining of fixtures and clothing being washed. Trace amounts of arsenic is also present in the drinking water which is increasingly causing concern as a threat to human health. Recent testing also shows levels of radon that exceed the maximum contaminant levels being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Radon is a naturally-occurring radioactive gas that may cause cancer, and may be found in drinking water and indoor air. Some people who are exposed to radon in drinking water may have increased risk of getting cancer over the course of their lifetime, especially lung cancer. 15A F :~US~I~LAI R D~Teml:d: ile~T eml:~3008, wlxl City of Woodburn January 31, 2002 Page 5 of 10 15A Proposed Improvements: The Water Master Plan was developed as a guide for the city to plan for growth, changing health regulations, and treatment objectives within the water system for the next 25 years. The plan recommended that three individual treatment facilities be built. Thefacitities are to be located in areas were the water from wells can be pumped through dedicated lines for treatment before being distributed for use by the public. The recommendations also include added reservoirs and improvements to the distribution system. In order to evaluate the proposed treatment process, a Pilot Study was developed to demonstrate the performance of the recommended treatment system in removing iron, manganese, and arsenic. The study showed that iron and manganese can be effectively removed using potassium permanganate oxidation followed by pressure filtration. This process also reduces the arsenic levels by between 20%: and 25%, which meets the new water quality standards. The treatment facilities will be configured to accommodate a ferric chloride feed system in the future if further arsenic removal is desired. Accommodations will further be made to reduce or remove levels of radon in the 'drinking water. Description of Improvements: The following items provide an outline of the major water system improvements that are planned to be completed as part of the city's proposed project: The project also includes the cost for engineering services. C 1. National Way Treatment Facility - Construct a 2.7 million gallon per day treatment plant, a 2.2 million gallon storage tank and pump station, and a raw water transmission line to treatment site from the Alexandra Street well. Parr Road Treatment Facility - Construct a 2.7 million gallon per day treatment plant with sufficient space for expansion, a 2.2 million gallon storage tank and pump station, drill two wells, and construct a raw water transmission line to treatment site from new well. 3. Country Club Road Facility - Construct a 2.7 million gallon per day treatment plant and a raw water transmission line to treatment plant from Astor Way well. Recommendation by Source: SOURCES USES Water System Imp. $ 11,600,000 Safe Drinking Water Loan $ 4,000,000 Revolving Loan Fund Engineering 3,650,000i Water / Wastewater Direct Loan 4,000,000 WaterANastewater Bond Loan 6,970,000 Contingencies 3,400,000 Financing Program Collateral Loan 1,430,000! Legal 300,000 City Funds 2,900,000 Administration (city) 350,000 Total $ 19,300,000 Total $ '19,3,00,000 C F:~USER~Firtm'tc~Tom'm Pmject~SDVVR. LFAW__,~'~d~__ _,~M:in~ SR.wpd City of Woodburn January 31, 2002 Page 6 of 10 15A III ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The project is eligible for financial assistance from the Water/Wastewater Financing Program since the treatment process is needed to reduce arsenic levels below the new maximum contaminant level of 10 parts per billion. Although the city is not currently out of compliance, it will soon be notified that it must reduce arsenic levels by January 23, 2006. This eligibility criteria is also used by the Community Development Block Grant program, but due to Woodbum's low user rates ($11.65) it is not eligible for the Block Grant program. The city is eligible for the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and is listed on the current project priority list. ELIGIBILITY/NATIONAL OBJECTIVE: National Objective: The city meets the National Objective sub-category of Low and Moderate Income level under Area wide as determined using the 1994 income survey by Portland State University. The survey approved in June 1994, indicates that. 62.9 °A of the area's total beneficiaries are low and moderate income. 24CFR 570.483(a)(3)(c) However, due to the low user rates of $11.65, the city is not eligible for Community Development Block Grant funds. DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY STATUS: To be considered a Disadvantaged Community for purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, the average annual residential rate for drinking water must be at or above 1.75 percent of the median annual household income of the area generally served by the water system. With a median household income of $22,253 for the City of Woodburn, a monthly water rate of $32.45 would be required for the community to be disadvantaged. The current water rate is $11.65 and therefore does not meet this criteria. IV FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY: Financial Structure: Woodburn Water Project Type Year Award Loan I Rate Term I Grant Annual Payment Iw/ww I 2002 $4,000,000 $4,000,000l 4.21oA 20 $0 $299,826 ] ISDWRLF 2002 $4,000,000 $4,000,0001 4.21~ 2(: $o I'1 $299,826! IW/WW 2003 [ $8,400,000 $8,400,0001 5.50°~ 25 $0 $626,215 I M $16,400,00( !$16,400,00C ~,l $0 $1,225,867 The above, tentative, financing structure projects the applicants demand for funds over the duration of the project. The Water/Wastewater portion is to occur in later years of the project and interest rates will be based on market rates at that time. F:&,USEI~Fi~m'~e&T,m~'~ Pro~ct$~SOW~LF~Woodbum~Inal SR.v~d City of Woodburn January 31, 2002 Page 9 of 10 Security: 15A Security is covered under Conditions of Award, above. The City has pledged SDC revenue which is not covered in the Conditions of Awarrl. However, considering the Limited Tax General Obligation which is pledged as a Condition of Award., adequate security is provided. Financial, Economic and Demographic Data: See the attached Financial Summary for this information. Cost Comparison: In the following table, we compare funding through the recommended program to financing the city would obtain without the program: Woodbum SDWRLF and W/W Loans Total Project Cost Other Funding Sources Balance to Finance .~rant Amount 3ebt Sen/ice Reserve* Issuance Costs Total Loan Amount OECDD Funding $19,300,000 $2,900,000 16,400,000 $16,400,000 SDRWLF & Direct Loan Interest Rates fears) P&I Payment W/W Loan Coupon Interest Rates 4.21% 20 $600,000.00 12,000,000 $8,400,000 Annual P&I Payment Payments d Interest costs 5.50% 25 $626,000.00 5,650,000 ,250,000 Investment Rate (estimate) :Service Reserve + earnings* Total Estimated Savings 4.00% Other Funding $19,300,000 16.400,000 1,394,000 364,000 $18,158,000 25 1,354,000 33,850,000 $t $,692,000 4.00% 2,788,000 Estimated Savin~ls 1,394,000 364,000 $1,758,000 $4,442,000 $3,412,000 Il*Debt Service Reserve not available until final year of contract, then applied as annual payment; investment earnings lapplied annually. ITotal Estimated Savings are the non-discounted savings over the life of the hypothetical non-OECDD financing. F:~USER1Finanoe~Tom'I Pmiects~O~RLRWoodbun~rinal SR.'~:I City of Woodburn January 31, 2002 Page 10 of 10 15A FINDINGS: The Valley/Mid-Coast Team has investigated the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and the Water/Wastewater Financing Program project discussed in this report, and on behalf of the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, finds that the infrastructure project complies with ORS 285A.213 and ORS 285B.560 through 285B.599. CUSTOMER SYSTEM Minority-owned business yes no Woman-owned business yes no Total number of Oregonians expected to benefit 20,310 Enclosures: Financial Summary Final Application Ix)an Maturity Schedule Health Division Letter & Radon Analysis Results FAUSERtFinar, c~Tom'$ pny~SDWRLRWoodl:x~n;inal SR.wpd 15A CITY OF Woodbum FINANCIAL SUMMARY Tom Nelson 4-Sep-O 1 Municipal Financial Position PropeR Tax Collections Borrower's Pmpe~ Tax Rate per $1,000 Consolidated Rate per $1,000 A.V. Non-school Rate per $1,000 A.V. . Munidpal Lev,/ Current Collection Rate Total Collection Rate General Fund Unreserved Endincj Fund Balance Expenditures Fund BalanceE_xpenditures Total Revenues Intercjovemmental Revenues Percenta(je Inter(jovemmental ~al Debt Position Gross Bonded Debt Net Direct Debt Overla 'n Debt Net Direct Debt/Assessed Value (m~) Net Dired & Oveda in Debt/A.V. m ~ Net Direcl Debt Per Capita Net Direct Debt Service (m~) Percent of Debt Retired in 10 yrs. Net Direcl Debt Service/Ex_penditures Net Direct Debt Service/Revenues 1998 $6.38 $18.82 $11.07 $3,631,027 93.68% 97.68% 1,120,561 2,440,205 0.45920773 2,908,612 257,193 0.088424651 W~ Financial Position nections T~'~ 1998 Self-Suppoding Debt Outstanding * - 3. Self-Supporting Debt Per Capita - 3. Operating Revenues 1,087,8-~' ~ Gross Revenues (operating + non-oper.) ~- ~ 3. Total Operating Expenses Annual Debt Service 687,241 -~ Debt Service Coverage Ratio Operating Ratio Ending Fund Balance Top 10 Ratepayers as % of Revenues Accounts Receiveable jGeneralEconomic and Demographic Data 14.70% t999 2000 $6.35 $6.16 $18.84 $18.32 $11.06 $3,938,826 92.98% 97.01% 1,891,615 5,146,293 0.367568461 5,715,630 280,298 0.049040613 9,005,822 t999 1,160,100 1,188,208 880,259 $10.88 $4,356,291 93.07~ 1990 97.66% 1,774,730 $ 5,550,653 0.319733552 $ 6,054,763 $ 27O,749 0.044716697 3. 20,975,132 3. 1,190,000 T' 174,363 2000 1,232,174 3. 1,266,490 3' n/a n/a 0.74 0,69 395,557 7.00% 7.00% 14.5(Y% 11.43% 2000 Population Assessed Value Assessed Value Per Capita Top 10 Tax Payers as % of Total Tax Collections ers as a % of Assessed Vague 13,404 $ 283,295,000 $ 21,135 17,840 County Per Capita Income State Per Capita Income County PCI as Percentage of State PCI County Unemployment rate State Unemployment rate County Rate as Percentage of State Rate ~ recent..,year Avem~le $6.30 $18.66 $11.00 $3,974,715 93.24% 97.41% 38.22% 6.07% 7.00% 13.54% Annual Growth 15A FINANCIAL INDICATORS CITY OF Woodburn IITEM I SUBJECT STANDARD SCORE* FINANCIAL POSITION Total Tax Collection Rate (3 yr. Avg.) 0.9741 >95% 1 Current Tax Collection Rate (3 yr. Avg.) 0.932433333 >87% 1 General Fund Balance as % of Expenses (mry) 0.382169915 >3% 1 External Revenues as % of Total Revenues (3 yr. Avg.) 0.06072732 <20% 1 MUNICIPAL DEBT POSITION Net Direct Debt Per Capita (m~y) 66.70403587 <1,000 1 Net Direct Debt Service to General Fund Expenses (mry) 0.031413061 <20% 1 Net Direct Debt Service to General Fund Revenues (mry) 0.028797659 <5% 1 Percentatge of Debt Retired in 10 Yrs. n/a >60% 1 Net Direct Debt to Assessed Value (tory) ~ 0.001666072 <2% 1 WATER FUND FUND FINANCIAL POSITION Number of Connections (mry) 5152 >1,500 1 Revenue Debt Per Capita (mry) n/a <$650 n/a Debt Service Coverage Ratio (mry) n/a >1.20 1 Accounts Receivable (3 yr. avg.) 0.135433333 <15% 1 Top 10 Ratepayers as % of Revenues (3 yr. avg.) 0.07 <15% 1 MUNICIPAL ECONOMIC/DEMOGRAPHIC POSITION Assessed Value Per Capita (tory) 40036.71525 >$20,000 1 Assessed Value Annual Growth Rate since 1990 0.09688586 >5% 1 Population Growth Rate - since 1990 0.029001584 >0% 1 Top 10 Taxpayers as % of Total Tax Collections 0.1961 <15% 0 Unemployment Rate as Percentage of State Avg. (mry) 0.964285714 <110% 1 Per Capita Income as Percentage of State Avg.(mry) I 0.896881754 >85% I Score: I = meets, 0 = fails, n/a = not applicable EVALUATION OF INDICATORS: The Department will make an Ore. Bond Bank loan to a local government that fails to meet §ve or fewer of the applicable minimum thresholds and a direct loan (including SDWRLF) to a government that fails to meet more than five but fewer than ten. The Department will not §nance a local government that fails to meet the majority of the applicable minimum thresholds. A possible exception to this rule is where the project in large part will cure weak performance as evidenced by the thresholds. NUMBER OF APPLICABLE THRESHOLDS FAILED BY THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT -- TOTAL NUMBER OF APPLICABLE THRESHOLDS - 19 15B March 11, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council,,fl~~ John C. Brown, City Administrator''~- Boones Ferry/Highway 214 Intersection Projecb _ Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council approve completion of the subject project, as proposed. Background: The Public Works Director provided a status report regarding the subject project, at your February 25, 2002 meeting. The project will reconfigtrre the Boones Ferry/ Settlemier/ Highway 214 intersection, including the southerly approach on Settlemier; widen Boones Ferry from Highway 214 north to City limits; install curb, gutters, bike pathsr sidewalks, lighting, and underground utilities on Boones Ferry; widen Country Club from Boones Ferry to Astor Way, and install curbs, gutters, and south-side sidewalk on Country Club Road. Public Works estimates the total cost of this project at $2.7 million. Project funding is anticipated from City and State gas taxes, traffic impact fees, developer contributions, an ODOT contribution, and LID assessments on properties and subdivisions adjacent to Boones Ferry and Country Club Roads. At the February 25, 2002 meeting, the City Council determined to exclude the costs of improving the intersection and approaches from the formula used to calculate Local Improvement District (LID) assessments. LID assessments are proposed to support a portion of the cost of improving Boones Ferry from Goose Creek to Vanderbeck, and Country Club Road. The Public Works Director indicated the project will commence this summer, with work on the intersection preceding the remainder of the project. Discussion: This project was discussed with you almost one year ago, when work was planned to commence in Summer 2001. The Public Works Director proposed to complete the improvements in phases. The project, however, was not ready to go forward at that time, as a number of preparatory steps had not been completed. Those steps included project design, under-grounding utilities, obtaining ODOT approval for intersection improvements, acquiring right-of-way from properties adjacent to Boones Ferry and Settlemier, negotiating Honorable Mayor and City Council March 11, 2002 Page 2. 15B contributions from developers between Country Club and Vanderbeck Roads; obtaining an ODOT contribution toward intersection costs; establishin§ LID's for County Club and Boones Ferry improvements; and establishing' an LID or similar funding mechanism for the portion of the project from Vanderbeck north to City Limit. Council wanted to complete the entire project at once, rather than in phases, and subsequently chose to delay the project for a year to allow time to complete the various preparatory tasks. Construction time for the entire project is estimated to take a minimum of six months. As indicated in Mr. Tiwari's February report, preliminary design work is complete. Plans for intersection improvement were submitted'to ODOT, which has reviewed and recommended revisions necessary to obtain their approval. Public utilities (water, sanitary sewer and storm drain) on Country Club and Boones Ferry have been installed. Right of way was acquired from the School District on Boones Ferry in the area fronting the district Offices and school campuses. Contribution agreements with developers are negotiated, and will soon be finalized. Following your determination in February, engineering estimates for Country Club and Boones Ferry LID's are being completed, will be presented to the Council shortly, and will be subject to property owner ratification in the next two months. Work on a third LID, or similar funding mechanism for Boones Ferry improvements from Vanderbeck north to City limits has not been initiated. That work is complicated by inclusion of properties outside city limits. Other tasks which remain to be completed before construction of the entire project can occur are: final approval of intersection modifications by ODOT; LID votes for County Club and Boones Ferry; negotiation of a funding contribution with ODOT; intersection and street improvement right-of-way acquisition; and an agreement with PGE associated with utility under-grounding. Bid documents must also be prepared, before the department can solicit construction bids for the project. Preparation of bid documents for the entire project is contingent on completing several of these preparatory steps. Technical and design issues must be resolved before bids can be sought. This project, if it were to be completed in one phase, would need to be bid now, to commence construction in time to finish prior to Winter, 2002. Because that will not happen, the Council is again confronted with the decision to either conduct this project in phases, or to delay the project for another year in order to be ready to bid it out next Spring. Based on my discussions with the Mayor and individual members of the Council, I believe it is unacceptable to delay the entire project another year. Honorable Mayor and City Council March 11, 2002 Page 3. 15B Because of the Council and Community's interest in improving Boones Ferry, to correcting deteriorated pavement conditions and to improve safety conditions for school-aged pedestrians and bicyclists, it is staff's intention, short of direction to the contrary from the City Council, to commence the portion of the project on Boones Ferry from Goose Creek to Vanderbeck this Summer. All the steps associated with that segment: establish the LID; complete developer and utility agreements; finalize design; and issue bid documents can be finished in time to complete construction by the end of Fall 2002. This segment will not be affected by, or affect, the ultimate alignment of the intersection at Highway 214. Construction in this segment will include under-grounding electric lines, widening the road, installing curbs, gutters, west-side sidewalk, and street lighting. Staff believes that, even if no other work is undertaken this year, it is imperative that sidewalks be installed, for the safety of school-aged pedestrians. Remaining construction is proposed on the following schedule: Country Club Road - Spring/Summer 2003 Highway 214/Settlemier intersection - Summer/Fall 2003 Boones Ferry Road, Highway 214 to Goose Creek - Summer/Fall 2003 Boones Ferry, Vanderbeck to City limits - Summer/Fall 2003 This schedule is expected to allow for the completion of the preparatory tasks needed prior to construction of these segments. Among the questions raised by the Mayor and Council members on February 25th were those related to the elimination of well-established conifers in the public rights-of-way adjacent to intersection, and the impact of tree removal on the aesthetic appearance of Settlemier Avenue. In the week following the City Council meeting, the Mayor and individual councilors privately expressed concern regarding tree removal, and requested we evaluate options for reconfiguring the intersection to avoid removing the conifers. The forgoing proposed construction schedule provides time to evaluate those alternatives, and to negotiate an ODOT contribution to the project, and receive ODOT approval of any design changes related to reconfiguring the intersection. With respect to options for reconfiguring the intersection, I have directed City staff to determine, with the assistance of a certified arborist, the health of the trees in question and remaining longevity. In the unlikely event the trees have Honorable Mayor and City Council March 11, 2002 Page 4. very limited life spans, staff's recommendation to remove the trees would remain unchanged. If the trees are expected to live many more years, staff has been ~ directed to identify options and costs for obtaining right-of-waj¢' to the east and west sides of Settlemier Avenue and on Boones Ferry to accommodate saving the trees and a realignment of the intersection configuration. Staff will also determine the time needed to redraft intersection plans, and obtain approvals from ODOT for a revised plan. That information will be presented to you for consideration and a decision regarding a preferred intersection alignment at either your last meeting in April or your first meeting in May. This report is provided as an information item, and for your approval of the proposed construction schedule. Should you have any questions, please contact me prior to Monday's meeting. JCB Cc: Public Works Director C'