Agenda - 06/24/2002 ~VOODBURN CITY COUNCIL
2002 - ..O0
270Montgomery Street ~ ~ Woodburn~ Oregon
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. 4TM of July community celebration: French Prairie Kiwanis
Chuckwagon Breakfast, 6:00 - 10:30 am at Legion field.
Woodburn 4th of July celebration at Woodburn High School
Starts at 1:00 p.m. with food, games, entertainment and
fireworks at 10:00 p.m.
Be
4th of July closures: City Hall, Woodburn Public Library and
Woodburn Aquatic Center will be closed in observance of the
· July 4th holiday.
Ce
Children's Summer Library Programs: "Don't Bug Me, I'm Reading." . 3C
Appointments: - None
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS - None
e
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce.
B. Woodburn Downtown Association.
COMMUNICATIONS
0
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.
Woodburn City Council minutes of June 10, 2002 .................... 8A
Recommended action: Approve the Woodburn City Council minutes.
Page 1 - Council Agenda of June 24, 2002.
B. 8B
De
ge
Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of May 9, 2002 .............
Recommended action: Accept the Woodburn Planning Commission
minutes.
Staff report regarding towing services .............................. 8C
Recommended action: Receive the report.
Woodburn Public Library monthly report for April 2002 ............. 8D
Recommended action: Receive the reports.
Closure of Alexandra Court for neighborhood 4th of July party ......... 8E
Recommended action: Approve the temporary street closure.
TABLED BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
Public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02,
Zone Change 01-05, Site Plan Review 01-13 and Partition 01-07
on 1.7 acres located at 847 N. Cascade Drive ....................... 10A
Recommended action: Conduct public hearing, receive public input
and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the decision of
the City Council.
11.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Ae
Council Bill No. 2395 - Ordinance adopting a budget for fiscal year
2002-2003, making appropriations and levying taxes ................ 1 lA
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance.
Council Bill No. 2396 - Ordinance amending Ordinance 2300
(the 2001- 2002 Master Fee Schedule) to revise or remove existing fees
and add new fees pursuant to the adopted Woodburn Development
Ordinance (Ordinance 2313) and increasing the lien search fee charge .llB
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance.
Ce
Council Bill No. 2397 - Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2060 (the
Park Use Ordinance) to provide for the use of alcoholic beverages in
Centennial Park for events which are conducted pursuant to a special
event park use permit where a license has been issued by the Oregon'
Liquor Control Commission and adding a new section providing for an
enhanced penalty for the violation of a special event park use permit.., llC
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance.
0
Council Bill No. 2398 - Resolution authorizing the transfer of operating
contingency appropriations during fiscal year 2001-2002 ............. 11D
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
Page 2 - Council Agenda of June 24, 2002.
ge
Fe
Ho
Lo
Me
Council Bill No. 2399 - Resolution authorizing the transfer of
appropriations within a fund during fiscal year 2001-2002 ............
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
liE
Council Bill No. 2400 - Resolution accepting a grant from the Corporation
for National Service, relating to the Retired Senior Volunteer Program. 11F
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
Council Bill No. 2401 - Resolution transferring funds to close out
the Centennial Park Project ..................................... llG
Recommended action: Adopt resolution transferring $3 5,3 54 from
the General Fund to the Parks SDC's Fund
Council Bill No. 2402 - Resolution authorizing execution of an inter-
governmental agreement with Mid-Willamette Valley Council
of Governments for grant administrations services for the construction
of the Cipriano Ferrei Education Center .......................... 11H
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
Council Bill No. 2403 - Resolution granting United Disposal Service, Inc.
An adjusted rate schedule for providing solid waste service within
the City of Woodburn and repealing Resolution 1447 ................. 1 lI
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
Council Bill No. 2404 - Resolution entering into a grant contract with
Oregon Department of Land and Conservation and Development (DLCD)
for periodic review planning activities; authorizing the City Administrator
to sign the contract; and authorizing the City Administrator to retain a
consultant to perform the duties specified in the contract and the city's
periodic review grant proposal .................................... 11J
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
Liability, auto, property and workers' compensation insurance
proposals for fiscal year 2002-03 ................................. IlK
Recommended action: Authorize the City Administrator to secure
insurance contracts for fiscal year 2002-2003for general liability,
property and workers' compensation coverage following further analysis
of quotes received from the insurance companies.
Receipt and allocation of grant funds for purchase of bulletproof
vests by Woodburn Police Department ............................ 11L
Recommended action: Approve receipt and allocation of grant funds for
purchase of bulletproof vests.
Contract award for Mill Creek wastewater pump station and
interceptor improvements project ................................ 11M
Recommended action: Award the bid for Mill Creek wastewater pump
station and interceptor improvements project to the lowest qualified bidder,
Emery and Sons, in the amount of $367,800.
Page 3 - Council Agenda of June 24, 2002.
Contract award for resurfacing improvements .....................
Recommended action: Award the construction contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, Parker Northwest Paving Company for the resurfacing
improvements for Country Club Terrace, Stark Street, Jana Ave., Jana Ct.
and Stark Court in the amount of $81,510.50
llN
0
Contract award for construction of pole barn building at Wastewater
Treatment Plant ............................................... 110
Recommended action: Award the contract for construction o fa pole barn
building at the Wastewater Treatment Plant to M & W Building Supply for the
amount of $40,243. 00.
Annual SDC Report ............................................ llP
Recommended action: Receive the report
Full on-premise sales liquor license application - Ranch Restaurant and
Lounge - Change of Ownership .................................. llQ
Recommended action: Approve the liquor license change of ownership.
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. NEW BUSINESS
14.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions
that may be called up by the City Council.
Site Plan Review 02-04 - A request to place a modular classroom
at Woodburn High School ....................................... 14A
15. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
16. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
17. 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)(f).
18. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 - Council Agenda of June 24, 2002.
Don't Bug Me, I'm Reading
at the Woodburn Public Library
ecial Events
Si{Tn Up t~or the Summer ~eadln~7 lVro{Tram
June 12- July 3 at the 317oodburn tVublic Library
280 ETar£ield St, 503-982-5260.
Children affes 2-18 can rain BOO, KS and ?rizes!
Enjog readlnff ~un ali summer!
June 5,10:30 am. lVreschool Storgtlme- Grandma and Grandpa tales
June 12,10:30 aan. [fast 13eschool Storytlme 'Ill fall- father's Day!
June. 20. 2 pan. ~eptile ,Man-,~Ichard ~Itcheg mill taice you on an
un£or~ertable Journey rlwou~h one o£the most £eared and
misunderstood realms o£ nature.
June 25-Ju1¥ 30 --- 6:30-7:30 pan. Every Tuesday Evenin~ ~.7o bu~v mith Cra£ts
and Stories at the library
June 27, 2 pan.· .Mr. Bob's .Music fun-music from the Beatles to t~l-YV~570
Obram Closed £or Independence Davl!
July 11. 2 pan..Mafflcal fun mlth Bob Eaton-fun and surprises mith ~/e'#zF
of audience parrlciparlon
]ulg 18, 2 pan.: The Galllump Glrls-51n~t alon{7. Dance alon{7, 1°uppetry.
~hgttun Instruments, fun!
Julg 25, 2 pan.· Carmen Bernler~57rand-IJuest author, bilingual stories from
l~uerto ~dco
~ugusr 1. 2 pan.-- .Mad Science lVro~ram-.Mad Science mafflc tricics!
Experlmentsl The amazin{7 .Ma{Idabur{7 sphere!
Saturdagv at the Obratv:
ff and 3'a Saturdays - 1:30 pan. Spanish Story time d; actlvitv
~a and 4'~ Saturdays-l:$O pan. Board aames, Bingo or $1demallc aames from
around the morld.
Saturday In June- 1:30 pan. Surprise lVroozam
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
0948
COUNCIL BII
(PROJECT No,
GRANT FOR '1
L 2393 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO GRANT CONTRACT
C02004) FOR STATE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
A DECLARAT
FORCE BY LA~W ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AS A CONDITION OF
'HE CIPRIANO FERREL EDUCATION CENTER; AND MAKING
ION OF POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF EXCESSIVE
1064
GRANT APPR~3VAL.
Council Bill 23~3 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only
since there werel no objections from the Council.
Administrator Brown stated that the Excessive Force policy included in the packet was
missing few words on one of the sentences and he had distributed the corrected policy to
the Council just ~rior to this meeting.
On roll call vote~, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill
2393 duly passed.
COUNCIL BILL 2394 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION
TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES DURING FISCAL YEAR 2002-03.
Council Bill 2394 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only
since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the
bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2394 duly passed.
1120
CONTRACT AWARD: STREET RESURFACING IMPROVMENTS.
Bids were receiVed from the following contractors for the resurfacing of Clackamas
Circle, Judy Street, Julie Court, and Hawley Street from Wilson Street to the south: Roy
L. Houck, $129,873.15; Parker Northwest Paving, $130,233.10; D & D Paving,
$145,027.55; Morse Bros., $147,843.80; North Santiam Paving, $149,652.30; and Salem
Road & Driveway, $149,718.50. Staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid which
was 12% below the engineer's estimate.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... award the construction contract for bid #22-29 for resurfacing
Clackamas Circle, Judy Street, Julie Court, and part of Hawley Street to Roy L. Houck
Construction in the amount of $129,873.15. The motion passed unanimously.
1144
BID #22-19 AWARD: PAK-FLAIL MOWER (Wastewater).
Bids for a Pak-Flail mower were received from the following vendors: Fischer Mill
Supply, $5,489.00; Ernst Hardware, $5,499.00; Lenon Implement, $5,675.00; and Jensen
Equipment, $5,844.30.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... award bid #22-19 for a pak-flail mower to Fischer Mill Supply
in the mount of $5,489.00.
Mayor Jennings stated that it was his understanding that Fischer Mill Supply and Ernst
Hardware are now owned by the same people and, with the $10 difference in their bid, he
felt that it was unfair that those businesses get two opportunities to sell their product
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
the proposed budget. The Committee had suggested the following changes prior to
making their fingl budget recommendation: 1) the Sewer Construction Fund line item for
the viewing platform be reduced to $25,000 and increase the contingency fund by
$100,000; and 2)the funding for the sidewalk on Highway 214 come from state sources
rather than City revenue sources. An additional change that is proposed would provide
for the transfer Of $35,000 from the General Fund CIP to the Sewer Construction Fund
which would reimburse the Sewer Construction Fund for expenditures already made for
the construction of a firing range near the wastewater treatment plant facility. The total
recommended budget is for $47,263,521 and the Committee has recommended that the
Council levy the! permanent tax rate of $6.0534, and to levy $127,800 for bonded debt
which is outside of the statutory limitations.
Mayor Jennings stated that the City budget also includes the budget for State Revenue
Sharing and public testimony will also be taken on the use of those funds.
No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposed budget.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS... staff prepare an ordinance to adopt the budget as presented for
fiscal year 2002~03. The motion passed unanimously.
0810
COUNCIL BILL 2392 - ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE IMPROVEMENTS
OF BOONES FERRY ROAD FROM GOOSE CREEK TO HAZELNUT DRIVE,
ADOPTING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DIRECTING THE
CONTRACT AWARD, AND PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS
THROUGH ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTIES IN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2392. Recorder Tennant read the two
readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor McCallum declared a conflict of interest since he lives in the proposed local
improvement district and would benefit financially from improvements within that local
improvement district. He stated that he would not participate in any discussion or vote on
this issue.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed 5-0.
The Mayor questioned if the bill had received unanimous approval since Councilor
McCallum did not vote on this issue.
Attorney Shields stated that the conflict of interest declaration removes Councilor
McCallum as a voting member, therefore, the bill received unanimous approval.
Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2392 duly passed with the emergency clause.
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
on internal tourism.
2) The next Business After Hours will be held in July which will be the annual Chamber
at the Drags. Th!s has been a popular event and the 3 auto dealers will be loaning cars for
participants to race.
3) Leadership YOuth was a very successful program this year involving only Woodburn
high school stu&',nts. Next year, the Chamber will include youths from Gervais and
North Marion in this program.
.0257 LETTER FROr~I WILLAMETTE BROADBAND.
Mayor Jennings ;tated that all customers of Willamette Broadband will be receiving
letters informing' them that rates will increase effective July 1, 2002. He stated that
increasing cable rates is Willamette Broadband's right under the City's franchise
agreement and under federal law.
0300
CONSENT AGENDA.
A) Approve Council minutes of May 13, 2002 regular meeting and the special and
executive session minutes of May 28, 2002;
B) Accept the Planning Commission minutes of May 9, 2002;
C) Receive the Building Activity Report for May 2002;
D) Receive the Project Tracking Sheet dated June 3, 2002;
E) Receive the Police Department Activities report for April 2002;
F) Receive the Speed Zone investigation requests; and
G) Receive the Real Estate and Land Use Presentation at Oregon State Bar Conference by
City Attorney Shields.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
0349 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY OF WOODBURN BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2002-03.
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7:08 p.m..
Finance Director Gillespie reviewed the Budget Committee process which was used to
develop the proposed budget. The work sessions dealt with 1) a mid-year review of the
budget for fiscal year 2001-02 and reviewed the policies to be followed in developing the
budget proposal for 2002-03; 2) the second session dealt with the status quo budget and
review of the management's accomplishments of the additional funds request from 2001-
02; 3) the third session related to additional funds request for 2002-03 and the Committee
reviewed the requests to determine which requests should be included in the proposed
budget; and lastly, 4) the Committee reviewed the Capital Improvement Program.
Following the wgrk sessions, a public hearing was held on May 14, 2002 at which time
Committee reviewed the work that had been done earlier and took public testimony on
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 1 O, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JUNE 10, 2002.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
0010 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Jennings Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Chadwick Present
Councilor Figley Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Manager
Rohman, Asst. City Engineer Torgeson, Police Chief Russell, Community Development
Director Mulder, Finance Director Gillespie, Park Director Westrick, Management
Analyst Smith, City Recorder Tennant
0051
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Woodburn Public Library will be closed on Friday, June 21, 2002 for staff training.
B) City Council Workshop with Marion County Growth Management Task Force will
be held on Tuesday, June 18, 2002, 6:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers.
C) Public Hearing: City Council will hold a public heating on June 24, 2002, 7:00 p.m.,
in the City Hall Council Chambers regarding Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment #01-
02, Zone Change 01-05, Site Plan Review 01-13, and Partition 01-07 on a parcel of land
located at 847 N. Cascade Drive.
Mayor Jennings also encouraged the public to drive by the south side of City Hall and
look at the results of an Eagle Scout project which provided a beautiful landscape to City
Hall. He stated that Scout Steven Pister had recruited both adult and youth volunteers to
help with this project. He also thanked the City Recorder for the hanging baskets around
City Hall.
0150
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Jon Wolfer, representing the Chamber Board, provided the following information on
upcoming Chamber events:
1) Chamber Forum will be held on June 19, 2002, 12:00 noon, at the Woodburn
Crossing Conference Center with the guest speaker being State Director of Tourism Todd
Davidson who will update the attendees on State Tourism issues and the new emphasis
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
1443
YARD WAST~ DISPOSAL CHARGE REQUEST FROM UNITED DISPOSAL
SERVICE, IN(~.
Mayor Jenningslstated that United Disposal Service, Inc. has requested an increase o£
$1.50 per montl~ because the County is withdrawing their support of the subsidy for the
yard debris tip f~be. He also expressed his opinion that the yard waste program is
outstanding andl even with the proposed rate increase, his monthly bill is still less than
what he had beech paying prior to the yard waste program since he was able to downsize
his garbage can ;~ze.
FIGLEY/MCC ALLUM... authorize a rate adjustment for United Disposal Service to
include a $1.50 ~er month yard waste disposal charge.
Administrator Brown stated that this proposed rate adjustment was noticed in the
newspaper as a l~ublic meeting to provide the citizens an opportunity to comment on the
proposed rate ac] ustment. The City's franchise ordinance does not require a public
hearing when a ate increase is being considered by the Council, however, it is typical for
a Council to make the public aware of the proposal prior to final action being taken.
Mayor Jennings inquired as to whether or not anyone in the audience had any comments
on this issue. NO one in the audience spoke on the proposed adjustment.
Councilor NichOls stated that he had received a telephone call from a citizen who
questioned why the charge was being imposed when the yard waste was being composted
and then sold to other sources.
Bob Sigloh, United Disposal Service General Manager, stated that the processing of the
material costs more than the end product which is why the tip fee is charged. United
Disposal takes the yard debris to a plant in the Aumsville area and the proposed rate
adjustment will pay for United Disposal's cost to dump the debris at that location. The
transportation fee to get the product to Aumsville was included in the 1998 rates when the
program was initiated. He also stated that customers that have a minimal amount of
garbage may elect to have on-call garbage service rather than regular weekly service
which includes the yard debris container. Currently, the rate structure does not have a
monthly rate available that would be for garbage only.
The vote on the motion passed unanimously.
1960 RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2001-02 MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE.
Administrator Brown stated that the recommended amendments would establish fees
within the Planning department that is associated with the new development ordinance
which goes into effect July 1, 2002, and provide for a fee increase for Finance
Department services relating to on-line property title searches by title companies. He
stated that the individual who had addressed the Council at the last meeting had suggested
that a site plan review fee be established for small projects and staff has included a fee in
the proposed schedule that is the lowest amount that can be levied and still recover costs.
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
whereas the othe[ bidders have only one opportunity.
Public Works Manager Rohman stated that he was unaware of those companies being
under the same ownership. The City has been purchasing a series of different pieces of
equipment for the Poplar Plantation over the last 18 months and Fischer Mill Supply and
Ernst Hardware have been participants in these various bid submissions. It was noted
that the bids might be for different brand names of equipment even though they may have
the same ownership.
The motion to accept the low bid passed unanimously.
1300
1347
BID AWARD: OFF-SET FLAIL MOWER (Wastewater).
Bids for an off-set flail mower were received from the following vendors: Emst
Hardware, $5,499.00; Lenon Implement, $5,600.00; Fischer Mill Supply, $5,788.00;
Corvallis New Holland, $5,825.00; and Jensen Equipment, $5,888.00.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ .... award the contract for the purchase of a 98" off-set flail
mower to Ernst Hardware in the amount of $5,499.00. The motion passed unanimously.
RENEWAL OF FINANCIAL AUDIT CONTRACT.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ .... approve renewal of the audit contract with the firm of Boldt,
Carlisle, & Smith, and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract.
The motion passed unanimously.
1381 EXTENSION OF LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR THE 4TM OF JULY EVENT.
.1413
FIGLEY/MCCALLUM... authorize extension of City liability insurance for the July 4th
Celebration to be held at the Woodburn High School athletic field.
The motion passed unanimously.
GRANT AWARD - JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM.
Staff recommended acceptance of this grant which will provide funding towards the
continuation of the Woodburn Peer Court. The grant award is for $7,096 and the City's
local match will be $788. The grant funds will be turned over to the Marion County
Sheriff's Office who will continue to be the fiscal agent for this program and will provide
supervision for the Peer Court.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS... approve receipt and allocation of the Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant funds for the Woodburn Peer Court and authorize the City
Administrator to sign the grant agreement. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
2803
Legion Park an~ based on his discussion with the Surge Director, they are very pleased
with the soccer ~ield and the cooperation from the Parks & Recreation Department.
Additionally, th~ Police Department was asked to go into the neighborhood around
Legion Park to c~heck the noise level with the decibel meter and it was found that the
noise level was ~elow the amount listed in the noise ordinance.
Councilor McC~'llum stated that the Surge had also distributed a letter to residents in the
neighborhood to talk about their program and what they hope to accomplish. He felt that
this letter was a model to be used by for other organizations who will have activities that
will impact a nel ghborhood.
It was also notec that the Surge is keeping involved in the City's community activities
and they will be conducting soccer clinics for the youth in our community.
ADJOURNME~NT.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS .... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting concluded at 7:45 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2002
TAPE
READING
FIGLEY/NICHOLS .... authorize staff to prepare an ordinance to amending the 2001-02
Master Fee Schedule per the attached recommendations.
The motion passed unanimously.
2167
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor McCallum reminded the public that the Relay for Life event will be held on
June 28 and 29, 2002 at Woodburn High School beginning at 6:00 pm and concluding at
12:00 noon. Interested participants are encouraged to contact either himself, Cathy
Heisen at Tukwila Center for Health and Medicine or Ronda Judson at the Chamber
office.
Councilor Bjelland reported that MWACT had met last Thursday and they had reviewed
the projects within the 3 county region designated for potential funding of projects that
are determined to be in the development phase. One of the projects on the list was the
widening of Highway 214 and MWACT evaluated the projects utilizing 6 criteria and
assigned points to each of those criteria. As a result, the widening of Hwy. 214 project
was the #2 project while the #1 project was the Newberg/Dundee bypass project. The
next MWACT meeting will be held on July 11th at which time the Area Commission on
Transportation will make its final decisions on the list of projects and will select a
negotiating team to go to the Region II meeting. It was noted that Region II has been
assigned a certain amount of dollars for the 2004-07 STIP process and the negotiating
team will try to get dollars allocated to MWACT projects. He stated that the Woodburn
I-5 interchange project had received the highest score of the construction projects and the
widening of Highway 214 received the second highest score on the development projects.
He hoped that the City will see some funding to all or a portion of the projects. He stated
that he had also asked staff to do an assessment of the amount of funds the City had
available for matching funds since he feels that it would be a crucial element in obtaining
funds for the interchange project. On July 18th, the 4 Area Commissions on
Transportation are meeting to decide upon a joint resolution that will then go to the
Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) since the 4 commissions need to agree as to
what their region's projects would be that are submitted to the OTC.
Councilor Chadwick stated that her friend visiting from Portland was very impressed with
the hanging flower baskets throughout the City. It was noted that there are now 125
baskets.
Mayor Jennings announced that the City has received notification from the State Parks
Division that the City will be awarded a $93,000 State grant for the Skate Park. It is
anticipated that this project will be completed by early November.
The Mayor also stated that he had attended the opening of the first Surge soccer game at
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, June 10, 2002
8B
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
May 9, 2002
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Cox presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Cox P
Vice Chairperson Lima P
Commissioner Young P
Commissioner Grosjacques P
Commissioner Mill P
Commissioner Bandelow P
Commissioner Lonergan P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney
MINUTES
A._~. Woodburn Planrfing Commission Minutes of April 25, 2002
Commissioner Mill moved to accept the minutes as written. Commissioner Loner.qan seconded the motion,
which unanimously carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A-- City Council Minutes of April 8, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING
A_~. Comprehensive plan Map Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 0t-05, Site Plan Review 01-13 and
Partition 01-07, request to amend the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density
Residential to High Density Residential and change the zoning designation from Single-Family
Residential to Multi-Family Residential on a t.7 acre lot located at 847 N. Cascade Drive. The
request also includes a Site Plan Review proposal for 2 residential care facilities 5,628 sq. ft.
in size and a Partition request to divide the lot into 3 parcels.
Chairperson Cox provided an opening statement for Public Hearing and opened the hearing.
EXPARTE CONTACTS
Commissioner Bandelow reported the sale of the property that is involved in this particular public hearing was
handled through the office that she works. She indicated it is best that she excused herself from participating
in this headng although she had no direct involvement in that sale but there has been discussion in the office
about the Zone Change.
Commissioner Mil~l, Commissioner Lonerqan, Commissioner Younq, Vice Chairperson Lima and Chairperson
Cox all reported they drove by and looked at the location.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. He
stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change meets all approval criteria for proposed
parcels 1 and 2, but notfor parcel 3. Parcel 3 should remain zoned Single Family to provide a transition area
and buffer between proposed parcels 1 and 2 and the existing Single Family residence to the south of Parcel
3. He reported the proposed Site Plan meets all municipal code requirements. The Partition also meets all
municipal code requirements for partitioning the lot and that they all will be of sufficient size and width to
satisfy municipal code. In conclusion, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request
Planning Commission Meeting- May 9, 2002 Page 1 of 10
8B
for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change on proposed parcel 3 and recommended
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review for proposed parcels
1 and 2 and approve the Partition application for all three parcels subject to the conditions of approval outlined
in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Loner.qan referred to page 9 of the Staff Report and commented the recommendation for the
architectural wall is not anywhere in the conclusion or recommendations.
Staff. replied he does not see that specific condition in the Staff Report. He indicated that needs to be added
as a condition if the Commission does follow Staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Lonergan also referenced the second paragraph contained on page 19 of the Staff Report and
expressed his confusion regarding the RCF's and the lot areas.
Staff clarified the 24,597 figure is the lot size and the 5,628 is the area of the structure. He explained within
each structure there will be eleven bedrooms comprising 15 beds. Therefore, 4 of the bedrooms will have
2 beds in each of the rooms. Staff further explained each bedroom, for purposes of calculating the required
lot area for multiple family, was considered a living unit. He further stated this is consistent on how it has been
done on other senior projects. It was stated by Staff part of the confusion is the code does not give us a
specific way of dealing with senior projects.
Vice Chairperson Lima inquired whether the existing North fence will be replaced or remain the same?
Staff suggested the question be presented to the applicant as he did not have the answer.
TES'I:IMONY BY APPLICANT
Leon Oliver, 1425 NW Ponderosa St., Grants Pass, OR addressed Vice Chairperson Lima's question
regarding the fence and stated he has not personally inspected the fence but it may not be adequate for their
purposes. He indicated these facilities will be licensed to house Alzheimer patients and therefore they need
to have pretty impenetrable fences because Alzheimer patients have a tendency to want to elope at times.
Mr. Oliver further stated he does not know whether the present fence belongs to his property or the neighbors
property. Additionally, he said the surveys on this property are so old they are going to have pins relocated
when they do the partition and they will know at that point who the fence belongs to. It was indicated they were
blind sighted when they received the Staff Report on the recommendation of denial for parcel 3 on the Zone
Change. Mr. Oliver reported through all of the application process, it was never mentioned that might remain
single family zoning. It seemed obvious to them that it should be RM zone because only 80 feet of its 199 foot
boundary at the South line abuts the single family zone. He commented they designed everything based on
the idea that the whole thing was going to be zoned RM. It was suggested by Mr. Oliver that they could move
the building on parcel 2 slightly to the North to achieve the 15 foot buffer but then they will not conform with
the Ordinance Section on Solar because they would be too close to the building on the North. Additionally,
he commented had they known that this was going to be an issue, they might have included yet another item
in the application for a Variance for the Solar. In closing, Mr. Oliver stated the only solution that would put
them in compliance would be if the seller would allow the applicant to purchase another 15 feet of parcel 3.
Chairperson Cox questioned if parcel 3 has been separately sold to somebody else?
Leon Oliver replied he is not the applicant but the representative. The applicant, Mr. Cummings who is the
contractor/owner, is buying the two parcels from the seller subject to this approval and the third parcel would
remain with the seller. Mr. Oliver indicated they did not anticipate parcel 3 would remain Single Family zone
and it was logical to divide it as equally into thirds as possible. He added the Commission might have seen
a different application if they had different information before this last week. Additionally, he clarified what a
residential care facility is and stated under Federal Law residential care facilities are allowed in any Single
Family zone and can not be conditioned any differently than a Single Family home. The Oregon Law
attempted to say that but was worded poorly and it can be interpreted to say that jurisdictions like VVoodburn
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 2 of 10
8B
have discretion on what zone they can put them in. Mr. Oliver stated he included with his application a copy
of the Oregon Attorney General's opinion that states that is not the case and you have to allow them in any
Single Family zone. The structure looks a lot like a large house inside and out but they only have one kitchen,
one laundry facility and one living room. Mr. Oliver further commented they are an alternative to the big box
care centers.
Commissioner Mill asked if essentially a residential care facility would be an overgrown adult foster home?
Leon Oliver responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Young inquired what level of care will they be providing?
Leon Oliver replied it is aging in place concept. It is not a medical facility and there is no nursing staff at the
location. He explained a nurse supervises medication on a monthly basis. The residents are typically
ambulatory but are too infirm to live independently.
Commissioner Mill asked the applicant how many people will be on staff?
Leon Oliver reported it will vary according to the time of day but them will be at least one overnight when the
residents are asleep. It will peak at about 3:00 pm and at shift overlaps which happen around meal time.
Vice Chairperson Lima questioned how many of these projects has Mr. Oliver been involved with?
Additionally, he requested clarification as to whether they will have Alzheimer residents at this facility.
Leon Oliver answered he has been involved in about 20-22 projects. Furthermore, he reported they expect
to be li.censed for Alzheimer patients so they will have that option available and the buildings will be built with
that in mind. He explained Alzheimer is a progressive disease and at some point you have to have
supervision almost one on one for the patients. Certainly, they do not need that type of supervision at the
earlier stages of Alzheimer. Mr. Oliver further explained dementia is put in the same package for State
licensing with Alzheimer.
Vice Chairperson Lima expressed concems in that they may have a relatively small number of employees
when they are expecting patients requiring full time care.
Leon Oliver commented they are residents and not patients. These are folks that may not see their doctor
once a month and they are not in the late stages of whatever malady they may have. He explained they do
not have capacity anymore to live entirely on their own. Mr. Oliver pointed out the Rule and Statute Excerpts
which are included in the Staff Report provides a lot more insight into what it is they are actually doing.
Commissioner Mill expressed curiosity as to why they have a garage rather than converting it into some other
type of space.
Leon Oliver replied they will use it as storage, additional parking and it does lend to the type of curb appeal
of a residence rather than an institution.
TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS
Tim Cummin.qs, 236 NW B St., Grants Pass, OR reported unfortunately the State of Oregon minimum
requirements for staffing is one staff person for 15 residents. However, they are not proposing to staff at that
level. He stated they would be looking at each person and figure out what their daily habits are, wake times,
sleep times and eat times because all the residents are different and then they would staff those accordingly.
Mr. Cummings further reported they will have an administrator at each facility and a minimum of two people
dudng the day and then staff it according to the needs of the residents. He reiterated care plans are prepared
for each individual resident. Additionally, he remarked the needs are a little different in larger facilities. Mr.
Cummings commented their facility is a little bit different because it is a facility that has more home like setting
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 3 of 10
8B
and not as much like an institution type setting where they are able to probably be priced a little less than the
larger facilities. He addressed the garage issue and stated it will be utilized more like storage in the fact that
a lot of the residents bring their own furniture and items in and they need a space to put those in. It was
explained each individual room contains a bedroom and a restroom with all the bathing done in a central
location.
Commissioner Lonerqan asked what is the average length of stay for their residents?
Tim Cummings replied he does not work with that part of the numbers.
Vice Chairperson Lima inquired if they have any numbers as to how much each resident would be charged?
Tim Cummings responded they have not done a study. A new facility will be opening up in Salem around mid-
June that is exactly the same as this proposed facility. He reported it would probably run around $2,400 a
month.
Mel Counts, 1581 Mathen¥ Rd. NE, Gervais, OR stated he is the listed agent for the property. He commented
he agreed with Staff in that there should be a buffer zone. However, he inquired why can't there be a buffer
zone or wall for the entire property at the southem end of the property? He said Staff mentioned there is a
possibility that there could be two residences on the property that is left over. Therefore, you actually have
to provide a buffer zone for two residences instead of one which is on the southern property. Additionally, he
remarked it is a nice package having the whole thing zoned Multi-Family to the eastern part of the street and
the north side. He said he would appreciate it if the Commission would consider zoning the whole parcel
Multi-Family.
TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS
Ingrid Sti.qerts, 966 OreR, oI~ Way, Woodburn, OR reported her home looks out onto this property. She
prefaced by stating St. Mary's Episcopal Church wanted to do a year ago a complex similar to this but their
archdiocese said no because there are too many in the Woodburn area and it would not be profitable.
Additionally, she remarked the traffic to make a left turn on Cascade to 214 is usually horrendous. She
pointed out several of the other residential facilities are all going to be looking for residents. It was Mrs.
Sfigerts feeling that if this complex is not going to be filled, it will run down and there will be another
landscaping problem. In closing, she said there was no addressing what will be done to the West of this
property which abuts the 11~ fairway of the golf course.
Leon Oliver interjected a typical solid vinyl fence is proposed to separate the project from the golf course.
Barbara Sharp, 855 N. Cascade Dr., Woodburn stated her property is adjacent to parcel 3 and she is highly
opposed to this project. Additionally, she is representing five of her neighbors that could not be here tonight.
She also referenced the traffic situation Mrs. Stigerts raised and further commented her husband has been
asked not to park his truck in front of their home because of the traffic. Mrs. Sharp also reported the street
parking is bumper to bumper on both sides of the street when she leaves in the mornings usually about 9:30
am and there is no where to park on that street. If additional vehicles are added, they will be sitting in front
of her door. Additionally, she expressed concerns with what is happening to the golf course and expressed
disappointment in that the old house is not being sold as one parcel. However, she approves the Commission
not approving that third parcel for Multi-Family and would rather see the old house stay than to have an
apartment next door to her property.
Chairperson Cox asked Staff if there was anything in the Staff Report regarding traffic impact statement?
Staff answered there was a traffic study done and the Staff Report addressed that. He reported this facility
would generate less traffic than if this property was fully developed with Single Family residences.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 4 of 10
8B
Leon Oliver addressed two issues the first being the market place for this type of housing. He indicated they
submitted population data based out of the Oregon Blue Book and other resources showing the growth of the
over 60 population in Woodl~urn and showing its relationship to the rest of the State. Mr. Oliver commented
they are here tonight because they are confident in the market place and are quite confident that they are not
going to have a problem with empty beds. As far as the traffic, he remarked their residents do not drive and
do not get constant doctor, nurse or physical therapy visits. Therefore, this project is a very Iow traffic
generator. It was reported by Mr. Oliver that his analysis of the two facilities, which they have traffic data on,
and full build out on Multi-Family on parcel 3 there was 16 trips per day more than what could be done with
a full build out in the Single Family scenario that you have now. He further added 16 trips per day is less than
two Single Family homes. It was also indicated by Mr. Oliver most of the traffic generated by the Alzheimer
facility typically do not occur at peak hour.
Vice Chairperson Lima asked the applicant what license class will they apply for?
Leon Oliver replied it would be a Class II license with an Alzheimer endorsement. He explained Health and
Human Services puts a rider on your license if you are going to house Alzheimer residents.
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Cox closed the Public Hearing and opened for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Grosiacques requested clarification regarding the shadow situation.
Staff remarked he does not see that being an issue in this situation although the code does have shadow
access protection provisions. However, under the current code that can be waived by the adjacent property
owner. He further stated since the applicant controls the affected property, the applicant can waive it or wait
until the new development code becomes effective July l't which does not have as stringent requirements as
under the current code.
Chairperson Cox explained for the record that even if the Commission were to approve the Site Development
Plan it would be conditioned upon the fact that the Council goes ahead and approves the Zone Change and
the Comprehensive Plan change.
Commissioner Mill addressed Mrs. Sharp's comments and stated her points are very valid and one that Staff
is concerned with as.well as himself. The issue being what is going to happen with Parcel 3 as far as
changing that to residential multi-family or keep as residential single family. Commissioner Mill agreed that
it should be kept as residential single family. He pointed out it does abut a sensitive residential area and for
that reason he would concur with what Staff is saying in that area. Additionally, since there does not seem
to be a solar access issue there would not be a need to go into Parcel 3 to erode part of that space to create
a 15 foot landscape buffer. In closing, he stated the area should be kept as residential single and not
residential multi-family without a firm Site Plan in place for that piece of property at this point in time.
Commissioner Loner.qan commented it makes sense that we do leave that as a sin§le family residence and
he favored that. The facility would fit well in the rest of the neighborhood and he is glad that there will be an
architectural wall as a break. He stated he will have to believe that there is a need and their figures made
sense with 22% in the senior population and believed that the applicant would not make this type of
investment if there weren't that need. Therefore, he is convinced that Woodburn is destined for this type of
facility. He addressed the problem with traffic but he does not think that this facility would generate that much
traffic where it would be a problem.
Commissioner Young agreed with Staffs placement of the wall and the landscaping strip between Parcel 2
and Parcel 3 because that really is where the transition occurs between multi-family and single family. He
remarked parking on the street would be one drawback with the project because he knows that street is
always fully parked during the day.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 5 of 10
8B
Chairperson Cox concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He indicated he might not have any great concern
with regard to leaving Parcel 3 as single family rather than changing it to multi-family if he knew they were
going to build another facility like these two on that third lot. Chairperson Cox stated it would be totally out of
character to that neighborhood and would be an imposition on the people who live to the South along Cascade
who bought property which abutted property zoned single family. He further commented it would be a bad
precedent to suddenly put apartments next to them and indicated the buffer needs to be preserved.
Chairperson Cox believed the line should be drawn where Staff recommends because it seems to make
sense and because probably the people who bought along Cascade relied on that when they bought the
properties. Additionally, he referred to the pictures contained in the Staff Report and remarked the existing
house that is proposed to remain has probably totally outlived its second amount of life and is an eyesore in
the neighborhood. He believed the Commission would have the power as part of the conditions that the
applicant in order to go ahead and do what they are proposing, that the existing house has to be somehow
upgraded at least so it is not an eyesore in the neighborhood, i.e., repainted, brush cut back. He
recommended a condition be placed in that the remaining house on the parcel 3 either be removed or
upgraded before an occupancy permit is issued on the residential care facility properties.
Deniece Won interjected Staff consulted with her today with that question and they were unable to come up
with anything in the Zoning Ordinance that has authority for doing that. She thought, as a land use matter,
the Commission lacked the authority to make that a condition of this approval. Furthermore, she stated there
is a potentiality of the building being a nuisance and being abated under another type of ordinance.
Leon Oliver requested the hearing be reopened so that he may address these issues.
Chairperson Cox suggested to reopen the hearing to address the issue of the condition of either removing
or upgrading the remaining house and what is going to happen to it.
Commissioner Younq explained the reason for dividing the single property into three parcels is to develop
Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 3 really is only the dividing line and there really is no connection with Parcel 3
to this project.
Chairperson Cox called a 10 minute break.
10 MINUTE BREAK
Deniece Won stated she discussed with the applicant during the break a number of different scenarios to
accommodate the concerns of the Commission and the Chair. She indicated in her mind it was left that the
applicant had to decide what they wanted to do as she could not give them any advice because some of it is
strategic choices. To some degree, based upon that bit of conversation she thought it might be wise to let
the applicant have a say about that one subject.
Chairperson Cox reopened the hearing limited to the ability to condition the Commission's decision with
respect to doing some aesthetic improvements to the house that would remain.
Tim Cummings reported they postponed this application because they thought the noticing requirements were
going to change soon but that did not occur. It was indicated by Mr. Cummings the seller is wanting to close
on the property and he is reluctant to try to do a continuance. He questioned how substantially changed would
the application be if they slid the Site Plan over to Lot 2 and Lot 3? Mr. Cummings requested the Commission
go down the road they were intending and try to do that maneuvering prior to the City Council meeting instead
of requesting a continuance.
Leon Oliver suggested the Commission make a finding in that they shift one of the Site Plans 9 feet to create
a 15 foot landscape buffer, then it isn't all that big of a stretch to make a condition that they shift over on the
lots. He explained the lots are identical and no difference in utility access and that they submit a revised Site
Plan for Staff's review.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 6 of 10
8B
Deniece Won interjected primarily Staff's view and professional judgement on analyzing the criteria and
whether having those residential care facilities close on the lot that they were recommending not do make the
Zone Change on in order to have a buffer, is affected and is a legal dilemma.
Staff also added it would modify the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Chairperson Cox questioned Mr. Oliver why could he not get by and do what he wants to do without getting
a High Density Residential Zoning on Parcel 3 and just leave it zoned Single Family but go ahead and build
the facility there?
Leon Oliver responded the Woodburn Ordinance does not acknowledge the case law that allows them in a
Single Family Zones.
Deniece Won reported there are occasions when our Ordinance is not in compliance with State law. To her
knowledge there has not been any exploration of the question about whether our existing Ordinance is
compliant and whether or net this applicant has a right to do what they want to do under State law and whether
or not Staff would recognize that.
Commissioner Loner.qan said he would feel uncomfortable voting to have all of those change to Multi-Family
without knowing what type of Multi-Family facility would be going in to that North end at this point.
Commissioner Lima commented in the many years he has been on the Planning Commission, this is the most
convoluted hearing. He stated the Commission either follows Staff recommendations or goes against it. He
thought the Commission can not change what has been proposed at this point. Shifting the parcels to him
means a completely new application.
Chairperson Cox interjected he felt the Commission is not in the position to fully analyze this properly at this
meeting with what they have available to them. He said since the Commission received testimony from
proponents, he asked the opponents whether they had anything additional to comment.
Barbara Sharp remarked they would not have an objection having a care facility next to them because it would
be a lot cleaner to what they have there now.
Chairperson Cox re-closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Mill said although he likes the project, he felt the whole application should be denied and have
the applicant come back with something that closely fits what is now the desire of the applicant and the
neighbors. He further commented he does not see it put together legally where they can do that to the
satisfaction of everyone.
Commissioner Lima expressed concerns with the lack of clear information by the applicants and it does not
appear to him that they know what they are talking about as far as licensing. He said although they may have
great knowledge and expertise in building, they have not come prepared to answer some questions in terms
of Alzheimer licensing that will affect a lot of people.
Chairperson Cox commented the Commission does not have the authority or expertise to regulate care
facilities. The applicant will have to comply with State regulations and if the applicants are a little vague about
what they are, he is sure there is somebody on their team that will get that straightened out before they can
open up their doors.
Commissioner Mill moved to deny Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02. There was no second and
therefore, motion did not carry.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 7 of 10
8B
Commissioner Lonerqan questioned if by accepting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2, he could tie in the building?
Staff answered it can not be done with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment but you can condition a Zone
Change but Staff was trying to avoid a Conditional Zone Change because it has some inherent difficulties in
trying to reconcile it with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment especially if the development does not go
forward. However, you have the ability to condition the Zone Change based on this specific project.
Commissioner Mill asked if by doing that you would then be keeping the RS for Parcel 3 and RM for Parcels
1 and 2? Additionally, he questioned if this would affect the Partitioning and the Site Plan?
Staff responded that is his understanding based on the motion which was to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to RM on Parcels 1 and 2 and deny the request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment on Parcel 3. He indicated this would not affect the Partitioning nor this proposed Site Plan. He
further stated by approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on Parcels 1 and 2 and the Zone Change
to RM, the applicant is not bound to construct this project because the zoning is being changed. Unless you
were to do a Conditional Zone Change, they could decide to come with an apartment complex on Parcels 1
and 2. Staff stated they did not find an issue with that and believes an apartment complex on Parcels 1 and
2 still makes sense as far as Comprehensive Plan and Zoning as long as Parcel 3 provides the buffering and
transition area.
Commissioner Loner.qan commented he has problems with transportation issues which opens up a whole new
ball game.
Staff clarified Staff analyzed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on High Density Residential, not on
this specific project. The traffic analysis was addressed in the Staff Report and showed if the project was built
out to maximum density under Single Family and maximum density under Multi-Family there was only a
difference of 40 trips per day, 196 for Single Family and 239 for Multiple Family.
Commissioner Loner.qan withdrew his previous motion.
Commissioner Mill moved to deny Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02 as a recommendation to City
Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lima. Motion carried with Commissioner Young and
Chairperson Cox voting No. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote as she recused herself from this hearing.
Deniece Won interjected we need the Commission's findings on all the criteria for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. She summarized the Commission's reasoning appears to be: the applicant had not persuaded
them, they had not met the burden of proof, and the criteria were not satisfied with respect to the impacts.
Commissioner Loner.qan asked if it is possible to do the Comprehensive Change and tie the Zone Change
into this project?
Staff replied you have the ability to condition the Zone Change to this specific project. He explained the
Comprehensive Plan can not be conditioned.
Deniece Won explained the law is not perfectly clear but there is a lot of question about the ability to condition
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and she advised Staff to avoid doing that. She quoted a case that
specifically linked a Comp Plan Amendment to a reverter if the development that was expected did not
happen. Ms. Won further explained when you go through a Comp Plan Amendment you have to go through
a certain procedure and consider certain criteria and you are not doing that at the point in time when you are
reverting so you are not in compliance with the Conditioned Comp Plan Amendment. She added you could
condition a Zone Change. However, the cleanest way to do it is to link the conditions to one of the approval
criteria, i.e., you are not supposed to have impact on the facilities, there is too much traffic for the full set of
uses that could be allowed in the zone so you are going to allow uses that go up to a certain point of traffic
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 8 of 10
8B
impact and not beyond. Ms. Won expressed concerns about defending a condition that links the Zone
Change to a very particular Site Plan. However, she could not say that is not defensible.
There was consensus by the members of the Commission that voted in favor of the previous motion to
reconsider that vote.
Commissioner Younq recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02 for Parcels
I and 2 and recommend to, City Council to deny Parcel 3 and requested Staff return with facts and findings
to reflect the Commission's request. Commissioner Grosiacques seconded the motion, which carried with
Commissioner Mill and Viqe Chairperson Lima voting No. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote on this
motion as she recused herself from this hearing.
Commissioner Grosjacques moved to recommend to City Council the approval of Zone Change 01-05 as to
Parcels 1 and 2 but deny as to Parcel 3 and that the change be conditioned upon uses as a residential care
facility and Staff return with proposed findings. Commissioner Lonerqan seconded the motion. Motion
carried with Commissioner Bandelow abstaining from voting as she recused herself from this hearing.
Chairperson Cox commented Staff will need to come up with the reasons the Commission is conditioning it.
He provided assistance and indicated it is his sense that the applicant has convinced the Commission that
they met their burden of persuasion in addressing the various elements of the standards that they have to
meet as to this type of use but they have not addressed and the Commission are not convinced upon the
record before them that they could comply with those standards if they were talking about an otherwise more
intensive use that might be allowed in that zone.
Commissioner Mill added as well as the fact that it is a compatible use for traffic and surrounding
neighborhood impact.
Deniece Won questioned if in the Commission's mind it is tied to that particular use or is it residential care
facilities and any use allowed in the RM zone that is less intensive?
There was a consensus by the Commission that it is tied to residential care facility or Less intense than a
residential care facility.
Commissioner Young requested clarification as to the definition of residential care facility.
Deniece Won responded future uses are going to be determined under the Woodburn Development
Ordinance rather than the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. She reviewed the permitted uses and commented
the one use that is outright permitted that would be clearly a higher intensity use as Multiple Family uses.
Every other would be permitted under a decision that limited it to residential care facility.
Commissioner Lima moved to approved Partition 01-07 as proposed by Staff. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Grosiacques, which carried. Commissioner Bandelow excused herself from this hearing and
therefore abstained from voting.
Chairperson Cox inquired if it is stated in the conditions that the necessary Zone change and Comp Plan
change be made? He further indicated it needs to be included if it is not included already.
Staff replied it is not included. However, by law, until the Comp Plan and Zoning is approved they can not
legally develop it because it does not comply with the Ordinance. He further commented it is not necessary
to have it there.
Commissioner Lima requested clarification regarding resolution to the wall and fencing issue.
Staff clarified the Site Plan showed a 7 foot fence, although it was not clear whether that meant that the
applicant was going to build one or whether the existing fence was 7 feet. Under our Landscaping Policy
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 9 of 10
8B
Standards, there is a buffer requirement between Multiple-Family Residential development that abuts a
Commercial Zone to have a 10 foot planting strip which is provided and a 7 foot wall is required. Staff
reported the new Development Ordinance would not require the less intensive use to buffer themselves from
more intensive. Certainly the applicant has the opportunity to buffer themselves if they choose. Furthermore,
under the new Ordinance when the abutting property is a CO Zone, wall requirements shall be determined
in conjunction with the applicable design review process.
Chairperson Cox requested Staffs recommendation in determining how to address this issue.
Deniece Won interjected it should be addressed as the code requires. She stated the applicant's proposal
is judged by the criteria that were in place when he filed his application and if that code is specific and explicit,
that is what he is required to do and it should be a condition of the approval.
Commissioner Grosiacques moved to approve Site Plan Review 01-13 to include the conditions of a 7 foot
solid wall on the South property line and that the separation between the property on the North side be a wall
in compliance with Chapter 8 Section D-4 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Lonerqan
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mill requested clarification regarding Police Department comments regarding outdoor lighting.
Staff clarified Staff will review and approve the outdoor lighting plan taking into consideration the Police
Department recommendations.
Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote because of the reasons previously stated.
ITEM,S FOR ACTION
None
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORTS
A.~. Building Activity for April 2002
Bo
Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 5-1-02)
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Bandelow announced she will not be present at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn the meeting.
at 9:33 p.m.
ATTEST
APPROVED
Motion was seconded and carried. Meeting adjourned
CLAUDIO LIMA, RSON
Jim Mi~'l(~er, ' - --
Date
DATE
Coqtmqhity Development Director
Cit~ of,~Woodburn, Oregon
Plannin~ Commission Meetin~ - May 9. 2002 Page l 0 of 10
8C
Police Department STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345
Date:
From:
To:
Through:
June 19, 2002
Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police.
Mayor and City Council
John Br~,wn, City Administrate
Subject: Towing Services
ISSUE:
The Woodbum Police Department is recommending a Request For Proposal (RFP)
proc. ess to update and improve contracted towing services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Information Only.
BACKGROUND:
For 5 years, the City of Woodburn has maintained a rotational list of towing companies
with non-exclusive "all comers" agreements to provide citywide towing services. The list
has grown from two companies in the beginning to six at the present time. Approxi-
mately 776 tows were performed under these agreements during the year 2001. This
averages out to approximately 65 tows per month, or just over 2 tows per day. At this
rate, it takes approximately three days to cycle through the current list of tow compa-
nies.
The City of Salem has recently completed a competitive RFP process for citywide
towing services. The RFP contained three (3) categories for towing services. Category
I, which are the vast majority of the tows, resulted in a multiple award of three primary
contracts plus one alternate, to provide towing services on a rotational basis. This
allows for an adequate number of companies available in the event of several tow calls
occurring simultaneously. Categories II and III resulted in an award to one primary
contractor and an alternate contractor in the event the prime contractor can not provide
services.
This process has worked well for the City of Salem, but has created an overabundance
of tow companies in the Salem area. We have been advised that numerous Salem tow
companies are looking, to relocate to Woodburn, thereby exacerbating the tow company
situation here in WooClburn.
FACTS & FINDINGS:
The City of Waodburn has received numerous complaints regarding towing
services in rec~nt years. Complaints include extraordinarily high charges,
numerous addlon charges, charges for services not required, citizens not being
allowed acces~to personal property, inadequate signs, rude staff and owners,
employees with criminal records, theft from vehicles, companies not following the
rotation policieS, late arrival of tow trucks, tow trucks speeding to the scene, and
tow companie~ releasing vehicles without obtaining the necessary release
authorization form from the Police Department.
Currently, the City has no control over what the tow companies charge citizens
when claimingitheir vehicles which the City has caused to be towed. The tow
company can lawfully keep the vehicle until the full bill has been paid. In the
meantime, daily storage fees - as much as $40 per day - can add up very
quickly. The ~Cpmpanies are required to post their fees, but they may be changed
at any time anti numerous add on fees are common. Frequently tow charges are
in the hundredls of dollars with charges in excess of $1500 having been reported.
The prices charged vary greatly depending on the company and situation. A
review of sev~al recent towing bills produced a typical example of a tow bill from
an accident sdene in the amount of $500. This same bill under the City of Salem
RFP bid prices would have been $250.
Since there are six tow companies operating in Woodbum and each company
averages only one city tow every three days, towing operators that rely solely on
city tows for revenue feel they must increase fees when new tow companies are
put on the list.
4,
City towing contractors are seen by citizens as representing the City when the
City has caused their vehicle to be towed, or when the citizen requests a tow
from a company on our rotation list. In this respect, the citizens expect a profes-
sional level of customer service. Features at the business such as cleanliness,
access to the office, parking, and employee training and qualifications vary
greatly between companies from very good to very poor. At some of these
businesses it can periodically be difficult just to find an employee present at the
office during normal business hours.
ORS Chapter 279 requires a competitive process for services contracted by the
City. There is no exemption for towing services. Because of the current "all
comers" rotational system, the competitive process has not been an issue. Due
to the problems noted above, plus the imminent deluge of tow companies
looking to locate in Woodburn, staff is beginning the design of a request for
proposal (RFP) in order to select the companies most able to give the best and
most reliable service at the best price to both citizens and the City.
8(2
A large amount~ of staff time is devoted to the management of the tow compa-
nies, including handling of complaints and alleged violations, and disposition of
the vehicles. By going through an RFP process for towing services, the staff time
required for management of these services would be significantly reduced.
The greatest benefit is one of security and perception. A citizen may be involved
in a serious accident and taken to the hospital, resulting in his or her vehicle
being towed bythe police. When the citizen claims the vehicle under the current
system, they mpy receive excellent service and prices from a respectable and
stable compan~f, or they ma_y,, get something far less in service and exorbitant in
price. Under the "all comers system any company that meets the bare minimum
standards quali~ies for our rotation list. The City currently provides no incentive
for towing coml~anies to be competitive with their pricing and service, even
though these cCmpanies may rely on the City for a large portion of their busi-
ness. Under thee RFP process the City would be contracting with professional
towing companies that will be required to give citizens and the City high quality
service at a fai~ price.
8C
3
WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY
MONTHLY REPORT FOR APRIL 2002
8])
II.
I. CIRCULAT;ION
Current: !1,696
,~dult:
hildren:
in-House Use:
INTERLIBF~ARY LOAN
Books Loar~ed: 1,070
CCRLS:
I~-State Special:
Books Borr~bwed: 1,005
CRLS:
-State Special:
Ill. REFERENCE
8,938
2,758
2,056
1053
0
979
0
Previous: 2001
2000
1999
All Other In-State:
Out-Of-State:
All Other In-State:
Out-Of-State:
12,069
11,552
11,748
VI.
Woodburn
Referrals
Other
2002 1,036
2001 1,043
2000 845
1999 970
68
60
51
49
1,254
1,288
1,053
1,358
VOLUNTEER HOURS WORKED
164 1/4
LIBRARY SPONSORED PROGRAMS
Adults: 7
Children: 13
No. A~ending: 187
No. A~ending: 286
FINANCE
ILL Postals 5.35
Fines 936.21
Lost Books 435.20
Copies 141.15
Rural Fee 740.00
Donation 0.00
Collection Fee 20.00
Other 123.97
- 301.92 CCRLS Lost Book Reimbursement
- Misc.
17
0
20
6
Total
2,358
2,391
1,949
2,377
TOTAL 2,401.88
Monthly Statistics: April 2002 1
VII.
HOLDINGS
Audio Cassette
Audio Cassette Holiday
Book
YA-Holds Restriction
Camera
Compact Disc, Music
Compact Disc, Sp.
Cassette Player
Circ Software
Video Cass~ette
Video Hold~
Engraver ~
Fast Cat - 3 Wks
Fast Cat~ Day
Headphones
Juvenile Gr
Woodburn
Woodbum
Juvenile Au
Juvenile Bo
Juvenile-He
Juvenile Vi(
ant Kit
LL
LL Out Of State
clio Cassette
Ids Restriction
leo Cassette
Juvenile Vi( eo Holds
Juvenile Ho, liday Book
Juvenile Hc~liday
Juvenile Puppet
Juvenile Paperback
Juvenile Pe~'iodical
Juvenile R~erence
Juvenile Tote Bag
Long New Book
New Book
New Periodical
Pamphlet, Map
Paperback
Periodical
Projector
Puzzles/Games
Reference
One Hr. Reserve
Circulating Software
Woodburn Stats Only
Woodburn Stats Only ILL
TOTAL
1,421
4O
36,323
0
4
219
6O
5
59
672
1,073
2
7
3
6
9
10
5
3OO
17,805
17
694
139
478
7
0
11
667
246
91
298
277
344
22
2,584
6,180
6
0
2,469
97
1
1
1
72,653
Monthly Statistics: Apd12002 2
New Adds For The Month of April: 493
VIII. PATRON L1OAN TYPES
Adult Resident
Adult Non-lb, esident
Senior Resident
Senior NomResident
YA Resider~t
YA Non-Re~sident
Juvenile Resident
Juvenile Non-Resident
Reference Staff
Library Staff
Outreach
Visitor
City Department
TOTAL
4,776
2,944
884
245
1,080
611
1,364
785
5
24
19
22
11
12,770
Monthly Statistics: April 2002 3
City of woodburn
Police Department
270 Montgomery Street
8E
STAFF REPORT
Woodbum, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345
Date:
From:
June 19, 2002
/
Scott Russell, Chief of Police~~'/
To:
Through:
Mayor and Council
John Brown, City Administrator
Subject:
Street ClosUre Request - Alexandra Court
Ordinance 2225, Sec. 2, Jurisdiction.
The City of Woodburn has jurisdiction and exercises
regulatory control over all public fights-of-way
within the city under the authority of the city
charter and state law.
The Woodburn Police Department has received a street dosure request from the Alexandra
Court :neighborhood. As in years past, the residents of Alexandra Court are holding their
annual Fourth of July activities. The street closure request is for July 4, 2002, from 10:00
a.m. through 11:00 p.m.
The Woodburn Police Department commends the citizens of Alexandra Court for their
commitment in cultivating neighborhood activities which promote pride in their
neighborhood and the City of Woodburn.
Recommendation: The City Council approve the request for street closure of Alexandra Court
on July 4, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
CC:
Matt Gwynn - Street Department
Woodburn Fire District
Woodbum Ambulance
June 15,2002
8E
We, the neighborS on Alexandra Court, request permission to close our street to traffic in
order to have our annual Fourth of July party. We would be setting up barriers at 10:00 a.m. and
will remove them by 11:00 p.m. Room will be left for emergency vehicles to pass through.
Bill & Maggie Mueler
Ja/~z and Patti ~n-igorieff
Claudio & Anne E~una
William & Lyn Cro'6ker
Rob &Cheryl Mill
Robert & Arlen~e Colby
Terri Robi /&rd
,~vencio & Eneada Morales
8E
Independence Day
FOURTH OF JULY pARTY
It has come around again .... the neighborhood 4th of July Party.
This year we will be Celebrating our x3th annual gathering. As in the past we
will dose the street around lo a.m. If you have a portable barbecue we would
appreciate it if you could bring it to the southwest end of the Court around
xo:oo a.m. We will Start the grills about ll:30 and cooking can begin around
x2 noon. Bring whatever you would like to grill (hamburgers, hot dogs, buns,
etc.), a side dish for all to share, your own plates and utensils and your choice
of drinks. Coolers will be located near by the tables and chairs. Dessert will
be provided as usual.
After lunch we can sit and talk (or take a nap) and then gather again for
dinner is you like (we always have plenty of food left over).
Later that evening, when dusk approaches, we will gather at the end of the
Court to set off fireworks for the "kids". If you'd like to come, bring your
sparklers/fireworks and join in with us kids.
After our light display is finished, we can gather on Bill and Maggie's lawn to
view the city fireworks spectacle. Bring you chairs, coats and blankets and
enjoy the view.
If you have any suggestions or comments, please pass them on to either Anne
Lima (981-4413) or Cheryl Mill (98x-62~2).
WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR YOU!!!
We will be setting up barriers at xo:oo a.m. and will remove them by xx:oo
p.m. Room will be left for emergency vehicles to pass.
IOA
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodbum, Oregon 97071
(50~ 982-5246
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 24, 2002
~-~
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrate"'"'
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development/~
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02, ZoneU'Change 01-05,
Plan Review 01-13, and Partition 01-07
Site
Recommendation
The City Council has the following options pertaining to this proposal:
1)
Concur with the Planning Commission's final order and deny
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02 and Zone Change 01-05 as they
pertain to proposed Parcel 3, approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment
01-02, Zone Change 01-05, and Site Plan Review 01-13 as they pertain to
proposed Parcels 1 and 2, and approve Partition 01-07,
2) Modify the Planning Commission's final order,
3)
Deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 01-05, Site
Plan Review 01-13, and Partition 01-07.
It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate the Council's decision.
Backqround
At their hearing on May 9, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by Leon
Oliver to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to
High Density Residential and a Zone Change from RS (Single-Family Residential
District) to RM (Multi-Family Residential District) on a residential property. The request
also included a Site Plan Review application to construct 2 residential care facilities and
a Partition request to divide the property into 3 parcels. The subject property is located
at 847 N. Cascade Drive.
On May 23, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a final order recommending that
the City Council deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02 and Zone Change 01-05
as they pertain to proposed Parcel 3, approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02,
IOA
Zone Change 01-05, and Site Plan Review 01-13 as they pertain to proposed Parcels 1
and 2, and approve P~rtition 01-07.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Planning
Exhibit B: Plannin~l
Exhibit C: Plannin!
Commission Final Order, dated 5~23~02
Commission 5~09~02 Minutes
Commission 5~09~02 Staff Report
IOA
EXHIBIT "A"
Planning Commission Final Order
5~23~O2
IOA
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 01-02 )
ZONE CHANGE 01-~5 )
SITE PLAN REVIEW] 01-13 )
PARTITION 01-07 ~ )
WHEREAS, a
hear a proposal to cl
property from Low DE
Map designation frorr
(RM) District. The re(
residential care faciliti~
and;
FINAL ORDER
request was made by Leon Oliver for the Planning Commission to
lange the Comprehensive Plan Map designation on a residential
nsity Residential to High Density Residential and change the Zone
Single-Family Residential (RS) District to Multi-Family Residential
luest also includes a Site Plan Review application for two proposed
;s and a Partition application to divide the property into three parcels,
WHEREAS, tl~e Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their regularly
scheduled meeting of May 9, 2002, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony
presented by staff, thee applicant, and other interested persons to the proposal, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to recommend that the City Council
deny Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02 and Zone Change 01-05 as they pertain to
proposed Parcel 3, approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 01-05,
and Site Plan Review 01-13 as they pertain to proposed Parcels 1 and 2, and approve
Partition 01-07, and instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 01-02 and Zone Change 01-05 as they pertain to proposed Parcel 3, approve
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 01-05, and Site Plan Review 01-13
as they pertain to proposed Parcels I and 2, and approve Partition 01-07, based on
findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to conditions of approval
contained in Exh[J~i~", which a.l~ attached hereto and by reference inco,L'porated herein.
Approved: Claudi0 Lima, Vic, e-Chairperson Date
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 I
IOA
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
coMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 01-02
ZONE CHANGE 01-05
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-13
PARTITION 01-07
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Leon Oliver
1425 NW Ponderosa St.
Grants Pass, OR 97526
Father Eugene Heidt
18153 Power Creek Loop Rd.
Silverton, OR 97381
II. NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation on
a residential property from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and
change the Zone Map designation from Single-Family Residential (RS) District to
Multi-Family Residential (RM) District. The request also includes a Site Plan Review
application for two proposed residential care facilities and a Partition application to
divide the property into three parcels.
II1. RELEVANT FACTS:
The subject site is located south of Hwy 214 (Newberg Hwy) on the west side of N.
Cascade Drive, near the intersection of Hwy 214 and N. Cascade Drive. It is
addressed at 847 N. Cascade Drive, further identified on Marion County Assessor
Maps as Township 5 South, Range 2 West, Section 12DA, Tax Lot 2000.
The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) District with a
Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Low Density Residential (Less Than 12
Units Per Acre). The property is 1.7 acres in size (73,992 sq. ft.) and is virtually flat.
There are currently two single-family homes and three accessory buildings on the
site. Properties in RS Districts are only allowed to have one single-family dwelling
per lot. As a result, the subject site is legal-nonconforming with its two homes.
One of the homes and one of the accessory structures will be removed as part of
this project. The other existing structures on the south side of the site are to
remain. The proposed three-parcel partition and the removal of the single-family
home on the north side of the site will remove this legal non-conforming status.
There are trees and shrubs on the site, and most are to be removed to
accommodate the proposed development.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 2
IOA
IV.
The property is to be divided into three parcels. The applicant proposes to
construct two r~.~sidential care facilities (RCF's), one on each of the two proposed
parcels. The p~rcels with the RCF's will each be 24,597 sq. ft. in size and take up
the north 2/3 of the existing property. Each of the RCF's are proposed to be 15-bed
residential cam units 5,628 sq. ft. in size. The remaining 1/3 of the property to the
south will be 2z~ ,797 sq. ft. and will encompass an existing single-family home and
two accessory ;tructures, which are to remain on the parcel. The applicant has not
proposed site .lan review approval for Parcel 3.
The adjacent i~roperty to the north is zoned Commercial Office (CO) and is
designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial; this property currently
has a bank. T3e adjacent properties to the east (across N. Cascade Drive) are
zoned Multi-F;~mily Residential (RM) District and are designated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial; these properties consist of senior multi-
family housingi There are two adjacent properties to the south with separate
designations. The property that fronts N. Cascade Drive is zoned RS District and
has a Compreh 9nsive Plan Map designation of Low Density Residential (Less Than
12 Units Per Acre); this property has an existing single-family home. The other
adjacent property to the south, which is also the adjacent property to the west, is
zoned Public ~\musement (PA) District and has a Comprehensive Plan Map
designation of ,.:3pen Space and Parks; this property is part of the Senior Estates
Golf Course.
RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Comprehensivf~ Plan Map Amendment 01-02
A. Statewide Planning Goals
B. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
1. Residential Land Development Policies
2. HouSing Goals and Policies
3. Public Service Goals and Policies
4. GroWth and Urbanization Policies
C. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO)
1. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Zone Chan,qe ~1-05
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. ChaPter 15. Zone Change Procedure
2. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Site Plan Review 01-13
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 3
IOA
C.
D.
E.
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 8. General Standards
2. ChaPter 9. Residential Standards
3. ChaPter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
4. ChaPter 11. Site Plan Review
5. Chapter 26. RM - Multi-Family Residential District
Woodburn Landscaping Policies and Standards
WoodbUrn Access Management Ordinance
WoodbUrn Transportation Systems Plan
WoodbUrn Sign Ordinance
Partition 01-07
Woodbu~rn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 22. RS - Single-Family Residential District
2. Chapter 26. RM - Multi-Family Residential District
VVoodbUrn Subdivision Standards
1. Chapter III. Procedures
2. Chapter IV. Design
V. FINDINGS:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 0t-02
A. Statewide Planning Goals
Goal 1 -Citizen Involvement
FINDING: Goal 1 calls for "...the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process..." The citizen involvement procedures and policies for
Woodburn are established in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance. This goal will be met through the appropriate notice and public hearing
procedures.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
FINDING: Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning
program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a
comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's
policies into effect must be adopted. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan is
acknowledged as complying with Statewide Planning Goals. This application is
being processed under the provisions set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
This goal has been met.
Goal 3- Agricultural Lands
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 4
IOA
FINDING: Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires counties to inventory
such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm zoning. The subject
property is curr~ently within the city limits and urban growth boundary. Therefore,
this goal is not lapplicable.
Goal 4 - F~rest Lands
FINDING: Thi~ goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory them
and adopt polic~ies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest users."
The subject pr(~perty is currently within the city limits and urban growth boundary.
Therefore, this goal does not apply.
Goal 5-
Resources
FINDING: Goa
wildlife habita'
Amendment to
::)pen Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources, and Natural
5 covers more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as
s and wetlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
allow more intensive uses on the property do not affect any open
space, scenic,I historic, or natural resource. Wetlands are not identified on the
subject property in the Local Wetlands Inventory. In addition, the site is outside of
the 500-year floodplain. The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
FINDING: This goal requires local comprehensive plans and implementing
measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
The site has no significant natural vegetation. The land form on the site will be
altered slightly, but additional trees and landscaping will be provided as a result of
the proposed site development. Public water, sewer, and storm drainage are
already available for the development. These systems will prevent inappropriate
pollution of ground and/or surface water resources. The City's systems are
designed to comply with the Department of Environmental Quality standards for
environmental quality, and the site development will be required to conform to City
standards.
The potential increase in auto trips to and from the site could increase the level of
air pollutants in the area. However, this type of air pollution is a result of land that
has been designated for residential development in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 5
IOA
FINDING: Goal 7 deals with development in places subject to natural hazards such
as floods or landslides. There are no known hazards associated with the subject
site. The site is relatively flat and is located outside of the 500-year floodplain. The
applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
FINDING: This! goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and facilities for
recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them. The
subject site is d~gsignated for residential development. The City's existing codes and
ordinances ensure that recreational needs will be met for different types of uses.
The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 9 - E(~onomic Development
FINDING: Goal 9 calls for the diversification and improvement of the economy.
The applicant indicates that the proposed change and development of the subject
site will generate construction and landscape maintenance jobs, and provide entry-
level positions for the health care industry. The applicant has shown compliance
with this goal.
Goal 10 - Housing
FINDING: This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate
needed housing types. It requires each city to inventory its buildable residential
lands, project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough buildable land
to meet those needs. It also prohibits local plans from discriminating against
needed housing.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to a higher density of
residential use will allow for more types of housing to be provided on the subject
site. For example, elderly care housing, multiple family housing and other types of
housing will be offered in addition to single-family residential. The applicant has
shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
FINDING: Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as sewers,
water, law enforcement, and fire protection. The subject site is an infill property,
and all necessary public services and facilities are available to serve the subject site
and future uses allowed under the High Density Residential designation. The
development will be required to conform to the City's public facility and services
requirements. The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 12 - Transportation
FINAL ORDER- CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07
Page 6
IOA
FINDING: This goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic
transportation System." The subject site has access to N. Cascade Drive and is
near its intersection with Hwy 214. These are existing improved roadways.
The current Low Density Residential designation of the site allows up to 12 units per
acre. The subject site is 1.7 acres in size, potentially allowing 20 Iow density
residential unil.~ (12 x 1.7 = 20.4). The ITE Manual, 6th Edition assigns a trip
generation of~.57 average trips per day for single-family residential units. This
could generate up to 196 trips per day (9.57 x 20.4 = 195.2) under the current
designation. ~
The proposed High Density Residential designation allows over 12 units per acre.
The most inten ;ive use (multiple-family dwelling units) under this designation would
potentially allo~ up to 36 two-bedroom units on the subject site. The ITE Manual
assigns 6.63 average trips per day for two-bedroom multi-family units. This could
generate up to 239 trips per day (6.63 x 36 = 238.7) under the proposed designation
of High Density Residential. The proposed designation has the potential to increase
traffic by 43 trips per day as compared to the existing designation. The traffic
impacts creat(~d by an additional 43 trips per day should not adversely affect
planned facilities of the Transportation Systems Plan (TSP). The applicant has
shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation.
FINDING: Goal 13 declares that "land uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy,
based upon sound economic principles." Current codes for energy efficiency will
ensure that the proposed uses on the property will maximize the conservation of all
forms of energy. The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 14 - Urbanization
FINDING: This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and
then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. It calls for each city to
establish an "urban growth boundary" (UGB) to "identify and separate urbanized
land from rural land." The subject site is located within the Woodburn UGB. In the
2000 Woodbum Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project Final Report, the land
use planning consultants stated that the estimated demand for high density
residential designated land in 20 years is 117.3 acres. The available buildable land
is 121.1 acres, leaving a slight capacity excess of 3.8 acres of high density
residential land. The consultants stated that the estimated demand for Iow density
residential designated land in 20 years is 340.3 acres. The available buildable Iow
density residential land is 535 acres, leaving a capacity excess of 194.7 acres. The
consultants project a much greater surplus of Iow density residential land versus
FINAL ORDER- CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 7
IOA
high density residential land in 20 years. The conversion of 1.7 acres of vacant Iow
density residentlal land to high density residential land will not significantly effect the
surplus of single family residential land in the next 20 years. The excess capacity
would decrease slightly from 194.7 acres to 193 acres of Iow density residential
land as a result of the proposed plan amendment. The amendment will allow for the
efficient use of ~rban land by further developing under-utilized land that is within the
UGB. The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goals 15 - 19
FINDING: GO~ls 15 through 19 address the Willamette Greenway, estuarine
resources, coaStal shorelands, beaches, dunes and ocean resources. These goals
are not applicable to the City of Woodburn.
B. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
1. Residential Land Development Policies
A-I
Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood
concept. Neighborhoods should be an identifiable unit bounded
by arterial non-residential uses, or natural features of the terrain.
The neighborhood should have a community facility, such as a
school, park, or privately owned community facility to allow for
interaction within the neighborhood.
FINDING: The change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential
will allow uses on the property that will not create a neighborhood but will become
part of an existing neighborhood. There is a privately-owned golf course (Senior
Estates) adjacent to the subject site that is part of the neighborhood. The site
development will provide for on-site recreational needs, which will help meet the
needs of the residents.
A-2
Living Environment - Developments in residential area be
constructed in such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate
over time. Zoning ordinances should be strictly enforced to
prevent encroachment of degrading non-residential uses.
Construction standards in the State Building Code shall be
vigorously enforced, and if necessary, additional standards the
City determines should be imposed to insure non-degrading
housing unite, should be encouraged by the City.
FINDING: High density residential uses will be required to be developed in
conformance with the City of Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable
ordinances. The uses that would be allowed on the property through the
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 8
IOA
Comprehensiv(
Density Resider
State of Orego~
Plan Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to High
ftial will be required to comply with applicable City standards and the
building codes.
A-3 De~relopment should promote, through the use of moderate density
sta ~dards and creative design, a feeling of openness and
sp=[ciousness with sufficient landscaped area and open space to
create a pleasant living environment.
FINDING: Tl~e uses allowed under the proposed High Density Residential
designation arq required to provide landscaping and open space to mitigate the
impacts of increased density.
A-4 Str
to
to
po~
FINDING: Th
Cascade Drive
System Plan.
arterial, and t¢
complies with
eets in residential areas should be used by residents for access
=ollectors and arterials. Residential streets should be designed
minimize their use for through traffic, however, whenever
~sible dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs should be avoided.
9 street pattern is already established in this neighborhood. N.
is designated as an access street in the Woodbum Transportation
4. Cascade Ddve connects to Hwy 214 to the north, which is a major
W. Hayes Street to the south, which is a collector. The proposal
his policy.
A-5 Residential developments should strive for creative design which
will maximize the inherent values of the land being developed and
encourage slow moving traffic. Each residential development
should provide for landscaping and tree planting to enhance the
livability and aesthetics of the neighborhoods.
FINDING: No new streets are proposed as part of this project. N. Cascade Drive
has been fully improved and provides adequate right-of-way access to the site.
Future development of the site with high density residential will be subject to design
requirements and landscaping requirements to enhance the aesthetics and livability
of the neighborhood.
A-6 to A-9
FINDING: Residential Policies A-6 to A-9 address non-residential uses in
residential areas. They are therefore not applicable to the applicant's
comprehensive plan map amendment request.
A-10 High density residential areas should be located so as to minimize
the possible deleterious effects on adjacent Iow density
residential developments. When high density and Iow density
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 9
IOA
areas abut, density should decrease in those areas immediately
adj~acent to Iow density residential land. Whenever possible,
buffering should be practiced by such means as landscaping,
sight-obscuring fences and hedges, and increased setbacks.
FINDING: The Subject site currently abuts a Commercial Office District to the north
and a Single-Fa~mily Residential District to the south. The proposed change from
Low Density ReSidential to High Density Residential on the site would be compatible
with the Commercial designation on the property to the north of the subject site.
However, the proposed southerly parcel shall remain Low Density Residential so
that it can ser~'e as a buffer and a transition area between the High Density
Residential desi[Ination to the north and the established Low Density Residential to
the south. In a(Idition, the existing dwelling on the southerly parcel is proposed to
remain. This will bring the site into compliance in that only one dwelling will be on
the property ins~:ead of the current nonconforming situation of two dwellings on one
property.
City code rec 'jires a seven foot high fence between RM and RS zoned
developments. Since proposed Parcel 3 is to retain its RS zoning, a fence must be
provided between it and the proposed residential care facility on Parcel 2. To
minimize adverse impacts between the potential uses, this fence shall be a solid
wall. With com )liance with the above, this policy will be met.
FINAL
2. Housing Goals and Policies (IX-G):
G-'I-I The City will insure that sufficient land is made available to
accommodate the growth of the City. This requires that sufficient
land for both high density and Iow density residential
developments is provided within the confines of the growth and
development goals of the City...
FINDING: The subject property has been planned for residential development.
Market conditions and supply of developable land dictate what parcels within the
City's planning area are developed.
In the 2000 Woodbum Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project Final Report, the
land use planning consultants stated that the estimated demand for high density
residential designated land in 20 years is 117.3 acres. The available buildable land
is 121.1 acres, leaving a slight capacity excess of 3.8 acres of high density
residential land. The consultants stated that the estimated demand for Iow density
residential designated land in 20 years is 340.3 acres. The available buildable Iow
density residential land is 535 acres, leaving a capacity excess of 194.7 acres. The
consultants project a much greater surplus of Iow density residential land versus
high density residential land in 20 years. The conversion of 1.7 acres of vacant Iow
density residential land to high density residential land will not significantly effect the
ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 10
IOA
surplus of single family residential land in the next 20 years. The excess capacity
would decrease slightly from 194.7 acres to 193 acres of Iow density residential land
as a result of the proposed plan amendment. The proposal complies with this
policy.
G-1-2 It is the policy of the city to encourage a variety of housing types
to accommodate the demands of the local housing market.
FINDING: Th~ proposed amendment from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential will allow for a variety of housing types in Woodburn and will further
meet housing demands. The proposal complies with this policy.
3. Public Services Goals and Policies:
H-1
PUblic Facilities and services shall be appropriate to support
sUfficient amounts of land to maintain an adequate housing market
in areas undergoing development or redevelopment.
FINDING: The subject site has access to all public facilities and services, which are
currently available within the N. Cascade Drive right-of-way. These facilities
currently have sufficient capacity to serve potential uses in the proposed High
Density Residential Designation. The proposal complies with this policy.
4. Growth and Urbanization Policies (IX-M):
FINDING: The developer is required to pay systems development charges for their
impact on the infrastructure. Public services are available to the site for high density
residential uses. This policy can be met.
C. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Section 16.080 Burden of Proof. The following specific questions shall be
given consideration in evaluating requests regarding plan and zoning
amendments and are as follows:
(a) To support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant
shall:
(1) Prove that the original plan was in error;
(2) Show that the community has changed since the original plan was
adopted; or
(3) Show that there has been a change in the planning and growth policy
of the City.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 11
IOA
FINDING: Th,
narrative in re
Specifically, th~
"In this situ;
peninsula in
from a sing
zoning, as
The subject site
(across Casca(
Map. The com
residential use.
not placed as a
the subject site
Planning Comn
a transition la
commercial pr(
south. Howev
Residential to
to the south of
applicant has addressed questions 1 and 2 in the submitted
gard to this Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request.
applicant states,
~tion, the Comprehensive Plan could be in error. This property is a
serted into commercial, park and multi-family zones projecting north
e family zone. Only the park zone is compatible with the current
is with the proposed zone and plan designation."
. has commercial land use designations located to the north and east
le Drive) as shown on the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
rnercial land use designations are not compatible with a Iow density
A Comprehensive Plan designation of high density residential was
transition area between the commercial designation to the north and
which currently is designated for Iow density residential uses. The
]ission finds that the Comprehensive Plan is in error by not providing
~d use designation (i.e., high density residential) between the
tperty to the north and the single family residential property to the
.=r, Parcel 3 shall retain its land use designation of Low Density
~rovide a buffer and transition area between the existing residence
Parcel 3 and the proposed High Density Residential to the north.
ZONE CHANGE 01-05
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedure
Section 15.010. Amendments. A Zone Change is a reclassification of any
area from one zone or district to another, after the proposed change has
been reviewed and a recommendation made by the Planning Commission.
Such change shall be by an ordinance enacted by the Common Council
after proceedings have been accomplished in accordance with the following
provisions.
Section 15.035. Hearing Before the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing as described in Chapter 7
of the Zoning Ordinance. After concluding its hearing, the Planning
Commission shall prepare a report setting forth a summary of facts and
conditions involved in the reclassification and submit the same, together with
its recommendation to the Common Council.
Section 15.055. Site Plan Required. A site plan approved by the Planning
Commission may be required and if such requirement is made in the
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 12
IOA
resolution of intent, the same shall be binding upon the property .... Any
approved site plan may be amended or a Vadance therefrom obtained, or it
may be released from the restrictions of such site plan by Resolution of the
Common Council on recommendation from the Planning Commission. No
other changes shall be made constituting a departure from the approved site
plan except by amendment or Variance as herein provided unless the same
has been released from the site plan.
FINDING: The above sections cover the procedure for a zone change.
Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Section 16.080 Burden of Proof. The following specific questions shall be
given ~onsideration in evaluating requests regarding plan and zoning
amendments and are as follows:
( b ) TO support a zone change, the applicant shall:
1.; Show there is a need for the use proposed;
FINDING: The applicant states,
"...the use of RCF's to house the elderly is a relatively new housing type. It
provides a form of housing for residents that cannot live independently but are
merely 'aging in place' but are not in need of the more intensive care offered by
a traditional nursing home with a more institutional environment. The type of
living provided by the RCF's is a more intimate, comfortable and acceptable
lifestyle that allows communities to distribute elderly citizens throughout the
community rather than concentrate them in locations that allow 'big box' nursing
care facilities.
The applicant's research shows that this type of housing is needed in Woodburn
demonstrated by population data. Exhibit "D" [ of the Comprehensive Plan Map
and Zone Change applications ], population data, demonstrates that from 1990
to 1997 Woodbum's population grew at a rate of 20.5 percent. During the same
period Woodbum's over-65 population was at the highest ratio in the study at
22.4 percent of the population. This proposal intends to add needed housing to
Woodburn's inventory."
As the applicant states, and as the population data shows, Woodburn's elderly
population has increased and continues to increase. As a result, the demand for
eldedy housing continues to increase, as does the variety of housing types for the
elderly. This project will add to the variety of housing types for the elderly in
Woodburn since it will provide an alternative between independent living and an
institutional nursing home. The applicant has demonstrated that there is a public
need for the proposed residential care facilities on proposed Parcels 1 & 2.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 13
IOA
Evidence has not been provided that there is a need for a multi-family use on Parcel
3.
2. Show that the particular piece of property in question will best meet
that need.
FINDING: The applicant states,
"The appliCant searched Woodbum properties for the development of his RCF's.
The properties that he found available that were property zoned were both too
large for his~ project and in neighborhoods that were developed with high density
apartmentUses that are incompatible with his proposed development. This
property is ~lose to arterial access, adjacent to open (quiet) space and across
from a co 'patible use.
~ land This property is flat to allow for handicapped
access andl has all the needed infrastructure."
The proposed lresidential care facilities on Parcels 1 & 2 are less intensive and
smaller in scale than typical multi-family residential developments allowed in the RM
District. RCF's of this scale that meet applicable setback and buffering
requirements are compatible with Iow density residential neighborhoods. Parcels
I & 2 are small enough so that they do not significantly affect the City's inventory
of RS zoned land, yet large enough to accommodate the proposed development.
In addition, the site is accessible due to its proximity to Hwy 214 and its through
access to W. Hayes Street. The applicant has shown that the RCF's on Parcels 1
& 2 can best meet the increasing need for this particular type of elderly housing.
Parcels I & 2 are located on the northern portion of the subject site, which is
adjacent to Commercial Office (CO) zoning to the north. A multi-family use on this
portion of the property will serve as a transition between the CO and RS Districts.
The RM zone uses allowed on Parcels 1 and 2 shall be restricted to uses which are
equal to or less intensive than the proposed residential care facility. This is
necessary because a standard apartment complex, which is a permitted use in the
RM zone, would be a more intensive use in that it would require more parking and
create greater traffic and noise impacts. The Planning Commission finds that the
greater intensity of use resulting from standard apartments would not be appropriate
in the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that Parcel 3 would best meet the
need for additional multi-family zoned land on the southern portion of the site. This
parcel will best serve as a buffer between the proposed RM zoned property on the
northern portion of the site and the existing residence to the south of the site.
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-13
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 14
IOA
FINDING: The Site Plan Review request was made only for the RCF's on Parcels
1 & 2. Site Plan Review was not requested for Parcel 3. The following discussion
for Site Plan Review only applies to Parcels I and 2.
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 8 General Standards
Section 8.140 No Parking in Front Yard or Landscaped Areas
FINDING: Th~ required front yard setback in the RM District is 20 feet. No parking
is proposed Within the required yard area as part of the proposed RCF
development.
Section 8.190 Vision Clearance
FINDING: VisiOn clearance requirements are being met at the applicant's proposed
driveways onto N. Cascade Blvd. This standard will be enforced during review of
access and bUilding permits.
Section 8.040. Special Setback Distances.
(a) (3) Cascade Drive, W. Hayes Street to OR State Hwy 214 ..... 30 feet
FINDING: N. Cascade Drive has a right-of-way width of 60 feet. Special setback
distances are measured from the centerline of the right-of-way. The centerline of
N. Cascade Drive is 30 feet from the front property line of the subject site, placing
the special setback on said property line. The proposed development meets the
special setback requirement.
2. Chapter 9 Residential Standards
Section 9.080. Fences-Location, Height and Density. In any yard
adjacent to a street and within ten feet from the property line adjacent to
such street, fences, walls and hedges may be up to 30 inches in height.
Fences located in a yard area other than the above described may be up to
~even feet in height.
FINDING: This standard will be enforced during review of building permits.
3. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Section 10.050 Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements. Off-Street
automobile parking shall be provided as required by Section 10.070 and
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 15
IOA
approved by the Planning Director, in the amounts not less than those listed
below:
(i) COnvalescent Hospital, Nursing Home, Sanitarium, Rest Home, Home
for the Aged:
(1) One space per four beds for patients or residents.
FINDING: Proppsed Parcels I & 2 will each have a 15-bed residential care facility.
Each facility islrequired to have a minimum of four off-street parking spaces (15/4
= 3.75). The applicant is proposing five parking spaces for each facility, exceeding
the minimum. '
Section
FINDING: Loa
required for mul
a multiple famil
families living
independent d~
10.060. Off-Street Loading Requirements.
ding spaces are not required for the RCF's. A loading space is
ti-family dwellings with 10 or more dwelling units. The VVZO defines
~, dwelling as a building designed for occupancy by three or more
ndependently of each other. The RCF's are not designed with
/elling units. The dining room, kitchen and day room in the RCF's
will be shared by the 15 residents.
Section 10.070 Parking and Loading Area Development Requirements.
FINDING: The applicant's site plan meets all of the requirements with respect to
location, surfacing, size of parking spaces and parking lot buffering. Driveways will
be improved in compliance with City requirements. Lighting is required to be
deflected away from residential uses and right of way. A condition of approval
requires that all exterior lighting be subject to city approval and shall be in
compliance with this requirement.
4. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review:
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse
impacts on adjacent uses.
FINDING: A site plan has been submitted for Parcels 1 and 2. The plan proposes
two residential care facilities on these parcels. Each of the RCF's is to be a single-
story structure and will comply with minimum setback requirements. The applicant
is proposing to change the zone of the entire subject property to RM as part of this
request (Parcels 1-3). No site plan has been submitted for Parcel 3.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 16
IOA
Since Parcel 3 will retain its RS zoning, a 15-foot landscape buffer is required per
the Landscaping Policies and Standards Document (addressed further in this report)
between multi-family developments and RS zones. Based on the proposed
landscape and site plans, this buffer requirement will not be met on the south side
of Parcel 2 where it adjoins Parcel 3. A condition of approval states that there shall
be a 15-foot landscape buffer along the south side of Parcel 2 and that the RCF on
this parcel be shifted to the north to accommodate the buffer. The RCF on Parcel
2 can be shifted to the north 15 feet and setback 10 feet from the north property
line, which meets the required side yard setback of five feet.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact on adjacent uses;
and
(c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its aesthetic value.
FINDING: The~ applicant's landscaping plan shows that landscape coverege of the
development area (Parcels I & 2) will total approximately 57% of each parcel where
20% is required. The landscaping plan indicates that landscaping will be evenly
distributed thrOughout the parking areas with more than a 5-foot landscape strip
adjacent to the street. The RCF's on proposed Parcels I & 2 will have large front
yards with a variety of groundcover, shrubs and trees.
A 15-foot landscape buffer is required per the Landscaping Policies and Standards
Document (addressed further in this report) between multi-family developments and
RS zones. Based on the proposed landscape and site plans, this buffer
requirement will not be met on the south side of Parcel 2 where it adjoins Parcel 3.
A condition of appreval states that there shall be a 15-foot landscape buffer along
the south side of Parcel 2 and that the RCF on this parcel be shifted to the north to
accommodate the buffer. The RCF on Parcel 2 can be shifted to the north 15 feet
and setback 10 feet from the north property line, which meets the required side yard
setback of five feet.
The remainder of the area to be developed (Parcels I & 2) will be entirely
encompassed by landscape strips that comply with the City's buffering and
landscaping standards. By complying with the condition of approval mentioned in
the previous paregreph, landscaping will minimize adveree impacts on adjacent
uses.
(d)
Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic
patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be allowed to
arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared with
adjacent uses of a similar nature.
FINDING: Each of the RCF's on proposed Parcels 1 & 2 will have its own access
onto N. Cascade Drive, a local access street. The existing single-family residence
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 17
IOA
on Parcel 3 has a driveway access which will remain. The new driveway accesses
for the RCF's are to be separated from each other to the greatest extent feasible to
avoid traffic conflicts. N. Cascade Drive is a local access street which requires a
minimum driveWaY spacing distance of 10 feet. The driveways proposed for each
of the RCF's Will exceed this spacing distance. All remaining accesses that are
currently on the site will be closed as part of this development. The applicant has
shown complia ~ce with this approval criteria.
(e) T 3e design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on the
city's or other public agencies drainage facilities.
FINDING: All ~ecessary public services and facilities are available to serve the
subject site an(I the proposed development. The development will be required to
conform to the City's public facility and services requirements. The applicant has
shown complia.~ce with this approval criteria.
(f) T[~e design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on the
10t, and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
FINDINGS: The applicant's project will be constructed to meet current codes for
energy efficiency. Pedestrian access between the proposed RCF's and Cascade
Drive is made available by the proposed access driveways. This criterion is met.
(g)
The proposed site development, including the architecture,
landscaping and graphic design, is in conformity with the site
development requirements of this ordinance and with the standards
of this and other ordinances insofar as the location and appearance
of the proposed development are involved.
FINDING: The applicant's proposal on Parcels 1 & 2 complies, or is conditioned to
comply with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances as
discussed in this report.
(h)
The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all
structures and signs are compatible with the proposed development
and appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood.
FINDING: The proposed buildings will use similar architectural design elements,
materials and colors as typical residential dwellings. The applicant submitted color
and material samples for the proposed project that show a dark gray composition
roof and complimentary trim, gable accents, and horizontal vinyl lap siding. The
extedor colors of each RCF will consist of a light and dark beige ("Desert Sand" and
"Pebblestone Clay"). The exterior materials will be appropriate to the character of
the immediate residential and commercial neighborhood. There are no signs
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 18
IOA
proposed as part of this application. The applicant has shown compliance with this
approval criteria.
5. Chapter 26 RM Multiple Family Residential District
Section 26.010. Uses.
(a) Unlimited number of dwelling
inclUding:
(6) Homes for the Aged;
(~7) Retirement Homes;
units as prescribed in Section 26.080
FINDING: The proposed development is for two residential care facilities which
cater to elderly individuals who are not able to live independently. The proposed
use falls under the above-mentioned categories. This proposed use is permitted
outright in the RM District.
Section 25.040 Height. In an RM District, no building or structure 35 feet or
two and one-half stories in height .....
FINDING: The proposed RCF's will not exceed 20 feet in height, complying with the
maximum height standard in the RM District.
Section 26.050. Side and Rear Yards.
(a)
There shall be a side yard and a rear yard on every lot in an RM
District, which yards shall have a minimum depth as follows:
(1) One story five feet
FINDING: The proposed RCF's will set back no less than 10 feet from all side and
rear yards. The RCF on Parcel 2 is proposed to be located six feet from the side
property line to the south. However, a condition of approval requires there to be a
15-foot landscape buffer along this property line, which will require the structure to
set back 15 feet from said property line. This will cause the building to set back 10
feet from the other side property line to the north (between the two RCF's). By
complying with this condition, the proposed development meets all minimum side
and rear yard setbacks in the RM District.
Section 26.060. Front Yard. In an RM district, there shall be a minimum
front yard of 20 feet. No parking shall be allowed within 20 feet of the front
lot line.
FINDING: The applicant has shown a minimum of an 85-foot front yard setback
from the proposed RCF buildings to the front property line. The applicant does not
FINAL ORDER- CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 19
IOA
show parking within the required 20-foot front yard setback.
development complies with front yard setback requirements.
Sectior~ 26.065. Solar Access.
The proposed
FINDING: A Solar shadow plan submitted by the applicant indicates that the
proposal complies with this section. This plan shows that the proposed RCF
structures on Parcels 1 & 2 will not project a shadow onto adjacent buildings or any
adjacent build!ble area.
Sectio~ 26. 070. Landscaped Yards.
(a) In a~ RM District the following landscaped yards shall be provided for
residential uses other than single and two family dwellings:
(1) For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms - 300 square feet.
One hundred additional square feet for each bedroom over one.
(b) In {an RM District all required yards adjacent to a street shall be
lan~lscaped, except that portion devoted to off-street parking. Such
landscaping may be counted in fulfilling the requirements of (a).
FINDING: Each parcel (Parcels I & 2) with the proposed RCF's will have 57
percent landscaping coverage as a result of this development. Each RCF is to have
11 bedrooms, or living units, requiring a total landscape area of 1,400 sq. ft. (300
+ [11 x 100]). Parcels I & 2 will each be 24,597 sq. ft. in size, and 57 percent of this
area greatly exceeds the 1,400 sq. ft. minimum landscaping area. The yards
adjacent to N. Cascade Drive are to be completely landscaped, except for the
access drives. Landscaping requirements in the RM District have been satisfied.
Section 26.080. Lot Area and Width: In an RM District the minimum
requirements for lot areas shall be 6,000 square feet for a single family
dwelling. The minimum lot area requirements for other residential uses shall
be 5,000 square feet plus additional lot area computed as follows:
(a) For the first through fifth units:
(1) For each dwelling unit with one or fewer bedrooms - 1,200 square
feet.
(b) For the sixth dwelling unit and each succeeding dwelling unit, the
following additional lot area shall be required:
(1) For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms, one story -
1,250 square feet.
FINDING: Each RCF unit will have 11 bedrooms, or living units, requiring 18,500
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 20
IOA
square feet of lot area (5000 sq. ft. + [5 units x 1,200 sq. ft.] + [6 units x 1,250 sq.
ft. ]). As mentioned, each of the parcels on which the RCF's are to be
constructed will be 24,597 sq. ft. in size, exceeding the minimum lot size.
(c) No main building or group of main buildings shall occupy more than
30 percent of the lot area ....
FINDING: Ea,:h of the RCF's will be 5,628 square feet in size, occupying 23
percent of the I: arcels on which they will be constructed (5,628 / 24,597 = 22.8). The
applicant has shown compliance with the above subsection.
(d) Every lot in an RM District shall have a minimum width of 60 feet at
tt~e building line. The minimum lot area requirements for buildings
o:her than dwellings shall be of an area not less than the sum of the
a'ea occupied by the building or buildings, and the area required for
y;~rds herein, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is greater.
FINDING: Each of the proposed three parcels has a minimum frontage and building
line width of 12~3 feet, and the smallest of the parcels (Parcels 1 & 2) will be 24,597
square feet. The proposed development complies with the minimum lot size and
width requirements.
B. Woodburn Landscaping Policies and Standards
Section Villi(D) Multi-family Residential Zone: A landscaping
developme~ht in the RM zone shall meet the following standards:
plan for
1. At least 20% of the total development area shall be landscaped.
FINDING: The applicant's landscaping plan shows that 57 percent of each parcel
on which the RCF's are to be constructed will be landscaped. The applicant has
exceeded this criteria.
2. Landscape strip adjacent to a street shall be at least 5 feet in width.
FINDING: The applicant shows a landscaped strip adjacent to N. Cascade Drive
that vastly exceeds 5 feet in width. The front yard landscape area is approximately
85 feet in width. The applicant has shown compliance with this approval criterion.
(b) Interior landscaping shall be at least 18% of the total parcel area.
FINDING: The applicant has exceeded this requirement as shown on the submitted
landscaping plan. Interior landscaping makes up approximately 50 percent of the
total area of both Parcels I and 2.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 21
IOA
3. Number of required trees shall be determined in the following way:
a)
Frontage street landscaping:
Larg~trees - 2 per 100 feet
Medi~um trees - 3 per 100 feet
Small trees - 4 per 100 feet
FINDING: The landscape plan does not show the required trees along the frontage
of each parcel t~3 be developed. A condition of approval requires trees to be planted
along N. Cascade Drive, in front of Parcels I & 2, in compliance with the above
spacing and tree size standards.
trees shall be ,approved by the
permits on the site.
b) Interi3r landscaping:
At le~
num~
inclu(
The condition further states that the species of
Planning Director prior to issuance of building
~st 8 trees per 1 ac of the total development area (exclusive of the
,er of trees required for the frontage strip) shall be installed and
le the following number of trees in the parking areas:
I sm~ll tree for each 5 parking stalls
I medium tree for each 10 parking stalls
I large tree for each 14 parking stalls
FINDING: The landscape plan indicates that two species of small trees and one
species of large trees are to be planted on portion of the site to be developed. Each
parcel with the RCF's is approximately % acres in size, and each will consist of six
off-street parking stalls. Each parcel has at least three large trees and six small
trees, exceeding the minimum amount of interior trees required.
4. Buffering: where the proposed multi-family residential development abuts:
a) single family residential zone - 15 foot planting strip and a 7 foot
high fence is required.
FINDING: As previously discussed, the project has been conditioned to comply with
the above standards. A solid masonry wall is required for the fence.
b) commercial zone - 10 foot planting strip and a 7 foot wall is
required.
FINDING: A planting strip exceeding 10 feet is provided on the site plan. The site
plan indicates that a 7 foot fence is proposed, but does not specify that it is a wall.
A condition of approval requires that this fence shall comply with the above
standard.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 22
iOA
C. Woodburn Access Management Ordinance
FINDING: N. Cascade Drive (Hwy 214 to W. Hayes) is classified as an access
street. The required driveway spacing is 10 feet. The proposed driveway accesses
on Parcels 1 & 2 exceed this distance from each other and from the adjacent
driveways. The spacing distance of the new driveways (serving Parcels I & 2) from
each other wil! be approximately 170 feet, and each of the new driveways from
adjacent drive,rays exceeds 80 feet in spacing distance. The development
proposal is in ~ompliance with this Ordinance.
D. Woodburn! Transportation System Plan
FINDING: The subject site has access to N. Cascade Drive, Hwy 214, and W.
Hayes Street. ~hese are existing improved streets. A trip generation study was
conducted forithe RCF's on Parcels 1 & 2. Parcel 3 was included in the trip
generation study based on its potential use under RM zoning. The proposed RCF's
are projected tp generate approximately 32 trips per day, and the potential use of
Parcel 3 under,RM~lr zoning is projected to generate an additional 99 trips per day for
a total of 131 tt, ips per day for the entire subject site. The study concluded that the
development will not have any significant impact over current conditions of the
street system, and that all intersections within the area will operate at acceptable
levels of service during peak hours.
E. Woodburn Sign Ordinance
FINDING: The applicant is not proposing any signage as part of this development
application. Any future signs will be required to have sign permit approval prior to
their placement.
PARTITION 0! -07
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 22. RS- Single Family Residential District
Section 22.080. Lot Area and Width.
FINDING: As mentioned, the applicant has proposed to change the zone from RS
to RM on the entire subject property (proposed Parcels 1, 2, & 3). No development
or site plan proposal has been made on Parcel 3, the most southerly of the
proposed parcels. Parcel 3 will exceed the minimum width of 60 feet and the
minimum size of 6,000 sq. ft. required in the RS District. The partitioning of the site
and removal of the single-family home on the northem portion of the subject site will
remove the nonconforming situation of two single-family dwellings on one RS
FINAL ORDER- CPA 01-O2, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 23
IOA
zoned property. A condition of approval requires that the single-family home on the
northern portion of the site be removed pdor to recordation of the partition plat since
this structure Would be located on the new property line between Parcels 1 and 2.
2. Chapter 26. RM - Multiple Family Residential District
FINDING: Parcels 1 & 2 are to be rezoned from RS to RM. As previously
discussed, the RM District requires a minimum lot size of 18,500 square feet for the
particular development proposed. Parcels I & 2 will exceed this minimum lot size
and will exceed the minimum width of 60 feet required in the RM District.
B. Woodburn Subdivision Standards
1. Chapter III.
Section 6. REQUISITES FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION OR PARTITION PLANS~ PLATS OR REPLATS
(6) The subdividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut on a
public street.
FINDING: Each of the proposed parcels will abut N. Cascade Drive, a fully
improved public street.
2. Chapter IV.
Section 13.B. LOTS
All lots shall have a minimum size of the zoning district in which they are
located ..... in no cases shall the lot width be less than 60 feet at the building
line. If topography, drainage, or other conditions justify, the Commission
may require a greater area on any or all lots within a subdivision. The
minimum size for various types of lots shall be as given in the following table:
Type of Lot
Interior Lot (fronting one street)
Minimum Width
60 feet
FINDING: As previously mentioned, each of the proposed parcels will meet the
minimum size requirements for their requested zones. Each of the proposed
parcels is an interior lot. Parcels 1 & 2 have a proposed width of 123 feet, and
Parcel 3 has a proposed width of 124 feet, complying with the minimum.
VI. CONCLUSION:
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 24
IOA
Based on the findings of fact contained herein, all relevant approval criteria relating
to approval of'the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for
proposed Pardel 3 are not met.
Based on the findings of fact contained herein, all relevant approval criteria relating
to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, and Site
Plan Review fc[r proposed Parcels 1 and 2, and the Partition for proposed Parcels
1, 2, and 3 are~ met.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 25
IOA
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
coMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 01-02
ZONE CHANGE 01-05
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-13
PARTITION 01-07
Community Development Department Conditions:
ZONE CHANGE 01-0~6
This zone change is conditioned to restdct uses allowed on proposed Parcels 1 and 2
to those uses which are permitted uses in the RM (Multiple Family Residential) District
except that Multiple Family Dwelling Units and any use listed as a conditional use shall
not.be allowed.
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-03
The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with this approval and
the attached preliminary plans provided in Exhibit "E" (sheet L-1 dated 11-13-01, sheet
SP-1 dated 10-12-01, and sheets A5 and ^6, dated 10-05-01), except as herein
modified by these conditions of approval.
This Site Plan Review approval is subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zone Change. Issuance of building permits shall not occur until the
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change are effective.
All exterior lighting shall be deflected away from adjacent properties and shall not glare
or shine on the adjacent public right-of-way. An outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits.
o
A 15-foot landscape buffer shall be provided along the south side of Parcel 2. The RCF
structure on Parcel 2 shall be shifted to the north to a distance of 15 feet from the south
property line to accommodate the buffer.
o
Street trees shall be required along the street frontage of Parcels 1 & 2. Spacing shall
depend on the size and species of tree to be used. Small sized trees shall be spaced
at a distance of 4 for every 100 feet of street frontage, medium size trees at a distance
of 3 for every 100 feet of frontage, and large trees at a distance of 2 for every 100 feet
of frontage. The species of trees to be used shall be approved by the Planning Director
prior to issuance of building permits on the site.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 26
IOA
7. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit one set of reproducible as-
builts.
o
A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community
Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaped areas shall
include a permanently installed irrigation system. Landscape plantings shall be
watered regularly and in a manner appropriate for the specific plant species through the
first growing sea, son, and dead and dying plants shall be replaced by the
applicant/prope~ owner during the next planting season. No buildings, structures,
storage of materials, or parking shall be permitted within the required landscape and
buffer areas. All landscape and buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of all
debris, weeds and tall grass.
9. Curbing, striping, ~prinkler system(s) and lighting shall be kept in good condition. ,Any
damage shall be rlgpaired in a timely manner.
10.,A solid masonry Wall seven (7) feet in height shall be constructed along the south
property line of proposed Parcel 2. Said wall shall comply with vision clearance and
front yard height requirements.
11.A solid masonry Wall seven (7) feet in height shall be constructed along the north
property line of prOposed Parcel 1. Said wall shall comply with vision clearance and
front yard height requirements.
PARTITION 01-07
12. The final partition plat shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
within the required time period after preliminary plat approval (currently one year from
the date of Planning Commission approval).
13.The partition shall; be platted according to standard surveying practice and approved
and recorded with Marion County.
14. Prior to recordation with Marion County, two paper copies of partition plat shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for review. The applicant shall
provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the recorded partition
plat.
15.The existing single-family home on Parcels 1 & 2 shall be removed from the site prior
to recordation of the partition plat.
16. Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar of the final plat shall be filed with the
Public Works Department after all required signatures have been obtained and the
plat has been recorded with Marion County.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 27
IOA
17. The property owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Department a signed "Acceptance of Conditions" agreeing to all conditions of
approval prior to recordation of the final subdivision plat. The signed document
must be received by the Community Development Department before the project
approval becomes effective.
Public Works Department Conditions:
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
18. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
19. On-site existing water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be
abandoned in accordance with state regulations.
20. The applicant/owner is responsible for obtaining permits from any state and/or
federal agencies Which may require approval or permit.
21.All city maintained facilities located on private property will require a minimum 16
foot wide utility easements be conveyed to the city.
22.AII work within the public right-of-way or public easement shall conform to the City of
Woodburn standards and specifications. All work on private property shall conform
to all State Building and Fire Codes. ..
STREET AND DRAINAGE:
23. On-site storm water runoff shall discharge to the street through weep holes in the
curb. Runoff from the parking lot shall not discharge across the public sidewalk.
24. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties.
25. Driveway approaches shall conform to the City of Woodburn commercial standards.
WATER:
26. This development can be served by the existing 8" diameter city water main within
Cascade Drive.
27.A separate service shall be installed to each parcel. Water meters shall be placed in
the public right of way of Cascade Drive.
28. Proper backflow devices will be required on the domestic and irrigation/fire sprinkler
service. The domestic water line will require a Reduced Pressure Device. The
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 28
IOA
irrigation and fire sprinkler system if installed will require Double Check Device. The
fire sprinkler device will also require a detector check. The device shall be installed
next to the meter. Contact Larry ^rendt, City of VVoodburn Cross Connection
Inspector at 503.982.5283 for installation requirements.
29. Fire hydrant locations, fire protection and access requirements shall comply with the
VVoodburn Fire DiStricts conditions of permit approval.
SANITARY SEWER:i
30. This developmen~ can be served by the existing city maintained sanitary sewer main
within Cascade Ddve.
31.A separate service shall be provided for each parcel, service to be installed by the
applicant.
FINAL ORDER - CPA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 Page 29
IOA
EXHIBIT "B"
Planning Commission Minutes
5109102
IOA
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
May 9, 2002
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Cox presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Cox P
Vice Chairperson Lima P
Commissioner Young P
Commissioner Grosjacques P
Commissioner Mill P
Commissioner Bandelow P
Commissioner Lonergan P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney
MINUTES
A. Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2002
~'ommissioner Mill moved t~ accept the minutes as written. Commissioner Loner,qan seconded the motion,
~ ~y carried.l
BUSINESS FROM THE A~DIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A-- City Council Minu :es of April 8, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING
A.~. Comprehensive PI
Partition 01-07, re(
Residential to Higl
Residential to Mul
request also inclu
in size and a Parti'
Chairperson Cox provided;
an Map Amendment 0t-02, Zone Change 01-05, Site Plan Review 01-13 and
luest to amend the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density
~ Density Residential and change the zonina deslanation from Sinflle-Family
Ii-Family Residential on a 1.7 acre lot located at 847 N. Cascade Drive. The
les a Site Plan Review proposal for 2 residential care facilities 5,628 sq. ft.
:ion request to divide the lot into 3 parcels.
~n opening statement for Public Hearing and opened the hearing.
EXPARTE CONTACTS
Commissioner Bandelow reported the sale of the property that is involved in this particular public hearing was
handled through the office that she works. She indicated it is best that she excused herself from participating
in this hearing although she had no direct involvement in that sale but there has been discussion in the office
about the Zone Change.
Commissioner Mill, Commissioner Loner,qan, Commissioner Youn.q, Vice Chairperson Lima and Chairperson
Cox all reported they drove by and looked at the location.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. He
stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change meets all approval criteria for proposed
parcels 1 and 2, but not for parcel 3. Parcel 3 should remain zoned Single Family to provide a transition area
and buffer between proposed parcels 1 and 2 and the existing Single Family residence to the south of Parcel
3. He reported the proposed Site Plan meets all municipal code requirements. The Partition also meets all
municipal code requirements for partitioning the lot and that they all will be of sufficient size and width to
satisfy municipal code. In conclusion, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 1 of 10
IOA
for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change on proposed parcel 3 and recommended
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review for proposed parcels
1 and 2 and approve the Partition application for all three parcels subject to the conditions of approval outlined
in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Lonerclan referred to page 9 of the Staff Report and commented the recommendation for the
architectural wall is not anywhere in the conclusion or recommendations.
Staff replied he does not see that specific condition in the Staff Report. He indicated that needs to be added
as a condition if the Commission does follow Staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Loner.qan also referenced the second paragraph contained on page 19 of the Staff Report and
expressed his confusion regarding the RCF's and the lot areas.
Staff clarified the 24,597 figure is the lot size and the 5,628 is the area of the structure. He explained within
eac~ structure there will be eleven bedrooms comprising 15 beds. Therefore, 4 of the bedrooms will have
2 beds in each of the rooms. Staff further explained each bedroom, for purposes of calculating the required
lot area for multiple family, was considered a living unit. He further stated this is consistent on how it has been
done on other senior projects. It was stated by Staff part of the confusion is the code does not give us a
specific way of dealing with senior projects.
Vice Chairperson Lima.. inquired whether the existing North fence will be replaced or remain the same?
.Staff suggested the question be presented to the applicant as he did not have the answer.
TESTIMONY BY APPLICANT
Leon' Oliver, 1425 NW Ponderosa St., Grants Pass, OR addressed Vice Chairperson Lima's question
regarding the fence and stated he has not personally inspected the fence but it may not be adequate for their
purposes. He indicated these facilities will be licensed to house Alzheimer patients and therefore they need
to have pretty impenetrable fences because Alzheimer patients have a tendency to want to elope at times.
Mr. Oliver further stated he does not know whether the present fence belongs to his property or the neighbors
property. Additionally, he said the surveys on this property are so old they are going to have pins relocated
when they do the partition and they will know at that point who the fence belongs to. It was indicated they were
blind sighted when they received the Staff Report on the recommendation of denial for parcel 3 on the Zone
Change. Mr. Oliver reported through all of the application process, it was never mentioned that might remain
single family zoning. It seemed obvious to them that it should be RM zone because only 80 feet of its 199 foot
boundary at the South line abuts the single family zone. He commented they designed everything based on
the idea that the whole thing was going to be zoned RM. It was suggested by Mr. Oliver that they could move
the building on parcel 2 slightly to the North to achieve the 15 foot buffer but then they will not conform with
the Ordinance Section on Solar because they would be too close to the building on the North. Additionally,
he commented had they known that this was going to be an issue, they might have included yet another item
in the application for a Variance for the Solar. In closing, Mr. Oliver stated the only solution that would put
them in compliance would be if the seller would allow the applicant to purchase another 15 feet of parcel 3.
~ questioned if parcel 3 has been separately sold to somebody else?
Leon Oliver replied he is not the applicant but the representative. The applicant, Mr. Cummings who is the
contractor/owner, is buying the two parcels from the seller subject to this approval and the third parcel would
remain with the seller. Mr. Oliver indicated they did not anticipate parcel 3 would remain Single Family zone
and it was logical to divide it as equally into thirds as possible. He added the Commission might have seen
a different application if they had different information before this last week. Additionally, he clarified what a
residential care facility is and stated under Federal Law residential care facilities are allowed in any Single
Family zone and can not be conditioned any differently than a Single Family home. The Oregon Law
attempted to say that but was worded poorly and it can be interpreted to say that jurisdictions like Woodburn
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 2 of 10
IOA
have discretion on what zone they can put them in. Mr. Oliver stated he included with his application a copy
of the Oregon Attorney General's opinion that states that is not the case and you have to allow them in any
Single Family zone. The structure looks a lot like a large house inside and out but they only have one kitchen,
one laundry facility and one living room. Mr. Oliver further commented they are an alternative to the big box
care centers.
Commissioner Mill asked if essentially a residential care facility would be an overgrown adult foster home?
Leon Oliver responded affilmatively.
Commissioner Youn.q inqulred what level of care will they be providing?
Leon Oliver replied it is agii~g in place concept. It is not a medical facility and there is no nursing staff at the
location. He explained a purse supervises medication on a monthly basis. The residents are typically
ambulatory but are too infirm to live independently.
Commissioner Mill asked t,he applicant how many people will be on staff?
Leon Oliver reported it will ~ary according to the time of day but there will be at least one overnight when the
residents are asleep. It will peak at about 3:00 pm and at shift ovedaps which happen around meal time.
Vice Chairperson Lima qpestioned how many of these projects has Mr. Oliver been involved with?
Additionally, he requested Clarification as to whether they will have Alzheimer residents at this facility.
Leon Oliver answered he h~as been involved in about 20-22 projects. Furthermore, he reported they expect
to be licensed for Alzheime~r patients so they will have that option available and the buildings will be built with
that ia mind. He explair~ed Alzheimer is a progressive disease and at some point you have to have
supervision almost one on ione for the patients. Certainly, they do not need that type of supervision at the
earlier stages of Alzheimer. Mr. Oliver further explained dementia is put in the same package for State
licensing with Alzheimer.
Vice Chairperson Lima expressed concerns in that they may have a relatively small number of employees
when they are expecting patients requiring full time care.
Leon Oliver commented they are residents and not patients. These are folks that may not see their doctor
once a month and they are not in the late stages of whatever malady they may have. He explained they do
not have capacity anymore to live entirely on their own. Mr. Oliver pointed out the Rule and Statute Excerpts
which are included in the Staff Report provides a lot more insight into what it is they are actually doing.
Commissioner Mill expressed curiosity as to why they have a garage rather than converting it into some other
type of space.
Leon Oliver replied they will use it as storage, additional parking and it does lend to the type of curb appeal
of a residence rather than an institution.
TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS
Tim Cummings, 236 NW [B St., Grants Pass, OR reported unfortunately the State of Oregon minimum
requirements for staffing is one staff person for 15 residents. However, they are not proposing to staff at that
level. He stated they would be looking at each person and figure out what their daily habits are, wake times,
sleep times and eat times because all the residents are different and then theywould staffthose accordingly.
Mr. Cummings further repc~'ted they will have an administrator at each facility and a minimum of two people
dudng the day and then staff it according to the needs of the residents. He reiterated care plans are prepared
for each individual resident. Additionally, he remarked the needs are a little different in larger facilities. Mr.
Cummings commented their facility is a little bit different because it is a facility that has more home like setting
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 3 of 10
IOA
and not as much like an institution type setting where they are able to probably be pdced a little less than the
larger facilities. He addressed the garage issue and stated it will be utilized more like storage in the fact that
a lot of the residents bdng their own furniture and items in and they need a space to put those in. It was
explained each individual room contains a bedroom and a restroom with all the bathing done in a central
location.
Commissioner Loner.qan asked what is the average length of stay for their residents?
Tim Cummin,qs replied he does not work with that part of the numbers.
Vice Chairperson Lima inquired if they have any numbers as to how much each resident would be charged?
Tim Cummin.qs responded they have not done a study. A new facility will be opening up in Salem around mid-
June that is exactly the same as this proposed facility. He reported it would probably run around $2,400 a
month.
Mel Counts, 1581 Matheny Rd. NE, Gervais, OR stated he is the listed agent for the property. He commented
he agreed with Staff in that there should be a buffer zone. However, he inquired why can't there be a buffer
zone or wall for the entire property at the southern end of the property? He said Staff mentioned there is a
possibility that there could be two residences on the property that is left over. Therefore, you actually have
to provide a buffer zone for two residences instead of one which is on the southern property. Additionally, he
remarked it is a nice package having the whole thing zoned Multi-Family to the eastern part of the street and
the north side. He said he would appreciate it if the Commission would consider zoning the whole parcel
Multi-Family.
TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS
In.cldd Sti.qerts, 966 Ore.qon Way, Woodbum, OR reported her home looks out onto this property. She
prefaced by stating St. Mary's Episcopal Church wanted to do a year ago a complex similar to this but their
archdiocese said no because there are too many in the Woodbum area and it would not be profitable.
Additionally, she remarked the traffic to make a left turn on Cascade to 214 is usually horrendous. She
pointed out several of the other residential facilities are all going to be looking for residents. It was Mrs.
Sflgerts feeling that if this complex is not going to be filled, it will run down and there will be another
landscaping problem. In closing, she said there was no addressing what will be done to the West of this
property which abuts the 11~ fairway of the golf course.
Leon Oliver interjected a typical solid vinyl fence is proposed to separate the project from the golf course.
Barbara Sharp, 855 N. Cascade Dr., Woodbum stated her property is adjacent to parcel 3 and she is highly
opposed to this project. Additionally, she is representing five of her neighbors that could not be here tonight.
She also referenced the traffic situation Mrs. Stigerts raised and further commented her husband has been
asked not to park his truck in front of their home because of the traffic. Mrs. Sharp also reported the street
parking is bumper to bumper on both sides of the street when she leaves in the mornings usually about 9:30
am and there is no where to park on that street. If additional vehicles are added, they will be sitting in front
of her door. Additionally, she expressed concerns with what is happening to the golf course and expressed
disappointment in that the old house is not being sold as one parcel. However, she approves the Commission
not approving that third parcel for Multi-Family and would rather see the old house stay than to have an
apartment next door to her property.
Chairperson Cox asked Staff if there was anything in the Staff Report regarding traffic impact statement?
Staff answered there was a traffic study done and the Staff Report addressed that. He reported this facility
would generate less traffic than if this property was fully developed with Single Family residences.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 4 of 10
10A
Leon Oliver addressed two issues the first being the market place for this type of housing. He indicated they
submitted population data based out of the Oregon Blue Book and other resources showing the growth of the
over 60 population in Woodburn and showing its relationship to the rest of the State. Mr. Oliver commented
they are here tonight becadse they are confident in the market place and are quite confident that they are not
going to have a problem with empty beds. As far as the traffic, he remarked their residents do not ddve and
do not get constant doctor, nurse or physical therapy visits. Therefore, this project is a very Iow traffic
generator. It was reported by Mr. Oliver that his analysis of the two facilities, which they have traffic data on,
and full build out on Multi-Family on parcel 3 there was 16 trips per day more than what could be done with
a full build out in the Single ~Family scenario that you have now. He further added 16 trips per day is less than
two Single Family homes, lit was also indicated by Mr. Oliver most of the traffic generated by the ^lzheimer
facility typically do not occur at peak hour.
Vice Chairperson Lima asl~ed the applicant what license class will they apply for?
Leon Oliver replied it would be a Class II license with an Alzheimer endorsement. He explained Health and
~--~n ~'~-rv ces puts a rider on your license if you are going to house Alzheimer residents.
DISCUSSION
~ closed tl3e Public Hearing and opened for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Grosiacqu~s requested clarification regarding the shadow situation.
Staff remarked he does not see that being an issue in this situation although the code does have shadow
access protection provisions. However, under the current code that can be waived by the adjacent property
owner. He further stated since the applicant controls the affected property, the applicant can waive it or wait
until the new development code becomes effective July l't which does not have as stringent requirements as
under the current code.
~on Cox explained for the record that even if the Commission were to approve the Site Development
Plan it would be conditioned upon the fact that the Council goes ahead and approves the Zone Change and
the Comprehensive Plan change.
Commissioner Mil! addressed Mrs. Sharp's comments and stated her points are very valid and one that Staff
is concerned with as well as himself. The issue being what is going to happen with Parcel 3 as far as
changing that to residential multi-family or keep as residential single family. Commissioner Mill agreed that
it should be kept as residential single family. He pointed out it does abut a sensitive residential area and for
that reason he would concur with what Staff is saying in that area. Additionally, since there does not seem
to be a solar access issue there would not be a need to go into Parcel 3 to erode part of that space to create
a 15 foot landscape buffer. In closing, he stated the area should be kept as residential single and not
residential multi-family without a firm Site Plan in place for that piece of property at this point in time.
Commissioner Loner.qan commented it makes sense that we do leave that as a single family residence and
he favored that. The facility would fit well in the rest of the neighborhood and he is glad that there will be an
architectural wall as a break. He stated he will have to believe that there is a need and their figures made
sense with 22% in the senior population and believed that the applicant would not make this type of
investment if there weren't that need. Therefore, he is convinced that Woodburn is destined for this type of
facility. He addressed the problem with traffic but he does not think that this facility would generate that much
traffic where it would be a problem.
Commissioner Youn.q agreed with Staffs placement of the wall and the landscaping strip between Parcel 2
and Parcel 3 because that really is where the transition occurs between multi-family and single family. He
remarked parking on the street would be one drawback with the project because he knows that street is
always fully parked during the day.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 5 of 10
IOA
Chairperson Cox concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He indicated he might not have any great concern
with regard to leaving Parcel 3 as single family rather than changing it to multi-family if he knew they were
going to build another facility like these two on that third lot. Chairperson Cox stated it would be totally out of
character to that neighborhood and would be an imposition on the people who live to the South along Cascade
who bought preperty which abutted preperty zoned single family. He further commented it would be a bad
precedent to suddenly put apartments next to them and indicated the buffer needs to be preserved.
Chairperson Cox believed the line should be drawn where Staff recommends because it seems to make
sense and because prebably the people who bought along Cascade relied on that when they bought the
preperties. Additionally, he referred to the pictures contained in the Staff Report and remarked the existing
house that is preposed to remain has prebably totally outlived its second amount of life and is an eyesore in
the neighborhood. He believed the Commission would have the power as part of the conditions that the
applicant in order to go ahead and do what they are preposing, that the existing house has to be somehow
upgraded at least so it is not an eyesore in the neighborhood, i.e., repainted, brush cut back. He
recommended a condition be placed in that the remaining house on the parcel 3 either be removed or
upgraded before an occupancy permit is issued on the residential care facility properties.
Deniece Won interjected Staff consulted with her today with that question and they were unable to come up
with anything in the Zoning Ordinance that has authority for doing that. She thought, as a land use matter,
the Commission lacked the authority to make that a condition of this approval. Furthermore, she stated there
is a potentiality of the building being a nuisance and being abated under another type of ordinance.
Leon Oliver requested the hearing be reopened so that he may address these issues.
Chairperson Cox suggested to reopen the hearing to address the issue of the condition of either removing
or upgrading the remaining house and what is going to happen to it.
Commissioner Young explained the reason for dividing the single property into three parcels is to develop
Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. Parcel 3 really is only the dividing line and there really is no connection with Parcel 3
to this project.
Chairperson Cox called a 10 minute break.
10 MINUTE BREAK
Deniece Won stated she discussed with the applicant during the break a number of different scenarios to
accommodate the concerns of the Commission and the Chair. She indicated in her mind it was left that the
applicant had to decide what they wanted to do as she could not give them any advice because some of it is
strategic choices. To some degree, based upon that bit of conversation she thought it might be wise to let
the applicant have a say about that one subject.
Chairperson Cox reopened the hearing limited to the ability to condition the Commission's decision with
respect to doing some aesthetic imprevements to the house that would remain.
Tim Cummings reported they postponed this application because they thought the noticing requirements were
going to change soon but that did not occur. It was indicated by Mr. Cummings the seller is wanting to close
on the preperty and he is reluctant to try to do a continuance. He questioned how substantially changed would
the application be if they slid the Site Plan over to Lot 2 and Lot 3? Mr. Cummings requested the Commission
go down the read they were intending and try to do that maneuvering prior to the City Council meeting instead
of requesting a continuance.
Leon Oliver suggested the Commission make a finding in that they shift one of the Site Plans 9 feet to create
a 15 foot landscape buffer, then it isn't all that big of a stretch to make a condition that they shift over on the
lots. He explained the lots are identical and no difference in utility access and that they submit a revised Site
Plan for Staff's review.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 6 of 10
IOA
Deniece Won interjected primarily Staffs view and professional judgement on analyzing the criteria and
whether having those residential care facilities close on the lot that they were recommending not do make the
Zone Change on in order tO have a buffer, is affected and is a legal dilemma.
Staff also added it would modify the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Chairperson Cox questioned Mr. Oliver why could he not get by and do what he wants to do without getting
a High Density Residential Zoning on Parcel 3 and just leave it zoned Single Family but go ahead and build
the facility there?
Leon Oliver responded the Woodburn Ordinance does not acknowledge the case law that allows them in a
Single Family Zones.
Deniece Won reported the,'e are occasions when our Ordinance is not in compliance with State law. To her
knowledge there has not ~een any exploration of the question about whether our existing Ordinance is
compliant and whether or n 3t this applicant has a right to do what they want to do under State law and whether
or not Staff would recognize that.
Commissioner Loner,qan s~aid he would feel uncomfortable voting to have all of those change to Multi-Family
without knowing what type]ofl~ Multi-Family facility would be going in to that North end at this point.
Commissioner Lima comrqented in the manyyears he has been on the Planning Commission, this is the most
~ring. He stated the Commission either follows Staff recommendations or goes against it. He
thought the Commission can not change what has been proposed at this point. Shifting the parcels to him
means a completely new application.
Chairperson Cox interjected he felt the Commission is not in the position to fully analyze this properly at this
meeting with what they ha~/e available to them. He said since the Commission received testimony from
proponents, he asked the Opponents whether they had anything additional to comment.
Barbara Sharp remarked they would not have an objection having a care facility next to them because it would
be a lot cleaner to what they have there now.
Chairperson Cox re-closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Mill said although he likes the project, he felt the whole application should be denied and have
the applicant come back with something that closely fits what is now the desire of the applicant and the
neighbors. He further commented he does not see it put together legally where they can do that to the
satisfaction of everyone.
Commissioner Lima expressed concerns with the lack of clear information by the applicants and it does not
appear to him that they know what they are talking about as far as licensing. He said although they may have
great knowledge and expertise in building, they have not come prepared to answer some questions in terms
of Alzheimer licensing that will affect a lot of people.
Chairperson Cox commented the Commission does not have the authority or expertise to regulate care
facilities. The applicant will have to comply with State regulations and if the applicants are a little vague about
what they are, he is sure there is somebody on their team that will get that straightened out before they can
open up their doors.
Commissioner Mill moved to deny Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02. There was no second and
therefore, motion did not carry.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 7 of l 0
10A
Commissioner Loner.qan questioned if by accepting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2, he could tie in the building?
Staff answered it can not be done with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment but you can condition a Zone
Change but Staff was trying to avoid a Conditional Zone Change because it has some inherent difficulties in
trying to reconcile it with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment especially if the development does not go
forward. However, you have the ability to condition the Zone Change based on this specific project.
Commissioner Mill asked ifiby doing that you would then be keeping the RS for Parcel 3 and RM for Parcels
1 and 2? Additionally, he questioned if this would affect the Partitioning and the Site Plan?
Staff responded that is his understanding based on the motion which was to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to RM on Parcels I and 2 and deny the request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment on Parcel 3. He indicated this would not affect the Partitioning nor this proposed Site Plan. He
further stated by approvinglthe Comprehensive Plan Amendment on Parcels 1 and 2 and the Zone Change
to RM, the applicant is not bound to construct this project because the zoning is being changed. Unless you
were to do a Conditional ZOne Change, they could decide to come with an apartment complex on Parcels 1
and 2. Staff stated they did not find an issue with that and believes an apartment complex on Parcels 1 and
2 still makes sense as far as Comprehensive Plan and Zoning as long as Parcel 3 provides the buffering and
transition area.
Commissioner Loner,qan cOmmented he has problems with transportation issues which opens up a whole new
ball game.
Staff clarified Staff analyzed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on High Density Residential, not on
this s. pecific project. The traffic analysis was addressed in the Staff Report and showed if the project was built
out to maximum density under Single Family and maximum density under Multi-Family there was only a
difference of 40 tdps per day, 196 for Single Family and 239 for Multiple Family.
Commissioner Loner.qan withdrew his previous motion.
Commissioner Mill moved to deny Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02 as a recommendation to City
Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lima. Motion carried with Commissioner YounR and
~ voting No. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote as she recused herself from this headng.
Deniece Won. interjected we need the Commission's findings on all the criteria for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. She summarized the Commission's reasoning appears to be: the applicant had not persuaded
them, they had not met the burden of proof, and the cdteria were not satisfied with respect to the impacts.
Commissioner Loner.qan. asked if it is possible to do the Comprehensive Change and tie the Zone Change
into this project?
Staff replied you have the ability to condition the Zone Change to this specific project. He explained the
Comprehensive Plan can not be conditioned.
Deniece Won explained the law is not perfectly clear but there is a lot of question about the ability to condition
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and she advised Staff to avoid doing that. She quoted a case that
specifically linked a Comp Plan Amendment to a reverter if the development that was expected did not
happen. Ms. Won further explained when you go through a Comp Plan Amendment you have to go through
a certain procedure and consider certain criteria and you are not doing that at the point in time when you are
reverting so you are not in compliance with the Conditioned Comp Plan Amendment. She added you could
condition a Zone Change. However, the cleanest way to do it is to link the conditions to one of the approval
cdteda, i.e., you are not supposed to have impact on the facilities, there is too much traffic for the full set of
uses that could be allowed in the zone so you are going to allow uses that go up to a certain point of traffic
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 8 of 10
10A
impact and not beyond. Ms. Won expressed concerns about defending a condition that links the Zone
Change to a very particular Site Plan. However, she could not say that is not defensible.
There was consensus by the members of the Commission that voted in favor of the previous motion to
reconsider that vote.
Commissioner Young recammended approval of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02 for Parcels
1 and 2 and recommend t(, City Council to deny Parcel 3 and requested Staff return with facts and findings
to reflect the Commission's; request. Commissioner Grosiacques seconded the motion, which carried with
Commissioner Mill and Vi~;e Chairperson Lima voting No. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote on this
motion as she recused he~ self from this hearing.
Commissioner GrosiacquE s moved to recommend to City Council the approval of Zone Change 01-05 as to
Parcels 1 and 2 but deny as to Parcel 3 and that the change be conditioned upon uses as a residential care
facility and Staff return wi :h proposed findings. Commissioner Loner.qan seconded the motion. Motion
carried with Commissione~' Bandelow abstaining from voting as she recused herself from this hearing.
Chairperson Cox commenied Staff will need to come up with the reasons the Commission is conditioning it.
He provided assistance arid indicated it is his sense that the applicant has convinced the Commission that
they met their burden of l~ersuasion in addressing the various elements of the standards that they have to
meet as to this type of us~. but they have not addressed and the Commission are not convinced upon the
record before them that the,y could comply with those standards if they were talking about an otherwise more
intensive use that might be, a/lowed in that zone.
Commissioner Mill adde~l as well as the fact that it is a compatible use for traffic and surrounding
neighborhood impact.
Deniece Won questioned if in the Commission's mind it is tied to that particular use or is it residential care
facilities and any use allowed in the RM zone that is less intensive?
There was a consensus by the Commission that it is tied to residential care facility or less intense than a
residential care facility.
Commissioner Young requested clarification as to the definition of residential care facility.
Deniece Won responded future uses are going to be determined under the Woodburn Development
Ordinance rather than the Woodbum Zoning Ordinance. She reviewed the permitted uses and commented
the one use that is outright permitted that would be clearly a higher intensity use as Multiple Family uses.
Every other would be permitted under a decision that limited it to residential care facility.
Commissioner Lima moved to approved Partition 01-07 as proposed by Staff. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner GrosiaccluDs, which carded. Commissioner Bandelow excused herself from this hearing and
therefore abstained from voting.
Chairperson Cox inquired if it is stated in the conditions that the necessary Zone change and Comp Plan
change be made? He further indicated it needs to be included if it is not included already.
Staff replied it is not included. However, by law, until the Comp Plan and Zoning is approved they can not
legally develop it because it does not comply with the Ordinance. He further commented it is not necessary
to have it there.
Commissioner Lima requested clarification regarding resolution to the wall and fencing issue.
Staff clarified the Site Plan showed a 7 foot fence, although it was not clear whether that meant that the
applicant was going to build one or whether the existing fence was 7 feet. Under our Landscaping Policy
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 9 of 10
IOA
Standards, there is a buffer requirement between Multiple-Family Residential development that abuts a
Commercial Zone to have a 10 foot planting strip which is provided and a 7 foot wall is required. Staff
reported the new Development Ordinance would not require the less intensive use to buffer themselves from
more intensive. Certainly the applicant has the opportunity to buffer themselves if they choose. Furthermore,
under the new Ordinance when the abutting property is a CO Zone, wall requirements shall be determined
in conjunction with the applicable design review process.
Chairperson Cox requested Staff's recommendation in determining how to address this issue.
Deniece Won interjected it should be addressed as the code requires. She stated the applicant's proposal
is judged by the criteria that were in place when he filed his application and if that code is specific and explicit,
that is what he is required to do and it should be a condition of the approval.
Commissioner Grosiacque~; moved to approve Site Plan Review 01-13 to include the conditions of a 7 foot
solid wall on the South property line and that the separation between the property on the North side be a wall
in compliance with Chapter 8 Section D-4 of the Woodbum Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Lonergan
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mill requested clarification regarding Police Department comments regarding outdoor lighting.
Staff clarified Staff will review and approve the outdoor lighting plan taking into consideration the Police
Department recommendations.
Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote because of the reasons previously stated.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
None"
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORTS
A_.~. Building Activity for April 2002
B_~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 5-1-02)
BUSINESS FROM THE C0MMISSION
Commissioner Bandelow announced she will not be present at the next meeting,
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded and carried. Meeting adjourned
at 9:33 p.m.
ATTEST
APPROVED
CLAUDIO LIMA, RSON
Jim I l er,
Cor~imqhity Development Director
city of 3/Voodburn, Oregon
DATE
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 10 of 10
IOA
EXHIBIT "C"
Planning Commission Staff Report
5109102
IOA
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
STAFF REPORT
May 9, 2002
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 01-02
ZONE CHANGE 01-05
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-13
PARTITION 01-07
I1.
III.
APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Leon Oliver
1425 NW Ponderosa St.
Grants Pass, OR 97526
Property Owner:
Father Eugene Heidt
18153 Power Creek Loop Rd.
Silverton, OR 97381
Application Deemed Complete: December 11, 2001
~'120 Day Deadline: N/A .-,.
Staff Report Available for Public Review: May 6, 2002
NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation on a
residential property from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and change
the Zone Map designation from Single-Family Residential (RS) Distdct to Multi-Family
Residential (RM) District. The request also includes a Site Plan Review application for
two proposed residential care facilities and a Partition application to divide the property
into three parcels.
RELEVANT FACTS:
The subject site is located south of Hwy 214 (Newber9 Hwy) on the west side of N.
Cascade Drive, near the intersection of Hwy 214 and N. Cascade Drive. It is addressed
at 847 N. Cascade Drive, further identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as
Township 5 South, Range 2 West, Section 12DA, Tax Lot 2000.
The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential (RS) District with a
Comprehensive Plan Map designation of Low Density Residential (Less Than 12 Units
Per Acre). The property is 1.7 acres in size (73,992 sq. ft.) and is virtually fiat. There are
currently two single-family homes and three accessory buildings on the site. Properties
in RS Districts are only allowed to have one single-family dwelling per lot. As a result, the
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 1
IOA
IV.
subject site is legal-nonconforming with its two homes. One of the homes and one of the
accessory structures will be removed as part of this project. The other existing structures
on the south side of the site are to remain. The proposed three-parcel partition and the
removal of the Single-family home on the north side of the site will remove this legal non-
conforming status. There are trees and shrubs on the site, and most are to be removed
to accommodatle the proposed development.
The property is I_o be divided into three parcels. The applicant proposes to construct two
residential care ~facilities (RCF's), one on each of the two proposed parcels. The parcels
with the RCF's xvill each be 24,597 sq. ft. in size and take up the north 2/3 of the existing
property. Each of the RCF's are proposed to be 15-bed residential care units 5,628 sq.
ft. in size. The remaining 1/3 of the property to the south will be 24,797 sq. ft. and will
encompass an ,"xisting single-family home and two accessory structures, which are to
remain on the )arcel. The applicant has not proposed site plan review approval for
Parcel 3. ~
The adjacent prpperty to the north is zoned Commercial Office (CO) and is designated
on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Commercial; this property currently has a bank. The
adjacent properties to the east (across N. Cascade Drive) are zoned Multi-Family
Residential (RM) District and are designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as
Commercial; these properties consist of senior.multi-family housing. There are two
?adjacent properties to the south with separate designations.. The property that fronts N.
Cascade Drive is zoned RS Distdct and hasa Comprehensive Plan Map.designation of
Low Density ReSidential (Less Than 12 Units Per Acre); this property has an existing
single-family home. The other adjacent property to the south, which is also the adjacent
property to the West, is zoned Public Amusement (PA)-District and has a Comprehensive
Plan Map designation of Open Space and Parks; this property is part of the Senior
Estates Golf CoUrse.
RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
Comprehensive iPian Map Amendment 01-07
A. Statewide Planning Goals
B. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
1. Residential Land Development Policies
2. Housing Goals and Policies
3. Public Service Goals and Policies
4. Growth and Urbanization Policies
C. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO)
1. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Zone Change 01-05
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 15. Zone Change Procedure
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr, Page 2
IOA
Ve
2. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Site Plan Review 01-13
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 8. General Standards
2. Chapter 9. Residential Standards
3. Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
4. Chapter 11. Site Plan Review
5. Chapter 26. RM - Multi-Family Residential District
B. Woodburn Landscaping Policies and Standards
C. Woodburn AcCess Management Ordinance
D. Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan
E. Woodburn Sign Ordinance
Partition 01-07
Ao
Be
Woodbum Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 22. RS - Single-Family Residential Distdct
1. Chapter 26. RM - Multi-Family Residential Distdct
Woodburn Subdivision Standards
~1. Chapter !11. Procedures .: ,..
2. Chapter IV. Design ~- · ,,,,~ :,..
ANALYSIS:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 00-01
A. Statewide Planning Goals
Goal I -Citizen Involvement
STAFF COMMENT: Goal I calls for "...the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process..." The citizen involvement procedures and policies for
Woodburn are established in the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
This goal will be met through the appropriate notice and public hearing procedures.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 2 outlines the basic procedures of Oregon's statewide planning
program. It says that land use decisions are to be made in accordance with a
comprehensive plan, and that suitable "implementation ordinances" to put the plan's
policies into effect must be adopted. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan is
acknowledged as complying with Statewide Planning Goals. This application is being
processed under the provisions set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. This goal has
been met.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 014)5, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 3
IOA
Goal 3- Agricultural Lands
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands." It then requires counties to
inventory such lands and to "preserve and maintain" them through farm zoning. The
subject property is currently within the city limits and urban growth boundary. Therefore,
this goal is not al~plicable.
Goal 4- Forest Lands
STAFF COMMENT: This goal defines forest lands and requires counties to inventory
them and adopt policies and ordinances that will "conserve forest lands for forest users."
The subject property is currently within the city limits and urban growth boundary.
Therefore, this ggal does not apply.
Goal 5 - Ope~n Spaces, Scenic and Historic Resources, and Natural Resources
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 5 covers more than a dozen natural and cultural resources
such as wildlife !habitats and wetlands. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment to allow more intensive uses on the property do not affect any open space,
scenic, historic, Or natural resource. Wetlands are not identified on the subject property
.'In the Local Wetlands Inventory. In addition, the site is outside of the 500-year'floodplain.
The applicant has shown compliance with this goal. .~
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
STAFF COMMENT: This goal requires local comprehensive plans and implementing
measures to be consistent with state and federal regulations on matters such as
groundwater pollution.
The site has no significant natural vegetation. The land form on the site will be altered
slightly, but additional trees and landscaping will be provided as a result of the proposed
site development, Public water, sewer, and storm drainage are already available for the
development. These systems will prevent inappropriate pollution of ground and/or
surface water resources. The City's systems are designed to comply with the Department
of Environmental Quality standards for environmental quality, and the site development
will be required to conform to City standards.
The potential increase in auto trips to and from the site could increase the level of air
pollutants in the area. However, this type of air pollution is a result of land that has been
designated for residential development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant
has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 4
IOA
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 7 deals with development in places subject to natural hazards
such as floods or landslides. There are no known hazards associated with the subject
site. The site is relatively fiat and is located outside of the 500-year floodplain. The
applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
STAFF COMMENT: This goal calls for each community to evaluate its areas and
facilities for recreation and develop plans to deal with the projected demand for them.
The subject site is designated for residential development. The City's existing codes and
ordinances ensure that recreational needs will be met for different types of uses. The
applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 9 - Economic Development
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 9 calls for the diversification and improvement of the economy.
The applicant indicates that the proposed change and development of the subject site will
generate construction and landscape maintenance jobs, and provide enl]y-level positions
for the health care industry. The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 10 - Housing
STAFF COMMENT: This goal specifies that each city must plan for and accommodate
needed housing types. It requires each city to inventory its buildable residential lands,
project future needs for such lands, and plan and zone enough buildable land to meet
those needs. It also prohibits local plans from discriminating against needed housing.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to a higher density of residential
use will allow for more types of housing to be provided on the subject site. For example,
eldedy care housing, multiple family housing and other types of housing will be offered
in addition to single-family residential. The applicant has shown compliance with this
goal.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 11 calls for efficient planning of public services such as
sewers, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. The subject site is an infill property,
and all necessary public services and facilities are available to serve the subject site and
future uses allowed under the High Density Residential designation. The development
will be required to conform to the City's public facility and services requirements. The
applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 12 - Transportation
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01.O7 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 5
IOA
STAFF COMMENT: This goal aims to provide "a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system." The subject site has access to N. Cascade Drive and is near its
intersection with Hwy 214. These are existing improved roadways.
The current Low Density Residential designation of the site allows up to 12 units per acre.
The subject site is 1.7 acres in size, potentially allowing 20 Iow density residential units
(12 x 1.7 = 20.4!. The ITE Manual, 6th Edition assigns a trip generation of 9.57 average
trips per day forlsingle-family residential units. This could generate up to 196 trips per
day (9.57 x 20.~ = 195.2) under the current designation.
The proposed H
most intensive u~
allow up to 36 t
average trips pe~
tdps per day (6
Residential. The
day as compare(
igh Density Residential designation allows over 12 units per acre. The
;e (multiple-family dwelling units) under this designation would potentially
~o-bedroom units on the subject site. The ITE Manual assigns 6.63
· day for two-bedroom multi-family units. This could generate up to 239
.63 x 36 = 238.7) under the proposed designation of High Density
proposed designation has the potential to increase traffic by 43 trips per
to the existing designation. The traffic impacts created by an additional
43 trips per day should not adversely affect planned facilities of the Transportation
Systems Plan ('I~SP). The applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation.
STAFF COMMENT: Goal 13 declares that "land uses developed on the land shall be
managed and cohtrolled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based
upon sound ecoqomic principles." Current codes for energy effmiency will ensure that the
proposed uses on the property will maximize the conservation of all forms of energy. The
applicant has shown compliance with this goal.
Goal 14 - Urbanization
STAFF COMMENT: This goal requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for
land and then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. It calls for each city to
establish an "urban growth boundary" (UGB) to "identify and separate urbanized land
from rural land." The subject site is located within the Woodburn UGB. In the 2000
Woodbum Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project Final Report, the land use planning
consultants stated that the estimated demand for high density residential designated land
in 20 years is 117.3 acres. The available buildable land is 121.1 acres, leaving a slight
capacity excess of 3.8 acres of high density residential land. The consultants stated that
the estimated demand for Iow density residential designated land in 20 years is 340.3
acres. The available buildable Iow density residential land is 535 acres, leaving a
capacity excess of 194.7 acres. The consultants project a much greater surplus of Iow
density residential land versus high density residential land in 20 years. The conversion
of 1.7 acres of vacant Iow density residential land to high density residential land will not
significantly effect the surplus of single family residential land in the next 20 years. The
excess capacity would decrease slightly from 194.7 acres to 193 acres of Iow density
residential land as a result of the proposed plan amendment. The amendment will allow
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. C~scade Dr. Page 6
IOA
that it can serve as a buffer and a transition area between the High Density Residential
designation to the north and the established Low Density Residential to the south. In
addition, the existing dwelling on the southerly parcel is proposed to remain. This will
bdng the site into compliance in that only one dwelling will be one property instead of the
current nonconforming situation of two dwellings on one property. The new Woodburn
Development Ordinance (WDO) was adopted by the City Council on April 9, 2002. The
WDO requires a ~Solid bdck or architectural wall" between high density and Iow density
residential uses. Staff recommends that such a wall be constructed between the High
Density Residential designation on the north side of the site and the Low Density
Residential designation on the southern portion of the site to minimize adverse impacts
between the poter~tial uses. With compliance with staff's recommendations, this policy
will be met.
2. Housing Goals and Policies (IX-G):
G-1-1 The City will insure that sufficient land is made available to
accommodate the growth of the City. This requires that sufficient land
for both high density and Iow density residential developments is
provided within the confines of the growth and development goals of
the City...
."STAFF COMMENT: The subject property has bccn planned for residential development.
Market conditions and supply of developable land dictate what parcels within the City's
planning area are developed.
In the 2000 Woodbum Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project Final Report, the !and
use planning consultants stated that the estimated demand for high density residential
designated land in 20 years is 117.3 acres. The available buildable land is 121.1 acres,
leaving a slight capacity excess of 3.8 acres of high density residential land. The
consultants stated that the estimated demand for Iow density residential designated land
in 20 years is 340.3 acres. The available buildable Iow density residential land is 535
acres, leaving a capacity excess of 194.7 acres. The consultants project a much greater
surplus of Iow density residential land versus high density residential land in 20 years.
The conversion of 1.7 acres of vacant Iow density residential land to high density
residential land will not significantly effect the surplus of single family residential land in
the next 20 years. The excess capacity would decrease slightly from 194.7 acres to 193
acres of Iow density residential land as a result of the proposed plan amendment. The
proposal complies with this policy.
G-1-2 It is the policy of the city to encourage a variety of housing types to
accommodate the demands of the local housing market.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed amendment from Low Density Residential to High
Density Residential will allow for a variety of housing types in Woodbum and will further
meet housing demands. The proposal complies with this policy.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 9
IOA
3. Public Services Goals and Policies:
H-1
Public Facilities and services shall be appropriate to support sufficient
amounts of land to maintain an adequate housing market in areas
undergoing development or redevelopment.
STAFF COMME
which are curren
currently have su
Residential Desic
4. Growth ar
~T: The subject site has access to all public facilities and services,
ly available within the N. Cascade Drive right-of-way. These facilities
· cient capacity to serve potential uses in the proposed High Density
nation. The proposal complies with this policy.
id Urbanization Policies (IX-M):
STAFF COMME~ IT: The developer is required to pay systems development charges for
their impact on th,.~ infrastructure. Public services are available to the site for high density
residential uses..This policy can be met.
Woodburn Z(~ning Ordinance
1. Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Section 1~.080 Burden of Proof. The following specific questionsshall be given
consideration in evaluating requests regarding plan and zoning amendments and
are as follows:
(a) To supPort an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall:
(1) Prove that the original plan was in error;
(2) ShoW that the community has changed since the odginal plan was adopted;
or
(3) Show that there has been a change in the planning and growth policy of the
city.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has addressed questions 1 and 2 in the submitted
narrative in regard to this Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request. Specifically,
the applicant states,
"In this situation, the Comprehensive Plan could be in error. This property is a
peninsula inserted into commercial, park and multi-family zones projecting north from
a single family zone. Only the park zone is compatible with the current zoning, as it
is with the proposed zone and plan designation."
The subject site has commercial land use designations located to the north and east
(across Cascade Drive) as shown on the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map.
The commercial land use designations are not compatible with a Iow density residential
use. A Comprehensive Plan designation of high density residential was not placed as a
CPMA 01-02, ZC 014:)5, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 10
IOA
transition area between the commercial designation to the north and the subject site
which currently is designated for Iow density residential uses. Staff concludes that the
Comprehensive Plan is in error by not providing a transition land use designation (i.e.,
high density residential) between the commercial property to the north and the single
family residential Property to the south.
ZONE CHANGE ql-05
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedure
Section 1~010. Amendments. A Zone Change is a reclassification of any area
from one zone or district to another, after the proposed change has been reviewed
and a recommendation made by the Planning Commission. Such change shall be
by an ordinance enacted by the Common Council after proceedings have been
accomplished in accordance with the folloWing provisions.
Section 15.035. Hearing Before the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission shall hold a public headng as described in Chapter 7 of the Zoning
Ordinance. After concluding its headng, the Planning Commission shall prepare
a report setting forth a summary of facts and conditions invOlved'.** in the
reclassification and submit the same, tOgether With its recommendation to the
Common Council.", ~ - ?
Section 15.055. Site Plan Required. A site plan approved by the Planning
Commission may be required and if such requirement is made in the resolution of
intent, the same shall be binding upon the property....Any approved site plan may
be amended or a Variance therefrom obtained, or it may be released from the
restrictions of such site plan by Resolution of the Common Council on
recommendation from the Planning Commission. No other changes shall be made
constituting a departure from the approved site plan except by amendment or
Variance as herein provided unless the same has been released from the site
plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The above sections cover the procedure for a zone change.
2. Chapter 'IS Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Section 16.080 Burden of Proof. The following specific questions shall be given
consideration in evaluating requests regarding plan and zoning amendments and
are as follows:
( b ) To support a zone change, the applicant shall:
1. Show there is a need for the use proposed;
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 11
IOA
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states,
"...the use of RCF's to house the elderly is a relatively new housing type. It provides
a form of housing for residents that cannot live independently but are merely 'aging
in place' but are not in need of the more intensive care offered by a traditional nursing
home with a more institutional environment. The type of living provided by the RCF's
is a more intimate, comfortable and acceptable lifestyle that allows communities to
distribute elderly citizens throughout the community rather than concentrate them in
locations thai allow 'big box' nursing care facilities.
The applicant's research shows that this type of housing is needed in Woodburn
demonstrated by population data. Exhibit "D" [ of the Comprehensive Plan Map and
Zone Chang~applications ], population data, demonstrates that from 1990 to 1997
Woodbum'spopulation grew at a rate of 20.5 percent. During the same period
Woodbum's (Dver-65 population was at the highest ratio in the study at 22.4 perce,nt
.of the population. This proposal intends to add needed housing to Woodbum s
Inventory." ~
As the applicant.,
has increased ar
continues to inch
will add to the va~
~altemative betwe
has demonstrate
on proposed Par,:els I & 2.
multi-family use en Parcel 3.
,tates, and as the population data shows, Woodbum's eldedy population
~d continues to increase. As a result, the demand for eldedy housing
;ase, as does the vadety of housing types for the eldedy. This project
iety of housing types for the eldedy in-Woodbum since it will provide an
~n independent living and an institutional nursing home. The applicant
that there is a public need for the proposed residential care facilities
Evidence has not been provided that there is a need for a
2. Show that the particular piece of property in question will best meet that
need.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states,
'q-he applicant searched Woodbum properties for the development of his RCF's. The
properties that he found available that were property zoned were both too large for his
project and in neighborhoods that were developed with high density apartment uses
that are incompatible with his proposed development. This property is close to artedal
access, adjacent to open (quiet) space and across from a compatible land use. This
property is flat to allow for handicapped access and has all the needed infrastructure."
The proposed residential care facilities on Parcels 1 & 2 are less intensive and smaller
in scale than typical multi-family residential developments allowed in the RM District.
RCF's of this scale that meet applicable setback and buffering requirements are
compatible with Iow density residential neighborhoods. Parcels 1 & 2 are small enough
so that they do not significantly affect the City's inventory of RS zoned land, yet large
enough to accommodate the proposed development. In addition, the site is accessible
due to its proximity to Hwy 214 and its through access to W. Hayes Street. The applicant
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 12
IOA
has shown that the RCF's on Parcels I & 2 can best meet the increasing need for this
particular type of elderly housing.
Parcels I & 2 are located on the northern portion of the subject site, which is adjacent to
Commercial office (co) zoning to the north. A multi-family use on this portion of the
property will serve as a transition between the CO and RS Districts. If Parcel 3 remains
as an RS zoned Property, it will buffer the existing residential lots to the south of the
subject site from the proposed RM zoned property on the north portion of the property.
The applicant did! not provide evidence that Parcel 3 would best meet the need for
additional multi-family zoned land on the southern portion of the site. In addition, a
specific use allowed in the RM District has not been proposed on this parcel. This parcel
will best serve as a buffer between the proposed RM zoned property on the northern
portion of the site ~nd the existing residence to the south of the site.
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-13
STAFF COMMENT: The Site Plan Review request was made only for the RCF's on
Parcels I & 2. Site Plan Review was not requested for Parcel 3. The following
discussion for Site Plan Review only applies to Parcels I and 2.
A. Woodbum Zoning Ordinance
1. ChaPter 8 General Standards
Section 8.140 No Parking in Front Yard or Landscaped Areas
STAFF COMMENT: The required front yard setback in the RM Distdct is 20 feet. No
parking is proposed withir~ the required yard area as parr of the proposed RCF
development. ,~
Section 8.190 Vision Clearance
STAFF COMMENT: Vision clearance requirements are being met at the applicant's
proposed driveways onto N. Cascade Blvd. This standard will be enforced during review
of access and building permits.
Section 8.040. Special Setback Distances.
(a) (3) Cascade Drive, W. Hayes Street to OR State Hwy 214 ..... 30 feet
STAFF COMMENT: N. Cascade Drive has a right-of-way width of 60 feet. Special
setback distances are measured from the centerline of the right-of-way. The centerline
of N. Cascade Drive is 30 feet from the front property line of the subject site, placing the
special setback on said property line. The proposed development meets the special
setback requirement.
CPMA 014)2, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 13
IOA
2. Chapter 9 Residential Standards
Section 9.080. Fences-Location, Height and Density. In any yard adjacent to
a street and within ten feet from the property line adjacent to such street, fences,
walls and hedges may be up to 30 inches in height. Fences located in a yard area
other thar~ the above described may be up to seven feet in height.
STAFF COMMENT: This standard will be enforced during review of building permits.
3. Chapter '~0 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Section 10.050 Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements. Off-Street
automobile parking shall be provided as required by Section 10.070 and approved
by the Planning Director, in the amounts not less than those listed below:
(i) Cor~valescent Hospital, Nursing Home, Sanitarium, Rest Home, Home for
the Aged:
(1) One space per four beds for patients or residents.
.:STAFF COMMENT: Proposed Parcels I & 2 will each have a15-bed residential care
facility. Each facility is required to have a minimum of four off-street parking spaces (15/4
= 3.75). The applicant is proposing five parking spaces for each facility,'exceeding the
minimum.
Section 10.060. Off-Street Loading Requirements.
STAFF COMMENT: Loading spaces are not required for the RCF's. A loading space is
required for multi.family dwellings with 10 or more dwelling units. The WZO defines a
multiple family dwelling as a building designed for occupancy by three or more families
living independently of each other. The RCF's are not designed with independent
dwelling units. The dining room, kitchen and day room in the RCF's will be shared by the
15 residents.
Section 10.070 Parking and Loading Area Development Requirements.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's site plan meets all of the requirements with respect
to location, surfacing, size of parking spaces and parking lot buffering. Driveways will be
improved in compliance with City requirements. Lighting is required to be deflected away
from residential uses and right of way. A condition of approval will be that all exterior
lighting be subject to city approval and shall be in compliance with this requirement.
4. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review:
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 14
IOA
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse impacts
on adjacent uses.
STAFF COMMENT: A site plan has been submitted for Parcels 1 and 2. The plan
proposes two resi;Jential care facilities on these parcels. Each of the RCF's is to be a
single-story structure and will comply with minimum setback requirements. The applicant
is proposing to ch{ange the zone of the entire subject property to RM as part of this
request (Parcels 143). No site plan has been submitted for Parcel 3, and staff is therefore
recommending that the requested zone change be denied on Parcel 3 and that its RS
zoning be retained.
If Parcel 3 retains ~s RS zoning, then a 15-foot landscape buffer will be required per the
Landscaping Policies and Standards Document (addressed further in this report) between
multi-family develc~pments and RS zones. Based on the proposed landscape and site
plans, this buffer i'equirement will not be met on the south side of Parcel 2 where it
adjoins Parcel 3, ~the zoning of Parcel 3 remains as RS. A recommended condition of
approval states th~at there shall be a 15-foot landscape buffer along the south side of
Parcel 2 and that the RCF on this parcel be shifted to the north to accommodate the
buffer. The RCF on Parcel 2 can be shifted to the north 15 feet and setback 10 feet from
He north property line, which meets the required side yard setback of five feet.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact on adjacent~uses; and
(c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its aesthetic value.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's landscaping plan shows that landscape coverage of
the development area (Parcels 1 & 2) will total approximately 57% of each parcel where
20% is required. The landscaping plan indicates that landscaping will be evenly
distributed throughout the parking areas with more than a 5-foot landscape stdp adjacent
to the street. The RCF's on proposed Parcels I & 2 will have large front yards with a
vadety of groundcover, shrubs and trees.
The applicant is proposing to change the zone of the entire subject property to RM as part
of this request (Parcels 1-3). No site plan has been submitted for Parcel 3, and staff is
therefore recommending that the requested zone change be denied on Parcel 3 and that
its RS zoning be retained. If Parcel 3 retains its RS zoning, then a 15-foot landscape
buffer will be required per the Landscaping Policies and Standards Document (addressed
further in this report) between multi-family developments and RS zones. Based on the
proposed landscape and site plans, this buffer requirement will not be met on the south
side of Parcel 2 where it adjoins Parcel 3, if the zoning of Parcel 3 remains as RS. A
condition of approval states that there shall be a 15-foot landscape buffer along the south
side of Parcel 2 and that the RCF on this parcel be shifted to the north to accommodate
the buffer. The RCF on Parcel 2 can be shifted to the north 15 feet and setback 10 feet
from the north property line, which meets the required side yard setback of five feet.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13. PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 15
IOA
The remainder of the area to be developed (Parcels 1 & 2) will be entirely encompassed
by landscape strips that comply with the City's buffedng and landscaping standards. By
complying with the condition of approval mentioned in the previous paragraph,
landscaping will minimize adverse impacts on adjacent uses.
(d) Acce~ss to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns.
When~gver possible, direct access shall not be allowed to arterial streets.
Wherever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar
nature,.
STAFF COMMENT: Each of the RCF's on proposed Parcels I & 2 will have its own
access onto N. Cascade Drive, a local access street. The existing single-family residence
on Parcel 3 has a ddveway access which will remain. The new ddveway accesses for the
RCF's are to be ~eparated from each other to the greatest extent feasible to avoid traffic
conflicts. N. CaScade Ddve is a local access street which requires a minimum driveway
spacing distance~ of 10 feet. The driveways proposed for each of the RCF s will exceed
this spacing dista~nce. All remaining accesses that are currently on the site will be closed
as part of this development. The applicant has shown compliance with this approval
cdteda.
.-. (e) The d~sign of the drainage facilitieS-shall minimize the impact on the city's or
~ other Public agencies drainage facilities. ' '
STAFF COMMENT: All necessary .':~,., .', ,~' .,~: i ,~. ,.,~.~?~,
public services and facilities are available to serve the
subject site and tt[le proposed development. The development will be required to conform
to the City's 'public facility and services requirements. The applicant has shown
compliance with this approval criteria.
(f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on the lot, and
its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant's project will be constructed to meet current codes
for energy efficiency. Pedestrian access between the proposed RCF's and Cascade
Drive is made available by the proposed access driveways. This criterion is met.
(g) The proposed site development, including the architecture, landscaping and
graphic design, is in conformity with the site development requirements of
this ordinance and with the standards of this and other ordinances insofar
as the location and appearance of the proposed development are involved.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's proposal on Parcels I & 2 complies, or is conditioned
to comply with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances as discussed
in this report. A recommended condition of approval requires there to be a 15-foot
landscape buffer along the south property line of Parcel 2 since it is recommended that
Parcel 3 retain its RS zoning.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 16
IOA
(h) The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all structures and
signs are compatible with the proposed development and apprepdate to the
character of the immediate neighborhood.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed buildings will use similar architectural design
elements, materials and colors as typical residential dwellings. The applicant submitted
color and matedal samples for the proposed project that show a dark gray composition
roof and complimentary trim, gable accents, and horizontal vinyl lap siding. The exterior
colors of each RCF will consist of a light and dark beige ("Desert Sand" and "Pebblestone
Clay"). The exterior materials will be appropriate to the character of the immediate
residential and commercial neighborhood. There are no signs proposed as part of this
application. The applicant has shown compliance with this approval criteria.
5. Chapter 26 RM Multiple Family Residential District
Section 26.010. Uses.
(a) Unlimited number of dwelling
including:
(6) Homes for the Aged;
(7) Retirement Homes;
units as prescribed in Section 26.080
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development is for two residential care fadlities which
cater to elderly individuals who are not able to live independently. ~The preposed use falls
under the above-mentioned categories. This proposed use is permitted outright in the
RM District.
Section 25.040 Height. In an RM District, no building or structure 35 feet or two
and one-half stories in height .....
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed RCF's will not ex. cd 20 feet in height, complying with
the maximum height standard in the RM District.
Section 26.050. Side and Rear Yards.
(a) Thero shall be a side yard and a rear yard on every lot in an RM District,
which yards shall have a minimum depth as follows:
(1) One story five feet
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed RCF's will set back no less than 10 feet from all side
and rear yards. The RCF on Parcel 2 is proposed to be located six feet from the side
preperty line to the south. However, a condition of appreval requires there to be a 15-foot
landscape buffer along this property line, which will require the structure to set back 15
feet from said property line. This will cause the building to set back 10 feet from the other
side preperty line to the north (between the two RCF's). By complying with this condition,
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 17
IOA
the proposed development meets all minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the RM
District.
Section 26.060. Front Yard. In an RL district, there shall be a minimum front
yard of 20 feet. No parking shall be allowed within 20 feet of the front lot line.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has shown a minimum of an 85-foot front yard
setback from th~ proposed RCF buildings to the front property line. The applicant does
not show parkihg within the required 20-foot front yard setback. The proposed
development cojmplies with front yard setback requirements.
Section :26.065. Solar Access.
STAFF COMMENT: A solar shadow plan submitted by the applicant indicates that the
proposal complies with this section. This plan shows that the proposed RCF structures
on Parcels I & 2 will not project a shadow onto adjacent buildings or any adjacent
buildable area.
Section ~6.070. Landscaped Yards.
(a) In an RM District the following landscaped yards shall be provided for
residential uses other than single and two family dwellings:
.(1) For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms -300 square feet. One
hundred additional square feet for each bedroom over one.
(b) In an RM Distdct all required yards adjacent to a street shall be landscaped,
except that portion devoted to off-street parking. Such landscaping may be
counted in fulfilling the requirements of (a).
STAFF COMMENT: Each parcel (Parcels 1 & 2) with the proposed RCF's will have 57
percent landscaping coverage as a result of this development. Each RCF is to have 11
bedrooms, or living units, requiring a total landscape area of 1,400 sq. ft. (300 + [11 x
100]). Parcels I & 2 will each be 24,597 sq. ft. in size, and 57 percent of this area greatly
exceeds the 1,400 sq. ft. minimum landscaping area. The yards adjacent to N. Cascade
Drive are to be completely landscaped, except for the access drives. Landscaping
requirements in the RM District have been satisfied.
Section 26.080. Lot Area and Width: In an RM District the minimum
requirements for lot areas shall be 6,000 square feet for a single family dwelling.
The minimum lot area requirements for other residential uses shall be 5,000
square feet plus additional lot area computed as follows:
(a) For the first through fifth units:
(1) For each dwelling unit with one or fewer bedrooms - 1,200 square feet.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 18
IOA
(b) For the sixth dwelling unit and each succeeding dwelling unit, the following
additional lot area shall be required:
(1) FOr each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms, one story - 1,250
s~luare feet.
STAFF COMMENT: Each RCF unit will have 11 bedrooms, or living units, requiring
18,500 square feet of lot area (5000 sq. ft. + [5 units x 1,200 sq. ft.] + [6 units x 1,250
sq. ft. ]). As mentioned, each of the parcels on which the RCF's are to be constructed
will be 24,597 sq. ft. in size, exceeding the minimum lot size.
(c) No main building or group of main buildings shall occupy more than 30
percent of the lot area ....
STAFF COMMENT: Each of the RCF's will be 5,628 square feet in size, occupying 23
percent of the parCels on which they will be constructed (5,628 / 24,597 = 22.8). The
applicant has shoWn compliance with the above subsection.
(d)
Every lot in an RM District shall have a minimum width of 60 feet at the
building line. The minimum lot area requirements for buildings other than
dwellings shall be of an area not less than the sum of the area occupied by
the building or buildings, and the area required for yards herein, or 5,000
square feet, whichever is greater.
'STAFF COMMENT: Each of the proposed three parcels has a minimum frontage and
building line width of 123 feet, and the smallest of the parcels (Parcels 1 & 2) will be
24,597 square feet. The proposed development complies with the minimum lot size and
width requirements.
B. Woodburn Landscaping Policies and Standards
Section VIII(D) Multi-family Residential Zone: A landscaping plan for development
in the RM zone shall meet the following standards:
1. At least 20% of the total development area shall be landscaped.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's landscaping plan shows that 57 percent of each
parcel on which the RCF's are to be constructed will be landscaped. The applicant has
exceeded this criteria.
2. Landscape strip adjacent to a street shall be at least 5 feet in width.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant shows a landscaped strip adjacent to N. Cascade
Ddve that vastly exceeds 5 feet in width. The front yard landscape area is approximately
85 feet in width. The applicant has shown compliance with this approval criterion.
(b) Interior landscaping shall be at least 18% of the total parcel area.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 19
IOA
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has exceeded this requirement as shown on the
submitted landseaping plan. Intedor landscaping makes up approximately 50 percent of
the total area of both Parcels 1 and 2.
3. Number Of required trees shall be determined in the following way:
a)
Frontage street landscaping:
Large trees - 2 per 100 feet
Medium trees - 3 per 100 feet
Small trees - 4 per 100 feet
STAFF COMMENT: The landscape plan does not show the required trees along the
frontage of each ~arcel to be developed. A condition of approval requires trees to be
planted along N. ~ascade Drive, in front of Parcels I & 2, in compliance with the above
spacing and tree!size standards. The condition further states that the species of trees
shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits on the
site.
b) Intedor landscaping:
At least 8 trees per I ac of the total development area (exclusive of the number
of trees required for the frontage stdp) shall be installed and include the
following number of trees in the parking areas: .~ ;'
1 small tree for each 5 parking stalls -
1 medium tree for each 10 parking stalls
1 large tree for each 14 parking stalls
STAFF COMMENT: The landscape plan indicates that two species of small trees and
one species of large trees are to be planted on portion of the site to be developed. Each
parcel with the RCF's is approximately ½ acres in size, and each will consist of six off-
street parking stalls. Each parcel has at least three large trees and six small trees,
exceeding the minimum amount of interior trees required.
C. Woodburn Access Management Ordinance
STAFF COMMENT: N. Cascade Drive (Hwy 214 to W. Hayes) is classified as an access
street. The required driveway spacing is 10 feet. The proposed driveway accesses on
Parcels I & 2 exceed this distance from each other and from the adjacent driveways.
The spacing distance of the new driveways (serving Parcels I & 2) from each other will
be approximately 170 feet, and each of the new driveways from adjacent driveways
exceeds 80 feet in spacing distance. The development proposal is in compliance with
this Ordinance.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 0%13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 20
IOA
D. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
STAFF COMMENT: The subject site has access to N. Cascade Ddve, Hwy 214, and W.
Hayes Street. These are existing improved streets. A trip generation study was
conducted for the RCF's on Parcels 1 & 2. Parcel 3 was included in the trip generation
study based on its potential use under RM zoning. The proposed RCF's are projected
to generate approximately 32 trips per day, and the potential use of Parcel 3 under RM
zoning is projecte~l to generate an additional 99 trips per day for a total of 131 tdps per
day for the entire ~,ubject site. The study concluded that the development will not have
any significant impact over current conditions of the street system, and that all
intersections within the area will operate at acceptable levels of service during peak
hours.
E. Woodburn Sign Ordinance
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is not proposing any signage as part of this
development application. Any future signs will be required to have sign permit approval
prior to their placement.
PARTITION 01-07,
Woodbum Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 22, RS - Single Family Residential District
Section 22.080. Lot Area and Width.
STAFF COMMENT: As mentioned, the applicant has proposed to change the zone from
RS to RM on the entire subject property (proposed Parcels 1, 2, & 3). No development
or site plan proposal has been made on Parcel 3, the most southerly of the proposed
parcels. As a result, staff is recommending that the zone change from RS to RM on
Parcel 3 be denied and retain its existing RS zoning. If the final decision reflects this
recommendation, Parcel 3 will exceed the minimum width of 60 feet and the minimum
size of 6,000 sq. ft. required in the RS District. The partitioning of the site and removal
of the single-family home on the northern portion of the subject site will remove the
nonconforming situation of two single-family dwellings on one RS zoned property. A
condition of approval is being recommended that the single-family home on the northem
portion of the site be removed pdor to recordation of the partition plat since this structure
would be located on the new property line between Parcels 1 and 2.
2. Chapter 26. RM - Multiple Family Residential District
STAFF COMMENT: Parcels 1 & 2 are to be rezoned from RS to RM. As previously
discussed, the RM District requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet for the
particular development proposed. Parcels 1 & 2 will exceed this minimum lot size and
will exceed the minimum width of 60 feet required in the RM District. If the decision is
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01.O5, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 21
VI
IOA
made to approve the zone change request to RM on Parcel 3, it will comply with the
minimum lot size and width requirements in the RM District as well.
B. Woodburn Sqbdivision Standards
1. Chapter
Section
6. I REQUISITES FOR APPROVAL OF
PARTITIOI~ PLANS, PLATS OR REPLAT~ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION OR
(6) The sut~dividing of land shall be such that each lot shall abut on a public
street. ~
STAFF COMMENrr: Each of the proposed parcels will abut N. Cascade Drive, a fully
improved public sireet.
2. Chapter IV~
Section 13,B. LOTS
All lots shall have a minimum size of the zoning district in which they are
located ..... in no cases shall the lot width be less than 60 feet at the buildinR line..
If topography, drainage, or other conditions justify, the Commission may require
a greater area on any or aIHots within a subdivision. The minimum size for vadous
types of lots shall be as given in the following table:
Type of Lot Minimum Width
Interior Lot (fronting one street)
60 feet
STAFF COMMENT: As previously mentioned, each of the proposed parcels will meet the
minimum size requirements for their requested zones. Each of the proposed parcels is
an interior lot. Parcels I & 2 have a proposed width of 123 feet, and Parcel 3 has a
proposed width of 124 feet, complying with the minimum.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the information in this report, the information provided by the applicant and the
applicable review criteria, findings required to approve a Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Zone Change for proposed Parcel 3 cannot be made. Compliance with
Statewide Planning Goal 12, Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Policy A-5, ^-10 and ^-11;
and Zone Change Criteria 1 and 2 have not been shown for the Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment and Zone Change proposed for Parcel 3. Staff recommends denial of
the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change for proposed
Parcel 3.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 22
IOA
Based on the information in this report, the information provided by the applicant and the
applicable review criteria, findings required to approve this Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment, Zone Change and Site Plan Review for proposed Parcels 1 & 2, and the
Partition for proposed Parcels 1 - 3 can be made. Staff recommends approval of CPM^
01-02, ZC 01-05 and SPR 01-13 for proposed Parcels 1 & 2, and PAR 01-07 for
proposed Parcels 1 - 3, subject to the following conditions of approval:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SITE PLAN REVIEW 01-03
The proposeU development shall be in substantial conformance with this approval
and the attached preliminary plans provided in Exhibit "E" (sheet L-1 dated 11-13-
01, sheet SP~-I dated 10--12-01, and sheets A5 and A6, dated 10-05-01), except as
herein modified by these conditions of approval.
This Site Plap Review approval is subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment and Zone Change. Issuance of building permits shall not occur
until the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change are effective.
3. All exterior.lighting shall be deflected away from adjacent properties and shall not
· . glare or shine on the adjacent public right-of-way. An outdoor lighting plan shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department for rev'~ew and approval prior
to issuance of building permits.. . , ..
4. A 15-foot landScape buffer shall be provided along the south side of Parcel 2. The
RCF structure on Parcel 2 shall be shifted to the north to a distance of 15 feet from
the south property line to accommodate the buffer.
Street trees shall be required along the street frontage of Parcels 1 & 2. Spacing
shall depend on the size and species of tree to be used. Small sized trees shall be
spaced at a distance of 4 for every 100 feet of street frontage, medium size trees
at a distance of 3 for every 100 feet of frontage, and large trees at a distance of 2
for every 100 feet of frontage. The species of trees to be used shall be approved
by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits on the site.
Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit one set of reproducible
as-builts.
A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for approval by the
Community Development Director pdor to issuance of building permits. Landscaped
areas shall include a permanently installed irrigation system. Landscape plantings
shall be watered regularly and in a manner appropriate for the specific plant species
through the first growing season, and dead and dying plants shall be replaced by the
applicant/property owner during the next planting season. No buildings, structures,
storage of materials, or parking shall be permitted within the required landscape and
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 23
IOA
buffer areas. All landscape and buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of
all debris, weeds and tall grass.
Curbing, striping, sprinkler system(s) and lighting shall be kept in good condition.
Any damage shall be repaired in a timely manner.
PARTITION 01~7
9. The final partition plat shall be submitted to the Community Development
Departmenll within the required time period after preliminary plat approval (currently
one year fr~m the date of Planning Commission approval).
10. The partitior~ shall be platted according to standard surveying practice and approved
and recorded with Madon County.
11.
Pdor to recOrdation with Marion County, two paper copies of partition plat shall be
submitted t(~ the Community Development Department for review. The applicant
shall provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the recorded
partition plat.
12. The existing~ single-family home on Parcels 1 & 2 shall be removed from the site
: pdor to recordation of the partition plat.
13. Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar of the final plat shall be filed with
the Public Works Department after all required signatures have been obtained
and the plat:has been recorded with Marion County.
14.
The property owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Department a signed "Acceptance of Conditions" agreeing to all conditions of
approval prior to recordation of the final subdivision plat. The signed
document must be received by the Community Development Department
before the project approval becomes effective.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
15. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and
standards.
16. On-site existing water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be
abandoned in accordance with state regulations.
17. The applicant/owner is responsible for obtaining permits from any state and/or
federal agencies which may require approval or permit.
CPMA 014:)2, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 24
IOA
18. All city maintained facilities located on private property will require a minimum 16
foot wide utility easements be conveyed to the city.
19.
All work witllin the public right-of-way or public easement shall conform to the
City of VVoodbum standards and specifications. All work on private property shall
conform to all State Building and Fire Codes.
STREET AND DRAINAGE:
20. On-site storm water runoff shall discharge to the street through weep holes in the
curb. Runoff from the parking lot shall not discharge across the public sidewalk.
21. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on
adjacent properties.
22. Driveway approaches shall conform to the City of Woodbum commercial
standards.
WATER:
23. This development can be served by the existing 8" diameter city water main
,. within Cascade Drive.
24. A separate service shall be installed to each parcel. Water meters shall be
placed in the public dght of way of Cascade Drive.
25.
Proper backflow devices will be required on the domestic and irrigation/fire
sprinkler service. The domestic water line will require a Reduced Pressure
Device. The irrigation arid fire sprinkler system if installed will require Double
Check Device. The fire sprinkler device will also require ~a detector check. The
device shall be installed next to the meter. Contact Larry Arendt, City of
Woodbum Cross Connection Inspector at 503.982.5283 for installation
requirements. ~
26. Fire hydrant locations, fire protection and access requirements shall comply with
the Woodburn Fire Districts conditions of permit approval.
SANITARY SEWER:
27.
28.
This development can be served by the existing city maintained sanitary sewer
main within Cascade Drive.
A separate service shall be provided for each parcel, service to be installed by
the applicant.
CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 25
VII ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
Exhibit "G"
Exhibits "H1 - H7"
Attachment "A"!
Attachment "B"!
Attachment "C"!
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Application
Zone Change Application
Site Plan Review Application
Partition Application and Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Site Plans
Comprehensive Plan Map
Zone Map
Site Photos
Public Works Department comments
Fire District comments
Police Department comments
CPMA 01-02, ZC 014)5, SPR 01-13, PAR 01-07 - 847 N. Cascade Dr. Page 26
PETITION FOR ZONE MAP CHANGE .
.DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
IOA
(NAME)!
(ADDRESS)
REQUEST:
(TELEPHONE
(STATE) (ZIP CODE)
To change_ t i G~I .~,C of (present zone/present comp. plan)
To (desired zoae/desired comp. plan) ~ ~
by the City of Woodbum Zoning Ordinance.
as such zones are defined
OWNERS:
f~'['~ ~ H ~ pl"
NAME (P~E PRINT OR TYPE)
'ADDRESS'& ZIP CODE
LOCATION AND S!7F OF THE PROPERTY; or if not addressed, then state
distance~to~the nearest imersecting street or know landmark. _
OFFICE USE ONLY
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
'/ 1.
Statement of Intent (Exb. A)
Plot Plan (Exb. B)
Legal Description of the Property
Est of All Property Owners within
250 Feet of the Property
Assessors Map
YES
NO
· er REC'D
AUG 0 8 2001
WOODBURN COMMUNITY
~LOPMENT DEPT.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS ]O/t.
.STATEMENT, OF INTENT should discuss/explaln the mason this request is made.
Include bdef description oi~ any proposed construction or land use change, show
that the request is: 1) in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) there is a
public need for this change; 3) that need is best met by this proposal; 4) there is
no other available and appropriately zoned land in the vicinity; 5) petitioner's
cannot make a reasonable use of the land as it is currenUy zoned. (See zone
change policy considerations). (Mark EXHIBIT
.PLOT PLAN:Show all properties within 250' from and parallel to the subject
property and~
ithe land use of each. Mark EXHIBIT 'B", Draw to scale.
LEGAL DESC~IPTiO.N, of the property in metes and bounds (as it appears on the
~eed); Mark EXH!BIT C", or if property is within a platted subdivision:
* Lot: BloCk: of
~' , (SubdMsion).
*NOTE: If a f~action of the lot, then attach full description as if it were metes and..
boundS.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF Al! PROPERTY OWNERS (husband and ~ife)
wlihln 250 feeJt from and parallel to the subject property. Ob~aln certified list
~n.d map fi.omi title company and attach. Mark EXHIBIT "D.".
,ASSESSOR'S i MAP. Attach copy of Marion cobnty As,~essor's map ~howing
subject area a~d outlining 250" notification area. Mark EXHIBIT "F'/
We, the undersigned, hereby Certify that all the statements in the plot plan,
attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith are true and complete, and we are
.the Owners of ~'ecord or'contract purchas~m of property for which the zone ma!:,
.chan~e ts reqqested-_
DATE
Oo
RAINIER ROAD ...¢'
// /ddC t
"
' ~ ~ , ---~
~ 2~0 :
~ 4 .,. ,.._. , .'~,..
~ / '/~ s,' " ~i.~' '
2200 - -~ '~ ._
' '~-" L_ , 3100 , / ,.'
i Request for Site Plan Review, Partition,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change
fi.om RS to RM for Tax Lot 2000, Map 5-2W-12-DA
847 Cascade Drive, Woodbum Oregon
7/25/01
Existing Condition
This is an underdeveloped parcel in an area oftransitioning zones and land uses consisting of 1.7
acres. It has two older ;;ingle family home developed on it and the balance of the lot is vacant. To
~hu~l. ~i2gSt and South of~e parcel is a golf course zoned PA. North of the parcel is a bank office
on a property [~oned CO. East of the subject parcel, across Cascade Drive, is a nursing
home on property that ~s zoned RM. South of the parcel is a series of 4,000 square foot
residential (RS zone) r*sidemial lots that are contiguous to the parcel for 80 feet of its South
Cascade Drive is a full2~ improved street with curbs and sidewalks. All public utilities and services
are available to the pardi fi.om Cascade Drive.
Proposed Use and theiNeed for a Change of Zoning
The applicant wants to build two Residential Care Facilities (~CF) on the vacant portion of the
parcel. These residenc~ are recogmi?ed in Oregon statutes but are not directly acknowledged in
the Woodbum Zoning Ordinance.
RCi~ are a relatively now form of housing for the elde.ft~ that are at a smaller scale than
ditio ed or hom . RC s h ve the look and feel of a rge'
.~7_~_,tl~,_ .tl.t~.,the. '~m ~.~.~' .tiona!, ha. _t2xr. e ?o~er forms of elderly homing. They were recognized
~a.t=rat ,aw m me t~;~l; Amenaed Fan' t-lousing act and:in Oregon statute (ORS' 197,667)
shortly thereafter. Under the Amended Fair HOusing Act they are considered as single family
homes. This f~rm of housing is a hybrid in which up to 15 unrelated people can llve in one
residence, a far more attractive option for those that are 'aging in place' and need assistance in
day to day living. RCFs :do not offer nursing care and are not intended for recovery or
Oo ri.vale _seence. Excerpts fi'om various roles and statutes are included in extn'bit B to this request
grve the reader detail on the differences between RCFs and other forms of elderly homing.
Some confusion is found in the Oregon statute. The statute states in part:
(3) A city or county may allow a residential facility in a residential zone other than those zones
described in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, including a zone where a single-family
dwelling is allowed.
The use of the word 'my' is the subject of a 1991 Attorney General's opinion that states that the
word may must be read as 'shall' in order to comply with the federal law. A copy of the opinion is
included as exlx[bit C to this request.
The Woodbum Zoning Ordinance (WZO) does not recogni?e RCFs. The cloSest land use types in
IOA
'fi' REC'D
OOT 0 5 2001
Page I of 10 wooommfl OOMM[.INI~'
the ordinance are Board~g House~ and Rooming House~. The ordinance only allows these uses in 10A
a multi6~mily zone.
In order to construct the two RCFs on this property, the applicant must change the property's
zone to RM. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan considers single and multi family land uses
differently and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required for the zone change.
If this request is successful, the parcel will be partitioned into three lots. The lots that will have
the RCFs developed on the~I1 will each have 24,597 square feet. Total building coverage,
including covered porches and patios, living space and garages will be 6,633 square feet. This
calculates to just under 27 percent lot coverage, far less than the 37.5 percent that is allowed in
the R1S zone for a single family home with garage.
Ordinance Criteria
The WZO, in Section 1~.055 and Section 15.600 states that a site plan and exterior elevations
may be required by the Planning Comrni.qsion. These are included in this request in exhibit A.
The WZO .sets forth the following criteria for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in Section
16.050:
(a) The proposal complies with all applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines.
The applicable Statewide Goals and Cruldelines are discussed in a later section of this narrative.
· Y ,. (b) The proposal complies with the remaining Goals and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Local Comprehensive Plan criteria are discussed below.
(c) There is a clearly, demonstrated public need for the proposed ame~nt.
As ~ above, the ~ of RCF...S to house the elderly is a relatively now homing type. It
provide, a..for~, ofhous',l~g for re~ide~.s that cannot live independently. ~ are merely iaging in
pla~' but are not in nee4 of the ntore intensive care offered by a traditionltl nursing home with a
more institutional enviropment. The type of living provided by RCFs is a more ~e,
comfortable and acceptable lifestyle that allows communities to distribute elderly citizens
throughout the commun'~rty rather than concentrate them in locations that fillow 'big box' nursing
care facKedes.
The applicant's research shows that thin type of housing is needed in Woodburn is demonstrated
by population data. Exhibit D, population data, demonstrates that from 1990 to 1997 Woodbum's
general population grew at a rate 0f20.5 percent. During the same period W0odbum's over.65
population was at the highest ratio in the study at 22.4 percent of the population_ This proposal
intends to add needed housing to Woodbum's inventory.
(d) The proposal best satisfies the public need.
The marketplace demonstrates that in communities with a high ratio of elderly residents there is a
ISe~tion 1.115
2Section 1.500
Page 2 of 10
nee?. for this type ofi~ousing. In communities where this ratio is in double digits, where the
applicant has develop4xt similar residences (Roseburg, Grants Pass, Medford and Prineville) all
beds were filled within one month of the opening of the RCFs.
IOA
Section 16.080 of the WZO states that certain specific questions shall be given consideration in
evaluating requests such as this one:
(a) To Support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall:
t(1) Prove that the original plan was in error;
i(2) Show that the community has changed since the original plan was
'adopted; or
(3) Show that there has been a change in the planning and growth policy
of the City.
.~nt this situation? the C(~mprehensive Plan could be in error. This property is a penin.mla inserted
o commercial, park {md multi-family zones projecting North fi.om a single family zone. Only the
park zone is compatibl~ with the current zoning, as k is with the proposed zone and plan
designation.
This application showsithat the community has changed since the origina! plan was adopted and
there has been, or should have been a change in the planning ~d growth policy of the city. The
nC~otTm~e,,P~lan ~ adop_ted in_1978 and has been amended six times since. The plan does
ecces or aelmbwIeclge them as being different fi.om boarding or rooming houses. It is
~ that'only a rn~num of amendment has occurred in order to offer housing options to the
elderly.
As Woodbum's population grows it should be assmned that the number of citizens over 65 will
increase or at least maintain as a percentage of the population. In order to acomodate thi.~ aged
population all housing options should be explored to accommodate this great percentage of the
overall population, the highest per capita, in the state. -This request, in a small way, will help to
accomplish this goal. '
(b) To support a zone change, the applicant shall:
(1) Show that there is a need for the use propose&
The text immediately above demonstrates the need for RCFs as a component of housing options
for the elderly.
(2) Show that the particular piece of property in question will best meet
that need
The applicant searched Woodburn properties for the development of his RCFs. The properties
that he found available that were properly zoned were both too large for his project and in
neighborhoods that were developed with high density apartment uses that are incompata"ole with
his proposed development. This property is close to arterial access, adjacent to open (quiet) space
and across from a compatible land use. This property is flat to allow for handicapped access and
has ali the needed infrastructure.
Page 3 of 10
Comprehensive Pla~ Criteria
Certain criteria in the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan have been identified as being pertinent to
this request. With responses they are:
IOA
Residential Land Degelopment Policies
/1-1. Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood concept.
Neighborhoods should be an identifiable unit bounded by arterials, non-
residential uses, or natural features of the terrain. The neighborhood
,~hould provide a focus and identity within the community and should have
a community facility, such as a school, park, or privately owned
community facility to allow for interaction within the neighborhood
The response above to WZO Item 16.080 (a) (1) applies here. This property is a peninsula of
a~soning, compat~le only with the land uses on two sides. On one of these sides, the PA zone is
compatible with the proposed zone. The neighborhood has been defined by the multifamily
and office uses hnme~tely adjacent to this property.
?1-3. Development should promote, through the use of moderate density
-.... standards and creative design, a feeling of openness and spaciousness
with sufficient landscaped area and open space to create a pleasant living
environment.
This policy is the desir0 oft. he applicant as well as the Comprehensive Plan. The residents of these
facilities will not be nm.bile and able to enjoy public open spaces such as parks. The site plan
demonstrates that the buildings will be set back from the street to provide buffering and
landscape. The large fenced back yards are intended for the recreational needs of the residents.
As mentioned elsewhere in this request, the buildings will only cover the lots by 27%.
d-2. Living Environment- Developments in residential area be constructed in
such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate over time. Zoning
ordinances should be strictly enforced to prevent encroachment of
degrading non-residential uses. Construction standards in the State
: Building Code shall be vigorously enforced, and if necessary, additional
standards the City determines should be imposed to insure non-degrading
housing units, should be encouraged by the City.
This proposal is for two 15-bed RCFs that are not only subject to the WZO and the Oregon
Structural Specialty Code but are subject to review and inspection by the State of Oregon. These
buildings are under far greater scrutiny, than the more traditional residential housing types because
they are subject to ongoing periodic inspection as a condition of their state licence. Not only will
they be build to not degrade but their maintenance is assured by continuing inspections.
d-4. Streets in residential areas should be used by residents for access to
collectors and arterials. Residential streets should be designed to
minimize their use for through traffic~ however, whenever possible dead-
end streets and cul-de-sacs should be avoided
The proposed residential uses will access Cascade Drive, a residential, fully developed street. It
connects to collectors or arterials at each end as set forth in this criterion_
d-5. Residential developments should strive for creative design which will
Page 4 of 10
maximize the inherent values of the land being developed and encourage
slow moving traffic. Each residential development should provide for
landscaping and tree planting to enhance the livability and aesthetics of
the neighborhood.
This proposal will create three lots from the existing parcel No streets are proposed. No streets
are needed as Cascade :Drive fronts enough of the parcel to allow adequate street frontage for the
three proposed parcels?
The applicant exceeds Woodbum's criteria for landscaping for his own interests. In order to
create a comfortable a~d attractive environment for the residents, the applicant has to create
attractive yards at the eCcterior of his buildings.
A-10. ~igh Density residential areas should be located so as to minimize the
~ossible deleterious effects on adjacent low density residential
~e, velopments. When high density and low density areas abut, density
should decrease in those areas immediately adjacent to low density
residential land Whenever possible, buffering should be praCtices by such
rqeans as landscaping, sight-obscuring fences and hedges, and increased
sFtbacks.
The response to sectionl A-1 above, details the penln~lar nature of this marcel and the
surrounding land uses. Under its current zone'the property bdffers a p~J~:~rom a multifamily
omu pt-ov~oc trle oee~ xaelltllleO m criterion A- 10. The buffering in the criterion will be
n~.~_ _un2_er__s!t~e,~ie~w~ ~wh.en,the prol~_sed South lot is developed. This buffering will only
~,~ ,u tx: aortaes.sea xo~u feet atoag the South line of the parcel
A-11. Traffic from high density reSidential areas should have access to collector
or arterial streets without going through other residential areas.
This property lies immedht_ely South of an office building and a bank on Cascade Drive. North of
these buildings, Caseade Drive intersects with Highway 214, an arterial.
The traffic that will be generated from this proposal is nominally the same as could be generated
from the existing zoning, For the rake of comparison we should set aside solar, lot Width and
other constraints to development and use gross numbers. The parcel is currently zoned for single
fame, 6,000 square foot lots. It contains 73,992.6 square feet- that would hypothetically yield 12
residences. The ITE Manual, 6-~ Edition assigns a trip generation of 9.57 average trip ends per
day for a single family home. The hypothetical 12 homes on this parcel would generate 115 trip
ends daily.
Extu'bit E in this request is a traffic study for an identical RCF that the applicant developed in
Bend. It indicates that these RCFs generate 32 two-way trips or 16 trip ends per day. The two
proposed RCFs will generate 32 trip ends per day.
The rema/ning proposed lot as an RaM lot could hypothetically be developed with 15 2-bedroom
dwelling units on its 24,797 square feet. The ITE manual assigns a trip generation of 6.63 trip
ends per day for units of this type. This lot could hypothetically generate 99 trips per day.
The potential traffic generation under this proposal is 131 trips. The potential traffic generation
Page 5 of 10
IOA
.under ~ .existing zoain~ is 11.5 trips. The maximum additional traffic impact under this proposal 10A
~s an additaonal 16 trips br less than two single family homes.
Housing Goals and Policies
Goal
G-1
The hoUSing Goal of the city is to insure that adequate housing for all sectors of
the community is provided.
Policies
G-l-2. It is the policy of the city to encourage a variety of housing types to accommodate
the deraaads of the local housing market.
G-1-3. To ensure the new concepts in housing are not restricted unduly by ordinances, the
City shall periodically review its ordinances for applicability to the current trends in
the housing market.
As explained earlier in tl~ text, RCFs are a relatively new form of housing that_ is in demand. By
providing a transitional tbrm of housing between indePendent living and full nursing care for the
infirm, in a home-like atmosphere, a housing need is met. Woodburn, like most cities in Oregon,
has yet to ackaowledge RCFs under periodic review and include thin housing type in its
ordinances. This request will lead to the inclusion ofthis housing type in Woodbum's invemory.
The l~ublic need for this form of housing to accommodate the ~aglng in place population is clear.
Due to the provisions of WZC Chapters 22 and 26, this request is the most expeditious way to
meet Policies A-3, G-l-2 and G-l-3 of the Comprehensive Plan and still comply with the WZC.
WZC Section 16.080 (2) requires the applicant to prove that the comm, nlty has changed since
the origin~ ComprehensZn, e Plan was adopted. The comi~unity, along with the rest of the state has
changed by the inclusion of RCFs into the housing options'for Woodbums citizens. The
Comprehensive Plan'and the WZC have yet to updated to acknowledge this form of housing
specifically. This is not uncommon and Woodbum is not unique in this respect: The applicant is
certain that RCFs will be addressed under periodic review in conformance with ORS 197.667 in
due course.
Public Services Goals and Policies
a-1.
Public Facilities and services shall be appropriate to support sufiiciem
amounts of land to maintain aa adequate housing market in areas
undergoing development or redevelopmem.
H-2 The level of key facilities that can be provided should be considered as a
principal factor in planning for various densities and types of urban land
The response to these criteria is mentioned in other parts of this text. This proposal is for an infill
development on a pamel that fronts a fully improved street with all utilities present.
Statewide Goals
Page 6 of 10
Statewide Goals g, ~0, 11, 12 13 and 14 have been identified as pertinent to this application. 10A
Goal 9 deals primarily with comprehensive phnning in the placement of industrial and commercial
zoning in order to provide for economic development. Taken in a broad sense the preamble to the
goal can be addressed in relation to this proposal:
To provide adequate opportunities
throUghout the state for a variety of
econ,
heall
Ore!
Residential Care Fac
other options avalla
goal
Some non-traditional
employees on site dep
i,~_ustry. The develop~
trades. Landscape
=mic activities vital to the
1, welfare, and prosperity of
)n's citizens.
ities offer a form of housing that is more affordable to the residents that the
to them. This meets the health, welfare and prosperity components of the
facilities adds to the o~)portuuity for family wage jobs. "
The most on-point goal to this request is Goal 10, Housing. Goal 10 begins with:
To prOvide for the housing needs of
cifizeqs of the state.
Buiidable lands for residential use
shall be inventoried and plans shall
encourage the availability of adequate
numbers of needed housing units at
price ranges and rent levels which are
commensurate with the financial
capabiEties of Oregon households and
allow for flexibility of housing location,
type and density.
Needed Housing Units- means
housing types deterroined to meet the
need shown for housing within an urban
growth boundary at particular price
ranges and rent levels. On and after the
beginning of the first periodic review of a
local government's acknowledged
comprehensive plan, ...
~onomic development is generated by RCFs. The staffing (1 to 3
ending on the time of day) creates entry level jobs in the health care
nent and eonstmetion of an RCF generates work for the construction
atenance and other services needed for the day to day function of these
The discussion earlier in this request cites the differences between RCFs and other forms of
elderly housing. The applicant intends to develop these facilities to cater to residents with
Alzheimers's and other dementia conditions. While living in a home with only 14 other residents is
certainly more attractive for the general elderly population that living in a 'big box' home, it is
partic~fi~rly attractive for residents with these conditions. The more infima__te and quiet
Page 7 of 10
environment makes r~iOents with these conditions more comfortable and reduces the negative
aspects of their conditions. In the Guidelines section of Statewide Goal 10 it states:
GUIDELINES
A. PLANNING
1. In addition to inventories of
buildablle lands, housing elements of a
comprehensive plan should, at a
minimum, include: (1) a comparison of
the distribution of the existing population
by income with the distribution of
available housing units by cost; (2) a
determination of vacancy rates, both
overall and at varying rent ranges and
cost levels; (3) a determination of
expected housing demand at varying
rent ranges and cost levels; (4)
allowanC~,e for a variety of densities and
types of residences in each community;...
RCFs offer an alternative form of housing to residents that d~ not need full nursing care that is
mom affordable to thos~ who can take advantage of it. The need for thin kind of housing can be
demonstrated by the experience of the applicant. Over two years he has developed 9 sirn~sr RCFs
in cries with populations of 5,000 or more. In every case they were fully occupied within 30 days
of c45'mpletion. In one case, at 30 days the waiting list was 30 people, in another, tl~ list contained
60 people seeking a vacancy. Of the cities where these residences were deyeloped, only Roseburg
approached the percentage of population over 65 that is found in Woodburn. A statistical data
sheet is included in this request:as exhibit D that shows that as of 1967 Woodbum leads the state
in per capita population over 65 years old. It is clear that thin form of housing is needed by the
residents of the state and is in high demand due to its affordability.
10A
Statewide Goal 11 deals with facilities and services. The urban portions of the goal apply to this
request:
Urban Pacilities and Services Refers
to key facilities and to appropriate types
and levels of at least the following:
police protection;sanitary facilities;
storm drainage facilities;planning,
zoning and subdivision control;health
services;recreation facilities and
services;energy and communication
services;and community governmental
services.
The goal requires that these facilities and services be planned for and provided for in an orderly
manner. This property is an in-fill lot that is served by all of the services and facilities mentioned in
the goal No extension of utilities is needed in thin case. It should be noted that as altzheimers
homes the proposed RCFs will have no impact on the parks system. All recreation is provided on-
Page 8 of 10
site for the residents.
Goal 12 deals with transportation The analysis above addressing Comprehensive plan criterion
A-11 shows that thi.q proposal has no significant ' .nnpact on the system. Goal 12 states in part:
IOA
5. Population densities and peak
hour travel patterns of existing and planned
developments should be considered in the
choice 0f transportation modes for tdps
taken b~' persons.
Exlu'bit E not only shov[s trip generation for the proposed RCFs but gives data on peak hour
travel Only 12.5 % of the trips generated occur in the peak hours. The proposed use is very
friendly to the transportation system.
Goal 13 addresses energy efficiency:
econom
The proposed RCFs wil
Code~ Oregon's code is
and ~ooI~, water heati
To con,serve energy.
Land arid uses developed on the
land sh;~ll be managed and controlled so.
as to m~ximize the conservation of all
forms ot' energy, based upon soljnd ic principles.
, be constructed under the provisions of the Oregon Structural Specialty
the most comprehensive in the nation for energst efficiency. Space heating
g and lighting systems are subject to review for their efficiency.
The proximity of the loc
al/on to Highway 214 wffi contribute to lower fuel consumption in travel
to and from the facilities'
Statewide Goal 14 deals with urbanization.'
To provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
Urban growth boundaries shall
be established to idehtify and separate
urbanizable land from rural land.
Establishment and change of the
boundaries shall be based upon
considerations of the following factors:
(1) Demonstrated need to
accommodate long-range urban
population growth requirements
consistent with LCDC goals;
(2) Need for housing,
employment opportunities, and livability;
(3) Orderly and economic
Page 9 of I0
provision ~or public facilities and services;
T~ property that is the ~bjcct of this request is within th~ city limits and the urban growth
boundary. The growth of the specific population that thi.~ project will serve and the need for this
type of housing has been discussed elsewhere in this application.
As an inflli development vlrith all utilities and services present, this proposal conforms with the
provisions of Goal 14 as it puts no pressure on expanding the IJGB nor does it require the
extension of utilities.
IOA
Page 10 of 10
: Rule and Statute Excerpts
Definitions Under Rule and Statute
"A" REC' D
OCT 0 5 2001
WOOD, URN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
OAR 411 offers definitions that give some guidance. Non applicable text is deleted and text is
highlighted where appropriate: '
411--055-0000
Definitions
10A
(25) "Nursing Care" means the practice of nursing by a licensed nurse, including tasks and functions that are
delegated by a registered nurse to persons other than licensed nursing personnel, which is governed by ORS
Chapter 678 and rules adop :ed by the Oregon State Board of Nursing in OAR Chapter 851.
(26) "Owner" means the po son(s) or entity legally responsible for the operation of the facility. The owner is a
licensee.
(31) "Residential Care F~!!q, (RCe")" means a fac,.'!itF that provides care for six or more ~.~ons over the a ,
o l , ~. __,_ lw. fl,
f 8 on a 2~,.aur bu~,~ inlone or more hutl,41.~l~$ Oft colttit~nott$ ~rot~:;:- z:~u-
residential ..... - ......~ -. '-. ...... "
care facilRy mct~tes residential care homes with 6 - 15 persons sad residential care e~,,,t,,,.,
more: persolls. ' r
,r-p,cmmumon mine sennas aaa specmes measurable goals, including by whom, whea and how ofl~n care and
services will be provided. The plan is developed at the time of admission and is reviewed and updated at least
semi ~-~mually and when lhe condition of the resident changes.
411-085-0005
Definitions
As used in OAR Chapter 411, Divisions 70 and 85 through 89, unless the nde requires otherwise, the foUowing
definitions
(28) "Long Term Care Facility" means nursing i'acility.
(35) "Nursing Asset" o~ "Nur~ Aide" means a person who assists licensed nurses in the provision ofnursing
care service~."Nursing assistant" includes, but is nc~ limited to, certified nursing assistant, certified medication
assistant and persons enrolled in a CNA course.
(36) "Nursing Care" means ~d indire& care provided by a re~s~ered nur~ lic~ns~ practical nurse, or
nursing assistant.
(37) "Nursing Facility" means an estabUshmcat with permanent [acilitles that lncl_~4e Inpatient beds; providlm,
medical services, incIudtnz aurslng servic.~ but excluding surgical procedures; and which provides ~trc and
treatment for two or more unrelated residents. In this definition, "treatmeat~ means complex nursing tasks that
cannot be delegated to an u ~rt?e__ensed persotr ~Nursln~ f~_e!l!~~ thall not be constme.__d to
licensed,and operated purxu(mt to any Oret~on Revised SLm~._te other than 01~ 441,020(2~.
(38) "Nursing Facility Law" means ORS Chapter 441 and the Oregon Admini~-ative Rules fo~ nursing facilitie~
adopted puraumt thereto.
(39) ~Nur~ln~ Hon~es meant nurslmt facilttF
(41) "Nursing Staff~ meows registered nurses, Hcenzed p, actical nurses and nursing assist~n~ providing direr
Classification of Residential Care FactlitF
(1) A Class I or Il license shall be issued by the Division based upon the qualifications and number o. fstaffin the
residential care facility, and COmpliance with the requirements of OAR Chapter 411, Division
(a) A Class I license is required for a facility which provides basic residential care services to people who require
only assisIance in activities of daily living. Class I licenses cannot serve persons who are non-ambulatory, require
feeding or are dependent in aUy activity of daily living. The facility mu.~ meet the minimtun s~affing requirements
outlined in OAR 411-055-0161. All residents shall be in stable medical condition. Nursing tasks may be delegated
to the staffby a Registered NUrse under the Board of Nursing Rules;
Co) A Class II license is required for a facility which provides basic r~fden~ial care services to people who require
assistance in activities of daily living;, and, in addition, wish to serve people who are aging in place; have aa
increase in medical acuity;, or, ldue to impairm~mt, are dependent in one or more activity of daily living. Staffing
levels shall meet the needs of ill residents at all
times. The facility shall meet ~he minimum ~g requirem~lts outlined in OAR 411-055-0161. In addition to
the minim,mn direct care staffing, the residential care factlitF shall meet the following requirements:
(A) Regularly scheduled regiaered nursing available either on staffor tllrough a contract, or
CB) Regularly scheduled liceased practical nursing (an LPN) available either on staff or through a eoniracc In
addition a Registered Nurse must be available to provide nurse delegation and LPN supervision;
(C) N~ing tasks may be delegated bF a Registered Nurse to the staffunder the Board of Nursing rules.
(2) Providers shall admi~ or continue to care for only residents with impairment levels within the classification
level of the facility.
10A
Residential Care Facilitie~ under Class H licencing with P,l?heimer's Indo~ are licenced
under the provisions of OAR 411 and ORS 433 and not ORS 433. Nursing services are
contracted for and the contracting nurses routinely delegate to reg~flar staffas cited
above.Typically staffare not required to be licenced under the'statute. ORS 433 further
distinguishes between RCFs and Nursing Homes:
~ENTIAL FACILmES AND HOllIES
443.400 Definitions for ORS 443.400 to 443.455. As used in ORS :443.400 to 443.455 and
443.991 (2), unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Department" means the Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division or
the Senior and Disabled Services Division or the office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, as
appropriate.
(3) "Resident" means any individual residing in a facility who receives residential care, treatment
or training, For ~ of ORS 443.400 to 443.455, an inc~vidual is not considered to be a
resident if he or she is related by blood or marriage within the fourth degree as determined by
civil law to the person licensed to operate or maimain the facility.
(4) 'Restdengtal care" means ~er~tce~ ~uck as ~on; p~e~n; ~ee ~h~e
~kln~, d~n~. ~omin~ or ¢~l.management of mon~ ~~n: ~nt ~d
the v~ne of ~m and ~
10A
(5) "Residential care facility" means a ~cility that provides, for six or more physically disabled or
socially dependent individuals, residential care. in one or more buildings on contiguous
propertiea.
443.405 Exclusions fi.om definition of"residential facility." For purposes of ORS 443.400 tb
443.455 and 443.991 (2), "residential facility" does not include:
(3) A nun ing home;
(4) A boa ,ital;_
(5) A plac', primarily engaged in recreational activities;
(6) A fost,'r home;
(7) ,4 l~la~ ,~ providing care and tren__.nnent on less than a 24ohour bayer
ADULT
Definitions for ORS 443.705 to 443.825. As used in ORS 443.705 to 443.825:
443.705
(1) dultifoster home means any family home or facility in which residential care is provided
in a homel~e environment for f~ve or fewer adults who are not related to the provider by blood
or marriage.
The ttistinet exclusion of Nursing Homes and Hospitals above and the governing ofnursin~ homes
and hospitab under different statue and nde help to show the difference between these fac~ties.
Residents in RCFs are not "patients" undergoing 24 hour medical care as would be those in
nurs~ homes but are r0sidents by deflnitiom
"Assisted L'nting" facilities differ fi.om RCFs. In an assisted living facility many of the residents-
hax,~ their own cooking ~, access to laundry faeKn~,es and oRen come and go as they may.
Siting and Placement
Residential Facilities have been acknowledged by the Oregon Legislature. Some confusion results
from an analysis of the state statute in light of the Amended Fair Housing Act. The statute
appears to allow a jurisdiction to apply.the conditional use process to an RCF in a single family
zone. Case law under the Fair Housing Act differs with the text of the statute.
SPECIAL RESIDENCES
197.660 I~finitions. As used in ORS 197.660 to 197.670, 215.213, 215.263, 215~.83,215.284
and 442.422:
(1) "Residential facility~ means a residential care, residential training or r~sidential treatment
fa~lity lic~l or rq~n~d by or under the authority ofthe Dq~anmt of Land Conservation
and Developmmt, as defined in ORS 443.400, under ORS 443.400 to 443.460 or licensed by the
State Oflico for Services to Children and Families under ORS 418.205 to 418.327
combination thereof for six to fifteen individuals who need not be related. Staffpersons required
to meet licensing requiremmts shah not be counted in the number of facility residen~ and need
not be related to each other or to any resident of the residential facility.
(2) "Residential home" means a residential treatment or training or an adult foster home licensed
by or under the authority of the department, as defined in ORS 443.400, under ORS 443.400 to
443.825, a residential facility registered under ORS 443.480 to 443.500 or an adult foster home
licensed under ORS 443.705 to 443.825 which provides residential care alone or in
conjunction ~vith treatment or training or a combination thereof for five or fewer individuals who
need not be related. Staffpersons required to meet licensing requirements shall not be counted in
the number of facility residents, and need not be related to each other or to any resident of the
residential home.
(3) 'Zooingirequirement" means any standard, criteria, condition, review procedure, permit
requiremen< or other requirement adopted by a city or county under the authority of ORS chapter
215 or 227 ~daich applies to the approval or siting of a residential facility or residential home. A
zoning requirement does not include a state or local health, safety, building, occupancy or fire
code require~nent. [1989 c.564 s.2; 1991 c.801 s.6}
197.663 Legislative findings. The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) It is the policy of this state that disabled per3ons and elderly persou are entitled to live
ns nonn~ ns possible within communitks nd should not be excluded from commllllitles
because th ~e!r disability or age Fequires them to live. in groups;
(2) There i~ a growing need for Fesidentlal homes tnd residenthl facilities to pFovide quality
care ,.nd pt~ion for disabled persons and elderly persons ~nd to prevent in~ppFopriate
placement Of such persons in state insti~flions and nm-sing homes;
(3) It is often difficult to site and establish resMentiul homes and residential facilities in the
comm~lliltiell of this state;
(4) To mee~ the growing need for residential homes and resMentiul facilities, it is the policy
of this state that residential homes and residential facilities shah be considered a residential
use of property for zoning purpo~ and
(5) It is the policy of this state to integrate residential facilities into the gommuBitie~ of this
state. The objective of integration cannot be accomplished if residential facilities are
concentrated in any one area. [1989 e..~i4 s,3]
197.665 Lo~ions of residential homes. (1) Residential homes shall be a pet'miRed us~ in:
(a) Any residential zone, including a residential zone which allows a single-family dwelling; and
Co) Any commercial zone which allows a single-family dwelling.
(2) A city or county shall not impose any zoning requirement on the establishment and
maintenance ora residential home in a zone described in subsection (1) of this section that is
more rea~rictive than a zoning requirement impo~d on a singlo-family dwelling in the same
zone.
(3) A city or county may:,
(a) Allow a residential home in an existing dwelling in any area zoned for farm use, including an
exclusive farm use zone established under ORS 215.203;
Co) Impose zoning requirements on the establi~ment of a residential home in areas descn~[ in
paragraph (a) of thin subsection, provided that these requirements are no more restrictive than
those im _pose, l___ on other nonfarm single-family dwellings in the same zone; and
10A
(c) Allow a division of land for a residential home in an exclusive farm us~ zone only as
described in ORS 215.263 (8). [1989 c.564 s.4]
197.667 Location of residential facility;, application and supporting documentation.
(1) A residential facility shall be a permitted use in any zone where multifamily residential uses
are a permitted use.
(2) A re~dential facility shall be a conditional use in any zone where multifamily residential
ases are~ conditional use.
(3) A ci~or county may allow a residential facility in a residential zone other than those zones
Lee eseC~ll.m~dg ~ma~owbwS~:fied 'ons (I)and (2)of this section, including a zone where a single-family
r oa~ .an~ ~'~a~_~u~. ae~.ORS 418.205 to 418.327 for licensing ora residential fadlity.
t198j ~-,u'~ ~.o; ~:~ C.~U! S. ttJ
197.670 ZOning requirements and prohibitions for residential homes and residential facilities. (I)
As of O~t0ber 3, 1989, no city or county shaH:
(a) Deny a~ application for the siting of a residential home in a residential or commercial zone
descnq~d ia ORS 197.665 (1).
(b) Deny att application for the siting of a residential facility in a zone where multifamily
residential uses are allowed, unless the city or county has adopted a siting procedure which
implementS the requirements of ORS 197..667.
(2): Every city and couaty shall amend its zoning ordiaance to comply with ORS 197.660 to
197.667 as part ofperiodi¢ land use plan review octnaxing ara- January 1, 1990. Nothing in this
section pro~ts a city or county from amending its zoning ordinance prior to periodic review.
[1989 c.564 s.6]
10A
1991WL 543948
Page I
10A
*933 1991 WL 543948
Office of thc Attorney Gcneral
State-of Oregon
Opinion Request OP-6377
January 7, 1991
Richard C. Lippincott, M.D.
Administrator
Mental Health and Developmental Disability
Services Division
Department of Human Resources
2575 Bittern Street, N.E.
Salem, OR 97310-0520
Dear Dr. Lippincott:
You have asked three questions concerning the
effect of the federal Fair Housing Act on Oregon
statutes governing the sitir[g of desidential homes and
residential facilities for the disabled. We set forth
your questions and our short answers, followed by a
discussion.
1. Do ORS 197.667(1) and (2), regarding siting of
residential facilities for the disabled, violate the Fair
Housing Act as amended in 19887 In particular, do
they violate: a) the Act's non-discrimination
provisions, b) the Act's mandatory assistance
provisions, or c) the HUD regulations limiting
inquiries cohceming handicaps {FN 1) in housing
negotiations?
When those statutes are read properly in
conjunction with ORS 197.667(3), the answer is no.
2. Does ORS 197.667(3) allow local jurisdictions
to avoid violating the Fair Housing Act?
Yes. ~
3. Under the Fair Housing Act, are all state and
local zoning restrictions on residential facilities for
the disabled, including conditions and special use
permits, invalid unless applied to all other
residential uses'?.
Yes. With one possible exception explained
below, residential facilities for the disabled must not
be subject to any zoning restrictions not applied to
other residential uses.
Discussion
1. The Fair Housing Act
ThelFair Housing Amendment~ Act of 1988,
effective March 12, 1989, amended Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Fair Housing Act or
FHA) to include people with handicaps among the
classes of people protected against discrimination in
housing. The Act now prohibits discrimination on
the basis of handicap in the 'terms, conditions or
privileges' of the sale or rental of any dwelling.
The prohibition applies whethcr the handicapped
person is the buyer or renter, the current or an
intended resident of that dwelling, or a person
associated with the buyer or renter. 42 USC § 3604
(f)(1), (2) (1988).
The amendments impose certain mandatory
assistance requirements upon 'any person" involved
in the sale or rental of housing to the handicapped.
No person i'nay refuse to permit a handicapped
person to make reasonable modifications to the
premises if necessary to allow the handicapped
person full enjdyment of those premises. 42 USC §
3604(00)(A) (1988). It also is unlawful to refuse
to make reasonable accommodations in rules,
policies, practices and services if necessary to afford
the handicapped person 'equal opportunity to use
and enjoy a dwelling.' 42 USC § 3604(f)(3)(B)
0988).
The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) regulations implementing the
FHA amendments include another key prohibition.
These regulations prohibit inquiry into either the
existence of or the nature or severity of any
handicap of the buyer, renter, or intended resident
or of an associate of the buyer, renter or intended
resident. 24 CFR § 100.202(c) (1990). The
regulations list five exceptions, (FN2) which, govern
so long as the 'inquiries are made of all applicants,
whether or not they have handicaps." 24 CI~R §
~00.202(c)(1)-(5) (t99o).
The legislative history of the amendments shows
that Congress intended them to apply to state and
local laws:
'These new subsections would also apply to state
or local land use and health and safety laws,
regulations, practices or decisions which
discriminate against individuals with handicaps.
w,,. ,=
· Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
(:lOT '0 5 2001
WOODBURN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPL
1991WL 543948
to protect safety and health, and to regulate use of
· land, that au_thority has sometimes been used to
· restrict the ability of individuals with h. andicaps to .
i.live in communities. * * * .-
Page 2
I
homes .and residentiil facilities, it ks the. lm. licy of
this state that residential homes'and residential
facilities shall be considered a residenti'ai use of
property, for zoning purposes * * * '
IOA
"The Committee intends that the prohibition
against discrimination against those with handicaps
apply to zoning decisions an~
is intended to prohibit the ap
requirements through land-u:
restrictive covenants, and co
use permits that have the elf,
ability of such individuals to
of their choice in the commqmity.
practices. The Act
Dlication of special
;e regulations,
nditional or special
:ct of limiting the
live in the residence
H R Rep No. 100-711, 100th. Cong, 2d Seas 24,
reprinted in 1988 US Code C0ng & Admin News
2185.
2. Application of ORS 197.667
You first ask whether ORS i97.667(1) and (2)
violate the FHA and implemel:ting regulations by
discriminating or requiring diScrimination against
people with handicaps. Because these statutes must
be readlogether with ORS 197.667(3), we address
your second question at ~e same time.
*934 ORS 197.667(1)-(3) are part of a statutory
scheme, ORS 197.660 through 197.670, enacted to
promote housing opportunities for the aged and
disabled. The legislature stated the policies
underlying these provisions as follows:
'(1) It is the policy of this state that disabled
Persons and elderly Persons ~e entitled to live as
normally as possible within communities and
should not be excluded from communities I~cause
their disability or age requires them to live in
groups;
'(2) There is a growing need for residential
homes and residential facilities to provide quality
care and protection for disabled Persons and
elderly persons and to prevent inappropriate
placement of such persons in state institutions and
nursing homes:
'(3) It is often difficult to site and establish
residential homes and residential facilities in the
communities of this state;
'(4) To meet the growing need for residential
ORS 197.663( 1 )-(4).
We must construe ORS 197.667 in light of these
expressed policies. ORS 174.020; Wimer v.
Miller, 235 Or 25, 30, 383 P2d 1005 (1963) ('effect
must be given to the overall policy which [the
statute] is intended to promote').
To aid understanding of ORS 197.667 and the
source of your questions, it is useful first to examine
ORS 197.665. That statute governs siting of
residential homes. A 'residential home' is a home,
licensed by or under the authority of the Department
of Human Resources (DHR) under ORS 443.400 to
443.825, which provides re~i'dential care for five or
fewer indi',dduals who need not be related. ORS
197.660(2). (FN3) Residential homes must be a
permitted use in any residential zone, including
residential zones allowing single-family dwellings,
and in any commercial zone that allows a single-
family dwelling. ORS 19'/.665(1)(a), Co). Thus,
local jurisdictions must allow residential homes
anywhere that they allow single-family dwellings.
Further, ORS 197.665(2) prohibits cities and
counties from imposing 'any zoning requirement on
the establishment and maintenance of a r~sidential
home in a zone described in [ORS 197.C:~5(1) ] that
is more restrictive than a'zoning requirement
imposer1 on a single-family dwelling in the same
zone. ' "
At fkst glance, ORS 197.667, which governs
siting of 'residential facilities,' may appear not to
give ecluivalem protections to those facilities. A
'residential facility' is a facility licensed by or
under the authority of DHR under ORS 443.400 to
443.460 providing residential care to six to 15
individuals, who need not be related. (FN4) ORS
197.667(1) and (2) provide:
'(I) A residential facility shall be a permitted use
in any zone where multifamily residential uses are
a permitted use.
"(2) A residential facility shall be a conditional
use in any zone where multifamily residential uses
are a conditional use.'
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim'to original U.S. Govt. works
.1991 WL 543948.. {
'7%'c:.:_ . ,-:.. I .--...? ~
These pro_visions allow residential_facilities,
whether-providing care to -~ix persons.or 15, {o be
sited as of.right iff multi-familY.r~idential usc .zones
or conditionally in other zones V(here multi-family
residential uses would be a conditional usc.
Page 3
requires them to live in groups," .~hey must not be
denied the option of living in single-family zones
because of their disabilities. Comt~'.mg ORS
1.97.6670) as m~nd~tory rather than pc/missive best
effectuates the legislative policy.
· Thus, under ORS 197.665 a "residential home'
may be sited as of right in any gone permitting
single-family dwellings. In conVast, ORS
197.667(1) and (2), viewed in i~olation, require
cities and counties to permit 're~sidential facilities'
as a matter of right only in zonds permitting multi-
family residential uses.
5o construed, these statutes ws
cotmty to exclude a six-person'r
from a zone that would permit
a single-family dwelling. Cou~
tmrelated, handicapped individ,,
a residential facility could be de
option which would be available
individuals: living in a single-fi
mid allow a city or
:sidential facility
six-person family in
quently, six or more
tl~ living together in
· ieda housing
to related
·nily zone.
The FHA prohibits state and lOCal laws and
regulations that limit housing o~portunities for the
disabled~o, r that treat them differently from non-
disabled individuals. If ORS 197.667(I) and (2)
were read in isolation, these statutes would violate
or require violation of the FHA~ When read
together with ORS 197.667(3), however, the statutes
are lawful. ~
ORS 197.667(3) provides:
'A city or county may allow a residential facility
in a residential zone other ~ those zones
described in subsections (1) a~l (2) of this section,
including a zone where a single-family dwelling is
allowed.' (Emphasis added.)
On i~s face, ORS 197.667(3) merely permits cities
and counties to allow residential facilities in any
zone where a single-family dwelling is allowed. For
three reasons, however, we conclude that this statute
must be read to be mandatory rather than merely
permissive.
*935 First, this construction of ORS 197.667(3) is
consistent with the statutory policy, as stated in ORS
197.663(1)-(4), quoted above. In order to permit
disabled persons 'to live as normally as possible
within commullities' and to avoid excluding them
from communities 'because thair disability * * *
Second, we must construe state statutes, whenever
possible, to comply with federal law and thus to
avoid constitutional infirmity under thc Supremacy
Clause. See, e.g., State v. Smyth, 286 Or 293,593
Pad 1166 (1979). To comply with the FHA, ORS
197.667(3) must be read as mandatory. That is,
cities and counties mu.st permit residential facilities
in single-family zones to the same extent that six or
more related family members would be permitted to
live in a single-family dwelling in those zones.
Third, when the public or a third person has an
interest in the exercise of a discretionary power, thc
word 'may" should be construed to mean 'must. ~
Simpson v.'Winegar, 122 Or 297,301,258 P 562
(1927); 17 Op Arty Gert 643 (1936). The public
has an interest in providing housing opportunities for
the handicapped equal to those of the non-
handicapped. Therefore, local jurisdictions must
permit a residential facility in a single-family'
dwelling zone on the same terms as a single-family
dwelling. (FNS)
This reading of the statute does not prevent cities
and counties from adopting and enforcing ordinances
necessary to promote health and safety. For
example., cities and counties may limit the number
of persons who may live in a dwelling in a single-
family zone. Such limits would be lawful so long as
they are applied uniformly, and not as a mere
pretext to discriminate ag~.inst the handicapped.
(FN6)
In applying ORS 197.667(3), cities and counties
also must avoid violating the HUD regulations
prohibiting inquiry into handicaps. A potential
conflict could arise, for example, under ORS
197.667(4). (FNY) This statute permits a city or
county to require an applicant proposing to sim a
residential facility wi~hin its jurisdiction to supply it
with a copy of the facility's state licensing
application, except fo.r portions exempt from public
disclosure under ORS 192.496 to 192.530. There ·
are nondiscriminatory purposes for which a city or
county could seek the licensing application: for
instance, to determine if a facility has been licensed,
or has a license pending. To avoid violating the
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim t° original U.S. Govt. works
10A
..?_egu_l.atio..ns_:.h_o_w.e..v.er, cities and counties ma~~- not require violating the HUD r~gulations.
· :'-.-:?~a~ih~ion Specifically concerning'.t~~- . ~
· "- :~.-..., ,*.-- -.? -. _, ...... .:.~..m-g.~_ .,...s~;~;~ . ·
' ' e t -:" ..... - '~ ~.r,r'----.'~ ' -': -
rdS en¢l:~namre or seventy of handmaps of.tlio~aF.-~:.~;~:~;. :. *936 We'take thisopport'uni~.y to address an issue
md~v~.du._a, ls whom the hcensmg process cofifier'.ff.q~~: you have not specifically raised. ORS 197.665(2)
Fui:thdr. to the ektent that a ficensing applicati~3~. '7~.~. arguably could be construed to permit lir~itations to
contains information on the I~andicaps of curren{':6[-"::~-2
prospective residents, a city or conmy may not use
this information as a factor ir
ORS 197.667(3)·
3. Discriminatory Applicatim
Require ments
Our prior discussion also in
third question. We already h
city or county may not apply
residential facilities differentl
dwellings on the basis of resi~
the same reasons, conditions
any decision under
of Zoning
tirectly answers your
~ve concluded that a
ORS 197.667 to treat
t' from single-family
lents' handicaps. For
>r s .pg. cial use permits
applied only to residential facilities ~vould be
impermissible. ~
It is difficult to conceive of m application for a
conditional use or special uselpermit for a residential
fac. ility,ohat would not inquire~ into at least the
exmence of a disability. This inquiry would violate
the HUD regulations. Each subsequent step in a
permit process would involve similar potential for a
violation. For example, a he~tring on a conditional
or special use permit application' could involve
inquiry into the existence of handicaps of intended
occupants. The HUD regulations prohibit such
inquiry.
In one situation, however, zoning provisions
lawfully might be applied to residential facilities
only. The FHA arguably would permit a provision
that operated solely to benefit the handicapped by
making housing opportunities preferentially available
to them. Federal law does not bar inquiries in~o
handicaps to ascertain if an applicant qualifies for
housing available only to persons with handicaps or
particular types of handicaps, or qualifies for a
priority available only to the handicapped. These
inquiries are allowed if the same questions are asked
of all applicants. 24 CFR § 100.202(c)(2)-(3)
(1990). One also could argue that a zoning
provision increasing housing opportunities for the
handicapped would be lawful under the FHA. If, as
seems reasonable to conclude, the prohibited inquiry
regulations apply only to inquiries aimed at
discriminating against the handicapped,
implementation of such a zoning provision would
be imposed on residential homes that are not
similarly imposed on single-family dwellings in the
same zone. That statute provides:
'A city or county shall not impose any zoning
requirement on the establishment and maintenance
of a residential home in a zone described in
subsection (1) of this section that is more
restrictive than a zoning requirement imposed on a
single-family dwelling in the same zone.'
(Emphasis added.)
For purposes of these sections, ORS' 197.660(3)
defines 'zoning requirement' as:.
'iA]ny'standard, criteria, condition, review
procedure, permit requirement or other
requirement adopted by a city or county * * *
which applies to the approval or siting of a
residential facility or residential home. A zoning
requirement does not include a state or local
health, safety, building, occupancy or fire code
requirement.'
ORS 197.665(2) .thus prohibits the imposition of
more restrictive zoning requirements on siting of
residential homes than are imposed on single-family
dwellings in the same zone. One could argue by
inference that the statute permits the imposition of
more restrictive requirements other than zoning
requirements, such as health, safety, building,
occupancy or fire code requirements. Under this
reading, however, the statute wOuld violate the FHA
and this would nm contrary to the legislature's intent
in enacting ORS 197.660 tlu-ough 197.670. One of
the legislature's primary goals in enacting these
provisions was to clarify zoning requirements by
consolidating fhem in ORS chapter 197. The zoning
provisions concerning residential homes and
facilities had been in ORS chapter 443, which deals
with licensing, not siting, of homes and facilities.
(FNS) The split in the definition of 'zoning
requirement' between zoning requirements and
those requirements more normally addressed in
licensing provisions was consistent with this goal.
In addition, when enacting ORS 197.660 through
197.670, the legislature was aware of and attempting
to conform with the FHA. (FNg) Consequently, we
Copyright (e) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
IOA
1991 WL 543948
Page 5
conclude that the legislature did not intend that ORS
197.665(2) permit more restrictive requirements on
risidetitial homes than on singl?family dwellings.
Conclusion
ORS 197.667, read as a whole, requires cities and
counties to permit residential facilities in single-
family dwelling zones on the sime terms under
which they permit single-family dwellings. Under
ORS 197.667(3), the only basi~; upon which a city or
county lawfully could refuse t0 site a residential
facility in a single-family zone would be an
occupancy limit or other similar restriction applied
as well to related family meml:}ers living together.
Any other restriction or limitation that either
intentionally or unintentionally has the effect of
denying handicapped individuals housing of their
choice would violate the FHA. If a city or county
discriminates against the handigapped in violation of
the FHA, it does so at the risk of fines of up to
$50,1300 for a £Lrst offense. 42 USC § 3610(g)(2)(C)
(1988); 42 USC § 3614(d)(1)(C)(i) (1988).
Sincerely.
Donald C. Arnold
Chief Counsel
General Counsel Division
FN 1 The Fair Housing Act uses the words
'handicip' and 'handicapped' to describe the
condition at issue or the individuals newly
protected by the Act. ORS 197.660-.670 uses the
terms 'disability' and 'disabled.' The terms are
used interchangeably throughout this opinion.
FN2 24 CFR 100.202(c)(1)-(5) (1990) except ~from
the prohibition:
'(1) Inquiry into an applicant's ability to meet the
requirements of ownership or tenancy;
'(2) Inquiry to determine whether an applicant is
qualified for a dwelling available only to persons
with handicaps or to persons with a particular type
of handicap;
'(3) Inquiry to determine whether an applicant
for a dwelling is qualified for a priority available
to persons with handicaps or to persons with a
pa_nieular type of handicap;
'(4) Inquiring whether aa applicant for a
dwelling is a current illegal abuser or addict of a
controlled substance;
'(5) Inquiring whether an applicant has been
convicted of the illegal manufacture or distributiofi
of a controlled substance.'
FN3 ORS 197.660(2) provides:
"'Residential home' mcoa~s a home licensed by
or under the authority of the Department of Human
Resources under ORS 443.400 to 443.825 which
provides residential care alone or in conjunction
with treatment or training or a combination thereof
for five or fewer individuals who need not be
related. Staff persons required to meet
Department of Human Resources licensing
requirements shall not be counted in the number of
facility residents, and need not be related to each
other or to any resident of the residential home.'
*937 FN4 ORS 197.660(1) provides:
' 'Residential facility' means a facility licensed
by or unl:ler the authority of the Department of
Human Resources under ORS 443.400 to 443.460
which provides residential care alone or in
conjunction with'treatment or training or a
combination thereof for six to fifteen individuals
who need not be related. Staff persons required to
meet Department of Human Resources licensing
requirements shall not be counted in the number of
facility residents, and need not be related to each
other or to any resident of the residential facility.'
FN5 We also do not construe ORS 197.667(3) to
c-onflict, in any way with the mandatory assistance
provisions set forth at 24 CFR § § 100.203,
100.204 and 100.205. To comply with the FHA,
cities and counties must not enact any zoning
restrictions that would have the effect of allowing
sellers, landlords or developers to avoid their
mandatory assistance responsibilities. Nottfing in
ORS 197.667 permits or requires such restrictions.
FN6 The HUD regulations expressly provide that
the FHA, as amended, does not '[l]imit the
applicability of any reasonable local, State or
Federal restrictions regarding the maximum
number of occupants permitted to occupy a
dwelling.' 24 CFR § 100.10(a)(3) (1990).
FN7 ORS 197.667(4) provides:
'A city or county may require an applicant
proposing to site a residential facility within its
jurisdiction to supply the city or county with a
copy of the entire application and supporting
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to o~iginal U.S. Govt. works
1991WL 543948
documentation for state licensing-of the facility,
except for information which is exempt from
public disclosure under ORS 192.496 to 192.530.
However, cities and count!es shall not require
independent proof of the same conditions that have
been required by the Department of Human
Resources for licensing of a residential facility.'
IOA
Page 6
FN8 M_inutes, Senate Committee on. Agriculture and
Natural Resources (HB 2289), May 18, 1989,
Exhibit M, at I.
FN9 Minutes, House Committee on Enviroranent &
Energy (HB 2289). February 17, 1989, at 3.
Copyright (c) West Group 1999 No claim to original U.S. Go,ri. works
Exhibit "B"
PETITION FOR ZONE MAP CHANGE
~ o~ ~',~c~r~u-~'~:~ ~/~ pz,-d~J
DIRECT QUES~ONS TO:
(ADDRESS)
(TELEPHONE
(CITY) (STATE) (ZiP CODE}
REQUEST:
To change
t t 6,~1 ,~,C of (present zone/present comp. plan)
To (desired zoae/desired comp. plan) .~ ~
by the City of Woodbum Zoning Ordinance.
as such zones ar'e defined
OWNERS:
NAME (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE-)
'ADDRESS'& ZIP CODE
.LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE pROPERTY; or if not addressed, then state
distance~to~the nearest intersecti_ng street or know landmadc _
OFFICE USE ONLY
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
Statement of Intent (Exb. A)
Plot Plan (Exb. B)
Legal Description of the Property
Est of All Property Owners within
250 Feet of the Property
Assessors Map
YES
NO
~ REC'D '~
AUG 0 8 2001
WOODBURN COM f.{UNITY
~LOPMENT DEPT.
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS ] OA
4
o
STATEMENT.OF INTENT should discuss/explain the reason this request is made.
Include bdef description of any proposed construction or land use change, show
that the request is: 1) in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) there is a
public need for thls change; 3) that need is best met by this proposal; 4) there is
no other available and appropriately zoned land in the vicinity; 5) petitioner's
cannot make~a reasonable use of the land as tt is currently zoned. (See zone
change policy considerations). (Mark EXHIBIT 'A")
PLOT PLAN: ~Show all properties within 250' from and parallel to the subject
property and the land use of each. Mark EXHIBIT 'B", Draw to scale.
.LEGAL DEsCrIpTION of the property in metes and bounds (as it appears on the
deed); Mark I~XHIBIT 'C', or if property is within a platted subdivision:
* Lot: i,. BloCk: .... of (SubdMsion).
*NOTE: If a fr,
bounds
~AMES AND ~,DDRESSES OF Al I_ PROPERTY OWNERS
within 250 feel: from and parallel to the subject property.
[md map from title company and attach. Mark EXHIBIT 'D.".
ASSESSOR'S MAP. Attach copy of Marion cobnty AsseSsor's map ~showing
subject area and outlining 250" notification area. Mark EXHIBIT 'F"/
~ction of the lot, then attach full description as if it were metes and.
(husband and ~ife)
Obtain certified list
We, the undedSigned, hereby certify that a~l the statements in the plot plan,
attachments, arld exhibits transmitted herewith are true and complete, and we are
.the Ownem of rf~oord or'contract purchas~m of property for whiCh the zOne map
.chan.~e is requf~sted: --
NAME //')
-- ..... _- -,-.--
DATE
vv.,.o. ,.vvz ~m~' ~.o:&~ l-A.l..500 8~.L ~O~ FRUDF:NTIAL w0OD~URN [~100l
RAINIER
kN~/T COR
I~LK 85
ROAD '.../' '"
//
SI
v~
STATE
PARCEl. 1
~..,'~'~C' r~ OLC g~.
2200
'--- ' '~ Naa al ~W'
S 3{00 , / /:'
EXHIBrr C: Tax._Lot ~tap
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
,lIT',.' D~ NOODBU~hl
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION
Exhibit "C"
]0A
REC'D
OCT 0 5 Z001
WOODBURN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
{APPLICANT N-/~'M E )
(ADDRESS~ -T ~j~'~",~.~., (TELEPHONE) "
PROPERTY OWNER:
PROJECT NAMe:..
LOCATION OF. PROJECT~ ~
MAP & TAX ACCOUNT NO(s):
NAME~OF. DEVELOPER: 'l~al~ ~
ARCH./EN .:
Include 11 cop~es of the Site Plan including all the information required in the Zoning
Ordinance, for the particular type of development proposed. All materials are to be folded and
collated.
Include a ~letailed Statement of intent, which describes the type and extent of the proposed
operation, any phasing of development being proposed, maintenance of landscaping, etc...
Applicant may use the attached statement page and/or include a separate statement along
with this application. The statement of intent should include a discussion of the applicable
approval criteria.
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
OFFICE USE ONLY
Number of
Copies Y/N
1. Site Plans .......................
2. Landscape/Irriga'n Plans...
3. Architectural Plans ..........
4. Sign Plans ......................
5. Complete Application ........
6. Statement of Intent ........
(11)
(11)
(4)
(2)
(1)
(1)
Date for Pre-application conference...Part I:
Scheduled Hearing Date .................... :
Date of Engineering Conference ....... Part Ih
IOA
STATEMENT OF INTENT
I 'certify under pelnalties proyided by law 'that the information contained herein is true and
accurate to the b~st of my knowle,dqe a~d belie~f.
DATED this day of , 19__.
SIGNATURES of each owner (husband & wife), contract purchases, representative.
NAME
ADDRESS & ZIP CODE
Co, ntract Purchaser
Repre,sentative
P~Ie 6 - Standards D0eument foe Site Plan Review
11/99
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO SITE PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
847 Cascade Drive, Woodburn Oregon
Criteria for Site Phn Review are contained, in Ordinance Section I 1.070:
(a)
The proposed structures are set back fi'om the street and are screened fi'om adjacent
properties with ~ ~aces.
(b) buffe
(c) The landscaping
residences.
(e)
(t)
Ca)
.5ng conforms with the city's Landscaping Policies and Standards.
is designed to enhance the aesthetic appemance of the proposed
The driveways.a~e designed to be separated fxom each other to the greatest extem possfde
in order to avokl conflicts. The internal circulation is desi~m~d to eliminate backing
nmn~ onto ~he street.
The drainage was designed after co]~ml6nE with the ~ Public Works Department.
The written request that acco~ this response conta/ns a discus.~on of the energ7
conservation measures included in this proposal.
The proposed residences are designed to blend in with the adjacent residential uses.
Material color samples accompany this response.
IOA
IOA
SUSDIVl-~ ON/PARTITION
PREUMINARY PLAT APPLICA'I'[ON
~'~DNC/JRRENT REVIEWS:
ADJUSTMENT _~
____ VARIANCE
SUBDIVISION NAME:_ _~_
REPRESENTATIVE OR CONTACT PERSON:
. . - , '
(ADDRESS)
PROPERTY 0WNER:(Please Print or type)
SITE PLAN REVIEW
CONDITIONAL USE
(PHONE)
I:XnlDl!
ZONE MAP AMENDMENT
COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT
(FAXI
(STATEI (ZIP CODE)
ADDRESS & ZiP CODE
IOA
2. r'dfied Iis~t, on pre-pasted labels for mailing, witt~ the names and addresses of property owners
wlthln 21~0 feet fora S(~bdivi$ion en~l 100 feet for a Part/tion.
Give the acreage, number of lots, average lot siZe and 'any variances being requested. For
example.' 'To divide 32.6 acres into 74 lots with variances to allow for lot frontage on a cu[-de-
saoof 38' where 40' is required.'
4. The ZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN designation in which the parcel is located.
Describe the location of the property or give the address:
7. Attach a written statement, marked ~ which explains your reasons for subdividing the
lend and provides evldenoe that the request conforms to the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivlslon Policies.
8. Attach a preliminary plat and narrative which contains the following infogl~p~f~Lt~(~E~hl~i
OCT 0 5 2001
. DEVELOPMENT u ·
] Viclrlity Map
) Area map idenl:ffylr~ a~aceot structures a~ Io~
~e na~ of e~y P~s~ su~iv~ion shall not ~ the sa~ as or similar to any name Used
on a r~rded plat on ~e ~un~ or ciW). '
To--hip, range, se~on, t~ lot numar(s], acreage of the prope~ to be d~;ded.
A~ch a [ega[ de--rip,on(s) of the pro~.
No~ arrow, s~le ~ne i~ equals 2~ feet or
~;ions and na~s of eli ~i~ing streets within' or on the bounda~ of the proposed
subdivision/pa ~ition.
~tions and na~ of all proposed s[reets.
Lot (perceJ} layout ~th approxima;e dish, ions, lot(parcel) number~ and areas for all lots
(parcels).
Provide a footprint ~f the buildable area for each (o[.
Zoning end Comprehensive Plan designations in the proposed subdMsion (pa~ition) and area
adjacent to ;he proposed subdiv~ion (pa~ition).
indi~te which bui[d~gs are to re,in and ~ich are [o be re~ved.
To~graphy w~hin ~d adjacent to the pro~sed subdiv~ion/pe~idoq.
~tions of dreinag~ ~ys, flo~ ways, or ~dplain ~in and adjacent m the.proposed
subdlv~ion/pa~ition,
~e Io~tion and size of all proposed water, sewer, and storm drain lines.
~e Io~tion of al[ proposed fire hydranm. '
kNAME
Signatures of each owne. r. (husband and wife) or contract purchaser.
ADD. R~SS AND ZiP CODF
· A' REC"D
2001
oEVELOPMENT DEl"' t
IL67 ?SU .~"
h~tc.,:fftet called ~rantc. c, and a.u:~ ~.rantc~'3 hc';r~, 3ucc':~:~:s a~,~ aszi~n~ ~11 c.t that ~:'ta~n teal propot~y t;'iih tho
cf Hario~ , St:lc of Orcgo::, dc~ribcd a~ Iollmv~, to.wit:
Ore,on; s~50 ...~;~ ~ boin~ the So[tth~nbt turner at.Dropert)' co.vcyed to ~f~n~ N. Hoid[ and
Robert L~ He~d~, r~corded Faro'usry 23, 1990, In Roe! 750, Psze ~2t~, ~]m Roco-~ fo~
roadways.
I;mriol] County~ Ore~on:theitee South ~?O.OC feet to the meet ~sterly N',rthoact corner
~eodburn SeniOr Estates No. 7: thence '~est 250.(~feet [o an an~,]~ corner in s]~d u "'
the ~s~ !ine/of ~c[ ~2. I]1o~:- ~q. ~.-,,o- ~'~...~ ,n" ~, ~ .... ' -- . pl t
2d, Block b5,~570.OO feet to ti:.- C'o~*h~est corns- nf ~,~.,~. U ,, 3 ;~' ~ --~' .'3"~.." ......
property: thence ~a% ~O.~ feet [o the poi~t of
SAVE AND ~YCEI~r: That portion of tho above ~escribed premises lyinE u'itki-, road:-,
~ ~:e ;J,JC ~ actual cons;darer;on paid ~:r t~s tran~;er, stai~ in f~rals o~ dol!ar:b 13 $..~Q~.~.Q.~.!.~assi~n3 forever. ........
:°~/~wc:'~r, ti~e a~tual consideration ~nsists off or includes other properly or ~'a~cs ~;ven or pro~ed which
r,.~: o: r~ conszder~f~on (red,cate wh:chJ.~fTlm ,ante~ ~tw~e,. the 4~la~, d J:~t apptl~h.e, should ~ Gcletc~. ,~cg ORS
' In ~nstrci~d this deed and where the context go requ~res, t~ ~n~ular i~cludes the plcrz~ and aH grammatical
chz~cEca shall bo i~plied to make tho provisions hereot apply equally to ~rporations and to
In I~'itness ~$'hereof, the ~ranfor has executed this iRstmment IIHs [ da~. off ~-~ff~ .
ii .1 Corporate ~ra~loL it has caused ifa name to he si~ned and its seal aflized by an o/Hoer or other person duly author-
izod fo do ~o by order al its ~ard of dir~tors. · f , .
FTATE Or' OREGON, County el ........... t.~ ~. ) ss / --
x ................. ~,~,z_.~,.....~.~ .....................................................
~ ~ OFFIC,AL SEAL
C
I cattily that the within instt~.
~,~ n;ent w~ receired tot record on the
~ ...... '1ay el ............................. , J9 ........
IOA
IOA
'b REC'D ~
Ul~i- ~ ~) Z6Oi
wOODBURN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
PA~II=IG L. IV'IN~ ~,ENTEFLG, INC..
P.O. Iq14.
~I~,AN'T'~ PA.~,G, OI~JE~ON
IOA
'~' REC'D ~
0CI 05 Z001
F~AGII=IG L. IV'IN~, Gt=NTI~IR~, lNG.
I~.O. Iqlg.
· ,I~,AN'I'~ PA~, OII~E!~z, ON
WOOOBURN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT
Exhibit "F"
~JURN
PA
Exhibit "G"
IOA -..
PA
I-AMII~II "M-I"
IOA
EXHIBIT "H-2"
IOA
IOA
IOA
IOA
I
I::XHII:511 "H-6"
IOA
A'I-rACHMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
SITE PLAN REVIEW
847 CASCADE DRIVE
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
Final plan sh', dl conform to the construction plan review procedures and
standards.
2. On-site existi
abandoned in
3. The applican
federal agent
ng water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be
accordance with state regulations.
o
Jowner is responsible for obtaining permits from any state and/or
ies which may require approval or permit.
All city main ained facilities located on private property will require a minimum
16 foot wide atility easements be conveyed to the city.
All work within the public right-of-way or public easement shall conform to the
City of Woo~lburn standards and specifications. All work on private property shall
conform to allstate Building and Fire Codes.
STREET AND DRAINAGi~:
o
On-site storm water runoff shall discharge to the street through weep holes in the
curb. Runoff from the parking lot shall not discharge across the public sidewalk.
This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties.
Driveway approaches shall conform to the City of Woodburn commercial
standards.
WATER:
This development can be served by the existing 8" diameter city water main
within Cascade Drive.
A separate service shall be installed to each parcel. Water meters shall be placed
in the public right of way of Cascade Drive.
Proper backflow devices will be required on the domestic and irrigation/fire
sprinkler service. The domestic water line will require a Reduced Pressure
Device. The irrigation and fire sprinkler system if installed will require Double
Check Device. The fire sprinkler device will also require a detector check. The
device shall be installed next to the meter. Contact Larry Arendt, City of
Woodburn Cross Connection Inspector at 503.982.5283 for installation
requirements.
Fire hydrant locations, fire protection and access requirements shall comply with
the Woodburn Fire Districts conditions of permit approval.
SANITARY SEWER:
This development can be served by the existing city maintained sanitary sewer
main within Cascade Drive.
A separate service shall be provided for each parcel, service to be installed by the
applicant.
IOA
WOODB URN FIRE DISTRICT
Prevention Division
Site Plan Review Comments
10A
Memo To:
Scott Clark, Asst. Planner
City of Woodburn
Date: 12-26-01
From: Robert B~nck
Fire Marshal
Facility/Project Nam{: Leon Oliver Residential Care Facility
Location: 847 N. Casca e Dr.
Occupancy Class: SR??.2
A. Access:
1. Exterior of F~eility:
Minimumlaccess appears to be provided. Access around structures will be required
and "Fire ~ane "marking along curb opposite of parking stalls.
. 2. To Interior ot~ Facility:
- Access al~pears to be provided
B. Building Exit Systt~m: The following areas must be addressed for Fire and Life Safety
Review. The information shall be provided to the Building Official as part of a code
sumlna~.
1. Occupant Load:
2. Number of Eatits:
3. Exit Hardware:
4. Exit Signage:
5. Emergency Llghting:
C. Fire flo~v/
Water Supply:
The water flow requirement for type V-N construction of this size is 2000gpm.
This may be reduced to 1500 gpm when sprinkled.
Hydrants:
A minimum of two hydrants will be required, a review of the location of existing
hydrants will be made to determine if any additional hydrants will be required and
their location.
E. Sprinkler/FDC:
SR facilities shall be sprinkled the type of system will depend upon the
classification of the facility. IfFDC are required their location shall be within 25
feet ora hydrant and off of the building. IfFDC is to serve more than one building
an indicator valve will be required to isolate each system if necessary.
F. Alarm System:
As required by the Building and Fire Codes.
G. Premise Identification:
To meet city standards and be visible fi.om a public way.
H. Special Occupancy Requirements:
To comply with Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code and Comply to Appendix 1 F of
the Uniform Fire Code for Special Residence Occupancies.
10A
I. Building Size & Limitations/Type of Construction:
Within limits
J. Fire and Life Safety ~eview Requirement:
To be conducted ~.by City Building Department
K. Special Comments:
An onsite water supply system must be available, operational and acceptable to the
city prior to the c~onstruetion of combustible buildings. Access during construction
must support the weight of Fire Apparatus and allow access to facility.
COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
PERMISSION TO BUILD. BUILDING PERMITS AND PLANS REVIEWS BY THE
APPROPRIATE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED. PERMITS AND APPROVED
PLANS MUST BE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
i 776 Newberg Hwy.
Woodburtt OR~ 97071
(503) 982-2360 or 982-7305 e. xt. 2013
Fax (503) 981-5004
WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT I COMMUNITY POLICING UNIT
!
270 Montgomery St., Woodbum, OR, 97071
Business: (503) 982-2345 / Fax: (503) 982-2370
CPTED
(CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN)
EVALUATION FORM
- Second Submission -
REC'D
JAN 2
WOOOBURN COMMUNITY'
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
IOA
Property Name: Pacific Living Center
Property Contact Person: Leon Oliver
Date: January 20, 2002
CPTED Requested By: S~.ott Clark
Property Address: 847 N. Cascade Dr.
Phone: (541) 476-4227
[3 Private Property [3 City Property
Site Plan Review #: CPMA 01-02, ZC 01-05, SPR 01-13, PAR
01-07
~ZConstruction Plan [3 Existing Building '~tMulti-Family Dwelling [3 Business [3 Mobile
Home
This evaluation will assist tf, e City of Woodbum and you, in addressing crime prevention and livability issues, ff you
have any questions in regards to this evaluation, please contact the evaluator for more information.
Street Access: Site plan ;hows two driveways, which allow street access.
On street parking: On steer parking is available, with limited spaces.
Prop.erty Marker I Sign: I~o property marker or businesses sign indicated in plans.
Access Lighting: AcCess lighting is not planned. Consider placing a residential lighting at the
entrance to each driveway. A Iow light lighting fixture can aid in locating the
driveway accesses.
Exterior Landscape:
Landscape plans show evergreen shrubbery and decorative shrubs along the
outfine of the property. These shrubs should maintained not to exceed three feet
in height and should be trimmed to keep the width from spreading and decreasing
a persons ability to see behind or through the shrubs. Trees should be kept
trimmed and not allowed to cause overhanging, which would decrease or inhibit a
visual view. Shrubs planted next to windows should be kept trimmed below the
bottom of the window and allow two-to-three feet space between the exterior wall
and shrubs, which will create a good visual inspection of the area.
Complex Parking:
Plans indicate 4 regular parking spaces and 1 handicap parking space on the north
and south side of the complex. There are 11 units in this facility, no parallel parking
spaces are indicated on this plan. Consider marking the parking space and using a
parking permit system to separate out tenant parking from visitor.
Parking Lot Lighting:
No parking lot lighting is planned. Consider placing Iow light lighting through out
the parking lot area. Lighting will increase safety and assist in giving residence
an increased amount of natural surveillance for the parking lot area.
Exterior Complex Lighting: Extedor attached lighting planned for the complex. The lighting should be
sufficient enough, so a person can read a newspaper at night, using the
light. Consider placing more lighting on the extedor to increase the amount
of nature surveillance.
Evaluator Name: Ofcr. Linda Heddcks ~
DPSST#: 20883
Shift: 11/23
Page 1 of 3
llA
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MayOr & Council
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director thr~oug
John Brown, City Administrator~t(~ '
June~ 19, 2002 ~-~ -
2002-03 Budget Adoption
RECOMMENDATIOgN: That the Council adopt the attached ordinance setting the budget for
2002-03
BACKGROUND: On~ May 14, 2002 the Budget Committee concluded their hearing on the
City's 2002-03 budget and unanimously recommended that the budget document be forwarded to
the City Council for the next phase of the budget process.
As required by Oregon Budget Law, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 10,
2002 to consider a City budget totaling $47,263,521. The Council also considered the Budget
Committee's recommendation to impose the full property tax rate allowed by law ($6.0534 per
$1,000 of value) and to levy $127,500 for bonded debt which is excluded fi-om the statutory
limitation.
The attached ordinance reflects those amounts with two changes, both affecting the Street/Storm
Capital Improvement Fund (363):
Contingency for Boones Ferry Underground is reduced $91,915 and appropriations for
Boones Ferry Underground is increased by a like amount. Bids for the road construction
work for Boones Ferry were less than expected, allowing for the undergrounding of
Boones Ferry Rd//4 to be done in fiscal year 2002-03. Money is shifted from
Contingency to provide for the work.
Beginning Fund Balance is increased $15,000 and Evergreen/Stacy Trenching is increased
$15,000. This work was scheduled in the current year, but delays pushed the project back
to 2002-03. Because the work was not done in the current year, Beginning Fund Balance
is more than originally estimated, and that will fund construction in 2002-03.
With these changes the budget as described in the attached ordinance totals $47,278,521.
llA
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
2395
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003, MAKING
APPROPRIATIONS, LEVYING TAXES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 is hereby adopted as set forth below.
Section 2. That taxes provided for in the adopted budget are imposed at the rate of $6.0534 per
$1,000 of assessed value for operations and in the amount of $127,500 for bonds; and that these taxes are hereby
imposed and categorized for tax year 2002-2003 upon the assessed value of all taxable property within the City.
General
Government
Excluded from
the Limitation
Tax Rate - General Govt. Operations
Bonded Debt
$ 6.0534/$1,000
$127,500
Section 3. That the budget amounts for fiscal year 2002-2003, and for the purposes shown
below, are hereby appropriated as follows:
GENERAL FUND ---
City Council and Mayor
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Livability Program
City Administrator's Office
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Museum
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Events Program
City Recorders Office
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
City Attorney's Office
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Finance Department
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Municipal Court
Interfimd Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Non-Departmental - Materials & Services
Interfund Transfer -R.S.V.P.
Interfund Transfer - Street Fund
26,720
1,070
2,500
280,929
3,210
47,767
1,070
69,160
60,372
1,070
160,243
2,140
216,969
10,700
90,813
3,210
lll,ll3
22,596
280,000
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
General Fund (continued)
Interfund Transfer - General Fund CIF
Interfund Transfer - Special Assessment Fund
Interfund Transfer - Equipment Replacement Fund
Interfund Transfer - Transit Fund
Police Department
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Library
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Facilities Maintenance
Leisure Services
Swimming Pool
Parks Administration
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Planning
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Operating Contingency
TOTAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS
GENERAE OPERATING RESERVE FUND ---
Operating Contingency
TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING RESERVE FUND
TRANSIT SYSTEM FUND -- City Transit System
Interfund Transfer - Equipment Replacement Fund
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Dial-a-Ride Program
Interfund Transfer - Equipment Replacement Fund
Operating Contingency
TOTAL TRANSIT SYSTEM FUND APPROPRIATIONS
BUILDING FUND --
Personnel Services
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Operating Contingency
TOTAL BUILDING FUND APPROPRIATIONS
354,000
40,000
10,000
7,800
3,246,691
31,030
874,315
28,890
490,801
268,181
463,218
208,214
12,840
368,758
4,280
838,661
$ 20,000
$ 117,875
4,500
3,210
101,433
2,000
5,498
$ 218,784
46,345
22,000
3,120
303,734
$ 8,639,331
$ 20,000
$ 234,516
$ 593,983
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE FUND ---
Materials & Services
17,000
TOTAL SEARCH & SEIZURE FUND APPROPRIATIONS
STATE REVENUE SHARING FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfer - Street Fund
$ 37,285
87,881
40,000
TOTAL STATE REVENUE SHARING FUND APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND --
Personal Services
Interfund Transfer - General Fund CIP
Operating Contingency
$ 9,796
90,000
343,712
TOTAL HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND APPROPRIATIONS
RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM FUND ---
Personal Services
Materials & Services
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
$ 83,220
9,905
1,070
TOTAL R.S.V.P. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT FUND ---
Personal Services
Materials & Services
$ 1,568
21,275
TOTAL CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT FUND APPROPRIATIONS $
STREET FUND ---
Street Repair & Maintenance
Street Cleaning
Non-Departmental - Materials & Services
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Imerfund Transfer - Tech. & Envir. Serv. Fd
Interfund Transfer - Equipment Replacement Fund
Operating Contingency
871,996
66,482
64,200
6,420
188,000
25,000
70,447
TOTAL STREET FUND APPROPRIATIONS
$ 17,000
$ 165,166
$ 443,508
$ 94,195
22,843
$ 1,292,545
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11A
CITY GAS TAX FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
TOTAL CITY GAS TAX FUND APPROPRIATIONS
BONDED DEBT FUND ---
Debt Service - Principal
Debt Service - Interest
TOTAL BONDED DEI3T FUND APPROPRIATIONS
BANCROFT BOND FUND ~ Debt Service - Principal'
TOTAL BANCROFT BOND FUND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPME~IT REVOLVING LOAN FUND ---
$ 7,000
135,943
$ 120,000
53,000
$ 2,000
Materials & Services $ 86,730
Capital Outlay 290,000
Operating Contingency 24,139
TOTAL ECON. DEVLP REV LOAN FUND APPROPRIATIONS
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ---
Capital Outlay - General $ 439,075
Interfund Transfer - Sewer Construction Fund 35,000
Capital Outlay - Parks 251,000
Operating Contingency 309,500
TOTAL GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Operating Contingency
$ 100,700
1,100,602
7,189
TOTAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND APPROPRIATIONS
STREET/STORM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Operating Contingency
$ 40,000
1,352,010
1,194,663
TOTAL STREET/STORM DRAIN C.I.F. APPROPRIATIONS
$ 142,943
$ 173,000
$ 2,000
$ 400,869
$ 1,034,575
$1,208,491
$ 2,586,673
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11A
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND ---
Interfund Transfer - General Fund CIP
Operating Contingency
25,000
363,303
TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMPRV. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfer - Special Assessment Fund
Operating Contingency
$ 193,835
1,677,633
995,602
2,888,813
TOTAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND APPROPRIATIONS
STORM WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Operating Contingency
45,0OO
515,000
125,000
TOTAL STORM WATER SYS DEVLP. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITy EXPANSION/CONST. FUND ---
Capital Outlay $
Operating Contingency
39,400
4,717
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY CONST. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND --
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Operating Contingency
47,860
165,000
19,188
TOTAL SEWER CAPITAL IMPRV FUND APPROPRIATIONS
SEWER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION FUND ---
Sewer --- Plant
Sewer - Collection Line
Operating Contingency
$ 2,693,819
1,222,364
420,000
TOTAL SEWER TREATMENT CONST. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
$ 388,303
$ 5,755,883
$ 685,000
$ 44,117
$ 232,048
$ 4,336,183
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
WATER SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfer - Transfer to Water Fund
Operating Contingency
$ 950,000
1,500,000
14,000
2,303,031
TOTAL WATER SYSTEM CONST. FUND APPROPRiATIONS
WATER FUND ---
Water Administration
Meter Reading/Accounting
Misc. Water Accounts -Materials & Services
Interfund Transfer - TeC~. & Envir. Serv. Fd
Interfund Transfer Eqaipment Replacement Fund
Interfund Transfer - Water Construction Fund
Interfund Transfer - InfOrmation Services (IS) Fund
Operating Contingency
$ 927,950
165,259
23,486
270,000
30,000
550,000
4,280
94,704
TOTAL WATER FUND APPROPRIATIONS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FUND ---
Treatment Plant OperatiOns
Sewer Line Maintenance
Misc. WWTP Accounts - Materials & Services
Interfund Transfer - Tech. & Envir. Serv. Fd
Interfund Transfer - Water Fund
Interfund Transfer - Equipment Replacement Fund
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Operating Contingency
$1,334,901
253,282
48,000
280,000
65,000
75,000
12,840
39,353
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FUND APPROPRIATIONS
WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND ---
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfer - Water Construction Fund
Operating Contingency
$ 7,500
218,000
2,443,000
61,382
TOTAL WATER SYSTEM DEVLP. TRUST FUND APPROPRIATIONS
SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT TRUST FUND ---
Materials & Services $ 25,000
Capital Outlay 20,000
Interfund Transfer - Wastewater Construction Fund 500,000
Operating Contingency 150,961
TOTAL SEWER SYSTEM DEVELP. TRUST FUND APPROPRIATIONS
Page6 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
$ 4,767,031
$ 2,065,679
$2,108,376
$ 2,729,882
$ 695,961
llA
INFORMATION SERVICES (IS) FUND ---
Personal Services
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Operating Contingency
$ 4,992
95,660
41,000
58,348
TOTAL INFORMATION SERVICES FUND APPROPRIATIONS
CENTRAL STORES WORlCING CAPITAL FUND ---
Materials & Services
Operating Contingency
$ 33,000
14,000
TOTAL CENTRAL STORES WORKING CAP. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
SELF-INSURANCE FUND ---
Personal Services
Materials & Services
Operating Contingency
12,067
322,016
251,911
TOTAL SELF-INSURANCE FUND APPROPRIATIONS
TECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FUND ---
Public Works Administration
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Engineering Division
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Central Garage
Operating Contingency
$177,308
4,280
675,241
9,630
75,569
10,533
TOTAL TECH. & ENVIRONMENTAL SERV. FUND APPROPRIATIONS
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Personal Services
Materials & Services
Interfund Transfer - Information Services (IS) Fund
Operating Contingency
53,149
283,401
4,280
3,385
TOTAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND ---
Water Equipment Replacement - Cap. Outlay
Sewer Equipment Replacement - Cap. Outlay
Street Equipment Replacement - Cap. Outlay
Transit Equipment Replacement - Cap. Outlay
Building Maint. Equip. Replacement - Cap. Outlay
182,380
360,844
118,155
155,206
10,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND APPROPRIATIONS
Page 7 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.
$ 200,000
$ 47,000
585,994
952,561
344,215
826,585
llA
LIBRARY ENDOWMENT FUND --
Operating Contingency
$ 81,132
TOTAL LIBRARY ENDOWMENT FUND APPROPRIATIONS
$ 81,132
MUSEUM ENDOWMENT F, UND ---
Operating Contingency
$ 4,000
TOTAL MUSEUM ENDOWMENT FUND APPROPRIATIONS
$ 4,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS -- ALL FUNDS
$43,921,588
UNAPPROPRIATED REQUIREMENTS:
General Fund Operating Reserve Fund:
Unappropriated Balanc~
Bonded Debt Fund:
Unappropriated Balance
Bancroft Bond Fund:
Unappropriated Balance
General Fund Capital Improvement Fund:
Fund Balance Reserve - Police
Fungi Balance Reserve ~ Building
Storm Water System DevelOpment Fund:
Reserve for Future Capacity
Sewer Treatment Construction:
Reserve for DEQ First Loan
Reserve for DEQ Second Loan
Reserve for Future Capacity
Wastewater Fund:
Reserve for DEQ Loan Repayment
Unappropriated Balance
Water System Development Trust Fund:
Reserve for Future Capacity
Sewer System Development Trust Fund:
Reserve for Future Capacity
81,182
79,000
3,800
10,000
15,000
231,442
296,822
1,928,285
69,277
292,125
100,000
150,000
100,000
TOTAL UNAPPROPRIATED REQUIREMENTS -- ALL FUNDS
$ 3,356,933
TOTAL 2002-2003 CITY BUDGET
$47,278,521
Section 4. That the City Recorder shall certify the tax rate and tax levy to the County Clerk and
County Assessor of Marion County, Oregon, made thereby and shall file with the Department of Revenue and
the Division of Audits of the Secretary of State, State of Oregon, a tree copy of the budget as finally adopted in
accordance with the provisions of the Local Budget Laws of the State of Oregon.
Page 8 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Section 5. 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.
Section 6. This ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, in that a
budget for fiscal year 2002-20~3 needs to be adopted by July 1, 2002in order to continue City services, 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
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 9 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE. NO.
MEMO
llB
To:
From:
Via:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and City Council
Matt Smith, Management Analyst ~
John C. BrOwn, City Administratorw'--
Ordinance Adopting Amendments to the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule
June 24, 20~2
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the
2001-2002 Master Fee SChedule.
Background:
Council was presented recommended changes to the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule
at the June 10, 2002 Cotmcil meeting. Said changes were prompted by the adoption of the
Woodburn Developmen~ Ordinance, which specifies new fees and revisions to existing fees,
and by the desire by staff to improve the lien search service. Council reviewed the
recommended changes, and authorized staff to return at the next regularly scheduled
meeting with an ordinance to adopt the amended fee schedule as presented.
Discussion:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the
2001-2002 fee schedule to improve the delivery of the Lien Search service, and to update
the Fee Schedule per changes adopted in the Woodbum Development Ordinance.
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2396
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2300 (THE 2001-2002 MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE) TO REVISE OR REMOVE EXISTING FEES AND ADD NEW FEES
PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTED WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
(ORDINANCE NO. 2313), INCREASING THE LIEN SEARCH FEE CHARGE; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council adopted the Woodbum Development
Ordinance (Ord. 2313) on April 9, 2002, and said ordinance specifies the revision or removal of
existing fees and the adidition of new fees; and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary to increase the Lien Search fee charged by the Finance
Department so that the delivery of services can be improved; NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY O}t WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2300 (the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule) is hereby amended
to revise or remove existing fees and add new fees for the Community Development Department
pursuant to the adoptect Woodburn Development Ordinance (Ord. 2313), and increase the Lien
Search Fee charged by the Finance Department, as detailed in the Revised Community
Development and Finance Fees Table, which is affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference
incorporated herein.
Section 2. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form: 1~/ ~_ ~O~e~ ghiAlds
City Attorney
Date
APPROVED:
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Attachment "A "
Revised Community Development and Finance Fees Table
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES
Regulation, Product, or Service
Annexations
Current Revises
Fee Fee
$1.365 $1,59~
t $1,435 $2,249
Zone Map Amendment
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
$1,43b $2,249
t $883 $1,014
Conditional Use
Mif~c-~afiae~e retitled "Zoning ~djustment" $674 $662.
Major Variance $984 $1,121
mi___=_- Commission $250 elirninate,I
Appeal of Land Use Action to, ~o,,, ,,,
Appeal of Land Use Action to dity Council $916 $1,03s
i $979 $92;;
Po,%t,,,,, ,,, '---'
retitled "Partition (Preliminary A~Proval)"
,~ _,, ,:_ , a, $1,161 eliminate, I
MIOJUII Oil, Il. lUll ~IIIN'VI¥;O
"Partition (Final Plat Approval)'" new fee $168
Lot-Line Adjustments "and ConSolidation of Lots" $299 $360
$1,623 divided into two fees belott'
Subdivision (4 lots or more)
. . .... $2,45u
-Preliminary Approva~
"--.Final Plat Approval' __ $598
$1,928 divided into three fees bel~'.':
P.U.D. (4 lots or more)
__ $2,071
"-Preliminary Plan Approval"
"-Design Plan Final Approval" __ $90u
"-Final Plan Approval" ._ $45t
Regulation, product, or Servii:e
Site Plan Review (based on square footage)
Attachmer~tl'&4 "
P a gel 2l ~Jf 3
Current ReviSe~
Fee Fee
'-under 1,000 sq. ft." new fee $611
-25,000 sq. ft. - 99,999 sq. ft. $2,74u $2,958
--100,000 sq. ft. - 199,999 sq.i ft. $5,920 $6,563
~ $11,653 $12,16u
--200,000+ sq. ft.
Sign Ordinance Compliance P(~rmit
--under 30 sq. ft. $28 $28
--30-75 sq. ft. $100 $'106
--76-150 sq. ft $150 $150
-150+ sq. ft. $264 $26,~
'Exception to Street ROW and Improvement Requirements" new fee $1,121
'Specific Conditional Use for a Historically or Architecturally new fee $1,014
Significant Site"
~Forrnal Interpretation of the Woodbum Dev. Ordinance" new fee $1,524
'Manufactured Dwelling Park"
'-Preliminary Approval" new fee $2,24~
%Final Plan Approval" new fee $532
'Phasing Plan" new fee $1,141
'Residential Architectural Standards Substitution" new fee $238
'Significant Wetlands Overlay District (SWOD) Permit" new fee $411
'Telecommunications Facility Specific Conditional Use" new fee $1,270
Attachme~ ~,t "
Pag~ 5'"df 3
' Current ReViseu
Regulation, ProdUct, or Service Fee Fee
~Temporaty Outdoor Marketin~l and Special Event Permit for new fee $113
a Woodburn Development Ordinance Special Use"
"Tree Removal Permit" new fee $86
"Formal Pre-Application Conference" new fee $357
"Interpretation of Uses" i new fee $1,746
i (plus Measure 56 notice costs, ff applicable)
"Interpretation of Zoning DistriCt Boundaries" new fee $1,74u
(plus Measure 56 notice costs, if applicable)
FINANCE FEE
'Current · = Recom,
Regulatio~iiP~rOduct, orSe ce ..... .Fee~, '~
Lien Search Fees (per request) $15 $23
llC
June 24, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HonOrable Mayor and City Council~
John C. Brown, City Administrator~s -
Autl~orization of Use of Alcohol at Special Events in Centennial
Park
Recommendationi
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached ordinance, amending the
park use ordinanc~e to provide for the use of alcoholic beverages in Centennial
Park for events wt~ch are conducted pursuant to a Special Event Park Use
Permit and where the Oregon Liquor Control Commission has issued a license.
Background:
Ordinance 2060 currently prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages in City Parks.
Discussion:
In January 2001, the City Council adopted goals to be accomplished by January
2003. Among the goals was "celebrate culture and diversity". To reach that goal,
the Council asked staff to develop a signature event, specific to Woodburn.
The Woodburn Berry Festival will be held in Centennial Park on July 26, 27 and
28, 2002. Among the many activities City Events staff would like to offer at the
Berry Festival is a wine/beergarten. Wine or beer gardens are a staple activity
for many events like the one planned for Woodburn, and offer festival goers the
opportunity to sample beverages produced by regional vintners and brewers.
Beer and wine gardens are usually segregated from the other event activities, are
regulated to prevent serving alcohol to minors or to persons who are becoming
intoxicated, and are patrolled by security to assure all event goers have a safe
and enjoyable experience. Beer and wine gardens also offer adults an
opportunity to take a break from the remainder of festival activities, and socialize
in a quieter, more controlled environment. In addition to promoting area
producers, and offering festivalgoers a broader alternative of activities to enjoy,
beer and wine gardens also are often important to event revenue streams, and
can offset the cost of other activities offered at the festival.
To permit the dispensing of alcohol at the Berry Festival and similar events, the
City's Park Use Ordinance needs to be amended. Because it is referenced in the
Ordinance, the Special Events Policy will also need to be amended. The attached
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 24, 2002
Page 2.
llC
ordinance is offered for your approval, and revised special events policies are
offered for your consideration.
Changes to the Park Use Ordinance and Special Event Policies were developed
through the efforts of my office and Events staff, the Recreation and Parks
Department, the Police Department, and the City Attorney. Revised policies
were discussed with the Recreation and Parks Board on June 18, 2002 and found
to be acceptable. It is understood previous city councils have considered
changing park alcohol use policies in the past, and that serious concerns were
raised regarding the consequences of allowing individual or groups to drink in
city parks. Staff's goal regarding the recommended action is to allow organized
events to serve alcoholic beverages, not to promote widespread drinking in city
parks.
Accordingly, a narrow set of parameters to allow alcohol use is recommended.
M/ith respect to Ordinance changes, two are proposed. The first allows the use of
alcohol in Centennial Park, in compliance with a Special Event Park Use Permit,
where the City has issued the permit and when the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission licenses the premises. The second change enhances the penalty for
violating this provision of the ordinance to a class 4 civil infraction, which
provides for a $500 fine.
Centennial Park is recommended as the sole site at which alcohol can currently
be dispensed in a City Park. It is large enough for events such as the Berry
Festival, and is not located in the heart of a neighborhood. Its topography allows
for better surveillance than our other parks, and its one entrance provides better
opportunity to control the flow and conduct of event goers.
Recommended changes to the Special Events Policy will allow dispensing of
alcohol only at Centennial Park, and only with a Special Event Park Use Permit.
Events wishing to dispense alcohol are required to make exclusive use of the
park, and to pay fees associated with such use. Currently the fee for exclusive
park use is a minimum of $1,275. The Policy requires OLCC licensing, which
provides for a separate level of evaluation and will insure those serving alcohol
are only those who can meet state guidelines. A detailed security plan will be
required, which will indicate among other things the amount of security that will
be provided, and the preventative measures that will segregate minors from
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 24, 2002
Page 3.
llC
adults. Consistent with OLCC guidelines, no alcohol will be served unless it is
accompanied by the opportunity to partake of at least two choices of food.
It should be notec~ that in modifying the events policy in this way, the
opportunity to ser~e alcohol at an event in Centennial Park is available to any
organization that Can meet the criteria, not just the City Of Woodbum.
Conclusion:
The attached ordinance and policies allow the opportunity for special events to
serve alcohol in Centennial Park. It is staff's belief that the limitations that have
been placed on suVh use will address many of the major concerns raised around
this issue in the past. Staff believes the recommended changes promote only
serious, legltimatet, and responsible use of the park for this purpose, and,
accordingly respectfully requests your approval of the attached.
JCB
llC
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2397
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2060 (THE PARK USE ORDINANCE) TO
PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CENTENNIAL PARK
FOR EVENTS WHICH ARE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL EVENT PARK
USE PERMIT WHERE A LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE OREGON LIQUOR
CONTROL COMMISSION; ADDING A NEW SECTION PROVIDING FOR AN
ENCHANCED PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION OF A SPECIAL EVENT PARK USE
PERMIT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is permissible to dispense alcoholic
beverages at certain special events to be conducted in a city park; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to protect the health and safety of the general
public by establishing strict limitations as to where and how alcohol may be served in a City
park; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to regulate such activities consistent with State
law and Oregon Liquor Control Commission regulations, NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 3 (13) of Ordinance No. 2060 (the Park Use Ordinance) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(13) No person shall have in their possession, any alcoholic beverages or
intoxicating liquor, or consume such liquor while in a park area except that the
use of alcoholic beverages may be permitted in Centennial Park in compliance
with a Special Event Park Use Permit where the city has issued the permit and the
premises have been licensed for the service of alcoholic beverages by the Oregon
Liquor Control Commission.
Section 2. Ordinance No. 2060 (the Park Use Ordinance) is hereby amended to add a
new section, Section 9A, to read as follows:
Section 9A. Enhanced Penalty for Violation of Special Park Use Permit.
Notwithstanding Section 9 of this Ordinance, which provides that a violation of
the park rules established by this Ordinance constitutes a class 4 civil infraction,
any violation of the terms and conditions of a Special Event Park Use Permit by
Page 1
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llC
the permittee shall constitute a class 1 civil infraction and shall be dealt with
according to the ~Procedures established by Ordinance No. 1998, the civil
infraction ordinance.
Section 3. 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~.e~ ~
City Attorney
Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11C
Special Event Policies
City of Woodburn
Recreation and Parks Department
Revision Draft: June 21, 2002
llC
SPECIAL EVENT POLICIES & FEE SCHEDULE
The Special Event Policies & Fee Schedule applies to facility use requests that will attract more than
1,000 visitors or require tlie exclusive use of an entire park. Included within these policies and fee
schedules are activities where the purpose of the event is to distribute information and/or introduce a
product that may result in any present or future donations or sales. Also included are events where
concessions, sales or carnival rides and attractions are a part of the event.
These fees and policies gt~ide the organization and production of events promoted independently from
City sponsorship. Agreen~ents with promoters, organizers and event producers to prepare events and
activities in which the Cit~ is a co-sponsorship will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Depending
upon the nature of a proposed co-sponsored event, policies and fees outlined in these policies may or may
not apply.
Permits for events of the aize and nature described above will be considered for approval only for Legion,
Settlemier and Centennial Parks.
These policies are adopte~l to guide the use of City parks for large special events. Final approval for any
event will not be final until a Special Event Park Use Permit is signed, all fees and deposits are paid,
necessary permits are obtained and appropriate certificates of insurance are filed with the City.
ON-SITE MANAGEMI~NT STAFF
The,City will assign staff to be on-site at least eight hours each day an event is open to the public. Staff
will be responsible to assist organizers event access, compliance with park rules and provisions of an
approved Special Event Use Permit and other concerns regarding park facilities. City management staff
will also monitor compliance with regulations that other agencies might impose and will advise those
agencies of possible violaltions.
GROUNDS SET UP PLAN
The applicant must submit to the Recreation and Parks Director for approval a Grounds Set Up Plan
fourteen calendar days before occupying the park. This Plan shall specify:
All temporary fence lines including entrance gates, emergency exits and access lanes and service
entrances.
A. Ride and attraction locations.
B. First Aid stations.
C. Power generators.
D. Locations where propane gas will be used.
E. All food and beverage and other vending locations.
F. Utility vehicle, ambulance and event truck parking.
G. Ticket sales booths.
H. Location for security personnel.
I. Portable toilet locations.
Facility Maintenance personnel are available by appointment to answer questions regarding individual
park facilities. They can assist with developing site plans, locating underground utilities, making
suggestions on how to reduce turf and facility damage and for on-site consultation both prior to and
during set up. Facility management personnel will be on-site during the event to assist with emergencies.
llC
Grounds Set Up Plans are subject to the review and approval of the Woodbum Fire District and the
Woodburn Police Department.
EVENT SECURITY
Event organizers will to submit to the police Chief for approval a Security Plan. This plan shall include
the following:
A. The number of private security officers.
B. The locations where each private security officer is stationed.
C. The hours each private security officer is scheduled to work.
D. Proof of bonding of the private security company.
E. Proof of license and certification of the private security company by the Oregon Department of
Public Safety Standards and Training.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Alcohol dispensing is only allowed at Centennial Park, and only with the appropriate OLCC Temporary
Sales/Special Event License or an OLCC Temporary Use of Annual License for an Event at an Unlicensed Location.
Events at which alcohol will be dispensed are required to make exclusive use of the park. If alcohol dispensing is
part of the park permit application then the Security Plan shall include:
A. A detailed plan (including notations on the Ground Setup Plan) on how Permitee plans to manage and
separate minor patrons from adult alcohol consumers.
B. How permittee will check adult patrons ID.
C. The number and location of private security assigned to supervise the alcohol service area (the City shall
establish the number of security officers required per capita on a case by case bases except where daily
event attendance is expected to exceed 2000 persons and in that event it shall be no less than established
OLCC requirements).
D. How the Permittee will comply with OLCC regulations regarding food service for patrons being served
alcohol.
MUSIC/PA
All amplified music or use of a PA system in any park requires a sound amplification permit issued by the
Woodburn Police Department. No sound amplification of any kind will be permitted without an
approved permit. To minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, the Recreation and Parks
Department will regulate the location and placement of all PA systems used as a part of a special event.
The Police Department in consultation Recreation and Parks Department site management personnel will
monitor and regulate sound volume.
DANCE PERMIT
Any public dance activities associated with a special event requires a dance permit issued by the
Woodburn Police Department. No public dancing will be permitted without an approved permit.
Special Event Policies
City of Woodburn, Recreation and Parks Department
Page 3
llC
NAILS IN TREES PROHIBITED
To keep trees healthy and to protect maintenance workers, the use of nails in trees is prohibited. Should a
saw ever be needed to remove or repair a tree, nails can damage equipment and severely injure workers
should a saw strike a nail. Therefore, the use of nails in trees is prohibited.
OTHER APPROVALS ~,ND PERMITS
Apart from permits requir+d by the City of Woodburn, it is necessary to obtain other permits and
approvals from other agencies to conduct an event. These permits and approvals include, but are not
limited to, the following: i
A. For food booths, ~rganizers must require vendors to obtain the approval of the Marion County
Health DepartmerR.
B. For any carnival r~des, organizers must obtain inspection and approval of the State of Oregon,
Building Codes Djvision.
Event organizers may be ~quired by the City to show written proof that these permits were secured.
Organizers should keep th~se permits on premises during the event and be prepared to produce them
immediately upon requestI
UTILITIES
Soml~ parks have 110V/20 amp electricity available for special events. This may not be adequate for your
event. Should you requir~ additional power and need to bring in a generator(s), all placement of
generators must be noted Cn the approved Grounds Set Up Plan. This includes large generators that serve
multiple booths or attractibns and small generators that serve individual booths or attractions.
The use of propane for cooking during a special is acceptable. However, such use is subject to the
inspection and regulation of the Woodburn Fire District.
RESTROOMS
Within Woodburn's parks, events that fall within the Special Event Policies will require portable
restrooms. The City requires organizers to provide one portable restroom for every 125 expected to be in
attendance at any given time the event is open to the public. Five percent of all portable restrooms must
meet ADA standards for accessibility. When portable restrooms are required, the first portable placed on
site must meet ADA standards. When restrooms are required in two or more locations, each location
must include an ADA approved restroom. Organizers will clean and service these facilities on a frequent
basis throughout the event.
Special Event Policies
City of Woodburn, Recreation and Parks Department
Page 4
TRASH CANS & REFUSE REMOVAL
Event organizers will require each vendor or exhibitor to provide two trash cans for each food vendor (at
least one for public use and at least one for vendor use) and one trash can for non-food exhibitors.
Exhibitors will be required to empty these trash cans as needed.
The City requires organizers to provide at least one trash can for every 125 expected to be in attendance at
any given time the event is open to the public and will empty the trash cans on a continual basis so that
they do not overflow. These trash cans are in addition to those provided by vendors and exhibitors. The
City will make available ~o the organizer all trash cans normally available within a park as well as any
others within the Department's inventory that are not in use at another park or event. Event organizers
are responsible for all expenses to remove litter and trash from a park or facility.
Event organizers will continually patrol the park to pick up litter before, during and after an event is open
to the public.
PUBLIC ACCESS
Event organizers with permission (through an approved Grounds Set Up Plan) MUST adhere to that plan.
At no time will an event be allowed to put fencing across a sidewalk or other public right of way without
the written permission of Recreation and Parks Director or his/her designee.
Stakes put into the ground to support fencing cannot exceed 8" in depth without flagging of underground
utilil~ies. No staking is allowed on any paved surfaces without prior approval from the Recreation and
Parks Department.
ON-SITE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
To ensure the safety of event visitors, organizers and exhibitors, vehicular traffic within any park during
the hours an event is open to the public is prohibited without permission from the City's on-site staff.
Approved vehicular movement is restricted to designated paths, roads and parking areas.
OFF-SITE PARKING PLAN
Since parking at Woodburn's parks is limited, the City will require event organizers to submit off-street
parking plans that will reduce impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. This plan will document
agreements with off-site parking lot owners to use parking lots and transportation companies or agencies
to transport event visitors. The plan will also provide a schedule and a route that shows drop-off and pick
up points.
llC
Special Event Policies
City of Woodburn, Recreation and Parks Department
Page 5
NEIGHBORHOOD RELATIONS
Because large events havel a significant impact on neighborhoods, after an application is approved, the
City encourages event organizers to notify with fliers the surrounding neighborhood. The flier should
include dates, times and aldescription of the event planned. It should also invite the neighborhood to
participate in the event and provide a City phone number to call should a concern arise. The City will
work with event organizers to delineate the extent of flyer distribution. Event organizers should plan a
neighborhood clean up delail to pick up litter left by event organizers who park throughout residential
neighborhoods and business districts.
VENDORS & EXHIBITORS
Event organizers are responsible to communicate all park and event rules, regulations and permit
requirements. Vendors n~ust also complete application forms supplied by the City. The City expects that
organizers will make ever~ effort to seek compliance with these rules. However, the City reserves the
right to expel from a facility any vendor that the City determines is not in compliance with provisions of
the permit or City rules & regulations. The City will report suspected code violations to appropriate
regulatory agencies.
llC
Special Event Policies
City of Woodburn, Recreation and Parks Department
Page 6
llC
FEES & DEPOSITS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS
Fee or Deposit 1,4mount I Description
Special Event Permit $1,275 This fee allows for three days of non-exclusive use
for event set up, one day for the event and two days
&non-exclusive use for event break down. Event
organizers needing additional days for set up, event
and/or breakdown will be charged at $400 per day.
Additional Days $400 This fee applies to days an event organizer needs
beyond the days described above.
Attraction Fee (per attraction per $50 Attractions include carnival rides & games (each
event) separate ride or game is a separate attraction
This fee applies only if the amount qualifying for the fee), games, food vending
is greater than the total fees for concessions, sales and information booths. Event
the Special Event Permit and organizers will be allowed two booths at no charge
Additional Days combined, for event administration and information.
Deposit/per day $750 In addition to the user fee, event organizers will be
required to submit a security deposit in the amount of
$750 per day. Charges to the deposit will be made to
repair damage beyond normal wear and tear, for set
up days beyond three days and break down beyond
two days (charged at the "Additional Days" rate) and
park facility restoration including turf & vegetation,
buildings, utilities and other physical park features.
The deposit will also cover expenses when park staff
is necessary for a pre-event set up and post event
clean up beyond 24 hours. Such will be charged at
$34.62 per hour. Event organizers will be billed for
expenses in excess of deposits retained. Deposits will
be returned within 30 days from vacation of the park.
The Recreation and Parks Department will prepare a
complete cost accounting for fees, labor, materials
and services for expenses withheld from a deposit.
Special Event Policies
City of Woodburn, Recreation and Parks Department
Page 7
llD
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Council through the City Administrator
Ben Gillespie, Finance Directo
Revisions to the 2001-02 Budget
DATE: June 20i 2002
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolutions
amending the 2001-02 l~udget.
BACKGROUND: In preparing the preliminary budget for 2001-02 the revenue for a Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant was included, but the expense item was not. $12,260 is moved from
General Fund Contingency to Police Capital Outlay for the purchase of the mobile data terminals
that are now installed in Police cruisers.
In the Building Fund monies were budgeted for a contract person to do building inspections. It
was subsequently determined to be cheaper to hire an employee. $14,000 is transferred from
Contract Service to Salaries and Wages to reflect the change.
$4,000 was budgeted in the Information Services Fund the renewal of sof~are licenses. Instead
new software was purchased. $4,000 is moved from Material and Services to Capital Outlay.
In the T & E Fund $1,500 is transferred form Engineering Capital Outlay to Garage Materials and
services to reflect anticipated actual charges.
The Corporation for National Service increased the RSVP grant to Woodbum by $1,500 to allow
local managers to attend a national conference on RSVP activities. In the RSVP Fund grant
revenue in increased as is Materials and Services-Training
11D
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2398
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTIIORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OPERATING
CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002.
WHEREASi Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 allows for the transfer of operating
contingency appropriations Within a fund to an existing appropriations category within the same fund
during the year in which appropriations are made, and
WHEREASi a transfer of General Fund operating contingency appropriations is
necessary to pay for wireles¢ communications equipment associated with the installation of the Police
Department mobile data terininals, now, therefore,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~That authorization is hereby given to transfer the following operating
contingency appropriations:
GENERAL FUND:
Transfer From:
Operating Contingency (001-000-921.000)
Transfer To:
Police Department - Capital Outlay
Wireless Block Grant (001-211-711.112)
$12,260
$12,260
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
Date
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
COUNCIL BILL NO. 23.e.9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN
A FUND DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002.
WHERE~S, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 allows the transfer of
appropriations within a frond after the budget has been approved and during the year in which
appropriations are made, taow, therefore,
THE CIT~ OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 11 That the following budgetary transfer of appropriations within each
fund listed below is hereby authorized to meet estimated operational expenditures during fiscal
year 2001-2002:
BUILDING FUND:
Transfer From:
Materials & ServiceS:
Building Inspection - Contract (123-521-616.411)
Permit Surcharge to State (123-521-616.495)
Transfer To:
Personal Services:
Wages and Salaries (123-521-512.000)
Social Security (123-521-541.000)
INFORMATION SYSTEMS FUND:
Transfer From:
Materials & Services:
Software Licenses (368-151-616.329)
Transfer To:
Capital Outlay:
Computer Software (368-151-710.006)
TECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES:
Transfer From Engineering Division -
Capital Outlay:
Passenger Vehicles
Transfer To Central Garage:
Materials & Services:
Inventory Stock
Approved as to Form.
City Attorney
$ 10,000
4,000
$11,000
3,000
$ 4,000
$ 4,000
$1,500
$1,500
Date
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
llF
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2400
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL
SERVICE, (Grant #GH 01SRPOR106) RELATING TO THE RETIRED SENIOR
VOLUNTEER PROGRAM; AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN BUDGET THE FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2001-02.
WHEREAS~ Oregon Revised Statutes 294.326 allows for the expenditure of grant
revenues received for a spedific purpose during the fiscal year in which the grant has been awarded, and
WHEREASi the Retired Senior Volunteer Program received a grant from the
Corporation for National Service for the specific purpose of providing funds for the RSVP Coordinator
to attend the National Senior Service Corps Conference and the National Conference on Volunteering
and Community Service; now, therefore,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the grant from the Corporation for National Service be accepted and
authorize the following increase in the revenue and appropriations budget for fiscal year 2001-02:
Retired Senior Volunteer Fund:
Revenues:
RSVP Grant (138-000-450.032)
$1,500
Appropriations:
Materials & Services -
Training, Conference, Memberships (138-161-615.000)
$1,500
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 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
llG
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor ~nd Council through the~ Administrato~(~
Ben Gil~espie, Finance Director,~[ _~
Transfer; of Funds to Close Out Centennial Park Project
DATE: June 20i 2002
RECOMMENDATIOn: It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution
transferring $35,354 frc~m the General Fund to the Parks SDC Fund.
BACKGROUND: In reviewing the Centennial Park project, it was determined that more SDC
monies had been spent On the project than is allowed under the City's SDC ordinance. In general
SDC's can be used only for facilities that increase capacity. In the case of Parks 47.8% of the
cost of the Capital Improvement Program is necessitated by growth. That is the amount that can
be landed by SDC's. The total cost of the project to date is $1,687,484. No more than $806,617
can be funded by SDC'$. At the completion of the project $35,354 remains to be funded by
sources other than SDC's.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The $35,354 needed to close this project out must come from
sources other than SDC's. It is recommended that General Fund Contingency be reduced in order
to transfer that amount to the Parks SDC Fund. This will leave the General Fund Contingency at
$679,273 and will restore the Parks SDC Fund to the position required under the City's SDC
ordinance.
llG
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OPERATING
CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002.
WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 allows for the transfer of operating
contingency appropriations vqthin a fund to an existing appropriations category within the same fund
during the year in which appropriations are made, and
WHEREAS, a transfer of General Fund operating contingency appropriations is
necessary to close out the Gentennial Park project by restoring funds previously paid out by the Park
System Development Fund lhat were in excess of the amount allowed under the City's Parks System
Development Charge's ordinance, now, therefore,
THE CITY ~OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That authorization is hereby given to transfer the following operating
contingency appropriations:
GENERAL FUND:
Transfer From:
Operating Contingency (001-000-921.000)
Transfer To:
Non-Departmental -
Interfund Transfer to Parks CIP (001-199-910.364)
$ 35,354
$ 35,354
Approved as to Form:~'~/~~
City Attorney
Date
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
MEMO
llH
To:
From:
Via:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and City Council
Matt Srmth, Management Analyst
John C. BrOwn, City Administrato~O-
Grant Contract with MWVCOG for CDBG Grant Administration Services
June 24,2002
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing
the execution of an intergovernmental agreement with Mid-Willamette Valley Council of
Governments (MWVCOG) for grant administration services for the construction of the
Cipriano Ferrel EducatiOn Center.
Background:
In November 2001, Council conducted a public hearing, received public comment,
and directed staff to submit, in cooperation with the Farrnworker Housing Development
Corpo;afion, a Community Development Block Grant application for the construction of
the Cipriano Ferrel Education Center on the property of the Nuevo Amanecer Farworker
Housing complex. The City received notice from the granting authority, the Oregon
Economic Development Department, that the grant was awarded to the City in April 2002.
Council authorized, by resolution, the Mayor to sign a grant contract with the State
for the project at your June 10, 2002 meeting. The staff report for that contract also
indicated that the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG) will
administer the grant to ensure that grant requirements are met, and that a contract with
MWVCOG will be presented to Council at an upcoming meeting for review and approval.
The proposed grant administration agreement is attached.
Discussion:
The attached agreement defines responsibilities for the COG and the City in
administering the grant, and has been approved as to form by the City Attorney, and by the
granting authority, the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department.
The City is functioning as a pass-through for grant funding to the Farmworker
Housing Development Corporation. Grant contract management will be performed by the
Council of Governments at a cost not to exceed $15,000, fully funded by the grant from the
State, and no cost will be incurred by the City for the project other than costs associated
with basic administrative oversight of the project.
llH
COUNCIL BILL NO.
2402
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT WITH MiD-WILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR
GRANT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CIPRIANO
FERREL EDUCATION ~ENTER.
WHEREAS, in April 2002, the City of Woodbum received, in cooperation with the Farmworker
Housing Development Corporation, a Community Development Block Grant for construction of the
Cipriano Ferrel Education Cemer, and
WHEREAS, the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG) will perform
grant administration services for the project, and
WHEREAS, grant funds in an amount not to exceed $15,000 will be transferred to MWVCOG
by the City for the administl'ation of this program, and
WHEREAS, ORS Chapter 190 authorizes intergovernmental agreements, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Mayor is authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Woodburn the
Intergovernmental Agreement with the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments for grant
administration services for Construction of the Cipfiano Ferrel Education Center, a copy of which is
affixed hereto as Attachment "A" and, by this reference, incorporated herein.
Approved as to form..~D-e~"'"q'-t~n~) 6'" Z[- Z°~2.--
N. Robert Shields, City Attorney Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
Attachment "A"
AGREEMENT
between
MID-WU J.AMETFE VA IJ.EY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
and
THE CITY OF WOODBURN
WHEREAS, th~ Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (COG) and The City of
Woodburn (CITY), have long had interests in common; and
WHERE~S, the CITY has been awarded a 2002 Oregon Community Development Block
Grant (Grant C02004) fox the Ciptiano Fettel Education Center construction project; and
WHEREAS, the~ CITY desires assistance with the admimstrafion of this Oregon Community
Development Block Grant and the COG provides such service;
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits and obligations set out herein, the parties agree
that from the date of this agreement's execution to the last day of June, 2004, or the first date on which
the Grant has been administratively closed by the Oregon Economic & Community Development
Department, whichever comes first, the following provisions shall apply:
Ao
B0
Description of Work to be provided by COG:
Research and prepare all documentation for the environmental review record for
activities funded by the Grant and prepare draft notices and environmental findings for
final CITY action; draft CITY resolutions and policies regarding excessive force, fair
housing and others as may be necessary and appropriate; assist CITY staffwith the
establishment of record keeping and financial management systems for the project; assist
with completion of the Self-Evaluation Checklist required by Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and other activities that may be necessary to get the project
started and eligible to receive funds.
Manage procurement and contracting processes related to the Gant on behalf of the CITY
as needed.
llH
PAGE f - CONTRACT: CITY OF WOOOBURIV/¢OUIVOIL OF GOVERIWffEiVT$
Co
Attachment "A"
Review all grant funded contracts for regulatory requirements, assist contractors and
subcontractors with state and federal regulatory compliance problems emanating from
this project and maintain all of the files and reports necessary to document the CITY'S
compliance with the federal and state requirements that apply to this project. Provide
any other assistance that may be requested by the CITY regarding state or federal
regulatory requirements that apply to the expenditure of Oregon Community
Development Block Grant funds.
llH
Go
Schedule and conduct the pre-construction conference.
Conduct on-Bite employee interviews and examine certified payroll documents to ensure
contractor and subcontractor compliance with Federal labor provisions established by
the Davis-Bacon Act.
Review all p:~yment requests, prepare the necessary cash request forms for signature by
authorized CITY representatives, assist as needed with financial record keeping and
preparation Of disbursement documents for approval by CITY authorities, prepare all
project progress reports that may be required of the CITY by the State of Oregon or the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, represent the CITY at
monitoring visits by Oregon Economic & Community Development Department
representatives and help resolve any such monitoring findings, prepare other necessary
project documentation, and be available to mee't with the CITY'S auditor during the
annual audit to answer project regulatory compliance questions.
Prepare CITY completion reports and other documentation required for closing out the
Oregon Community Development Block Grant.
II.
Method of Payment and Payment Schedule
The COG agrees to submit written invoices in amounts indicated and in accordance with the
following schedule. The contract shall not exceed $15,000. The CITY agrees to make full
payment with project funds upon proper receipt of each invoice.
Ao
When all first-draw requirements have been met and the
first request for disbursement of grant funds is submitted.
B. When the construction contract is signed.
When construction is 50% completed.
When construction is completed.
Upon submission of grant close out repons.
Total
Co
$5,000
PAGE2- CONTRACT: i¢~rI'Y OF WOOOBI./RIV/COUiVClL OF GOVERtVMEtVT$
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$15,000
Attachment "A"
11H
III. Conflict of Interest
No member, officer or employee of the CITY, or its designees or agents, no member of the
Woodbum City Council and no other public official of the CITY who exercises any function
or responsibility with respect to this project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter,
shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds
thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the project assisted under the grant
contract.
IV. Access to Records
The CITY, oregon Econormc & Community Development Depamx:ent of the State of
Oregon, the U.S. Depaxunent of Housing and Urban Development, the Comptroller General
of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any
books, document~, papers and records of the COG which are directly pertinent to this specific
contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts and transcriptions. All
required records !shall be maintained by the COG for three years after grantee makes final
payments and all pending matters are closed.
V. Remedies
Each party shall be entitled to all remedies available at law and in equity to enforce rights under
terms of this contract.
VI. Suspension or Termination
This contract may be suspended or terminated in accordance with 24 CFR 85.43, if the COG
materially fails to comply with any term of this contract. This contract may also be terminated
for convenience upon written notification by either party with a minimum notice of 30
calendar days. In the event of contract termination for convenience, COG shall be due
payment for all work completed by the time of termination.
PAGL~ 3- COtVTRACT: CITY OF WOODBURIV/COUiVCIL OF GOVERNi~IEtVT$
Attachment "A"
llH
VII. Source of Funds
the__
MID-kY(II,I.AMETTE V4A l J,EY
COUNCIL OF GOVERLNMENTS
Work under this contract will be funded m its entirety with federal grant funds from the
Oregon Commtmity Development Block Grant program.
IN WITNESS ~HEREOF, both parties have signed and executed the above agreement as of
day of ., 2002.
CITY OF WOODBURN
By.
Executive Director
By
PAGE4- CONTRACT: CITY OF WOODBURN/COUtVCIL OF GOVERiV/Y/EtVT$
llH
CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or w/Il be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned,
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal
grant, the making qf any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan,
or cooperative agree~nent.
B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person
for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall
complete and submit Standard Form-lJJ., "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance
with its instructions.
C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award
documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under
grants, loans, and cooperative agreements,) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
Thi} certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this
transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, rifle 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file
the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than
$100,000 for each such failure.
Signed (Contractor)
~.gec~,6xre F)irecrnr 1MWVC. OC~
Title/Firm
Date
PAGES- OOIVTRAOI': CITY OF WOODBURIV/OOI. IiVOIL OF GOVERIVMEIVT8
June 24, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HonOrable Mayor and City Council
John C. Brown, City Administrator
Yard Waste Disposal Charge Request from United Disposal,
Service, Inc.
Recommendation:
Adopt the attachec resolution approving an adjustment to residential rates for
United Disposal Service, Inc. to include a $1.50 per month yard waste disposal
charge.
Background:
On June 10, 2002, you authorized an adjustment to United Disposal Service's
residential rate schedule, to include a $1.50 per month yard debris tip fee. The
increase will support the cost of a 22.85 per ton tip fee charged to United
Disposal by the processor of yard waste. The tip fee has been subsidized by
Marion County since 1998. Marion County's subsidy ends on June 30, 2002. A
similar rate adjus ~t!nent request was made in and approved by the other cities
served by United, where the Marion County tip fee subsidy has ceased.
Discussion:
Attached is a resolution which implements the residential rate adjustment for
United Disposal Services, Inc., effective July 1, 2002.
Financial Impact:
As indicated in the staff report provided at your June 10, 2002 meeting, the
requested rate adjustment will increase residential rates by $18 per year. That
will increase the franchise fees paid to the City by 54 cents per household per
year and result in an overall increase in franchise fees of approximately $2,200
per year, depending on the number of households receiving service. Under the
franchise, the City receives 3 percent of United Disposal's gross revenue.
llI
JCB
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
2403
A RESOLUTION GRANTING UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AN
ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE FOR PROVIDING SOLID WASTE SERVICE
WITHIN THE CITY OF WOODBURN AND REPEALING RESOLUTION
1447.
WHEREAS, City Of Woodburn Ordinance 1641, as amended by Ordinances
1945, 2008, and 2072, grants an exclusive franchise for solid waste within the City
to United Disposal Services, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, United Disposal is to collect, transport, and convey solid waste over
and upon the streets of the city and to dispose of or recover materials or energy
from such solid waste; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in 1997 adopted Resolution 1447 which approved
rates to implement yard debris and mixed paper recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, to promote separate collection of yard waste, Marion County
offered to pay, until June 30, 2002, tipping fees associated with the program for
participating communities; and
WHEREAS, the Marion County subsidy ends on June 30, 2002; and
WHEREAS, United Disposal Services has requested an adjustment to residential
rates to include a yard debris tip fee; and
WHEREAS, United Disposal has submitted satisfactory evidence to the City
Council to justify the requested rate schedule; NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the rate schedule for providing solid waste service to the City of
Woodburn requested by United Disposal Service, Inc. which is affixed as
Attachment "A' and by this reference incorporated herein, is approved.
Section 2. The rate schedule referenced in Section I of this resolution shall be
effective July 1, 2002.
11I
Section 3. Resolution 1447 is repealed effective July 1, 2002.
Approved as to form:~r~-~J/~ 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
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Rate Schedule for Solid Waste Services within the City of Woodburn ] ]_~
ATTACHMENT
Page I of
RESIDENTIAL RATES
Service level - One Collection Per Week
Rate
20 Gal Cart
35 Gal Cart
60 Gat Cart
90 Gal Cart
Each extra bag,can,box
On call - each can or equivalent unit collected
Recyle charge for non-garbage customers
Each additional yard debris cart
$15.00 per month
$17.15 per month
$25.00 per month
$31,00 per month
$4,00 each
$7.00 each
$4.00 per month
$5.50 per month
Note: See appendix for miscellaneous services and charges
MULTI FAMILY RATES
Service level - One Collection Per Week
Rate
20 Gal Cart
35 Gal Cart
60 Gal Cart
90 Gal Cart
$10.00 per month
$12.15 per month
$20.00 per month
$26.00 per month
COMMERCIAL RATES
Service level - One Collection Per Week
Rate
35 Gal Cart
60 Gal Cart
90 Gal Cart
Each extra bag,can,box
$13.15 per month
$22.30 per month
$31.30 per month
$5.00 each
Service level - Containers
Container Size
1 cubic yard
1.5 cubic yard
2 cubic yards
3 cubic yards
4 cubic yards
6 cubic yards
8 cubic yards
Rate
lxweek 2xweek 3xweek
$70.75 $130.35 $190.15
$93.95 $173.80 $253.60
$120.80 $223.40 $326.45
$181.25 $335.50 $489.65
$241.60 $446.80 $652.85
$362.40 $670.25 $979.20
$483.20 $893.20 $1,305.75
Drop Box Rates - Haul Fee Only
ATTACHMENT~
Page ~ of,--~
Box Size in Cubic Yards - Loose
10
20
30
40
48
Rate/Haul
$ 106.00
121.00
136.00
151.00
163.40
Disposal charge will be added to above haul rates.
Box Size in Cubic Yards - Co lmpactors
10
15
20
25
30
4O
Disposal charge and franchise fee on disposal will be added to above haul rates.
Note: See appendix A for miscellaneous services and charges
Rate/Haul
$ 141.00
150.00
159.00
168.00
177.00
196.00
Append!x A - Miscellaneous Services and Charges
Rate Schedule for Solid Waste Service within the City of Woodburn
Submitted by United Disposal Service, Inc.
ATTACHMENT_
Page ~ of
All Customer Classes
Special Collection Services:
One truck and one person
One truck and two people
$ 80.00 per hour
100.00 per hour
Disposal charges will be added to the above per hour charge
Special Provisions:
a) If materials or customer abuse result in excessive damage to the cart, container or
drop box then the cost of repair or replacement may be charged to the customer.
b) The weight of the waste shall not exceed the limitations indicated in information which
the collector will provide to the customer.
c) If overtime, due to weekend collection, is required to meet the customer's needs, the
labor portion of the houdy rate shall be increased by 50%
d) No rental charge for containers or drop boxes will be assessed if less than 48 hours.
After 48 hours, rental shall be charged at $4.70 per day.
e) A delivery and removal fee of $25.00 per container or drop box shall be charged in
addition to the above fees.
Tire Collection:
Collection of tires and rims will be charged as a special collection service. See above.
Requirement for Weekly Collection:
Any customer who produces putrescible waste is required by OAR 340-61-070(3) to
remove such waste at least every 7 days.
Other Provisions:
a) An extra charge may be applied if waste is not readily available on the scheduled day
of collection, or if additional janitorial service is required.
b) An extra disposal charge may be assessed under certain conditions such as; major
appliances, oversized or overweight, odorous, dangerous, or liquid materials.
c) When a customer uses six or more 35 gal. carts, or more than two 90 gal. carts, the
collector may require the service be changed to container type service.
d) Maximum cart weight is 2 lbs. per gallon.
e) Excessive damage or loss of cart or container will be the responsibility of the customer.
f) All carts shall be provided by the franchisee.
g) Carts will be provided for regular, weekly customers. No carts will be provided to
-occasional or on-call customers.
Residential Services
ATTACHM ENT~_._.
Page_.~ of~ 11I
General:
The residential garbage rate pays for the following services:
a) Weekly collection of garbage in the cart size of customer choice.
b) Weekly collection of recyclable materials.
c) Weekly collection of yard debris in 60 gal. carts.
All carts and recycling bins are provided by United Disposal Service.
Cart Re-delivery:
Any re-delivery of a Cart, other than normal replacement, will be charged $15.00 per delivery.
Contaminated Yard Debris:
Yard debris which is contaminated with other waste will be charged an extra $8.00 per
occurrence.
Other Provisions:
a) Carts shall be at the Curb to be available for collection. Exceptions will be made for those
who cannot bring the carts to the curb due to physical limitations. Any cart not at the
curb will not be collected.
b) Additional carts will be charged at 100% of the first cart rate.
c) An on-call customer who requires billing will be charged an additional $1.50 per each
collection.
d) Sharing of a cart between one or more residences is not allowed.
Multi-Family Services
Other Provisions:
a) The charge for multiple collection units of any type shall be to the owner of the units.
b) Landlords are responsible for payment of services if the tenant defaults.
c) VVhere customers within a trailer park or apartment complex have individual collection
and billing for each unit, the residential rate shall be charged.
d) Improperly prepared or contaminated recyclables will be collected and charged as garbage.
e) All provisions concerning Commercial Container Service (see below), also apply to
multi-family customers which use container service.
f) Sharing of carts between one or more living units is not allowed.
Commercial Services
ATTAOH~ENT_.~.._
P~le~ Or ,.-~
Compactor Containers:
a) Compactor containers shall be charged at three times the loose container rate.
b) The compactor shall be compatible with the equipment of the collector.
c) Any matedal which is mechanically altered or compressed will be charged as a compactor
container.
Other Provisions:
a) The charge for multiple collection units of any type shall be to the owner of the units.
b) Improperly prepared or contaminated recyclables will be collected and charged as garbage.
c) Except for occasional or temporary container customers, the container rental fee is
included in the service fee.
d) The minimum price for container service shall be the one stop per week rate.
e) If containers are used for material which causes excessive wear or damage to the
container, an additional charge may be assessed.
f) Containers placed in an area that requires manual services for collection (ie; enclosures,
locks, gates, etc.) shall be charged an additional fee of $10.00 per month.
g) The collection charge for an occasional or temporary container shall be based on the
one stop per week fee.
h) An additional charge may be assessed for material in excess of the capacity of the
container.
Drop Box Service
Other Provisions:
a) For regular or repeat customers, a drop box rental fee of $65.00 per month shall be
charged for each box.
b) A delivery fee of $25.00 will be charged for each new box ordered.
c) A relocation fee of $18.00 shall be charged for each relocation of a box.
d) If a box has a screen on top, an additional $10.00 per haul fee shall be charged.
e) If the franchisee provides a compactor box, a rental fee based on a lease-purchase, shall
be charged per month.
f ) A compactor box must be compatible with the equipment of the collector. Should special
equipment be required of the collector for servicing a specific compactor unit, then
additional charges may be assessed.
g) Any material which is mechanically altered or compressed will be charged as a compactor
box.
h) Boxes which exceed legal weight limits shall be assessed an additional charge of $75.00
per box. Fines incurred by the franchisee for overweight drop box loads will be charged to
the customer.
11I
llJ
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon g7071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
June 24, 2002
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator~'''
.4
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development~/~
//
Resolution Authorizing City Administrator ~ Enter into Grant
Agreement for Periodic Review Planning Activities and to Retain a
Consullant to Perform the Duties Pertaining to the Grant Agreement
Recommendation: Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Administrator to
enter into a grant agreement with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) for periodic review planning activities and authorizing the City
Administrator to retain a consultant to perform the duties pertaining to said grant.
Background: One of goals of the City Council over that past several years has been to
complete periodic review planning activities as set out in the City's Periodic Review
Work Program which was approved by DLCD on July 30, 1997. To assist in completing
remaining tasks of the work program, DLCD has awarded a grant to the City in the
amount of $35,000. This amount has been budgeted in 2002-03 and is to be combined
with a $70,000 city match ($35,000 from 2001-02 budget and $35,000 from 2002-03
budget) for a total project amount of $105,000. This project will include completing
tasks necessary for periodic review and will prepare the way for expansion of the City's
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
The tasks partially funded by this grant are anticipated to be completed by February,
2003. The tasks include revising the City's Housing Needs Analysis, updating the
Buildable Lands Inventory, creating a land use inventory for areas outside of the UGB,
creating urban growth alternatives, evaluating and selecting a preferred alternative, and
recommending implementation measures.
Staff has prepared a resolution for Council approval to authorize the City Administrator
to enter into a grant agreement with DLCD to complete this project and to authorize the
City Administrator to retain a consultant to perform the duties pertaining to this project.
Attachments:
City Council Resolution
llJ
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2404
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION
U-03-219) WITH THE
CONSERVATION Ab
PERIODIC REVIEW
ADMINISTRATOR T
ADMINISTRATOR
~ERING INTO A GRANT CONTRACT (DLCD GRANT NO. PR-
STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF LAND
ID DEVELOPMENT FOR A PERIODIC REVIEW GRANT FOR
PLANNING ACTIVITIES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
O SIGN THE CONTRACT; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
O RETAIN A CONSULTANT TO PERFORM THE DUTIES
SPECIFIED IN THE CONTRACT AND THE CITY'S
PERIODIC
REVIEW
GRANT
PROPOSAL.
WHEREAS, th~ city made application to the State of Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development for a periodic review grant for periodic review planning
activities; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Land Conservation and Development has awarded the
city $35,000 to complete the planning activities specified in the grant contract; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the grant award, DLCD Grant Contract No. PR-U-03-219
must be signed, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Woodburn has budgeted $70,000 in addition
to the State's $35,000 to retain a consultant to perform the duties specified in the grant contract
and the city's Periodic Review Grant Proposal; and
WHEREAS, the City Administrator must be authorized by the City Council to retain a
consultant to perform the duties specified in the grant contract and the city's Periodic Review
Grant Proposal; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into DLCD Grant Contract No. PR-U-03-
219 with the State of Oregon, acting through its Land Conservation and Development
Department, which is affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, for a
$35,000 Periodic Review Grant for periodic review planning activities.
Section 2. That the City Administrator is authorized to execute DLCD Grant Contract
No. PR-U-03-219 as required by the grant.
Section 3. That the City Administrator is authorized to retain a consultant to perform the
duties specified in said grant contract and the Periodic Review Grant Proposal, which is affixed
as Attachment "B" and by this reference incorporated herein.
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
Approved as to form:~~, ~~
N. Robert Shields, City Attomey
Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayoi'
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennan~, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 2 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
ATTACHMENT A
Co
Eo
DLCD GRANT NO: PR-U-03-219
STATE OF OREGON
DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
PERIODIC REVIEW GRANT AGREEMENT
By this agreement the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), acting on behalf
of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, agrees to provide funding for the City of Woodburn's
periodic review planning activities for the period from the effective date of this grant agreement through
June 30, 2003.
Grantee: Woodburn
Grant Amount: $35,000
In consideration of the grant amount, Grantee agrees to perform the planning activities specified herein, and agrees to
the conditions of this agreement.
This grant offer is valid for 60 days from the date of issuance (June 6~ 2002). Failure to
accept this offer within this period will invalidate the offer.
The effective date of this agreement is the latest date on which all parties have signed this agreement. Funds provided
in this grant can only be used for expenditures incurred at~er that date and before the date specified in Section A of
this agreement.
If this agreement is not signed and returned to DLCD, funding will not be provided, and any costs incurred will not
be reimbursed.
Grant payment schedule:
Reimbursement up to $25,000, on or after August !, 2002, upon submittal of Products 1 and 2 and written reports as
described in the grant agreement, and signed DLCD Interim Payment Form acceptable to DLCD.
Final reimbursement up to total une~pended amount of the grant upon submittal of all products (Products l
through 3), required written reports, and signed DLCD closeout forms as scheduled and acceptable to the DLCD.
F. Grant Managers:
Mark Radabaugh, DLCD
(503) 373-0050, extension 224
Jim Mulder, City of Woodburn
(503) 982-5276, (503) 982-5244 (fax)
The grantee hereby acknowledges that this agreement has been read, and that the terms, conditions, payment schedule,
and work tasks attd products described and agreed to In this agreement are understood and agreed upon.
For the Department of Land
Conservation and Development:
Authorized signature and title for
the Grantee:
Jim Hinman
Grant Program Manager
Signature
Printed Name and Title
Date
Date
llJ
Standard Conditions
Page 1
Standard Conditions
The grant funds received by Grantee pursuant to this grant agreement shall be expended
only to accomplish and carry out the following activities:
The following d~scription of work products outlines expectations under this grant
agreement. Thisigrant agreement incorporates the city's proposed grant work program by
reference, howe~er, the expectations f~0,_und in this grant agreement shall prevail if and
whenever there i$ conflict with the city s proposed grant work program.
This grant is being coordinated with a TGM grant (TGM Grant No. 2Q-01
).
Product No. l:~This product involves completing Task 1 through 5 of the city's
proposed grant ~ork plan, including the following tasks:
1. Coordination with Marion County:
Changes lo the comprehensive plan and implementing land use ordinances must
be based ~n the county-approved coordinated population projection pursuant to
ORS 195iO36. Woodbum's current coordinated projection of 26,290 appears to
be low. The Office of Economic Analysis (OE^) projection for Marion County
will be released for public review this spring. The County will consider this
projection when considering possible revisions to its year 2020 projections, and
when allocating population growth among its constituent cities. It will likely take
six months or more for the County to coordinate with its cities, including
Woodbum, and adopt a population projection for the cities.
The city will coordinate with Marion County regarding any new population
projection and growth strategies, including the growth strategies of the Marion
County Growth Management Project. Any interim or new population projection
prepared under this grant agreement shall be coordinated with Marion County,
OEA and DLCD. Marion County has addressed its approach and expectations
concerning use of an interim population forecast and development of a new
coordinated population forecast for the city of Woodbum in a letter to DLCD
dated May 9, 2002 (letter hereby incorporated by reference).
To allow Woodbum to proceed with its land needs assessment in a timely manner,
ECONorthwest will prepare an interim population projection. The interim
projection will serve as the basis for work undertaken in this study, with the
explicit understanding that the adopted growth alternative which results as a
completed periodic review task must be based on a coordinated population
Standard Conditions
Page 2
projection adopted by Marion County. The city will also coordinate with Marion
County when developing land efficiency and density targets pursuant to Goal 14
and ORS 197.296(7).
2. Coordination with ODOT:
All grant products shall be prepared and developed in conjunction with schedules
found in the Statement of Work for TGM Grant No. 2Q-01 (Woodbum TSP
update). The schedule for completing work tasks under this grant and the TGM
grant shall be completed in a manner consistent with the sequence of work tasks
found in the city's Periodic Review Work Program (Order No. 00794, dated
July 30, 1997).
Revise Housing Needs Analysis based on the revised Economic Opportunities
Analysis:
a. Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Strategy
In assessing its economic opportunities, the city shall consider how the availability
of transportation facilities and capacity is likely to affect the city's ability to attract
new industries. This analysis shall be based on planned transportation facilities.
In considering the availability of I-5 freeway access and related transportation
capacity, the city will coordinate with ODOT, as otherwise called out in this
agreement.
The city's economic opportunities analysis is the basis for an Economic
Development Strategy (Strategy) and will also include clear Goal 11 commitments
that demonstrate provided adequate public facilities to proposed industrial sites.
The city will review, describe and analyze how it has utilized and protected its
large serviceable industrial development sites since its last periodic review and
provide mechanisms for protecting remaining Goal 9 lands for targeted
employers. Finally, the Strategy will fully identify development constraints for
targeted industries and land needs adjustments to the targeted industry list that
incorporate identified constraints.
b. Housing Needs Analysis
The economic opportunities analysis and Strategy will provide information about
future labor markets and wage conditions that may influence housing needs during
the planning period. In response to changes in projected population and
household wages, the city will adjust its housing needs analysis and will consider
the updated draft Housing Needs Model (Oregon Housing Needs Analysis
Methodology and Model).
Standard Conditions
Page 3
This task will be coordinated with DLCD.
Update Buildable Lands Inventory:
The city will update its draft 2000 Buildable Lands Inventory, as described in its
grant proposal.
5. Create Land Use inventory for areas outside of UGB:
Priority areas for potential UGB expansion will be identified based on compliance
with Goal 14 and ORS 197.298. This task will be coordinated with Marion
County.
Product: The results of Product No. 1 will be used as input to TGM Grant No.
2Q-01 (Woodburn TSP update), and must be submitted by the product due date.
Provide two hard copies to DLCD and three hard copies to the TGM grant
manager.
Product due date: August 1, 2002
Product No. 2: This product involves completing Task 6 and 7 of the city's proposed
grant work plan, including the following tasks:
6. Create urban growth alternatives:
ORS 197.296(7) efficiency measures will be developed during this task and used
in developing various growth alternatives. This task will be closely coordinated
with DLCD.
7. Evaluate and select a preferred alternative:
The city's preferred urban growth alternative will accommodate some future
growth through land use intensification and mixed use zoning, re-designation of
surplus land (Goal 9 and/or Goal 10 lands), among other efficiency measures
pursuant to ORS 197.296(7) and Goal 14, and include expansion of the UGB,
only if demonstrated as needed under Goal 14 and related land use law. The city
shall consider utilization of efficiency measures proposed by McKeever-Morris
under previous TGM grant work during this periodic review, except that it shall
consider utilizing land efficiency and density targets called for in Marion County's
Urban Growth Management Project.
llJ
This task will be coordinated with DLCD.
llJ
Standard Conditions
Page 4
Product: The results of Product No. 2 will be used as input to TGM Grant
No. 2Q-01 (Woodbum TSP update), and must be submitted by the product due
date.
Product No. 2 may be combined with Product No. 1 as long as product
components are clearly identifiable as unique work tasks. Provide two hard
copies to DLCD and three hard copies to the TGM grant manager.
Product due date: October 1, 2002
Product No. 3: This product includes recommended implementation measures and draft
adoption findings (Task 8 in city's proposed grant work plan).
8. Recommended implementation measures:
This task will be coordinated with DLCD.
Product: The results of Product No. 3 will be used as input to TGM Grant
No. 2Q-01 (Woodbum TSP update), and must be submitted by the product due
date. Provide two hard copies to DLCD and three hard copies to the TGM grant
manager.
Product due date: February 1, 2003
o
Documents produced under this grant must indicate that funding for the work was made
available by DLCD.
Grantee agrees to provide copies of all final products produced under this grant to DLCD.
Hard copy text products may be submitted to the department or text products can be
submitted on a double sided, HD, 3.5 inch computer disk for IBM PC compatible
computers or other format acceptable to the department. DLCD may display appropriate
products on its "home page."
DLCD Funds: DLCD certifies that at the time this grant is written sufficient funds are
available and authorized.
Reporting: At any time during the grant period, when requested by DLCD, Grantee shall
provide written reports on the status and progress of work performed under this grant.
Standard Conditions
10.
Page 5
Payments: DLCD payments to Grantee shall be made in accordance with the agreed
upon grant payment schedule and DLCD acceptance of the work products produced under
the grant. Grants agrees that reimbursement of all interim and final (i.e., closeout)
payments is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions contained in this
grant agreement.
Penalty: Paymer~ts to Grantee may be withheld or reduced if DLCD determines that
work performed ~mder the grant is unsatisfactory, or if one or more terms or conditions in
the grant agreement have not been met.
Termination: This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties, or by
either party uponl30 days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
DLCD may terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to the
Grantee, or at suc}h later date as may be established by DLCD under, but not limited to
any of the following conditions:
ao
Failing to complete work tasks within the time specified in this agreement,
including extensions;
Failing to perform any of the provisions of this agreement;
Co
Failing to correct stated above failures within 10 days of receipt of written notice,
or date specified by DLCD in written notice, if granted an extension of time to
perform adequately according to DLCD's desires.
Failure to Comply: If Grantee fails to comply with any of the requirements or conditions
of this agreement, DLCD may without incurring liability refuse to perform further
pursuant to this agreement. DLCD shall make no further reimbursement to Grantee and
Grantee shall upon demand by DLCD promptly repay DLCD.
Accounting and Fiscal Records: Standard accepted accounting and fiscal records will be
maintained by the Grantee of the receipt and expenditure of funds pursuant to this grant
agreement. Grant accounting records will be separately maintained from other
accounting records.
Closeout report: A closeout report and any other required reports as specified in the
grant agreement shall be submitted by the grantee to DLCD as requested and within
31 days after termination of the grant period. Eligibility for subsequent funding is
contingent upon receipt of such reporting by DLCD.
llJ
llJ
Standard Conditions
Page 6
11.
Closeout Penalty: DLCD reserves the right to reduce or withhold final payment to
grantees whose grant closeouts are submitted to DLCD after the 31 days, as referenced in
Standard Condition Number 10. DLCD shall pay Grantee within 90 days of the time all
required work is accepted by DLCD.
12.
Audit: The Attorney General of the State of Oregon and the Director of DLCD or any
other duly authorized representative, shall have access to and the right to examine any
books, documents, papers, and records of transactions related to this agreement for three
years after the final report is submitted. During the grant period, reports on work
activities will be furnished promptly to the Director of DLCD if requested.
13.
Indemnity. Grantee shall defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify the State of Oregon
and DLCD and their officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, suits,
actions, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting
from, arising out of, or relating to the activities of Grantee or its officers, employees,
subcontractors, or agents under this Agreement.
Special Conditions
SPECIAL CONDITIO~IS
Page 1
o
Grantee shall coordinate closely with the DLCD grant manager regarding the selection and
approval of the consultant designated by the grantee to perform all, or a portion, of the work
under this grant.
In performing work Under this grant, Grantee shall ensure consistent, coordinated use of
population, employment, housing and land needs projections.
Grantee shall prepare a written report with the interim payment request which describes the
progress to date on each grant product undertaken during the billing period. Other written
and/or verbal progress reports will be provided when requested by the DLCD grant manager.
Any notice issued by the grantee, which is eligible for reimbursement under ORS 227.186
["Measure 56"], will not be submitted for reimbursement under this grant.
Grantee agrees to coordinate and provide notice to DLCD, Marion County, Oregon
Department of Transportation, and other agencies and organizations listed on Grantee's
periodic review work program of public meetings, workshops, and/or hearings to develop,
review or approve products prepared under this grant. Grantee also agrees, in consultation
with the DLCD grant manager, to provide draft copies of grant products to DLCD and
affected agencies and organizations for review and comment.
Grantee agrees that if a product is a "one of a kind" document(s), it will identify the location
of the original(s).
Periodic Review Grant Proposal
ATTACHMENT B
llJ
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
City of Woodburn
January 3 I, 2002
Contents
Ae
Background
1. Demographic Information
The City of Woodburn is a rapidly growing community located along the I-5
corridor between Salem and Wilsonville. From 1990-2000, Woodburn's
population increased by 50% at an average annual growth rate of 4.1%. The
City's 2000 population is 20,100. However, Woodbum's coordinated population
projection for the Year 2020 is 26,290. In order to reach this population,
Woodbum is expected to grow at an average compounded annual rate of 1.4%.
Traditionally, Woodburn's economy has benefited from Marion County's strong
agricultural base. For example, Agripac and Conroy Packing Company have
anchored Woodburn's economy for decades. However, agriculturally based
employment tends to be cyclical and low-paying, resulting in relatively low
household incomes. Agricultural employment typically does not demand the
type of highly trained work force that will likely be demand by firms with higher
paying jobs.
More recently, Woodburn has experienced rapid employment growth along the
Interstate 5 corridor. Several major firms have located on the west side of
Woodburn in the 1990s, including WareMart/Winco Foods (distribution), Wal-
mart (retail), Wholesale Hardware Inc. (distribution) and a new retail outlet mall.
However, most of these new firms offer relatively low-paying jobs in the retail
and wholesale distribution sectors.
Thus, despite relatively rapid increases in the number of jobs, household incomes
in Woodburn are low, relative to Marion County and Oregon as a whole. Current
economic forecasts project a continuance of relatively Iow-paying jobs in the
manufacturing (resource related), service, wholesale distribution and retail
sectors. And, despite relatively rapid economic growth, Woodburn is beginning
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page I
llJ
e
to show signs of becoming a bedroom community. Housing costs are iow in
Woodburn relative to the Portland or Salem areas, and easy access to
metropolitan-~rea jobs for Woodburn residents has resulted in a jobs-housing
imbalance. Woodburn has a jobs-to-household ratio of only 0.65, compared with
1.01 for the state.
Periodic R~view Status
~oodburn has made substantial progress in completing its Periodic
The
City
of
Review Worl~'~ Program, which was approved by DLCD in July of 1997. To date,
the City has: I
· Completed its residential land needs assessment (Task 1);
· Completed an industrial and commercial land needs assessment (Task 2);
· Updat-.d its public facilities plan (Task 3a);
· Condt'~eted a wetlands and natural resources inventory (Task 4);
· Completed its park and recreation plan (Task 5 - under review by DLCD);
· Comp [eted its historic district / downtown plan (Task 6);
· Comp feted an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and an Economic
Devel. ~pment Strategy (June 2001).
The result of the City's periodic review planning efforts will influence this study:
The r~sidential land needs assessment (PR Task 1) determined that, in the
absen~ of an aggressive economic development program, Woodburn's
household incomes were likely to remain relatively low, thereby placing a
greatex burden on the City to provide for more affordable housing
opportunities. The City has adopted an aggressive economic development
strategy, that is intended to increase household incomes and which may
result in increased population growth rate.
The industrial and commercial land needs assessment (PR Task 2)
identified a need to add 330+ acres of industrial land with none of the
vacant tax lots are over 15 acres in area, and no aggregates of tax lots
(contiguous, but independent of ownership) exceed an area of 35 acres.
The configuration and location of buildable industrial sites does not
provide a good match to the site needs of targeted industries identified in
the EOA.
The updated public facilities plan (PR Task 3a) determined that Woodburn
would be able to provide public facilities and services to land within its
existing UGB; however, funding for needed infrastructure improvements
depends in large part on a solid fiscal base, which Woodburn currently
lacks.
The wetlands and natural resources inventory (PR Task 4) identified
natural resource site constraints for properties within the existing UGB, an
essential element in any economic development program. Marion
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page 2
County's Urban Growth Management Project has made specific
assumptions about the management of natural resource areas within the
Woodbum UGB. To ensure coordination with Marion County, the natural
resources inventory must be revisited to explicitly consider and
accommodate these assumptions to the extent possible.
The parks and recreation plan (Task 5) identified the parks and
recreational needs of the community, which will help to make Woodbum
more competitive in attracting appropriate industrial development and
improving Woodbum's residential neighborhoods. These needs may
change if population and household income factors change.
The Downtown Plan (Task 6) recognizes the importance of maintaining
and improving the downtown core area and recommends specific
measures to realize this vision. Increased intensity of development in the
downtown area will be factored into the urban growth alternatives.
The proposed urban growth alternatives study is directly related to uncompleted
Periodic Review tasks. The industrial and commercial land needs assessment
Task 2) identified a need for 300+ additional acres. This study will look at
possible measures (e.g. redesignation of surplus residential land, and mixed use
designations) and locations (possible UGB expansion) to meet this need. These
alternatives will play an integral part in the update of the Transportation System
Plan (Task 3b), which is about to start under TGM grant. The urban growth
alternatives study will provide the basic land use alternatives for the
transportation modeling. Alternatively, the TSP will provide an analysis of
transportation conditions associated with each urban growth alternative, which is
an important step to meet TPR requirements and ORS 197.298. The results of
this study will determine the necessary comprehensive plan amendments and
zoning ordinances changes required to implement the preferred urban growth
altemative (PR Tasks 7 and 8).
3. Economic Development Strateoy
In 2001, thc City conducted an Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) that was
incorporated into an Economic Development Strategy and adopted by the City Council in
June of that year. This strategy was based on the city's long-standing policy objective of
attracting higher-paying, non-polluting jobs to the community. The resulting strategy
identified the following:
· Woodburn's comparative advantages and constraints in the regional economic
market place;
· Potential appropriate industrial and commercial finns with higher paying jobs;
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page 3
llJ
· A need to revise the housing needs analysis based on the economic
opportun!ties analysis, to better correlate expected incomes with projected
housing types and densities;
· The demographic, loeational, site and infrastructure characteristics desired by
targeted ,rms;
· Changes to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Public Facilities Plan and
Transportation Systems Plan and Woodburn Development Code that are
necessar3~ to encourage appropriate economic development consistent with the
comparative advantage analysis;
· A detailed and specific investment strategy- including a detailed step-by-step
program {tesigned to bring appropriate firms to Woodburn.
The study concluded that the existing UGB lacks sufficient industrial sites (both in terms
of type and acreage)to meet the city's long-term economic development objectives.
g
The Need f~)r this Grant
This grant is necessary to address the wide-ranging issues and as a consequence of the
Economic Development Strategy. In coordination with DLCD and ODOT, the City of
Woodburn is updating previously completed Periodic Review work tasks to make them
consistent with the Economic Development Strategy, including:
· Revisiting the coordinated population projection and revising the housing
needs analysis, including consideration of the HCDC Model
· Updating the commercial and industrial land needs analysis
· Updating the buildable lands inventory, including an analysis of surplus
residential land appropriate to meet the need for industrial land
· Updatinglpublic facilities plans and coordinating with the TSP project
(revisions to the TSP are the subject of a separate TGM grant request)
· Creating an inventory of land outside the UGB (within approximately 0.5
miles) for consideration in developing the urban growth alternatives
At the same time the City will be coordinating its planning efforts to ensure consistency
with ODOT's I-5 Interchange Management Plan, the TSP Update and Marion County's
Urban Growth Management Project.
The primary purposes of this Periodic Review grant are to fund:
The analysis of land use alternatives, as required by ORS 197.298, that must
occur before UGB amendments are considered. In general, the three options
to be considered are:
1. A re-allocation and intensification of land uses within the existing UGB..
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternativ~ Study
Page 4
ll.J
2. UGB expansion to the north and west to provide sufficient land for
population growth and employment - and an increased coordinated
population projection.
3. UGB expansion to the south and southeast along Highway 99W.
NOTE: The three alternatives will provide the basis for the transportation
analysis as part of the TSP.
The selection of a preferred alternative, which is expected to be a combination
of practicable internal measures to accommodate future growth inside the
UGB with limited expansion of the UGB.
Draft implementation strategies to revise the comprehensive plan and
development code consistent with the preferred alternative.
Work Program Tasks
This grant is necessary to address the wide-ranging issues that resulted from the
Woodbum Economic Opportunities Analysis. The grant proposal includes the following
tasks necessary to supplement the City's ongoing Periodic Review planning efforts.
Task 1: Coordination with Marion County
The City of Woodbum's Economic Development Strategy and resulting preferred urban
growth alternative needs to be closely coordinated with Marion County's Urban Growth
Management Project.
A revised population and employment projection will be prepared based on the Economic
Development Strategy. Under ORS 195, Marion County is responsible for ensuring that
the population projections of its cities are "coordinated" with the county's population
projection. Woodbum's 2020 projection of 26,290 has been coordinated with Marion
County, but the county is in the process updating its projection and coordination with
cities as part of the Urban Growth Management Project. Woodburn will need to
coordinate the revised projection with the County and further "coordination" with the
State Economist's projection for Marion County may be required.
Marion County also must approve any comprehensive plan or zoning map amendments
that affect land outside Woodbum city limits. If plan map amendments are proposed on
unincorporated land within the Woodbum UOB, the county must approve these
amendments. If changes to comprehensive plan policies are proposed, both the city and
the county must approve these amendments. Urban growth boundary amendments must
also be jointly adopted to become effective: Marion County has a strong interest in
preserving its agricultural land base. County roads may be affected by proposed changes
in land use. In all of these areas, the city must demonstrate that coordination with Marion
County has occurred. Marion County will be viewed as an equal partner in the plan
amendment process.
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page 5
llJ
Woodburn's urban growth management agreement (UGMA) with Marion County
provides guidance regarding the plan amendment and notification process. It is
important that Woodburn and Marion County follow the procedural requirements
outlined in the UGMA and include findings explaining how compliance with this
agreement and consistency with the County's Urban Growth Management Project has
been achieved in th~ plan amendment process.
Task 2: Coordination with ODOT
The City will closel~ coordinate with ODOT with respect to concurrent studies, including
the Circulation/InterChange Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and TSP
Update. The goal will be to ensure all studies use similar baseline assumptions and
incorporate the latestfindings as each study progresses.
Task 3: Revise Re Housing Needs Analysis Based on the Revised
Economic Oppo~unities Analysis
As indicated above, Woodbum has already conducted a housing needs analysis.
However, this analysis did not consider the City's Economic Development Strategy,
which will likely result in a need for a broader spectrum of housing types and densities.
Using the draft "State of Oregon Proposing Housing Needs Analysis Methodology" as a
base, the City will cgnduct a detailed housing needs analysis consistent with Goal 10
(Housing), ORS 197.295-314 (Housing Needs Analysis) and OAR Chapter 660, Division
8 (Housing). This analysis will be specifically linked to the economic opportunities
analysis, in that the types of housing that will likely be demanded by targeted firms must
be addressed. The City is particularly interested in innovative approaches to providing
for the housing needs of existing and future Woodbum residents, while encouraging
efficient land use and the development of livable neighborhoods.
Task 4: Update B, uildable Lands Inventory
The Buildable Lands Inventory was completed in February, 2000, with the underlying
analysis completed prior to that. The update will focus on the GIS database and factor in
recent development permits and major closures or vacancies, such as the AgriPae site.
The update also revisit the underlying assumptions with respect to natural resource land,
especially to ensure consistency with similar assumptions in Marion County's Urban
Growth Management Program.
Task 5: Create Bpildable Lands Inventory For Areas Outside UGB
This GIS inventory will review vacant and redevelopable lands within approximately .5
miles of the existing UGB. This inventory will include aerial photo analysis, soil survey,
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page 6
llJ
and field check to classify land according to the ORS 197.298 priorities. It will identify
high value farmland (based on soil class), natural resource areas (based on National
Wetlands Inventory and field check), and exception areas and other areas with the
potential to accommodate future urban growth. It also will consider potential public
facility constraints.
Priority areas for future UGB expansion will be identified, based on the industrial siting
needs identified in the EOA and ORS 197.298 factors.
Task 6: Create Ur, ban Growth Alternatives
Using the updated information from Tasks 1-4, the City will create three urban growth
alternatives to implement the Woodburn Economic Development Strategy. The
alternatives will incorporate the ORS 197.298 priorities identified in Task 4. In general,
the three options to be considered are:
1. A re-allocation and intensification of land uses within the existing UGB..
2. UGB expansion north of the City and west of Interstate 5
3. UGB expansion the south and southeast along Highway 99W.
NOTE: The altematives will be adjusted based on the results of Task 4.
The City will map these alternatives in their GIS database. The three alternatives will
provide the basis for the transportation analysis as part of the TSP.
Task 7. Evaluate end Select Preferred Alternative
Based on an analysis of the three growth alternatives, including an assessment of the
Public Facilities Plata and information from the TSP update project, the City will create a
preferred urban growth altemative. This alternative is expected to be a combination of the
three alternatives. It will seek to accommodate future growth through intensification and
mixed use, re-designation of surplus land and expansion of the UGB. The preferred
alternative will evaluated, including another transportation analysis as part of the TSP
process to ensure compliance with OAR 660-12-060.
Task 8: Recommend Implementation Measures
The City will recommend detailed and effective changes to existing plans and land use
regulations as necessary to implement the preferred urban growth alternative. The
measures will include comprehensive plan amendments, zoning ordinance changes, and
other policies changes according to Periodic Review Tasks 7 and 8. These policies
changes will be coordinated with Marion County and DLCD. This implementation
measures will be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals, including 2 (Land
Use Planning), 3 (Agricultural Lands), 5 (Natural Resources), 6 (Air, Land and Water
Resources Quality), 7 (Natural Hazards), 8 (Parks and Recreation), 9 (Economy of the
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page 7
llJ
State), 10 (Housing), 11 (Public Facilities & Services), 12 (Transportation), 13 (Energy
Conservation) and 14 (Urbanization).
Task 9: Final Adoption
After coordinating the implementation measures with Marion County and DLCD, the
City will prepare supporting findings to adoption of the preferred urban growth
alternative and implementing measures.
C. Schedule
The City has commenced work on Task 1-5 to provide the data foundation for developing
the three land use alternatives. The development of the three alternatives (Task 6) is
expected to coincide with the TSP project so that they can be the basis for the
transportation modeling. With the model results and close coordination with the TSP
process will be important factors in selecting a preferred altemative (Task 7). The
evaluation of the preferred alternative will include further transportation modeling as part
of the TSP. The revisions will be coordinated with the TSP to ensure consistency.
Dm
Budget
The estimated cost for this project is $105,000. This Periodic Review grant request is for
$35,000 - with a $70,000 City match:
· $70,000 is proposed for Tasks 1-5, and 9.
· $35,000 is proposed for Tasks 6-8
Timing
The City has begun work on Tasks 1-5 to lay the foundation for the TSP Update and the
Periodic Review Grant Tasks 6-8, which are expected to begin in late-Spring 2002. The
grant work is expected to be completed by December, 2002. Final adoption of
comprehensive plan amendments and implementing measures will be completed by June,
2003.
Public Involvement
City staff will be responsible for integrating this planning effort with Woodbum's overall
Periodic Review public involvement program, including the TSP project. This program
will include advisory committees, public workshops, and public information materials.
City of Woodburn Periodic Review Grant Proposal
Urban Growth Alternatives Study
Page 8
llK
MEMO
TO :
THROUGH :
FROM :
DATE :
SUBJECT :
Mayor and City Council
John Brown, City Administrator~'
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
June 20, 2002
LIABILITY, AUTO, PROPERTY, AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION
INSURANCE PROPOSALS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03
Recommendation: By motion, the Council authorize the City Administrator to secure insurance
contracts for fiscal year 2002-03 for general liability, property, and workers' compensation coverage
following further analysis of quotes received from the insurance companies.
Background: Insurance proposals are being reviewed by Huggins Insurance (City's Agent of Record)
for the above listed coverages. In the past, we had received liability and property insurance quotes from
Northland Insurance, however, due to the tightening in the reinsurance market, Northland will not be
giving the City an insurance quote for fiscal year 2002-03. As a result, City County Insurance Services
(CIS) will be the only option available to the City for liability and auto physical damage. Our Agent has
requested quotes from CIS and from Chubb Insurance.for property coverage and, for Workers'
Compensation coverage, a request for quotes has been submitted to CIS and State Accident Insurance
Fund (SJMF).
As of this date, not all of the quotes have been received and it is anticipated that the City will have the
proposals from our Agent of Record by June 26, 2002. Recent developments affecting the insurance
markets have dramatically affected pricing and availability of insurance. The City will see a premium
increase and some restrictions in coverage primarily in property insurance including earthquake and
flood. Prior to the expiration date of July 1, 2002, we will be working with our Insurance Agent of
Record to negotiate and finalize terms and premiums for the renewal period beginning July 1, 2002.
At the next regular Council meeting, a full report will be provided regarding the coverages secured and
any policy changes that have been implemented by the carders.
"CiW of WoOdburn
Police Department STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345
IlL
Date:
From:
Through:
To:
Through:
Subject:
3_u.~_ 61 2001
/*~qita M*rr, Administrative Secretary
~0~Scott R~sseli, Chief of Police
Mayor and Council XZ'~
John Brown, City Administrato~O"
2001 Bfllletproof Vest Partnership
On June 16, 1998, the Bulletproof Vest Parmership (BVP) Grant Act of 1998 was signed
(Public Law 105-181). The purpose of the Act is to save the lives of law enforcement
officers by helping agencies equip their officers with body armor. The program is
designed to pay up tO 50% of the cost of approved protective vests during the grant
period.
The life of a bulletproof vest is five years, which necessitates the replacement of
approximately five vests per year for our department, depending upon previous purchase
dates and turnover of personnel. During the current fiscal year the Police Department
replaced seven vests. The total cost of these vests was $4,155.88 Funding from the
Bulletproof Vest Partnership curtailed that cost from our budget to only $2,595.99. This
coming fiscal year we will again be purchasing seven vests at a total anticipated cost of
$4,155.88.
The online grant application process has been completed. This year's allotment is more
than was received last fiscal year. Effective FY 2002 (Federal), jurisdictions with
populations under 100,000 will now receive priority funding, and will receive the full 50
percent of requested funds. Woodburn Police Department has been approved a grant in
the amount of $2,077.94. These gram funds, along with the department's equal match of
the remaining funds will facilitate the purchase of all vests required for the continued
protection our officers.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council approve receipt and allocation of grant funds for
purchase of bulletproof vests.
attachment:
e-mail Richard Nedelkoff, Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance,
dated 05/29/02
cc: gram file
i Nita Marr, - FY2002 BULLETPROOF, VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM,,,,,, FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT I~ ].].[.,
From: <vests@ojp.gov>
To: <NITA. MARR@CI.WOODBURN.OR.US>
Date: 5/29/02 12:08PM
Subject: FY2002 BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENT
Congratulations
On behalf of Assista~nt Attorney General Deborah Daniels and the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), it is my pleasure to officially
announce that WOODBURN CITY's application for the 2002 Bulletproof Vest
Partnership Grant Progra~m has been approved in the amount of $ 2077.94.
This amount represents the maximum federal funds available. These funds
may be used to pay up tO 50% of the cost of approved vest purchases.
BJA has strived to be a responsive partner with state and local
law enforcement in providing resources to departments for the purchase
of protective body armor.! The threats you and your fellow officers face
each day requires our unyielding diligence to ensure this program and
others like it continue to r~neet your needs. Since the BVP program began
in 1999, BJA has providdd over $94 million to support the purchase of
several hundred thousand vests nationwide.
In the very near future, you will be notified when this year's
funding is available for direct, online payment requests. Additional
information about program requirements will also be forthcoming. If you
need any immediate assistance, please call our toll-free technical
support team at 1-877-758-3787. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard R. Nedelkoff
Director, BJA
MEMO
To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator
FI-om:
Subject:
David
N.
ToXgeson, P.E., through the Public Works Director/45~L//,
Contract award for Mill Creek Wastewater Pump Station and Interceptor
Improvements Project
Date: June 18, 2002
llM
RECOMMENDATIOI~h
It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for Mill Creek Wastewater Pump Station
and Interceptor Improvements Project to the lowest qualified bidder, Emery and Sons, in the
amount of $367,800.
BACKGROUND:
The project combines two related CIP projects that were scheduled for separate completion
during risc. al year 2002-2003. The budget for the two projects totaled $375,000. Funding will
come fi.om Sewer Construction accounts, since the work will improve capacity and upgrade the
municipal sewer system.
The contract is in conjunction with Project No.2002-015-38, Bid No. 22-28 Bids were opened
publicly on June 13, 2002 at 3:00 PM. Staff received a total of three bids fi.om pre-qualified
bidders, as shown below.
Contractor
1.) Emery and Sons
2.) Triad Mechanical
3.)TEK Construction
Bid Amount
$367,800.00
711,336.00
781,000.00
The Engineer's Estimate, performed after completion of final engineering, was $356,100.
To avoid conflict with nearby construction of Highway 214 Sidewalk, the City is allowing only 30
calendar days for work involving interceptor improvemems. Seventy-five days are allowed for the
total project, to enable completion ofelemems that occur mainly in the pump station or wetwell,
and which have a smaller likelihood of interfering with sidewalk work.
Staffrecommends approval of the contract.
11N
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
For Council Action, through the City Administrator
Randy Scott, Senior Engineering Technician, through the Public Works Director"~
Contract award for Resurfacing Improvements
June 20, 2002
RECOMMENDAT!OI~:
It is being recommended !he City Council award the construction contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, Parker Northwest Paving Company for the Resurfacing Improvements for
Country Club Terrace, Stark Street, Jana Avenue, Jana Court and Stark Court in the amount
of $81,510.50
BACKGROUND:
The contract is in conjun~:tion with Project No. 2002-16-27, Bid No. 22-30, for resurfacing all of
Country Club Terrace, J.ana Avenue, Jana Court, Seneca Court and Stark Court. Stark Street will
be resurfaced from Brown Street to the West end ( Jana Avenue). The project includes surface
repairs for the area of failure and then placement of either a 1" or 1 1/2" asphaltic concrete
wearing surface.
The project will be funded using approved resurfacing/maintenance budgeted funds.
Staff received a total of six qualified bids as listed below
1. Parker Northwest Paving $81,510.50
2. D & D Paving $84,402.50
3. Morse Bros. $92,731.50
4. Roy L Houck. $94,160.50
5. Salem Road & Driveway $96,367.50
6. North San~aim Paving $96,469.00
Engineers Estimate
$95,262
The low bidder is 14 % below the engineer's estimate, therefore staffis recommending the
contract be awarded.
110
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
City Council through City Administrator~
Frank Sinclair, POTW Superintendent through Frank Tiwan,(~~
Public Works Director
SUJECT:
Contract Award for Construction of Pole Barn
DATE:
June 19, 2002
RECOMMEND~kTION: Award the contract for construction for a pole barn unit
to M & W Building Supply for the amount of $40,243.00.
BACKGROUNI): The City requested Bid Number 22-25 for a 36' x 100' x 14' pole
barn unit. The bids were opened at 1:30 p.m. on May 24, 2002, and the results were as
follows:
Bidder Amount Bid
M & W Building Supply
Parker Buildings, Inc.
MSS Inc.
Richard Freedle Construction
Al Fromherz Construction
Cleary Building Corporation
$40,243.00
$48,677.OO
$54,836.00
$56,575.00
$72,784.00
$74,566.00
The 3,600 square foot pole barn building will be used for the storage of agricultural
equipment used in the operation and upkeep or the poplar plantation. The building will
allow dry winter storage and will result in a longer service life and decreased
maintenance expense on the poplar plantation equipment. The cost of this building is
included in the approved budget for the Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion project.
At the March 11, 2002 meeting, Council, at the recommendation of staff rejected a single
bid in the amount of $42,182.00 for this project. Staff subsequently modified the
specifications and re-advertised the project.
lip
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Mayor and Council'through the City Administrator
Ben Gillespie, Finance Di~f~
Annual SDC Report
June 19, 2002
ORS 223.311 requires tan "annual accounting for system development charges showing the total
amount of system development charge revenues collected for each system and the projects that
were funded." The following table is presented by type of SDC:
Interest & Transfers Transfers Cash
SDC's Other Rev In Expense Out Balance
Water 226,140 135,983 452,075 2,270,957
Sewer 442,955 45,000 1,372,503 227,461
Street 718,500 188,176 3,723,611
Storm 53,946 46,106 129,938 779,442
Parks 118,842 98,274 453,183 (331,013)
1,560,383 513,539 0 1,039,805 1,372,503 6,670,458
Total SDC's collected for all systems during 2000-01 was $1,560,383. In 1999-2000 collections
totaled $1,936,618. Interest earned on investments in these funds in 2000-01 totaled $406,854,
and in 1999-2000 total interest earned was $262,121.
The total amount spent on projects during the year was:
Water rate study
Property purchase for water treatment plant
City share of water bore across I-5
Settlemier water line enlargement
Sewer construction (,plant and collection system)
Drainage Development Plan
Centennial Park
28,707
282,840
102,308
38,220
1,372,503
129,938
453,183
Total $ 2,407,699
The funds available for future capital improvements is $6,670,458. Here is the breakdown of that
number compared to The Six Year Capital Improvement Plan:
Funds Adopted
Available CIP
Water 2,270,957 17,279,601
Sewer 227,461 7,802,000
Street (TIF) 3,723,611 24,601,084
Storm Water 779,442 1,914,000
Parks (331,013) 4,195,050
Total $ 6,670,458 $55,791,735
System development ~arges alone cannot fund the capital improvement program.
The Parks deficit will be made up in the current year largely from a state parks grant ($96,000)
and unanticipated SDC's for the Evergreen Retirement Facility ($197,000) and Harvard Meadows
($202,000).
City of Woo burn
Police Department
270 Montgomery Street 1
STAFF REPORT
Woodbum OR 97071 (503) 982-2345
Date:
From:
June 14, 2002
Scott RuSsell, Chief of Police ',c~.~1°
To'
Through:
Mayor and City Council ~)~/
John BrOwn, City Administrato~
Subject:
Liquor License Application - Ranch Restaurant and Lounge
Change of Ownership
Applicants:
TT&C, Inc. DBA The Ranch
980 N. Pacific Hwy.
Woodburn, OR 97071
Thomas Thiele & Trudy Thiele
2066 Kinglet Wy.
Keizer, OR 97303
Cynthia Markovitz
819 Windmeadow Wy
Salem, OR 97301
llQ
License Type: Full on Premise Sales - Allows for the sale of Distilled Spirits, Malt Beverage, Wine
and Cider
On May 31, 2002, the Woodburn Police Department received an application for a liquor license from
applicants Thomas and Trudy Thiele, and Cynthia Markovitz. The application is for a change of
ownership.
The police department has completed an in-depth background investigation on the applicants and found
nothing of a questionable nature. The Ranch Restaurant and lounge (formerly known as the Pier) has
been established for many years and has had several changes in ownership. Mr. and Mrs. Thiele and Ms.
Markovitz have recently taken over management of the establishment and plan to continue a full service
restaurant and lounge. The Thieles currently hold an OLCC license for Tommy's Welcome Inn which is
a bar located in Jefferson Oregon. Law enforcement responsible for the Jefferson area gave a favorable
report on that establishment and advised that the Theiles are very cooperative with law enforcement and
do not allow problems at that premises. The police department completed a history of calls for service at
the Ranch for the previous twelve months and found no liquor law violations at this establishment.
Recommendation:
cc OLCC
Applicants
The Woodbum City Council approve a Full On-Premise Sales liquor license for
Mr. & Mrs. Thiele and Ms. Markovitz at The Ranch, 980 N. Pacific Hwy,
Woodburn.
14A
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodbum, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date: June 24,,, 2002
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrato
From: Jim M[ilder, Director of Community Developmen
Subject: Planning Commission's Action on Site Plan Rev~w 02-04, a request to
place a modular classroom at the Woodburn High School site.
At their regularly-scheduled meeting on June 13, 2002, the Planning Commission
accepted the Planniqg Director's decision to approve a site plan review request to place
a classroom modular at the Woodburn High School site. This decision is final unless
the City Council calls this decision up for review.
Applicant:
Bill Key
Woodburn School District
965 N. Boones Ferry Road
Woodburn, OR 97071
Property Owner:
VVoodburn School District
965 N. Boones Ferry Road
VVoodburn, OR 97071
NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to locate a modular classroom at
Woodburn High School. It is to be placed on the north side of the main building within
an existing parking lot. The new modular is necessary to accommodate growth in
student population in the Woodburn School District.
RELEVANT FACTS: The subject site is located on the northwest corner of the Front
Street/Hwy 214 overpass at 1785 N. Front Street, further identified on Marion County
Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 7BD, Tax Lot 2300. The
portion of the site with the proposed modular is zoned Public Amusement District (PA)
and is designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Public Use. The remainder of
the high school site is zoned Public Education (PE) and is designated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map as Public Use.
The proposed modular is 1,848 square feet in size and consists of two classroom
spaces. The modular is identical in design as previous classroom modulars placed on
the other school sites in the Woodburn School District (French Prairie Junior High,
Lincoln Elementary, Washington Elementary, Nellie Muir Elementary, Heritage
WooDBuRN
Incorporated 1889
June 24,2002
The Honorable MariOn County Board of Commissioners
Courthouse Square
555 Court Street, NE
Salem, OR 97309-5036
Subject: Marion County Urban Growth Management Project
Dear Chairman Ryan and Commissioners Franke and Milne:
On behalf of the Woodburn City Council, allow me to express my appreciation for the
effort the County is making to promote greater planning coordination between Marion
County and its cities.
Let me preface these remarks by underscoring our commitment to continued discussions
with other cities and the County regarding the accommodation and encouragement of
planned growth and development, the orderly extension of urban services, enhanced
quality of life, environmental protection, and economic vitality. These objectives are
embodied in the Statewide Planning Goals and in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan.
The City of Woodbum has also considered these broad objectives in the update of our
Comprehensive Plan over the last several years, as part of the state-mandated Periodic
Review process. To improve our quality of life and our local economy, we adopted the
Woodburn Downtown Plan in 1998 and initiated an urban renewal program this past
year. Last year, we contracted with EcoNorthwest to prepare an Economic Opportunities
Analysis. This analysis identifies "target industries" likely to locate in Woodbum over
the next 20 years, and describes the types of sites and public facilities such industries
require. We are now updating our buildable lands inventory, public facilities plan and
transportation systems plan to ensure suitable industrial sites are available and can be
economically served. We are also updating our housing needs analysis to ensure we can
provide affordable housing opportunities commensurate with the incomes of existing and
future Woodburn residents. Woodburn is committed to achieving a balance between
well-paying jobs and quality housing in our community.
To address the implications of the Economic Opportunities Analysis, Woodbum was
recently awarded a Periodic Review grant from DLCD to undertake these planning tasks.
As required by this grant, we will be coordinating closely with Marion County regarding
amendments to Woodburn's 2020 population forecast, land needs assessment,
transportation system plan, land use designations, and (if justified) to our Urban Growth
Office of the City Administrator
270Montgomery Street * 1J(/oodburn, Oregon q707t
Ph.503-982-5228 · Fax 503-982-5243
Marion County Board of~2ommissioners
June 24, 2002
Page 2.
Boundary. During this process, we will explicitly consider the assumptions and
efficiency measures embodied in the Marion County Growth Management Project.
Last Tuesday, the Council considered the Growth Management Framework and its
supporting assumptions in a work session held specifically for this purpose. We also
considered the draft letter of support provided by Mr. Sasaki of your planning
department. Unfortunately, the Council is uncomfortable signing this letter at this point.
The Council has two primary concerns that we believe need to be further addressed.
First, time is needed to review the assumptions, policies and standards found in the
Framework and its supporting documents, to determine their implications for achieving
Woodbum's econorrdc, housing and growth management policy objectives. We are
concerned several assumptions supporting the Framework and standards in the
Framework make tho City's economic development objectives more, rather than less,
difficult to achieve. We anticipate completing our land needs assessment and public
facilities plan update this Fall. When we have completed this analysis, we welcome the
opportunity to have our planners sit down together to discuss how we can reach
agreement on a common approach.
Second, and fundamentally, the Council wants to maintain its role as master of our
community's destiny. We understand we must coordinate with Marion County, ODOT
and DLCD regarding our planning activities. We understand any effort to amend the
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, especially if a UGB change is involved, must be
comprehensively and exhaustively justified against the requirements of the Statewide
Planning Goals. We are concerned, however, that the Marion County Growth
Management Project represents yet another layer of government - an additional set of
requirements that stand between the City and realization of our future. The Council is not
convinced that the "countywide framework should be a comprehensive guide for
interjurisdictional land use and transportation issues."
For these reasons, the Council has concluded that it cannot agree to the present
"compact" proposed by Marion County.
We remain committed to working with Marion County and our neighboring cities in our
future planning efforts, and look forward to future discussions with the County and other
cities related to the management of growth in Marion County.
Sincerely,
Richard Jennings
Mayor
June 24, 2002
The Honorable Marion County Board of Commissioners
Courthouse Square
555 Court Street, NE
Salem, OR 97309-5036
Subject: Public Hearing, Law Enforcement Bond Levy
Dear Chairman Ryan and Commissioners Franke and M_ilne:
On Juty 3, 2002, you will be asked to refer a $14 million law enforcement levy to the
voters on the November 2002 ballot. This letter is to express, on behalf of this
community, the City Council's opposition to the levy recommended to you by the
Marion County Public Safety Coordinating Council (MCPSCC). We understand the
severe funding problems facing the Marion County criminal justice system, but cannot
support a levy that requires Woodbum residents to pay for services they will not receive,
and pay a second time for services they already receive. As currently proposed, the levy
would have the effect of subjecting Woodbum residents to both.
As proposed by the MCPSCC, the levy purportedly will:
Fund up to 72 beds in the county jail for a total of 600
· Fund up to 72 beds in the County work cemer, with the remainder used for
alcohol and drug treatmem
· Fund up to 5 parole/probation officers
· Fund drug and alcohol services for up to 300 adult offenders
· Fund up to 24 Deputy Enforcement Sheriffs
· Fund up to 15 beds to provide residential treatment programs in the Juvenile
Departmem; and
· Fund up to five prosecutors with secretaries and investigative support in the
District Attorney's Office.
The Marion County Public Safety Coordinating Council also recommends that the
County build a new Juvenile Justice Center, to be funded outside the levy.
We are troubled with the inequity this levy places on the residents of cities that provide
police protection. Our residents already pay for, and receive high quality law
Marion County Board of Commissioners
June 24,2002
Page 2.
enforcement services from the Woodbum Police Department. Only in rare instances do
Woodbum residents receive service from the Sheriff. While the levy would place
responsibility to pay for Sheriff's patrol on our residents, theywould receive no
additional benefit from that cost. In addition, we are concerned the MCPSCC is
proposing to fund adult alcohol and drug treatment with levy proceeds. That these
services are needed at some level is undeniable. To call them "basic law enforcement" is
misleading. These services, if critical, should be funding from other sources. We are
also concerned with the language "up to" in each proposed area of funding. Voters
should know exactly what a yes vote will fund, before they arrive at the ballot box.
Finally, we do not agree that the County should build a new Juvenile Justice Center.
Why build another correctional facility, when the county cannot operate to capacity the
facilities that currently exist? It seems any funding set aside to build this facility would be
put to better use alleviating shortfalls elsewhere in the criminal justice system.
In our May 28, 2002 letter to you regarding the County's 2002-03 budget we indicated
our highest priorities are in the areas of corrections, prosecution, and supervision. When
a suspect is arrested in Woodburn, we need them to be processed into the jail and
detained. We want them prosecuted and, if found guilty, jailed. And we want parole or
probation enforced to keep them from becoming a repeat threat to this community. As
we indicated in our letter, without accountability, the criminal justice system loses its
effectiveness and fails to fulfill its mission.
Under the right set of circumstances, we might be able to support a levy proposal that
addresses only these three areas of the criminal justice system. We cannot, however,
support a levy that spreads the cost of Sheriff's services to the residents of cities with
their own police departments. We would most likely not be opposed to your referral to
the voters of two levy proposals; one that spreads the costs of county wide services to all
residents, and one that segregates out the services that are not required by Cities, and
places those costs only on the recipients of direct benefit.
Thank you for your poskive response to our May 28, 2002 letter. Our continued best
wishes to you as you seek to address criminal justice system funding shortfalls.
Sincerely,
Richard Jennings
Mayor
This is the time set for public hearing in the matter of Comprehensive
Plan Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 01-05, Site Plan Review 01-13,
and Partition 01-07
The nature of this hearing is to review a proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential
and a Zone Change from RS (Single-Family Residential District) to RM
(Multi-Family ReSidential District) on a residential property. The
request also includes a Site Plan Review application to construct 2
residential care facilities and a Partition request to divide the property
into 3 parcels. The subject property is located at 847 N. Cascade Drive.
The applicant in this matter is Leon Oliver.
The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to
each hearing. The applicable substantive criteria is listed in the
notice of public hearing and is as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02
A. Statewide PlanningGoals
B. Woodbum Comprehensive Plan
1. Residential Land Development Policies
2. Housing Goals and Policies
3. Public Service Goals and Policies
4. Growth and Urbanization Policies
C. Woodbum Zoning Ordinance (WZO)
1. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Zone Change 01-05
A. Woodbum Zoning Ordinance_ _
1. Chapter 15. Zone Change Procedure
2. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
C:~Vlulder's X-Files\Woodburn Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd
Site Plan Review 01-13
me
Woodb
1. Cha
2. Cha
3. Cha
Standa
4. Cha
am Zoning Ordinance
~ter 8. General Standards
~ter 9. Residential Standards
>ter 10. Off-Street Parking,
!ds
>ter 11. Site Plan Review
Loading
& Driveway
5. Cha ~ter 26. RM - Multi-Family Residential District
B. Woodb tm Landscaping Policies and Standards
C. Woodb~m Access Management Ordinance
D. Wood_hum Transportation Systems Plan
E. Woodb~m Sign Ordinance
Partition 01-07
A. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 22. RS- Single-Family Residential District
2. Chapter 26. RM- Multi-Family Residential District
B. Woodbum Subdivision Standards
1. Chapter III. Procedures
2. Chapter IV. Design
The full text of all listed criteria is printed in the staff report which
has been distributed prior to this hearing.
e
All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria or
other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person
testifying b.elieves apply to the decision. P-lease relate your testimony
to the listecl criteria.
The failure to raise an issue accompanied by stat.ements or
evidence sufficient to affgrd the City Council, and the parti.es,
an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the
Land-Use Board of Appeals based on that issue.
o
The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other is_sues
relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity
to allow this Council to respond to t-he issue precludes an action f6r
damages in circuit court.
Any participant may request, before the conclusion of the initial
evidentiary hearing, an opportuni_ty to pre. sent additignal eyidence or
testimony. The City Council shall grant the request by either:
C:~Mulder's X-Files\Woodbum Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd
(a) continuing the pub!ic hearing to a specific date and. time at
least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing,
or
(b) leaving the record open for at least seven days for additional
written evidence or testimony.
If the hearing is continued and new written evidence is submitted at
the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the
conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for
at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony
to respond to the new written evidence. If the record is left open
rather than cOntinuing the hearing, any participant may file a written
request to reopen the record to respond to new evidence submitted
while the rec6rd was left open and the City Council shall grant that
request. The applicant is allowed at least seven days after the record
is closed to al! other parties, to submit final written arguments, but not
new evidence, in support of the application.
If additional ;documents or evidence are provided by any party, the
City Council may allow any party to the hearing a continuance of the
hearing, or leave the recordopen, to allow the party a reasonable
opportunity to respond.
Everyone addressing the City Council is requested to come forward,
use the microphone, and begin by giving your full name and address.
We wish to hear from everyone who is interested in the proposal. We
will now proceed with the staff report.
C:Wlulder's X-Files\Woodburn Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd
OPENING STATEMENT FOR LAND USE HEARINGS
REQUIRED BY ORS CHAPTER 197
This is the time set for pUblic hearing in the matter of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 01-02,
Zone Change 01-05, Sit~ Plan Review 01-13, and Partition 01-07
The nature of this hearin~ is to review a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low
Density Residential to H~gh Density Residential and a Zone Change from RS (Single-Family
Residential District) to t~M (Multi-Family Residential District) on a residential property. The
request also includes a Site Plan Review application to construct 2 residential care facilities and a
Partition request to divide the property into 3 parcels. The subject property is located at 847 N.
Cascade Drive.
The applicant in this matter is Leon Oliver.
The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The
applicable substantive criteria is listed in the notice of public hearing and is as follows:
Comprehensive ~lan Map Amendment 01-02
A. Statewide Planning Goals
B. Woodbum Comprehensive Plan
1. Residential Land Development Policies
2. Housing Goals and Policies
3. Public Service Goals and Policies
4. Growth and Urbanization Policies
C. Woodbum Zoning Ordinance (WZO)
1. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Zone Change 01-05
mo
Woodbum Zoning Ordinance_ 1. Chapter 15. Zone Change Procedure
2. Chapter 16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure
Site Plan Review 01-13
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chapter 8. General Standards
Chapter 9. Residential Standards
Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
Chapter 11. Site Plan Review
Chapter 26. RM - Multi-Family Residential District
C:LMulder's X-Files\Woodburn Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd
(2.
D.
E.
Woodbum Landscaping Policies and Standards
Woodburn Access Management Ordinance
Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan
Woodburn Sign Ordinance
Partition 01-07
A. Woodbum Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 2~. RS - Single-Family Residential District
2. Chapter 2~. RM - Multi-Family Residential District
B. Woodbum St~bdivision Standards
1. Chapter III. Procedures
2. chapter IV. Design
The full text of all listed criteria is printed in the staff report which has been distributed prior
to this hearing.
All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria or other criteria in the plan
or land use regulartion which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Please relate
your testimony tO the listed criteria.
The failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
City Council, and the parties, an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the
Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue.
The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed
conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Council to respond to the issue
precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
Any participant may request, before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, an
opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The City Council shall grant the
request by either:
(a) continuing the public hearing to a specific date and time at least seven days from
the date of the initial evidentiary hearing, or
(b) leaving the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence or
testimony.
If the hearing is continued and new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing,
any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be
left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony to respond
to the new written evidence. If the record is left open rather than continuing the hearing, any
participant may file a written request to reopen the record to respond to new evidence
submitted while the record was left open and the City Council shall grant that request. The
C:LMulder's X-Files\Woodbum FilesXOther\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd
o
o
applicant is allov~ed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties, to
submit final written arguments, but not new evidence, in support of the application.
If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the City Council may allow
any party to the hearing a continuance of the hearing, or leave the record open, to allow the
party a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Everyone addressing the City Council is requested to come forward, use the microphone, and
begin by giving y~ur full name and address. We wish to hear from everyone who is interested
in the proposal. We will now proceed with the staff report.
C:Wlulder's X-Files\Woodburn Files\Other\Opening Statement for City Council Hearing.wpd