Loading...
Minutes - 11/10/2003 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 10, 2003. In honor of those individuals who have served our country in the past, for those who are now in the military service, and for the family members of these service members, Mayor Figley requested a brief moment of silence. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0125 ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Figley Bjelland Cox McCallum Nichols Sifuentez Veliz Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Finance Director Gillespie, Parks & Recreation Director Westrick, Public Works Manager Rohman, City Recorder Tennant o 157 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) City Hall and the Library will be closed November 11,2003 in observance of Veteran's Day. The Aquatic Center will be open. B) Recreation and Park Board meeting scheduled for November 11, 2003 has been rescheduled to November 18,2003 due to the Veteran's Day holiday. C) The Recreation and Park Board will conduct a retreat on November 12,2003,6:00 p.m., at the Parks and Recreation office located at 160 Cleveland Street. D) A joint City Council! Planning Commission work session will be held on Monday, November 17,2003, City Hall Council Chambers, regarding the periodic review. E) In observance of Thanksgiving, City Hall will be closed on November 27 and 28, 2003. The Library and Aquatic Center will be closed on November 27,2003. 0230 PROCLAMATION: RECYCLING AWARENESS WEEK. Mayor Figley declared November 8 - 15,2003 as Recycling Awareness Week in the City and encouraged all residents to increase their recycling efforts in order to achieve sustainabiltiy. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 1-- , 1 " COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 0270 PROCLAMATION: AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK. Mayor Figley read the proclamation declaring November 16 - 22, 2003 as American Education Week in the City. 0379 CORRESPONDENCE: A) Letter from Jeane Marie Mey - Mayor Figley stated that this letter pertains to the public hearing on the 5 foot vinyl fence and will be entered into the record at that time. B) Centennial Park Baseball Project - Mayor Figley stated that fundraising efforts are in progress for the purpose of constructing a third baseball field at Centennial Park. Contributions of donated materials, skilled and unskilled labor, equipment and cash are needed to bring this project to fruition. Project sponsors are the Woodburn Rotary, Woodburn Youth Ball Association, and the City. 0475 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the Council regular and executive session minutes of October 27,2003; B) accept the Community Center Task Force meeting notes of November 3,2003; C) receive the Building Activity Report for October 2003; D) receive the Planning Tracking sheet dated November 3, 2003; E) receive the Police Department statistics for January 2003 through August 2003; F) receive the Aquatic Center revenue comparison report; and G) receive the Library monthly report for October 2003. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... approve the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Figley stated that this meeting involves 3 public hearings and persons interested in providing testimony have been asked to sign-in and bi-lingual services (Spanish language) are available to those persons who may need assistance. On the Astor Court hearing, she stated that she would limit testimony to 2 minutes in order to move forward with the hearing procedure. 0500 PUBLIC HEARING: REVIEW OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE #03-03 "5 FOOT VINYL FENCE LOCATED AT 1300 ASTOR COURT. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7: 15 p.m.. The Mayor stated that she did drive by the subject property to look at the fence today. Councilor Cox stated that he had made the motion to bring this case up for review. He does not have a direct conflict of interest since he lives far enough away from the subject property, however, he did need to be unbiased when listening to the testimony and making a decision. Even though he felt that he could be fair, he did not think the applicant would think that he was fair. Therefore, he excused himself from fully participating on this matter and he stepped down from the bench for this hearing. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 .-r- ---- t' ,..- ~ COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Councilor Nichols stated that he has driven by the subject property. Councilor McCallum stated that he had met the applicants in the past and he has also driven by the house and neighborhood. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required by ORS Chapter 197. 1022 Senior Planner Zwerdling reiterated that a letter had been submitted by Jeane Marie Mey dated November 8, 2003 in opposition to the fence height. This letter has been entered into the record as Exhibit "E". Ms. Zwerdling presented the staff report on the application submitted by Don Hemstreet requesting a zoning adjustment to vary the maximum 42 inch height fence on a street fronting property line requirement to allow for a 60 inch (5 foot) vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way. The application was reviewed by the Community Development Director who subsequently approved the application on October 13,2003. On October 27,2003, the City Council called this action up for review and the is public hearing is being held to consider the Director's decision and to accept new evidence and testimony. She stated that the Director had approved the applicant's zoning adjustment since the proposed fence is not located within the 30 foot vision clearance triangle requirement at the intersection of Astor Court and Astor Way. The subject property, as well as the property to the south, have their driveways on roadways other than Astor Way so the 10 foot vision clearance triangle at a driveway is not applicable to this fence request. Due to the small size of this lot (5,583 square feet), the applicant would only have a 4 foot enclosed side yard and reduced rear yard if the proposed fence had to be at least 12 feet from the property line adjacent to Astor Way. The applicant would like to have a reasonable level of security and privacy to the rear and side yards which cannot be provided by a 42 inch fence. Councilor Bjelland questioned the actual distance from the house to the fence. Ms. Zwerdling stated that she had based the 4 foot setback on the submitted site plan that was prepared by the applicant to scale. Mayor Figley stated that it was her understanding that the fence had been approved by the Senior Estates Planning Board although a letter had also been received from the Golf and Country Club expressing some concern. Ms. Zwerdling stated that the applicant had submitted the letters along with their application. Councilor McCallum questioned the relationship between the Senior Estates Planning Board and City when there is a homeowners group with additional covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCR's) on their property and whether this issue is an internal Senior Estates matter on how it was finally submitted to the City for a decision. Ms. Zwerdling stated that Planning staff has not received a letter rescinding the Senior Estates Planning Board's decision and there is no formal process to coordinate with Senior Estates but staff was interested in getting the Planning Board's approval along with the application. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 -r-. I' or COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Councilor McCallum stated that within his homeowner's association, they have stricter CCR's than what is required by the City and the homeowner's association CCR's are what he must follow unless he wants to take the homeowner's association to court. Director Mulder stated that the City does not enforce private CCR's but staff does, as a courtesy when developments come into the City, look at the CCR's just to make sure that they are not in conflict with City codes. If there is a conflict, the City code will take precedence over any CCR. CCR's can be more restrictive than City codes, however, in this case, the Senior Estates CCR's could regulate fence height if they desired but they could not allow a higher fence height than what is currently allowed under City code. 1630 Don Hemstreet, applicant residing at 1300 Astor Court, stated that Astor Way is a considerably wider street and has higher volume of vehicular traffic than most streets in Senior Estates. Additionally, it is his understanding that the 12 foot setback is from the property line and not the curb which is why there is 4 feet between the house and the fence. He has spoken with many of his neighbors about the fence and its affect on the neighborhood and no one has expressed a dislike for the fence. Many neighbors have signed a statement in support of the fence location and height. He had followed the approval process set out by the Senior Estates Homeowners Association in order to provide a secure backyard for his family. He received approval from the Senior Estates Planning Committee and from the City's Community Development Director. He briefly reviewed issues brought up by Ken Leonard, Senior Estates Golf & Country Club President, which has been entered into this record. Mr. Hemstreet expressed his opinion that Mr. Leonard has abused his position as President and misrepresented the Association by not following the appropriate procedures for appealing the Community Development Director's decision and by not accepting the decision of the Senior Estates Planning Committee who does represent the Association. The fence meets vision clearance requirements and it does provide him security and privacy for his backyard. He stated that there are a number of homes in Senior Estates that have their backyards fronting the street and they have a fence or barrier protecting their backyard. He provided pictures of homes within Senior Estates that have a fence similar to what he is proposing to install on his property. In regards to a City permit, he stated that he was unaware of the permit required by the City since the Senior Estates Planning Committee had marked on their approval form that there was no City permit required. When he did find out about the permit, he took down the fence boards and applied for a planning adjustment. His property abuts his sister-in-Iaw's property and they would like to have a common backyard for their grandchildren to play in. The fence will provide a safe environment for their grandchildren since Astor Way is a very busy street and many of the motorists do not live in Senior Estates. His property is already bordered by 4 foot and 5 foot fences and he is not asking for any fence height that is more than what other residents within Senior Estates are allowed. He requested that the Council vote favorably on his request for a zoning adjustment. Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 T---'-.__. , T T COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Councilor McCallum questioned the length oftime Mr. Hemstreet has lived at his residence and whether he had received anything from the Senior Estates Planning Committee or Senior Estates Golf & Country Club rescinding their approval. Mr. Hemstreet stated that he had lived at 1300 Astor Court for 2 years and he had not received anything in writing to rescind the approval. He also stated that the fence would abut an arborvitae hedge around his sister-in-Iaw's patio and the hedge is currently 6 - 7 feet in height. 2275 V.E. Kilmar, 1314 Astor Court, stated that he has been a resident of Senior Estates since 1987 and, in his opinion, the fence looks very nice and he appreciates seeing the fence over the arborvitae. He did not object to the fence height as proposed since it will provide for a more private backyard. Grant Williams, 1321 Astor Court, stated that Astor Way has changed from a residential street to a collector street and, in his opinion, the proposed fence is perfectly acceptable. Walt Deinhardt, 467 W. Clackamas CI, stated that he is a member of the Senior Estates Architectural Board and, after reviewing the proposal, he brought the proposal to the full Planning Committee for approval. He could find nothing in the Senior Estates rules that would prevent him from constructing a 5 foot vinyl fence. In regards to the fence material, vinyl fences are fairly new and some individuals do not like the looks of a vinyl fence. At the time he approved the Senior Estates permit, he was not aware ofthe City's requirement and the 5 foot fence is allowable under their CCR's. It was also noted that within the CCR's, the maximum fence height on perimeter fences is 6 feet, along the golf course the maximum is 3 feet, and in some other areas of Senior Estates, the maximum is 4 feet. Judith Slack, 1060 Astor Way, stated that she lived across the street from the subject property and she enjoyed seeing the fence when it first went up because it brightened up the area. She has no problem with the fence as it is proposed, it is very attractive, and it will blend well with the neighborhood. Betty Hoffman, 1309 Astor Court, stated that she has been circulating the petition to get names of residents that are in favor of the proposed fence location and height. She lives right across the street from the Hemstreet's and the fence will not block anyone's view who is exiting from Astor Court onto Astor Way. Dail Adams, 1366 Astor Court, stated that she was in favor of the fence since (I) it did not block her view when exiting from Astor Court and (2) she felt that the fence would provide safety for the applicant's grandchildren. Dane Haase, 2607 Duke St., stated that he was not a resident of Senior Estates, however, he does live on an identical lot in the subdivision south ofWal-Mart and he was interested in the Council's decision on this issue. He would like to construct on his property but fence height is a concern since he would like to have a fence height of 5 foot or 6 foot around his backyard. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 ,...-- I' T 11 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Patrick Handran, 2604 Creighton St., stated that he lives next to Mr. Haase and he is also at this hearing because of the fence height. He stated that a 3 foot fence height is not sufficient to provide safety for his children especially since Baylor has high traffic volume. He spoke in favor of allowing a 5 foot or 6 foot fence height. William Swanson, 1070 Astor Way, stated that he lives across the street from the Hemstreet property and allowing them to construct the fence as proposed will provide the applicant with an enclosed area to put their outdoor materials thereby making the neighborhood more attractive to residents and visitors. He feels that the fence will look very nice and he is in favor of the zoning adjustment. 3211 Leonard Schmidt, 1378 Princeton Rd., agreed with the proponents in that the fence did look nice, however, the Senior Estates rules stated that "...no fence shall extend beyond the setback of the house...". A comer lot has a side setback and this fence will come out to the end. He also objected to making a change since it will start a precedence in which other residents will want to install a 5 foot fence whether it be vinyl, wood, or some other material that may not look as nice. Additionally, the rules state that "....except for the perimeter, no fence is allowed over 5 feet high and the fence shall be constructed of chain link type or slat wood fence type which would be an open fence such as a picket fence or space boards...". The vinyl fence is considered a privacy fence and rules specifically states that no privacy fences are allowed in Senior Estates. Marjorie Thompson, 1362 Princeton Rd., stated that it is a nice looking fence, however, she objected to the location of the fence. If the fence would be placed next to the house to the enclose the backyard she would not object but this fence sets out near the street and she did not think this sets a good precedent. She stated that this would be the first property to have a fence this close to the street within Senior Estates. J.D. Mitchoff, 1080 Astor Way, objected to the proposed fence height and the material being used. According to Section 2.201.03 of the City's Development Ordinance, the height of the fence cannot exceed 42 inches above the curb elevation. He questioned if the 5 foot fence would be above the curb elevation or the ground elevation. Another. section he addressed is 5.102.03 regarding distance of the fence from the structure. In a drawing submitted by the applicant, it shows a clearance from the property line to the side of the house as 19 feet and, if the setback is 12 feet, it would allow for a 7 foot side yard which is not an uncommon size within Senior Estates. He also stated that he had submitted a letter to the Planning Department dated October 8,2003 objecting to the adjustment prior to this meeting. Mayor Figley stated that his letter is included in the materials received by the Council. Larry Kemper, 762 Columbia Drive, stated that he is the Rules and RV Chair on the. Senior Estates Board. He feels that there has been a mixup in that the maximum height of the fence should be 42 inches from the grade and there should be a setback. As the posts are now set, the posts are on City property and should be set back further onto Mr. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 -r- . ~ ..00. -.-- ..... . .. ..,...-.........~""'_.....'...;.,' ,.,.._'.....~~.".,..,.__..'.....o~',." TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 Hemstreet's property to comply with not only the City regulations but also Senior Estates rules. He urged the Council to carry out the variances and the residents next door to Mr. Mitchoffwere unable to attend this hearing, however, they have asked him to let the Council know that the glare from the fence forces them to shut their blinds in the morning hours since it is too bright for them to see. He stated that Senior Estates is after good neighbor fences rather than a solid fence like the one proposed. Bob Engle, 1119 Randolph Rd., stated that several residents had called him the day that the fence installation began. He had been on the Architectural Committee in 2001 and, had information on the City's revisions that were approved in 2002, this fence would never have been approved. In the past, Senior Estates have been given the right to give permits certain things without coming to the City. On this application, the Committee could find nothing in their rules and regulations against this fence. He proceeded to obtain the surveyor's map to get a measurement since this is a 60' right-of-way. As a result, the measurements show that Mr. Hemstreet is 6 12 inches on City property. When brought to his attention, Mr. Hemstreet stated that he would get a City variance in order to install the fence as he had planned with the foot height. The City did go to Mr. Hemstreet's residence and as a result, the slats were removed but the posts are still in placed. The City has not taken the time to measure the distance and he requested that the City enforce the established rules which include the prohibition of building on city property . To clarify his statement on the rights given by the City on building issues, Mr. Engle stated that the City has given them permission to grant permits for things such as a patio roof if it is under 120 square feet or fences of this nature since this type of improvement does not require a building permit. Ken Leonard, 2296 Umpqua Road, stated that he is the President of the Board of Directors of Senior Estates. His position is that they try to keep Senior Estates in an open area and try to keep the fences to a limit so that people coming through can view all of Senior Estates. There are a couple of fences put on the perimeter which are of 5 foot and 6 foot in height whereas other fences referred to on Country Club and Umpqua Road sit in the backyard and does not come out to the street. The Senior Estates Board had objected to the fence height and it is their opinion that the fence is an eyesore and should be removed. The Senior Estates Planning Committee decision has not been rescinded by the Senior Estates Board since the Board decided to come to the City first since it was a violation of City ordinance. Jim Cox, 1530 Rainier Rd, stated that he is the attorney for the Senior Estates Golf & Country Club, however, he is appearing at this hearing as a volunteer member. He stated that Senior Estates and Senior Estates Golf and Country Club are one and the same organization. The fence rules were revised substantially about 4 years ago without any of his input. Prior to that time, it was clear that the sideyard fences would probably be . governed by the same restrictions that they have for front yard fences. The revisions are Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 "'Y' ." ''Y 4.'....."..-..---..-.._'_.._."---I....~~.~ COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING very vague which is what Mr. Deinhardt was referring to. The Architectural Planning Commission, also known as the Architectural Review Committee, is a committee of volunteers appointed by the Board of Directors but the Board of Directors has no authority to review or rescind their actions. This is why the fence permit has not been revoked by the Board. He agreed with Mr. Mitchoffthat the sideyard would be 7 feet and there is no affect to the applicant's rear yard. Another option would be for the applicant to lower his fence to 42 inches and it can then be placed where he now has his posts. He feels that the fence is incompatible with anything else in Senior Estates and it is different than the way Senior Estates has been developed in that the side yard would be blocked off from the traveling public. The fence is large and not an open neighborhood friendly fence. He requested that the Council look at the standards that are to be followed and the Council needs to be convinced that there is a hardship before a zoning adjustment can be granted. He referred the Council to applicable Ordinance criteria in making a decision as to whether or not a zoning adjustment can be approved. He reiterated that this is typical Senior Estates property and the house has been at that location for over 20 years without a fence. He has not a quarrel with the appearance of the fence, no complaint ifhe moved it back so that it was 12 feet from the property, or if he would lower the fence height to 42 inches. Mayor Figley questioned if the Architectural Committee can reconsider their own decision. Mr. Cox stated that a situation occurred several years ago involving the approval of a stone wall type fence by the Committee and, after an being involved in a lawsuit, the Board came to the conclusion that nothing could be done so it ended up that the Board accepted the stone wall fence. In regard to fence height, the CCR's are very general and it says that the Board may make rules and regulations that govern a variety of issues,. including fence heights, and the rules for the front yard state 42 inches. The rules do not clearly define the fence height on the side yard which parallels or abuts the property line on the street. 5261 Mr. Hemstreet reiterated that there are a number offences in Senior Estates as shown in the pictures he submitted to the Council at this meeting. He stated that he took it on good faith that when Senior Estates approved his permit and marked that no City permit was required, he was allowed to do so and it was only after he purchased the materials and began installing the fence that the height and location issues surfaced. He also felt that any fence 42 inches or lower does not provide sufficient security to his property or safety for his grandchildren. He stated that he purchased the property because of the rules and it is not his intention to abuse the rules, however, he is requesting that he be allowed some security in his backyard and the majority of the neighbors do not object to the fence style or height. Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 "'9""",.".. "'._....__.,~-'_.-...... . .,___",o",,_,'_"~.'~"_-" .,... COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Mayor Figley questioned if any staff member has measured to see if the fence posts are on the applicant's property or in the right-of-way. Senior Planner Zwerdling stated that she was not aware of any staff member doing a measurement and Planning staff looked at the Assessor's map property line which is what they based their decision on and the code does require that it be on the property line. Councilor McCallum questioned the City's process in rescinding the permit if an error was made or does the permit stand as originally granted. Community Development Director Mulder stated that staff would normally confer with legal counsel to review options and ultimately it may come before the Council as to what approach to take to that specific situation. He briefly reviewed the previous City code requirement that a wood or vinyl fence would not require a building permit if it did not exceed 6 feet in height, but the new development ordinance does require a fence review for any fence that is to be installed in the City. A building permit would only be required if it is of a fence type that requires a permit. The City will confirm the fence height and, as far as practicable, the location based on measurements from existing monuments or markers. No detail survey is required for a fence, however, if it is later found that a public improvement or easement that needs to be dug up, the property owner would be required to remove the fence at their own expense. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the fence will connect to the house. Mr. Hemstreet stated that the fence will connect to the house, however, the pictures submitted to the Council did not show that connection since he stopped working on the project until a final decision was made on this issue. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:31 p.m.. 6730 Councilor Nichols expressed his opinion that the applicant had followed the process he was aware of and it had been approved all the way through. After the fence construction began, objections began to arise to the style, location, and height of the fence. He co~ld understand Mr. Leonard's objection but there are a number of fences of similar height and style in Senior Estates. In this case, a side yard fence is being requested and it is along the street. Since the Planning staff has reviewed this application and has recommended that it be approved, he did not see any reason to deny the application. If the fence is in the right-of-way, then the property owner will need to be removed at the owner's expense. Councilor Veliz felt that the process should have been properly addressed in Senior Estates but the issue did not seem to be of concern until the property owner began installing the fence. He also recognized that the applicant had gone through the process and invested money in the fence once the permit had been approved by Senior Estates. Councilor McCallum stated that he does drive through Senior Estates occasionally and, in driving through the neighborhoods, could only find one or two houses with fences that join a road or something similar. He appreciates the open space concept in Senior Estates Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 "'9'_h . .. "._--"-"....~,'"'.,--,...----~~._""'_..,,~_._-,.- COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING but expressed concern in that a property owner follows a process, moves ahead with the decision, then is faced with opposition after the project has begun. The City's Development Ordinance standard does provide for a maximum fence height of 42 inches. A variance was requested and staffhas recommended approval. Overall, he is concerned about granting variances in general and would look more favorably on this issue if a review was not coming up on the Development Ordinance. Depending on the motion, he is inclined not to go with the variance at this time. Councilor Bjelland felt that clarification was needed regarding what Senior Estates is allowed to approve without having the City involved whether it be fences or other structures but that is an issue that goes beyond this particular fence issue and brings up a point that should be pursued by the City. He reiterated that the Council will begin reviewing additions or modifications to the Development Ordinance and fencing is one of those issues that he feels does need to be examined. The issue of an open environment is one in which a development needs to establish rules and guidelines on. In this particular situation, this proposed fence joins an arborvitae barrier that is 6 or 7 feet in height that does not provide for an open view. The vinyl fence does not introduce an element that has not already been introduced in the adjoining property. Since the applicant had already received approval of the Architectural Board and approval from the City staff, he would be in favor of the zoning adjustment application. The issue of whether or not the fence is located 6 inches within the right-of-way can only be determined by a survey and it is a risk the applicant will have to take since the posts have already been erected. He suggested that the Senior Estates Board of Directors and the Architectural Board meet to decide on the position they want to take in the future so this type of action does not come up before the Council. Councilor Sifuentez agreed with the staff conclusions and, in this case, the applicant did follow the rules that he was made aware of by Senior Estates. She agreed with Councilor Bjelland in that there is an internal problem in Senior Estates that needs to be addressed and the City staff can work with Senior Estates to clarify City code requirements. Mayor Figley stated that she felt the applicant deserves the benefit of rules since he did have approval of the Senior Estates Architectural Committee and, once it was known that another process was necessary, did come to the City with a request that looks attractive and seems to have the approval ofa majority of his neighbors. If she were to vote, she would vote in favor of the application. 0650 NICHOLS/SIFUENTEZ.... allow the variance to take place and the fence continue to be constructed and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate this decision. Councilor McCallum stated that, after considering Council comments, he could understand the positions taken by the other Councilors. However, the Council needs.to address fence height and placement in the development ordinance. On roll call vote, the motion passed 5-0. Mayor Figley declared a short recess from 8:45 p.m. until 8:52 p.m.. Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 "'Y".' -~--~.- ,~ , ... .. --'.--' - COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Councilor Cox resumed his position on the bench. 0780 PUBLIC HEARING - EAST HARDCASTLE AVENUE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTICT FINAL ASSESSMENT. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 8:53 p.m.. Public Works Director Tiwari reviewed the staff report which provided a summary of the process followed once the improvement district is initiated to the current stage of proposing a final assessment. He reviewed the boundaries of the LID and informed the Council that the proposed final assessments are approximately 17% less than the estimated assessments. The methodology and unit distribution used to calculate the final assessment is the same calculation that was used in the ordinance authorizing the estimated assessments. This hearing is being held to determine if the work that was included in the project for property assessment was completed as planned. In this case, the project included the street improvement, installation of curb and gutter, and north sidewalk. It was noted that the south sidewalk was not part of the project since it had been constructed previously with City funds in order to provide safety to pedestrians. This hearing also gives all parties an opportunity to correct any errors that may exist before a final ordinance is passed by the Council. He reiterated that the reason for the hearing is not to discuss the method of assessment used before the Council approved the prior ordinance since that is the basic background used to construct the street. He stated that once the final assessments are approved, property owners can pay the assessment within 30 days without any interest charges or they can pay the assessment over a 10 year period under the Bancroft Bonding program at an interest rate of 5.44%. It was noted that the attachment in the agenda packet shows an equal payment plan for the purpose of giving the Council a close idea as to how much would be paid annually by a property owner, however, under the Bancroft program, payments are made once every 6 months and are for 1I20th of the principal amount plus accrued interest. 1528 Henry Jaeger, 1838 E. Hardcastle, stated that the road looks great, however, the traffic speed has increased. As he had brought to the Council's attention previously, he is concerned about the area along the south sidewalk that separates the curb and sidewalk. Currently, it is filled with barkdust and ranges from a width of 6 inches to 12 inches. He questioned whose financial responsibility it will be if a pedestrian steps off onto the barkdust and sustains an injury. A portion of the south sidewalk is a full-width sidewalk and he objected to the City leaving about a 1 or 2 block length of sidewalk with a planting strip that is so narrow in width. He also stated that his water supply comes from 1755 Hardcastle and it goes underneath the sidewalk and runs up to his house. His concern is that approximately 6 inches of overburden were removed during the construction process and it made his waterline that much closer to the surface. If really cold weather does occur this year, his waterline may freeze since it is so close to the. surface. Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 ".,...--.- ."...._..__.._......--~~_..,._-... '....... .~. .... ..,.......,.~...~-~-----"-""",.._- COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 1765 Mike Samoilov, 1195 Pacific Highway 99E, questioned how properties were assessed since he has bare land within the district and yet his proposed final assessment is approximately $2,500.00. Mayor Figley stated that Director Tiwari will answer his question once all of the testimony has been received from the audience. William Wyatt, 1920 Hardcastle, agreed with the comments made by Mr. Jaeger regarding the narrow planting strip that is filled with barkdust. A portion of this strip is in front of his property and he had to put out a fire from a cigarette last summer and it is a place where garbage from pedestrians tends to collect. Since this area has been improved over the last year, there has only been one occasion in which a city employee came down to the area to spray with a weed killer. He also stated that they had guests at their home and one of the guests did slightly sprain her ankle. He thanked the City for finding ways to cut the overall costs of the improvement, however, he does not feel that the work is complete. He had brought up the issue with staff before on the planting strip issue and was told that the ADA standards needed to be met and, since the sidewalk is 5 foot wide which greater that the 3 foot ADA standard, he felt that the City should replace the barkdust with concrete to bring it out to the curb. Another issue is that he has a 14.3% grade into his driveway and he feels that the City should correct this problem like they did for the property owner across the street. In that case, the correction was made by going all of the way from the street level to the front of the garage. He requested that the job be finished by going just a little further into his driveway. Around the fire hydrant near his property, some additional stones are needed to make it more even. Mike Samarin, owner of homes on Dunn Court, stated that sidewalks were included in this project and the sidewalk in front of his property was constructed two years ago. 2195 Director Tiwari stated that the south sidewalk is not part of the assessment and it was built by the City two years before this project was constructed for the purpose of providing safety of children. It was intended that the sidewalk would be 4 feet away and the slope would be a little bit less. In regards to the driveways, staff has tried to meet the standards and if something needs to be done, the error will be corrected. He assured the Council that he will look at this situation, evaluate it and make any correction necessary. The issue on the stones will also be evaluated and corrected if necessary. In regards to the assessment methodology, 25% of the assessment was based on the property area and 75% of the assessment on the traffic generation of buildable area. Mrs. Jaeger stated that they were told that if a sidewalk was in existence at the time of the improvement and during the construction process the sidewalk was removed, the sidewalk would be replaced without having that cost included in the assessment. She referred to a block long area on the north side of E. Hardcastle that had a sidewalk for a number of years but it was removed during construction and a new sidewalk installed. Director Tiwari stated that anytime there is an improvement and, if the improvement is removed as part of the construction project, that improvement will be a credit against the Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 'T'"'' ......-.....-......... '.. .. .. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING improvement. He will check to see if a credit was made for the sidewalk east to Kennedy Street. Councilor Nichols questioned as to why the curb was not placed next to the existing sidewalk. Director Tiwari stated that the south sidewalk was constructed prior to the road construction and placed at the property line based on the preliminary road improvement design and it was intended that it would be at least 4 feet away from the curb. When final design was developed with the turn lane and bikeways, the roadway needed to come closer to the existing sidewalk. The curb itself is at a different level from the sidewalk and to make the level the same there would have been a much greater project cost since the curb would have been a hand-made curb. An option would have been to totally remove the south sidewalk and reconstruct it to match the curb level but this was not part of the assessment project. Mrs. Jaeger stated that there were numerous problems associated with the south sidewalk during the construction process and much of the sidewalk was removed and then re- poured. Mr. Wyatt provided background information on the south sidewalk and he stated that the sidewalk was placed along the property line. However, he does not understand why he was not allowed to pay separately for concrete fill to abut the curb rather than the narrow barkdust strip. He agreed that the sidewalk should have been taken out and put in properly along that side of the street. Director Tiwari reiterated that the sidewalk was not part of the assessment and the slope may not meet ADA standards if concrete is poured in the strip. Councilor McCallum requested that staff keep the Council informed by memo in the next agenda packet regarding contacts made and action taken on these concerns. Councilor Cox suggested that the public hearing be held over since the concerns cannot be resolved at this meeting. Even though the south sidewalk is not part of the assessment, there are problems that have been created by the improvement and these problems need to be resolved. He requested that staff research the concerns and report back before any decision is made on the final assessment. Mayor Figley stated that she would like to see if there are any cost effective solutions to fill in the narrow strip since it is too small of an area to landscape. Mr. Jaeger stated that the mailboxes were removed on Kennedy Street and temporary boxes were put in place. At this time, the mailboxes are still temporary and this needs to be corrected. Director Tiwari stated that the mailboxes are under the jurisdiction of the Post Office and the City cannot do anything about getting the mailboxes put into a permanent location. He also stated that the City's current standard for sidewalks is that it be along the property line and there are gaps between the sidewalk and curb. In some cases the Post Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 T-.._.._'--~._...'_._-'_..._. ... COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Office requires a mailbox at the curb and the 18-inch gap makes it easier for the placement of a mailbox. Discussion was held as to whether or not the hearing should be continued since there are a few issues that need to be resolved before any final action is taken by the Council. NICHOLS/COX.... continue the public hearing until December 8, 2003. The motion passed unanimously. 4730 PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW CASE #03-12. VARIANCE CASE #03-21. AND PHASING PLAN CASE #03-02 "Woodburn Crossroads Specialty" Center. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 9:59 p.m.. She also stated that she drives by the subject property several times each week and she has looked closely at the area since she became aware of the application. Councilors Nichols, Veliz, and McCallum declared that they are familiar with the site. Councilor Bjelland declared that he is familiar with the site and that he does have a partnership interest in an adjoining property to the parcel but, since that parcel is already developed, he did not see where it would have any impact on the existing apartment complex. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required by ORS Chapter 197. Community Development Director Mulder stated that the Planning Commission had approved a request by CTF Development for the construction of an integrated commercial center located to be located on Stacey Allison Way across from Wal-Mart and adjacent to 1-5. The center would be built in two phases and would include restaurant and retail buildings. The Commission also approved a variance that would allow one additional wall sign per business and to increase the size of two directional signs to be located at each driveway. Subsequent to the Commission's decision, the City Council called up this decision for review. The subject property is zoned general commercial and designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding properties have the same land designation as the subject property. The property abuts the north bound off ramp of the 1-5 interchange. It was noted that an environmental assessment required by the federal government to upgrade the interchange is currently underway and expected to be completed in early 2005. Once the environmental assessment is accepted by the federal government, it will become the final plan for improvement of the 1-5 interchange. Funding for any interchange improvements may be available as early as 2005 but construction may be delayed until 2007. To date, it has been recommended that a partial cloverleaf design be analyzed and approved as part of the environmental assessment document. If this design is approved, a significant portion of the subject property will need to be acquired for the construction of the northbound off-ramp. The City and ODOT are in negotiations regarding potential acquisition of this property for the purpose of trying to avoid a situation in which the project is completed Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 .'.....~".~ n' ._..",..._~.".._._" .. .,' ,..._."'.....-'_~...._."_........_____....._.._"..,.~_.___...._~.__....~""'..,.I,,""'~-..~._~~-,-"-' COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING and then within a short time period it is acquired by ODOT in order to make 1-5 interchange improvements. The applicant has the legal right to proceed with this application and there is no definitive time table as to when the City and ODOT will come to some resolution on property acquisition. The project provided for three driveways, however, the Planning Commission decision added a condition that required the removal of one driveway and that a turnaround be placed in that location. This was the only substantive change to the site plan that was made by the Planning Commission to the conditions. The Commission found that it met all of the approval criteria as specified in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. He reviewed the Council options outlined in the staff report. 6100 Mike Robinson, attorney representing CTF Development, stated for the record that the entire Planning Department file is before the Council including his letter dated November 5,2003. He also requested that the portion of the Council minutes dated October 13, 2003 relating to the call-up of this application be entered into the record. He stated that the applicant agrees with the conditions of approval recommended by staff and the Planning Commission's decision to approve the application. In attendance at this meeting to answer questions are Steve Ward, WesTech Engineering, and Mike Swensen, Traffic Engineer from Transpo Group. Councilor Bjelland commented on the traffic congestion at the interchange which will only be reduced by making interchange improvements. He referred to Mr. Robinson's letter dated November 5, 2003 which states that "...the best solution and one which the applicant supports is for the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") to make the long-awaited improvements to the Woodburn interchange...". Councilor Bjelland stated that he did not understand why the applicant wants to develop this property when it is a key solution to the traffic problem other than the fact that the applicant wants to use the property as a negotiating ploy for the value of the property. This property will be needed no matter what type of design is decided upon by ODOT. He also found it difficult to believe that any lender would be willing to fund this type of project when the disclosure is made to the lender unless there is the belief that this interchange improvement will never come to fruition or it may be 20 years before it is started. Mid- Willamette Area Commission on Transportation (MW ACT) and Marion County have both come forward to say that this is the number one project in the entire Marion County that needs to be improved and they will be supporting this improvement before ODOT. Tape 3 Attorney Robinson stated that until the environmental assessment is complete and funded, there is no project. They would like to see the improvements made but the applicant does own a parcel of land that is correctly zoned and the applicant has submitted an application based on the existing criteria and his client wants a decision on the application. Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 ......._~ ,_.........--.......- .,. I..... . ........~~~.,'"-'."......,,,...,,..'.- >"-~..~---,...'""'""" COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 0100 Councilor Cox also made a comment in that there is a perception that Woodburn did not do its homework and allowed improper development to occur along Highway 214 and adjacent to 1-5 and the current generation is being downgraded because ofthe earlier decisions. If the Council approves this application, then ODOT and MW ACT will use this action against the City since right-of-way acquisition costs will increase dramatically. Attorney Robinson stated that he has been before the Council on other development issues over the last ten years and no improvements have been made as of this date to improve the interchange. The reality is that there is an appropriately zoned property and he feels that the Council needs to act on the application based on the criteria. He stated that they did meet with Terry Cole (ODOT) around March 2003 and ODOT was made aware of the potential development of the property. Since then, ODOT has not made contact with the applicant. He understands the Council's concerns but the applicant owns property that is properly zoned, they have met the approval criteria, and the next step is to receive Council approval. If ODOT has a project that is fully funded and they negotiate with the applicant to buy the property, then the interchange improvement will move forward. However, the applicant should not have to continue waiting to develop his property when there is no definitive plans to make the improvements. Councilor Cox questioned if the Council would have a right to deny the application if there was adverse traffic impact. City Attorney Shields stated that the Planning staff had included in the staff report a section that does provide for the City's ability to ask for a traffic impact analysis (3.l04.01.B.2) but the City's code does not go on to further define what can be done as a result of the analysis. The applicant's position is that the Council needs to look at applicable criteria. 0556 Mr. Robinson referred to Section 6.101.02 regarding traffic impact analysis requirements being conducted to the specifications ofthe City's Public Works Department. Before the analysis was started, they consulted with Public Works Manager Rohman. The staff report and final order from the Planning Commission reflect that the City was comfortable with the scope of analysis and methodology used and that intersections operate at acceptable levels of service. The City may want to make an amendment to their code for determining impact on adjacent public facilities but reiterated that current code does not address this issue. He distributed to the Council a copy of Appendix A from the Woodburn Transportation System Plan dated June 1996 which provides for a level of service table (A3) and all ofthe intersections in the project area operate with a level of service E or better. Since the City has no standard in the code that could be applied to a traffic impact analysis, it may be something to consider in the future to give the Council more discretion to act on undesirable traffic consequences. He reiterated that the applicant has not been contacted by ODOT or anyone else to negotiate for purchase of land and he questioned the Council how long they would wait for a government to act Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 ~ ,."..._,._.._~....,--...-.-",. I .... "" ....,.".~__,..___,;_.__...."'..__d".._.~'_~__.....~~..._,..~_.,+,~.."_",,,"~~..~,~_.'__ T COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING before making plans to develop a project. If in the relatively near future a government agency comes forth to negotiate, he stated that his client is willing to move forward with the negotiations since they want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. He did not feel that it was fair to let any property owner wait for something that may not happen. If the City wants the property, have ODOT contact them soon. Councilor Bjelland stated that he was anticipating that the applicant will be getting a call on this issue in the near future. He hoped that Mr. Robinson would let his client know that the City does have a concern and, even though the City will do what they need to under the law, they do not want to do anything that is unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time and money. He felt that it would be in everyone's best interest if there was some room for delay in this proposal to allow contacts to be made for negotiations to begin. Attorney Robinson stated that it will take a lot of time to construct this project and hopefully ODOT will make the phone call to begin negotiations. Councilor Bjelland expressed his concern about the applicant spending substantially more money on the development that may never come to fruition with the interchange improvement being considered and the cost for right-of-way acquisition will increase thereby reducing the City's chance of getting to that end point. 1165 Councilor Cox stated that, based on what he has heard during this hearing, the City does not have anything in our rules and regulations that the Council could tie approval or disapproval based on traffic impact. He stated that he is aware that Public Works Manager Rohman has signed off on the report but, in his judgment, something is wrong with the methodolgy or underlining data because the traffic volume on Highway 214 is so great that it often takes 20 minutes or more to drive from Park Street to the interchange and that must be Level E or higher. City Attorney Shields read Section 3.104.01.B.2 which addressed traffic access issues. Director Mulder stated that the code does require a traffic impact analysis under certain circumstances and it assesses off site traffic impact and potential mitigation, addressing approval criteria relating to on-site access, location of driveways, type of driveways, and street improvements to the site. Off-site system wide traffic improvements are a function of the Transportation System Plan and coordination between the City and other governmental agencies in making those improvements. As long as the developer is in compliance with the zoning, the City currently has no ability to require the off-site improvements. 1673 Richard Jennings, 595 Filbert Street, spoke in opposition to the proposed development in that the interchange development is inevitable and for the City to continue to allow development in the 1-5 interchange area may jeopardize the time frame in which the interchange improvements will be made. He is extremely disappointed in ODOT in not contacting the developer regarding purchase of the land required for the improvement. He Page 17 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 ....,,'_.... ..,..._>H_'___O 1" .... .. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING urged all parties to consider the long range ramifications if this development is approved and constructed. Attorney Robinson expressed his opinion that the City should get the credit for trying to get this interchange improved. The City recognizes the need for the improvement but realizes that there is no guarantee on when funding will be received which is why the City has moved forth with an intergovernmental agreement with ODOT to try and secure right-of-way at this time. Discussion was held regarding the 120 day rule time frame and the possibility that the applicant would be willing to extend the 120 days. Mayor Figley called for a short recess from 10:45 pm to 10:56 pm in order to give Mr. Robinson and his client time to discuss the extension of time. Following the recess, Attorney Robinson stated that November 26,2003 is the deadline and his client is not willing to extend the time, however, recognizing the Council's concerns, his client is willing to wait until after December 31, 2003 to apply for any building permits. He encouraged the City to work with ODOT to begin negotiations with his client right away. City Attorney Shields stated that, for the record, the October 13, 2003 Council minutes on the deliberation of this application has been placed in the public hearing record. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 10:58 p.m.. 2480 Councilor Cox stated that he has some very concerns on this application and, even though he does not like this situation because of the traffic issues, he does not see what choice the City has but to approve this application. He feels that the applicant is trying to work the system in order to obtain more value for their property. Councilor Nichols suggested that the City should be looking at legal challenges in order to determine if the application is approved. He expressed his desire to see ODOT have the courtesy to call the applicant and discuss the acquisition of land since delay will only cost the taxpayers more money at the time the interchange improvement is made. Councilor McCallum expressed his concerns on the traffic issues and potential interchange improvement. Overall, he felt that the project looks good but it is in the. wrong place at the wrong time. Councilor Bjelland wished that the applicant was willing to extend the time frame in order to give ODOT an opportunity to work with the applicant on potential purchase of land. He felt that this application process is being used to obtain maximum dollars for their property, otherwise, they would be willing to enter into an extension oftime to allow the negotiation process to begin. Councilor Bjelland stated that he had just heard some facts which factor in and are second or third hand information that there have been contacts made to the applicant by ODOT. Attorney Robinson stated that he apologized for interrupting Councilor Bjelland, but that this was new information and he requested that Councilor Bjelland disclose what Page 18 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 'T'-~ -,~,_..-,_. .~-........_._- ""_.,-........~--_.,~.._.,."'-~.,~I.,~~"'"~ COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING those contacts were so that the applicant could have an opportunity to rebut the new information. Councilor Bjelland stated that he had just been told that Terry Cole had been in contact with the applicant and that there were even some dollar amounts that had been bandied about back and forth. Attorney Robinson apologized to the Mayor for interrupting and stated that he was required to do so by law. Attorney Robinson stated that he spoke with his client during the recess and that his client had called ODOT and that was the first contact. Attorney Robinson stated that he could not rebut information that he was not privy to, and that he did not understand how it could be at such variance with what he understood to be the case. He stated that ODOT had not contacted his client. Councilor Bjelland stated that maybe he misspoke and there had been communications between Attorney Robinson's client and ODOT and that the Council was led to believe that there had never been any communications prior to this point. Attorney Robinson stated that what he said was, and he wanted to be clear about this, that he said ODOT had not called them. Attorney Robinson spoke with his client during the recess and found out that his client had called ODOT within the last week or two weeks. That was the information he learned from his client during the recess. 3362 Councilor Bjelland stated that acquisition of this property is critical for the development of the 1-5 interchange. This is not a typical situation since it involves the future ofthe community not only Woodburn but North Marion county. Councilor Sifuentez stated that traffic is a big issue within our community and development in this area where land is needed for the interchange improvement makes it more difficult to make a decision on the application. Councilor Veliz understands the overall issues but looks at this application similar to the fence adjustment addressed earlier in this meeting in that the applicant has submitted the application which has been approved by the Planning Commission. He appreciated the applicant's willingness to delay some of their actions and, in looking at the application process, it has been followed as required. Mayor Figley stated that, in fairness to the applicant, it is totally unknown as to when ODOT will approach the applicant for potential purchase of the right-of-way. She expressed skepticism in the actual development of the land in the form as it is conceived. She has real issues dealing with increased acquisition cost and potential sabotage of the interchange improvement due to acquisition cost increase. BJELLAND/ ....not make a decision at this meeting since the Council has until November 26, 2003 to make a final decision. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Cox expressed concern in authorizing a continuance since the next meeting is November 24,2003 and staff would not have sufficient time to prepare appropriate ordinance once a Council decision has been made. Since the courts have upheld that no moratorium can be imposed nor does the City have anything in our ordinances that would allow for a denial of the application, he feels that there is no option other than to approve the application. Page 19 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 "T'~""..'._"'-'''-""-""'-' , , .. .. T COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 4198 Attorney Robinson stated that, with the closure of the hearing, no new evidence can be taken. However, if the Council would approve the application, add findings that express the Council's concern and express the applicant's willingness to delay submittal of any building permits through the end of the year. Additionally, begin the process immediately with ODOT to get this process started so that an appraisal can be ordered. City Attorney asked Attorney Robinson if the applicant is willing to consider waiving the 120 day rule at least for a short time. Attorney Robinson stated that he had asked his client who has stated that he is not willing to waive the 120 day rule. Councilor Bjelland stated that through the end of the year is a very short time frame and cannot see that successful negotiations will move forward that quickly. He stated that he would feel more comfortable with a 6 month time frame for this process to take place. Attorney Robinson stated that waiting 6 months before submittal of building permits will be too long of a wait since it takes a couple of months for all of the permits to be approved. However, they do support the City's efforts and his client has informed him that he is willing to agree to refrain from submitting permits until March 1,2004. Richard Jennings stated that he had previously expressed opposition to the application, however, based on the applicant's willingness to delay permit submittal, he reversed his opposition to this application. Councilor Cox stated that the delay in obtaining permits may be irrelevant since once the approval of the application is given then the applicant will be able to maximize the value of their property. He is not criticizing the applicant but stating what is happening in the business world. It was questioned if information regarding ODOT or contacting them on a status update can be discussed after the public hearing has been closed. City Attorney Shields stated that contact with ODOT would not be advisable and a decision on the application should be based on what was disclosed during the hearing and City code. COX/VELIZ... approve the findings by the Planning Commission and ask staff to bring back an ordinance reflecting that decision with the understanding that the applicant will not apply for building permits until March 1,2004. City Attorney Shields stated that the building permit date would be included in the conditions. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 5771 COUNCIL BILL 2481 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-04. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2481. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll Page 20 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 ......'.... . ... ~,_-.._^._ .,L"~""'^".~"."""'~"'''''''~.~''~''~'__~''''' COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2481 duly passed with the emergency clause. 5905 COUNCIL BILL 2482 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INTERFUND LOAN FROM THE TRAFFIC IMP ACT FEE FUND TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND. Council Bill 2482 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2482 duly passed. 5984 LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION: CHATEAU BENOIT. 1001 Arney Rd. A new outlet license was submitted by LE CEP II, Inc., DBA: Chateau Benoit located in Suite 406 of Woodburn Company Stores. Councilor McCallum questioned if this outlet will be selling more than wine since the license also allows for malt beverages and cider. Chief Russell stated that the applicant's interest is in selling wines, however, OLCC's winery sales liquor license allows the sale of wine, malt beverages, and cider. Wine tasting is allowed under the license (4 one-ounce samples per customer) and the applicant is hoping to bring a cafe to the location similar to the business they currently operate at the Lincoln City outlet mall. COX/SIFUENTEZ.... approve a winery sales liquor license for Chateau Benoit, 1001 Arney Rd., #406. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. 6248 LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP: NEWBERG HIGHWAY SHELL. 2995 Newbert: Hi2hway. A change of ownership application was submitted by Equilon Enterprises LLC/Central Coast Oil VII NW, Inc., for an off-premise sales with fuel pumps license. Chief Russell stated that a multi-outlet conglomerate has purchased the property from an individual owner and how long they intend to run it as a business is unknown at this time. COX/SIFUENTEZ... approve an Off-Premise Sales liquor license for Newberg Highway Shell, 2995 Newberg Highway. Councilor McCallum stated that he would be voting against this license since he feels that gasoline convenience stores should not be selling alcohol. Brief discussion was held regarding aD aT supposedly purchasing the property and yet the business is now re-opening under different ownership. It was noted that staff tried to contact Terry Cole from aD aT earlier today but was unable to make contact with him to find out the status ofthe property. On roll call vote for final passage, the vote was 4-2 with Councilors Nichols and McCallum voting nay. Page 21 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 "Y'~~' .__....._"._._--..."..,,-'~.........---............~,.......-.--~~-_..........~~.-~....,..,-~.-'--< ~ COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 6600 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD: BLAINE / BRYAN / MCKINLEY STORM DRAIN PROJECT. Bids for this system upgrade were received from the following contractors: Wayne Jeskey, $249,512.90; Integrity Exc. & Const., $256,826.00; Bones Construction, $264,674.50; North Santiam Paving Company, $285,759.00; Kerr Contractors, $288,672.00; S-2 Contractors, Inc., $301,311.00; Emery & Sons, $319,082.00; and Canby Excavating, $359,429.40. It was noted that the engineer's estimate for this project was $294,110.00. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM.... award the contract for BlainlBryan/McKinley Storm Drain, Bid No. 2004-02, to the lowest responsible bidder, Wayne Jeskey Construction, in the amount of$249,512.90. The motion passed unanimously. Tape 4 0019 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROPOSAL AWARD - POLICE FACILITIES NEEDS ASSESSMENT. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... accept the proposal of Group Mackenzie Inc. to provide Police Facility Needs Assessment and Pre-design services, and authorize the City Administrator to enter into contract negotiations on behalf ofthe City not to exceed the budgeted amount of $50,000. The motion passed unanimously. 0059 ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. Mayor Figley stated that Administrator Brown has suggested that this agenda item be carried over to the next regular meeting due to the lateness of the hour. Additionally, there are several additions that have surfaced as a result of information received during the public hearings and a more complete list will be presented at the next meeting. Councilor Cox expressed his opinion that the Council needs to provide input on potential changes before any detailed work is completed by staff. 0139 APPOINTMENT TO LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES LEGAL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE. City Attorney requested Council acknowledgment of his appointment to the LOC Legal Advocacy Committee which makes recommendations to the LOC Executive Board on which amicus briefs should be filed by LOC in appellate court cases. BJELLAND/NICHOLS... acknowledge the appointment of the City Attorney to the LOC Legal Advocacy Committee. The motion passed unanimously. 0188 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Administrator Brown provided a brief report on the status of the intergovernmental agreement with ODOT on the Highway 214 sidewalk. He has completed negotiation.s with ODOT on the list of items that he had previously discussed with the Council, and he does have a financial commitment letter from the School District. The pedestrian bridge Page 22 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2003 ....-- . .. T. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING is included in the agreement and cost for this bridge is limited to $62,000. The agreement also provides for roadway lighting along the south side of the highway for the entire length of the project area to be paid for by ODOT. Final documents are being prepared for signatures. 0279 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor McCallum stated that he did attend a conference on "Today's Choices, Tomorrow's Community" at Chemeketa last Friday and our Mayor represented the City very well on an excellent panel. He also informed the Council that a representative of SOL V will be in attendance at the next regular meeting to present an award to the Livability Task Force. Councilor Bjelland reported that a Mid-Willamette Area Commission on Transportation (MWACT) meeting was recently held with the majority of the meeting focusing on projects submitted for 2007-09 STIP and developing a portfolio of projects for consideration in the OTEA III bond fund program. Approximately 14 projects were submitted that had not been on a previous list or recently scoped list. He explained that a scoped project is one in which ODOT visits the site and determines a preliminary cost estimate. Of these projects, 6 were eliminated since they did not meet certain criteria and the remaining 8 projects were put up for consideration of scoping. However, due to the volume of projects on the current list, ODOT staff felt that they could only scope 2 of the 8 projects. One of the 2 projects to be scoped will be the W oodbum Highway 99E improvement from Lincoln Street to the south end ofthe city limits. There is a limited chance of this project being funded because of the list of existing projects but it is important to get the project onto the list of upcoming projects. He stated that he was surprised to see that Marion County had submitted a second interchange project since it has been everyone's position that improvements to the existing interchange needed to be made before any serious consideration is given to a second interchange. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she had received a number of questions from parents who utilize the After School Program regarding the new fee structure. Director Westrick stated that the current fee is $50 per year and the new fee, which will go in effect during school year 2004-05 is $100 per year. The City will be working with parents regarding payment options so that a family is not required to pay the fee in advance in order to utilize the program. He stated that the fee increase will allow for' additional part-time staff thereby providing closer supervision of youth and hiring staff members with a higher level oftraining. The fee increase is small over the course of the school year and it will greatly increased his department's ability to provide a good quality program that does more than providing the youth more enrichment activities. Staff will provide the Council with a monthly report on this program in order to keep the Council abreast of attendance and how fees may affect participation. Page 23 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 .......". '. ... COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Councilor Cox stated that Marion County chaired a meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers earlier today regarding Metro's potential industrial land expansion south of Wilsonville. He hoped that either the staff or the Mayor will update the Council on this issue within the near future. Administrator Brown stated that staff will probably be coming back to the Council to consider a formal recommendation on this issue that will be forwarded to the County. 0959 Mayor Figley stated that there will be no executive session. ADJOURNMENT. COX/SIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. ATTEST~ t::. Y\ ~ Mary T nant, Recorder City of W oodbum, Oregon Page 24 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 .....__' ,,__~.,_~,_,_____,,_,_~_-"""""'-__~'>~""'_'_~_"_'$_""_"'."..______~_, t. . l' ...