The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - 11/24/2003 WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA NOVEMBER 24, 2003 - 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. In observance of Thanksgiving, City Hall will be closed on November 27 and 28. The Woodburn Public Library and Aquatic Center will be closed on November 27th only. The Aquatic Center will have open swim each afternoon Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday the week of Thanksgiving. B. The Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 6, 2003 will start at 6:30 p.m. at Settlemier House, followed by a posada to the corner of First and Hayes street for the City tree lighting at 7:00 p.m., and then to Lupita's Restaurant for a tree lighting party at 7:10 p.m. C. The Mayor's Holiday Concert featuring local musicians will be held at Woodburn High School on December 8 and 10 at 7:00 p.m. D. There will be a Public Hearing on December 8, 2003 for the Final LID Assessment for East Hardcastle improvements. E. Tim Eddy, of Hennebery Eddy Architects, will present the conceptual designs for remodeling and expanding the Woodburn Public Library at the December 8,2003 City Council meeting. F. Dance, Dance, Dance will perform their winter recital on December 13 at 1 :00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. at Woodburn High School. "Habra inrerpretes ~isponibles para aquellas personas que no bablan InfJles, previo acuer3o. COmunlquese al (503) 980-.2485-" November 24, 2003 Council Agenda Page i Appointments: None. 4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. Presentations: A. SOLV Community Group Award to the Livability Task Force 5. COMMITIEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Woodburn Downtown Association 6. COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) 8. CONSENT AGENDA -Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of November 10, 2003 1 Recommended Action: Approve the Woodburn City Council minutes. B. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of October 23, 2003 25 Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Planning Commission minutes. C. Woodburn Public Library Board minutes of November 12, 2003 33 Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Public Library Board minutes. D. Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes of 35 November 18, 2003 Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes. November 24, 2003 Council Agenda Page ii E. Claims for October 2003 Recommended Action: Accept the report. 37 F. Annual SDC Report Recommended Action: Accept the report. 42 G. Leaf Program Update Recommended Action: Accept the report. 45 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. GENERAL BUSINESS A, Council Bill No. 2483 - Resolution Initiating consideration of 46 proposed amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and Woodburn zoning map resulting from completion of Periodic Review Tasks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. B. Council Bill No. 2484 - Resolution adjusting water rates and 49 repealing Resolution 1646 Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. C. Council Bill No. 2485 - Resolution entering Into an 56 Intergovernmental Agreement Contract Amendment with Chemeketa Community College for participation in the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS) and authorizing the Mayor to sign said agreement Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. D.. Council Bill No. 2486 - Ordinance approving Zoning Adjustment 64 Application Case File No. 03-03 affecting property located at 1300 Astor Court; and declaring an emergency Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance. E. Council Bill No. 2487 - Ordinance approving Design Review 73 Application Case File No. 03-12, Phasing Plan Application Case File No. 03-02 & Variance Application Case File No. 03-21, affecting property located on the north side of Stacey Allison Way across from Wal-Mart, west of Lawson Avenue and east of Interstate 5; and declaring an emergency. Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance. November 24, 2003 Council Agenda Page Hi F. Annual Review of the Woodburn Development Ordinance 122 Recommended Action: Instruct staff to prepare a resolution to direct staff to draft revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO) to address the issues outlined in Exhibit "A" to the agenda item. G. Discussion on Alignment of Boones Ferry Road at Hwy. 214 133 Recommended Action: Select the most desired option for the alignment of Boones Ferry at Hwy. 214 intersection. 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. A. Planning Commission's approval of Design Review 03-17 & 137 Variance 03-25, a request to expand the Salud Medical Facility located at 1175 Mt. Hood Avenue. The variance was also requested to allow existing parking located In the required interior yard setback to remain, 15. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 17. ADJOURNMENT November 24, 2003 Council Agenda Pageiv SA 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 0157 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) City HaD 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 I 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 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. NICHOLSIMCCALLUM... 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 HE~G: 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 2 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 fmally submitted to the City for a decision. Ms. Zwerdling stated that Planning staffhas 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 3 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 4 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING Councilor McCallum questioned the length of time 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-law'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 Cl, 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 of the 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 (1) 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 5 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 6 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 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 ~ 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 7 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 ru,les 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 sQme 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 8 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, ifit 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 offences ofsimilm.: 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 staffhas 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 ~~"""_""_"_~_",_.""""__"""__,,,,,,___,_,,,~,.-,,,",._.._,."va~"__~__._.__,~,.,,^",,,,'__ 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 detennined 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 Couricilor 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 NICHOLSISlFUENTEZ.... 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 10 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 ftnal 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 ftnal 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 l/20th 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 of6 inches to 12 inches. He questioned whose fmancial 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 11 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 dpwn 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, staffhas 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 cjfthe 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 12 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 cW;b. In some cases the Post Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 13 _, ~.~'~"_.......< _.w~...,___~.....__.....~~........-._.__~___...,........._".,_._,,.......,_,.........~--"-'" COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10,2003 TAPE READING Office requires a mailbox at the curb and the IS-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 fmal 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 ofTramp 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 14 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 15 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 of the earlier decisions. If the Council approves this application, then OooT 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 (OooT) 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 (3.104.01.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 of the City's Public Works Department. Before the analysis was started, they consulted with Public Works Manager Rohman. The staff report and fmal 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 detennining 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 of the 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 16 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 17 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 pennits. 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 of time 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 18 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 of the 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 19 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. COXNELIZ... 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 20 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING call vote for fmal 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 IMPACT 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 fmal 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 Wood bum 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. COXlSIFUENTEZ.... 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 HIGBW A Y SHELL. 2995 Newberl Hiehway. 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 frotit an individual owner and how long they intend to run it as a business is unknown at this time. COXlSIFUENTEZ... 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 ODOT 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 ODOT earlier today but was unable to make contact with him to find out the status of the 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 21 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2003 TAPE READING 6600 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD: BLAINE I BRYAN I 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 Blain/Bryan/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 of the 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 LOe Legal Advocacy Committee which makes recommendations to the LOC Executive Board on which amicus briefs should be filed by LOC in appellate court cases. . BJELLANDINICHOLS... 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 negotiatio~ with ODOT on the list of items that he had previously discussed with the Council, and he does have a fmancial commitment letter from the School District. The pedestrian bridge Page 22 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 22 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 (MW ACT) 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 Woodburn Highway 99E improvement from Lincoln Street to the south end of the 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 of training. 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 23 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 1003 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. COXlSIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:05 a.m. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 24 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 10,2003 24 f " ( 8B WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 2003 CONVENED The Planning Commission met In a regular session at 7:00 p.m. In City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Lima Young Vancil Grlgorleff Mill Bandelow Lonergan P P P P P P A Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Victor Rodriguez, Associate Planner MINUTES A. Woodburn PlanninG Commission Minutes of October 9. 2003. Commissioner Vancil made a motion to accept the minutes as written and was seconded by Commissioner Bandelow. Motion unanimously carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Minutes of SeDtember 22. 2003. B. City Council call UD of Community DeveloDment Director's aDDroval of ZoninG Adlustment 03- 0311300 Astor Court). Public hearinG scheduled on November 10.2003. C. City Council call UD of PlanninG Commission's aDDroval of DesiGn Review 03-12. PhasinG Plan 03-02. and Variance 03-21 lNorth side of Stacev Allison Wav across from Wal-Martl. Public hearinG scheduled on November 10.2003. Staff stated there wasn't much detail provided as to why the Council called these items up. He explained all Planning Commission decisions and Community Development Director decisions on administrative type items go on the next available Council agenda and then the Council can call those decisions up for review. Staff clarified items approved by the Planning Commission that are not called up by the Council, at that point. the decision becomes final. PUBLIC HEARING A. DesiGn Review 03-17 and Variance 03-25. DroDOsed 7.514 s~. ft. addition to Salud Medical Center at 1175 Mi. Hood Ave.. Matthew SDlcer. ClarklKlos Ar:....hltect. EX-PARTE CONTACTS Commissioner Mill stated he drove around the area. Chairoerson Lima reported he worked for this company over 20 years ago when the company held several different names however, this would not affect his vote. He further stated he has no current links to the organization. ~ read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Based on the information in the report, the information provided by the applicant and the applicable review criteria, Staff recommended approval of the applications subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 1 of 8 25 II ( Commissioner Mill expressed concerns with the fact that Mreferred to in the revised site plan to be submitted- was found numerous times in the Staff Report. He stated this has not been done in the past as the Commission gets the site plan and it is either approved or denied. Commissioner Mill further commented he does not know what the Commission will be approving at this point in time because there are so many revisions. Additionally, he pointed out the Staff Report refers to the removal of the trees in future tense. He indicated the trees are already gone. Staff clarified the trees were removed after the Staff Report went out. Commissioner Mill stated when he receives and reviews that information, he would not know the trees had been removed unless he visited the site. He would then be sitting in the dark, which puts him at a disadvantage. Commissioner Mill said there was some discussion when talking about revising the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO) about how much ground preparation we were going to allow an applicant before they actually pulled permits or come before the Commission for approval. Although he did not see any reason to deny the application, if it were denied, there would be a situation where the applicant will have a very ugly situation with a bunch of trees removed and maybe or maybe not they would have done that. It was Commissioner Mill's opinion that these are issues that probably need to be addressed in the next WOO revision on how that is to be addressed. Reference was made to condition of approval Item #3 regarding requiring landscaping to be in place before occupation takes place. He inquired if we would be precluding the applicant from occupying the building? Staff replied the applicant would not be precluded from occupying the building. Moreover, the final is implied in the occupancy. He further explained both the applicant and Staff felt the conditions could be met. Moreover, he would require a new site plan prior to the Commission making their decision if he did not think the conditions could be met. Additionally, Staff stated he was not trying to send the Commission a site plan that was going to be largely different from what is initially going to be approved. Commissioner Mill indicated his concerns were with past practice and setting precedent. He stated they have pretty much had all the ducks lined up when it came before Commission, with the exception of a time or two where a few things have been different. The number of changes on the plan threw him off however, once Staff clarified it, he could see it is a few things but he was confused when he initially read the Staff Report. Staff explained most design reviews have some sort of condition requiring a revised site plan and most are little tweaks, e.g., site plan did not show the double line striping. He indicated the key is when those tweaks become something more significant to where there is not a reasonable expectation that the applicant could accomplish it without significantly affecting the site. Moreover, it would not be brought before the Commission if there is no reasonable expectation of compliance and the applicant would have to make the corrections in the plan before Staff writes the Staff Report. Invariably, most design reviews brought before the Commission will include similar conditions requiring a revised site plan. Staff also remarked there appears to be a lot of conditions addressing the site plan only because they are trying to ensure nothing is missed by Staff or the applicant when the final site plan is submitted for construction. Vice ChairDerson Youna asked Staff if there is a difference between a Design Review and a Site Plan Review? Staff responded it is semantics. The old zoning ordinance and the old applications were called Site Plan Review and under the new WOO is now called Design Review. Commissioner Vancil commented although he was impressed with the plan he expressed concerns regarding the merging lanes and traffic. He reported he stops for pedestrians nearly half the time he drove in that vicinity because most of the clients who go to that site are pedestrians. Additionally, he pointed out he did not see anything in the plan regarding crosswalks and expressed concerns about safety especially after the disaster at the High School a few years ago. He requested direction from Staff about what could be done regarding this issue. Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 2 of 8 26 (- Staff commented safety is a very critical issue and is an issue that has come up in the past. Ultimately, OOOT's plan is that there will be a traffic signal at Park Ave. and the highway and sidewalks will be extended as part of the High School issue. There is an obvious need for a signal for pedestrian and traffic safety however, it is all under OOOT's jurisdiction. Staff stated the City does not have the authority to put in a crosswalk and would have to check with Public Works as to whether this has been pursued in the past. Commissioner Vancil mentioned it might be an appropriate time for Staff to take a look at whether or not this is the time to bring up the issue again with OOOT. ( ...:.-.- Staff said it is the appropriate time to bring the issue up again as we may be creating a greater impact as far as people going across the road. Commissioner Bandelow stated there is an odd configuration because of the narrowing. Some of the cars are confused as to where they are going even when there are no pedestrians, especially cars coming out of that site. The more ways we can get to OOOT to make them understand that the issue needs to be addressed, the better it is. She remarked she thought there is a tragedy in the making in that area even without the expansion of the clinic. Staff indicated OOOT is very well aware of the clinic expansion and they are working with the applicant on permitting them to widen their access. However, he is unaware of what the outcome will be. Chairoerson lima requested clarification regarding the left turn only access. Staff explained there will be a left turn lane in the middle, as there will be two lanes out and one lane in. This will be better than what is currently there because the left turn out is what takes the longest to get out off. He also stated part of the problem with this area is that there are hills on either side which blocks your visibility and once it is widened, the visibility will be improved. Staff also commented this is one of the reasons he conditioned some landscaping along the entrance so you see that it is the entrance. Commissioner Mill recalled a meeting about 5 years ago, Commissioner Bandelow almost saying exactly the same thing, word for word about the High School. He said they do not want the tragedy at the High School to occur again and he is unaware how to get OOOT's attention but he would be willing to do anything he could to resolve it. Staff mentioned OOOT has limited resources and we are not the only city in the State that have these issues. OOOT has to make decisions as to where they allocate those resources. He said he is sure OOOT would say that you do not put a crosswalk across a highway that wide. If this were done, you could almost guarantee somebody getting killed because the crosswalk gives a false sense of security. Commissioner Bandelow commented it is frightening to see mothers with small children walking this area where there are no sidewalks. Commissioner Griaorieff asked Staff if the turn lanes at the driveway will be able to go straight into Park Ave.? She indicated if they can't, to make sure there is something there where you turn right only or turn left only. Staff remarked he believed it will be a left only and the other lanes would be for straight and right turns. Commissioner Griaorieff reported she spoke with Randy Rohman regarding this issue a few weeks ago and he told her basically what Staff told her. She said the location of the driveway is the same location where it goes into two lanes. Commissioner Grigoriefffurther stated OOOT is very well aware of it and they know there is a problem and they are working on it. TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT Matthew Soicer. Proiect Manaaer. ClarklKios Architects. 333 NW 5th Ave.. Portland 97209 stated they have i " Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 3 of 8 27 ( c- ( been working with Yakima Valley Farm Workers CliniclSalud Medical Clinic for approximately a year on this facility. They were initially asked to help them create a facility which was unified providing all the health care services for their patients within one building. Moreover, they were also asked to make this a facility that had a clear and inviting entrance. Mr. Spicer further reported they have developed a one-story center space that links the two buildings with a covered canopy to protect pedestrians whether they are coming by car or on foot from the elements. The new central construction will have glass on both north and south sides so that the folks waiting inside that area will have views out to the preserved natural areas. It was further stated by Mr. Spicer that public safety is definitely a major concern and has been as they have developed the plan. They have worked carefully to follow the WOO regulations developing clear pathways to get people either from their vehicles to the main entrance and also there is an existing diagonal pathway running along to a bus stop on Mt. Hood Ave. Additionally, he indicated there were concerns regarding the entry and exit of vehicles in the narrow driveway as it currently stands. Mr. Spicer envisioned the three traffic lanes with one lane taking traffIC in onto the site; the center lane they saw as a lane that would allow traffic to go straight across to Park Ave. or turn left because you are crossing traffic in both situations and lastly, the third lane would make a clear right turn. This condition has been reviewed by OOOT and they have received a verbal approval of the design that it does meet the regulations. He pointed out they have observed OOOT with cameras looking at the traffic situation in that area and when they were approached they indicated they were looking at that intersection seriously to put a signal in. Mr. Spicer remarked he agreed with the Commission in that they hope it will be sooner than later because many of the patients are arriving by foot. He described the building as a central one-story structure with three-dimensionality by way of poking out into the parking lot with a covered canopy. A series of low garden walls which define some entry courts on either side of the entrance path and they are actually keying off of the existing earth tone brick and using that for gUidance for coloring the rest of the structure. Mr. Spicer further described the new construction as being largely glass on the north and south walls and the low garden walls will be stucco material painted light and dark earth tones complimenting the brick. Colored tile patterns will be utilized to accent the tops of the low walls and the supports for the entry canopy in the center and those decorative treatments will also carry right into the lobby. He also commented there is a lot of work to be done to try to bring the landscaping back as there is currently a lot of vegetation that has grown out of control on the site. In closing, Mr. Spicer stated their approach is that of preserving the large trees on the north side of the site, which will be enhanced by lower materials right up against the glass. Whereas, they see the front area where the garden court and water feature will be located as a perfect place for a patient waiting area. Commissioner Mill complimented the applicant for the wonderful job they did in bringing the two buildings together. Matthew Soicer appreciated Commissioner Mill's compliment and also pointed out he brought along a revised site plan that addressed Staff's conditions. Chairoerson Lima mentioned he was a former health provider for Salud Medical Clinic and Inquired where the funding for this project is coming from? Matthew Soicar responded they had a relatively tight budget for what was trying to be accomplished. The current building is very tight and does not meet the current standards for some of the configurations and sizes of the exam rooms as well as number of exam rooms, therefore, patient and staff flow are hampered quite a bit. Although they are expanding the size of the facility, they are not necessarily growing the number of patients per say, but it is really to allow the place to work more efficiently. Mr. Spicer deferred the funding source question to the applicant. Vice Chairoerson Young questioned if the applicant had any other concerns with the conditions of approval that were listed in the Staff Report? Matthew Soicer replied he did reviewed the conditions very carefully with Staff before the meeting tonight and one of the questions was addressing the nature of when exactly all the landscape material had to be installed because the WOO wording, in his opinion, is not clear. However, it is implied that it is meant to be in place before the final occupancy of the building. Additionally, he mentioned the medical facility has to remain Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 4 of 8 28 ( (_I l. operational throughout construction and they do operate on Saturdays as well. Mr. Spicer reported they have planned this in a three phase construction operation which will allow them to operate and there will be partial occupancies that would be worked out with the City. He also stated they might entertain some landscaping if the timing is right for planting season. Phase 1 will be the central new construction area and renovation of the currently vacant building and will also include a lot of the site work. This will allow a portion of staff and services to move over there while the existing Salud building is renovated in a couple more phases. It was further reported by Mr. Spicer that he believed Phase 1 would be complete April or May 2004. Phase 2 will be to take the southern half of the first floor of the clinic and move those people into the newly constructed and renovated area which will include an expanded dental and pharmacy area to include a lot of open waiting areas for the dental and medical clinic as well as a receptionist desk. Mr. Spicer mentioned the southern portion of the building will be shelf space at this point. Moreover, the central stair and elevator will be torn out. Phase 3 will consist of allowing the staff that are still crammed into the existing clinic space on the north end of the building to flip down into the south end into the new exam rooms layout and the contractor will be renovating the north end. He remarked the result in the Salud building would basically be two exam room pods, a southern and a northern with some central service support areas, i.e., lab, medical records, sterilization areas. The elevator and stairs upstairs will be removed and flooring that over and expanding the existing waiting area. Mr. Spicer guesstimated it will be about 1 % year construction. In reviewing the traffic issue with OOOT and Randy Rohman, it was determined as they prepared for submission of the application, that there would not be a significant increase in traffic and a traffic impact study was not needed. Chairoerson Lima also inquired if the hours of operation will remain the same? Matthew Soicer replied affirmatively. He commented there will definitely be some sensitive times where there will be certain activities happening on the weekend. Commissioner Bandelow requested clarification regarding Mr. Spicer's statement that he wished he were able to redo the landscaping throughout but he would not be. Matthew Soicer stated they wanted to get the biggest bang for the buck because of the limited budget they have applied towards landscaping. There will be landscaping at the front door and the front door to the site and they will be doing some enhancements at the driveway. He further commented it was their belief it will be a very wonderful area to be looking out while you are waiting. Moreover, they have proposed some low planting shrubs along the east side, although it is not quite as public, it is an opportunity that they think is worth doing. Mr. Spicer said largely it is the perimeter existing landscape that will remain as it provides a natural buffer that is needed anyway between the Commercial Office (CO) zone and the surrounding Industrial zones. He also pointed out there is a large grassy area on the southwest corner of the site they would love to develop more and perhaps have more visible signage. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS Sarah Shiooen. Facilities Oevelooment Manaaer. Yakima Vallev Farm Workers Clinic. 518 W. First Ave.. Toooenish. WA 98948 addressed Chairperson Lima's questions regarding funding although she indicated she is not a finance person. She explained they have an annual Federal grant that helps subsidize Salud Medical Center's operation and it is renewed annually. There is no Federal or State money going towards this construction but there was a grant awarded for dental equipment purchase which is approximately $3SP,000. She provided a synopsis of the Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic and reported they celebrated their 25th anniversary this year. Additionally, they operate clinics both in Washington and Oregon and have Federal grants at many of their sites. The Woodburn health care center is a Federally qualified health care center as well as other locations. She also indicated 15% of their total operating revenues come from State and Federal subsidies and the operation in Washington is much more extensive and it does subsidize the operation in Woodburn. She stated Oregon's health care reimbursements are not quite equitable of what Washington's are. Chairoerson Lima asked how many clinicians and medical providers will there be when the renovation is completed? Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 5 of 8 29 ( Sarah Shiooen replied there are currently 17 exam/treatment rooms and the conditions of the whole operation are pretty difficult both for the medical providers and the patients that come to the facility. The pharmacy is the one expansion of program that they are incorporating into this design as there are not a lot of places for people with low income to get pharmacy services. TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS None DISCUSSION Chairoerson Lima closed the public hearing and opened for discussion among the Commissioners. Chairoerson Lima commented this project will be a nice addition and complimented the applicant. Commissioner Bandelow concurred with Chairperson Lima. However, she hoped there will be grading out front as it would improve the view of the building. She remarked the applicant has done a remarkable job on the design to bring those two buildings together and she saw no reason to do anything but approve the project. ( Commissioner Vancil supported his fellow Commissioners. He pointed out that area had the potential of becoming a community blight area before Salud took it over a few years ago. He thanked Salud for resurrecting it and said it is a beautiful site and they are very impressed that they are investing in our community to bring such a nice facility. Vice Chairoerson Youna also stated it is a beautiful facility, good medical services for our people and thought it was a wonderful addition to our community. Commissioner Mill agreed with his fellow Commissioners and praised the applicant. Furthermore, he said the applicant did a great job of preplanning, granted they currently do not have the funds to renovate those other spaces but they have such a tremendous potential for growth and changes. Commissioner Griaorieff was also in agreement with fellow Commissioners. Chairoerson Lima encouraged the Salud Medical Director and clinicians to encourage the patients to practice safe walking when crossing the highway. Commissioner Mill moved to approve Design Review 03-17 and Variance 03-25 with respect to the revised site plan amendments that will be made and subject to terms and conditions as outlined and instructed Staff return at the next regularly scheduled meeting with facts and findings and a Final Order. Commissioner Griaorieff seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. ITEMS FOR ACTION A. Final Order for Conditional Use 03-06 and Dnlan Review 03-13. Droooaal to Install above around DrODane tank at 2221 N. Pacific Hwvoo McMlnnvllle Gas Co. Incoo aDDllcant. Commissioner Youna moved to accept the Final Order as presented by Staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Griaorieff, which carried unanimously. 8, Final Order for DesiGn Review 03-18. Drooosal to construct a 30,000 sauare foot warehouse facility on National Wav. Dave Carter & Associates. aDDllcant. . A motion was made by Commissioner Mill to approve the Final Order and Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff announced a work session for the City Council and the Planning Commission has been tentatively scheduled to take place Monday, November 17'h and he indicated the Woodburn School District will be invited. The meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 pm. The date will be confirmed by the City ( Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 6 of 8 30 ( Council next Monday night. He reported the Periodic Review consultant will provide a presentation on what is being proposed as far as the Urban Growth Boundary expansion. Staff stated the Commissioners will be individually contacted if the date changes, otherwise, they should go on the assumption that it will be on November 1 ]'h. Commissioner Vancil expects there will be a lot of public comment before we get through this process even at City level. Staff stated there may be a potential, at this point, that this may come before the Planning Commission at a public hearing at the first meeting in December. He informed the Commission it first comes before the Planning Commission for public hearing; then the Commission makes their recommendation to the City Council; it then goes to City Council public hearings and the City Council adopts whatever they adopt. After that it goes to Marion County, assuming it involves Urban Growth Boundary expansion, and Marion County takes it through their Planning Commission and then to the County Commissioners. When they adopt, assuming they approve what our City Council approves, then at that point it goes to DLCD staff who review it and then make a recommendation to Land Conservation Development Commission, ultimately taking action on it. If it is not acknowledge by LCDC, they may send it back for tweaking but even if they approve it, it can be challenged. Staff commented almost anything of the size of what we are proposing has been challenged, which could take a couple of years. Commissioner Vancil questioned whether this is tied to the land west of the freeway that we are already going to court over as a City with the County not wanting us to annex the industrial land over by Winco or is that a separate issue? Staff responded that is part of the Urban Growth Boundary expansion recommendation, which includes that land. ( Commissioner Vancil mentioned Canby turned down a major project because they did not like the design and Oregon City turned down Wal-Mart. He said he thought these cases would be worth watching as a Commission to see how those turn out. Commissioner Vancil assumed both will be precedent setting cases and will land in court at some point. Staff reminded the Commission that the second meeting in November always falls on Thanksgiving. In addition, he stated ths years second Planning Commission meeting in December actually falls on Christmas. He mentioned normally he goes under the assumption that the Commission would normally prefer to cancel both of those meetings. However, depending on what happens with their land use cases, he may request a special meeting and if so, it would be the week before Thanksgiving or the first week in December. Staff further indicated he is trying to keep the first meeting in December open in case there is a public hearing on Periodic Review. He also remarked another Periodic Review work session may be scheduled just for the Commission if they do not think there was adequate time during the November 1"f'h meeting to understand all the issues before the publiC hearing. Staff explained there will be a brief presentation and only testimony will be taken at the time of the hearing because the Commission will have already had the opportunity to look at everything and have questions answered so that essentially we can use that time for everybody else to provide testimony. The date will be confirmed at the November 13th Planning Commission meeting. REPORTS None BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Mill informed Staff the intersection sign at Second St. and Grant St. has been turned around so that Grant is on Second St. and Second St. is on Grant St. Commissioner Vancil commented during the School Board meeting the Facilities Director reported that they would not be able to get students into the expansion portion over at Heritage until December 11t instead of November 11t because they did not have the landscaping done and we were having torrential downpOurs at ( Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 7 of 8 31 ( ( ( about that time. He further indicated his wife is on the School Board and he told her to have the Facilities Director contact the City because they will be able to make exceptions. He asked if this is the case? Staff replied the School District has not talked to Staff regarding this issue. He explained performance guarantee was built into the WDO specifically to be able to deal with these types of situations where there may be a delay in when their landscaping is in but still occupy and provide us with a performance guarantee to make sure it gets done. Commissioner Bandelow brought up the issue raised earlier regarding removal of the trees at the Salud Medical Clinic site and stated she recalled it the same way Commissioner Mill did that under the WDO we were going to be restricting the amount of work that could be done prior to approval. Staff clarified under the WDO the property owner can take down trees that are not significant and they can remove up to one significant tree per year. He said there were only two trees that they were proposing to remove that were 24 inches or greater. Staff stated this issue had been discussed with the Commission prior to this hearing and reported the tree ordinance will be coming forward soon. The WDO essentially protects significant trees prior to development and it does not stop applicants from taking trees that are less than 24 inches in diameter. Commissioner Mill asked what other cities have in place in that regard and are we in the norm as far as not really restricting site preparation development prior to approval of site plans or is it all over the map? Staff responded it is all over the map. He reported some cities, e.g., Lake Oswego, have much more rigorous regulations. Additionally, he mentioned an ordinance, based on Lake Oswego's, was brought forward by Staff for Council consideration. However, although the Council wanted to have an ordinance in place, they felt that was too onerous for Woodburn. Hence, they are currently working on making something stronger than what is currently in place but not so burdensome on private property. Commissioner Bandelow indicated her concern was where it would not be necessary to take the trees down and it would just be easier for the applicant to take them down and by the time we get to that point, the trees are all gone. Staff reported the code does not prevent them from doing that. In fact, just to avoid having an issue with the decision makers, the applicant just clears it out before they submit their application, which was the case with the Montgomery subdivision on Lincoln St. Chairoerson Lima noted he was approached by someone from Shenandoah Lane saying that the traffic of heavy equipment is extraordinary. Staff reported they have been working with Kerr Contractors since May 2003. He stated he spoke with one of the owners this week and they have a couple of items left before they can get going on the project. Staff also remarked he spoke with one property owner on Shenandoah Lane who was having problems from the heavy equipment because the road has not been paved. They hope to resolve this in the next month because they had a deadline of May 2003. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mill moved to a 'ourn the meetin . Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion. Motion carried. APPROVED 11(,3/03 DATE CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPE SON //-/3-@ Date ATTEST Jim M d r, Commu ity Development Director City of oodburn, Oregon Plmrning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2003 Page 8 of 8 32 8e MINUTES MONTHLY MEETING OF WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD The monthly Board minutes of October 8, 2003 were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE: Ezra Jack Keats Letter: A letter (see attached) from the Ezra Jack Keats Foundation arrived on October 10, and was read aloud. The letter reflects praise for a report the Foundation received from Beverly Phillips. Her report described how a Foundation grant was used in Youth Services last year. The report is now a part of the Keats Archives at the University of Southern Mississippi. PUBLIC COMMENT: None DATE: ROLL CALL: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: CALL TO ORDER: SECRETARY'S REPORT: November 12, 2003 Marie Brown - Absent Ma'Y Chadwick - Present Vaslly Chernishov - Present Ardis Knauf Kay Kuka Colleen Vancil Pat Will - Present - Present - Present - Present Linda Sprauer, Director Vicki Musser, Recording Secretary None President Ardis Knauf called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. DIRECTOR'SREPORT: Monthly Statistics: The monthly statistics were self-explanatory. The number of people visiting the library for October was 19,305, which is believed to be more people than ever before in any month. This is attributed both to the computers available and to the various Library programs. Eleven programs held during October, with over 500 people in attendance.. Volunteer hours equaled 193.5, surpassing the eqUivalent (173.33) of a full- time employee. Activities: A list of activities was distributed to the Board. Carmen Bernier- Grand is the featured Youth Services guest author this month. She is fluent in both English and Spanish, and will be speaking on November 15th. The Chautauqua program: "Lewis and Clark Meet Oregon's Forests" pro~ram should be exceptional, and will be held at City Hair on November 16 . at 2 pm. Teen ballerinas from the American Ballet in Salem will be performing In the Multi-Purpose Room at the Library on November 2200, at 1 :30 pm. All board members are invited to a periodic review meeting in the City Hall Chambers on Monday, November 17th, at 7 pm. The Planning Department will be revieWing plans for the City. The Friends of the Library Book Sale made between $875-$900. AARP will be holding tax seminars to train volunteers at the Library beginning January 5, 2004. They will be meeting with qualifying individuals at the library for preparing tax returns. Each year, the tax forms are available at the Library, which gives people who come to pick up forms an opportunity to see what the Library has to offer. There is now a computer terminal located on the second floor on the south end by the fiction paperbacks. It is in easy sight of the Reference desk for better supervision. 1 33 Volunteer of the Month: Tony Baker was chosen Volunteer of the Month for October. He and his wife do holds every Tuesday morning. . Judy Coreson received a coupon good for a day at a day spa. She used it not long ago, and wrote to fet the Library staff know how much it was appreciated. Building Remodel/Expansion Plan Update: Linda and Dan met with the architects and interior design people on October 28th and also with John Brown on November 5th. The basic concept is on paper. The CarneQie Building had major interior renovation done in 1977 and the extenor renovafed last year, but in order to make major changes, the building must be brought up to code with a seismic retrofit, which is very costly. On Monday, December 8th, the architects will make a presentation to the city council at their regular meeting. This will be the first opportunity for some council members to see the drawings and hear the plans for expansion. Parking will continue to be tight, since the land is limited. CCRLS MIGRATION: Last month Dan and Linda spent two days at Chemeketa Communi~ College, discussing the new CCRLS automation system with the evaluation committee. On December 11 ,12,15,16 & 17, the committee will meet again for scripted demonstrations, and the Migration committee will come to a final agreement as to a vendor. December 2004 is the target date to go live with the new automated system. The hope is that the changeover will be seamless, and that patrons will find the new system easier to use. The Library staff will especially benefit from user- fnendly improvements, which will enable them to better serve the Library patrons. The database will remain the same; it will be integrated into the new software, enabling staff and patrons to accomplish more. Library Board Retreat: The Library Board Retreat has been rescheduled for Saturday, January 24,2004. It was requested by the Library Board that a 6 week list of Library Activities be provided on a monthly basIs. BUSINESS TO/FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND/OR MAYOR: None. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Musser Recording Secretary Library Board Minutes - 11/12/03 2 34 MINUTES Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:00 pm City Council Chambers 8D [ID~GSu 1. Herb Mittmann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7 pm. 2. Roll Call Members present: Herb Mittmann, Chair; Rosetta Wangerin, Vice- Chair; Evan Thomas, Member; Phil Lagao, Member; Ann Meyer, Member. Members absent: Tanis Quinones, Member; Sharon Felix, Member Staff present: Randy Westrick, Director; Paulette Zastoupil AA, Donovan Reyna, Teen Scene Program Manager. 3. Introduction of new board member Ann Meyer was introduced as the Park Board newest member. 4. Approval of Minutes from October 14, 2003 meeting. A motion to accept the minutes as written was made by Herb Mittmann, Chair. Rosetta Wangerin, Vice Chair seconded the motion. Approval of Meeting Notes from November 12, 2003. A motion to accept the minutes as written was made by Rosetta Wangerin, Vice Chair 5. Business from the Audience: None 6. Division Reports Recreation Report from Donovan Reyna. Teen Scene Pro9ram Manager Donovan reported on the Teen Scene programs, Nationa/40 Asset Conference in San Jose, California, Recreation Leader classes, Youth Sports Coach Training, Saturday Intramural Basketball games where all Woodburn youth will have an opportunity to play on a team, Community Service project with the Teen Scene to help with Love Santa. Aquatic Center Report from Steve Newport. Aquatic Center Manager. Steve Newport report was in written form. WMAC will be closed on Thanksgiving. However, throughout the Thanksgiving holiday and will offer afternoon rec3*!ftional swim sessions. "~,,,,'_"_'.~_"4,~_~,,~,,__~~,,__,~,_______~,,~>""""4"",_."...",~",...,.._..,w,_,..-.~,_.___.~_..." T Reports by Randy Westrick. Recreation and Parks Director ./ Community Center The Community Center Task Force is meeting monthly. The focus groups that are led by RDI are being finalized on December 2 & 3. The next step is to reform the vision and discover funding sources. The Task Force's next meeting will be December 15, 2003. 7. Skate Park The Skate Park is upbeat and running smoothly. Discussion on the surface of the skate park and the understanding that the warranty will cover anything that needs repaired this spring. Evan Thomas, Member reported that skaters appreciate recent improvements. He thinks the skaters take better care of the facilities since they were installed. The Board received the report. S. Hermanson Pond The final review plan will be presented on December 9, 2003 and reminder letters will be sent to the Hermanson neighborhood. The Board received the report. 9. WRPB Work Plan A motion to accept the 6-month work plan was made by Herb Mittmann, Chair. Evan Thomas, Member seconded the motion. 10. Recreation Services Inventory The Board completed a recreation services inventory of Woodburn. The Community Center Task Force and the Recreation Department will use the results for future planning. 11. Future Board Business Hermanson Pond - review final plan 12. Board Comment None. Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm Next meeting is December 9, 2003 36 PAGE AP0460 VEEOT C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N CHECK REGISTER WOODBURN LIVE DATE 11/20/03 TIME 9:59:25 CHECK # CHECK DATE 00 t,:I:J DIFFERENCE 00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 AMT 30.27 183.68 23.03 23.00 132.00 12.39 819.00 209.85 860.80 335.00 395.00 278.87 195.00 109.76 77.94 113.35 19.75 162.99 266.00 686.41 678.35 650.00 223.00 54.99 270.00 126.23 10.66 40.27 39.90 100.00 184.79 239.15 341. 85 469.30 639.70 60.00 309.42 160.00 11 7.00 795.94 82.70 326.45 325.00 100.00 768.61 228.50 40.00 65.00 112.03 134.81 93.16 43.00 RECONCILED 2 4 1 1 2 2 26 1 1 1 AMOUNT 30.27 183.68 23.03 23.00 132.00 12.39 819.00 209.85 860.80 335.00 395.00 278.87 195.00 109.76 77.94 113.35 19.75 162.99 266.00 686.41 678.35 650.00 223.00 54.99 270.00 126.23 10.66 40.27 39.90 100.00 184.79 239.15 341.85 469.30 639.70 60.00 309.42 160.00 117.00 795.94 82.70 326.45 325.00 100.00 768.61 228.50 40.00 65.00 112 .03 134.81 93.16 43.00 CHECK 1, 2 4 1 1 2 2 26 1 1 UPDATED YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES STATUS RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED PAYEE NAME ==== =:::= = = ==-==== Accounts Payable OREGON P. E .R.S KATHY FIGLEY ELIDA SIFUENTEZ RICHARD BJELLAND EVERGREEN AVIATION EBS VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN ADVANCED LASER IMAGING IN ADVANCED RV AEROTEK INC AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSN. AMERIGAS ANNE ROSALES APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECHNO ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I ARCH WIRELESS AT & T AW DIRECT INC AWWA BAINBRIDGE ASSOCIATES BAINBRIDGE ASSOCIATES BARK BOYS INC BARKER SURVEYING CORP BATTERIES PLUS BAUMAN FARMS BI-MART CORPORATION BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM & EQUI BRATTAIN INTERNATIONAL TR CANBY TELEPHONE ASSOC CARLS SEPTIC TANK CLEANIN CASCADE POOLS CASE AUTOMOTIVE CDW GOVERNMENT INC CITY OF WOODBURN COASTWIDE LABORATORIES COLVIN SAND INC COMMERCIAL BUSINESS FURNI COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION CORPORATE EXPRESS CRANE & MER SETH CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO CTL CORPORATION DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE DANNER SHOE MFG CO ERNIE GRAHAM OIL, INC FARMWORKERS HOUSING DEVEL FRAN FAULHABER FRANK M MASON FRANKLIN COVEY G.K. MACHINE GAYLORD BROS, INC. GOAL SPORTING GOODS INC MUSEUM BANK ACCOUNT AP A/P 71225 10/31/2003 71226 10/31/2003 71227 10/31/2003 71228 10/31/2003 71229 10/31/2003 71230 10/31/2003 71231 10/31/2003 71232 10/10/2003 71233 10/10/2003 71234 10/10/2003 71235 10/10/2003 71236 10/10/2003 71237 10/10/2003 71238 10/10/2003 71239 10/10/2003 71240 10/10/2003 71241 10/10/2003 71242 10/10/2003 71243 10/10/2003 71244 10/10/2003 71245 10/10/2003 71246 10/10/2003 71247 10/10/2003 71248 10/10/2003 71249 10/10/2003 71250 10/10/2003 71251 10/10/2003 71252 10/10/2003 71253 10/10/2003 71254 10/10/2003 71255 10/10/2003 71256 10/10/2003 71257 10/10/2003 71258 10/10/2003 71259 10/10/2003 71260 10/10/2003 71261 10/10/2003 71262 10/10/2003 71263 10/10/2003 71264 10/10/2003 71265 10/10/2003 71266 10/10/2003 71267 10/10/2003 71268 10/10/2003 71270 10/10/2003 71271 10/10/2003 71272 10/10/2003 71273 10/10/2003 71274 10/10/2003 71275 10/10/2003 71276 10/10/2003 71277 10/10/2003 ~ ~ 2 PAGE AP0460 VEEOT C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N CHECK REGISTER WOODBURN LIVE DATE 11/20/03 TIME 9:59:25 CHECK # CHECK DATE DIFFERENCE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT ~===z====.==========================================:=================..================ 157.74 939.57 152.00 35.00 760.01 280.00 225.00 26.00 165.00 435.00 356.50 59.35 164.21 200.00 70.00 575.00 258.75 411.36 389.50 299.21 919.44 195.30 44.00 125.00 105.00 175.00 312.60 75.00 75.00 143.47 310.00 184.80 055.28 39.19 181. 00 50.00 190.91 238.00 917.70 501.70 125.49 4.00 274 .16 085.00 104.00 285.00 438.00 439.00 52.79 14 7.63 319.00 624.89 314.78 19 3 1 57 502 7 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 4 157.74 939.57 152.00 35.00 760.01 280.00 225.00 26.00 165.00 435.00 356.50 59.35 164.21 200.00 70.00 575.00 258.75 411.36 389.50 299.21 919.44 195.30 44.00 125.00 105.00 175.00 312 .60 75.00 75.00 143.47 310.00 184.80 055.28 39.19 181. 00 50.00 190.91 238.00 917.70 501.70 125.49 4.00 274.16 085.00 104.00 285.00 438.00 439.00 52.79 14 7.63 319.00 624.89 314.78 19 3 4 1 2 3 57 2 7 2 1 2 502 1 1 3 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED HENNEBERY EDDY ARCHITECTS HIRE CALLING INC HUBBARD CHEVROLET INDUSTRIAL MACHINING & FA INGRAM DIST. GROUP INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCI ITT SHARED SERVICES JOHN PlLAFIAN WINDOW CLEA KID TUNES INC KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS KROESENS LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES LAWRENCE COMPANY LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES LLOYD D LINDLEY ASLA MARION COUNTY CLERK METROFUELING, INC. MISSOURI TURF PAINT NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS NURNBERG SCIENTIFIC ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC OR DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE OREGON LABOR LAW PUBLISHI OREGON STATE POLICE OVERHEAD DOOR CO OF SALEM PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION PNCWA WEST CENTRAL SECTIO PNWCA WESTRN WASHINGTON R PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC PRIMA QWEST QWEST QWEST DEX DIRECTORY SOURC RADIX CORPORATION ROSE COURIER EXPRESS RYAN HERCO CO. SIERRA SPRINGS SLAYDEN CONSTRUCTION INC SOUTH COUNTY ASPHALT, LLC SPRINT STATE FARM INSURANCE STETTLER SUPPLY CO T.M. BERG CONSTRUCTION CO TEK SYSTEMS INC TRUE CARE INC. UNEQUALLED JANITORIAL SVC UTILITY VAULT VERIZON WIRELESS VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS WALL STREET JOURNAL WALLING SAND & GRAVEL CO WAYNE JESKEY CONSTRUCTION 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 10/10/2003 71278 71279 71280 71281 71282 71283 71284 71285 71286 71287 71288 71289 71290 71291 71292 71293 71294 71295 71296 71297 71298 71299 71300 71301 71302 71303 71304 71305 71306 71307 71308 71310 71311 71312 71313 71314 71315 71316 7131 7 71318 71319 71320 71321 71322 71323 71324 71325 71326 71327 71328 71329 71330 71331 (,) GO 3 PAGE AP0460 VEEOT C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N CHECK REGISTER WOODBURN LIVE DATE 11/20/03 TIME 9:59:25 CHECK # CHECK DATE DIFFERENCE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 AMT 201. 50 316.74 328.06 528.50 143.00 186.00 97.50 229.92 971 . 00 176.45 727.65 060.00 204.57 330.00 981. 00 25.00 139.46 19.50 393.00 211.50 269.32 47.86 410.59 858.75 640.00 50.28 35.00 440.00 056.81 54.13 542.00 876.67 455.25 157.68 060.73 225.00 268.71 461. 88 362.44 801. 30 374.57 201.49 20.00 126.60 150.00 709.42 255.00 169.25 181.95 305.00 482.67 46.50 42.75 RECONCILED 7 2 1 140 10 1 1 2 23 1 1 4 8 3 20 AMOUNT 201.50 316.74 328.06 528.50 143.00 186.00 97.50 229. 92 971.00 176.45 727.65 060.00 204.57 330.00 981. 00 25.00 139.46 19.50 393.00 211 .50 269.32 47.86 410.59 858.75 640.00 50.28 35.00 440.00 056.81 54.13 542.00 876.67 455.25 157.68 060.73 225.00 268.71 461. 88 362.44 801. 30 374.57 201. 49 20.00 126.60 150.00 709.42 255.00 169.25 181. 95 305.00 482.67 46.50 42.75 CHECK 1, 1 1 1, 4 8 1 7 2 20 3 2 140 10 23 UPDATED YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES STATUS RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED NAME WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR WILLAMETTE BROADBAND WINTERBROOK PLANNING LLC WOODBURN AUTOMOTIVE REPAI WOODBURN FAMILY CLINIC WOODBURN INDEPENDENT WOODBURN RADIATOR & GLASS YES GRAPHICS WnBRN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CITY OF WOODBURN PETTY CA VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN A & A DRILLING SERVICE A & E IMAGING ABIQUA SUPPLY AEROSTITCH AIRGAS - NOR PAC ALL-PACK SUPPLY INC ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I BARKER SURVEYING CORP BAUMAN FARMS BULLARD,SMITH,JERNSTEDT CESSCO, INC CITY OF WOODBURN CITY OF WOODBURN COLORADO TIME SYSTEMS CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY DORA RIVAS DP NORTHWEST INC FAMILIAN NW FRANKLIN COVEY GRATING PACIFIC LLC HIRE CALLING INC IBM CORPORATION IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS INSIGHT PUBLIC SECTOR ITT SHARED SERVICES J.D. PENCE AQUATIC SUPPLY JACK RAWLINGS KENDALL PRODUCTS/DRI-DEK KERR CONTRACTORS INC LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER MARION COUNTY BLOG INSPEC MONIQUE HULLING MOORE MEDICAL CORP NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF ST NOR COM OR RECREATION & PARKS ASS ORIENTAL TRADING CO INC PAUL'S POWER EQUIPMENT QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES QWEST RANDY ROHMAN ROTH'S IGA PAYEE =====~================~ 71332 10/10/2003 71333 10/10/2003 71335 10/10/2003 71336 10/10/2003 71337 10/10/2003 71338 10/10/2003 71339 10/10/2003 71341 10/10/2003 71342 10/31/2003 71343 10/31/2003 71344 10/31/2003 71345 10/17/2003 71346 10/17/2003 71347 10/17/2003 71348 10/17/2003 71349 10/17/2003 71350 10/17/2003 71351 10/17/2003 71352 10/17/2003 71353 10/17/2003 71354 10/17/2003 71355 10/17/2003 71356 10/17/2003 71357 10/17/2003 71358 10/17/2003 71359 10/17/2003 71360 10/17/2003 71361 10/17/2003 71362 10/17/2003 71363 10/17/2003 71364 10/17/2003 71365 10/17/2003 71366 10/17/2003 71367 10/17/2003 71368 10/17/2003 71369 10/17/2003 71370 10/17/2003 71371 10/17/2003 71372 10/17/2003 71374 10/17/2003 71375 10/17/2003 71377 10/17/2003 71379 10/17/2003 71380 10/17/2003 71382 10/17/2003 71383 10/17/2003 71384 10/17/2003 71385 10/17/2003 71386 10/17/2003 71387 10/17/2003 71388 10/17/2003 71390 10/17/2003 71391 10/17/2003 Cl) \C) C I T Y 0 F WOO D BUR N CHECK REG! STER WOODBURN LIVE DATE 11/20/03 TIME 9:59:25 CHECK # CHECK DATE 4 PAGE AP0460 VEEOT DIFFERENCE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 AMT 316.25 598.54 34.00 36.00 821.50 975.00 962.35 99.49 949.27 391.00 18.76 132.00 171.25 329.80 613 .80 166.30 127.50 570.00 125.00 19.50 97.37 26.50 44.70 207.36 100.97 128.18 103.95 31. 99 762.64 31. 30 340.44 145.80 430.03 82.92 336.00 96.00 761.49 160.00 651.89 523.85 91.50 481.56 480.37 735.81 658.00 571.00 675.20 529.00 749.07 400.00 209.00 691. 40 643.20 RECONCILED 54 1 76 12 1 1 2 67 1 7 1 1 PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT =============.~========~======================================================~===============~== 10/17/2003 SCHNEIDER EQUIPMENT YES 54 10/17/2003 SEARS COMMERCIAL CREDIT YES 10/17/2003 SIERRA SPRINGS YES 10/17/2003 TACTICAL COMMAND INDUSTRI YES 10/17/2003 THE LIFEGUARD STORE, INC. YES 10/17/2003 THREE SON'S CONCRETE YES 10/17/2003 UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE YES 10/17/2003 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS YES 10/17/2003 WEAR-GUARD YES 10/17/2003 WESTERN POWER & EQUIPMENT YES 10/17/2003 WILLAMETTE BROADBAND YES 10/17/2003 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT YES 10/17/2003 WOODBURN RENT-ALL YES 10/17/2003 YES GRAPHICS YES 10/31/2003 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN YES 10/31/2003 CITY OF WOODBURN PETTY CA YES 10/24/2003 A & A DRILLING SERVICE YES 10/24/2003 AEROTEK INC YES 10/24/2003 AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSN. YES 10/24/2003 ~K UNIFORM SERVICE I YES 10/24/2003 AT & T YES 10/24/2003 AW DIRECT INC YES 10/24/2003 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS YES 10/24/2003 BEST WESTERN OCEANVIEW YES 10/24/2003 BI-MART CORPORATION YES 10/24/2003 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM & EQUI YES 10/24/2003 BOCHSLER HARDWARE CO YES 10/24/2003 BRINKS HOME SECURITY YES 10/24/2003 BROOKS PRODUCTS YES 10/24/2003 CASCADE POOLS YES 10/24/2003 COASTWIDE LABORATORIES YES 10/24/2003 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO. YES 10/24/2003 CTL CORPORATION YES 10/24/2003 CURTIS STULTZ YES 10/24/2003 D. C DOORS YES 10/24/2003 EL LATINO DE HOY YES 10/24/2003 ERNIE GRAHAM OIL, INC YES 10/24/2003 FASTSIGNS YES 10/24/2003 HIRE CALLING INC YES 10/24/2003 IDEXX LABORATORIES YES 10/24/2003 INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. YES 10/24/2003 INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY YES 10/24/2003 IOS CAPITAL YES 10/24/2003 KENNEDY JENKS CONSULTANTS YES 10/24/2003 KENTEC HEATING CONTR INC YES 10/24/2003 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES YES 10/24/2003 METROFUELING, INC. YES 10/24/2003 MID-VALLEY ROOFING YES 10/24/2003 MILES CHEVROLET YES 10/24/2003 MSI GROUP, INC YES 10/24/2003 NEOPOST YES 10/24/2003 NORTH CREEK ANALYTICAL YES 10/24/2003 NORTHWEST GEOTECH INC YES 316.25 598.54 34.00 36.00 821. 50 975.00 962.35 99.49 949.27 391.00 18.76 132.00 171. 25 329.80 613 . 80 166.30 127.50 570.00 125.00 19.50 97.37 26.50 44.70 207.36 100.97 128.18 103.95 31.99 762.64 31. 30 340.44 145.80 430.03 82.92 336.00 96.00 761.49 160.00 651. 89 523.85 91. 50 481. 56 480.37 735.81 658.00 571.00 675.20 529.00 749.07 400.00 209.00 691. 40 643.20 1 76 12 1 1 2 67 1 7 1 1 RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED IN 71392 71393 71394 71395 71396 71397 71398 71399 71400 71401 71402 71404 71405 71406 71408 71409 71410 71411 71413 71414 71415 71417 71418 71419 71420 71421 71422 71423 71424 71425 71426 71427 71428 71429 71430 71431 71432 71433 71434 71435 71436 71437 71438 71439 71440 71443 71444 71445 71446 71447 71448 71449 71450 ~ o WOODBURN o F T Y I C WOODBURN LIVE DATE 11/21/03 TIME 13,17:21 PAGE AP0460 VEEOT DIFFERENCE .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 00 AMT 210.00 150.97 243. 60 20.60 248.53 599.40 112.50 307.50 54.48 61.92 273.70 46.64 187.92 104.00 355.00 319.25 741. 00 299.00 764.68 152.00 483.66 368.25 801.90 20.00 RECONCILED 1 1 1 1 118 AMOUNT 210.00 150.97 243.60 20.60 248.53 599.40 112.50 307.50 54.48 61.92 273.70 46.64 187.92 104.00 355.00 319.25 741. 00 299.00 764.68 152.00 483.66 368.25 801. 90 20.00 CHECK 1 1 118 CHECK REGISTER CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED ==:========~================================================--===================== 10/24/2003 PACIFIC TRUCK COLORS INC YES 10/24/2003 PAPE' MACHINERY YES 10/24/2003 PIONEER GLASS YES 10/24/2003 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC YES 10/24/2003 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS YES 10/24/2003 PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLY INC YES 10/24/2003 PUMLITE BUILDING PRODUCTS YES 10/24/2003 RED WING SHOE STORE YES 10/24/2003 ROTH'S IGA YES 10/24/2003 SAFEWAY STORES YES 10/24/2003 SCOT CUSTODIAL SUPPLY CO YES 10/24/2003 SCOTT HILDENBRAND YES 10/24/2003 SOUTH COUNTY ASPHALT. LLC YES 10/24/2003 TEK SYSTEMS INC YES 10/24/2003 THREE SON'S CONCRETE YES 10/24/2003 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO. YES 10/24/2003 UNITED RENTALS YES 10/24/2003 WALLACE W. HANSEN YES 10/24/2003 WAYNE JESKEY CONSTRUCTION YES 10/24/2003 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT YES 10/24/2003 XEROX CORPORATION YES 10/24/2003 YES GRAPHICS YES 10/31/2003 RICHARD MCCORD YES 10/31/2003 LINA ISIORDIA YES AP TOTAL 235 CHECKS RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED RECONCILED 71451 71452 71453 71454 71455 71456 71457 71458 71459 71460 71461 71462 71463 71465 71466 71467 71468 71469 71470 71471 71473 71474 71475 71568 BANK 1 1 547.48 1.291 1.291,547.48 291.547.48 00 00 CHECKS CHECKS CHECKS 235 RECONCILED . . NOT RECONCILED VOIDED 1.291.547.48 00 CHECKS CHECKS 235 UPDATED NOT UPDATED ~ ... ~ WQ.QDBURN 1,,(orl'41rateJ 1889 SF ~~ . . November 20, 2003 FROM: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Ben Gillespie. Rnance Dir~fiJ Annual SDC Report ,-l.P TO: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Accept report. BACKGROUND: ORS 223.311 requires an "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: Interfund SDC's Expenses Loans Water 249,166 2,443,000 Sewer 358,286 500,000 Traffic 1, 132, 1 68 996,442 Storm 52,264 93,672 Parks 370,008 25,000 Total 2, 161,892 3,061,672 996,442 Total SDC' s collected for all systems during 2002-03 was $2,161,892. In 2001-02 collections totaled $4,985,882. Three major projects in 2001-02 contributed to unusually high collections that year: Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Chemeketa Community College. Interest earned on investments in these funds in 2002-03 totaled $141,284, and in 2001-02 total interest earned was $246,514. . The decrease is largely the result of declining interest rates. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 42 Mayor and City Council November 20, 2003 Page 2 . . The Interfund Loan represents internal financing of two LID projects, East Hardcastle and Boone's Ferry. Rather than issue bonds for such small amounts, these two project are being financed with City funds, specifically TIF funds. The loan is for a period not to exceed three years, and it earns interest at a rate greater than what the T1F Fund could earn on investments on the open market. A t the same time the rate is less than what the Special Assessment Fund would pay on GO bonds. The total amount spent on projects during the year was: Reserve for Total SDC Other Future 2002/03 Portion Funding Construct. Cost Water Treatment Plant 2,443,000 (440,310) 2,002,690 Sewer facilities 500,000 250,560 750,560 construction Drainage Development 7,428 7,428 Plan W Lincoln storm expansion 86,244 86,244 Skate Park 25,000 25,000 Total 3,061,672 250,560 (440,310) 2,871,922 $2,443,000 was transferred from the Water SDC Fund to the Water Construction Fund in accordance with the budget. Of that amount, $2,002,690 was spent during the year, leaving $440,310 to pay future construction costs. This situation is inevitable when dealing with large, multi-year construction projects for which progress payments cannot be forecast precisely. The funds available for future capital improvements as of June 30, 2003 are $7,761, 139. Here is the breakdown of that number compared to The Six Year Capital Improvement Plan: 43 Mayor and City Council November 20, 2003 Page 3 . . Funds Adopted CIP Available Water 848,142 18,068,300 Sewer 991 ,246 7,756,600 Street (TIF) 4,763,359 12,162,127 Storm Water 909,122 2,146,000 Parks 249,270 4,811 ,607 Total _$7,761,139 $44,944,634 System development charges alone cannot fund the capital improvement program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. 44 ~ WOODBURN 10''''.'01<'/ 1889 8G ~~ . . November 19,2003 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator/V ft----- Randy Rohman, Public Works Program Manager /"~ I Leaf Program Update DISCUSSION: Actions taken on the leaf program modification include: . All residents received a leaf program flyer with water and sewer bill. . From public input, letters were sent to properties adjacent to Settlemier Park informing that backyard leaves from park trees could be placed in the park. Also other properties were advised that right of way trees leaves from 20 feet of the front yard could be placed in the street. It is estimated that approximately 50% of leaves are off of trees in the city. Property owners have been cooperating and the initial weeks of the reduced scope of leaf pickup has gone well. Dry conditions have made it easier to pickup larger amounts of leaves from the gutter area with the street sweeper. Public Works has been utilizing two street sweepers (both the primary and backup unit) to ensure adequate coverage of the priority downtown areas. Recent rainy conditions have made pickup more difficult but no major problems have been experienced. It has been difficult to know if leaves are placed in the street from areas in excess of the stated policy. If leaves are not in large piles, sweeper operation has not experienced problems. Code enforcement has contacted approximately 8 property owners to advise of policy violation but no citations have been given. Public Works staff has also contacted many property owners to advise of the policy and make sure they are aware of the program change and that policy is understood by the property owner. Public Works did receive many calls during the first week of November requesting clarification of the policy. Some piles have been experienced in areas where front yards are raked into the street. Currently, leaf piles are being picked up with the vacuum hose that is available on the sweeper. Manual operation of the hose takes a longer amount of time but has not caused significant problems. With wetter conditions an additional person may be needed to assist sweeper operation for leaf piles and to assist in preventing clogging. Branches, which quickly cause the sweeper intakes to clog, have not been placed on the pavement by property owners. The drop-off sites have worked well. There has been no contaminating material left at any of the sites and no complaints have been received. The sites are getting moderate use at this time but it is anticipated that more leaves will be deposited during the next few weeks as most of the leaves will be off of trees. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney Finance 45 ~- f\ .. .". .... ...""'..... . ' .. . WOODBURN Inr.,,,.,,,,,J 1/189 lOA ~~ . . November 24, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Mulder. Director of Community Development f1 SUBJECT: Resolution Initiating Consideration of Amendments Resulting from Completion of Periodic Review Tasks RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution initiating consideration of legislative amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and Woodburn zoning map resulting from completion of Periodic Review Tasks 1,2,4,5,6,7, and 8. BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2003, the City Council held a joint work session with. the Planning Commission to hear a presentation regarding comprehensive plan and zoning amendments proposed as a result of completion of various periodic review tasks. The Council and Commission were provided with a proposed schedule for considering the proposed amendments which establishes January 8, 2004 as the first public hearing before the Planning Commission and February 23, 2004 as the first public hearing before the City Council. The Woodburn Development Ordinance requires that the City Council initiate a legislative land use amendment by resolution. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared the attached resolution to initiate proposed amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and Woodburn zoning map resulting from completion of Periodic Review Tasks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The resolution also refers the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Agenda Item Review: City Administra City Attorney 1/'4- Finane 46 Mayor and City Council November 24, 2003 Page 2 . . The financial impact associated with the recommended action has previously been addressed by budgeting the anticipated funds necessary to complete periodic review tasks. However, if the Council makes significant changes to the proposed amendments, or if there is an appeal or remand of the Council's decision, additional funding may be necessary to complete the proposed amendments. Attachment: Resolution Initiating Proposed Amendments 47 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND MAP, WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND WOODBURN ZONING MAP RESULTING FROM COMPLETION OF PERIODIC REVIEW TASKS 1,2,4,5,6,7, and 8. WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn has completed Periodic Review Tasks 1,2,4,5,6,7, and 8; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to consider legislative amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and Woodburn zoning map resulting from completion of said periodic review tasks; and WHEREAS, Section 4.101.17 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance requires the City Council to initiate a legislative amendment by resolution; NOW THEREFORE: THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Pursuant to Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.101.17, consideration oflegislative amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and Woodburn zoning map resulting from completion of Periodic Review Tasks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 is initiated and referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. APProvedastoForm?YJ.'Ya-~ //- 20 - z.otJj City Attorney Date APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, 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 Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 48 ~.,..... . ~ Woo12~URN 1",'p.ra,tJ 1889 lOB ~~ . . November 18, 2003 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City AdministralO~ fi----- Randy Rohman, Public Works Program Manager Water Rate Resolution Implementation Schedule Extension RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution reducing this year's average water rate increase from 20 percent to 12 percent and extending the water rate increase implementation schedule by one year. BACKGROUND: As part of their work to implement the Water Master Plan master plan, the citizen Water Master Plan Committee coordinated the accomplishment of a water rate study. The rate study evaluated both capital funding requirements of the proposed water treatment project as well as operating budget requirements. The rate study utilized a cost-of- service allocation to provide the basis for recovering the forecasted revenue requirements from classes of customers according to the demands that they placed on the city's water system. The Water Master Plan Committee reviewed various rate schedules and increase scenarios and developed recommended alternatives. The committee recommended a schedule that charged a fixed rate and a volume rate for all water usage. For single family residential customers a 3- Tier fixed rate plus a volume rate was developed while other customers will have a single tier fixed rate plus a volume rate. For the rate increase, a smoothed over time approach was recommended by the committee. The recommended implementation schedule was for increases to extenCJ over a five-year time period with average annual increases for this year and the following two years planned at 20%, 20% and 8% respectively. With implementation of the recommended true cost-of-service type of rate schedule different customers experienced different actual increases depending upon their usage. On August 27,2001 Council adopted Resolution 1676 setting water rates as suggested by the Water Master Plan Committee. The resolution set rates that were effectively annually from December 2001 through December 2005. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney Finance . 49 Mayor and City Council November 18, 2003 Page 2 . . DISCUSSION: Currently, due to higher growth, a dry summer and conservative estimation methods, receipt of water revenues is Nnning ahead of projected budget expectations. The water rate increases were increased over a five-year time period with the largest increases occurring over the first two years. These larger rate adjustments have already been implemented. Public Works staff is proposing that the final three years of increases be smoothed out over an additional year with the final increase occurring in December 2006. This will moderate the annual rate inaeases and spread the impact out over an additional year. The proposed 20% average annual for this year will be reduced to 12%. Public Works staff has carefully evaluated the potential impact on revenue generated to meet the city's required share of project costs and to provide cash flow for repayment of loans in place for the water treatment plant construction. Adding an additional year to the rate increase implementation schedule will not impact the city's ability to fund water treatment project loan repayment requirements. The rate for the final year does not change and remains the same as originally recommended for water treatment project funding by the Water Master Plan Committee. Staff has discussed the rate modification with members of the committee and they agree with the staff proposal. Smoothing out the increases over an additional year will result in a smaller annual increase for customers that utilize the same amount of water. The smaller annual increases will be less of a burden on customers. The additional year does not impact the ability of the city to meet funding needs for the water treatment project. Public Works staff recommends that the rate schedule implementation extension as outlined in the attached resolution be approved. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be slightly less water sales revenues in the two years for which the rate is reduced. By the 2005-2006 budget year when the city will be on a regular loan repayment plan, the revenue received will be similar to the current projection. No long term revenue impacts are anticipated. 50 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING WATER RATES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1648. WHEREAS. Section 12 of Ordinance No. 1866 states that water rate adjustments will be established by council adion, and WHEREAS. a citizen Water Master Plan Committee coordinated the accomplishment of a water rate study which developed cost of service rate strudures which fairly apportioned costs of service among the various classes of water service customers for required operational and capital costs, and WHEREAS. the Council is aware of the future water treatment and storage enhancement project costs which were included as a part of the rate study reviewed by the citizen Water Master Plan Committee, and WHEREAS. the Council has determined that the rate strudure developed by the citizen Water Master Plan Committee should be smoothed over a longer implementation period, and WHEREAS. the Mure budgets must reflect the above considerations and protect the health and safety of residents, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 51 Section 1. The following will be the rates for Single Family Residential effective on December 1 of the year indicated. FIXED RATE meter size 2003 2004 2005 2006 %- and smaller $ 9.98 $ 10.91 $ 11.86 $ 12.81 1" $ 21.89 $ 24.32 $ 27.03 $ 28.74 n~. $ 41.88 $ 46.64 $ 52.30 $ 55.29 2" $ 65.65 $ 74.15 $ 82.63 $ 87.14 3" $ 130.08 $ 146.12 $ 163.51 $172.09 4" $ 202.10 $ 26.95 $ 254.49 $ 267.66 6" $ 402.12 $ 451.02 $ 507.23 $ 533.13 8" $ 645.90 $ 728.54 $ 810.52 $ 851.69 VOLUME CHARGE PER 100 CUBIC FEET Volume used in cubic 2003 2004 2005 2006 feet (cf) o to 700 d $1.10 $1.27 $1.45 $1.55 700 to 1,800 d $1.42 $1.62 $1.85 $2.00 above 1,800 cf $2.14 $2.35 $2.60 $2.74 Section 2. The following will be the rates for Multi-Family and Commercial effective on December 1 of the year indicated. Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 52 FIXED RATE meter size 2003 2004 2005 2006 %- and smaller $ 13.32 $ 14.68 $ 16.19 $ 17.36 1" $ 30.46 $ 33.95 $ 37.84 $ 40.10 1%11 $ 59.04 $ 66.03 $ 73.93 $ 78.00 2" $ 93.31 $ 104.59 $ 117.23 $ 123.49 3" $ 184.69 $ 207.29 $ 232.71 $ 244.78 4" $ 287.50 $ 322.93 $ 362.62 $ 381.23 6" $ 573.14 $ 643.92 $ 723.49 $ 760.27 8" $ 915.77 $1,028.29 $1,156.52 $1,215.12 VOLUME CHARGE PER 100 CUBIC FEET 2003 2004 2005 2006 Volume rate $1.20 $1.36 $1.56 $1.67 Section 3. The following will be the rates for Industrial Users effective on December 1 of the year indicated. meter size 2003 2004 2005 2006 %- and smaller $ 19.84 $ 22.02 $ 24.42 $ 26.00 1" $ 46.77 $ 52.28 $ 58.41 $ 61.71 1%- $ 91.58 $ 102.66 $ 115.07 $ 121.22 2" $ 145.37 $ 163.18 $ 183.07 $ 192.64 3" $ 288.84 $ 324.46 $ 364.38 $ 383.08 4" $ 450.25 $ 505.89 $ 568.36 $ 597.33 6" $ 898.32 $1,009.34 $1,134.96 $1,192.46 8" $1,436.75 $1,614.97 $1,814.88 $1,906.63 FIXED RATE Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 53 VOLUME CHARGE PER 100 CUBIC FEET 2003 2004 2005 2006 Volume Rate $ 1.42 $1.61 $1.84 $1.97 Section 4. The following will be the rates for Separate Fire Service effective on December 1 of the year indicated. FIXED RATE PER MONTH BY METER SIZE meter size 2003 2004 2005 2006 %- and smaller $ 4.28 $ 4.72 $ 5.12 $ 5.26 1" $ 4.28 $ 4.72 $ 5.12 $ 5.26 1%" $ 5.39 $ 5.95 $ 6.58 $ 6.71 2" $ 6.49 $ 7.21 $ 8.04 $ 8.23 3" $ 8.74 $ 9.79 $ 10.96 $11.13 4" $ 10.99 $12.37 $ 13.89 $ 14.04 6" $ 15.53 $ 17.51 $ 19.73 $ 19.92 8" $ 19.95 $ 22.59 $ 25.58 $ 25.76 Section 5. That Resolution No. 1646 is hereby repealed effective December 1, 2003. Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 54 Approved as to form: ?7 ~~ City Attorney /1 / 20~2.' j ate APPROVED: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 55 ~ WOODBURN ~~10C . . November 20, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Linda Sprauer. Library Director 'V t L5- SUBJECT: Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS) Contract Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution approving the Intergovernmental Agreement Contract Amendment with the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS) and authorize the Mayor and Library Director to sign the amendment. BACKGROUND: The Intergovernmental Contract Agreement between Chemeketa Community College (on behalf of CCRLS) and the City of Woodburn entered into on November 13, 2002 needs to be amended to address some recent changes. Most notable of the changes is the section which addresses compensation to the City. The full text of the amendments may be reviewed in the office of the Mayor at City Hall, or in my office at the library. FINANCIAL IMPACT: In fiscal year 2002-2003 we received $46,997 and in fiscal 2003-2004 year we will receive $47,551 for an increase of $554. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator _ City Attorney 56 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR P ARTICIP ATION IN THE CHEMEKETA COOPERATIVE REGIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE (CCRLS) AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the City has, for several years, participated in the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS); and WHEREAS, participation in CCRLS enables city resident to have access to free reciprocal borrowing privileges and use of an automated library system involving other participating libraries; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the City to continue this service, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Mayor is authorized to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement Gontract Amendment for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, with Chemeketa Community College for participation in the Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service (CCRLS). Section 2. That a copy of said agreement is attached hereto as Attachment "A" and, by this reference, is incorporated herein. Approved as to form~'~ ~ / / - 20- 2 c O.:r City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Council Bill No. Resolution No. 57 CHEMEKETA C<I>PERATIVE REGIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE CONTRACT #194 03 CHANGE LETTER",A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT This amendment is made and entered into for the period of July 1,2003 through June 30, 2004, by and between CHEMEKET A COMMUNITY COLLEGE hereinafter called COLLEGE and WOODBURN, OREGON, an Oregon municipal corporation, hereinafter called the CITY. 1. Addendum number one (1) to original contract number 194 03. 2. The contract entered into on November 13, 2002, between the COLLEGE and CITY shall be amended as follows: 2.0 COMPENSATION, point 2.1 is changed to read as follows:Ji~' CITY will be compensated by COLLEGE in the amount of ~I\ls compensation for the CITY providing nonresident library service for the residents of the COLLEGE District. Payments shall be made in four equal installments of $11 ,888. ~ at the end of each quarter. It, i-i7,"'~ 2.0 COMPENSATION, subsection point 2.2 is added which reads as follows: The COLLEGE shall pay the CITY for each net loan provided, i.e., the difference between the number of CITY items loaned to and checked out in another library and the number of items owned by other libraries borrowed and checked out by the CITY library. Tabulation of net loans shall be provided by the CCRLS automated integrated library system. A budget of $45,000 shall be designated for this program for 2003-04 with $11,250 budgeted each quarter. The CITY shall be paid its pro rata share on a quarterly basis. 4.0 RESPONSIBiliTIES OF CITY, subsection point 4.1.1 is changed to read by inserting the following: . CITY shall refer all potential patrons with a Dundee, rural Newberg or other rural eastern Yamhill County address to Newberg Public Library to register for their library card. These residents are not eligible for a CCRLS basic card or eeRLS fee carel. All applications with those addresses should be forwarded to Newberg Public Library for review for possible out of CCRLS district patron fee. CITY shall notify each current non-resident cardholder within its geographic zone at least 30 days prior to instituting a fee for service above the basic level. No advance notification is necessary for fee increases. 3. In performing the above, it is understood and agreed that all other terms and conditions of the original contract are still in effect. CCRLS. P.O. Box 14007 · 4000 Lancaster Dr.. Salem, OR 97309-7090 58 SIGNATURES This contract and any changes, alterations, modifications, or amendments to it shall not be effective until approved by the appropriate representative of the parties hereto. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed on the date set forth below. FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN: FOR CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Si~ - ~ r:;3.__o - Linda Cochrane Director.... Library Administration and Coordinator.... CCRLS Signature Kathy Figley Mayor.... City of WOODBURN Date Date 10/';;). 7 /o~ I , APPROVED: Linda Sprauer Library Director 59 ATTACHMENT A CHEMEKETA COOPERATIVE REGIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE 2003-04 Council Members James Fairchild. Chairperson Polk County Lay Member 297 S. E. Ironwood Dallas, OR 97338 Phone: (h) 503-623-2605 Cell: 503-315-1908 Internet: iamesbfair@aol.com +Term expires: 6/30/06 Twyla Knowles, Vice Chair Marion County Lay Member 1480 Winter Street NE Salem, OR 97303 Phone: (h) 503-585-4376 (w) 503-947-7805 Internet: twyla.j.knowles@state.or.us +Term expires: 6/30/05 Linda Cochrane CCRLS Coordinator - Chemeketa College 4000 Lancaster Drive/P. O. Box 14007 Salem, OR 97309-7070 Phone: (b) 503-399-5105FAX: 503-399-7316 Internet: cocl@chemeketa.edu Robert Dodge Yamhill County Lay Member 914 N. W. Sunnywood Court McMinnville, OR 97128 Phone: (h) 503-472-5535 Internet: rdodae@onlinemac.com +Term expires: 12/31/03 Robin Puccetti PYM Chair Director - Independence Public Library 311 S. Monmouth Street Independence, OR 97351 Phone: 503-838-1811 Internet: robinp@ccrls.org +Term expires: 6/30/04 Toni Rose Small Library Representative Director - Sheridan Public Library 142 N.W. YamhillIlP.O. Box 248 Sheridan, OR 97378 Phone: 503-843-3420 Internet: sheridpl@open.org +Term expires: 6/30/04 60 Steven Rupp Rural Lay Representative 1301 NE Hwy 99W #294 McMinnville OR 97128 Phone: (h )503-435-2223 Cell: 503-329-9841 Internet: melcor@onlinemac.com +Term expires: 6/30/04 Marlys Swalboski Medium Library Representative Director - Silver Falls Library District 410 South Water Street Silverton, OR 97381 Phone: (b)503-873-6513 FAX 503-873-6227 Internet: marlvss@ccrls.ora +Term expires: 6/30/04 Kent Taylor City Manager Representative City Manager of McMinnville 230 E. Second Street McMinnville, OR 97128 Phone: (b)503-434-7302 Internet: tavlork@ci.mcminnville.or.us Gail Warner Large Library Representative Director - Salem Public Library 585 Liberty Street S.E./P.O. Box 14810 Salem, OR 97309 . Phone: 503-588-6071 FAX: 503-588-6055 Internet: awarner@oDen.ora Ex OffIcio Members Dave Galati. Executive Director Mid-Willamette Council of Government 105 High Street S. E. Salem. Oregon 97301-3667 . Phone: 503-588-6177 FAX: 503-588-6094 Internet: daalati@oDen.ora Recordina Secretary Eileen Buyserie. Secretary 4000 Lancaster Drive NE/P. O. Box 14007 Salem. OR 97309-7070 Phone: 503-399-5119 FAX: 503-399-7316 Internet: buve@chemeketa.edu Rev. 9/15/03 CHEMEKETA C<l>PERATIVE REGIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE CONTRACT #194 03 CHANGE LETTER-A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT This amendment is made and entered into for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, by and between CHEMEKET A COMMUNITY COLLEGE hereinafter called COLLEGE and WOODBURN, OREGON, an Oregon municipal corporation, hereinafter called the CITY. 1. Addendum number one (1) to original contract number 194 03. 2. The contract entered into on November 13, 2002, between the COLLEGE and CITY shall be amended as follows: 2.0 COMPENSATION, point 2.1 is changed to read as follows: CITY will be compensated by COLLEGE in the amount of $46,997 as compensation for the CITY providing nonresident library service for the residents of the COLLEGE District. Payments shall be made in four equal installments of$11,888.75 at the end of each quarter. 2.0 COMPENSATION, subsection point 2.2 is added which reads as follows: The COLLEGE shall pay the CITY for each net loan provided, i.e., the difference between the number of CITY items loaned to and checked out in another library and the number of items owned by other libraries borrowed and checked out by the CITY library. Tabulation of net loans shall be provided by the CCRLS automated integrated library system. A budget of$45,000 shall be designated for this program for 2003-04 with $11,250 budgeted each quarter. The CITY shall be paid its pro rata share on a quarterly basis. 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY, subsection point 4.1.1 is changed to read by inserting the following: CITY shall refer all potential patrons with a Dundee, rural Newberg or other rural eastern yanthill County address to Newberg Public Library to register for their library card. . These residents are not eligible for a CCRLS basic card or CeRLS fee card. All applications with those addresses should be forwarded to Newberg Public Library for review for possible out of CCRLS district patron fee. CITY shall notify each current non-resident cardholder within its geographic zone at least 30 days prior to instituting a fee for service above the basic level. No advance notification is necessary for fee increases. 3. In performing the above, it is understood and agreed that all other terms and conditions of the original contract are still in effect. CCRLS · P.O. Box 14007 · 4000 Lancaster Dr. · Salem, OR 97309-7090 61 SIGNATURES This contract and any changes, alterations, modifications, or amendments to it shall not be effective until approved by the appropriate representative of the parties hereto. In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed on the date set forth below. FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN: FORCHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Signature Kathy Figley Mayor - City of WOODBURN Signature Linda Cochrane Director - Library Administration and Coordinator - CCRLS Date Date APPROVED: Linda Sprauer Library Director 62 ATTACHMENT A CHEMEKETA COOPERATIVE REGIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE 2003-04 Council Members James Fairchild, Chairperson Polk County Lay Member 297 S. E. Ironwood Dallas, OR 97338 Phone: (h) 503-623-2605 Cell: 503-315-1908 I nternel: iamesbfair~aol.com trerm expires: 6/30/06 Twyla Knowles, Vice Chair Marion County Lay Member 1480 Winter Street NE Salem, OR 97303 Phone: (h) 503-585-4376 (w) 503-947-7805 Internet: twyIa.j.knowles@state.or.us tTerm expires: 6/30/05 Linda Cochrane CCRLS Coordinator - Chemeketa College 4000 Lancaster Drive/P. O. Box 14007 Salem, OR 97309-7070 Phone: (b) 503-399-5105FAX: 503-399-7316 Internet: cocl@chemeketa.edu Robert Dodge Yamhill County Lay Member 914 N. W. Sunnywood Court McMinnville, OR 97128 Phone: (h) 503-472-5535 Internet: rdodae~onlinemac.com tTerm expires: 12/31/03 Robin Puccetti PYM Chair Director - Independence Public Library 311 S. Monmouth Street Independence, OR 97351 Phone: 503-838-1811 Internet: robinp@ccrls.org tTerm expires: 6/30/04 Toni Rose Small Library Representative Director - Sheridan Public Library 142 N.W. YamhillIlP.O. Box 248 Sheridan, OR 97378 Phone: 503-843-3420 Internet: sheridpl@open.org tTerm expires: 6/30104 63 Steven Rupp Rural Lay Representative 1301 NE Hwy 99W #294 McMinnville OR 97128 Phone: (h )503-435-2223 Cell: 503-329-9841 Internet: melcor@onlinemac.com tTerm expires: 6/30/04 Marlys Swalboski Medium Library Representative Director - Silver Falls Library District 410 South Water Street Silverton, OR 97381 Phone: (b)503-873-6513 FAX 503-873-6227 Internet: marlyss~ccrls.ora . tTerm expires: 6/30/04 Kent Taylor City Manager Representative City Manager of McMinnville 230 E. Second Street McMinnville, OR 97128 Phone: (b )503-434-7302 Internet: taYlork~ci.mcminnville.or.us Gail Warner Large Library Representative Director - Salem Public Library 585 Liberty Street S.E./P.O. Box 14810 Salem, OR 97309 Phone: 503-588-6071 FAX: 503-588-6055 Internet: awamerrmooen.ora Ex OffIcio Members Dave Galati, Executive Director Mid-Willamette Council of Government 105 High Street S. E. Salem, Oregon 97301-3667 Phone: 503-588-6177 FAX: 503-588-6094 Internet: daalati~oDen.ora . Recordina Secretary Eileen Buyserie, Secretary 4000 Lancaster Drive NE/P. O. Box 14007 Salem, OR 97309-7070 Phone: 503-399-5119 FAX: 503-399-7316 Internet: buve~chemeketa.edu . Rev. 9/15/03 ~..~ ........ . ~ WQODBURN "'.'I'..."J 188' IOD ~~ . . November 24, 2003 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator. } Jim Mulder. Director ot Community Development ~ Ordinance Approving Zoning Adjustment 03-03 (1300 Astor Court) SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached ordinance approving Zoning Adjustment 03-03. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its November 10, 2003 meeting, directed staff to prepare an ordinance to approve the above referenced application. That ordinance is attached. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney Finance 64 COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION CASE FILE NO. 03-03 AFFECTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1300 ASTOR COURT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant, Don and Sharon Hemstreet, submitted Zoning Adjustment Application Case File No. 03-03 to vary the maximum 42 inch height of a fence on a street fronting property line requirement to allow for a 5 foot vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way (1300 Astor Court); and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Community Development Director previously approved said application; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council called this approval up for its review; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has conducted a public hearing and reviewed the record in Zoning Adjustment Application Case File No. 03-03; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That based upon the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A" which is affixed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, Zoning Adjustment Application Case No. 03-03 is approved. Section 2. That the land use application approved by Section 1 herein is subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "8", which is affixed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, which the Council finds reasonable. Section 3. 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 tonn: '/J.~~ City Attorney //-/~- Zoo:! Date Page 1- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 65 Approved: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 66 Kathryn Figley, Mayor EXHIBIT "Au FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ZONING ADJUSTMENT 03-03 I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant & Property Owner: Don and Sharon Hemstreet 1300 Astor Court Woodburn, OR 97071 II. NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting a zoning adjustment to vary the maximum 42 inch height of a fence on a street fronting property line requirement to allow for a 5 foot vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way (1300 Astor Court). III. RELEVANT FACTS: The property is located at 1300 Astor Court, and further identified on Marion County Assessor maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 07SC, Tax Lot 5600. The property is 5,583 square feet in size with an existing single-family home. The subject property is zoned Retirement Community Single Family Residential (R1 S), designated for Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map, and is the location of a single family dwelling. The surrounding properties are also zoned RIS, designated for Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map, and are the location of single family homes. IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 1. Section 2.103 Retirement Community Single Family Residential (R1 S) 2. Section 2.201.03.B Location and Height in Yards Adjacent to a Street 3. Section 5.102.03 Zoning Adjustment v. FINDINGS: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 2.103 Retirement Community Single Family Residential (R1 S) Section 2.103,04 Accessory Uses Page 3- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 67 The following uses are permitted as accessory uses subject to Sections 2.202 and 2.203. B. Fence or free standing wall FINDING: The applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot white vinyl fence on the side property line adjacent to Astor Way. A discussion of the proposed fence and Section 2.202 is included later in this report. Section 2.203 is not applicable to the proposed fence. Section 2.201.03 Fences and Freestanding Walls B. Location and Height in Yards Adjacent to a Street. 1. The location and height shall comply with the clear vision area standards, Section 3.103.10. FINDING: The proposed fence on the subject property is not located in the 30 foot vision clearance triangle at the intersection of Astor Way and Astor Court. The driveway for the subject property and abutting property to the south are not located on Astor Way so the 10 foot vision clearance triangle requirement is not applicable to this fence request. This approval criterion is met. 2, The location and height shall not exceed a height of 42 Inches above the curb elevation, when located on the lot line abutting the street. For streets without curbs the maximum height shall be measured relative to the elevation of the center line of the improved street. 3. The height relative to the ground elevation under the fence, may Increase one foot in height for each 6 feet of setback from the lot line, not to exceed a maximum height of seven feet. FINDING: The applicant is requesting a zoning adjustment to vary the maximum 42 inch height of a fence on a street fronting property line requirement to allow for a 5 foot vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way (1300 Astor Court). The zoning adjustment request is discussed in the next section of this report. Section 5.102.03 Zoning Adjustment Page 4- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 68 C. Criteria. A determination of whether the criteria set forth are satisfied necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interests. 1. The adjustment is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure. Factors to consider in determining whether hardship exists, include: a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no control related to the piece of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but not limited to lot size, shape, topography. b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties in the same zone can be made of the property without the adjustment. c. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the adjustment. FINDING: The subject property is a 5.583 square foot comer lot. The garage and entrance to the house on the subject property face Astor Court and not Astor Way. The applicant is requesting a zoning adjustment to vary the maximum 42 inch height of a fence on a street fronting property line requirement to allow for a 5 foot vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way (1300 Astor Court). The fence is intended to enclose a portion of the applicant's side and rear yards. The applicant has shown on the submitted site plan that the proposed fence will not be located in the 10 foot driveway vision clearance triangle or the 30 foot comer vision clearance triangle. The applicant stated that the property owner located to the south of the subject property plans on submitting a zoning adjustment application to continue the fence onto their property. The subject property is part of a two lot block where both lots side onto Astor Way and neither lot has a driveway accessing Astor Way. Section 2.201.03 of the WOO requires a 5 foot fence to be 12 feet from a property line adjacent to a street. Due to the small size of the subject property (5.583 square foot comer lot). the applicant would only have a 4 foot enclosed side yard and reduced rear yard area if the proposed fence had to be at least 12 feet from the property line adjacent to Astor Way. The applicant desires to provide a reasonable level of security and privacy to the rear and Page 5- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 69 side yard that cannot be provided with a 42 inch high fence. 2. Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent properties or to the use of the subject property. Factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the adjustment Is "Injurious" include but are limited to: a. Physical impacts such development will have because the adjustment, such as visual, noise, traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. b. If the adjustment concerns joint use parking, the hours of operation of the uses sharing vehicle parking shall not create a competing parking demand. c. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed adjustment. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to vary the maximum 42 inch height of a fence on a street fronting property line to allow for a 5 foot vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way (1300 Astor Court). The fence is intended to enclose a portion of the applicant's side and rear yards. The driveway for the subject property and the abutting property to the south are located on Astor Court and not on Astor Way. The applicant has shown on the submitted site plan that the proposed fence will not be located in the 10 foot driveway vision clearance triangle or the 30 foot comer vision clearance triangle. The applicant stated that the property owner located to the south of the subject site plans on submitting a zoning adjustment application to continue the fence onto their property. The proposed fence has been approved by the Senior Estates Planning Board. The 5 foot fence will not be injurious to adjacent properties because the fence will not abut any driveways where vision clearance would be adversely affected. 3. The adjustment is the minimum deviation from the standard necessary to make reasonable use of the property; FINDING: The applicant wants to fence off a portion of its side yard adjacent to Astor Way. If the applicant does not receive zoning adjustment approval for the proposed fence location, then the applicant would have to install the fence at least 12 feet from Page 6- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 70 the side property line adjacent to Astor Way which would significantly reduce the area enclosed by the proposed fence. It is reasonable to conclude that a 5 foot fence is the minimum fence necessary to provide for a reasonable level of security and privacy for the rear yard. 4, The adjustment does not conflict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Woodburn Development Ordinance implements the goals and policies in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The applicant shows on the site plan that the required driveway and corner vision clearance triangles will not be affected by the proposed location of the 5 foot vinyl fence on the property line adjacent to Astor Way. The property located to the south of the subject site will not be negatively impacted by the proposed fence. D. Maximum Adjustment permitted. 10. Fences and Free Standing Walls: The location or height of a fence or free standing walls, EXCLUDING the adjustment of any such facilities within a clear vision area. FINDING: A fence 5 feet in height is required to be located 12 feet from the property line adjacent to a street per Section 2.201.03 of the WOO. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot white vinyl fence on the side property line adjacent to Astor Way. The applicant shows on the site plan that the required 10 foot driveway and 30 foot corner vision clearance triangles will not be affected by the proposed fence adjacent to Astor Way. This approval criterion is met. VI. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings contained herein, all relevant approval criteria relating to the approval of this zoning adjustment request have been met. Page 7- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 71 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZONING ADJUSTMENT 03-03 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. The fence shall be built as shown on the submitted fence plan and elevation provided as Exhibit "A" (date stamped September 26, 2003 and September 2,2003). 2. Zoning Adjustment approval allows the maximum 42 inch height of a fence on a street fronting property line requirement to be varied to allow for a 5 foot vinyl fence to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor Way (1300 Astor Way). 3. The applicant shall submit a fence permit to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation of the fence. 4. The property ownerlapplicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a signed "Acceptance of Conditions" agreeing to all conditions of approval prior to fence permit approval. 5. Any conditions attached to the approval of the zoning adjustment shall be conditions on the issuance of a building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be considered a violation of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Page 8- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 72 ~ WOODBURN 1"'~'''Drt1,td f/fa9 lOE ~~ . . November 24, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Mulder. Director of Community Development ~ SUBJECT: Ordinance Approving Design Review Application Case File No. 03-12, Phasing Plan Application Case File No. 03-02 & Variance Application Case File No. 03-21 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached ordinance approving Design Review Application Case File No. 03-12, Phasing Plan Application Case File No. 03-02 & Variance Application Case File No. 03-21. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its November 10, 2003 meeting, directed staff to prepare an ordinance to approve the above referenced applications. with the added condition that the applicant shall not apply for building permits prior to March 1, 2004 (see Condition No. 10). That ordinance is attached. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat Finan 73 COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION CASE FILE NO. 03-12, PHASING PLAN APPLICATION CASE FILE NO. 03-02 & VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE FILE NO. 03-21, AFFECTING PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STACEY ALLISON WAY ACROSS FROM WALMART, WEST OF LAWSON AVENUE AND EAST OF INTERSTATE 5; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant, CTF Development, submitted Design Review Application Case File "No. 03-12 & Phasing Plan Application Case No. 03-02 for the phased construction of a 28,263 square foot integrated commercial center. The applicant also submitted Variance Application Case File No. 03-21 to allow one additional wall sign per business and to increase the size of two directional signs; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission previously approved said application; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council called this approval up for its review; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has conducted a public hearing and reviewed the record in Design Review Application Case File No. 03-12, Phasing Plan Application Case File No. 03-02 & Variance Application Case File No. 03-21; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That based upon the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A" which is affixed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, Design Review Application Case File No. 03-12, Phasing Plan Application Case File No. 03-02 & Variance Application Case File No. 03-21 is approved. Section 2. That the land use applications approved by Section 1 herein are subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "B", which is affixed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, which the Council finds reasonable. Section 3. 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. Page 1- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 74 Approved as 10 form:~. ~ ~ City Attorney //-/i - Cf:)OX Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 75 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DESIGN REVIEW 03- 12 PHASING PLAN 03-02 VARIANCE 03-21 I. APPLICANT INFORMATION: APPLICANTI PROPERTY OWNER: CTF Development 915 West 11th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 Application Deemed Complete: 120-Day Rule Deadline: July 16, 2003 Extended to November 26, 2003 II. NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting design review approval for the phased construction of a 28,263 square foot integrated commercial center. A variance to allow one additional wall sign per business and to increase the size of two directional signs is also requested. III. RELEVANT FACTS: The subject site is located on the north side of Stacey Allison Way (across from WaIMart), west of Lawson Avenue and east of Interstate 5. It can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map T5S, R2W, Section 12C, Tax Lot 605. The subject property is currently vacant with no improvements or vegetation other than grass. The applicant is proposing for the phased construction of four retail buildings, which include a 4,623 square foot restaurant building and a 13,000 square foot retail building on the west side of the site, a 1,800 square foot restaurant building centrally located on the site and an 8,840 square foot retail building on the east side of the site. The total building area will be 28,263 square feet once all phases are complete. The subject property is zoned Commercial General (CG) and designated Commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. All the surrounding properties are also zoned Commercial General (CG) and designated Commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. The neighboring use to the south (across Stacey Allison Way) is a WalMart super store. The neighboring use to the north/northeast is a utility trailer sales lot. The neighboring parcel to the east is vacant and to the wesUnorthwest of the subject parcel is Interstate 5. No wetlands are located on the subject site and it is located outside of the 500-year floodplain. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 1 76 The subject property abuts the northbound off-ramp of the Interstate 5 interchange. The Environmental Assessment (EA) required by the federal government to upgrade this interchange is currently underway. It is expected to be completed in early 2005. The EA, when accepted by the federal government, will become the final plan for improvement of the 1-5 interchange. After the EA is approved and funding is in place, the interchange improvements will begin. Funding may become available as soon as 2005. The technical environmental report for the EA is currently being prepared. The project management team and stakeholders group for the EA project have both recommended that a partial cloverleaf design be forwarded for analysis and approval. Preliminary designs for the partial cloverleaf indicate that a significant portion of the subject property will need to be acquired to construct the new northbound off-ramp. It appears that significant portions of proposed buildings 'A' and 'B' would fall within the projected 1-5 right of way. The City and the Oregon Department of Transportation (OOOT) are currently in negotiations regarding potentially acquiring the subject parcel to avoid a situation where the proposed project is completed and, within a few years, must then be acquired to improve the interchange. However, the applicant has a legal right to proceed with this proposal until such time that the City and ODOT come to some resolution on how to acquire the subject property and actually do so. IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Desian Review 03.12: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 2.106 Commercial General (CG) Section 3.101 Street Standards Section 3.102 Utilities and Easements Section 3.103 Setbacks, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally Section 3.104 Access Section 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading Section 3.106 Landscaping Standards Section 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards Section 5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR MORE DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 2 77 B. WOODBURN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN Phasina Plan 03"()2: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.103.05 Phasing Plan for a Subdivision, PUD, Manufactured Dwelling Park or any other Land Use Permit. Variance 03-21: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.103.11 Variance V. FINDINGS: Desian Review 03-12: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 2.106 Commercial General (CG) Section 2.106.01 Permitted Uses The following uses, when developed under the applicable development standards of the WDO, are permitted in the CG zone. o. Accommodation & Food Service 3. Food service and drinking places (722) EXCEPT mobile food service. E. Retail Trade 1. Automotive parts (44131) without installation. 2. Furniture and home furniShings. (442) 3. Electronics and appliance stores. (443) 4. Building materials and garden equipment and supplies. (444) with all outdoor storage and display enclosed by a 7' masonry wall. 5. Food and beverage stores. (445) 6. Health and personal care stores. (446) 7. Clothing and accessory stores. (448) 8. Sporting goods, hobby, book and music stores. (451) 9. General merchandise stores. (452) 10. Misc. retail (453) EXCEPT used merchandise stores DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 3 78 (4533), other than antique shops, and EXCEPT manufactured (mobile) home dealers. (45393) FINDING: A restaurant is a food service business and is a permitted use in the CG zone. Retail trade is also allowed in the CG zone. Review for compliance of a specific retail use will be conducted when a business license is submitted. This approval criterion is met. Section 2.106.05 Dimensional Standards The following dimensional standards shall be the minimum requirements for all development in the CG zone. A. Lot Standards. Lots in a CG zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1.10. TABLE 2.1.10 Lot Standards for Uses in a CG Zone In a CG zone the lot area for a non-residential use shall be adequate to contain all structures within the required setbacks. There shall be no minimum width or depth. FINDING: The proposed buildings and parking lot meet the required front and interior yard setbacks as discussed below. This approval criterion is met. B. Building Height. The maximum height of buildings shall not exceed 70 feet, EXCEPT chimneys, spires, domes, flag poles and other features not used for human habitation (EXCEPT telecommunication facilities), shall not exceed 100 feet. FINDING: The highest height proposed on the buildings in the retail complex is 28 feet, 10 inches, which meets the 70-foot maximum height allowed in the CG zone. This approval criterion is met. A. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards. 1. Front Yard Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: a. Dimensions: DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 4 79 1) The minimum setback abutting a street shall be 15 feet plus any Special Setback, Section 3.103.05. FINDING: The Woodburn Transportation System Plan designates Stacey Allison Way as a local street, therefore there are no special setbacks required. The minimum setback abutting the street is 15 feet. The proposed buildings are located a minimum of 15 feet from the front property line. This approval criterion is met. b. Off Street Parking and Maneuvering: 1) Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback. 2) The distance between the sidewalk on a public street and a loading dock shall be sized to preclude vehicles using the dock from projecting over the sidewalk. FINDING: There are no proposed parking or storage areas located in the 15 foot setback adjacent to Stacey Allison Way. None of the proposed loading areas are adjacent to Stacey Allison Way and thus will not cause vehicles using a loading area to project over the sidewalk. These criteria have been met. c. Clear Vision Area: Fences, walls, landscaping and signs shall be subject to clear vision area standards, Section 3.103.10. FINDING: The applicant states that; "Twenty foot legs have been provided at all three driveways. No landscaping, landscape berm or other obstructions higher than 30 inches will be placed within the vision clearance areas adjacent to the three proposed driveways except those allowances as described in Section 3.103.1 OE". This approval criterion has been met. 2. Interior Side and Rear Yard Setbacks. a. Development in a CG zone shall be subject to. the setback and buffer requirements of Table 2.1.11. (Table Next Page) DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 5 80 TABLE 2.1.11 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for CG Zones Abuttina Prooertv Landscaoina Wall Interior Setback RS, RIS, or RM zone There is no buffer yard landscaping requirement for an interior yard abutting a buffer wall. Solid brick or architectural 10 ft. wall with anti-graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height. co, CG, DOC, P/SP or IL zone There is no buffer yard landscaping requirement for an interior yard abutting a buffer wall. Alternative A: Alternative A: Wall requirement shall be 5 ft. determined in conjunction with the applicable Design Review Process. Alternative B: Alternative B: No wall required. Zero setback abutting a building wall. FINDING: All the abutting properties are zoned CG and are either vacant or in commercial use, with the exception of Interstate 5 on the west. Because of this fact, no wall is required at this time. The required interior yard setbacks are 5 feet. The applicant is proposing the buildings to have a minimum 10-foot interior setback, which will be fully landscaped. All the parking and loading areas meet the required 5-foot setback. These approval criteria have been met. b. The building setback from a private access easement shall be a minimum of 5 feet. FINDING: There is no existing or proposed private access easement on the subject parcel, therefore this criterion is not applicable. c. Off street parking, Maneuvering and Storage: Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback. FINDING: No parking, maneuvering or storage is proposed in a required interior yard setback. This approval criterion is met. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 6 81 Section 2.106.06 Development Standards All development in the CG zone shall comply with the applicable provisions of the WDO. The following standards specifically apply to uses in the CG zone. D. Signs. Signs shall be subject to the Woodburn Sign Ordinance. FINDING: The applicant is proposing two directional monument signs that are to be 36 square feet in size, one pole sign to be 100 square feet in size and have a maximum height of 35 feet and two wall signs per business. In an integrated business center, the Woodburn Sign Ordinance allows one free standing sign with a maximum area of 150 square feet and a maximum height of 35 feet, directional signs at a driveway to be a maximum of 12 square feet in size and only one wall sign per business fronting on a street or parking lot. The applicant has thus applied for a variance to allow the directional signs be increased in size to 36 square feet and to allow two wall signs per business in the integrated center. The second wall sign is to be located on a wall that does not have the primary sign and on a wall in which the business has frontage. The variance criteria are reviewed later in this report. E. Landscaping and Sidewalks. 1. The street frontage of a subject property shall be improved with either property line sidewalks and street trees or curb line sidewalks. The improvement shall be determined at the time of subdivision, PUD or design review as applicable. Sidewalks and trees shall be installed by the property owner to the standards of Section 3.101 and 3.106. FINDING: The proposed site plan shows a 5-foot property line sidewalk. However, all existing sidewalks on Stacey Allison Way are curb line sidewalks. To maintain consistency, curb line sidewalks are required for the development. Fourteen Crimson King Norway Maples and 4 Camus Mas trees are proposed to line the sidewalk in the front setback area. A condition of approval is that a five-foot curb line sidewalk on the north side of Stacey Allison Way shall be installed by the applicant extending across the subject site and the easterly vacant property and connecting to the existing sidewalk on the Burger King property. 2. Common refuse collection f acUities shall b e screened 0 n a II DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 7 82 sides by an architectural block wall and solid gate, both with an anti-graffiti surface, a minimum of six feet and a maximum of seven feet in height. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 3 separate refuse collection facilities that will be constructed with concrete block six feet in height and have a plaster finish with anti-graffiti paint that will match the retail buildings. This approval criterion is met. Section 3.1 Development Guidelines and Standards Section 3.101 Street Standards Section 3.101.02 General Provisions A. The access or driveway, for each lot shall be connected to the existing public street system in compliance with Sect/on 3.104. FINDING: The applicant proposes 3 accesses to Stacey Allison Way that comply with Section 3.104 as discussed below. This approval criterion is met. B. No access permit shall be issued unless the internal street(s), boundary street(s) and abutting street(s) are constructed pursuant to Sect/on 3.101.02.C, UNLESS or until the applicant has obtained an exception as provided in this section. FINDING: Stacey Allison Way is an existing street that has been constructed to city standards with the exception of the five-foot curb-line sidewalk on the north side that will be constructed by the applicant. An exception is not required with this proposal. C. Design and Construction Standards. 1. All public streets under the jurisdiction of the City of Woodburn shall comply with the applicable cross section design standards noted in Section 3.101.03 and construction specifications of the Public Works Department. D. Street Right of Way and Improvement Standards for Development Any development subject to an access permit, Section 3.104, shall be responsible for adequate street rights of way and DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 8 83 improvements. The standards of Section 3.101.02,D may only be modified subject to the approval of an exception, Section 5.103.12. In no instance may standards be reduced below specified minimum, non-variable standards... FINDING: The Boundary Street and Connecting Street, Stacy Allison Way, is classified as Local Street in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan (TSP). The cross sectional requirement for a Local Street is a 60 wide right of way, 5-foot utility easement and 5-foot sidewalks each side with an improved roadway surface of 34 feet curb-to-curb. The improved street width is approximately 42 feet with a five-foot sidewalk on the south side. The applicant is required to construct a 5-foot sidewalk on the north side of Stacey Allison Way adjacent to the subject parcel. In addition the applicant is required to extend the sidewalk from the subject site across the easterly vacant property to the existing sidewalk on the Burger King site. With these improvements compliance with the TSP requirements for Stacey Allison Way are satisfied. Section 3.102 Utilities and Easements Section 3.102.01 Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Drainage Facilities Municipal water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage facilities shall be installed to applicable Public Works Department and state standards. FINDING: Compliance with the above standards will be required prior to occupancy of the proposed buildings. Section 3.102.04 Easements A. Municipal Infrastructure Easements. The Public Works Department shall require dedication of specific easements for the construction and maintenance of municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage facilities located on private property shall be required in accordance with the Public Works Department standards. FINDING: This design review request will be required to meet the standards of the Public Works Department with regard to requirements for municipal water, sewerage and storm drainage services easements. B. Public Utility Easements (PUE). DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 9 84 Five foot wide public utility easements (i.e., easements for natural gas lines and for electric and telecommunications wire or cable service) shall be dedicated along each lot line abutting a public street. At the time of tentative approval, utilities may request dedication of a public utility easement within a reciprocal access easement or centered along specified rear lot line in those zones where zero setback is not permitted. FINDING: Any required public utility easement dedications will be subject to the requirements of the Public Works Department and the WOO. C. Creeks and Watercourse Maintenance Easements. FINDING: There are no creeks or watercourses on the subject property for which maintenance easements will be required. This criterion is met. Section 3.103 Setbacks, Open Space and Lot Standards, Generally Section 3.103.10 Vision Clearance Area A. Generally. A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets, a street and a driveway or a street and an alley in which visual obstructions are limited for safety purposes. B. Street-Driveway Intersection. A vision clearance area at the intersection of a street and a driveway shall be the area delineated as follows: 1. A line extending ten feet from the intersection along the street right of way. 2, A line extending ten feet from the intersection along the side of the driveway. 3. A third line that creates a triangular vision clearance area by connecting the ends of the lines described in Section 3.103.10.8.1. and 2. D. Street-Street Intersection. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 10 85 The vision clearance area for street to street intersections shall be formed as in Section 3.103.10.8. with legs of 30 feet along the intersecting street rights of way. E. Prohibited Development. A vision clearance area shall contain no plants, fence, wall, structure, 0 r temporary or permanent 0 bstruction exceeding 30 inches in height [measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade], EXCEPT as follows: 1. Trees, provided branches and foliage are removed to a height of 7 feet above grade; 2. Telephone, power and cable television poles; 3. Telephone and utility boxes less than ten inches at the widest dimension; and 4. Traffic control signs and devices. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing to place any items in the required 1 a-foot vision clearance triangle at the driveway intersections to Stacey Allison Way. The two directional signs that are proposed are not located in the 1 a-foot vision clearance triangle. The landscape materials selected for the area are varieties that do not exceed 30 inches in height. These approval criteria have been met. Section 3.104. Access Section 3.104.01 Applicability A. Street Access Required. 1. Every lot shall have direct access to an abutting public street or to a public street by an irrevocable access easement. 2. Every joint driveway or cross connection between separate lots shall be established by an irrevocable access easement. FINDING: The subject site has 771 feet of frontage to Stacey Allison Way. Three driveways are proposed to serve the subject property with direct access to Stacey Allison Way. This approval criterion is met. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 11 86 Section 3.104.02 Driveway and Drive-Through Measurements and Dimensions A. Driveways Crossing a Setback The portion of a driveway crossing a setback shall be perpendicular to the setback lines. FINDING: The proposed site plan shows the driveways crossing a setback to be perpendicular to the setback. This approval criterion is met. Section 3.104.03 Driveway Access Guidelines, Type II and III Applications A. Guidelines for the Number and Locations of Driveways, Type II and Type III Applications. Applications. 1. The number of driveway accesses should be minimized based on overall site design, including consideration of: a. The function classification of abutting streets; b. The on-site access pattern, including cross connected parking and circulation, joint access, turnarounds and building orientation; c. The access needs of the use in terms of volume, intensity and duration characteristics of trip generation. FINDING: The submitted site plan shows three driveways accessing the site. The Public Works Department has commented that; "Driveways are conflict points and for safety considerations the number of driveways should be minimized. The west driveway is also on a curve radius and is not ideal from a safety perspective". Stacey Allison Way is currently classified as a Local Residential Street in the Woodburn Transportation System Plan (TSP), however it is anticipated to be changed to a Service Collector when the updated TSP is adopted next year. Traffic volumes are expected to increase in the future, so minimizing conflicts on Stacey Allison Way is imperative. WalMart to the south of the subject property already has three accesses. Two accesses to the subject site should be adequate for a parking lot with 148 parking spaces. Therefore, a condition of approval is that a revised site plan, showing the elimination of the DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 12 87 westerly curved driveway, the center driveway widened to provide two outbound lanes with one for left turns only and a turn-around on the westerly end of the parking lot, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 3. Cross Connections. a. All uses sited on one lot should have common, and/or interconnected, off street parking and circulation facilities. FINDING: The submitted site plan shows the off-street parking for the integrated center to be interconnected with a circulation pattern that provides acce6S to the four buildings. This approval criterion is met. B. Driveway Spacing Guidelines, Type II and III Applications. The minimum separation of a driveway from: a) the special setback of a parallel major street, b) the right of way of a parallel local street, or c) from another driveway should be as follows. 1. Major Arterial Street: 300 feet; 2. Minor Arterial Street: 245 feet; and 3. Service Collector, Access or Local Street: 50 feet EXCEPT where pre-existing conditions preclude such separation the separation should be maximized. FINDING: Stacey Allison Way is classified as a Local Street in the TSP, thus a 50-foot separation is required between driveways. The three driveways proposed have a separation 0 f 0 ver 2 00 feet. T his approval criterion is met. 3.104.05 Driveway Dimension and Improvement Standards, Type I, II and III Applications E. Commercial and Industrial Use. 1. Paved Two-way Driveway Width. a. With no turn lane: Throat and travel lane width 26 feet minimum, 3 6 feet maximum. ("No parking" restrictions shall be posted by the owner.) DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 13 88 FINDING: All three of the proposed driveways are 30 feet in width. No turn lanes are proposed. This approval criterion is met. 4. Throat length of a driveway, extending from the closest off-street parking or loading space to the outside edge of right of way for a: a. Local street connection: 2 0 feet minimum, with greater improvement as may be required by a TIA. FINDING: Stacey Allison Way is designated as a local street in the TSP. The site plan shows each of the three proposed driveways to have a minimum throat length of 35 feet. This approval criterion is met. Section 3.105 Off Street Parking and Loading Section 3.105.01 Applicability The provisions of this. Section shall apply to the following types of development: A. New Building or Structure. All requirements and standards of Section 3.105 shall apply to any new building or structure erected after the effective date of the WDO. FINDING: All four buildings on the subject site are required to meet all of the requirements in this section of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO). Section 3.105.02 General Provisions for Off Street Parking and Loading E. Off Street Vehicle Parking Requirements. 1. Off street vehicle parking spaces s hall be provided in amounts not less than those set forth in Table 3.1.2. 2. Off street vehicle parking spaces shall n ot exceed 2 .0 times the amount required in Table 3.1.2. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 14 89 FINDING: The proposed 21,840 square feet of retail area is required to provide 87 parking spaces (1 per 250 square feet gross floor area). The proposed 6,423 square feet of restaurant use for the two restaurant buildings is required to provide 52 parking spaces (1 per 200 square feet gross floor area plus 10 per restaurant). The total parking requirement is thus 139 spaces. The proposal shows 148 spaces, which is less than two times the required amount. This approval criterion has been met. 3. The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be provided to the standards of the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. The number of disabled person vehicle parking spaces shall be included as part of total required vehicle parking spaces. FINDING: The Uniform Building Code requires 5 disabled parking spaces be provided for 101-150 parking spaces. Seven disabled person vehicle parking spaces have been provided. Further review for compliance with State and Federal standards will be conducted by the building plans examiner prior to permit issuance. F. Compact Vehicle Parking. A maximum of 20 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces may be satisfied by compact vehicle parking spaces. FINDING: Fifteen of the required 139 parking spaces are proposed to be compact vehicle parking spaces. These 15 compact vehicle parking spaces make up 11 % of the required spaces. This approval criterion has been met. G. Off Street Loading Requirements. 1. Off street loading spaces shall comply with the dimensional standards and amounts not less than those set forth in Table 3.1.3. 2. The off street loading facilities shall be on the same lot, or site, as the use or structure they are intended to serve. Required loading spaces and required parking spaces shall be separate and distinct. FINDING: The square footage of all the buildings total 28,263 square feet. Table 3.1.3 requires 2 loading spaces, 12 feet wide by 30 feet long, for all DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 15 90 uses other than residential or entirely office that are between 10,000 and 41,999 square feet. However, because building '0' on the eastern portion of the site is separate from the other three buildings, an additional loading space for building '0' has been provided. The site plan shows 3 loading spaces, two of which are 14 feet wide by 30 feet long and one of which is 14 feet wide by 38 feet long. This approval criterion has been met. H. On-site Vehicle Parking and Loading Area Improvement Requirements. 1. Surfacing. All vehicle parking and loading areas shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other hard surfacing approved by the Public Works Director. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to pave the vehicle parking and loading areas. This approval criterion is met. 2. Drainage. All vehicle parking and loading areas shall be graded and provide storm drainage facilities approved by the Public Works Director. FINDING: Compliance with this standard will be required prior to occupancy of the proposed buildings. 3. Bumper Guards and Wheel Barriers. All vehicle parking spaces, EXCEPT those for single family and duplex dwellings, shall be constructed with bumper guards or wheel barriers that prevent vehicles from damaging structures or projecting over walkways, access ways or abutting property or rights of way. FINDING: Perimeter curbing has been provided to protect landscape areas. Walkways have been widened on the site plan to 7 feet to provide for a 2-foot overhang over pedestrian walkways while maintaining the minimum 5-foot walkway width. No parking spaces directly abut buildings. This criterion has been met. 4. Size of Vehicular Parking Spaces and Maneuvering Areas within Off Street Parking Areas. a. Off street vehicle parking spaces and maneuvering areas, EXCEPT those for single family and duplex dwellings and those for disabled persons, within off street parking areas shall be designed in compliance with Table 3.1.4. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 16 91 Three or more off street parking spaces provided subject to Table 3.1.4 shall be designed so that no backing or maneuvering within a public street right of way is required. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 148 parking spaces, which includes 7 disabled parking spaces and 15 compact parking spaces. The 7 disabled parking spaces are not subject to Table 3.1.4. The compact parking spaces have been designed at 90-degree angles with widths of 9 feet, stall depths of 15 feet, and a 2-way aisle width of 24 feet. These proposed dimensions meet the 9-foot stall width, 15 foot stall depth, and 24 foot 2-way aisle width in Table 3.1.4. The remaining regular parking spaces have been designed at 90-degree angles with widths of 9 feet, stall depths of 17 feet with a 2-foot overhang, and 2-way aisle widths of 24 feet. These proposed dimensions meet the 9-foot stall width, 19-foot stall depth, and 24-foot 2-way aisle width in Table 3.1.4. On September 16, 2003, the applicant submitted an addendum to the site plan (Exhibit 8), showing a parking stall to be used for a turn-around by building '0' so that traffic would not have to circulate off-site when in search of a vacant parking stall. A similar type of turn-around is required adjacent to building lA' because the westerly access is to be removed. A condition of approval is that a revised site plan, showing a turn-around on the westerly end of the parking lot, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. c. Off street parking for disabled persons shall be designed to the standards of the state Building Code and applicable federal standards. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 7 disabled person vehicular parking spaces. Compliance with the State and Federal design standards will be reviewed when the building permit is submitted. 5. Directional Marking. EXCEPT for vehicle parking areas for single family and duplex dwellings, off street parking and maneuvering areas shall have directional markings and signs to control vehicle movement. FINDING: Directional markings are shown on the site plan. This approval criterion is met. 6. Space Marking. EXCEPT for vehicle parking areas for single family and duplex dwellings, off street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines on each side of a space. The total width of the lines shall DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 17 92 delineate a separation of 2 feet. FINDING: The site design plan (exhibit 10 sheet 3 of 3) shows double parallel lines 2 feet in width delineating each parking space. This approval criterion is met. 8, Outdoor Lighting. EXCEPT for vehicle parking areas for single family and duplex dwellings, all outdoor lighting shall be designed so as not to shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used property, and shall not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. FINDING: Fourteen pole-mounted fixtures are provided for the parking lot and wall sconces are to be placed on the buildings. The applicant states that the lighting has been designed to reflect away from the abutting street. This approval criterion is met. 9. Landscaping. EXCEPT for vehicle parking spaces for single family and duplex dwellings, all parking areas shall be landscaped to the standards of Section 3.106. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to landscape the areas adjacent to the proposed parking and loading areas. This approval criterion is met. 10. On-site Bicycle Parking Requirements. All uses required to provide 10 or more off street parking spaces shall provide a bicycle rack within 50 feet of the main entrance. The number of required rack spaces shall be one plus one per ten vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 20 rack spaces. FINDING: The total required number of parking spaces for the proposed buildings is 139 spaces and the site plan shows 148 parking spaces. Building' A' and' B', which a re located c lose to 0 ne a nother, require 83 parking spaces so 9 rack spaces are required within 50 feet of the main entrances to the buildings. The site design plan shows an 8- space rack, thus one more rack space is needed. The parking requirement for building 'C' is 19 spaces, so a minimum of 3 rack spaces are required. The site design plan shows a 4-space rack for building 'C'. The parking requirement for building '0' is 35 parking spaces, so 5 rack spaces are required. The site design plan shows a 6-space rack for building '0'. A condition of approval is that a minimum of 9 rack spaces shall be provided for buildings 'A' and 'B' within 50 feet of the main entrances. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 18 93 Section 3.106 Landscaping Standards Section 3.106.01 Applicability The provisions of this section shall apply: A. To the site area for all new structures and related parking EXCLUDING single-family and duplex dwellings and accessory structures; and B. To the entire site area of the development, where the cumulative effect of additions to structures and/or parking areas Increases the total area covered by structure and parking by 50 percent or more than existed at the date of the WOO adoption. FINDING: The proposed new buildings are subject to the Type III Design Review Process and the proposed new buildings and parking areas on the subject site increase the total area covered by structures and parking by more than 50% than existed at the date of the WOO adoption so the landscaping section of the WOO applies to this proposal. 3.106.02 General Requirements 1) Landscaping and Irrigation Plans Required. Building plans for all uses subJect to landscaping requirements shall be accompanied by landscaping and irrigation plans to City standards. FINDING: The applicant submitted a landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with City standards as discussed below. This approval criterion has been met. 2) Irrigation. All required landscaped areas shall be permanently irrigated unless a planting plan without irrigation is submitted by a licensed landscape architect or a licensed nursery person demonstrating that the proposed landscaping will thrive without Irrigation. FINDING: The applicant submitted a I andscape and irrigation plan that shows all landscaped areas have been provided with irrigation. This approval criterion has been met. 3) Plant Materials. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 19 94 All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% of ground coverage within 3 years. FINDING: A condition of approval is that all shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% of ground coverage within 3 years. 4) Installation of Plant Materials and Irrigation. Installation of plant materials and irrigation specified in an approved landscaping plan shall occur at the time of development and shall be a condition of final occupancy. Should site conditions or seasonal conditions make immediate installation impractical, an acceptable performance guarantee may be approved subject to Section 4.102.07. FINDING: A condition of approval specifies that the applicant shall comply with the approved landscape plan dated June 23, 2003. 5) Maintenance. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good condition so as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape plan. FINDING: This requirement is a condition of approval. 3.106.03 Landscaping Standards A. Streetscape. 1. Street Trees. Within the public street right of way abutting a development, or within an alley right of way in the DOC zone, street trees shall be planted to City standards prior to final occupancy. a. Acceptable Types of Trees. See Section 6.103 for a description of acceptable and unacceptable trees for this purpose, classified by size and species. b. Tree Density. Trees shall be planted at the following intervals within the right of way, subject DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 20 95 to Clear Vision Area standards, Section 3.103.10 and Section 6.103: (1) (2) (3) Four (4) small trees per 100 feet of street frontage; Three (3) medium trees per 100 feet of street frontage; or Two (2) large trees per 100 feet of street frontage. FINDING: Fourteen Crimson King Norway Maples and 4 Cornus Mas trees are proposed to line the sidewalk in the front setback area. These trees are not prohibited trees. The applicant states that the Crimson King Norway Maples will be planted 35 feet on center and will reach a height of 60 feet. The Cornus Mas trees will be planted 25 feet on center and reach a height of 15 to 20 feet. The trees are not proposed to be planted within the public right-of-way and thus will suffice for this development. 2. Front Yard and Yard Abutting a Street. b. Landscaping Design and Density in CO and CG zones. 1 All yards abutting a street, including off street parking and circulation areas shall be landscaped at a density of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. 2 All parking areas abutting a street shall provide a 42 inch vertical visual screen from the abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the screening include plant materials; berms; freestanding, architectural walls with an anti-graffitl finish, depressed grade for the parking area. All screening shall comply with the clear vision standards, Section3.103.10. FINDING: The applicant states; "Eighteen street trees will be planted adjacent to Stacey Allison Way in 10,667 square feet of required setback area and access throat areas (see Exhibit '12,' Landscapellrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2). The area under the trees will be covered with lawn. Additional areas within the street setback area will be planted with shrubs, ground cover or bark dust. The total plant units that are required in this DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 21 96 area are 533. Based on Table 3.1.5: One large tree equals 10 PUs, one medium tree equals 8 PUs, one small tree equals 4 PUs, 1 large shrub equals 2 PUs and one small shrub equals 1 PU and lawn or other ground cover equals 1 PU per 50 square feet. The total plant units provided within the required 15-foot setback/landscape area adjacent to Stacey Allison Way and including the 30-foot deep access throats at the entrances from the street is 535 PUs (14 large trees = 140; 5 medium trees = 40; 5 small trees = 20: 40 large shrubs = 80: 65 small shrubs = 65; and 9,492 square feet of lawn or other living ground cover = 190). This requirement has been exceeded". The applicant also states that a landscape berm will be provided along Stacey Allison Way, but did not indicate the height. A condition of approval is that a revised landscape plan showing a 42-inch screen a long t he front property line pursuant to Section 3.106.03A.2.b shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. B. Buffer Yards. All buffer yards shall be landscaped at the rate of one (1) plant unit (PU) per 20 sq. ft. EXCEPT for interior buffer yards abutting a wall which are paved and which may be used for parking or site access and vehicular circulation. FINDING: All of the required buffer yards have landscaping proposed that meet or exceed the above standard. This approval criterion is met. C. Off Street Parking Areas. 1. All unpaved land within the off street parking area, and within 20 feet of the paved edge of off street parking and/or circulation improvements, shall be landscaped in the following proportions: a. RM, CO and CG zones: Landscaped area(s) equivalent to 200/. of the paved surface area for off street parking and circulation. FINDING: All unpaved areas are proposed to be landscaped to meet the above standard. The applicant states; "The subject property contains 2.95 acres (128,502 square feet). Based on the submitted site plan, 54,752 square feet of paved surface area (excluding approximately 14,150 square feet of on-site sidewalks) has been provided. This would require 10,950 square feet of landscaping within the parking area or within 20 feet of the parking lot improvement to be landscaped if the sidewalks are not included in the equation or 13,780 if the sidewalks are to be included. In DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 22 97 addition to the required setback/landscape areas (16,103 square feet), an additional 15,123 square feet of landscaping has been provided within the parking lot or within 20 feet of a paved parking area or in additional building setback areas. The. total amount of landscaped area provided (excluding the on-site sidewalk areas) is 31,228 square feet or 24.32% of the 2.95-acre parcel has been landscaped. This requirement has been met on the submitted plans (see Exhibit '10,' Site Design Plan, Sheet 1 and Exhibit '12,' Landscapellrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2)". The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion. 2. The density of landscaping required in and adjacent to off street parking and circulation facilities, EXCLUDING required trees, shall be one (1) plant unit per 20 square feet. FINDING: The applicant states; "Exclusive of required setback areas approximately 9,330 square feet of planting areas have been provided in and adjacent to off-street parking and circulation facilities (see Exhibit '8,' Site Plan, Sheet 1, Exhibit '10,' Site Design Plan, Sheet 1 and Exhibit '12,' Landscape Plan, Sheets L 1 and L 2). One hundred and seventy-two (172) large deciduous or evergreen shrubs, one hundred and forty-five (145) small to medium shrubs, and 9,411 square feet of lawn or other living ground cover has been provided in these areas. Based on Table 3. 1.5, one large evergreen or deciduous shrub equals 2 PUs; one small shrub equals 1 PU; and 50 square feet of lawn or other living ground cover equals 1 PU. Based upon 9,330 square feet of landscape area, 467 plant units are required at 1 plant unit per 20 square feet. Six hundred and four (604) plant units have been provided (172 large shrubs = 344; 114 small to medium shrubs = 114; and 7,275 square feet of lawn or other ground cover = 146). This requirement has been exceeded". The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion. 3. Trees, Section 6.103, shall be planted within and abutting off street parking facilities in a pattern that is in roughly proportion to the distribution of the parking spaces, at the following densities: a. 1 small tree per 5 parking spaces; b. 1 medium tree per 10 parking spaces; or c. 1 large tree per 14 parking spaces. FINDING: The applicant states; "Excluding the street trees between Stacey Allison Way and the abutting parking spaces, five (5) large trees, ten (10) medium trees and nineteen (19) small trees have been provided DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 23 98 within or adjacent to parking areas (see Exhibit '12,' Landscapellrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2). These five large trees would provide for 70 parking spaces. Ten medium trees would provide for 100 parking spaces. Nineteen small trees will provide for 95 parking spaces. One hundred and forty-eight (148) parking spaces have been provided on site. The ratio of trees to parking spaces provides enough trees for two hundred and sixty-five (265) spaces. This requirement has been exceeded". The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion. D. Common Areas. All common areas, EXCEPT those approved as natural common areas in a PUD, shall be landscaped with at least three (3) plant units per 50 square feet. FINDING: The applicant states; "Approximately 31,228 square feet of landscape area has been provided within the development (see Exhibit '12,' Landscapellrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2). Based upon the proposed landscaped area, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four (1,874) plant units are required for the entire site. Five hundred and thirty- three (533) plant units have been provided adjacent to Stacey Allison Way. Six hundred and four (604) plant units have been provided within the parking areas and within 20 feet of the parking areas; and seven hundred and seventy (770) plant units including trees and shrubs not counted else where on the site, have been provided (5 large trees = 50; 10 medium trees = 80; 55 small trees = 220; 99 large shrubs = 198; 121 small shrubs = 121; and 5,045 square feet of lawn or other ground cover = 101). A total of one-thousand, nine hundred and four (1,904) plant units have been provided within the site where one thousand, eight hundred and seventy-four (1,874) are required. This requirement has been exceeded". The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion. E. Yards. The entire yard area of a property, EXCLUDING areas subject to more intensive landscaping requirements and all yards of residential uses in a RS or R1 S zone, shall be landscaped to a standard of at least one (1) plant unit (PU) per 50 square feet prior to final occupancy. FINDING: The applicant states; "The proposed site plan provides for 24.32% of the overall site to be landscaped. The proposed landscape plan provides for one thousand, eight hundred and eighty-four (1,884) plant units within 31 ,228 square feet of landscape area. Of the total landscape area, 25,514 square feet is subject to more intensive DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 24 99 landscaping requirements as defined in Section 3.106.03C. Additional landscape areas in the total amount of 5,714 square feet have been provided behind or to the sides of the buildings that is outside of any required setback area or area within 20 feet of a parking lot or access way. This results in 114.28 plant units per 50 square feet being required. One hundred and thirty-seven (137) plant units (3 small trees = 12 PUs; 29 large shrubs = 38 PUs; 87 small shrubs = 87 PUs) have been provided in the 5,714 square feet. This requirement has been exceeded". The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion. 3.106.05 Planting Standards A. Distribution of Plant Materials. The required number of plant units shall be met by a combination of plant materials listed in Table 3.1.5, so that eighty (80) percent of the area to be landscaped is covered within three years. Required plant units need not be allocated uniformly through out specified landscaping areas, but may be grouped for visual effect. FINDING: The applicant states; "The Registered Landscape Architect has submitted a statement with the Landscape Plan that the trees, shrubs, and ground cover selected will attain a minimum of 80% ground coverage within 3 years (see Landscape Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2). This requirement has been met". The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion and this criterion will be a condition of approval. B. Ground Cover. Landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of bark mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a minimum of 2 inches in depth. FINDING: The applicant states; "All planting beds not covered by plant materials will be top-dressed with 2 inches of bark mulch. This requirement has been met (see Exhibit '12', Landscape/lrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2). The applicant has shown compliance with this criterion. C. Curbs. A six-inch concrete curb shall be provided between a landscaped area and a parking area or access way. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 25 100 FINDING: A 6-inch concrete curb or sidewalk is being provided to separate all landscaped areas from parking and access areas. However, the phasing plan shows some of the parking areas are not being constructed for Phase I. A condition of approval is that a six-inch perimeter curb shall be provided at the edge of all paved areas prior to final occupancy of Phase I. Section 3.107 Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards Section 3.107.06 Guidelines and Standards for Non-Residential Structures in RS, R1 S, RM, CO, CG and P/SP Zones A. Applicability. The following design guidelines shall be applicable to all non- residential structures and buildings in the RS, R1 S, RM, CO, CG and P zones. B. Architectural Design Guidelines. 1. Mass & Bulk Articulation Guidelines. a. Building facades visible from streets and public parking areas should be articulated in order to avoid the appearance of box-like structures with unbroken wall surfaces. b. The appearance of exterior walls should be enhanced by incorporating three dimensional design features, including the following: 1. Public doorways and/or passage ways through the building. 2. Wall offsets andlor projections. 3. Variation in building materials and/or textures. 4. Arcades, awnings, canopies and/or porches. FINDING: The applicant states; "The proposed buildings have been provided with articulation of the building facades by the use of public DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 26 101 doorways, wall offsets, variation in height of walls, variations in color and in textures of the materials on the buildings and variation in colors both on the walls. For visual interest, canopies and awnings located on the Buildings are a combination of "eyebrow" shaped, flat and sloped surfaces emphasizing identity and individuality (see Exhibit '14', Architectural Drawings, Sheets A301 through A304 and Exhibit '15,' Building ElevationslNarrative, Sheets A301 through A304 and Narrative). This Design Guideline has been met". The applicant has shown compliance with these approval criteria. 2. Materials and Textures Guidelines. a. Building exteriors should exhibit finishes and textures that reduce the visual monotony of bulky structures and large structural spaces; enhance visual interest of wall surfaces and harmonize with the structural design. FINDING: The applicant states; "The proposed buildings have varying parapet heights and shapes, and a rhythm of surface recesses and pop- outs. Variety a t the parapet line complements the changes in material, color and surface on the facades. The building materials are a well- balanced collage of natural materials with a variety of surface textures. Architectural stone veneer surfaces wrap the ends of the Buildings 'B' and '0' where it is most visible above the adjacent restaurant and from the distance to passers by on the Interstate and Stacey Allison Way. The stone veneer surface is used on the front of the buildings as pedestrian level accent columns. Natural plaster surfaces cover the majority of the buildings, including the "portals" that occur on all sides of the buildings (see Exhibit '14', Architectural Drawings, Sheets A301 through A304 and Exhibit '15,' Building Elevations/Narrative, Sheets A301 through A304 and Narrative). Fabric covered awnings cover the walkways on the tenant entry sides of all the buildings and along the freeway elevation on Buildings 'A' and 'B.' Painted steel canopies cover the southeast and northeast comer bays. Clear glass set in black anodized aluminum frames comprise the storefronts on the buildings. This Design Guideline has been met". The applicant has shown compliance with these approval criteria. , b. The appearance of exterior surfaces should be enhanced by incorporating the following: 1. At least 30% of the wall surface abutting a street should be glass. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 27 102 ~"__,"_'_'",,,,~'~'"'_~''''''_'~_'''''<'W'''''''''''''"'~_ "'__'_._'~"""~-''''''~''~'' ,. 2. All walls visible from a street or public parking area should be surfaced with wood, brick, stone, designer block, or stucco or with siding that has the appearance of wood lap siding. 3. The use of plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, plywood, T -111 and sheet composite siding as exterior finish materials for walls visible from a street or parking area should be avoided. 4. The color of at least 90 percent of the wall, roof and awning surface visible from a street or public parking area should be an "earth tone" color containing 10 parts or more of brown or a "tinted" color containing 10 parts or more white. Fluorescent, "day-glow," or any similar bright color should not be used on the building exterior. FINDING: The applicant states; "The building materials will consist of stone veneer which is a mixture of brown, tan, beige and sandstone colors and plastered walls that are painted natural colors varying from a light yellow to a dark green to complement the theme of rhythmic surface changes and varying natural materials. The steel canopies will be painted a dark green (Hawthorne Valley). The fabric awnings will be vanilla and beige in color. Clear glass set in black anodized aluminum frames will comprise the storefronts (see Exhibit '14,' Architectural Drawings, Sheets A301 through A304 and Exhibit '15,'Building Elevations/Narrative, Sheets A301 through A304 and Narrative). Only Building '0' is located adjacent to a street. At least 30% of the wall facing Stacey Allison Way is comprised of glass. The buildings provide an interesting view from all sides by using a variety of textures and colors in the exterior finish such as the stone veneer on the columns and stucco finish on the remainder of the walls, the different tones and colors of paint, the window treatment on the walls facing the street or parking areas, the wall fluctuations and the decorative lighting fixtures mounted on all sides of the buildings. This Design Guideline has been met". The applicant has shown compliance with the above approval criteria. 3. Multi-planed Roof Guidelines. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 28 103 a. The roof line at the top of a structure should establish a distinctive top to the building. b. The roof line should not be flat or hold the same roof line over extended distances. Rather the roof line should incorporate variations, such as: 1. Offsets and/or jogs in the plane of the roof. 2. Changes in the height of the exterior wall for flat roof buildings, Including parapet walls with variations in elevation and/or cornices. FINDING: The proposed buildings have offsets in the parapet heights and varying shapes with recessed surfaces along the roof line that provide visual interest. The roof lines are not flat over long distances. This approval criterion is met. 4. Roof Mounted Equipment Guidelines. All roof mounted equipment, EXCEPT solar collectors, should be screened f rom view from streets a butting the building site by: c. Locating roof mounted equipment below the highest vertical element of the building; or d. Screening roof top equipment using materials of the same character as the structure's basic materials. FINDING: The applicant states; "The rooftop HV AC units are setback from the building edge and will be screened from view by the exterior walls or parapets of the buildings (see Exhibit '14', Architectural Drawings, Sheets A201 through A204, A301 through A304 and Exhibit '15,' Building Elevations/Narrative, Sheets A301 through A304}...". The applicant has shown compliance with this approval criterion. 5. Weather Protection Guidelines. All building faces abutting a street or a public parking area should provide weather protection for pedestrians. Features to provide this protection should include: DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 29 104 __,_" _ ...~_..." ,,_,_~~_~__"""r"',___,____"""_'""'___""'~'_~"""" ~"~'~'''' ""_'-....-.~_...._.~ .~._._~.,.."".,,..,._,._-_.~-- a. A continuous walkway at least 8 feet wide along the face of the building utilizing a roof overhang,. arcade, awnings and/or canopies. b. Awnings and canopies that incorporate the following design features: 1. Angled or curved surfaces facing a street or parking area. 2. A covering of canvas, treated canvas, awning fabric, or matte finish vinyl. 3. A constant color and pattern scheme for all buildings within the same development. 4. No internal back lighting. FINDING: The applicant states; "All sidewalks adjacent to the buildings are a minimum of 8 feet wide. Sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces are a minimum of 7 feet in width. All other sidewalks are a minimum of 5 feet in width. Mixed awnings and canopies that are "eyebrow" shaped, flat and sloped are provided over pedestrian accessways adjacent to Buildings 'A' and' D'. Entrance overhangs a re provided for Buildings' A' and' C'(see Exhibit '10, Site Design Plan, Sheet 1, Exhibit '14,' Architectural Drawings, Sheets A301 through A304 and Exhibit '15', Building ElevationslNarrative, Sheets A301 through A304 and Narrative)...... The applicant has shown compliance with these approval criteria. 6. Landscaping and Screening Guidelines. The landscaping required by the standards of the WDO should be augmented to address site specific visual impacts of abutting uses and the visual character of the surrounding area. FINDING: The applicant states; "Landscaping has been provided to soften the view of the trash enclosures. A landscape berm has been provided adjacent to Stacey Allison Way to prevent the glare of headlights from autos parked in the stalls abutting the street from blinding the passing motorists (see Exhibit '11,' Grading Plan, Sheet 3 and Exhibit '12', Landscapellrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2)...". This approval criterion is met. 7. Design Character Guidelines. Standardized or characteristic "corporate" and "franchise" design elements should be DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 30 105 refined to reduce domination of the visual environment by corporate icons. FINDING: The applicant states; "The exterior design of proposed Buildings 'B' and '0' will set the tone for the integrated center. Corporate or franchise design elements in any freestanding building will be blended to compliment the overall design of the center. Signage will allow the characteristic "corporate" and "franchise" standardization as long as the square footage meets the requirements of the Woodburn Sign Code...". This approval criterion is met. 8. Buffer Wall. A solid brick or architectural w all with anti- graffiti surface, no less than 6 feet or greater than 7 feet in height: a. Should be constructed on the perimeter property line of non-residential development to mitigate adverse visual, noise and/or light impacts on the abutting use when no comparable buffer exists, and b. Shall be constructed where the standards of the underlying zone require such a wall for a non- residential use in, or abutting, a RS, R1S, or RM zoning district. FINDING: The abutting properties are all zoned CG. No adverse impacts from the proposed retail and restaurant uses are expected to impact the neighboring properties. A buffer wall is therefore not required with this design review process. 9. Sidewalk Location and Street Trees. Sidewalks should be located at the property line along streets with street trees, Sect/on 3.106. FINDING: As discussed previously, curb line sidewalks are proposed to be constructed along the north side of Stacey Allison Way where currently no sidewalk exists. Eighteen trees are proposed to be planted in the 17- foot wide landscape strip (front setback area) adjacent to the sidewalk. This approval criterion is met. 10. Solar Access Protection. Obstruction of existing solar collectors on abutting properties by site development should be mitigated. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 31 106 FINDING: There are no existing solar collectors on abutting properties. This approval criterion is met. C. Site and Building Access Guidelines. 1. Access to and from the site and circulation within the site should separate facilities for cars, trucks and transit from those for bicycles and pedestrians. FINDING: The applicant states; "Pedestrian ways including sidewalks and delineated crossings across parking area have been provided from the public sidewalk on Stacey Allison Way in three locations. To the east of the eastern driveway, a five-foot wide sidewalk connects the private sidewalk network to the public sidewalk on Stacey Allison Way. At the main driveway, a sidewalk with designated pedestrian crossings across the parking access lanes is provided into the site adjacent to the eastern side of the driveway. Approximately 170 feet further to the west another sidewalk and designated pedestrian access is provided in close proximity to the 4,623 square foot restaurant. It is the applicants intention to create an efficient, pleasant, and safe development that links destination points to the public sidewalk, to parking areas within the development and so that the different buildings located within the site are linked to one another providing a system of pedestrian facilities that encourage safe and convenient pedestrian movement within the site (see Exhibit '10,' Site Design Plan, Sheets 1 and 3). Delineated pedestrian ways are provided in the parking lot areas connecting the internal sidewalks...". The applicant has met this approval criterion. 2. Site access in compliance with Section 3.104 should be augmented by the following considerations: a. Vehicle Access. 1. Vehicle access points should be identified by accentuated landscaped areas, by entrance throats designed to control access from abutting parking and by monument type entrance signs. FINDING: The applicant has proposed some landscaping and monument signs adjacent to the accesses that will help to accentuate the entrances. However, the landscaping along the driveways does not extend out to the right of way where it would be most affective. A condition of approval is that a revised landscape plan showing low g rowing shrubs and flowers, extending along the driveways out to the right of way, shall be submitted DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 32 107 for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. b. Pedestrian Access and Circulation. 1. The buildings should be linked to the sidewalks on abutting streets by internal pedestrian ways. Such pedestrian ways should be either raised or delineated by distinctive pavers. FINDING: Internal pedestrian walkways have been provided with sidewalks adjacent to the buildings that are 8 feet wide, sidewalks adjacent to parking spaces that are 7 feet in width, and all other sidewalks a minimum of 5 feet in width. These sidewalks are raised or delineated by crosswalk markings where they cross parking aisles. The pedestrian walkways provide interconnection to all the buildings on the site and to the sidewalk to be constructed along Stacey Allison Way. However, the crosswalk markings do not meet the above requirement. Therefore, a condition of approval is that a revised site design plan showing raised crosswalks or walkways delineated by distinctive pavers shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Parking areas should be designed in multiples of no more than 50 spaces separated by landscaped buffers or raised pedestrian ways in order to minimize negative visual impacts associated with expansive parking. FINDING: The largest parking lot (adjacent to Stacey Allison Way) with no internal landscape buffers or pedestrian ways, has 43 spaces. All other parking lot areas are smaller and have been designed with landscape buffers and pedestrian ways, which break up the visual impact of the parking area. This approval criterion has been met. D. Building Location Guidelines. Within the prescribed setbacks, building location and orientation should compliment abutting uses and development patterns. FINDING: The neighboring uses include Interstate 5 to the west, a vacant lot on the east, a trailer sales lot on the north, and the WalMart Super Store (across Stacey Allison Way) to the south. The proposed buildings DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 33 108 ,.~,.,_,..,.,~_,._._.~___..,..._._-t-,.",.~.._"_. ,', _ ".,....~,f+,..""'~.,~._~-_.,--._,.. ."'._".w-=--..............."''''.'~~',. are located on the subject site within the required setbacks. The buildings are oriented to face the parking lot, with buildings 'A', 'B' and 'C' facing obliquely to the south toward Stacey Allison Way. There is no existing pattern along Stacey Allison Way to be complimented by the orientation of the proposed buildings. However, the applicant has oriented the buildings in a way that will be attractive from Stacey Allison Way given the constraints of the unusual parcel shape. This approval criterion is met. E. Parking Location Guidelines. Off street parking between the architectural front of a building and the setback line abutting street should be limited to a depth of not more than 130 feet. FINDING: Buildings 'A', 'C', and '0' have less than 130 feet of parking lot separating the architectural front of the building and the setback line abutting a street. Most of building 'B' has more than 130 feet of parking lot separating the architectural front of the building and the setback line abutting a street. Given the unusual parcel shape, the applicant has met this design guideline to the extent that is possible. The proposed landscaping will buffer the impact of the large parking area in front of building 'B'. F. Design Standards. 1. Outdoor Storage Standards. Outdoor storage, when permitted, shall be screened from the view of abutting streets by a solid brick or architectural block wall not less than 6, nor more than 9 feet in height. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing outdoor storage other than a trash collection facilities which was discussed above. 2. Outdoor Lighting Standards. All outdoor lighting shall be designed so that: a. Parking areas are evenly illuminated at ground level at one foot candle; b. Entrance and loading areas are illuminated at ground level of two foot candles; c. Illumination does not shine or reflect into any adjacent residentially zoned or used property; and DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 34 109 ,- '<.4_.,~.._".......",__,__,___~.___.._,._~,.. -~'-"-----""-""""-""""""""'"-"-'~ ",-,.~,,,-,-~,-'--~-~',------~, d. Lighting does not cast a glare onto moving vehicles on any public street. FINDING: The applicant states that; "A detailed Lighting Plan (see Exhibit '16', Lighting Plan, Sheet E101) has been submitted which shows the area of night illumination, the light pole height, type, and number of fixtures per pole. Fourteen pole-mounted fixtures have been provided in the parking lot. The pole mounted lighting fixtures will be die-cast aluminum housing, 17 inches square in a shoebox style mounted on 25-foot high poles. The exterior lighting on the buildings will be provided by single piece extruded aluminum housing wall sconces. The wall sconces will provide pedestrian light adjacent to the buildings. All lighting has been arranged to reflect the light away from the abutting street (Stacey Allison Way) and the Interstate 5 off-ramp. A landscape berm has been provided adjacent to Stacey Allison Way to prevent the glare of headlights from the autos parking in the stalls abutting the street from blinding the passing motorists. No parking s tails front on the west s ide of t he property adjacent tot he 0 ff- ramp (see Exhibit '8,' Site Plan, Sheet 1, Exhibit '10,' Site Design Plan, Sheet 1, Exhibit '11,' Grading Plan, Sheet 3 and Exhibit '12', Landscapellrrigation Plan, Sheets L 1 and L2). However, there is substantial landscaping in this area to soften or prevent glare off-site. There are no abutting residentially zoned or used properties. This Design Guideline has been met." The applicant has submitted a luminaire schedule that shows the required illumination for t he parking a reas and the entrancelloading areas. These approval criteria have been met. Section 5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. Ft. OR MORE C. Criteria, The criteria are pursuant to the standards and guidelines of Section 3.1. And other applicable sections of the WDO. FINDING: The compliance of the applicant's proposal with the applicable standards and guidelines of the WOO is discussed throughout this report. B. WOODBURN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN (TSP) FINDING: Randy Rohman, Woodburn Public Works Transit Manager, provides the following comments pertaining to the application and the Traffic Impact Analysis submitted by the applicant: "On page 1 under Study Methodology, the analysis states that the city requirement for a TIA relates to new trips only and that the completed TIA was not required. This is not correct. WDO section 3.104.01 8.2 states that a TIA may be required if trip generation is "100 or more additional, peak hour trips, or DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 35 110 1,000 or more additional daily trips". In footnote 1 on page 1 the study states this requirement is for new trips only. The WDO does not state new trips only and the footnote is not correct. This development generates 153 PM peak hour trips and approximately 1,700 daily trips and the TIA requirement placed on this development meets the criteria established in the WDO. The discussion of Project Impacts, which begins on page 9, is appropriate and is approached from a worst-case scenario. Appropriate land use categories were used and modeling appears to be appropriately applied. On page 9 in the discussion on Pass-By Trips there is a reference to "SR 238". This paragraph was apparently imported from another study and the change was not made to Hwy 214. The analysis dedicating all pass by trips to and from Hwy 214 is a worst-case scenario since some of the pass by trips may in fact come from adjacent collector streets. This assumption increases the impact of the critical east bound left turn movement at the Evergreen and Stacy Allison intersection and conditions should be no worse than projected in the analysis. The Trip Distribution and Assignment discussion on page 9 and the operational analysis on page 14 appear to accurately reflect the impact of the development. As stated in the study all of the intersections in the study are expected to operate at acceptable levels. There are adverse impacts at Stacy Allison/Lawson and Stacey AllisonlEvergreen but these are expected given the trips generated and the assumptions of the study. The 1-5 interchange improvement project, which is in the environmental assessment phase, should improve conditions at these intersections when it is completed. Staff concurs with the Summary and Conclusions as presented on page 15 of the report. The development does cause a LOS degradation at two existing city street intersections. While staff does not fully concur that this is a "minimal" impact, the analysis was of a worst-case scenario and the conclusion that the intersections will continue to operate in a safe and efficient manner is correct. There is concern with the number of driveways from the development as shown on the site plan included as Figure 2 in the study. WOO section 3.104.03 states that the number of driveways should be minimized based on overall site design, including in part, consideration of "the on site access pattern" and "the access needs of the use in terms of volume, intensity". DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 36 111 There are 143 available parking spots in this development and in review of the on site access pattern and the needs based on the volume and intensity of traffic to this development there does not appear to be a compelling need for three driveways along the Stacy Allison Way frontage of this development. With the Wal-Mart development and additional commercial development that is possible to the south of this location, the amount of traffic on this roadway has increased and will increase further. Stacy Allison Way is proposed for upgraded functional classification as part of the current Transportation System Plan update. Driveways are conflict points and for safety considerations the number of driveways should be minimized. The west driveway is also on a curve radius and is not ideal from a safety perspective. To enhance safety on Stacy Allison Way through the reduction in the number of conflict points and to minimize driveway accesses in accordance with WOO guidelines, the proposed west driveway should be eliminated and replaced with an on site turn around. The center driveway could then be widened to provide two outbound lanes with one for left turns only." Phasina Plan 03-02: A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.103.05 Phasing Plan for a Subdivision, PUD, Manufactured Dwelling Park or any other land Use Permit A. Purpose: The purpose of a Phasing Plan is to allow the incremental implementation of a total development plan for a property, while providing fully functional phases that are developed in compliance with the tentative approval for the development. B. Application Requirements. An application shall include a completed C ity a pplication form, filing fee, deeds, notification area map and labels, written narrative statement regarding compliance with criteria, location map and the following additional exhibits: 1. Phasing Plan. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 37 112 FINDING: The applicant submitted the required materials including a phasing plan and narrative. The applicant intends to build Phase 1 as soon as possible and the subsequent phases when the market permits. All phases are to be complete within 5 years (by November 2008). C. Criteria. The proposed phasing of development shall: 1. Insure that individual phases will be properly coordinated with each other and can be designed to meet City development standards; and 2. Insure the phases do not unreasonably impede other future development based on the following considerations: a. The City's future latitude in addressing: 1) Changing community goals and expectations about the future development of undeveloped land; and 2) Mandated state land use planning requirements, including those regarding buildable land, needed housing, transportation connectivity. b. The latitude of future developers of abutting properties within the UGB in addressing: 1) Changing market conditions; and 2) The access and circulation alternatives for a development proposal. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 38 113 FINDING: The phasing plan shows that it will be coordinated. Landscaping and pedestrian access will be planned in a way to show compliance with the WOO in the interim period between development phases. Planning the phased expansion of this retail center will not significantly affect the buildable lands inventory in Woodburn. However, the reconfiguration of the Interstate 5 interchange may conflict with the location of buildings 'A' and 'B'. This conflict would require ODOT andlor the City to purchase the developed land at a much higher price than the current undeveloped parcel when the Interstate 5 interchange is upgraded. Unfortunately, there is no interchange reconfiguration plan that has been adopted so a conflict has not been formally identified at this time. As for access to the trailer sales property to the north the applicant states; "The trailer sales property located to the north and northeast of the site could be afforded access at the southwest comer of the site if access rights were acquired or somehow the properties were combined. The flow of traffic would not be impeded nor would required parking spaces or landscape areas be eliminated". Based on these facts, the phasing plan approval criteria are met. Variance 02-21 : Variance A: The applicant is requesting a variance to the Woodburn Sign Ordinance to allow two directional monument signs increase in area to 36 square feet from the 12 square foot maximum area allowed under Section 11 ca. Variance B: The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Woodburn Sign Ordinance, Section 12C, to allow one additional wall sign per business in the integrated business center. The additional sign is to be located on a wall that the business has frontage on and is to be limited to one square foot of area per lineal foot of frontage. Only one sign per frontage wall is being requested. A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.103.11 Variance c. Criteria. A determination of whether the criteria set forth are satisfied necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interest. The factors that are listed to be considered are not criteria and are not Intended to be an exclusive list. The factors to be considered are used as a guide in deliberations on the application. FINDING: This variance should be approved because it met the following considerations discussed below. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 39 114 1. The variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure which would cause the property to be unbuildable by application of the WDO. Factors to consider in determining whether hardship exists include: a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no control related to the piece of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but not limited to lot size, shape, topography. b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties can be made of the property without the variance. c. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. FINDING: Variance A: T he applicant is requesting a variance from the Woodburn Sign Ordinance to allow two directional monument signs increase in area to 36 square feet from the 12 square foot maximum area with a maximum 8-feet of height. For the justification of this variance, the applicant states the following: "The subject property is zoned CG (Commercial General). The property is irregularly shaped with 771.41 feet of frontage on Stacey Allison Way and 493.03 feet of frontage on the Interstate 5 off-ramp. The property consists of two triangular shaped areas containing a total of 128,393 square feet (2.9475 acres) merged at a point approximately 65 feet wide near the easterly third of the property (see Exhibit '3,' Assessor's Map and Exhibit '10,' Site Design Plan, Sheet 1). The widest areas of the site are located adjacent to the Interstate off-ramp and the easterly property line. Three access driveways are proposed to serve the development from Stacey Allison Way. The center driveway aligns with the Wal-Mart Super Center driveway and is located approximately 440 feet from the southeast comer of the property. The centerline of the eastern driveway is approximately 324 feet from the centerline of the center or main driveway. The centerline of the western driveway is approximately 289 feet from the centerline of the main driveway. Due to the irregular shape of the parcel and the 771.41 feet of frontage on Stacey Allison Way, a concurrent Sign Variance in conjunction with the Design Review application has been requested to allow for one joint-use DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 40 115 free-standing sign a maximum of 100 square feet in size with a maximum height of 35 feet and two monument signs, a maximum of 36 square feet in size with a maximum height of 8 feet. The total square footage of the proposed free-standing sign and the two monument signs does not exceed the signage allowed for one free- standing sign (150 square feet) and two directional signs (12 square feet each). The height limitations have not been exceeded. The applicants believe that sound reasoning exists for the granting of a Variance to the standard of one freestanding sign, a maximum of 150 square feet in size. The necessity of a Variance is a result of the odd shaped property which cannot adequately be served with one driveway and the site limitations for the placement of the buildings are such that drivers would be unsure of which entrance to use to get to their destination as the buildings at the main driveway must be positioned so that they are not easily seen from the street. T he freestanding sign would be utilized by two tenants that cater to both motorists on the freeway and the major tenant of the center. The tenants of Building 'B' would utilize the monument sign, located at the main driveway. The tenants of Building '0' would utilize the monument sign, located at the easterly driveway (see Exhibit '10,' Site Design Plan, Sheet 1 and Exhibit '19,' Comprehensive Sign Plan, Sheet 305)." Variance B: The applicant is also requesting a variance from the Woodburn Sign Ordinance to allow one additional wall sign per business in the integrated business center. The additional sign is to be located on a wall that the business has frontage on and is to be limited to one square foot of area per lineal foot of frontage. Only one sign per frontage wall is being requested. For the justification of this variance, the applicant states the following: "A second sign Variance is requested to allow the placement of secondary wall signs on Buildings A, B, C and 0 (see Exhibit '19,' Comprehensive Sign Plan, Sheets A305 and A306 and Exhibit '15,' Building Elevations/Narrative, Sheets A301 through A304). The additional signage on Buildings A and B would be oriented towards the freeway off-ramp The size request is to allow one additional sign per business with an area of the larger of 30 square feet or 1 square foot per foot of building frontage that pertains to the business. The additional signage on Building C would be oriented towards the parking lot adjacent to Stacey Allison Way or placed on the rear of the building facing towards the parking lot located on the north side of the building. The additional signage on Building 0 would be placed on the rear of the building facing towards Stacey Allison Way and Lawson Street beyond. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 41 116 The Wal-Mart Super C enter located directly to the south a cross Stacey Allison Way has a total of at least 12 wall signs in addition to a free- standing sign located at the corner turn of Stacey Allison Way. The Burger King Restaurant located to the east of the subject property has a monument sign located at the corner of Lawson Street and Stacey Allison Way and two wall signs, one facing Lawson Street one facing the parking lot located on the north side of the building. The other businesses located to the north also utilize the one freestanding and two wall sign allowed by the sign code. The granting of the Sign Variances will not result in a special advertising advantage i n relation ton eighboring businesses. N 0 business would be allowed more than two wall signs. It is the applicant's desire to meet the aesthetic intent of the sign code while providing an equitable method of business identification for the businesses located within the center. The size and placement of the signage will result in more attractive signage than would be allowed under the strict interpretation of the sign regulations. to 2. Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent properties. Factors to be considered in determining whether development consistent with the variance materially injurious include but are not limited to: a. Physical impacts such development will have because of the variance, such as visual, noise, traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards. b. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed variance. FINDING: The applicant states the following: "The proposed signage will be more visually appealing in scale and will create better identification for customers trying to locate the business, minimizing traffic impact or other hazards. The granting of the Sign Variances will not obstruct views from other buildings or signs or cover unique architectural features of the proposed buildings nor detract from the landscaped areas of the proposed development (see Exhibit '19,' Comprehensive Sign Plan, Sheets A305 and A306 and Exhibit '15,' Building Elevations/Narrative, Sheets A301 through A304)." DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 42 117 _._._~-----......",.,..-~._._.~,,,,,.~..~._"_.._.-,~_._-".'"~--...._..,_._.~ 3. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected because of the variance. FINDING: Drainage and landforms will not be affected by the proposed variance. 4. The variance is the minimum deviation necessary to make reasonable economic use of the property; FINDING: The applicant states the following: "The small-integrated center has multiple tenants, some that will cater tot he motoring public and all that will cater to the local shoppers. Due to the irregular shape of the parcel the buildings must be placed on the outer edges of the property and oriented towards t he parking areas. The granting 0 f t he Sign Variances compensates for these circumstances in a manner equitable with other businesses in the area and is not a special privilege to anyone business as other businesses on abutting properties have at least 2 wall signs and in the case of the Wal-Mart Super Center, multiple wall signs in addition to monument or freestanding signs." 5. The variance does not conflict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: The Woodburn Development Ordinance implements the goals and policies in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Allowing the requested sign variances does not conflict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. VI. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of fact contained herein, all relevant approval criteria relating to approval of Design Review 03-12, Phasing Plan 03-02 and Variance 03-21 have been met. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 43 118 __,. .__._....__._....~_,___,.__~..""'..... ~.,_~,. ,.,_ ..~_,~_.... ._.... .e. _~.,._~___~."_m___~.., _'''_...=~..~__~"___._..,.. .--...... EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Desian Review 03-12: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with this approval and the attached preliminary plans provided in Exhibit "A" (Application packet Exhibits; 9 Street & Utility Plan, 10 Site Design Plan, 12 Landscape & Irrigation Plan L 1 thru L4, 13 Phasing Plan, 15 Building Elevations A 301, 302, 303 & 304, 19 Sign Plan Elevations A 305 & 306, and Luminaire Schedule E101 all date stamped June 23, 2003, and Phasing Plan Addendum date stamped September 12, 2003.), except as herein modified by these conditions of approval. 2. A final landscape and irrigation plan for all landscaped areas shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of buildina permits. The revised landscape plan shall show a 42-inch screen along the front property line pursuant to Section 3.106.03A.2.b and low growing shrubs and flowers, extending along the driveways out to the right of way. All shrubs and ground cover shall be of a size upon installation so as to attain 80% of ground coverage within 3 years. 3. Landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of each phase and the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping in good condition so as to present a healthy and orderly appearance. Unhealthy and dead plants shall be removed and replaced in conformance with the original landscape plan. 4. Prior to issuance of buildina permits, a revised site plan, showing the elimination of the westerly curved driveway, the center driveway widened to provide two outbound lanes with one for left turns only and a turn-around on the westerly end of the parking lot, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 5. Prior to issuance of buildina permits, a revised site plan, showing raised crosswalks or walkways across parking areas delineated by distinctive pavers, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. 6. A minimum of 9 bicycle rack spaces shall be provided for buildings 'A' and 'B' within 50 feet of the main entrances prior to final occupancy. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 44 119 _^~_<_,~_h"'.,.,_..,"__.~__".,........_,.~<.".........~,,"__'''"''~'''''"~ 7. Prior to the issuance of buildina permits. the property ownerlapplicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a signed "Acceptance of Conditions" agreeing to all conditions of approval for the project. 8. This approval shall expire within the time period specified by City ordinance (currently one year from the date of the final decision). Expiration of a final decision shall require a new application. 9. The applicant shall request building permit occupancy review by the Community Development Department a minimum of seven days prior to the issuance of final occupancy. 10. The applicant shall not submit for building permits prior to March 1, 2004. Phasing Plan 03-02: 11. Prior to final occupancy of each Phase, 6-inch concrete perimeter curbing shall be installed at the edge of all paved parking areas. 12. Building permits for all phases shall be issued before November 1, 2008 or this Design Review approval shall expire and a new Design Review application will be required for the remaining phases. Variance 03-21 : 13. This variance allows the directional monument signs, shown adjacent to the east and center driveways on the Site Design Plan (Exhibit 10), to have a maximum area of 36 square feet and a maximum height of 8 feet. 14. This variance allows one additional wall sign per business (two signs maximum) in the integrated business center. The additional sign shall be located on a wall that the business has frontage on, and shall be limited to one square foot of area per lineal foot of frontage or 30 square feet, which ever is greater. Only one sign pertaining to an individual business is allowed per frontage wall. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: GENERAL CONDITIONS: 15. Final plans shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards. 16. The applicant, not the city, is responsible for 0 btaining permits from any state andlor federal agencies, which may require approval andlor permit. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 45 120 17. All work within the public right-of-way shall require plan approval and permit issuance from the Public Works Department. 18. System Development fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. STREET AND DRAINAGE: 19. The Boundary Street and Connecting Street, Stacy Allison Way, is classified as a Local Street in the Woodbum Transportation System Plan (TSP). The cross- sectional requirement for a Local Street is a right of way 60-feet in width, 5-foot utility easements each side, an improved surface of 34 feet curb-to-curb and 5-foot sidewalks on each side. Currently Stacy Allison Way provides an existing right of way width of 60 feet, the improved street width is approximately 42 feet with a five-foot sidewalk on the south side. A five-foot curbline sidewalk on the north side of Stacey Allison Way shall be installed by the applicant extending across the subject site and the easterly vacant property and connecting to the existing sidewalk on the Burger King property. 20. On-site detention shall be required in conformance with the City of Woodburn Storm Water Management Plan and Public Works Storm Water Practices. WATER: 21. Domestic, lawn irrigation and/or fire sprinkler system, if installed, shall require the installation of a proper type of backflow preventer. Prior to building permits being issued, the applicant shall contact Larry Arendt, City of Woodburn Cross Connection Inspector, for type and installation requirements at 503-982-5283. 22. Fire hydrant locations and fire protection requirements shall comply with the Woodburn Fire District standards and requirements. SANITARY SEWER: 23. A Grease trap shall be required on the sanitary service for the restaurant facility. Contact Marion County Plumbing Department for permit and installation requirements, (503) 588-5147. DR 03-12, PP 03-02 & VAR 03-21 Page 46 121 "<"""""_""",_,~~""_~--,~--"_,_"""""----",,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,'""',,,,,"""-"-..'_.~ f) i' ~ "~,<'k<",\ " ~', .~..,...... '0 .... .. . W90DBURN 11l(orpcraftJ f889 lOF ~~ . . November 24, 2003 FROM: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development 11M Annual Review of the Woodburn Development or~ance TO: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare a resolution to direct staff to draft revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO) to address the issues outlined in Exhibit "A." BACKGROUND: The WOO was adopted by the City Council in July 2002. Section 1.101.08 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance states that the Community Development Director shall report potential modifications of the WOO (due to new state and/or federal laws and rules, case law precedents, scrivener errors, and interpretations) to the City Council at the first meeting in the month of November so that the City Council may consider initiating appropriate measures to modify the WOO. The Annual Review of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WOO) is a Type V Legislative Decision. A resolution is required for the City Council to initiate the Annual Review of the WOO. This agenda item was continued from the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting. The outline in Exhibit "A" has been revised to make the list clearer and to add issues identified by the Mayor and staff since the November 10, 2003 City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: The WOO has not been amended since its original adoption, but there are now multiple issues that staff believes should be addressed by revisions to the WOO. Staff has attached a list of issues that it believes should be addressed in an update of the WOO. City Attorney Finane Agenda Item Review: City Administrator 122 Mayor and City Council November 24, 2003 Page 2 . . FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with the recommended action because no outside resources will be utilized. However, a significant amount of time will be required from existing staff to complete this project. Attachments: Exhibit A: WOO Update - Proposed Policy, Clarifications and Text Changes 123 Exhibit "A" .. Section 1.104.04, Pages 1.1-23 & 24 Section 1.104.05, Page 1.1-24 Section 2.1 03.07.G, Page 2.1-20 Section 2.203.15, Pages 2.2-16 to 22 Table 2.1.7, Page 2.1-26 - PAGE WOO UPDATE This provision is fairly com zoning ordinances but may legal problems. Home owners in the CG zone have not been able to refinance their homes because the WOO specifies that non-conforming single family dwellings cannot be rebuilt in the CG zone. Amend the code so that a change or expansion of an existing use triggers the wall and refuse facilities requirements in the code. Allow the RIS zone to have the same lot coverage standard as the Single Family Residential (RS) zone. Mayor Figley proposes that this issue be addressed. Ensure that changes in state law regarding Manufactured Dwelling Parks are accurately reflected in the WDO. A single family dwelling currently has to meet the same setback requirements as a multifamily building in the Medium Density Residential (RM) zone. Staff are recommendina that the RM zone 2. Allow non-conforming single family dwellings in the Commercial General (CG) zone to be rebuilt if destroyed. 4. Amend lot coverage in the Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS) Zone to allow a maximum of 40% for lots containing a primary building with an average height of 14 feet or less, and a maximum of 35% for lots with a primary building with an average height of more than 14 feet. 5. Allow for exceptions to the front yard setback for small structures (i.e. _ trellises, arbors, pergolas and archways). 6. Update Manufactured Dwelling Park standards state law. with 3. Amend Section 1.104.05 to include walls and refuse facilities. to make them consistent ... lI) ~ 7. Table 2.1.7 requires a minimum 24 foot, 30 foot and 36 foot interior yard setbacks for single and two family dwellings. This should be revised to apply RS standards to these uses. WDO UPDATE WDO UPDATE be revised so that the single family dwelling setback standards in the RS zone apply to single family dwellinas in the RM zone. 8. Move the provision in the commercial zones that the maximum yard abutting a Staff would like more flexibility in Section 2.105.05.C.1.a.2, Page 2.1-35 & street shall be 150 feet to the architectural guidelines section of the WOO where applying the 150 foot maximum Section 2.106.05. C.1.a.2, Page 2.1-45 this provision would be a .should.. yard setback based on the size and shape of a commercial lot and the existing buildings on a commercial site. 9. Clarify what the finance and insurance use mean because it is not clear. Also, Check cashing and pawnshops Section 2.107.01.E.1, Page 2.1-51 all zones prohibit check cashing, pawnshops, etc. except in the CG zone where it were outright pennitted in the CG is a conditional use. Was this intended? zone in the WZO. Check cashing and pawnshops are conditional uses in the CG zone in the WOO. Was this provision supposed to be changed with the adoption of the WOO? 10. Prohibit bars and taverns in the DOC district. The Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Section 2.107 .01.l.3. Page 2.1-53 prohibited bars and taverns in the DOC district. Bars and taverns are allowed in the DOC district per the WOO. Was this provision supposed to be changed with the adoption of the WOO? 11. Revise fence height on a corner and through lot (side and rear yard abutting Address the issue of reducing the Section 2.201.03.8. Page 2.2-2 a street). Amend the fence and freestanding walls section of the code to darify setback of a fence on the side and that the setback of fences and walls applies only to front yards adjacent to a rear of a lot that abuts a street if the street and not any lot line adiacent to a street. vision clearance standards are met. 12. Remove the requirement that property line adjustments be subject to the In two appellate court decisions it Section 3.104.01, Pages 3.1-17 & 18 access pennit reauirement and link the access section to the street section of the was found that the nexus did not t-I tI) en PAGE 2 WDO UPDATE WOO UPDATE WDO. exist between a street improvement and a property line adjustment. There is not a link in the access section to the street section of the WDO. 13. Change the Exception and Variance Type III application for the dedication of A building pennit for a single family Section 3.104.01, Pages 3.1-17 right of way and street improvements to a Type II application if it is processed dwelling, administrative design concurrently with a Type I or II application. review request and a partition request are examples of Type I and II applications. These types of applications currently trigger the public hearing process through an exception or variance application if the dedication of the full right of way and street improvements cannot be met. Staff is proposing that exception and variance requests be processed through the administrative decision making process if these applications are processed concurrently with a Type I or Type II application because the application fee and time required to process the exception or variance request is reduced if it is an administrative process. 14. Reduce the 24 foot by-pass lane width for a drive-through. A 24 foot wide drive-through and Section 3.104.02, Page 3.1-18 by-pass lane is wider than what is necessary. It is difficult for an applicant to meet the 24 foot wide drive-through and by-oass lane ... tI) 0\ PAGE 3 WDO UPDATE WOO UPDATE Section 3.104.03, Pages 3.1-19 & 20 Section 3.104.05.8 & C, Pages 3.1-22 & 23 Section 3.104.05.E. Page 3.1-25 Table 3.1.2, Pages 3.1-31 to 34 requirement on a commercial infill site. A 16 to 18 foot drive-through and by-pass lane would provide the width necessary for a drive-through and by-pass lane. Address the issue of requiring 2 public street accesses for subdivision with 25 or more lots. The WOO is unclear in regard to staffs ability to condition 2 public street accesses. Several subdivision applications have been processed where it was determined by staff that 2 public street accesses were necessary. Address the issue of adding language to the code that would clarify a requirement for paving the driveway and parking for a detached garage. A one-way commercial and industrial driveway width standard was not included in the WOO. Many commercial and industrial developments have wanted to provide a one-way driveway and had no standard in the code to follow. The WOO currently classifies a video rental business with an office use and parking requirement. The residential subdivisions with 25 16. Clarify issues related to paving of driveway and parking areas on single family residential property. Ooes a gravel driveway to a detached garage need to be paved? least 2 public street accesses for 15. Require at or more lots. 17. Provide a one-way commercial and industrial driveway width standard rental 18. Provide a parking requirement and designate in which zones a video business is allowed. .... t-) ~ PAGE 4 WOO UPDATE WOO UPDATE Section 3.105, Pages 3.1-27 to 36 Table 3.1.4. Page 3.1-36 Page 3.1-39 Section 3.106.03.C.1, Section 3.106.04, Page 3.1-40 Section 3.107, Pages 3.1-43 to 66 Section 3.108.01.8.5, Page 3.1-67 Section 4.102, Page 4.1-24 video rental business operates more like a retail use than an office use. Code needs to be revised to reflect this. Need direction in the code regarding this problem. The compact parking stall width needs to be changed to accurately reflect a compact parking stall width. Address the issue of requiring parking lot landscaping for uses in the P/SP zone as is required in the commercial and industrial zones. Address the issues of how to amend conditions of approval to save a significant tree and creating a tree mitigation fund or give the replacement trees to the City to plant. Address the issue of removing non- livable spaces in single family dwellings from the window calculation requirement. Currently, the WOO does not have a provision that would allow staff to require a masonry wall on a subdivision where lots have frontage on a non-local street. Have legal staff proPOse chanQes 19. Parking section needs to state what happens when a use doesn't fit in a specific parking category. 20. Change the compact parking stall width from 9 feet to 7.5 feet to match the 7.5 curb length for the 90 degree aisle. Add parking lot landscaping standard for the P/SP zone. 21 22. Revise Conservation of Significant Tree section of the WOO in regard to tree mitigation fund and how to amend conditions of approval to save a significant tree. 23. Refine Architectural Standards. Section 3.107.03 (F) should be modified to read: . At least 15 percent of the fa~de wall surface, excluding roofs and the triangular wall area under a gable roof, and the garage fa98de of a dwelling unit facing a front lot line shall be windows.' 24. Add under the buffer wall requirement that a masonry wall should be constructed on single family subdivisions where lots have frontage on a non-local street. t-l lI.) GO 25. Consider reviSing Section 4.102 in r8!:lard to appeals based upon our PAGE 5 woo UPDATE WOO UPDATE Section 5.102.02.A.1&2, Page 5.1-18 Section 5.102.05, Page 5.1-21 Section 2.102.06.C.b.1, Page 2.1-9 (RS Zone), Section 2.103.06.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-17 (RIS Zone), Section 2.1 04.06.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-25 (RM Zone), Section 2.105.05.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-35, (CO Zone), Section 2.106.05.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-45 (CG Zone), Section 2.1 09.06.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-62 (IP Zone), Section 2.110.06.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-70 (IL Zone), & Section 2.111.05.C.1.b.1, Page 2.1-77 (P/SP zone) PAGE 6 after receiving input from staff. It is unclear if an expansion over 1,000 square feet would trigger an administrative design review request because they are adding less than 10% of gross floor area of the existing building. Council direction to clarify. Should storage and display be more clearly addressed in the allowed use sections of zones? Address the issue of whether a parking setback is needed from a wall. Should parking be allowed on the rear of a through lot? Currently no parking is allowed in the 20 foot . setback on the rear of a through lot adjacent to a street. Should a property owner be allowed to have more useable space on the rear of experience with this section 26. Clarify Section 5.1 02.02.A.1 &2 regarding the trigger for an administrative design review request. 27. Get policy direction on how Residential Architectural Standard Substitution should be interpreted. 28. Clarify how storage and display are addressed. 29. Revise code to allow parking in a required setback adjacent to a wal """ tI) \C 30. Address setbacks and parking on a through lot. WDOUPDATE WOO UPDATE Section 5.101.04.0.2, Pages 5.1-4 & 5, Section 5.101.05.0, Pages 5.1-6 to 8, Section 5.101.06.0, Pages 5.1-9 to 11, Section 5.101.07.0.1, Page 5.1-12, Section 5.101.09.0, Page 5.1-14 a through lot? Need to clarify what is being certified by various officials. 31. Clarify the certification process related to review of plats & covenants for Manufactured Dwelling Park Final Plan Approval, Partition Final Plan Approval Planned Unit Development Final Plan Approval, Property Line AdjustmenUConsolidation of Lots and Subdivision Final Plat Approval Need to add a provision in the WOO to regulate portable toilets since portable toilets are no longer regulated by the City's Nuisance Ordinance. Address grading permit in the WOO to strengthen criteria. 32. Add Portable Toilet provision to the WOO. 33. Grading Permit 6. Check and revise Use Classifications in the WOO. Corrections need to be made in the Health Care and Social Services (62) table. t-I Cl) o 04-1 to 27 04, Pages 6.1 Section 6.1 would be beneficial to show a curvilinear lot and how it would be determined to be an interior or It 7. lot. Figure 6.2, Page 6.102-2 Figure 6.10, Page 6.102-10 comer Correct mistakes in the diagram. is not shown in Figure 6.10 (F) 8. Stall depth PAGE 7 WDOUPDATE WOO UPDATE , - .,."':w....'". 2.203.16" with Section, Id before "are" s a Type III decision and not a Type ,t a Type I decision. Table 4.1, Page 4.1-6 Section 4.1 01.07.E.2.c, Page 4.1-9 Section 4.1 01.07.E.2.c, Page 4.1-9 after "Type III" and before "hearing. Section 4.101.09.A.2, Pages 4.1-12 & 13 I evidentiary" after "the" and before "before" Section 4.1 01.09.A.3, Pages 4.1-13 " Section4.101.09.B, Pa e4.1-14 - - Section 4.101.12, Page 4.1-19 It Section 4.102.03, PaQe 4.1-26 - - PAGE 8 ... (,) ... WOO UPDATE WOO UPDATE 22. Remove .01 at the end of Section 3.107.01 Section 5.101.D, Page 5.1-2 23. Insert "nor after "are" and before "limited" Section 5.102.03.C.2, Page 5.1-19 24. Insert "a" before "special" and after "be" Section 5.103.04.C.1, Paae 5.1-27 25. Remove "a" before "fonnal" and after "a" Section 5.104.03, Page 5.1-44 PAGE 9 1:\Community Development\Plannlng\WDO Update\WDO Update3.doc 11/20/03 WDO UPDATE I"'" ~ tI) ~~. ~ WOQDBlL~N l",orrornlcd 1889 ~~OG . . November 20,2003 TO: Mayor and City Council through City FROM: G. S. Tiwari Public Works Director - -~ SUBJECT: Discussion on Alignment of Boones Ferry Road at Hwy 214 RECOMMENDATION: Select the most desired option among the options outlined below for the alignment of Boones Ferry at Hwy 214 Intersection. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: Saving the large trees along Settlemier on the southeast side of the intersection of Hwy 214 and Boones Ferry has been a council priority. Staff is working with the state and the Woodburn School District to reach an acceptable configuration. The priority of the school district is to have the maximum number of parking spaces on the lot next to their buildings. In addition, the school does not have resources to improve the parking lot after the right-of-way dedication reduces its size. Oregon Department of Transportation has not rejected either of the two options. The two options being considered are as follows: Option A: Widen the road equally on both sides Option B: Widen the road to the west only Staff feels that shifting the alignment, by widening the road to the west side, will have certain benefits in the long term, independent of any consideration given to the value of the trees. This is due to the fact that, when additional improvements are needed in the future, the curb, sidewalk and approaches on the school side will not need replacing. The sidewalk and curbs on both sides of Boones Ferry will have to be removed in future widening, if the proposed widening is equally distributed on each side. Agenda Item Review: City Administrato _ City Attorney~ 133 Mayor and City Council November 20, 2003 Page 2 . . We cannot place a dollar value on having a safe sidewalk already in place during the next upgrade, but the replacement cost of the curb and sidewalk from Church to Goose Creek is estimated at $50,000. This future reduction of cost will come at a higher cost now. The cost will involve the purchase of some right-of-way (on the west side along Boones Ferry and Settlemier) and a small house on the south side of the grange hall. This purchase cost of right-of-way, including the removal of one house, is estimated at approximately $100,000. I will be available to answer questions in the council meeting of November 24, 2003. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Without placing any value on the trees, there is about $50,000 of net additional cost to accomplish Option B over Option A. However, this cost is likely to be reduced with the sale of the additional land not needed for street purposes, but acquired with purchase of the house located south of the grange hall. The total cost of Boones Ferry Improvement and the intersection improvement is estimated at $1,100,000. GST Jig Attachment: Map of two alternatives H:\MyFilesl\Councilltems\Boones Ferry Rd- Hwy 214 Alignment Issue 11-03 134 .~~ - ..,-,-,,,.--_._-_."..,,..._-~,.. --~'-----~""'"-""'-'~~~---~ SETTLEMIER-BOONES FERRY/ HWY 214 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS OPTION A: WIDEN STREET EQUALL Y ON BOTH SIDES Ac.LJA'h'o""J R/w he.~eq = 17ac ~~ -tt .!. <::l \ \ \. , \' \ ::, BOONES FERRY ROAD ~ .\-~\~~~D\j ...- , , , , , , , be remoVI -----.....--- --..--.---- v .~ --- " . \ Trees to be \ '. ; , ' :. . removed , \ '.~ " , ~~ ~I, " \ : , \ \ This house is approximately six feet from sidewalk. it is possible to save it but it will have reduced value / '- ~ - j- .. " . ....~ A~J~~~.o~',~LU~:~ . ~~.~; - .... 'fl..~~e:.&L._} r ,.. '-;' Large trees to be removed ;' I ," , , , .~ PRINTED O(I.:/tI1 OPTION "A" 214 '.', ,\ , ' SETILEMIER-BOONES FERRY/ HWY 214 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS OPTION B: STREET WIDENING TO WEST SIDE ::'\Ac.O. f../u.J Vle.~d ~+~o,^J.. ~/w ~e.ed.e.d: App"fo~\W\a.ft.tj ~so<J ~9r ~ T 400-0 ~~::tt \;:t r; A This house is I . \ too close and ), ~ ~idewalk, c.um and Approach saved during will need to be removed _ _ _ J " _ _.~ , next expansIon \ ..... I \ -------, .J 1"1\ . - - - - - - -: ' I' r ..' '..:..J .' \ \ \ \.\ \ \ \ I : \: ..;. All trees.to be rer, ~~~ . " : . .' '~l\:l \ \ \ \.\ \ \ \ \:0 _., ::- ,: I __L----. ---= ~~. .,' LI\\\\\\'\\'.B ~ .:-~, ~ , I \...--. ,\~\ rf\\.\\\\v -,- _',_ _ " , . , \ \ '.' - -- - - ~ -,..j- - -~ - - -, I [nf\\~\\\~~ ~.:- ._~ ,\\~ a;,; .~: : : : \ j I ~f _ IllJI'!i l" 111\IJ~ ".. ,_ __ :' .:;1 J , -' - '-"~-:.~----- ..=..-.-~:.__ .... -J""~ " --.-- " :' ~l__ 'r;; ~t ~ ~_-J_r~J_I_,""\---~ ' - ~ . ,. -- ~. : r -7'=--~" .~- .-.:. -.' . \ I n \ .r--.-.,......J-.-:- :... i J.' ~,'j \ I II \ ...... 'I' I " I /" I. - \ ' _ / 1/" \ I .." ~ I , Trees not "h 0\ I '_ ' _ Trees not - _ ' , to be remov .J ,-. to be removed - , / / / BOONES FERRY ROAD - J I -' I I r ! -_ " '_, I I I ',_ ........, .... I I ............ I , ) / I I..... I . .......... I r I ........ ~ .............. I ,. I ............ I ......... I ........." ........., -.J / I.... .... ... I ..................... / ......... / nr'\: " ~! r, ", .... .... I.... .... .... , HWY 214 OPTION "B" ~(-,~ '" ~... '-"';~. -. -, --:~... " .lIt" .' WOODBURN lnco,y"."" 1889 14A ~~ . . November 24, 2003 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development ~ SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Action on Design Review 03-17 & Variance 03-25, a request to expand the Salud Medical Facility located at 1175 Mt. Hood Avenue. A variance was also requested to allow existing parking located in the required interior yard setback to remain. RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 2003 the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving a proposal to construct a 7,514 square foot addition which will connect the two existing buildings to form one large 30,266 square foot building. The existing Salud Medical Center is located at 1175 Mt. Hood Avenue and has a 1 7,031 square foot two-story building being used as an ambulatory medical facility. The neighboring parcel to the east has a 5,721 square foot vacant building (located at 1235 Mt. Hood Avenue) and was recently approved for consolidation (Application Case File No. PLA 03-05) with the Salud Medical Center parcel. Both parcels are zoned Commercial Office (CO). The two existing buildings will be renovated in the process and the parking, landscaping and access will be expanded to meet the requirements of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. A variance was also granted to allow the existing parking lot encroachment in the north and west setback to remain. Applicant: Matthew Spicer 333 NW 5th Ave. Portland, OR 97209 Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney 7l... 137 Mayor and City Council November 24, 2003 Page 2 . . Property Owner: Yakima Valley Farm Workers Clinic 518 West First Ave. Toppenish, WA 98948 DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. 138 105 143 N/A N/A TF Tulip Festival OF Drums of Fire BF Berry Festival MF Mexican Fiesta OK Oktoberfest Iris Iris Garden 4TH 4th of Jul Current E-Mail Web Hits Festival TF:4 475 106 TF:15 638 530 TF: 112 541 742 - TF:172 DF:2 673 698 TF:1 DF:12 BF:3Iris:11 437 778 DF:100 4TH:1 504 1018 DF:51 MF:16 BF:14 493 1249 MF:2 BF:14 OK:3 B:1 575 576 - OK: 7 522 2541 - 609 2953 - - - - 505 5467 11191 505 4216 5533 357 N/A 2531 345 N/A N/A Office Statistics Total 182 182 251 440 227 286 334 464 314 255 2935 3831 2696 2394 Inside Outside Oregon Or!9,on 172 10 34 63 147 45 66 125 184 123 83 880 1007 824 Woodburn Chamber of Commerce Monthl 148 188 293 182 220 209 280 191 172 2055 2824 1872 Total 389 344 380 405 318 453 352 312 344 320 3617 5108 3486 3048 Outside OrejJon 4 12 4 7 8 17 21 16 7 4 100 166 180 Inside Oregon 162 132 174 216 147 246 189 179 144 141 1730 1941 1733 Chamber Business 223 200 202 182 163 190 142 117 193 175 1787 3006 1573 Relocate Visitor Packets Information 2 6 15 9 7 5 4 6 3 1 58 88 N/A N/A 7 14 1 3 14 14 16 18 8 10 Month June July August September October November December YTO 2003 Total 2002 Total 2001 Total 2000 January February: March April May