Agenda - 11/22/1999
CI7Y COONCIL AGENDA
November 22, 1999 - Z'OO p.m.
270 Montgomel)' Street * * Woodburn, Oregon
1. CAIL TO ORDER AND FlAG SALUfE
2. ROLL CAIL
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
A. Thanksgiving Holiday Closures: (1) Aquatic Center closed Thursday,
November 25, opening at 1:00 p.m. on Fri, Nov. 26; (2) Library closed
Thursday, November 25; (3) All other city offices closed Thurs. and Fri.
November 25 and 26, 1999.
B. Christmas Music Program: December 6, 8 and 10 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Woodburn High Schoollectorium.
C. Tree Lighting Ceremony at Wanynski Plaza at 6:30 p.m., December 4th
D. Special Council meeting and joint Planning Commission/City Council
workshop: November 29. 1999 at 6:30 and 7:00 D.m.
E. Vacancies &: term expirations for City boards, commissions &: committees.. 3E
4. PRESENTATIONS/PROClAMATIONS
A. Human Rights Commission Award to Rosa Martinez.
B. Introduction of Jesuit volunteer - Sarah Eager
C. WCAT Annual Report ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4C
D. Proclamation of Appreciation of the Oregon State Legislature for their
support of the Local Park Grant Program .......................... 4D
5. COMMfITEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce.
B. Woodburn Downtown Association.
C. Woodburn School District.
D. Livability Task Force.
6. COMMUNICATIONS
7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBUC (This allows the public to introduce items for
Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.)
Pa&e 1 - City Council Agenda of November 22, 1999.
~ ....
S. 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. Council minutes of November 8, 1999 regular and executive meetings .. SA
B. Planning Comm.ssion minutes of October 2S, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SB
C. Museum Board minutes of November 10, 1999 ..................... SC
9. PUBUC HEARINGS
A. Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update ................... 9A
B. Annexation 99-02, Comp Plan Amendment 99-06, Site Plan Review
99-14 and Variance 99-07 - Boones Ferry Place Retirement Center. . . . .. 9B
C. Subdivision 99-02, Variance 99-09 - Oakwood Subdivision (located near
the intersection of Luba Street and Parr Road) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9C
D. Annexation 99-03, Zone Map Amendment 99-04, Subdivision 99-03
and Variance 99-10 - Promised Land Subdivision (located on the north
side of Aztec Drive east of Highway 99E) .......................... 9D
10. TABLED BUSINESS
11. GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Council Bill No. 2005 - Ordinance adopting the Park Be Recreation
Comprehensive Plan Update ................................... 11A
B. Council Bill No. 2006 - Ordinance establishing a methodology for Traffic
Impact Fees System Development Charges... ... .... ... ... ...... .. lIB
C. Council Bill No. 2007 - Ordinance amending Ord. 2111 to address only
Stormwater Drainage System SDC's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 C
D. Council Bill No. 2008 - Resolution setting the amount of the Traffic
Impact Fee System Development Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lID
E. Council Bill No.2009 - Ordinance establishing a methodology for Parks
and Recreation System Development Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lIE
F. Council Bill No. 2010 - Ordinance amending Ord. 2070 to address only
Water and Sewer System Development Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11F
G. Council Bill No. 2011 - Resolution setting the amounts of the Parks
and Recreation Systems Development Charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11G
H. Annual audit report .......................................... I1H
I. Acceptance of utility easement in Heritage Park Phase 4 subdivision .. .. 111
J. Contract award for North 6th Street Sanitary Sewer Rehab Be Extension .. I1J
Page 2 - City Council Agenda of November 22,1999.
-
T
K. Contract award for Wastewater Treatment Plant buDding remodel. . . .. IlK
12. PUBUC COMMENT
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. SITE PlAN ACflONS
15. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
16. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION (l)To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and
duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed
under the authority ofORS 192.660(l)(h), (2) To conduct deliberations with persons
designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions under the
authority ofORS 192.660(l)(e)j (3) To consider records that are exempt by law from
public inspection under the authority of ORS 192.660(l)(f)j
18. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 - City Council Agenda of November 21,1999.
~ T
3E
November 19, 1999
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council
City Administrator 'If!)
Vacancies and TermExoirations - City Boards. Commissions. and
Committees
Recommendation:
It is recommended the Mayor and City Council:
1. announce existing vacancies and upcoming term expirations for positions on City
boards and commissions and committees; and
2. solicit applications from individuals interested in serving.
Back2round and Discussion:
Vacancies and terms set to expire exist on the following City boards,
commissions and Committees:
Budget Committee
One vacancy, to expire on December 31, 1999
One position (Tom West) to expire on December 31, 1999
Planning Commission
Position 1 (Walt Lawson) to expire December 31, 1999
Position 2 (vacant) to expire December 31, 1999
Position 6 (Frank Lonergan) to expire December 31, 1999
Recreation and Park Board
Position 6 (patricia Watts) to expire December 31, 1999
Position 7 (Dorothy Senatra) to expire December 31, 1999
Library Board
Position 4 (phyllis Bauer) to expire December 31, 1999
Pursuant to current policy, applications for these positions, and letters from
incumbents interested in continuing to serve will be solicited. Appoints'shall be made by
the Mayor, with the concurrence of the Council, at the first meeting in January 2000.
JCB
... ....
4C
MEMO
SUBJECT:
City Counell through the City Uirtorft
Ben GIllespIe, Fmanee Dlfcctor\ 'jIi
Woodburn Community Access Television Annual Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
November 16, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is the Annual Report of Woodburn Community Access Television (WCAT).
Accomplishments during the last year include regularly broadcast programs that are produced
locally:
.. Heaven Help Us
.. City Council
.. Fire District Board Meetings
.. Planning Commission
Local special event programs this year included:
.. Centennial Park Dedication
.. Live fireworks
.. Memorial Day Ceremony at Belle Passi
.. Various school presentations
.. Parks dance programs
.. Hubbard Y2K
.. Hubbard Parade
.. Woodburn First Citizen A wards
In the near future we can expect to see a return of "Let's Communicate" with Mayor Jennings
and Council President Figley, and "Se Si Pedas" about health issues.
In addition WCA T airs programs originating outside the community that are of interest to area
residents:
lr
4C
~ Marion County Commissioners
~ Salem Week in Review
~ Music from Oregon
WCA T entered a six month contract with the City to operate the new facility in the Council
Chamber. The agreement provides for the production of two City Council meetings, two
Planning Commission meetings, a Parks Board meeting, and one other video project per
month. With Council approval the contract will be renewed when it expires at the end of
December.
WCAT is completing its first year with a paid staff and has learned a great deal about how to
most effectively use the Programming/Outreach Coordinator and the student interns.
WCA T is searching for ways to encourage people to participate. Training community mem-
bers to use the equipment and produce their own shows continues to be a priority. In the
coming year WCA T hopes to become better known as a resource for the community. A stake-
holders meeting is scheduled for January 2000 to help guide WCAT's progress into the
Twenty-first Century.
If
Annual Report
Of Services and
State of WCA T-5
October 1 999
1
111~ ~.."IU4,1eee44 7et.efd4~ ,I1UUt411<e/I6'U
.
4C
State of the WCA T
Report to Woodburn City Council
October 1999
Overview
Woodburn Community Access Television (WCA T) operated on Direct Link
Cable Channel 16 until July of this year. In July, the organization moved to
Channel 5 and continued to bring locally produced programming to the cable
subscribers of the Woodburn, Gervais, and Hubbard areas. In addition, other
programming from outside resources has been secured to supplement locally
produced programming. Overall, the year of 1999 has continued with changes in
administrative staff, board members, and the overall strategic direction of the
organization. The impacts of these changes continue to be significant for the
WCAT.
Funding
Base funding for the organization remains low. The present 12% return of
franchise fees to the WCA T organization remains inadequate for the organization
to purchase new equipment or perfonn all required maintenance on existing
equipment. The franchise agreement also specifies a $1.00 per subscriber fee paid
once a year in October. The amount currently paid for the City of Woodburn
comes in just over $3800.00 annually. The Board has been looking at a
comparative study of access centers in other cities that the City of Woodburn
commissioned late in 1998. This report documented like funding mechanisms by
other cities, and may act as a possible scenario for the future. WCA T, through its
Outreach and Production Coordinator, is exploring potential partnerships with
area organizations, businesses and is looking at grants from various sources for
specific project based operations.
WCA T -5 currently has a fund-raising drive under way seeking donations for
equipment that would expand our community bulletin board to include
infonnation such as graphics-based announcements, weather, election returns, city
council agendas, and other infonnation for area viewers. Currently, area
businesses are being approached for donations, which would give donors on-air
mention for their support of WCA T. Presently, $1800.00 of a needed $3,800.00
has been pledged.
4C
2
1fI~ e.,,",""aq Aeau 7ekQtd(,M AIUt<<4t 1i!e/JM.t
.
WCA T -5 entered into a six month agreement with the City of Woodburn to
operate its Council Chambers video facility. The contract, worth $5,400.00
annually, allows WCAT designated staff an increase in hours worked per week to
cover city-based functions. These include two city council meetings, two
planning commission meetings and a Parks and Recreation Board meeting per
month. Another video project per month is also available to the city at their
request under the agreement.
DirectLink, through an agreement with WCAT, funds the Production & Outreach
Coordinator's position through the 15 hours per week provision in the franchise.
WCA T then uses those funds to fund the half-time position.
In addition, DirectLink voluntarily funds two additional part-time positions for
school to work students. Presently WCA T -5 has a trained student who is able to
work in the studio, program on-air logs and cover events in the community.
WCA T has been working with schools in Woodburn, Gervais and North Marion
school districts to recruit a second student. Presently, our one student works the
equivalent of both positions most months. WCA T appreciates Directlink's
contribution towards our organization in this matter.
Membership & Training Activities
Presently, WCA T has approximately 35 trained volunteers of which about 1/4 are
operating on specific video projects.
WCA T continues to offer a curriculum of 6 workshops. These workshops consist
of Orientation to Public Access and WCA T, Producing, Studio Production, Field
Production, Video Editing, and Directing. These workshops are now given
independently of each other allowing for greater flexibility in taking the
workshops by citizens. Orientation workshops are held monthly with all classes
being offered in a 3-month period (approximately 3 workshops per month).
Woodburn Community Access Television still has had only limited success in
getting citizens to attend our workshops. Weare unclear as to why this occuning
and have begun to look at new ways of marketing the workshops. Classes have
been redesigned to be almost entirely hands-on giving students more time and
practice with the equipment.
1fIH<<~ ~1H1lUt#tfP# r/ea44- 7eku.t4U#e r/tUUt4I, 'R~
.
4C
3
Administrative Changes
In November of 1998, WCA T hired its first Executive Director to run the day to
day operations of the station. The position was limited to 15 hours a week and
included production duties as well as outreach volunteer coordination, and many
other duties. It became apparent in January of 1999 that one person could not do
all the meetings and activities assigned to an Executive Director's position. In
April of 1999, WCAT's first Executive Director resigned due primarily to health
reasons. WCA T Board members filled in where they could. In May the part-time
position was redesigned, increased to 20 hours a week and given a much tighter
focus. The position is called Production & Outreach Coordinator. Presently Ms.
Judith Grace acts as WCA T' s Coordinator doing programming, coordinating
volunteers and covering meetings. In addition, WCA T has developed a
relationship with RSVP and has a volunteer (also a WCA T Board Member), who
comes in daily in the morning to handle routine office tasks. Between Judy, the
School to Work student and the RSVP volunteer, most WCA T day-to-day
operations are taken care of.
Board
Jerry Cotter continued his role on the Board as Board Chair. The Board
continued to be made up of representatives from the school district, City, and
local producers/citizens.
Presently the Board consists of Jerry Cotter (Governmental/Local Citizen), Dail
Adams (Producer/Citizen), Robert McKeown (Producer/Citizen), Bob Finch
(Director/Citizen), Jackie Sullivan (Senior Estates), Rob Felix (Woodburn School
District), and Ben Gillespie (City of Woodburn)
It is anticipated that there will be Board openings at the end of 1999 and Judy
Grace along with the Board will be seeking input on replacements for these
positions.
DirectLink
WCA T has forged a good working relationship with DirectLink. After an initial
"settling in process" in 1998, WCA T and DirectLink have shared a cordial and
businesslike relationship,
Issues that WCA T is working in cooperative agreement with DirectLink include:
"
4C
4
1fI~ ~INIIUtII<<tI Aeuu 7dwt41.u- '/lUUud 'Re/WI-t
.
15 Hours a Week of Staff Time
The Woodburn Cable Franchise mandates that the cable provider provides up to
15 hours a week of staff time. DirectLink agreed to pay the WCA T organization
$1,000 a month in lieu of their staff time requirement. WCA T in turn gives
DirectLink a document monthly outlining staff activities and hours.
School to Work Student
DirectLink has agreed to fund two student positions at $300 a month. They
agreed to do this voluntarily which gave WCA T -5 more options for paid staff.
Presently, WCA T has one student hired who has been working the equivalent of
both positions in hours, WCA T is currently working with Woodburn High School
to secure a second student for the program. The School to Work Students are
supervised by Outreach/Production Coordinator Judy Grace.
Hinting of a Move
DirectLink has decided for the present to keep the Northland building they
acquired. They have re-roofed and painted the building. WCA T occupies the
northeast part of the building including a storage area, restroom, and studio.
WCA T has installed landscaping on the north-end of the building including a
watering system.
Donation of Equipment
DirectLink donated leftover Northland News equipment to WCA T in late January
and early February. In all, they turned over close to $30,000 in field and studio
equipment which included a Video Special Effects Toaster computer, two field
cameras, 3/4" deck, as a well as other computers, monitors, video decks and misc.
equipment. This equipment has been put into use throughout 1999 as they have
been repaired and installed.
Business Plan
The WCA T Board has developed a business plan. An important area of the plan is
community outreach. Much of WCA T' s focus over the next year will be in
marketing WCA T to the school district and community. Along with that WCA T
will continue a community presence through on-air promotion, visibility at
community events, increased training opportunities and signage at the studio
location.
'lr
5
111~ ~It#Utll rlueu 7~tu rltlUtlttlt'iee/JM-t
.
4C
Installation of a sign and landscaping on the north side of the DirectLink building
has been completed. In addition, on-air promotion has been added between shows
shown on WCA T using Woodburn locations and the WCA T logo. WCA T has
also purchased a portable banner that has been used at the Fiesta celebration and
will be used for future community events and productions.
Training has been redesigned to make it more participant centered with hands-on
the equipment. Costs of the classes have been reduced to cover only
organizational out-of-pocket expenses. Citizens are able to attend one or all of the
workshops or any combination of the offered workshops.
The Mission Statement
Woodburn Community Access Television's Mission Statement:
HAllow and Maintain Access for All Citizens of the Woodburn Area to
Enhance Communication within the Community"
Strategic Goals:
1) Provide on-going basic and advanced television production training to the
citizens of Woodburn and the cable viewing area.
2) Provide consistent, on-going, and locally produced television programs for
cablecast to the community.
3) Encourage citizen involvement by on-going media and community presence.
4) Strive to acquire the most technically advanced video and audio production
equipment within the constraints of WCA T' s operational budget.
5) Provide on-going television coverage of local governmental and community
boards.
Equipment
The organization still needs new on-air character generators that would allow the
incorporation of graphics and text. An on-air upgrade of the character generators
ir
6
11/~ (!41N1N~,t'Ieuu 7detU4tM ,t~ 'Re/IMt
.
4C
would allow for the WCA T logo to be seen on a more consistent basis. These
generators run from $3,800 to $4,200.
Live weather on the channel is possible using local weather sensors, a Pentium III
computer and Weatherview software. WCA T will attempt to acquire this
capability in 2000. The cost for the weather upgrade will be approximately
$3,100.00 and has been assigned a high priority by the Board President.
In terms of studio equipment, one very outstanding need is a production switcher
with multiple mechanical effects banks. The WCA T Board has identified an
ECHO Lab switcher for purchase. This would allow better use of video effects,
supers, less video routing, and allow for use of camera tally systems. Overall,
with the acquisition of this switcher, WCA T volunteers will be able to use a much
more "user friendly" video production environment. However, this particular unit
carries a $13,000.00 price tag and will probably have to wait until the franchise is
negotiated.
Partnerships
WCA T is in the early stages of forging partnerships with Senior Estates and the
School District. Through there is representation on the board from these two
segments of the community, it is hoped that these relationships will continue to
build.
Presently we are developing relationships with Woodburn Parks and Recreation,
Woodburn Together, PUCN and Oregon-OSHA.
There are plans to seek out other community organizations, including the City of
Woodburn, to expand our presence in the community. WCA T will be holding a
facilitated community stakeholders meeting in January of 2000. It is hoped that
invited community leaders and organizations will attend and help focus and
define what the community wants and expects of its public acce~s center. It is
hoped that WCA T will become better known as a resource for the community.
One of the first objectives of WCA T' s Production/Outreach Coordinator is to
develop relationships with community stakeholders.
~
7
Production Activities
'1(1~ e~4IUI"t#Ut~?leuu 7~ ?l1t~t ;e~
.
tiC
WCA T Local productions continue to be produced. "Heaven Help Us", an
inspirational show for women, continues to produce monthly offerings being
produced in the field and the studio.
Woodburn City Council continues to occupy WCAT's Monday evening time slot
airing live and then replayed during the following week. With the installation of
the Council Studio by the City of Woodburn, WCAT has expanded government
coverage using multiple cameras. WCA T broadcasts 2 planning commission
meetings a month as well as Parks and Recreation Board meetings.
WCA T has also begun to broadcast Woodburn Fire District Board of Director's
meetings. The tape delayed presentation airs the following Tuesday and then
again two weeks later. This is at the request of the Fire District who wish to limit
its showings.
WCA T producers have also produced a live fireworks show, Centennial Park
Dedication, Memorial Day Ceremony at Belle Passi, various school presentations,
and Woodburn Parks and Recreation dance programs during the past year. Other
productions included senior citizen trips, Fiesta, Hubbard Y2K , Hubbard Parade
and celebration, Summer Music in the Park, Woodburn First Citizen Awards
Dessert, and various workshops and lectures held at the Library and City Council
Chambers.
"Se Si Pedas", a health and information show for the Hispanic Community has
begun production again. The producers of this program have taken the required
training and are attempting to put together a production crew for the show.
"Let's Communicate", a show hosted by Dick Jennings and Kathy Figley may
reappear in the future. WCA T has secured a producer for the show and is waiting
for the go-ahead by the show's on-air hosts to resume production.
Starting in Mid-October WCA T began to carry the ARTS network for four hours
a day. The satellite programming, courtesy of DirectLink, will complement
WCA T' s other programming and give local viewers another reason to view the
channel.
8
1fI~ ~IHMUIttt*' /leu.u 7~tM, /I~ 'Rejwtt
.
4C
On average, the WCA T studio logs 40 hours of use per month, producing 6-10
hours of productions. To demonstrate an example: If citizens used commercial
studios for their projects, the cost would be $250.00 per hour. Looking at the
number of WCAT hours, 40 hours x $250.00 =$10,000 or $120,000 a year is
being contributed to the community.
Training Activities
Three workshops a month have been held this past year. The workshops (21 hours
total) cover Orientation to Public Access Television, Field Production, Studio
Production, Producing, Directing, and Video Editing. In all 15 citizens have
attended various WCA T classes. To serve on production crews or produce
programs, citizens are required to attend classes in the topic area they wish to
participate in. All WCA T volunteers are encouraged to attend all the classes, but
it is not required.
Hours of Programming
Programming at WCA T is increasing due to a partnership we have developed
with Capital Community Television (CCTV) in Salem. WCA T receives "Marion
County Commissioners", "Salem Week in Review", "Music From Oregon" and
other misc. programming from CCTV producers.
In addition, WCA T airs evangelist Luis Palo, "On Main Street", and programs
from the State of Oregon on education and business.
An average week of programming consists of 30 hours with the majority of
programming occuning between 7 AM noon and 10 PM. Many of the shows are
repeated 2 to 3 times during the week with some airing everyday during their run.
Currently, WCA T uses weekly dub tapes that have been edited together to form a
block of programming. This allows for the insertion of public access
announcements and station IDs.
WCA T -5 has begun to air its logo. "WCA T" (pronounced "Wah-Kat") began to
appear in September of this year and continues to appear as shows and time allow.
The logo is used on the air, WCA T stationary, and appears on the studio sign.
rll'
1fI~ ~1UttI Aeau. 7~~ AItIU(4{. iee/UH-t
.
4C
9
Programming/Outreach Coordinator
Judy Grace has been hired to serve as the organization's Programming &
Outreach Coordinator. She started June of 1999 and replaces Phillip Blair who
left WCAT in April.
Funding for a half-time position comes from the franchise agreement's stipulation
for up to 15 hours a week of staff time by DirectLink. In addition, Ms. Grace
works additional hours under the City of Woodburn's contract with WCAT to
supply personnel for coverage of City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks
and Recreation Board.
Ms. Grace has a background in Access Television from centers in the Portland
area. Her primary duties include programming the station, volunteer coordination
and community outreach. She also supervises school-to-work students. The
Board President supervises her activities.
The Future
The organization hopes that the organization can increase the number of active
volunteers, expand its recognition into to the community, develop partnerships
and begin to find alternative funding sources.
The Board is keenly aware that franchise negotiations are just around the comer
and will begin to develop an "agenda" for the organization.
Woodburn Community Access Television's Board of Directors will continue to
examine and adjust its business plan. Based on that plan and the planned
stakeholder meeting in January, the organization will have a clear direction to
focus its resources.
Presently, objectives for 1999-2000 include:
1) Developing an on-going plan to keep WCA T visible in the community
and to become known to local businesses, organizations and
governmental units.
2) Keep a dialogue open between WCAT and the School District
developing a relationship that is beneficial to WCAT and the District's
students.
3) Cover community events to the best of the organization's ability.
4) Continue to develop fundraising through grants and other sources.
5) Work to increase volunteer involvement and retention through
volunteer appreciation events, expanded training opportunities and
keeping consistent office hours where expert help for projects is
available.
The WCA T Board of Directors will continue to move WCA T forward and in a direction
that will benefit the Woodburn Community as a whole.
4U
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street . Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TDD (503) 982-7433 · FAX (503) 982-5244
PROCLAMA TION OF APPRECIATION
WHEREAS, Woodburn's park system is a part of a seamless network of Federal, State,
County and City parks and recreation facilities that serve the people of Oregon~ and
WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn recognizes that quality park facilities and recreation
programs are a necessity in keeping our community happy, healthy and safe; and
WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn is committed to developing and maintaining parks and
recreation programs that enhance the environment and contribute to economic vitality; and
WHEREAS, the programs and facilities the City of Woodburn organizes and operates
provide positive and cost efficient alternatives to deviant behavior, gang participation, illegal drug
use, crime, violence and other perceived inappropriate activities that threaten a healthy
community; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon State Legislature recognized the need for additional funding and
supported the Local Park Grant Program during the 1999 Legislative Session by budgeting $5
million in the Oregon Park & Recreation Department budget for Fiscal Year 1999-01 to support
local government's efforts to improve recreation facilities.
THEREFORE, LET IT HEREBY BE KNOWN that the City of Woodburn extends
sincere thanks and appreciation to all members of the Oregon State Legislature for their vision
and support in establishing the Local Park Grant Program.
Approved by the Woodburn City Council on the 22nd day of November, 1999.
Richard Jennings, Mayor
City of Woodburn
': I
I',
,
f
1,I}l
,~O\
1,"',1
\} I \''''
"
'J 4C ~,( i;/ ~~ \
\
,
'.
\( \' ',')1 " j
" .
J\)' ,. " 11\
I'
"'/1 .I'\'l'"
. )/, t )~ \ "",)
\, ~\, ,.'
'T!'
1r
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 8,1999.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Council President Figley
presiding.
0010 ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Jennings
Bjelland
Chadwick
Figley
Kilmurray
Pugh
Sifuentez
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director
Tiwari, Community Development Director Goeckritz, Park & Recreation Director
Westrick, Police Chief Null, Finance Director Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman,
Management Analyst Smith, City Recorder Tennant
0038 ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Public Hearings before the City Council on November 22, 1999, 7:00p.m.:
1. Proposed development of Boones Ferry Place Retirement Center;
2. Park & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update (continuation of hearing);
3. Proposed annexation, zone map amendment, subdivision, and variance of property
located on the north side of Aztec Drive east of Highway 99E; and
4. Proposed subdivision and variance of property located near the intersection of Luba
Street and Parr Road (Oakwood Subdivision).
B) Council Retreatfor review of Council Visions and Goals: Council President Figley
stated that two Councilors would be unable to attend the session tentatively set for
November 20th, therefore, she suggested that the retreat be rescheduled in for a Saturday
session in January 2000. It was the consensus of the Council that the meeting be
rescheduled as suggested.
C) Closure of City offices: The Public Library and City Hall will be closed on Thursday,
November 11, 1999, in observance of Veteran's Day.
D) Re-opening of the Aquatic Center: The Aquatic Center has been closed since
November 1, 1999 for its annual two week maintenance period and it will re-open for
public use on Monday, November 15th.
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
8A.
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
0100 RECYCLING AWARENESS WEEK: NOVEMBER 8-15. 1999.
Council President Figley declared the week of November 8 - 15, 1999 as Recycling
Awareness Week in the City and she encouraged all citizens to continue with their
recycling efforts to achieve the State's 50% recovery goal.
0131 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Doug Templeton, Chamber Board member, provided the following information to the
Council:
1) Business After Hours will be held on November 11th, 4:30 pm - 6:00 pm, at the
Woodburn Art Gallery.
2) the Chamber and Kiwanis are discussing their plans for this year's Christmas Lighting
contest and they are interested in obtaining comments from other groups on their plans
for the holiday season. Entry forms for the Christmas Lighting contest are available at the
Chamber office and Brown Insurance.
3) the Chamber Board of Directors held their annual planning retreat at the Oregon
Gardens last week and plans are being developed for calendar year 2000. The Chamber
will be making some organizational changes that will benefit the Chamber operations.
4) the Chamber Auction went very well this year and preliminary figures show an
increase in auction sales. He thanked both the contributors and attendees for their
support.
0194 LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER.
Council President Figley stated that Terry Will has resigned from the Planning
Commission effective immediately and she thanked him for his volunteer service to the
community as a member of the Commission.
0203 CONSENT AGENDA.
A) Approval of Council minutes of October 11, 1999 regular meeting and November 25,
1999 workshop and meeting minutes;
B) Acceptance of Planning Commission minutes of October 14, 1999;
C) Acceptance of Recreation and Park Board minutes of October 12, 1999;
D) Acceptance of Museum Board minutes of October 13, 1999; -
E) Acceptance of Human Rights Commission minutes of September 9,1999;
F) Receipt of Audit of Motel Operators;
G) Receipt of Water System Consumer Confidence Report;
H) Approval of claims for the month of October 1999; and
I) Receipt of the Building Activity Report for October 1999.
PUGHlKILMURRA Y.... Accept and approve items A through I as listed in the consent
agenda.
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
Councilor Kilmurray stated that the Council minutes as listed on agenda item A should
read October 25, 1999 rather than November 25, 1999.
The motion passed unanimously.
0250 PUBLIC HEARING: RECREATION AND PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
CHARGES.
Council President Figley declared the public hearing open at 7: 11 p.m..
There were no declarations made by the Council relating to this issue.
Don Ganer, SDC Project Consultant, provided an overview on system development
charges which were authorized by the Oregon SDC Act in 1989 and amended in 1993.
The Act requires the adoption of a methodology report by the Council before fees can be
implemented. He briefly reviewed the differences between reimbursement fees and
improvement fees, how court cases have had an influence on how SDC's are developed,
the impacts of state wide ballot measures, and identifying revenue sources that are
considered as growth related.
Mr. Ganer proceeded to talk specifically on the Parks & Recreation system development
charges which were originally adopted in 1991 and before the completion of the 1999
Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update. The current methodology is standards
driven based on typical costs required by Parks & Recreation to maintain the existing
level of service standard in effect at that time. The report established a maximum
allowable fee and, following the required hearing, the Council adopted rates which were
32% of the maximum with a phase-in adjustment over several years to the current level of
57.75% (or $483 for each single family residential unit). He stated that the updated report
considers not only the residential impact but the non-residential impact. It is also a
project driven report which is based on needs identified in the Parks & Recreation
Comprehensive Plan update. It was noted that for the non-residential impact, the report
proposes a system development charge of $5.00 per employee. The report also
recommends Council adoption of system d,evelopment charges at 100% of the maximum
allowable charges.
Mr. Ganer also explained the method used to arrive at the maximum allowable charge per
dwelling unit that takes into account a credit for an estimated bond levy repayment based
on a projected $2.5 million bond issue in the future.
Councilor Bjelland questioned (1) the ratio of multi-family persons per household versus
single family homes and (2) credit for manufactured housing in relation to single family
unit.
Mr. Ganer stated that the number of persons per unit was obtained from the 1990 census
data and that data needs to be used until the next census data is published. The
manufactured housing only applies to mobile home parks. Manufactured homes placed
on residential lots are charged the same as a stick-built homes. The existing census data
for Woodburn has an average of 2.7 persons per single family dwelling, 2.95 person per
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
multi-family unit, and 1.93 persons per mobile home park. He also stated that some local
governments do adopt only one fee for all units using an average of persons per dwelling
unit, however, this method is not considered to be as accurate. He also stated that the
credits are based on an average value of each unit and he reminded the Council that
manufactured housing does take depreciation into account when located in a mobile home
park.
0991 Mick DeSantis, 973 McLaughlin, stated that the comments he would be making during
this hearing are general in nature and would also apply to the Traffic Impact Fee hearing
which will follow this hearing. He expressed his concern about the amount of dollars
involved if the charges are raised to the maximum allowable amounts as proposed since
Woodburn has already been considerably higher than other communities in the amount of
fees charged. He reminded the Council that when a new home is built, it gauges the price
of the older homes in our community. He also suggested that a fee be charged when an
older home is sold that did not pay system development charges when it was built. He
does not have a problem with charging higher fees for the new homes provided that the
older homes also pay their share.
Eric Moyer, representing the Marion-Polk Building Association, stated that his comments
would also apply to both hearings. He stated that the idea of SDC's being levied on
growth or levied on developers is really misleading since those dollars are paid by people
and the majority of which are people who are buying a new house that are already live in
the same community. He stated that they had not surveyed Woodburn, however, they did
survey Salem and found that 80% of those who purchased a new home already lived in
Salem. He suggested that most of the people buying in Woodburn are not coming from
outside of Woodburn. He also reminded the Council that the cost for fees are added to
the cost of the home which, in turn, requires higher mortgage payments and higher
incomes in order to qualify for the mortgage loan. He stated that Oregon is lower than the
national average for home ownership with only 61 % versus 67%. He also reminded the
Council that there are other solutions to funding improvements rather than increasing
system development charges. He encouraged the Council to consider the effects of higher
home prices that will be paid by homeowners in the community.
Councilor Pugh requested clarification from Mr. DeSantis on his comments regarding the
cost of new homes influencing the value of the existing homes.
Mick DeSantis stated that the price of a used home will run with a new home. The cost
of a new home is dictated by the cost of materials, fees, and labor. He also objected to a
quote in the newspaper made by Council President Figley that indicated that
implementation of the fees will do away with low income housing and get a higher
quality of housing. He stated that the City will end up with higher price, lower quality
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
homes since dollars dictate the end product so that individuals can purchase homes within
their price range.
Penny Tischendorf, 920 Hermanson, questioned if system development charges would be
charged in addition to the proposed Park & Recreation Comprehensive Plan requirement
that every new subdivision of 4 or more units would provide their own park. She felt that
the Comprehensive Plan should also be addressed as part of this process since the
requirements to be placed upon developers coupled with this SDC proposal seems to be
exceSSive.
1566 Don Ganer stated that the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan update does have an
option for mini-parks in areas that are underserved or not served by neighborhood parks.
SDC funding would be available for neighborhood parks, community parks, and
municipal parks whereas maintenance of mini-parks would be the responsibility of a
Homeowner's Association. In those cases in which neighborhood parks (3+ acres) are
acquired from a developer, credit against the SDC's would be given for the value ofthe
land.
Director Westrick also stated that mini-parks, tot lots, and playgrounds are not full service
parks compared to a full-service neighborhood park which would serve a V2 mile radius.
Council President Figley reminded the public that the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive
Plan Update public hearing will be held at the next regular Council meeting (November
22nd) and comments on the plan made at this meeting should be reiterated at that hearing.
The public hearing was declared closed at 7:57 p.m..
Councilor Pugh referred to comments made by Mr. DeSantis and Mr. Moyer in that (1)
demand for a home is the driving force on price whether it is new or an existing home and
(2) the additional qualifying income of potential home buyers to pay for the additional
fees is substantially less than the $100 quoted in Mr. Moyer's comments. He also
reminded the public that the Councilors were elected by the public to protect their
interests in their property and not to put the public in jeopardy from a standpoint of poor
financial planning and policy. By not charging the full fair share amount for the
necessary infrastructure, the Council is subsidizing and thereby hurting the property
owner.
Councilor Kilmurray expressed her opinion that the parks fees are low and infrastructure
needs to be in place to support ongoing parks for the children of our community.
Additionally, she feels that Woodburn is growing and that the 80% statistic is not realistic
for Woodburn since there are a lot of people moving to our community from the outside.
Councilor Bjelland stated that he had distributed a May 1999 survey of building fees
charged by communities in the State of Oregon for multi-family developments and he
referred to park fees charged by other communities in Marion County. The survey shows
that Woodburn's fees are low in comparison to many of these other communities.
Don Ganer stated that Salem has recently increased their parks fees from the amount
shown on the survey to $2,275 for a single family home.
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
Councilor Sifuentez expressed her opinion that it is time to do something about the parks
and increasing the fees to the maximum allowable is one method of raising revenue for
this purpose.
Councilor Chadwick also expressed her opinion that the City needs to take care of the
needs of the children. She also disagreed with the comments of Mr. Moyer regarding the
internal movement of homeowners since the majority of Senior Estates homeowners are
from out-of-town.
Councilor Figley stated that she looks at SDC's as a fee on impact and people who do live
here do have an impact on facilities, however, growth requires facility expansion. When
SDC's for parks and traffic impact were originally adopted by the Council, the City was
in a "no growth" era and a percentage amount less than the 100% allowable was adopted
in order to try and encourage some continued growth within the City. However, times
have changed and there is now a far greater need to charge the full allowable amount.
2113 KILMURRA Y /PUGH... direct staff to prepare necessary ordinance and resolution
revising the methodology and rates for Recreation and Parks system development
charges. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
It was noted that there were no modifications to the methodology report presented at this
hearing.
2155 PUBLIC HEARING - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES.
Council President Figley declared the public hearing open at 8:08 p.m.
There were no declarations made by the Council on this issue.
Don Ganer, project consultant, stated that the current traffic impact fees (TIP's) were
adopted in 1993 before the completion of the 1996 Transportation System Plan. The
adopted rates began at 25% of the maximum allowable and increased annually to the
current rate of 30% of the maximum allowable. The current methodology report is a
standards driven based on typical costs to build 1 mile of road whereas the updated report
is multi-modal identifying motor vehicle use, pedestrianlbicycle use, and transit use. The
updated report is projects driven and the report includes numerous charts listing system
development charge eligible projects along with a percentage of capacity that could be
charged based on estimated use whether it be motor vehicle, pedestrianlbicycle, or transit.
He also briefly reviewed survey information on the total of system development charges
for Woodburn as it currently is versus the proposed levels and how they relate to total
fees imposed by other local communities in our area.
Recorder Tennant stated that a letter had been received from Barbara Lucas in support of
levying the 100% maximum allowable system development charge for transportation.
For the record, Council President Figley stated that the comments made by the opponents
during the Parks & Recreation system development charge public hearing are
incorporated into this hearing.
The public hearing was declared closed at 8: 19 p.m..
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
Councilor Pugh reminded the public that the traffic impact fees will not take care of
Woodburn's transportation needs and it will take the cooperation of the federal, state, and
county governments in order to provide enough revenue sources to improve the traffic
problems in the 1-5 interchange area and Highway 214. In his opinion, development must
contribute towards the cost of making capacity improvements.
Councilor Kilmurray stated that the proposed traffic impact fees are higher than
Silverton's, however, Woodburn does funnel people to Silverton and Molalla and it is
necessary to look at all alternatives to make sure that traffic is moved in all directions in a
thoughtful pattern.
Councilor Bjelland stated that this issue is of more concern since it is a significant
increase over what the City has historically charged for traffic impact fees. However, the
City is faced with significant and serious traffic problems which need to be addressed in
the future. He stated that the Marion County Growth Management Task Force had
received input from citizens of Marion County as to the perceived problems existing in
Marion County and where the County's priorities should be in addressing those problems.
The #2 problem out of 29 problems listed was that growth must pay its way and the
citizens of Marion County do not want to subsidize growth. He feels that it is incumbent
upon the Council that they listen to what the respondents were saying since numerous
responses from Woodburn residents listed traffic as a major problem that needs to be
addressed before more growth is allowed. In his opinion, even though it is a significant
increase, he feels that the increase is justified and the City has an obligation to the
Woodburn citizens to address this traffic situation with growth paying its fair share as one
means of a revenue source and a future bond issue as another alternative.
Councilor Sifuentez stated that statistics show that the City needs to seriously consider
increasing the traffic impact fees.
Councilor Chadwick stated that traffic is a major problem which will only get worse as
the City grows.
Councilor Pugh reminded the public that the traffic impact fees will only pay towards a
part of a large traffic project. For example, the possible widening of Hwy. 214 from 1-5
to Park Avenue will cost almost $19.5 million and the reconstruction ofthe 1-5
interchange will cost almost the same amount of money. It will be necessary to look at
other revenue sources in order to get these projects accomplished. .
Council President Figley agreed with the comments made by Councilor Bjelland and she
reiterated that, in her opinion, growth should pay their fair share of the impact.
PUGHlKILMURRA Y ... direct staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the revised
traffic impact fee methodology and, following that, a resolution which will establish
Council directed revised traffic impact fee rates. On roll call vote, the motion passed
unanimously.
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
3000 COUNCIL BILL 2000 . RESOLUTION EST ABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER.
Council Bill 2000 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. Recorder Tennant read the
bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for
final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Council President Figley declared Council
Bill 2000 duly passed.
Tape 2
0001 COUNCIL BILL 2001 . RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EXCHANGE
AGREEMENT WITH THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2001. The bill was read by title only since
there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill
passed unanimously. Council President Figley declared Council Bill 2001 duly passed.
0024 COUNCIL BILL 2002 . RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
ON ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
AZTEC DRIVE.
Council Bill 2002 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The bill was read by title only
since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the
bill passed unanimously. Council Bill 2002 was declared duly passed by Council
President Figley.
0047 COUNCIL BILL 2003 . RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A "COPS IN THE
SCHOOLS" GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
Council Bill 2003 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. Recorder Tennant read the
bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Kilmurray stated that this is a controversial issue within our community,
however, the Council needs to make a decision and she is in support of the grant program
to help protect and educate the youth of our community. Councilors Pugh and Figley
supported the comments made by Councilor Kilmurray.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Coul!-cil President Figley
declared Council Bill 2003 duly passed.
0090 COUNCIL BILL 2004. ORDINANCE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 63
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BOONES FERRY RD.. AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. GRANTING
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
ALLOWING A VARIANCE. AND IMPOSING CERTAIN CONDITIONS
(BOONES CROSSING DEVELOPMENT).
Administrator Brown stated that the City did receive today, by fax, written
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
communication from the developer and project manager in support of the findings and
conditions within the proposed ordinance.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2004.
Administrator Brown stated that there is a typographical error in the title of the bill,
second line, and it should read "...east side of Boones Ferry Rd..." rather than "...west
side..".The two readings of the bill were read by title only since there were no objections
from the Council.
Councilor Pugh expressed his support of this project now that the concerns relating to
Brown Street and other traffic issues have been resolved and he wished the developers
well with their project.
Councilor Bjelland questioned if the staff was comfortable with the findings before any
action is taken by the Council since this has been a very long and involved process.
Administrator Brown stated that staff is recommending that the Council take action at this
meeting on this issue.
Councilor President Figley stated that she had reviewed the findings and her concerns
have been addressed to her satisfaction.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Council President Figley
declared Council Bill 2004 duly passed with the emergency clause.
0233 AUTHORIZATION OF LETTER TO CHARLES SAUV AIN RE:
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK LOW LEVEL CONTAMINATION OF
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Public Works Manager Rohman stated that there was a underground tank that leaked into
the surrounding soil and under city right-of-way at 689 N Front Street (formerly Sauvain
Motor Company). The soil around the tank was removed, however, small levels of
contamination were found under the building and within the public right-of-way. The
level of contamination is a small fraction of the level necessary to require clean-up.
Therefore, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) would like to close this case
and they have sent a letter to the property owner requesting that he provide them with a
letter from the City which would allow the small amount of contamination to remain
underneath the right-of-way. In the event the contamination does need to be cleaned up,
the responsibility for the clean-up remains with the property owner aIid it is not the
responsibility of the City.
Some discussion was held regarding the contents of the letter and the assurance that the
City would not be responsible for any clean-up costs in the future if the contamination
level raises to a level which would require clean-up. It was also suggested that the letter
or some type of environmental lien be recorded with the County as a protection to the
City from any future clean-up costs.
Attorney Shields stated that a new state statute is now in effect which restricts what can
be recorded with the County Clerk. He will look into this issue to see if any recording
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
'IT"
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
can be done as suggested by the County.
Following the discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to authorize the
Administrator to sign the letter addressed to Charles Sauvain which authorizes the
contamination to remain under the public right-of-way as long as it is below the levels
established by DEQ.
0492 ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT COVERING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
JANSEN WAY SUBDIVISION.
Staff recommended the acceptance of an easement from H. Marion Adams and Claire L.
Adams, Trustees, for a permanent utility easement and a temporary construction easement
relating to the installation of the new gravity sewer line.
BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ.... the easement be accepted as presented. The motion
passed unanimously.
0503 BID NO. 20-07: CONTRACT A WARD FOR EAST HARDCASTLE SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION.
Bids for a 6' wide sidewalk on the south side of E. Hardcastle from the existing sidewalk
near Mall 99 to Heritage Avenue were received from the following contractors:
D & D Paving Do., dba: Axis Curb Co., $45,420.65; and Pacific Coast Construction, Inc.,
$46,768.90. Staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid which was below the
engineer's estimate of $49,360.00.
KILMURRAYIPUGH... award the construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder, D & D Paving db a: Axis Curb Co., for the East Hardcastle Sidewalk improvement
in the amount of $45,420.65. The motion passed unanimously.
0530 INSTALLATION OF "NO PARKING" SIGNS ON ARNEY ROAD AND ROBIN
A VENUE.
Staff recommended the installation of the "No Parking" signs on the State right-of-way
portion of Arney Road and on the City portion of these streets which are located near the
factory outlet retail center and behind Miles Chevrolet.
KILMURRA Y ISIFUENTEZ... approve the installation of the "No Parking" signs on
Arney Road and Robin Avenue. The motion passed unanimously. .
0570 REOUEST FOR SOUND AMPLIFICATION PERMIT - WOODBURN
COMPANY STORES.
Staff recommended approval of the request for sound amplification permit submitted by
Woodburn Company Stores to allow live musical entertainment on November 20, 1999,
in conjunction with their tree lighting ceremony.
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
-
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
KILMURRA Y ISIFUENTEZ... approve a sound amplification permit for Woodburn
Company Stores on Saturday, November 20, 1999, from 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm. The
motion passed unanimously.
0605 OLCC LICENSE UPGRADE AND BUSINESS NAME CHANGE TO OGA
MEMBERS COURSE.
KILMURRA YIPUGH... recommend to Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) to
grant a Dispenser Class A license to the Oregon Golf Association Members Course.
Councilor Bjelland expressed his concern that a lot of personal information on applicants,
such as social security numbers and dates of birth, are included in the staff report and he
suggested that this information be blacked out so that it is not disclosed to the public. He
stated that the report is relevant for the purpose of making a decision, however, personal
information does not need to be divulged unless it is necessary to make that information
public.
Administrator Brown stated that the information is provided as public information and is
included in the packet which is available for any person to review. Staff is willing to
black out the personal information in the report but he requested that Council direction be
given as to what information they would like to have blacked out.
Police Chief Null stated that he has no problem in blacking out the information, however,
as a public document, any person can have access to information if they pay for the copy
costs.
It was the consensus of the Council to black out the social security number and date of
birth.
The motion to recommend to OLeC the granting of the liquor license passed
unanimously.
0795 Preston Tack, 2197 Camilla Way, stated that he thought it was interesting that the subject
of system development charges and traffic impact fees take place in an environment in
which no system development charges can be added on behalf of the schools even though
new developments have a definite impact on the school system.
0832 SITE PLAN ACTIONS.
A) Site Plan Review #99-22 - Public Works Storage Facility, 300 Cleveland Street.
No action was taken by the Council on the Planning Director's administrative approval
for construction of a 288 sq. foot storage building.
0855 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
Administrator Brown expressed his thanks to Community Development Director
Goeckritz, Public Works Director Tiwari, and Attorney Shields for their hours of work to
tighten up the findings and conclusions in the Boones Crossing development approval
Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1 ~99
'Tr
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
and to protect the City's interest in the future. This issue has been a team effort in which
all management staff played a part during this lengthy process.
0890 MA YOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor Pugh expressed his disappointment in not seeing more of the public in
attendance at the Council meetings. Even though television does provide the public with
live broadcasting of the meetings, it does not take the place of an individual personally
appearing at the meetings to voice their opinions during this time of growth within the
City. He also criticized the newspaper for their lack of support and the need for accurate
reporting of the Councilors positions on issues since the public has a right to know.
Councilor Kilmurray suggested that the Council recognize City Attorney Shields for his
appointment as Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Government Law Section of
the Oregon State Bar.
Council President Figley stated that, during the 1999 Oregon State Bar Convention,
Attorney Shields was elected to serve as Secretary and he is an officer in progression to
eventually become Chair of this Committee. She congratulated him on his election to the
position.
Councilor Bjelland stated that his assignment to the Marion County Urban Growth
Management Task Force is very interesting and it addresses issues that are very important
to not only Woodburn but all of Marion County. He stated that this Task Force is looking
out both 25 and 50 years into the future. He recapped the rate of growth being projected
for Woodburn and Marion County in relation to the rest of Oregon. He also mentioned
that the numbers used by the Task Force indicate an average growth rate in Woodburn of
4.37% whereas the percentage used in the methodology for the Traffic Impact Fees and
by the City's Growth Management Task Force is 2.1 %.
Councilor Sifuentez disagreed with Councilor Pugh in that there are a lot of citizens
viewing the Council meetings and when a member of the public does have a problem,
they do communicate with their Councilors. She feels that the public does participate
when there is a real issue to address, otherwise, they watch the proceedings on the
television to keep abreast of what is going on the in community.
Council President Figley thanked the staff for their work on the Boones Crossing project,
and the systems development charge report. She also thanked the Council for the many
hours they spent on these two issues and feels that the public is well served by their
dedication to our community.
1308 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ... Council adjourn to executive session under the authority of
ORS 192.660 (l)(d), ORS 192.660(1)(e), ORS 192.660(l)(h), and ORS 192.660(1)(f).
The motion passed unanimously.
Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
'lr
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 8, 1999
TAPE
READING
The Council adjourned to executive session at 9: 15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:04 p.m..
1355 Council President Figley stated that no action was taken by the Council during executive
seSSIOn.
PUGHlKILMURRA Y... easement through Schultz property be accepted as presented.
The motion passed unanimously.
1380 ADJOURNMENT.
PUGHlSIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 8, 1999
lr
8A
Executive Session
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 8, 1999
DA TE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 8, 1999.
CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:20 p.m. with Council President Figley
presiding.
ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Jennings
Bjelland
Chadwick
Figley
Kilmurray
Pugh
Sifuentez
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Council President Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive
session is not to be discussed with the public.
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari (9:20
pm to 9:26 pm), City Recorder Tennant
The executive session was called under the following statutory authority:
1) ORS 192.660(1)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to
negotiate real property transactions;
2) ORS 192.660(1)(d) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry
on labor negotiations;
3) ORS 192.660(1)(h) to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body
with regard to current litigation; and
4) ORS 192.660(1)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.
ADJOURNMENT.
The executive session adjourned at 10:00 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Executive Session Minutes, August 9,,1999
(/)
8B
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
October 28, 1999
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. with
Chairperson Young presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Staff Present:
Young
Cox
Will
Lawson
Lima
Mill
Bandelow
Lonergan
Heer
P
P
A
A
P
A
P
P
P
Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director
Jim Mulder, Senior Planner
MINUTES
Commissioner Bandelow made reference to her statement found on page 5 of the October
14, 1999 Planning Commission minutes and clarified her comment should read "... at
something that amounts to a fortress."
Commissioner Lima referred to Commissioner Mill's comment located at the bottom of
page 5 and stated "communities" should be "community's."
Motion was made by Vice Chairperson Cox to approve the minutes of the October 14,
1999 Planning Commission with the noted corrections. Commissioner Lonergan seconded
the motion. Motion carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Zone Change 99-02. Site Plan Review 99-04 and Variance 99-11. amend the
zone map from Commercial fCO) to Commercial Retail fCR) and Variance from
the Woodburn Land Policies and Standards to reduce a reauired planter strip
adiacent to a RS zone. used car dealership on the s-curve on Highway 214.
Leo M. Reyne M. Hillyer. applicant.
Chairperson Young opened the public hearing.
Staff recommended this hearing be continued at the applicant's request.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 1 of 12
'If
8B
Commissioner Heer moved to continue the public hearing until the special meeting on
November 10, 1999. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion, which carried.
B. PUD 99-01. MP 99-05. proposed 228-unit development for single-family
residential on 33.2 acres. The Links @ Tukwila - Phase 1. Jimmy Bellomy.
applicant.
Chairperson Young opened the public hearing.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement.
Staff entered into the record Exhibit I The Links @ Tukwila Single Family PUD Woodburn,
Oregon, Exhibit II The Links @ Tukwila Development Review Application. He stated the
exhibits will go along with the Staff Report. He provided a presentation as reflected in the
Staff Report. Staff provided a history of the Stage I approval for the Tukwila development.
He reported Staff is hesitant to make a recommendation for approval of a "Gated
Community" because there is no policy in place to deal with private streets and gated
communities. Staff expressed reservations regarding maintenance agreements,
easements, fire department access and road connectivity.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired whether the applicant has vested rights to develop along
the same line of what was done before or are we starting with a clean slate?
Staff explained each one is a standalone development proposal.
Vice Chairperson Cox commented when the Outlet Store came before the Commission a
year or so ago, they were dealing with a situation where an outlet mall had previously been
approved with conditional zone changes granted. He stated the Commission was
basically told that it is not a question of whether or not you like an outlet mall there, it's a
question of whether or not they have brought this particular proposal within the scope of
what was previously approved conceptually.
Staff explained the concept is very similar to what was agreed to by the Planning
Commission in 1991. He added there are some new conditions in this proposal that they
might not have had in 1991 because of change in standards.
Staff proceeded with the presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. In summary, Staff
recommends approval of the PUD and minor partition with the recommended conditions
that it not be allowed as a private gated community and that the streets must be public
streets. Staff recommends approval of the proposal with these and ttJe other conditions
listed in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Heer informed the Commission she resides at Tukwila, Miller Farms
Subdivision. She reported she can give a very fair and unbias decision.
Vice Chairoerson Cox questioned how will the emergency only accesses will be handled
on an operational basis?
Staff replied there will be a gate with a "knox box" that only the fire department will be able
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999 .
Page 2 of 12
8B
to open. It would be a restricted access only for emergency vehicles.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked ifthis would be an access that would be there only until some
additional connectivity were to be developed, if ever, in the future phases?
Staff answered this access could go away if there were a second means of access
provided.
Vice Chairperson Cox also inquired if the applicant plans eventually to extend on out and
loop around as other phases come online?
Staff stated that is the applicant's intention.
Commissioner Heer questioned whether the City utilizes a formula when helping to decide
on new subdivisions as far as the number of entry level homes, middle of the road homes
and high end homes?
Staff replied they do not pick and chose. Normally the values of homes are reflected in the
type of environment and amenities that you provide for that development.
Commissioner Heer also asked what the rule is on notifying the property owners around
a proposed subdivision?
Staff explained with this particular proposal a public hearing notice is mailed to all property
owners within 250 feet. The applicant posts the property with the sign of the hearing and
the notice is published in the Woodburn Independent and Statesman Journal
newspapers.
Commissioner Heer inquired whether the golf course was notified of the public hearing?
Furthermore, she asked if there is a standard as far as the width of the road?
Staff responded the golf course is considered adjacent property owners. He reported the
proposal meets City standards to include thickness of asphalt, base, width, curb gutter and
sidewalks.
Commissioner Heer requested clarification in regards to the rules about only selling to
seniors?
Staff interjected, the applicant should address this issue.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if the overall project density within the normal density
standards that would be in the RS zone is the rationale for allowing small lots and setback
reductions?
Staff answered affirmatively.
Testimony by Applicant
Ivan Kramer. 2620 143rd PI. SE. Mill Creek. Washington reported he represents the
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999 \'
Page 3 of 12
'TI'
8B
developer ofthe project, United Properties. He introduced his team, Jimmy Belomy, W&H
Pacific, William Cox, Land Use Attorney and Randall Sabastian, Builder/Partner
Renaissance Homes. Mr. Kramer provided a brief history of his company. He stated their
demographic analysis indicate homes should be constructed for the move-down market
(empty-nesters, retired and semi-retired). Therefore, they should be providing homes with
features such as: main floor master bedrooms, maintenance free lawn care, surface
security and at the same time, provide an upscale home. Mr. Kramer remarked they are
proposing a gated community with private streets.
Commissioner Lima asked Mr. Kramer how many gated communities are in this area and
the Portland area?
Ivan Kramer responded he is not sure that there are any and suspects that there are none
in this area because City Staff has indicated that there are no standards for gated
communities. Mr. Kramer stated Mr. Sebastian would be able to inform Commissioner
Lima about the number of gated communities in the Portland area.
Commissioner Lonergan inquired who are the partners of United Properties?
Ivan Kramer answered the head office of the corporation is based in Vancouver, British
Columbia. He added they do their own financing and do not require financing from local
partners. However, they do feel very strongly that the people building the homes should
be local. Mr. Kramer stated this is where they have been able to attract Renaissance.
Jimmv Bellomy. W&H Pacific. 8405 SW Nimbus Ave.. Beaverton. OR 97008 reviewed
various illustrations and graphics. Mr. Bellomy explained the rationale forthe split between
Phase I and Phase II. He stated their civil engineering studies and reports had indicated
they could only service a certain majority of this property given existing public facilities from
the west. He explained Phase II will require an extension of the sanitary sewer through the
street that cuts the golf course and creek. Mr. Bellomy recapped the explanation of the
parcelization. He reported the streets meet all of the public standards and stated simply
because they are requesting a gated community they have had to disguise them as private.
Mr. Bellomy reported there will be development of a swimming pool and tennis court in the
future which will benefit the Tukwila Partner Development and their development. He also
made reference to several pages of the Staff Report. He clarified they are not proposing
attached homes at all at this time. Mr. Bellomy also clarified all homes will have double
car garages with a minimum of 18 foot wide driveway. He assured vision clearance will be
met for the City code policy currently in place for all sections. Additionally, Mr. Bellomy
mentioned they intend to come back at a later date with a signage pr9gram.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked if this project is otherwise approved, he would expect the
requirement of zero lot line versus attached wall-ta-wall and that the easement for
emergency access can only be abandoned with the consent of the City, part of the
conditions of approval and not something that the applicant can change their mind on later.
Jimmy Bellomy rectified his previous statement and stated he meant to say perhaps it
would go away at some point when the future street connections were made outside the
UGB perhaps the language can be crafted within the easement itself so the easement
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999 .
Page 4 of 12
8B
would be dissolved.
Commissioner Heer inquired who will be paying for the picnic areas and how long will it
take to get it built?
Jimmy Bellomy reported when Phase II is commenced, the roadways and park will be built
and paid for by the developer. He said future maintenance will be paid for by the
Homeowner's Association.
Commissioner Heer inquired if they will be building any pools? She pointed out the
Orchard Greens pool is part of the Homeowner's Association.
Jimmy Bellomv replied they will be partnering and contributing to the development of the
swimming pools by the Tukwila Partners. Mr. Bellomy assumed the Tukwila Partners have
presented that to Orchard Greens since those negotiations have been discussed with his
client, Ivan Kramer. He added the swimming pool, at this time, is not part ofthe application
and he was just trying to pass the information on.
Commissioner Heer stated she brought this up because as part of the zoning ordinance
they may waive the cost of outdoor recreation and she wanted to make sure they do have
outdoor recreation. She asked if they are going to have any indoor recreation facilities
since they are going after the market of empty nesters/seniors?
Jimmy Bellomy responded they do not have any indoor facilities proposed at this time. He
requested Commissioner Heer hold this question because Bill Cox will address this issue
in his part of the presentation.
Commissioner Bandelow inquired whether the gate will only stop cars from entering their
development?
Jimmy Bellomy answered their intent is to stop cars only. It is not their intent at all to keep
out pedestrians.
Commissioner Lima asked what will the construction timetable be?
Jimmy Bellomv reported Phase I: within one year of approval anticipating Spring 2000
construction start. Phase II: within three years of development approval or Spring 2002.
Phase III: will require future development review and approval. Mr. Bellomy stated the
recreational area will be driven by the market.
Commissioner Lima questioned what would the difference in plans be if it is a gated or
non-gated community?
Jimmy Bellomy replied in what they are proposing the difference would be that there would
be no gate. Mr. Bellomy informed gates can be left open at a certain time, Le., 7am to
6pm. They can be opened for a few hours in the morning and closed again. He explained
there is a number of things that can be done regarding the gates and those operational
matters. Mr. Bellomy also commented the difference with a gated community is the streets
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 5 of 12
r
8B
would need to be private by the City code, although built to public standards. They would
then have to provide a blanket easement for those utilities and the connections to current
public utilities.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked we should make sure that whatever is going to be built
includes everything that is going to be necessary to make the first phase stand on its own
in case the subsequent phases never get built. He asked how will the City be sure that the
proposed park will be built if Phase /I does not go ahead?
Jimmy Bellomy stated he could not respond to this question and referred the question to
Bill Cox to be answered during his presentation.
Chairoerson Young asked whether they will have a temporary road where you can loop
around for garbage service, mail delivery etc.?
Jimmy Bellomy replied one option would be to continue the roadway and get some of the
basic infrastructure utility in and traveling on the gravel road as long as it meets some of
the fire standards or can carry the service vehicles; or providing the hammerhead type
turnaround on a temporary basis on both streets until Phase /I comes on line.
Commissioner Heer remarked her home sits about 20 feet from the golf course line. She
added her home gets hit three to four times a year. Commissioner Heer expressed her
concerns with the homes being so close to the golf course and how small the lots are.
Jimmy Bellomy informed they carried forward the setbacks and standards that were
previously approved in the original Tukwila PUD application. He added the lot size is
driven by the overall PUD density being proposed at 6.8 units per acre and having a limited
amount of property left.
Commissioner Heer asked Staff if Tukwila PUD , Miller Farms PUD and Orchard Greens
PUD are separate PUD's?
Staff replied each development is decided on its own merits.
Ivan Kramer clarified there is significant difference from the edge of the fairway to the
property line. He added it is designed to slow down golf balls. Mr. Kramer stated there is
no question this development is meant to be a higher density than what some of the first
developments have been. Their studies indicate that there isn't a strong enough market
to build $300,000 homes in this area. He added there is a much ~tronger market for
smaller homes which are dictated by smaller lots and therefore they can reduce the price.
They are trying to make it more affordable for more people.
Randy Sebastian. Renaissance Woodbridge Homes. 1672 Willamette Falls Dr.. West Linn.
OR remarked they want to keep the price down. He added the homes are of similar quality
to a $400,000 house. Mr. Sebastian reported he has built homes in three Street of
Dreams. He mentioned land is becoming more expensive and scarce. The Woodbridge
line of homes fit on as small as a 33-foot wide lot and as large as a 50-foot wide lot and
range from $198,000 up to $350,000. Mr. Sebastian further added the master bedrooms
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 6 of 12
8B
are on the main level. The homes have larger than normal kitchens, larger than normal
formal dinning rooms, great room and no formal living room. He stated these homes are
very successful and he sells about eight homes a month in the Portland development and
about four homes a month in the West Linn development. The Woodbridge housing line
has been featured in Builders Magazine and at a Builders Conference held in Providence,
Rhode Island. Mr. Sebastian pointed out three items that their target clients want:
security, maintenance free and amenities. He said the gates will be closed at night but
opened during the day and the sidewalks will be open 24 hours. The Homeowner's
Association will maintain the landscape, front and side yards. Homes will be painted every
7-10 years and gutters will be cleaned. All the amenities will be maintained, i.e., walking
trails, tennis court and swimming pool. He referred to various gated communities: 1991,
1995 and 1997 Street of Dreams, Portland area; Cascade Summit, West Linn, Oswego
Shores Estate, Lake Oswego, Stafford Hill Ranch, West Linn and Atherton Heights, Lake
Oswego. Mr. Sebastian informed the housing prices in this area will be around $200,000
more or less but the quality will be higher. The square footage will be in the 1,600 to 2,000
square foot range. In summary, Mr. Sebastian stated it is a partnership of the developer,
home builder and the City.
Commissioner Lima requested clarification as to the differences between a gated
community versus a non-gated community plan.
Randy Sebastian replied it is mostly the grand entry and restricting car traffic at night. He
added the value of the homes will be about 10% higher with the gated community.
Commissioner Bandelow referred to a development in Wilsonville and commented the plan
presentation for these types of homes can be beautiful.
Ivan Kramer reported they are making a significant dollar contribution to the Tukwila
Partners and that contribution will be made on the physical land closing of Phase I. They
will then start construction of the swimming pool and the tennis court.
Vice Chairoerson Cox remarked it does not seem to him that the applicant is promising the
City that a pool will be built there. He also pointed out he does not see this in the Staff's
recommended conditions of approval.
Robert Rayson. Stratford Gate Systems. 15988 SE Keller Rd.. Clackamas. OR provided
a presentation regarding gate systems. He reported his company manufactures the gate
system, operators and all controls for more than 20 years. He has installed more than 270
gate systems and 20 gated communities in the Portland Metro area and the Seattle area.
Mr. Rayson described the several areas of the system. The system would consist of a
lock box, silent listener and a battery backup. Mr. Rayson commented his company has
a very good record as far as safety. He added he has never had a problem with the
emergency access.
Commissioner Lima requested data that could prove a gated community can significantly
decrease crime and vandalism.
Robert Rayson responded he could not prove that. He commented people want and like
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 7 of 12
'IF
8B
gates. They are an attractive addition to any home or development and they cut down on
the traffic.
Bill Cox. Land Use Attorney. 0244 SW California S1.. Portland. OR 97219 told the
Commission the gate is a good amenity and it is an option that they want to add to their
product. He pointed out gate manufacturers do not say that the gates provide security but
that they provide a sense of confidence. Mr. Cox addressed the indoor/outdoor living area
issue and stated they meet and exceed the City standards. He commented the City
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances recognize the right to have private streets.
Mr. Cox requested to be allowed to put these streets to the City's standards, make them
private and let them work with the Staff to come up with the standards to govern this gate.
He added they are willing to have this condition imposed on them that says that this
agreement sunsets at a certain date, Le., five years down the road. The Commission will
then have an opportunity to see how it works and if they do not like it, it be removed with
the idea that the streets are going to be to City standards anyway. He added there was
a big portion of this development that was approved and not develop able to any density
until the road that goes outside the UGB and back over to the highway is approved.
Chairperson Young expressed his concerns with the extra added amounts of material that
will flow through Mill Creek. He inquired how will this problem be dealt with?
Bill Cox responded the street surface is the only thing that is private in their proposal.
There will be easements granted to the City for access of maintenance and repair of any
of the utilities. He added the pavement should last longer than City streets do because
there will not be much traffic on it. Mr. Cox stated there is a sinking fund established in the
CC&R's & Homeowner's Association that will allow for replacement of every type of product
in the development that has a life of more than 10 years. He also commented the street
will probably not have to be replaced for about 30 years.
Vice Chairperson Cox stated for the record, he is not related to Mr. Bill Cox. He asked Mr.
Cox if part of the deal would be that at the end of five years it is decided to revert back to
the public domain that it would be done without having to condemn it and at no cost to pay
for the improvements?
Bill Cox answered he thought this could be worked out.
Vice Chairoerson Cox asked if the Homeowner's Association could post no trespassing
signs if the sidewalks were private?
Bill Cox replied no. He explained they would provide public easements on each one of
those sidewalks. Their intention is that it be open to the public as far as access on the
sidewalks. Mr. Cox clarified the street would be totally closed during off hours. In
summary, Mr. Cox suggested the Commission favor the gated community in concept and
then allow them time to work up a plan for the gate and bring it back to the Commission
while they go forward with the private streets.
BREAK
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 8 of 12
8B
Testimony by ProDonents
None
Testimony bv ODDonents
Ward Hershberger. 2380 Miller Farm Road. Woodburn commented he lives in the Tukwila
area and would like to see development continue as it was originally started. He felt the
dense density will devalue the area. Mr. Ward said the golf course is not an open free
area. He asked the developer if they are planning for a swimming pool for their
development? Mr. Ward remarked the applicant should meet the same criteria that
everyone else has had to meet.
William Powers. 940 Tukwila Drive. Woodburn concurred with Mr. Hershberger. He stated
the lots that will go in along the golf course will devalue everything else that Tukwila stands
for, gracious living, large lots and homes. He scoffed at the comment made that the golf
course can be counted as open space. Mr. Powers said he is not opposed to development
but is appalled by some of the details of the project.
Jerry Weer. 2160 Countrv Club Terrace. Woodburn stated the side yards are nothing more
than the width of a sidewalk. He mentioned he is not opposed or in favor of the project but
feels the Commission needs to consider the effects this project will have on the community.
Nick DeSantis. 173 McLouahlin Dr.. Woodburn commented the applicant is providing a
smoke screen by implying the project is geared toward seniors when in reality it is geared
toward people of all ages. He stated we do not need to be putting homes on top of the
streets. Mr. DeSantis said the issue is not the "gated community" but the craming and
stacking of people.
Randy Crisell. 2370 Miller Farm Rd.. Woodburn expressed his concerns about the gate
and questioned why a gate is needed in Woodburn? He thought this was an open and
diverse community. Mr. Crisell said he has never had vandals or unruly people in his
neighborhood. He commented on the projects setback and stated he has had five broken
windows with a 20-foot setback.
Rebuttal
Bill Cox explained when the Tukwila development as a whole was approved, flexible
setbacks were allowed up to 5 feet as part of the master plan. Mr. Cox clarified they are
not proposing 5 feet they are saying that as a master plan that is an element of this
development that they can rely on.
Questions
Vice Chairperson Cox requested clarification regarding the initial conceptual approval for
700 dwelling units.
Staff recalls back in 1991 the 700 units represented what we anticipated based on what
the densities possibly could be based on our open space and overall acreage. He clarified
this does not mean that you have to reach 700 units.
Commissioner Bandelow expressed her concerns regarding public versus private streets.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 9 of 12
'l!"
8B
She inquired whether the Commission can approve a PUD with private streets if the City
has no criterion in place right now for private streets?
Staff replied only the City Council can make either public or private streets. The
Commission can only make recommendations. Staffs concerns in making this a private
street is the fact that we have no type of policy in place that describes how maintenance
is performed and who is responsible. If this policy were to be developed, it would have to
have approval of the City Council if they so wish to have private streets. Staff would be
uncomfortable with accepting private streets prior to creating any policies.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked Staffs mental state has nothing to do with whether or not
they have legal right to do this. He added it would have been nice if he had included in the
Staff Report that the Commission does not have the legal right to make this decision.
Staff responded the fact that there is nothing in place in regards to policy and maintenance
agreements with private streets was included in the Staff Report.
Bill Cox interjected it is contemplated in the City code that private streets are allowed.
They are proposing the standards be the same as public street standards. Mr. Cox further
added he does not know what is left to be questioned. He respectfully disagrees with the
Planning Director's position that it is not an already recognized entity in the city's codes.
Chairperson Young requested Staff clarify what the responsibility would be for repairs into
the system.
Staff answered this would have to be developed out of a maintenance agreement as to
what the responsibilities of the developer would be and what the City would be responsible
for. Staff relayed the Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council but it
is only the City Council that can make the final determination as to whether this should be
a public or private street.
Bill Cox addressed the density issue. He said in order to get close to the density that was
the concept at the time that the master plan was approved, you have to get to this issue
of the smaller lots or you cannot achieve it. Mr. Cox reported the density issue has been
settled at the time of adoption of the annexation and creation of this master plan.
Hearing Closed
Chairoerson Youna closed the public hearing.
Discussion
Vice Chairoerson Cox stated a gated community would be divisive and lead away from our
feeling of belonging to our community. He stated it is a question of whether we like the
feeling for the way our infrastructure and citizens live with each other.
Commissioner Lima commented we are paying dearly for what was approved many years
ago, i.e., 1-5 freeway interchange. He remarked he is not sure that Woodburn is ready for
a gated community. Commissioner Lima does not think the gate or private street is the
main concern but how many houses will go into that development.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999
Page 10 of 12
8B
Commissioner Heer expressed her concerns regarding the lack of diversity and not having
a variety of homes. She communicated her reservations about this development because
of the density and will detract from the concept of Tukwila. The developers use of the golf
course as part of their indoor and outdoor recreational facility. Commissioner Heer also
voiced her concerns that they are going to give money to the Tukwila Partners to build a
pool and tennis court when Tukwila Partners has promised the homeowners for seven
years that they will build that. She commented she would not approve a gated community
because it says that they are better than the rest of Woodburn and therefore we are going
to gate our community. Commissioner Heer remarked the developer is using the gated
community as a marketing ploy and not as a security issue.
Commissioner Lonergan commented he is familiar with the Renaissance development in
the Portland area. He added a gated community in this particular area of Woodburn would
be a divisive segment and he could not support that.
Commissioner Bandelow reported she too is familiar with the Renaissance development
as well as with some other high density developments. She expressed her concerns
regarding the density versus open space. Additionally, Commissioner Bandelow pointed
out Woodburn is making a very big effort to break down gates and mesh our community.
She requested further clarification as to what the Commission can do tonight.
Vice Chairoerson Cox agreed with Commissioner Bandelow. He hoped for some
clarification on what the Commission's authority is in regards to density on this project.
He asked to what extent have they acquired vested rights to go ahead and develop this
project at the original talked about density? What did we actually approve in the way of
density? What did the application and order say?
Commissioner Heer commented we must look at the whole picture and not just at Phase
I.
Commissioner Lonergan moved to continue to a special meeting to be held November 10,
1999 so that Staff can do some research for the Commission and answer concerns
regarding the density and public rights-of-way issues and the legality of the Commission
making a decision. Vice Chairoerson Cox seconded the motion. Motion carried. .
FINAL ORDER
A. Site Plan Review 99-14. Variance 99-07. Comorehensive Plan 99-02.
Annexation 99-02 and Zone Change 99-06. pro Dosed Alzheimer facility and
retirement center. 2523 and 2551 N. Boones Ferry Road. Boones Ferry Place.
Wallv Gutzler I Anthonv Kreitzberg. apolicant. .
Commissioner Heer moved to accept the Final Order from Staff to deny Site Plan Review
99-14, Variance 99-07, Comprehensive Plan 99-02 and Zone Change 99-06 and
recommend approval of Annexation 99-02. Vice Chairoerson Cox seconded the motion.
End of Tape.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999'
Page 11 of 12
IT"
8B
REPORTS
None
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Tape ended at this point.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded and carried.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 28, 1999'
Page 12 of 12
8C
WOODBURN WORLDS BERRY CENTER MUSEUM Regular Meeting 11/10/99
I CALL TO ORDER Chair, Nancy Kirksey opened thJmeeting at 1:05
p.m. in the vestibule of the Bungalow Theater. P~esent; Vance
Yoder, Bob Baynham, Dale Yuranek, Len Kelley, Hazel Smith~nd City
Mgr., John Brown, and Orrin Ostrom. A quorum was established.
II MINUTES October minutes and an outlinepf the City' propov.l.
were read. Baynham moved to accept them/seconded/passed.
III COMMUNICATIONS (1) A copy of Nancy's letterbf appreciation
to Don Peters who painted the red Museum sign on o~r building.
(2) Wm. Spurling of 20375 Highway 47, Yamhill, OR 97148 letter
interested in purchase or trade for our Linotype machine. (3)
Letter from PGE asking our service location phone number for
emergency "outages". (4) Nov 5th note from W. Chamber requesting
recent infromation about Museum.
IV TREASURE REPORT 9/25/99 Balance......... 3,546.82
10/14/99 Deposit........ 43.00
10/26/99 Balance........ 3,589.82
V NEW BUSINESS Ostrom moved to move "new business" .h..d of
"Unfinished Business". Motion seconded/passed.
Home Schoolers:
at the Bungalow
contributed $40.
Susan Buck and her 20 student~tudied Shake.pear
Theater TV/Screen on 11/4/99 for 4 hours. She
2 Yr. old Gift Shop articles: Smith asked for a $10 check to the
Woodburn Grange to sell them on Saturday De~ 4 at their Bazaar.
Kelley moyed tel give the balance "unsold" to the Hc.pe 8( Help
Center. Motion seconded by Ostrom/passed.
Linotype m~chinec Smith moved to reject Spurling's letter of
"purchase" or "trade" secondf:?d by Baynham/passed.
MI.\Se..\m Vol..mteer Appointment List: Baynham suggeste'd this should
be taken from W. Scarborough and done by the City.
continued on Page 2
(1M";;
8C
BERRY MUSEUM..... page 2... meeting 11/10/99
VI UNFINISHED BUSINESS
proposal off the table.
passed.
Vance Yoder moved to take the City's
Motion was seconded by Orrin Ostrom and
Len Kelley's paper of five points why we should have a Museum
independent from the City was read by the Secretary.
Discussion followed and the Chair asked for individual comments.
John Brown said the Mayor has requested the Museum be under the
staff of City Mgr. instead of the Parks ~ Rec Dept.
Nancy K. The City owns the two buildings, pays lights, water,
sewer, phone & supplies plus insurance.
Dale Yuranek: We have done all of the 5 points on Kelley's paper.
We want the best fashion to continue the Museum.
Orrin Ostrom: It is a carbon copy of Brown's proposal. Let some
one else do it.
Len Kelley:
Why have we not had a calender project this Yr?
All: Too late for calender/ no chairman/ costly.
Varfe Yoder: We need to have a "paid" person here.
Bob Bayham: The City has a little more to offer. We are getting
less ~ less volunteers.
Hazel Smith: The whole Museum needs upgrading and signs.
I
Len Kelley: I have\been working on the MI..lSel.lm and r\want thE~ best.
MCltion. Or r i n:Ost rQm mClved tel accept the Ci ty' sloroposal for future
management o~ the Museum/Theater. Motion was beconded and passed
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT: Baynham moved to adjourn/seconded/passed. 1:45.
Next meeting December 8 @ 1:00 pm
Secretary, Hazel Smith (Ed Kah~t will have by-pass surgery
11/11/99 @ St. Vincent's Hospital in Portland)
~
'...
9A
PARKS AND RECREATION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
Prepared by
David J. Reed, Ph.D.
and Don Ganer
October 1999
15418 NW White Fox Dr. · Beaverton, Oregon 97006 · (503) 690-8981
Don
Ganer &
Associates
'IT
EXECUTIVESU~ARY
9A
In January 1997, the City of Woodburn hired Don Ganer & Associates, working in
collaboration with David Reed, Ph.D., to update the Gty's Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan. The Woodburn Comprehensive Plan -- Woodburn 2014, along
with the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines (1995), provide the primary
framework for this Plan update. The planning service area includes both the current
City limits and unincorporated lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. The
planning time horizon is 1999 - 2020.
The City currently owns 87.02 acres of land designated as parks and recreation facilities,
and the Woodburn School District has 114.8 acres of public school facilities. For the
most part, all school campuses are large enough to provide community recreation
facilities such as sports fields and playgrounds, and are either currently used for or
have the potential for use as neighborhood/ school park facilities.
This Plan is designed to meet population and employment needs based on the
application of specific Level of Service (LOS) Standards, and to address other needs
identified by the community. Facility types and minimum standards for park size,
service area, and acreage per population/ employment have been developed to insure
that residents and employees are adequately served by parks and recreation facilities.
The LOS Standards were developed using recently updated guidelines of the National
Recreation and Parks Association (NRP A) in it publication Parks, Recreation, Open Space
and Greenway Guidelines (1996). Unlike previous NRPA publications which provided
specific LOS Standards for facilities (i.e., a Neighborhood Parks LOS Standard of 5.0
acres per 1,000 persons, etc.), the current NRP A Guidelines suggest the development and
adoption of local LOS Standards for the specific types of facilities important to the local
community, and emphasize that Levels of Service should: 1) be practicable and
achievable, 2) provide for an equitable allocation of park and recreation resources
throughout the community, and 3) reflect the real time demand of citizens. The current
NRP A Guidelines also introduced the classification "School-Park", recognizing that
public school facilities are routinely used for for parks and recreation activities.
A Capital Improvements Plan which identifies $10,815,500 in projects designed to repair
existing facilities and provide new facilities to meet LOS Standards for population and
employment growth through the year 2020 is included as an appendix to the Plan.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
Executive Summary
'IT"
TABLE OF CONTENTS 9A
~
1. INTRODUCTION AND
PLANNING FRAMEWORK 1
1.1 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 1
1.2 Transportation and Stormwater Plans 3
1.3 SCORP 4
1.4 Community Development and Image 5
2. COMMUNITY PROFILE 6
2.1 Location and Physical Setting 6
2.2 Population and Demographics 6
2.3 Existing Land Use and Growth 7
3. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND
RECREATION RESOURCES 9
3.1 Greenways and Open Space 9
3.2 Public Parks and Recreation Facilities 10
3.3 Public Schools 11
3.4 Sports and Recreation Programs 11
3.5 Privately-owned Facilities 11
3.6 Other Cultural Resources 12
4. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 14
4.1 Facilities Level of Service 14
4.2 Needs Assessment Survey 15
4.3 Physical Inspection of Facilities 16
5. PARKS AND RECREATION
SYSTEM FRAMEWORK PLAN 20
5.1 Findings, Issues, and Implications 20
5.2 Goals and Policies 24
5.3 Facility Types and Standards 25
5.4 Facility Recommendations 26
5.5 Maintenance Recommendations 36
6. FUNDING 38
6.1 System Development Charges (SDC's) 38
6.2 General Obligation Bonds (G.O. Bonds) 38
6.3 Revenue Bonds/ Certificates of Participation 38
6.4 Special Assessment/Local Improvement Districts 39
6.5 General Fund Revenues 39
6.6 Local Option Levies for Capital Improvements 39
6.7 Local Option Levies for Operations 39
6.8 User Fees and Rents 40
6.9 Federal/ State / Other Grants 40
6.10 Sponsorships I Partnerships I Donations 40
MAPS AND TABLES
MapA: Existing Public Parks and Recreation Facilities 13
MapB: Existing and Needed Public Parks
and Recreation Facilities 29
Table 1: Existing Facilities Physical Condition Summary 19
Table 2: Facility Types and Standards 27
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Capital Improvements Plan
Appendix B: Survey Instrument and Summary
1. INTRODUCTION AND
PLANNING FRAMEWORK
In January 1997, the City of Woodburn
hired Don Ganer & Associates, working in
collaboration with David Reed, Ph.D., to
update the City's Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan. The Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan --Woodburn 2014, was
last amended in March 1996 and, along
with the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals
and Guidelines (1995), provides the primary
framework for this Plan update. The plan-
ning service area includes both the current
City limits and unincorporated lands with-
in the Urban Growth Boundary. The plan-
ning time horizon is 1999 - 2020.
1.1 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Po-
licies
Woodburn 2014 includes many goals and
policies related to parks, recreation and
open space. They provide the framework
for the development of this plan and in-
clude the following:
1.1.1 Residential Use
A-1. The neighborhood should provide a focus
and identity within the community and should
have a community facility, such as a school,
park, or privately owned community facility to
allow for interaction within the neighborhood.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
A-3. Development should promote, through the
use of moderate density standards and creative
design, a feeling of openness and spaciousness
with sufficient landscape area and open space to
create a pleasant living environment.
1.1.2 Commercial Land Development
Policy B-5. Downtown redevelopment should
be emphasized and the City should in its ac-
tions, encourage new commercial development
to locate downtown when appropriate.
1.1.3 Annexation
Policy D-1. While it is important that enough
land is available for the necessary development
anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also
essential to prevent too much land being in-
cluded in the city limits as this leads to ineffi-
cient, sprawling development.
1.1.4 Public Services
Goal H-2. (Provide) detention systems for
flood water and storm drain runoff so as not to
overburden the drainage systems of the City.
Policy H-1. It is the policy of the City to pro-
vide facilities at the least long range cost to the
City.
Policy H-6. To insure that the growth does not
increase the cost to the present City residents,
the City's policy should insure that new devel-
opment pay for any additional services they de-
mand.
page 1
'T
Policy H-7. It shall be the policy of the City to
maintain a working Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) which shall detail a set of public facility
projects, their costs, and funding for a six year
period, and for the logical extension of public
facilities over a projected twenty year period.
1.1.5 Transportation
Policy 1-1-2. Develop a transportation system
that interconnects residential areas with em-
ployment centers, commercial areas, schools,
parks, churches and regional transportation
networks.
Policy 1-2-2. Develop a bikeway and pedestrian
system which will provide routes connecting
residential areas to school, parks, places of em-
ployment and commercial areas
Goal 1-4. To develop an area-wide bicycle and
pedestrian plan.
Policy 1-4-1. To make implementation of the ar-
ea-wide bicycle and pedestrian plan a coopera-
tive effort between the City of Woodburn and
all other governmental jurisdictions within the
area.
Policy 1-4-2. To develop a comprehensive bicy-
cle and pedestrian system including both on-
street and off-street routes, which make pedes-
trian activity and bicycle riding feasible, safe
and enjoyable as alternative modes of transpor-
tation in the area.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
Policy 1-4-5. To finance the bicycle and pedes-
trian system as much as possible with non-local
funds.
Policy 1-4-6. To insure that all new commer-
cial, industrial, institutional, residential and re-
creation developments consider the elements
contained with the bicycle and pedestrian plan.
Policy 1-5-4. Establish a bicycle and pedestrian
safety plan by implementing an area wide edu-
cational and recreational program oriented to-
ward teaching bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Policy 1-6-1. Provide bicycle and pedestrian
routes within all state, regional and local parks
and recreation areas by applying for grant as-
sistance to support the development of bicycle
and pedestrian systems in parks and open space
areas.
Policy 1-6-2. Plan off-street routes along creeks
and establish routes which lead to local and re-
gional open space areas. Establish local loop
routes which take advantage of local amenities
and historical areas.
1.1.6 Growth and Urbanization Policies
Policy K-3. The City's public facilities now be-
ing built are to be paid for by the system devel-
opment charges from the anticipated growth.
page 2
Policy K-IO. The City and County shall strive
to enhance the livability of the urban growth
area and to promote logical and orderly develop-
ment therein in a cost effective manner.
1.1.7 Natural and Cultural Resources
Goal L-l. It is the City's goal to preserve the
natural resources in the City including the
unique stands of trees, the scenic areas within
the City, and the floodway and floodplain.
Goal L-2. It is the City's goal to preserve its
unique and historically significant cultural and
historical resources.
Policy L-2. Floodplain should be set aside for
city greenways and left in a natural state as
much as possible. This would prevent building
in the floodplain and provide a natural green-
way throughout the City.
Policy L-3. Natural and scenic areas remaining
in the City should be preserved.
1.1.8 Downtown Development
Policy N-2-1. The Central Business District
(CBD) should continue to be the locale for City-
wide activities (e.g., spring clean-up, crazy
days, farm fest, fiesta days, etc.).
Goal N-3. Improve open space within the Cen-
tral Business District (CBD).
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
Policy N-3-1. Improve Library Park for year-
round use, by adding lighting, landscaping,
wall graphics, information station, gazebo, etc.
Library Park represents downtown's only area
of usable open space. By improving it and mak-
ing it more usable, more people will frequent
the downtown area.
Policy N-3-4. Whenever possible, proposed im-
provements to buildings and/or open space
should remain in general harmony with the
concepts portrayed in the Chemeketa Commun-
ity College drawings.
1.2 Transportation and Stormwater
Plans
The Woodburn Transportation System
Plan, which is an amendment to Woodburn
2014, also includes goals and policies relat-
ed to parks, recreation and open space:
Goal 1, Policy 4. Develop a bikeway system
which will provide routes and facilities to allow
bicyclists to travel from residential areas to
schools, parks, places of employment and Com-
mercial areas. Off-street facilities in City
greenway/park areas will be identified. Insure
all new collector and arterial streets are con-
structed with bike lanes.
page 3
~ "...
Goal 1, Policy 5. Identify sidewalk and off-
street pathway improvements to improve pedes-
trian mobility within neighborhoods and bet-
ween residential areas and schools, parks, places
of employment and commercial areas. Insure
all new collector and arterial streets are con-
structed with sidewalks.
Goal 2. Develop a street system which will
handle projected year 2015 traffic demands in
the Woodburn area, and interconnects residen-
tial areas with employment centers, schools,
parks, churches and regional transportation
facilities.
Goal 3, Policy 2. Develop a plan for improving
pedestrian and bicycle safety for travel to/from
local schools.
The plan recommends a seven mile off-
street pathway system along the Mill Creek
and Goose Creek corridors to complement
an expanded on-street system of sidewalks
and bicycle lanes. The Plan notes that off-
street pathways will not only enhance bi-
cycle and pedestrian access to the green-
way corridors, but will also provide more
direct and safer access to schools, most of
which are located next to or in close prox-
imity to the creek corridors. The off-street
system will also allow cyclists to travel off
the main roadways to gain access to recrea-
tional, commercial and employment cen-
ters in Woodburn.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
Options are outlined for separating bicycles
and pedestrians, including either a single
pathway to accommodate both cyclists and
pedestrians, or separate trails "most likely
on different sides of the creek corridors due
to their limited width."
The City of Woodburn has also drafted
new stormwater management policies, for
the purpose of addressing new water quali-
ty standards in urban areas.
1.3 SCORP
The Oregon Parks and Recreation Depart-
ment is responsible for preparing a State-
wide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP), updated every five years. In
1993, a statewide survey of recreation par-
ticipation was conducted for the mid Willa-
mette region, including Marion County
and five other counties. These survey con-
clusions are relevant to the Woodburn
Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan:
. sports and fitness programs are the most
popular activities in which children
participate in (57%), followed by swim-
ming instruction (39%), summer day
camps (16%), and arts and crafts programs
(10% ).
. adult arts and crafts programs are not
popular, but community art/craft festi-
vals and exhibits have high community
partici pation.
page 4
. communities have high participation in
park walking/running, picnicking, trail use
including biking, and sports and games;
more opportunities are warranted for
activities associated with nature, wildlife,
and botanical/historical exhibits; swim-
ming, and cultural events.
. overall, community cultural events ap-
pear important for many Oregonians in
the mid-Willamette region,
. smaller communities have higher par-
ticipation rates than larger communi-
ties.
. about 1/2 of the respondents reported it
would be unfair to charge fees for re-
creation activities which are currently
free; only 22% thought raising existing
fees would be unfair.
. households with children are consist-
ently more likely to encounter barriers
to participation, including cost and lack
of time.
1.4 Community Development and Image
Parks and Recreation facilities and pro-
grams play an important role in the com-
munity's image. Woodburn's centrally lo-
cated parks, historic and cultural resources,
and open space areas have potential for
helping revitalize the downtown area.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
Downtown could be made more user
friendly and economically viable by im-
proving pedestrian connections to Settlemi-
er Park and the Aquatics Center, Library
Park, the Woodburn World's Berry Center
Museum, and Locomotive Park, making
them more integral features of the down-
town, upgrading the quality where needed,
providing more public information, and
adding additional open space and ameni-
ties, especially along the railroad corridor.
page 5
!IT
2. COMMUNITY PROFILE
2.1 Location and Physical Setting
Woodburn is located in Marion County in
the Willamette Valley, 17 miles north of Sa-
lem and 30 miles south of Portland. Wood-
burn is one of the earliest Oregon pioneer-
ing communities, strongly anchored in a
very productive agricultural area. It has
excellent transportation linkages, located
on Interstate 5 and State Highway 99E, and
on State Highway 214. Two railroads serve
the community -- the Southern Pacific Rail-
road around which Woodburn was origi-
nally built, and the Burlington Northern
Railroad which is west of the present City
limits.
Woodburn is located in a flat area of the
Willamette Valley known as the French
Prairie. The topography varies approx-
imately 40 feet from the highest point in
West Woodburn, to the lowest point where
Mill Creek leaves the northern City limits.
Portions of Mill Creek provide major topo-
graphic relief. Mill Creek is the major
drainage system for the City, and Senecal
Creek extends through the western City
limits. For the most part, unstable soils oc-
cur around Mill Creek and floodplain ar-
eas. On clear days, views of Mt. Hood and
the Cascade Mountains are possible from
some vantage points of the City.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
2.2 Population and Demographics
Woodburn's population growth rate over
the last ten years has averaged approx-
imately 2.3% per year. The 1998 estimated
population was 16,585 and the official es-
timate for resident population in the year
2020 is 26,290 persons. The estimated cur-
rent (1999) population is 16,936, based on
the average annual compound growth rate
of 2.12% estimated by B.D. Hovee & Com-
pany (report dated June 28, 1999).
As with many growing communities,
Woodburn's population profile and the
needs of its residents are constantly in flux.
Not only did the population increase by
over 126% between 1970 and 1994, but the
composition of the community also
changed significantly. Some notable popu-
lation characteristics that are important for
parks and recreation are:
. While declining from 32.8% of total
population in 1970 to 23.2% in 1994,
Woodburn's percentage of persons over
65 years of age still continues to be well
above that of Marion County (13.9%)
and the State of Oregon (13.7%).
. Children and seniors, who characteristi-
cally participate in recreation activities
at high rates, total 56% of the popula-
tion.
. Young families (25 to 35 years old) with
children constituted 23.2% of the City's
total population in 1994.
page 6
. Family size has increased from an aver-
age of 2.7 persons per household in
1970 to 2.83 in 1994.
. Woodburn is ethnically diverse and in-
cludes large Latino (28% of population)
and Russian origin (10% of population)
communities.
. 5.7% of Woodburn's population is esti-
mated to have mobility impairments,
and require barrier free access to public
parks, recreation facilities, and pro-
grams.
. Approximately 62% of Woodburn's
population is considered low to moder-
ate income (below approximately
$16,000). 57% of school aged children
are eligible for free or reduced-price
meals.
. Over 25% of the housing stock in
Woodburn is multi-family housing, and
few of these developments have play-
grounds or sufficient open space to
meet the recreational needs of residents.
. Woodburn's 1991 crime index was the
second highest for cities of its size in the
region, supporting the need for recrea-
tional crime prevention programs.
2.3 Existing Land Use and Growth
According to a January 1996 Land Use In-
ventory, a total of 4,109 acres of land is in-
cluded in the Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB), with designated uses compnsmg
these percentages:
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Roads/ ROW
Parks / Open Space
Public
50%
14%
12%
12%
9%
3%
A significant portion of open space land
consists of private golf courses and private
open space in the floodplains along Mill
Creek and Senecal Creek. All existing
floodplains have been designated as "City
Greenway" in the Woodburn Comprehen-
sive Land Use Plan.
Excluding parks and open space, approx-
imately 49% of Woodburn is comprised of
lands considered "developed." The peri-
odic review process will determine if there
is sufficient land for industrial, commercial
and residential development; and for pub-
lic use including parks and open space.
2.3.1 Residential Density
The amount of land needed for parks and
open space may be influenced by decisions
related to residential density. High density
residential land is already the second lar-
gest land use in the UGB, with multi-family
housing distributed throughout the com-
munity. Residential'lands currently have
densities of between 6 and 25 dwelling
units per acre, but the Comprehensive Plan
indicates continued growth in single family
development, with a need for a decrease in
minimum lot sizes to increase densities.
page 7
~ 1lf
2.3.2 Historic District
Many of the City's most historic buildings
are located in the downtown area, built ar-
ound the turn of the century or shortly
thereafter. This area has been designated
as a local Historic District.
With development of competing commer-
cial areas along Highway 99E and the 1-5
Interchange, a lack of business activity has
created a deterioration in condition and
public image of downtown. An overall
renovation and beautification of this com-
mercial area is encouraged by the City,
built around an historic theme. Parks and
recreation programs may also aid in the re-
vitalization process.
2.3.3 Growth
Woodburn 2014 describes the City's goal for
growth and development to be one of
"remaining as a redistribution center for
outlying areas of the V alley," and
"expansion of the City in an orderly and ef-
ficient manner to aid in giving the popula-
tion the commerce and industry it has al-
ways historically desired." Results of a
1996 community survey also suggest that
W oodbum residents have a concem for
quality of life issues, balanced growth,
transportation, and preservation of farm
land near the City.
Since 1994, nine subdivisions have been ap-
proved and over 600 lots have been platted.
The largest growth has occurred near the
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
Woodburn High School and the new pri-
vate Tukwila Golf Course built by the Ore-
gon Golf Association. Some of the new
housing developments have provided pri-
vate or public recreation amenities such as
fitness facilities, greenway areas, swim-
ming pools, sports courts and playgrounds;
but an absence of park requirements and
standards has resulted in missed opportu-
nities and acceptance of facilities in inap-
propriate locations.
Employment in the City has more than
doubled during the 1990's, growing from
an estimated 3,335 jobs in 1990 to 7,051 in
1999. By 2020, more than 2,000 additional
jobs are expected to be added, for a total of
9,058. Employment impacts the need for
municipal parks, community parks,
greenways/open space, and other com-
munity facilities which are used by both
residents and employees. An analysis of
employment impacts was performed to
consider factors related to employee use of
facilities. Based on this analysis, it is esti-
mated that the impact of each employee on
the need for municipal parks, community
parks, greenway / open space, and cultural
resource/ special use facilities is equivalent
to 8.3% of the impact of each resident. This
means that the roughly 2,007 new em-
ployees expected between 1999 and 2020
will have an impact equivalent to 167 new
residents.
page 8
3. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND
RECREA nON RESOURCES
3.1 Greenways and Open Space
Woodburn and its urban growth boundary
are located on a sensitive underground
aquifer. The current periodic review pro-
cess will update the Woodburn Compre-
hensive Plan to include a special study of
wetlands and natural resources, which will
provide more detailed information on the
location and significance of wetlands and
riparian areas in the City.
The floodplains of Mill Creek, Goose Creek
and Senecal Creek represent the most sig-
nificant open space resources in W ood-
bum. Mill Creek has been channeled, and
in two locations constricted by urban de-
velopment; but for the most part, broad
floodplains and occasional high quality
vegetation structure provide attractive and
natural-like greenway areas.
The Mill Creek drainage system represents
the major structure for public open space in
the community, with potential for a con-
nected system of greenways, linear parks
and recreation opportunities; and off-street
bikeways and pathways that, as recom-
mended in the City's Transportation Sys-
tem Plan, could become an integral part of
the City's transportation system.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
The City has already designated 16.33 acres
of City-owned greenway and open space
along the Mill Creek corridor as identified
park land (Hermanson I, II, III, and Wyffle
parks). The locations of these facilities are
identified on Map A - Existing Parks and Re-
creation Facilities (page 13). These facilities
have had minimal development, consisting
primarily of playground equipment and
signage. A pond adjacent to the Meadow
Park subdivision provides an amenity and
a fish and wildlife habitat opportunity in
the south Mill Creek corridor. Railroad
tracks fragment the creek corridor in three
locations: at Oeveland Street, east of Set-
tlemier Park, and at Front Street. Highway
214 also disconnects the creek near the
Woodburn High School.
An area north of Highway 214 along Mill
Creek has been identified as jurisdictional
wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers. This area extends to the northern
Urban Growth Boundary. Recently, bones
of an ancient land mammal were discov-
ered along Mill Creek near Woodburn
High School. Scientific studies indicate this
may be one of the most significant pale-
oarchaeological finds in the Pacific North-
west. Scientists have dubbed the project
"Mammoth Park." ,
page 9
w
The western part of Goose Creek has been
ditched, has little riparian vegetation, and
is impacted by adjacent urban develop-
ment. The remaining corridor provides
natural-like open space and supports a pri-
vate fitness course and residential green-
way as a part of the Tukwila subdivision.
Senecal Creek is largely undisturbed with
an extensive riparian forest area, and ranks
high as a significant wildlife habitat and
wetland area.
The City is committed to preserving the
creek corridors as greenways left in a natu-
ral state. Unlike urbanized creeks in larger
cities, for the most part, Woodburn's creek
corridors represent high quality greenways
and have not been severely impacted by
urban development. Therefore, the poten-
tial for public open space and off-street
pathways is excellent.
3.2. Public Parks and Recreation Facilities
The City currently owns 87.02 acres of land
designated as parks and recreation facili-
ties. In addition to the 16.33 acres of green-
way along Mill Creek, the City's inventory
includes 40.64 acres of developed parks,
cultural resource facilities, and special use
facilities, and a 24.96 acre municipal park
which is currently under development
(Centennial Park).
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
The City also owns a 5.09 acre site north of
Woodburn High School that is suitable for
a neighborhood park (Glatt property).
Legion Park (Community Park) serves as
the City's unofficial "fairgrounds", hosting
a variety of community events including
"Cinco de Mayo", "Fiesta", and "Fourth of
July" celebrations. This facility also houses
Legion Field and Stadium and serves as the
Woodburn High School football stadium.
Developed Parks and Recreation Facilities
include:
Neighborhood Parks
Burlingham Park
Senior Estates Park
Nelson Park
Community/Municipal Parks
Legion Park
Settlemier Park
Centennial Park1
Mini-Parks
N. Front Street Park
Heritage Mini-Park
Cultural/Historic Resources
Locomotive Park
Woodburn World's
Berry Center Museum
Special Use Facilities
Aquatics Center
Community Center
Community Garden
Alvah Cowan Park
Library Park
1 currently under development
6.5 acres
4.0 acres
3.0 acres
13.63 acres
9.5 acres
24.96 acres
1.25 acres
0.5 acres
0.05 acres
building
building
0.06 acres
1.59 acres
0.06 acres
0.5 acres
page 10
A map showing the locations of existing
parks and recreation facilities and schools
appears on page 13.
3.3 Public Schools
The City has four public elementary
schools, two middle schools and one high
school; all schools have gymnasiums, and
two of the schools (Heritage Elementary
and Valor Middle School) are located adja-
cent to Centennial Park.
For the most part, all campuses are large
enough to provide community recreation
facilities such as sports fields and play-
grounds and are either currently used for
or have the potential for use as
neighborhood/ school park facilities. Pub-
lic school facilities include:
Woodburn High
French Prairie Middle /
Lincoln Elementary
Valor Middle/Heritage
Elementary
Nellie Muir Elementary
Washington Elementary
28.0 acres
21.3 acres
48.0 acres
7.6 acres
9.9 acres
3.4 Sports and Recreation Programs
The City offers a variety of sports and re-
creation programs for residents of all ages.
Offerings expand or are reduced based on
interest levels and the availability of fund-
ing. Current programs include:
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
· Youth and Adult Basketball
· Youth Soccer
· Adult Softball
· Youth After-School Drop-In Programs
· Middle School Co-Recreation Programs
· Youth Summer Day-Camp Programs
· Children's Dance Classes
· Youth, Adult, and Senior Swimming
and Aquatics Programs
· Preschool Programs
· Special Events
In addition, the City works with the Wood-
burn School District, non-profit organiza-
tions, and other agencies to operate the
community center and support other pro-
grams such as children's art classes, adult
soccer, and youth baseball and softball.
3.5 Privately-Owned Facilities
3.5.1 Golf
Two privately-owned 18-hole golf courses
provide substantial open space in the
northern and western parts of the City.
Both golf facilities are parts of planned resi-
dential developments (Senior Estates, and
Tukwila subdivisions), and both require
membership.
page 11
11r
3.5.2 Recreation/Fitness Centers
Three residential developments either have
or plan to construct recreation facilities.
Senior Estates' recreation facilities include
a heated fitness center, pool room, shuffle-
board room, and library; the Tukwila sub-
division has a privately-owned fitness and
jogging trail along the Mill Creek corridor,
and has plans for a private community cen-
ter; and the Woodburn Crest Mobile Home
Park includes plans for a small recreation
center.
Woodburn also has two other membership
fitness centers: Nautilus of Woodburn, and
1-5 Fitness Center.
3.5.3 Swimming Pools / Spas
Senior Estates includes a private spa and
indoor swimming pool, and Tukwila sub-
division has a private outdoor pool facility.
3.5.4 Tennis/Basketball Courts
The Meadow Park subdivision has a pri-
vate outdoor basketball court and tennis
court .
3.5.5 Bowling
Woodburn Lanes, a bowling center, is open
to the public.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
3.6 Other Cultural Resources
Woodburn is home to other cultural re-
sources including historic buildings and an
archaeological site. The City has four his-
toric buildings, two of which are listed on
the National Register of Historic Places:
Settlemier House (NRHP)
Old City Hall (NRHP)
Original City Library
Bank of Woodburn Building
page 12
::;
~
II ~ B8 [!] ..,
..
0..
-t q
'E
iii 0: !l
'-' ;;;
2 0..
.0
~ .2 ~
,
." :l1 ~~
C 0:'" .C
~ , -t a C 0..
E ,g 0: -t ll' a
;:l .<: ] 0: ;;15 u
>. '; ~ ~l :g
0 0
U .2 ~~ S
~ .8 ,
C .<: ~ H 8
.e '"
, ~ 0 ;X
U ::J Z
...... .!j
........~ ..
"&.
:::l
Ii
0::
~
>
]
~
0..
E
Cl
c
0
:c
..
~
co:
.:;
~
~~
E_
.&~
~(g
,~....
'k~
o
.........
~. ...
...... .
~...'~
~lr:
i
~
i .
"1'111111'"11'11&11
ill
I
__~'.ii"!___
-
~~
~~.. 1l.
~ .
o..lj
< ~~
.:;Et
~ ~ is..
; ~ ~
ClEE
15.E~
Q~~
>. (S c
~~E
",-t:
'" 0 ..
- 00..
~uc
11~l5
~ - t"
~ "" ~
~ cO
~ '~E
1lr
4. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The City's parks and recreation facility and
program needs were identified using the
planning framework guidelines, policies,
and goals identified in Section 1; analysis of
responses to a community needs assess-
ment survey; Level of Service (LOS) analy-
sis, and the results of a physical inspection
of all existing facilities.
4.1 Facilities Level of Service
One method of assessing need is to review
the community's Level of Service (LOS) for
parks and recreation facilities, as measured
by acres of public space used for parks and
recreation activities. The LOS for Wood-
burn can be compared with adopted stan-
dards, if any, and/ or with the LOS of other
communities. The City has not previously
adopted LOS standards for parks and re-
creation facilities, so a comparison with
other communities provides an idea of how
well the City is doing at providing parks
and recreation facilities. Following are
acreage and LOS comparisons for Wood-
burn and three other area communities in-
cluding Newberg (Chehalem Parks and Re-
creation District), Oregon City, and Canby.
The City's municipal parks, community
parks, greenway / open space, and cultural
resource / special use facilities serve both
population and employment needs, so em-
ployment impacts on these facilities must
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
also be considered. A 1999 report by E.D.
Hovee estimated 1997 employment within
the Woodburn Zip Code (97071) at 7,834
jobs. The report also estimated that annual
employment growth will increase by 2.9%
per year between 1995 and 2000. Based on
these estimates and the assumption that
employment within the Woodburn City
limits comprises 85% of total employment
within the Woodburn Zip Code (97071),
1999 employment within Woodburn is esti-
mated to total 7,051 jobs.
An analysis of employment impacts was
performed to consider factors related to
employee use of facilities. Based on this
analysis, it is estimated that the impact of
each employee on the need for municipal
parks, community parks, greenway / open
space, and cultural resource/special use
facilities is equivalent to 8.3% of the impact
of each resident. This means that the 7,051
estimated current employees have about
the same impact as 585 residents.
PARKS AND
OPEN SPACE ACREAGE
City (or PRD) Parks Schools Total
Woodburn 87 114 201
Chehalem PRD 319 152 471
(Newberg)
Oregon City 192 128 320
Canby 34 84 118
page 14
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)
(acres per 1,000 persons)
City (or PRD) Population
Woodburn 17,522*
Chehalem PRD 28,000
(Newberg)
Oregon City 21,895 14.6
Canby 11,725 10.1
*includes estimated 1999 population of 16,937 plus
the equivalent impact of 585 more residents created
by employment.
LOS
11.8
16.8
4.2 Needs Assessment Survey
In March 1997, a bilingual (English and
Spanish) public opinion survey instrument
was mailed to 800 randomly selected resi-
dential addresses in the City of Woodburn.
68 of the survey instruments were returned
by the U.s. Postal Service undelivered.
Prom the 732 that were delivered, 187 com-
pleted surveys were returned, for a re-
sponse rate of 25.5%. A copy of the survey
instrument, and post-stratified results for
each survey question are included in Ap-
pendix B.
A large proportion (47%) of survey re-
spondent households were aged 65 and
older with no children under 18; 25% of
the respondent households included child-
ren under the age of 18.
16.6% of respondents were Latino, 78.1%
were non-Latino white, and 5.3% were of
another race or ethnic origin.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
26.7% of respondents had total household
incomes of more than $40,000 in 1996,
48.9% had incomes of between $20,000 and
$40,000, and 24.6% had total incomes of
less than $20,000.
Because of the large proportion of survey
respondents aged 65 years and older, the
survey results, while providing valuable
information, may not be representative of
or accurately reflect the opinions of the
community as a whole.
4.2.1 Activities, Interests and Facility Use
. parks and playgrounds are the most fre-
quently used facilities, with highest use
by Latino households and households
with children, and lowest use by re-
tirees.
. picnicking is more popular for Latino
households than for the general popula-
tion, with 90.3% of Latino respondents
indicating they "often" or "sometimes"
go picnicking, versus 41.9% of all re-
spondents with an opinion.
. the Aquatics Center is used "often" or
"sometimes" by 71.7% of respondent
households with children, but "never"
by 74.1 % of retirees; this suggests op-
portunities to market the aquatics cen-
ter for water fitness and exercise pro-
grams aimed at retirees.
. Even though the City has two private
golf course communities, 65.8% of re-
tirees and 69.7% of all respondents indi-
cated they "never" play golf.
page 15
111"
4.2.2 Importance of Programs
. All demographic groups rank teen pro-
grams as their top priority, with the
next five top priorities in the following
group: children's swim lessons, youth
soccer, youth basketball, youth after-
school programs, and open swim.
. Retired respondents rank the need for
children's, youth, and teen programs
above adult programs.
. Latino respondents rank children's
dance and art programs higher than
does the general population, reflecting a
cultural difference for this group for
program preferences.
4.2.3 Facility Needs Preferences
. The need for more walking trails and
bicycle paths ranked high for all re-
spondents, which is consistent with the
high demand for walking, and which
supports greenway / pathway expansion
and improvements.
. The need for more youth center facili-
ties also ranked high for all respond-
ents, which is consistent with the high
level of support for youth and teen pro-
grams.
. There is high support by households
with children and by Latinos for more
playgrounds, parks, and picnic areas.
These groups also support more soccer,
basketball, and baseball/softball facili-
ties.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
. Most respondents want to keep aquatics
the "same", indicating satisfaction with
the new aquatics facility.
4.2.4 Facilities Maintenance and Repair
. The new aquatics center received very
high ratings from all groups on the level
of maintenance and repair it receives.
. While most facilities received a majority
of "satisfactory" or "good" ratings, 25%
or more of households with children
and Latinos gave "poor" ratings for
maintenance and repair of
baseball/ softball, soccer, basketball,
and tennis facilities; and 25% or more of
all respondents rated maintenance of
parks, picnic areas, playgrounds, and
the youth drop-in center as "poor".
These ratings indicate a significant level
of dissatisfaction with the current levels
of maintenance and repair.
4.3 Physical Inspection of Facilities
In February 1997, a physical inspection of
all existing City parks and recreation facili-
ties was conducted to determine the physi-
cal condition and functionality of existing
facilities. The inspection found that many
of the City's existing facilities are below
recommended standards and / or are in
need of upgrade/repair or replacement. A
summary of the physical condition of facili-
ties is located in Table 1 (page 19).
page 16
4.3.1 Parks, Open Space, and Greenways
Woodburn parks are of marginal size and
are generally in poor to good condition,
primarily due to aging facilities and in-
frastructure, much of which has reached
the end of its useful life. Open space and
greenways are more abundant, but offer
limited recreational opportunities because
they lack all-weather pathways and have
poor drainage. Other major deficiencies in-
clude:
· Old and outdated playgrounds, most of
which are inaccessible to the disabled
and include potentially unsafe surfaces
within fall zones
· Lack of basic park furnishings, such as
park benches, security lighting, and
drinking fountains
· Lack of irrigation systems to maintain
healthy, resilient turf
· Deteriorating roofs on structures
Due to the current physical conditions, few
parks are able to function at full capacity.
As a consequence, the larger parks
(Settlemier, Legion) tend to be overused,
while the small parks are generally under-
used. The greenways are especially under-
utilized because there are no pathways to
accommodate recreation activities such as
walking for pleasure.
Persons with disabilities cannot fully access
most playgrounds and recreation facilities
due to their age and outdated designs. Ar-
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
chitectural barriers also hinder participa-
tion, notably steps to the tennis courts in
Settlemier Park, and a lack of all-weather
surface pathways throughout the system.
While basketball is a very popular activity,
only three parks (Heritage, Burlingham,
and Settlemier) have outdoor basketball
courts. Settlemier Park's is in poor repair
and Heritage Park's is in water during
much of the year, leaving Burlingham's as
the only functional outdoor court.
4.3.2 Recreation Facilities
With exception of the new Aquatics Center,
the City's other major recreation facilities
are in poor to good condition.
Community Center - The Community Center
(9,600 s.f.) is a small facility operating
above its functional capacities, and was not
designed to accommodate present uses.
Deficiencies include:
· No disabled access to the second floor
· Unfinished and inadequate storage
· Some portion of the floors is in need of
replacement
· Exterior replacement/ repair of south-
facing roof and doors is needed
· Limited off-streefparking
page 17
-
Legion Youth Center - Formerly a storage
room for sports equipment, this (1,000 s.f.)
facility was not designed to accommodate
present uses. Given the crowded condi-
tions at the Youth Center, it may be prud-
ent to obtain the Fire Marshall's assessment
of the building's functional capacity.
Legion Field and Stadium - Potentially haz-
ardous steps and rotting at the base of sup-
port beams suggests the need for a struc-
tural and electrical survey to determine
physical condition. In addition, drainage is
poor and contributes to sparse and un-
healthy turf conditions.
Woodburn Aquatics Center - Recently con-
structed, this facility is in good to excellent
condition. Noted deficiencies are primarily
outside the building and include:
. The Aquatics Center is oriented to Front
Street, but is accessed by Oak Street
. The Aquatics Center is not well con-
nected and integrated with the remain-
der of Settlemier Park
. Additional landscaping would make
the fenced exterior area more attractive
for group use, as would a landscape
buffer of the adjacent parking lot
. The single family residence on Oak
Street is impacted by the Aquatics Cen-
ter and should be buffered
. Signage is needed along Settlemier
Road to direct visitors to the Aquatics
Center
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
. There is no turnaround for patrons to
exit the parking lot and the service
driveway should be upgraded
4.3.3 Cultural Resource Facilities
The Woodburn World's Berry Center Mu-
seum and Locomotive Park are two histori-
cal features of the park system, operated in
partnership with community organiza-
tions.
Woodburn World's Berry Center Museum -
The museum, located in historic Bungalow
Theater and the adjacent building, are part
of the historical fabric of downtown Wood-
burn. Improvements in accessibility, dis-
plays, interpretation and infrastructure
could make this facility more inviting, edu-
cational, and enjoyable.
Locomotive Park - The historic 1875 locomo-
tive is surrounded by a chain link fence for
security, but the locked gates and barbed
wire create a harsh and unattractive envi-
ronment. The proximity of this facility to
the greenspace area under the water tower,
and location in the downtown area present
an opportunity to not only preserve his-
tory, but to contribute to the attraction and
viability of downtown. The setting could
be made more user friendly if the parking
lot and drainage were improved, and if
park benches, picnic tables, and interpre-
tive information related to the locomotive
were made available.
page 18
~ ----1
~!
i
1
~I ~
1
-~. 81
0.. __
e ~
(f) .....
'0 ClJ
C ClJ
, j~ C'"l
-a
....1
01
~ -i
-gl
a ~ ~
a -8
::s -I
C/} i
s:: ..-~1
- ";a
0 bO ....
'J:: C E-I N
.... I "- ---
e ~ I 1U ~I
::s s:: ~ ~
,t:l 0 1 Q.,
~ "t:S u !I.~~
0 <<l
0
~ y ~
....
f/)
- E I --
0 ! ~
~ ~
f/)
.... <U 'QJ C
U bO --
'J:: (\l "<::1
.... c ,;!l, ......
- "~ E'
....
y U) _~j
fU
~
00 1 c ~I
s::
'J:: I~~ C'"l
f/)
.... U) ~1
><
~
~I
l"~ <<)1
: 51
I ~
1-:9 "~
I ~ .~
i.r.. :0 ~:
..... (\l "E
....
0 ~ ClJ
~ ~I S
ll:l
--- (f} (\l
(f) I': -
bO Cc
C ;:j ~
:9 tI -.1"
2 ....
"5 0
..... ....
i:O U), "a
1 a.
~
I '0 '0 ---
ClJ
.... .... '0 ClJ
(\l (\l ~
'0 '0 (\l
....
c c OJ:
(\l .l9 a. ,~
..... Q.
(f) (f) ;:j
I (f) :: (f) a.
~ Q:j 0 '0 (\l
ClJ Ql al -0
-0 S .0 C c
~I II II II II
...... N <<) ~
~
5. PARKS AND RECREATION
SYSTEM FRAMEWORK PLAN
The Parks and Recreation System Frame-
work Plan provides the foundation for de-
velopment of Woodburn's parks and re-
creation system. The components are de-
signed to provide a level of service which
will meet the needs of Woodburn residents
during the planning period.
5.1 Findings, Issues, and Implications
FINDING 1. Woodburn is in a major
growth cycle, and is expected to continue
to increase in population and employment
over the next several years. Policies of the
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan call for or-
derly. efficient and managed growth, en-
hancement of community livability, and for
new public facilities to be paid for by de-
velopment fees.
ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS:
· Adequate recreation, parks and open
space are important for Woodburn's
quality of life; meeting this goal will
provide social, economic and environ-
mental benefits to the community.
· Land for parks and open spaces in new
subdivisions and employment centers
will be critical to meet future growth
needs; both developer participation and
land acquisition in advance of develop-
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
ment will become important methods
for meeting future park and open space
requirements.
· Traffic and transportation is now and
will continue to be increasingly import-
ant community issues; safe off-street bi-
cycle and pedestrian pathways will be
needed for residents and employees.
· Public greenways and linear parks in
the creek corridors will be important to
meet needs of under-served neighbor-
hoods, accommodate urban infilling,
and provide safe and convenient alter-
natives to the automobile.
· The City should develop existing, avail-
able, and suitable City-owned land and
acquire needed additional land to pro-
vide parks where deficiencies exist and
where residential and employment
growth is planned, and to develop a
connected system of trails and path-
ways.
· Facilities maintenance and repaIr re-
quires standards and adequate funding
to promote community livability and
prevent deterioration of facilities.
FINDING 2. Woodburn's population char-
acteristics are unique: a substantial number
of adults over 65 years of age and children
below the age of 17;'an increase in family
size; a multi-ethnic community; a large
number of families with low to moderate
incomes; and a relatively large seasonal
population.
page 20
ISSUES AND IMPLICA nONS:
. There will continue to be a high de-
mand for recreation opportunities in the
community because young children and
older populations generally require
more recreation opportunities than the
population at large, and larger families
generally participle in recreation activi-
ties at higher rates than smaller fa-
milies.
. Since parks and playgrounds are the
most frequently used parks and recrea-
tion facilities, the City should place a
high priority on making repairs and im-
provements to existing parks, renovat-
ing playgrounds, and improving the
levels of maintenance.
. Affordable recreation opportunities will
continue to be important because of a
large number of residents with low in-
comes; balancing tax subsidies with rev-
enue enhancement strategies will be-
come a major challenge to the City.
. Recreation participation, customs, and
interests vary among ethnic groups, re-
quiring cultural sensitivity in program-
ming and parks facility planning and
design. Latino survey respondents ex-
pressed preferences different from the
larger community; in particular, this
group makes high use of public parks
and recreation facilities and programs,
with a noted cultural preference for
children's art and dance programs, and
picnicking as the #1 activity.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
FINDING 3. Multifamily housing makes
up over 25% of the housing stock; many of
these developments lack access to open
space or playground facilities; there is a
trend toward a decrease in minimum lot
sizes and increased densities in new single
famil y developments.
ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS:
. Future single and multi-family housing
developments should be required to
provide and maintain mini-parks and
playground facilities.
. Large single family subdivisions should
be required to donate suitable land to
the City for the development of neigh-
borhood parks.
FINDING 4. Compared with other cities of
comparable size. Woodburn's crime index
is relatively high. There is a shortage of
sports fields and sports courts. and the dis-
tribution of developed public parks and re-
creation facilities does not provide eqUI-
table access for many residents.
ISSUES AND IMPLICA nONS:
. Providing adequate facilities, construc-
tive recreation alternatives for use of lei-
sure time, community fitness and well-
ness, and programs for II at-risk" youth
are emerging as an important
IIpreventive recreation" agenda.
page 21
-
~
· There is high support among residents
for children and youth programs and
facilities, indicating an interest for keep-
ing children and youth involved in con-
structive activities. Maintenance and
expansion of programs for teens and
youth, such as children's swim lessons,
youth soccer facilities and programs,
basketball courts and programs,
baseball/ softball facilities, youth after-
school programs, open swim programs,
and co-rec middle school programs
should be pursued in cooperation with
schools, other agencies, and non-profit
organizations.
· The functional capacities of both the
community center and the youth center
are inadequate to meet youth recreation
needs. The City should expand/ replace
or duplicate the drop-in youth center;
or perhaps integrate a senior center,
youth/ teen center and multi-purpose
gym in a new community center facili-
ty.
· The amounts and locations of devel-
oped parks acreage should be increased
and distributed in a manner that
provides a higher level of service and
more equitable distribution of parks
facilities for use by residents and em-
ployees.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
· While desirable as open space resourc-
es, detention ponds and wetlands are
inaccessible during periods of wet
weather; therefore, active recreation
facilities such as playgrounds, sports
courts and playfields should not be lo-
cated in detention ponds or wetlands.
FINDING 5. The City is concerned about
deterioration of downtown and is working
to revitalize the area; policies include im-
proving open space in the Central Business
District (CBD), and improving Library Park
as a catalyst for rejuvenation.
ISSUES AND IMPLICA nONS:
· Library Park, Woodburn Aquatics Cen-
ter, Settlemier Park, the Woodburn
World's Berry Center Museum, and the
historic locomotive site could make
major contributions to downtown revi-
talization.
· The Aquatics Center does not have
good visibility and exposure, with no
access to Front Street even though it is
oriented to the corridor.
· The Locomotive site lacks amenities
and interpretive signage that could be
improved.
· The Woodburn World's Berry Center
Museum requires basic infrastructure
improvements, especially restroom ac-
cessibility and alley enhancement.
page 22
FINDING 6. Woodburn's drainage system
is extensive, but other than a few public
greenways and playgrounds, little public
use is made of the creek corridors. Much of
the system is owned by the City, and by
plan policy is recognized as a natural
greenway system and transportation cor-
ridor. Although parts of the creek system
have been channeled, there is excellent po-
tential for accommodating non-vehicular
transportation, and for natural greenways.
linear parks, and playgrounds.
ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS:
. A strategy is needed for making greater
community use of the creek corridors
for transportation, open space, educa-
tion and recreation.
. Funding is needed for land acquisition,
pathways, and appropriate park and
playground improvements.
. Parts of the creek corridors function as
wetlands, and therefore all-weather
pathways and judicious selection and
location of park improvements will be
required to make these areas functional
and accessible.
. Most schools are located on or near
Woodburn creeks, with excellent poten-
tial for education and transportation.
. New development should be encour-
aged to dedicate floodplains and creek
corridors for recreation, open space and
transportation uses.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
FINDING 7. While a blend of private and
public recreation facilities can meet the
needs of the community. there is some in-
dication that the private recreation facilities
and greenways G.e.. Meadow Park. Tukwi-
la, Senior Estates) may negatively impact
the City's parks and recreation system as a
whole.
ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS:
· Extensive recreation facilities in Senior
Estates, including the golf course and
swimming pool, are available to mem-
bers only, and do not meet needs of the
total senior population in Woodburn.
· As privately-owned swimming pools
continue to be built, it is likely that
there is and will continue to be direct
competition between these facilities and
the Woodburn Aquatics Center.
. Private recreation facilities in new sub-
divisions may meet needs of the imme-
diate neighborhoods, but exclusive
greenway access and locked facilities
(e.g. tennis and basketball courts) raise
issues with respect to public access to
facilities, the provision of facilities for
the broader community, and maintain-
ing safe and secu~e facilities.
page 23
1lI'
FINDING 8. Woodburn school grounds
and play facilities make a substantial con-
tribution in providing neighborhood and
community recreation and open space op-
portunities. A close working relationship
exists between the School District and the
City of Woodburn.
ISSUES AND IMPLICA nONS:
. The City of Woodburn and the School
District may pursue joint acquisition,
development, and use of future school
sites and parks, which could strengthen
the existing partnership.
. The extensive creek system provides an
opportunity for instruction in environ-
mental studies and nature education
,
and could serve a dual purpose with
community recreation and open space.
5.2 Goals and Policies
The following parks and recreation goals
and policies have been developed to ad-
dress the findings identified in section 5.1.
Goal I. It is the goal of the City to provide ade-
quate parks, recreation facilities, and open space
to maintain Woodburn's livability and man-
aged growth, and to provide social, economic
and environmental benefits to individuals, fa-
milies and the community.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
Goal 2. Downtown Woodburn should remain a
centerpiece of activity, culture, and commerce
within the City. Library Park, Woodburn
Aquatic Center, Settlemier Park, the Woodburn
World's Berry Center Museum, and Locomo-
tive Park should be used as catalysts for down-
town revitalization.
Policies
Policy 1. The City will insure that sufficient
land is made available for parks and open
spaces by adopting the system of facility types
and standards in the 1999 Parks and Recrea-
tion Comprehensive Plan including: Mini-
Parks; Neighborhood/School Parks; Community
Parks; Municipal Parks; Greenways, Open
Space, Trails and Pathways; and Cultural Re-
sources and/or Special Use Parks/Facilities.
Policy 2. The City will insure the most efficient
and effective means of providing sufficient land
for neighborhood parks by adopting a
neighborhood/school park concept including
joint land acquisition and development, thereby
strengthening the existing partnership between
the City and the Woodburn School District.
Policy 3. Where neighborhood/school parks are
not feasible, it is the policy of the City to ac-
quire neighborhood parks, when practicable,
through the development review process.
page 24
v
Policy 4. As a supplement to the City's neigh-
borhood parks, it is the policy of the City to en-
courage new subdivisions to provide mini-
parks, meeting City approved standards. The
City shall insure that the excessive main-
tenance impacts of mini-parks are avoided by
requiring ownership to be retained by the devel-
oper or a homeowner association, with main-
tenance provided by the developer, the home-
owner association, or by the City through a
maintenance LID. These facilities may not be
used to reduce the requirement for System De-
velopment Charge payments.
Policy 5. It is the policy of the City to manage
Mill Creek, Goose Creek, and Senecal Creek
corridors as public greenways and pathways;
multiple functions will include open space and
habitat preseroation, flood control, cycling and
walking on all-weather pathways, nature re-
creation and education, and limited playground
activities where there is a deficiency of neigh-
borhood parks.
Policy 6. To provide for a continuous public
greenway and pathway system, it is the policy
of the City to acquire privately-owned segments
along Mill Creek, Goose Creek, and Senecal
Creek, and other stream corridors including the
west tributary from Settlemier Park to Parr
Road. It is the policy of the City to seek dedica-
tion of floodplains and creek corridors for natu-
ral areas, neighborhood recreation areas, open
space and transportation.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
Policy 7. To insure adequate maintenance of
the City's parks, recreation, and open space
facilities, the City will prepare comprehensive
management plans including maintenance
management standards for each facility.
Policy 8. It is the policy of the City to require
multi-family housing projects which exceed
four (4) units to provide basic neighborhood
park and playground facilities, based on devel-
opment standards of the Recreation and Parks
Department.
Policy 9. Because recreation participation pref-
erences and interests vary among employment,
ethnic, social, and cultural groups, it is the
policy of the City to exercise special sensitivity
in selecting the types of recreation programs it
offers, and in the design and management of
parks, recreation and open space facilities.
5.3 Facility Types and Standards
The System Framework Plan is designed to
provide facilities to achieve the City's parks
and recreation goals and meet the needs of
the City at the neighborhood, community,
and City-wide levels. Facility types and
minimum standards for park size, service
area, and acreage per population have been
developed to insure that residents and em-
ployees are adequately served by parks
and recreation facilities.
page 25
:rr
Facility types include:
· mini-park
. neighborhood / school park
· community park
· municipal park
. special use/ cultural resource facility
. greenways, open space, trails, and path-
ways
· core parks system
Acreage standards for mini-park, and
neighborhood/ school park apply only to
residential development. Standards for all
other facilities apply to both non-residen-
tial and residential development, as these
facilities benefit both residents and
employers/ employees. Table 2 (pages 27 -
28) provides descriptions of each facility
type, its standards, and existing sites.
5.4 Facility Recommendations
The System Framework Plan builds on the
strengths of Woodburn's existing parks
and recreation system, responds to the
needs assessment of this planning effort,
and helps implement adopted policies of
the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Map B (page 29) shows the locations of ex-
isting and needed parks and recreation
facilities resulting from the application of
the Level of Service standards outlined in
Table 2 (pages 27 - 28).
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
In addition to Level of Service Standards
which address access, acreage, and facility
requirements, the City also needs to devel-
op and adopt standards addressing items
such as playground equipment design and
functionality, security, turf and irrigation,
park furnishings, and park amenities. A
Capital Improvements Plan with suggested
projects to repair existing facilities and pro-
vide new facilities to meet population
growth needs is included as Appendix A.
5.4.1 Mini-Parks
The City has acquired a mini-park
(Heritage Park) in one recently constructed
subdivision. These small parks are desir-
able features to serve the needs of the im-
mediate area (approximately 1/4 mile), but
because of their small size, maintenance
costs can be significantly higher than for
larger facilities, and tight City budgets can
lead to deferred maintenance and deterio-
ration of facilities.
As an alternative to public ownership, the
City should encourage new subdivisions to
provide mini-parks, meeting City ap-
proved standards. Ownership should be
retained by the developer or a homeowner
association, with maintenance provided by
the developer, the homeowner association,
or by the City through a maintenance LID.
A bond or other funding insurance
mechanism should be required in case the
developer or homeowner association fails
to maintain the facility at City standards.
page 26
l-~
~
c
o
.....
.....
cO
Q) rJ)
0"'0
Q) J-o
~cO
"'0"'0
C ~
cOc/)
~]
cO cO
p.,rJ)
E~
;::S >-,
,.o~
"'0>-,
0.....
o;=:
~ 'g
o~
.c
o
--
~~
1::
Q)
t:
::l....
U
--~
"0-
ill 'E ...
8.<ll
0"0
... c:
p-. <ll
...
rJ)....
j:
:p
.~
'-"l
..><:
~..><:
p-. ...
.<ll
Vip..
... Q)
c: 00
o <ll
......
~ .c
.Q)
z::r::
<ll
--
c:
"0
~
"0
la
...
tfJ
g
i
"0
~
"0
~
...
tfJ
g
j
00 ~
.::! .~
"g~
....0
Q) tfJ
== ~
S ~
"'" <ll
--0
.... c:
..><:...;->.
~~::;
o..S::l
"0 .& ~ .l!i
~ g. '" ~
>::Q)Q)"O
Q) :p .-
0.. ~'2 g)
0--, OJ ....
o..S>'
] rrl <ll.e
<ll~... <ll
U <ll ~
alc::=--
c: Q) S ...
> .0._ c:
i> Q) tfJ Q)
9 ~ .... ~
~..2~;o
Q) U ....... ftS
n; .S 0 0
> ......
'1::::9 0 >.
o...::l--"2
0"0 0
8~laQ)
u...c: en ~
~.~ Q) ~
,o..c:-Q)
::l ii:.g u
0..>...... ~
_.......u"""--
"iil :.= ';:1 ,:::;-
co '0 0 'r:;;
s::; <ll'- <ll
(f)...... 0.. Q)
tfJ
;:J
..><:
...
<ll
p-.
'2
~
E-
..><: ~
:a ")^ tl
p-. tfJ ~ <ll
~~~ ]~
foP-.'-"l..cx.....
c:c:.....><:UlO
._ 0 0 ~.- q
-;:: .!!i '2 p-. ::i5 0
::lQ)Q) ::l<')
~Z{f) p-.~
'2
tfJ .-
Q) ::E ~
tl tfJ tfJ
<tlQ)"><:
Q'\"O ...
\0 ::s <tl
r-.:<:lP-.
:5
.s~
tfJ'~ ~
Q)"O ...
tl Q) <tl
<tl c: C;<
If"l :.6 '2
It) S.-
0::E
~
~
tfJ C
Q) .-
tl S
<tl tfJ
It) Q)
.8 ~
<')~
, tfJ
tfJ ...
.::! .~
"g la
....0
Q) tfJ
- tfJ
.- ~
E u
N <tl
--0
.... c:
"06 C t: <6 0000-0
c: u .- ::l Q) .c: .S c:
<tl Q)"O 0 00:2 ~ tfJ
Q),o- U Q)"iil 0 Q)
> ::l tfJ > ii: tl 0
:e~~~~>.~~
<tl " >. !E' ~ ~ ~ :=
~"O:= ~ <ll Q) ~ ~
'ca 8 ~ ctJ u "0.- fJj
"O..c: ~ 't '6 la g.;:J
Q) Ci Q) ~ .- Q) ~ ciJ
..c: ..0 l?"O 0.. ':;l ... ~
... ..c: ... Q) tfJ 0 .- cO
Q)'~ . 1>1"0 c: c: t: c:
> Q) 2..c: ::s ';:1 tfJ <tl:2
... c: 'r:;; <tl u 'Zl Q),o ...
Q) _ , ... ._ 0 ... 1>1
tfJ .: "0 c .= ~"O Q) 0..
ooOQ)O ",.52
...... tfJ -B E.!!i ~ C 0 '(il
"0"0 tfJ 0.. <tl .- Q) ... c:
Q) ~ <ll '5 >. ~"O 0 0
C... 0"' lG 1'0 'r:;; tfJ
oo....Ci!)coQ)i!)...S
'r:;; c: 0 s::; C ... ~ tfJ
Q)O ~--ralG"'E
"0 .- ... ...."0 Q) ...
n;o::SQ)~:atfJo
>.Q)..c: 8G::.5 Q) 0
:'.:: tl:'.:: 0.0>'0 Ci ~tl
:0 ~ ii: ~..!S"O"""'" ~
~ Q)"Oo.o..c:~:E Q)
.::: 2 Q) <ll <ll l; ::s"o
..><: tfJ 1>1"0"0 li-S S::S
~ ~ g..2 c: 0 .~ ...... ]
p-. 0.. _ U <ll :P"O 0 .-
..><:
...
<tl
"OP-.
80
..c: 0
Ci-B
;g~
.~~
z~
~
tfJ
..><: Q)
... tl
<ll lG
..><:P-......
... ... lG
I>IQ)'"
p-. ._ 0
c:S'"
OQ)<')
.- ';:l....
00...C1'i
Q)Q)N
...J(f)~
3:
tfJ CfJ la
Q)Q)p..
tl"O.....,
<tl ::s <ll
-0..
~ ~'O
NO'2
::s
::E
.s3:
.- la
g)ii:p-'
tlal"iil
<ll c:
0'- 0..
. ..g '0
N s::;'2
o ::l
~::E
tfJ
Q)
tl
<tl
o
N
.8
It)
>.
;;:
U
~dJ~t!~l('i~
~ ...Q)..... 0 r~ >. S Q)
c: ..... 0.. '-' <ll "0
.~ ~ tfJ....; ::E ~'r:;;
g tfJ "0:;< <tl ~
:p&.~Q)c...tfJ
lG .:E 00"0.....
Q) Q) , 0.0 gp c: :a.E
tl "0 ~ .- .- :2 "0
Q),E Q)..... ~ ~ c:~
J...l U ... r./'J ctJ <<S
... c: 00 <tl ._ 0....... 0..
Q) .- c: ii: Q) tfJ
"g"O:2-B tfJ.~:-::"O
o"'5"iil::SlG'l' ,8
l:::oo.tfJ...C:"O..c:
.......c:i> oOC:...
Q)(f) ,g__"O<tlo
~ .~:p"O C 2 ;g
~ ..><: :2 <tl ~ id 'r:;; 00
:a U ~ ..... tfJ 'iij
B 0..'6 ~ 2 S '8 c
"0 "0 ._ ... ~ 8..c: <tl
~oo..Q)u.b~CfJ
ooO...>cCfJ lG
,_..c: 0'.1:1 0 ~ <tl
~ 9';;: ~.~ tfJ.s i>Q)Q).~
1: <ll Q) Q) .- ~ t::
~bO~ Ci tl] ii: tfJ
== "Qj ctJ ~ ~ u ~ 0 ~
~ c C g) '" .S 2 tfJ....
...... <tl .9'.1:1 '>. r3 "iil c:
~ ,...........- {/) 0 ~
~ :a m:a J2 ::;... ~:B
p-..stl~~~8E~
..><:
~
p-.
>.
'2
::l
~
o
U
..><:~
... tl
~lG
(il"iil
.~ B
Q)\O
.....Q'\
c: .
Q)"'"
u~
~..E ","0
-8 ~ "0 ~ ~ ~ ] .~ ciJ
~ -B ~ '8 c: CfJ Q) Ci '2 S::i5 .~
t ] ] ..c: ,~r~ ~ '8 ~ .::s t 5.~
8 <ll ... ... !3 ;:l <JJ..c: '" t:: .- "0 lG
o~~.8 "O].8...O"'~~la......
IC;:l.~fo. . CfJo"O)(o"g<ti<tiO
~ ... tfJ'-"><:"O Kl 0 Q) 1: 0 .;.l;.;.l; 0
15 ~.;:: ~ ... .- 8..e .!:l .~..c: <:l ~ ~..c:
;p S 2 <ll &.~ ",'" CfJ g. ~ ~ F 0.. 0.. ~
li
~
ifjifjp..
tl"O~
<ll ,E '2
"'" ~ ;:l
~c~
o
U
.s]
.- ~
CfJii:p-'
Q) "0 >.
tlQ).....
lG c: '2
0'- ::s
N~~
~o
U
CfJ
Q)
tl
<tl
+
o
N
>.
.....
o
C:'.b~:>....!.~~
~ '"3 == ~. G <<i ~
<tlSSu~>.c:
~ '(j) Q) 0 lG ';:1
U <tl .!:l U co 'Zl
OJ OJ l-l ..... Q) ~ ......
"'"0 Q)C:,o...;-ii:
... ;:l..c: Q) Q)
~<:l-o~~S.l!l
~ .5 "0 ..... ::E ~ ~
..8"0 C:O .1>1:2
Q)"'5<lltfJ~tfJg)
> 0 ><"O'M 'E ...
.....c: Q) Q)""" <tl ...
~(f)o.~ ~"O.E
S 0.. c:
.8...l<l0~2~~
"0 :a U ... .r:;;...... '"
Q) ~ Q) I ._ 0...
5b >. t! t: S -d" "0
'r:;; ~ 0 Q)"O c: 8
Q)!:<o..tfJc:<tl
"O~;:lCfJ.8(lj2-E
.c :9"0 CfJ '(jj 2
._ Q) Q) E _ ..c:
:;:;OG::cggoo
u U I b.O .I""'l
s= tU::e .~ ~ ~ ~
..><:c:;:l~Q)tfJ<ll
:a id S ... <ll
o...s >- g) ifj.s ~
Q) tfJ ... :P "0 .-
00"0 :.=;.= ::s ~ Q) ci
:a ~ '0 '0 u ~ :-::
...Jc:~~..5al~E
..><:
...
'"
p-.
"iil
0..
'0
'2
;:l
::::E
1!f'
"0
8 Q) ..c:
I ..c: .....] , ~ <ll
'!:j ... 0 <:l S Q)......
1'0 00 c Q)..c:o
's ;g -5.- ... ... ~
... 0.0 tfJ .l!l 0 .s: ""l
o .- "0 .2...... i> 00 .
't~la9g)rrlo'E
\0..' --:pQ).....Q)
Q)]]~;.:::Q)"iil"O
~ ~ la la '0 S;:l 'r:;;
"Q) 0.. 0.. 0.. ~ 0. go ~
I
c: ~
I I ~ c:: C'f1
'2 Ci"O ti ~ 00
';:1.0 C ., Q) ..c: 0 .
t::..c:id]"O.........1::
Ci.~..ll ~ .g .E .~ "iil Q)
......~~O"c:CfJrrl;:l:2
\0.. ' 0....... .- .~ Q) go g)
Q)]~0~:'.::Q) ...
~ la ~] ~:o g-B ~
_Q) o....c: ~"O JS 0.. m 0
8t:
!::
o
.....
4-'
~
Q) rJ)
0"0
Q) ~
~ ~
"0]
!:: ~
~cn
~"O
"t: !::
~ ~
P-; rJ)
E~
::l >-.
,.of-<
-gO
0;'::::
~ '0
~
o~
>-.
4-'
o
:;i
'Z
;:::> ....
c
Q)
~....
u
--I
"O~ ~
&l "0 ....
o ....
0.. ell
0"0
.... I:
i:l... ell
......
en....
I,~
'X
~
..l<:
....
.... ~..l<:
Q) !a
C..l<: a i:l...1
~ ~ ~!a~~
'~ ~ .~ ai ~ i:l... 8 :g
~c ~'"P:o >-..c: s:;
Q) iiltll!atllor
o u 0 0 5-:9 ~ ~ t::
U u <t: ....l <C.J ~
ell
--
I:
"0
!a
"0
1a
ti
o
I:
I
"0
!a
"0
I:
.s
'"
o
I:
I
"0
!a
"0
1a
......
'"
o
I:
'"
,~
......
'"
'>:;
..c: .... c
U 0 ;::s
;j "0 c:
'" Q) !:<
aJ.!::l S
~:a8.8
r3 CIJ ell Q)
u:: 0.. '" ....'
'2 '" ell Q)
co......c: C
'<Ii..e ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ ~
....Q)"':O
.9c~eIl
'" co._ ;::s
:.2 '(ij > 0"
.... Q) t ~
0-0 till:
~C;~~
~ " ~ ~
.a ~ ,8 co
~~rti~
u 1: OJ '2
......0 ell tl ....
.... Q) ~
>- 0 ~ I'<
~ c: '" E
:a I'< 0 0
tIl;::So..u
...... &l.... -
.... ;::s ;::s ~
o E 0........
~ ~
gJeIlCOU
~ ~ .@ :2
'"
~
Q)
U
....
;::s Q) >-
o "'......
~;:::>a
o::~u
ra'~ ~
....Q)--
.a 0.. ..l<:
~en....
;::s .... ell
UOi:l...
f-<
~~ ~
!a=>-tl
...:.:i:l...-1:tIl
.... 1:"0 Q)ra
~ ~ la g..o
cufdcict....,
SEdt::~
>- Q) ell ,....;
~:r: G~
'"
Q)
....
U
ell
N
C"!
....
"0
!a
"0
~
'"
o
I:
"0
!a
"0
1a
......
'"
8
"0
!a
"0
1a
ti
o
I:
C:::::ttlca<<s~~~
..... tIl "0 .... ~ !a 0 Q)
>- _ I: .a t:: o..;g tl
tIl "';::S tIl 0"0 coQ)
c: :;:; 0 1:...... "' '.... ....
!:<"'.... O-Q)"O
..c:b~..........g..1:1:
.u eIll!~Ql"'eIl
:.2 "'0........ Q) > tIl <1l
~tIl O....Q).......,I<;
~ ell "0 1:""
"'..c:ra....Q)I:Q)lt
gJ ~ E 0 ~ ;j E ....
...."'''' -0..Q)0..Q)
ell", _~"'''O.9-B
Q) Q) <1l .- I: ;::s Q) 0
~:o.,l<;.!!! Q)'U ~
" .- ra 0.. 0.. 1:...... ....0
~:;::: ~ "lj 0 .- v
~JS"Eg-g~jj
o..c;g<:Qi1:j !a
o 0..0 - ~ >--2 0...
lil:p....~...~'"'lil
.... ~ 0 ra fi.~..9 0..
.2 t::l '" Q) , -0 '0
ell (lJ >-.P ti S Q) ':\
I: .... ell '" Q) Q) @ 5
s"O~Q)@tiellE",
"' ~ '" 0 >-- Q)
..l<: ~ ~ ;j u '" 0.. -.....
.... '2 0.. 0 '" '" XJ :::
tIl!:< >-......;::s Q) ... .....
0..:.= .... ell '" 0 :J:l ell U
Q) E Q);j.... o..tIl
1;jQ)..c ....COQ) ......
Q) "0 ~ ,~.a:g g..] I:
I: ;::s Q) U tIl .... 0 0
:J u ~ ~ 2 8 o....c: ',p
'"
>-
ell
~
~a)-B
>-UeIl
tIl lti:l...
~en--
c I: ~
iH Q) '....
.... 0.. ~
OOf-<
,.....,
rts '" g)
"0 Q) U Q) tl
Q) 0:'= +:: res
I: Q).c '.... _
~"";::s:a.s
o "0 0.. tIl 0
~~'tl............
:!:: <11 ao&:l
U..l<: O'
=1;jg..c:8
<t: 0..:0 ~ ~
~'"
Q)
tl
ell
00
t--:
....
....
'tlg Q) ~ ' 'tlg
_ 'tl , -B tIl >- '2 _
,~{i g.g E gJ...... .9 '5 {i g
,'"' O..c: c: CII 0 0........ O..c:
5 ~ U '.... .... -:5 ~ S o..:@ U
........ '" .l!J 0 '.... <"l CIJ CIJ '"
S ,~"O '2...... ~ 00 ,~~ ,~'tl
~ I: a ;::s ,~ ~ .9 i:: ~ CII I: ~ ,
I ~ j j ~ E ~ ra ~ '~ ;;a j j XJ
x !a !a !a '0.9 5- '(ij 0 .... !a !a ~
ooOJ 0.. 0.. o....s 0.. OJ ~ ~ u..e 0.. 0.. 0..
"0 I ..c:
,J:~;a '~eIl
..... co ...... E OJ......
,~ 'Ql d1 ~ OJ OJ..c: 0
l::I:.,I<;XJ'tl..........~
.... 'tl !a ... ;j 0 '::; ~
OI:O"tIl'U......;>oo ,
...... tIl'tl 0..1: '" <Ii 0"""
I P.. - g - '.... 1j OJ ...... ai
~XJ..c: 8{J:.= ~ra'tl
>< !a ......c: !a '0 0 ;j '(ij
~CIJ 0...8 ~ "0 ..s 0.. g' ~
'"
Q)
....
U
ell
1/')
N
00
tIl
--
I:
ell
--
I:
'tl
Q)
0..
o
Q),
> '"
Q)-
'tl g
I:..c:
;j U
'"
'tl U
~:a
"0 ;j
CII 0..
o..'tl
o I:
Ql tIl
> <Ii
Q) Q)
"0:0
-0;;::
OJ U
c: ell
~......
o S
~+::
...... tIl
..... Q)
U tl
- Q)
ra ....
'tl
'" I:
CII tIl
"0 '"
;::S...:.:
U !a
..50..
XJ
....
~ S
Q) Q)
~t)
u~
ji . I (I I (
2 vi . ~
fl ~ ~@;,
.~
,fJ ..Q
~1
. "'C
1 ~ C
l~ CD ~ !i2 j c
II > -t: ~
i~~~ 2- 'c ~l
"- ~:Q] ~
~ 5 l~~
~h: ~~ ~
e-r' C a=:~t
0, ; ~ ~ € h
nil 'Q
;l!-8 .c t u.~ ~....
'i -t:~ ~-
~ e ~~ ~ j ~< =~
.J:>"v "-~
II !f ~ l'~ "8~ 0("-
C i~ 15 H 11..:1
.z ].11 1]05
:3 'll ~~
'" '" z z
......
........J
..
i
:oJ
~
c:
..
>
'r;_
e
..
.c
~
e
E
c
'-
c
c
1
"'
.:,
.>
c
,
0-
~
1
:;
':::~
~i
'~~ '
o(~~
Hi
~~....
0..0'0
E~il
""~E
S:'C>fij
~.i:>~
'""-
~u
_ 1~!
~b
"-~.J:>
~&f
M
5.4.2 Neighborhood/School Parks
The most efficient and effective means of
providing for some of the needed future
neighborhood parks IS to adopt a
neighborhood / school park concept,
strengthening the existing partnership bet-
ween the City of Woodburn and the Wood-
burn School District. Implementation of
this concept will allow expansion and up-
grading facilities at area schools to provide
accessibility, security, and adequate facili-
ties. An agreement should also be explored
to designate St. Luke's School as a neigh-
borhood park facility for the central portion
of Woodburn, which is currently under
- served.
The City will need to acquire/ develop or
provide alternatives for three new neigh-
borhood parks in order to meet expected
needs during the next twenty years. Joint
location of neighborhood parks with
schools should be explored in areas where
new schools will be needed. In other loca-
tions, stand-alone neighborhood parks may
be necessary and, in some cases, smaller
mini-parks may substitute for neighbor-
hood parks.
Specific needed improvements to existing
neighborhood parks and mini-parks in-
clude:
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
Burlingluzm Neighborhood Park
. Construct Neighborhood Activity Cen-
ter (3,000 s.f.)
. Update/ replace playground equipment
· Install park furniture, especially park
benches, and additional signage
. Install security lighting
· Make drainage improvements
. Develop an all weather pathway to
Senecal Creek
· Install automatic irrigation system
Senior Estates Park
· Explore feasibility of connecting the
park with Goose Creek
. Work with neighborhood to consider
need for adding playground facilities
. install furnishings and other amenities
such as tables, benches, and a gazebo
· Improve drainage; develop an all-
weather pathway system
· Install security lighting
Nelson Park
. Explore feasibility of expanding park
· Replace playground
. Develop all weather pathway system
. Make drainage improvements in play-
ground and playfield areas
· Add sports court
· Restore turf
. Install a landscape buffer to screen at
south end of property
· Install security lighting
page 30
Heritage Park (mini-park)
. Install access path and retaining wall
. Install security lighting
. Install monument sign
North Front Street Park (mini-park)
. Replace playground and install park
furniture, additional signs, and sports
court
. Develop all weather pathway system
. Restore turf, install irrigation system
. Install security lighting
5.4.2 Community Parks
New Community Parks are not recom-
mended for acquisition or construction
during the planning period. Specific need-
ed improvements to existing community
parks facilities include:
Legion Park
. Make entry improvements including
signage upgrades for more user friendly
statement
. pave / upgrade access road and path
surfaces
. install security lighting
. Relocate and replace playground
. Define park boundaries
. Conduct a hazardous tree survey
. Make drainage and turf improvements
throughout the facility, including sports
fields and recreation areas
. Consider an addi tional group picnic
shelter
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
. Explore feasibility of integrating Mill
Creek amenities into park design/ use
. Explore opportunities for acquiring ad-
ditional land along Mill Creek north-
ward
. Install automatic irrigation system
Settlemier Park
. Replace playground; install park bench-
es
. Replace picnic shelter; restore picnic ta-
bles
. replace roof on restroom and upgrade;
. Correct drainage problems; install re-
taining walls; restore turf
. Make a pathway connection to the
Aquatics Center
. Make tennis courts accessible (provide a
ramp); repair fencing & sign
. Buffer adjacent residences from the
park/ shelter activity with landscaping
. Cover base of light standards with
veneer
. Remove and relocate basketball court to
open area east of parking lot
. Develop new driveway to access the
park and Aquatics Center from Front
Street, as well from Settlemier Road
. Designate parking spaces for the disa-
bled
. Relocate memorial to a more prominent
location
. Remove all hazards
. Relocate park regulations sign closer to
the parking loti park entry
page 31
11r
· Install park signs on Settlemier Road
and Front Street (acknowledge both
aquatics center and park)
· Define boundaries of the park
. Conduct a hazardous tree survey
· Install automatic irrigation system
5.4.3 Municipal Parks
Once developed, Centennial Park should
meet city-wide needs for a municipal park
for the time frame of this plan. Specific rec-
ommendations for Centennial Park in-
clude:
· Obtain the services of an experienced,
professional parks planner / landscape
architect to design a site master plan
. Begin tree planting as soon as a site
plan is completed; complete planned
initial development
. Explore connection with Mill Creek
tributary to develop pathway connec-
tion to Settlemier Park
. Explore partnership opportunities with
adjacent schools, especially sharing in-
frastructure, such as parking
. Consider acquiring adjacent land to
meet need for future sports fields
5.4.4 Greenways, Open Space, Trails and
Pathways
Mill Creek and Goose Creek are recom-
mended as a system of public greenways
and pathways. The recreational functions
of the creek corridors should be limited pri-
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
91-\
marily to open space and habitat preserva-
tion, flood control, cycling and walking on
all-weather surface paths, nature recrea-
tion, and limited playground activities. A
comprehensive management plan for these
resources should be developed.
New subdivisions should be encouraged to
dedicate floodways and creek corridors to
the City, and a high priority should be
placed on:
. working with the Tukwila subdivision
and other property owners to extend
the existing pathway easements near
Hazelnut Drive
. acquiring the corridor areas between
Lincoln and Cleveland Streets, in the
Meadow Park subdivision beyond the
existing pond south to the UGB, and
along the west tributary from Oeveland
Street to Settlemier Park
. extending the greenway / pathway
north above Legion Park up to the UGB
More long term acquisition should include
a pathway easement along the west tribu-
tary from Settlemier Park to Parr Road,
which would provide a direct and safe ro-
ute to the Aquatics Center and downtown,
as well as connect Centennial Park, the two
adjacent schools, and Settlemier Park. Ac-
quisition or access easements should also
be pursued for Senecal Creek, and a path-
way should be constructed connecting the
Creek with Burlingham Park.
page 32
Because the City owns substantial portions
of Mill Creek, a phased plan is recom-
mended for developing an all-weather
pathway, beginning with areas already in
public ownership. Small creative play
facilities should be installed in the green-
ways to address current neighborhood
park deficiencies in Wyffle Park and the
Hermanson Parks (I, II, and III), but the
facilities should be located away from adja-
cent homes and be accessible and visible
from cross streets. Existing play equip-
ment should be relocated to better strategic
sites in the corridor.
The City should also study the feasibility of
overcoming physical barriers to continuous
pathway development caused by the rail-
road tracks at Oeveland Street and Ogle
Street. The archeological discovery and ex-
cavation in the corridor near the high
school provides an outstanding opportuni-
ty for an educational feature and pathway
exhibit.
Efforts should also be made to work with
the Woodburn School District to secure
pathway easements on the south bank of
Goose Creek, and to connect Lincoln and
French Prairie Schools with Senior Estates
Park to the west, and along Woodburn
High School to connect with Mill Creek.
The City of Woodburn owns a high quality
fir grove east of Senecal Creek, but the
creek corridor itself is owned by the devel-
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
~A
opere Since much of the corridor appears
to be wetland, the greenway in this location
may function more suitably as habitat and
open space protection, and with limited re-
creation. However, the fir grove has excel-
lent potential for a nature preserve and na-
ture trail, from which strategic penetrations
could be made to access the creek.
Specific recommendations for improve-
ments to existing greenways and open
space areas include:
Wyffle Park
. Replace playground with a small child-
ren's' play facility; relocate closer to Lin-
coln St.; provide adequate drainage and
surface material to be functional during
wet weather
. Develop an all weather pathway from
Lincoln St. to Hardcastle Ave.
. Elevate grade around exposed sewer
manholes or cover with veneer
Hermanson Park I
. Replace existing playground near Stark
St. with a fully accessible, all weather
small children's" playground, prefer-
ably relocated closer to Marshall St.
. Develop an all weather pathway ex-
tending from Oeveland St. southward
to Stark St.
Hermanson Park II
. Develop an all weather pathway ex-
tending from Stark St. to Wilson St.
page 33
f
Hermanson Park III
. Develop an all weather pathway ex-
tending from Wilson St. southward to
the small greenway pond
. Provide amenities around the pond in-
cluding benches, picnic tables and sig-
nage
. Extend public greenway southward to
city limits
5.4.5 Sports and Recreation Facilities
Both staff interviews and survey responses
indicate the need for additional community
recreation and meeting space, sports fields
and sports courts for soccer, basketball,
baseball! softball and other activities. Sur-
vey responses and physical inspection also
indicate a need for drainage and main-
tenance improvements at sports facilities.
Centennial Park will include sports fields,
but these fields will not be designed or lo-
cated conveniently for neighborhood re-
creational play. Additional sports fields
and sports courts will be needed at existing
and future neighborhood/ school and com-
munity park facilities.
Additional indoor community recreation
facilities and meeting space are also need-
ed. A new Community Center building de-
signed for recreational use, including a
gym to support recreational sports pro-
grams, and with adequate off-street park-
mg.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
~j-\
Because of the physical separation of West
Woodburn from the main part of the City,
a "neighborhood activity center"
(approximately 3,000 s.f) should also be
considered for Burlingham Park.
Legion Field and Stadium
Consideration should be given to convert-
ing Legion Field to a soccer field.
Specific recommended improvements at
Legion Field include:
. Make drainage and turf improvements
throughout the facility, including sports
fields and recreation areas
. Conduct a structural and electrical sur-
vey of the stadium to determine physi-
cal condition
. Correct potentially hazardous steps and
rotting of the base of support beams
Woodburn Aquatics Center
Because it serves the entire City, the Wood-
burn Aquatics Center and its Settlemier
Park location should become a major an-
chor for the parks and recreation system.
Direct access from Front Street would ac-
knowledge orientation of the building to
the east, which in turn would reinforce it's
proximity to the lower downtown area.
page 34
The Aquatics Center should also function
as a more integral part of Settlemier Park.
This can be accomplished by adding path-
way linkages and connecting the two exist-
ing parking lots.
Specific recommended improvements at
the Aquatics Center include:
. Integrate and promote the Aquatics
Center as a part of Settlemier Park, in-
cluding a pathway connection
. Explore feasibility of accessing the facil-
ity from Front Street as the main entry,
and connecting the two existing parking
lots
. Buffer the parking lot and rental area
with additional landscaping
. Buffer the adjacent residence on Oak
Street
. Upgrade the service driveway
· Replace lighting
Woodburn Community Center
The current building does not meet acces-
sibility requirements to the second floor, is
marginal in size to meet the indoor recrea-
tion needs of the community (less than
10,000 s.f.), was not designed for recrea-
tional use, does not include a gym to sup-
port recreational sports programs, and has
inadequate off-street parking. Specific rec-
ommended improvements include:
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
. Study the feasibility of a new communi-
ty center, possibly including other
needed facilities such as a youth/ teen
center
Woodburn Drop-In Youth Center
The Youth Center is marginal in size and
operating beyond its functional capacity.
Because the need for indoor youth recrea-
tion is expected to increase, this facility
should be included as a part of the feasibili-
ty study for a new community center. Spe-
cific recommendations include:
. Study the feasibility of a new
youth/ teen center, possibly including
other needed facilities, such as a com-
munity center
· Review functional capacity
. If the facility cannot be replaced with a
new community center, upgrade to in-
clude new paint, floor coverings, etc.
5.4.6 Cultural and Historic Resources
Several parks and cultural/historic re-
sources have potential for contributing to a
more user friendly and attractive down-
town area -- the Aquatics Center; Wood-
burn World's Berry Center Museum; and
Locomotive, Settlemier, and Library parks.
page 3S
~
Improved connections between Settlemier
Park and downtown from Front Street are
recommended, as well as upgrading the
Woodburn World's Berry Center Museum
by beautifying the alley and making im-
provements to the displays, interpretation,
and infrastructure.
Upgrades at Locomotive Park could be a
catalyst for enhancing the south side of
Front Street along the railroad tracks. Spe-
cific recommendations include:
Locomotive Park
. Provide interpretive information on the
history and background of the locomo-
tive
. Install park benches and picnic tables.
. Upgrade the parking lot, including
drainage improvements
. Evaluate alternatives to use of locked
gates and barbed wire for security
. Work with the railroad company to up-
grade adjacent properties to improve
the appearance of the railroad corridor,
to include screening of the storage yard
Library Park
. Extend mural to full length of the south
building wall behind small outdoor
stage
. Upgrade barren area next to the old li-
brary, restore areas where large trees
were removed
. Install park furniture and benches
· Restore turf
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
. Consider additions of lighting, land-
scaping, wall graphics, information sta-
tion, gazebo, etc. as recommended m
the City's comprehensive plan
Woodburn World's Berry Center Museum
. Upgrade the alley, combining of adja-
cent property owners to beautify down-
town
. Make restrooms fully accessible
. Contact other museums for strategies to
upgrade exhibits and interpretive pro-
grams
5.5 Maintenance Recommendations
Maintenance Standards
The City should develop a maintenance
management plan using guidelines such as
those included in Park Maintenance Stan-
dards. published by the National Recrea-
tion and Park Association (1986). This pub-
lication includes a Maintenance Standard
Oassification System with six maintenance
"modes" :
Mode I
Mode II -
Mode III -
Mode IV -
Mode V -
Mode VI -
State of the Art Level
High Level
Moderate Level
Moderatel y Low Level
High Visitation Natural Areas
Minimum Level
page 36
Each "mode" includes specific mam-
tenance requirements for turf care, fertiliz-
er, irrigation, litter control, pruning, dis-
ease and insect control, snow removal,
lighting, surfaces, repairs, inspection, floral
plantings, restrooms, and special features.
Park Maintenance Standards also includes
productivity standards for most common
maintenance tasks.
Maintenance Facilities
The storage facilities currently used for
parks and recreation equipment are inade-
quate, requiring that much of the equip-
ment be stored in uncovered, open areas.
Specific recommendations for maintenance
facilities include:
. Install additional covered storage facili-
ties (approximately 7,000 s.f.)
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
-
9A
page 37
!If
6. FUNDING
This section provides a description of a var-
iety of sources which may be used to fund
parks and recreation facilities and improve-
ments. This is an overview of commonly
used funding sources; additional funding
sources not included in this list may also be
available.
6.1 System Development Charges (SDC's)
System Development Charges (SDC's) are
fees paid by new development to help pay
a portion of the costs of capital facilities
needed to serve new development. SDC's
were implemented by the City for parks
and recreation facilities in 1991. The meth-
odology and rates established in 1991 need
to be updated to reflect changes in costs
since that time, and to address facility
needs identified in this comprehensive
plan update.
SDC revenues may not be used for the con-
struction of administrative facilities or to
fund operations, maintenance, or repairs.
6.2 General Obligation Bonds (G.O. Bonds)
G.O. Bonds are debt instruments which
may be sold by the City to fund new parks
and recreation facilities, or make improve-
ments to existing facilities. These are re-
paid with property tax revenue generated
by a special levy that is outside the limits
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
imposed by ballot measure #5 (1990), and
#50 (1997). Voters must approve G.O.
Bond sales either in a General Election in
an even numbered year, or in another elec-
tion in which a minimum of 50% of regis-
tered voters participate. G.O. Bond reve-
nues may not be used for operations, main-
tenance, or repairs; but they may be used
for major renovations to existing facilities.
6.3 Revenue Bonds/Certificates of Partici-
pation
Revenue bonds and certificates of partici-
pation are debt instruments which commit
specific revenue sources, such as service or
user fees, or special tax revenues for repay-
ment of principal and interest on borrowed
funds. Revenue bonds are widely used by
utility and enterprise operations to fund
large scale improvements, and they do not
require voter approval. A reliable long-
term source of revenue is not currently
available to commit for large scale parks
and recreation projects.
page 38
6.4 Special Assessment/Local Improve-
ment Districts
Residents may choose to form a local im-
provement district (LID) to pay for capital
improvements or maintenance of facilities
through special assessments on their prop-
erty. This method requires the approval of
at least 60% of the owners of land within
the proposed district, and must represent
at least 60% of the land abutting the pro-
posed improvement. The use of LID's may
be appropriate for new mini-parks in loca-
tions where homeowner associations do
not exist or are not formed.
6.5 General Fund Revenues
General fund revenues consist chiefly of
property taxes derived from the permanent
tax rate, and are subject to the $10 com-
bined limit on local government taxing
agencies imposed by Measure #5 (1990).
General fund revenues offer a source of
funds for facility operations and main-
tenance, and may be available on a limited
basis for "pay-as-you-go" capital improve-
ments. The limited availability of unre-
stricted general fund revenues makes them
a very unlikely source of funds for parks
and recreation capital improvements.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
6.6 Local Option Levies for Capital Im-
provements
A local option levy for capital improve-
ments provides for a separate property tax
levy outside the City's permanent rate lim-
it, subject to the $10 combined rate limit
imposed under Measure #5. This levy may
be used to fund a capital project or group
of projects over a specified period of time,
up to 10 years. Revenues from these levies
may be used to secure bonds for projects,
or to complete one or more projects on a
"pay as you go" basis. Local option levies
require voter approval and are subject to
the double majority requirement of Meas-
ure #50.
6.7 Local Option Levies for Operations
A local option levy for operations provides
for a separate property tax levy outside the
City's permanent rate limit, subject to the
$10 combined rate limit imposed under
Measure #5. This levy may be used to
fund a operations and maintenance activi-
ties over a specified period of time, up to 5
years. These local option levies require
voter approval and are subject to the dou-
ble majority requirement of Measure #50.
page 39
111"
6.8 User Fees and Rents
User fees and rents are direct charges to in-
dividuals and groups who use specific pro-
grams, facilities and services. These fees
and rents usually help pay only a portion
of the costs of providing programs and
services. User fees generally are set at lev-
els sufficient to cover only a portion of pro-
gram and maintenance costs, and are rare-
ly used to fund capital projects.
6.9 Federal/State/Other Grants
Federal, state, and other government agen-
cies and foundations often make funds
available to serve specific purposes related
to parks and recreation; such as land and
water conservation, open space preserva-
tion, bicycle path construction, or blighted
area improvements. Grants often have
conditions and limitations, such as provid-
ing for project planning but not construc-
tion, and they may require a local match,
either in dollars, in-kind services, or both.
The availability of many grants has de-
creased in recent years due to federal and
state cutbacks in funding, but new grants
have recently become available for trails.
The City should explore the availability of
grants to provide for needs identified in
the master plan and for other worthwhile
projects.
Woodburn Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
October 1999
9A
6.10 Sponsorships/Partnerships/Donations
Public, private, and/or not-for-profit or-
ganizations may be willing to fund out-
right or join together with the Oty to pro-
vide additional parks and recreation facili-
ties and/ or services. The City has a history
of partnership with other agencies and
should explore the use of new and expand-
ed partnerships, sponsorships. and dona-
tions as a method of providing additional
parks and recreation facilities and/ or serv-
ices for the community.
page 40
APPENDIX A
Woodburn Parks and Recreation
Capital Improvements Plan
9A
page 1 of 2
Acquire/develop a neighborhood park in the southern portion
I of the City (approx. 5 acres).
1Acq~i~/devel~p~-~~igh-b~~hOOd p~rk in the eastern portion
1 of the City (approx. 5 acres). _ _ L
IACqUire/d~veloP a neighb~rh~~d-p~~k in the southwestern i
,l'C>rtion ~! the_,<=i!y_(alJP!9~~ acres). --1-
Make improvements to Burlingham Park including restrooms, I
,
playground equipment replacement, park furniture, security !
lighting, drainage improvements, and auto~atil:: irrigatio~=-m_~_
Construct Activity Center and pathway to Senecal Creek at
Burlingham Park. _______ 1
-R~_;,~~_;;S~~i~~ Estates Park including park furniture, securityl-
li.!J~!~~'~rld,!~~inage i~~~vements.____. ._ __ _+__
Make improvements to Nelson Park including playground I
equipment replacement, drainage improvements, turf I
replacement, and landscape buffer. --- --. -.-- t-- - $120,000'
Expand Nelson Park (approx. 1 acre); add Sport Court and all I
I weather pathway. $2400001
-l M~ke'l;;'p~;;~~ents t~ Heritage Park Including acces~ path~ - - - --"=-='-'--1- -- -- -
retaining wall, security lighting, and signage. - ---i- $12,5001
Make improvements to North Front Street Park including I
playground equipment replacement, park furniture, sports I
court, and signage. ___ __ _ $67,5001
Make improvements to public schools including picnic tables, ! I
plaY~..<:l_u.'1~_~~arl,:ements, and other:am~nities.___ __.$67,500L_____L__
i
Complete Phase II & III development of Centennial Park,
including ballfields, soccer fields, lighting and amenities.
------ -----~-~--_._.._--- -- ----- --- --------
Redesign and renovate Legion Park to include stadium
improvements, signage/access improvements, playground
relocation and replacement, security lighting, drainage and
turf improvements, additional group picnic shelters, and
. _~I!1C)m;!lic:irria;!ti9n.___ ___ .__
I Redesign a-nd ~~novate Settlemier Park to include
signage/access improvements, playground, basketball court
relocation and replacement, picnic shelter replacement,
restroom renovation, drainage improvements, and other
imnmVf!rnp'nts.
J~UBTQT~h
;
$T7S,0Q0 j _
i
$7750001
---------,-------;--
I
I
$170,0001
---- --- -r
I
$21?,Q()oj
_ ~ZQ,QOO~
m-l-
1--------
---J---- - -
I
-+---
I
$9500001
------,-. --..r-
I
,
$13PQ,()QQ
i77Q,QOO_l
_ _$_?,S_?()-,-QO_~__n_
'11"
APPENDIX A
9A
Woodburn Parks and Recreation
Capital Improvements Plan
page 2 of 2
Total
Improve Locomotive Park to include interpretive information,
park furniture, and parking lot improvements; evaluate
securitx and.. screeni~ al~E!r_n<lti~~.
Improve Library Park to include furniture, lighting, graphics,
__ . g(lzeb~kiosk; re~~()re tur:t_and Ia_~dscall~!l~_._
! Upgrade alley and make rest rooms fully accessible at the
I ~c:><:><!burn~orl~'s_~I".'Y~~nter_~use~~"-_ --
i
SUBTOTAL
_ __ . $12'&OO[
_ _$lA~QO~___
: Acquire Mill Creek corridor areas between Lincoln and
I Cleveland Streets, in Meadow Park Subdivision, and from
i Cleveland Street_~ Settl.!!mier Park._______ ----+-- -.$JO<1.:-1 ---
I ~iu_i:e Mill c~ee~corri~:r areas~o~f~O~_LegiOn Park t:_t~l._ ~~.o,OOQ
; Acquire access easements to extend pathways near Hazelnut !
drive; from Settlemier Park to Parr Road, along Senecal Creek,
_ ~c!_o~ the south bank of Goose Creek. __ _ __ _ ___ _ 1~35,Q()()~__ _ _ u_ _ __
! Upgrade Wyffle Park Greenway to include all-weather pathway
+-.t-rom Lincoln St. to Hardcastle Ave. $30000
I Upgrade Hermanson Parks I, II, and III to include all-weather t
_ 1 pathway from Cleveland St. south to the City lil11its....._ --I - __$J9O,000 t --- --
I Replace and relocate playground equipment at Hermanson
t:;; 111;.~n:tall park furniture/a~~:iti:~:t pond at Hermanson. _ _ _ $35,000 ___
I
'SUBTOTAL
-----1
I
--J
I
.I9TAL
APPENDIX B 9A
City of Woodburn
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITY AND PROGRAM
NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE
1. ACTIVITIES AND INTERESTS
How often did members of your household participate in these recreation activities during the
past year?
Often Sometimes Seldom Never
A. Golfing D D D D
B. Swimming or aquatics D D D D
C. Visiting a park D D D D
D. Jogging or running D D D D
E. Walking for recreation or exercise D D D D
F. Picnicking D D D D
G. Fishing D D D D
H. Nature enjoyment (bird watching, etc.) D D D D
I. Bicycling D D D D
J. Unstructured sports (frisbee, kites, etc.) D D D D
K. Youth After School Drop-In Program D D D D
L. Taking a recreation class D D D D
M. Visiting the Woodburn Community Center D D D D
N. Participating in a Senior Excursion D D D D
O. Baseball D D D D
P. Softball D D D D
Q. Basketball D D D D
R. Soccer D D D D
S. Tennis D D 0 D
T. Supervised fitness activities (water fitness, etc.) D D D D
u. Dancing D D D D
V. Teen Programs D D D D
W. Arts and crafts D D D D
X. Other (specify) D D D D
1fT'
2. PROCRAM NEEDS 9A
How important is it for Woodburn to offer the following programs?
Very Somewhat Not No
Important Important Important Opinion
A. Youth Basketball D D D D
B. Youth Soccer D D D D
C. Children's Dance Classes D D D D
D. Children's Swim Lessons D D D D
E. Open Swim D D D D
F. Adult Aquatics D D D D
G. Senior Aquatics D D D D
H. Senior Excursion D D D D
1. Teen Programs D D D D
J. Adult Basketball D D D D
K. Adult Softball D D D D
L. Youth After School Drop-In Program D D D D
M. Middle School Co-Rec Program D D D D
N. Children's Art Classes D D D D
0. Other (specify) D D D D
3. FACILITY USE
Please check the appropriate box to indicate how frequently members of your household visit
or use each of the following types of facilities in Woodburn.
Often Sometimes Seldom Never
A. Aquatics Center (Swimming Pool) D D D D
B. Baseball/ softball facilities D D D D
c. Soccer facilities D D D D
D. Basketball facilities D D D D
E. Tennis facilities D D D D
F. Children's playground facilities D D D D
C. Community Center D D 0 D
H. Youth Drop-In Center D D D D
1. Parks D D D D
J. Creenways D D D D
4. FACILITY NEEDS 9A
Do current parks and recreation facilities meet the needs of Woodburn?
Need Need Keep No
More Less Same Opinion
A. Swimming/aquatics facilities D D D D
B. Baseball/Softball facilities D D D D
c. Soccer facilities D D D D
D. Basketball facilities D D D D
E. Tennis facilities D D D D
F. Parks and picnic areas D D D D
G. Children's playgrounds D D D D
H. Community centers D D D D
1. Youth centers D D D D
J. Walking trails/bicycle paths D D D D
K. Greenways and natural areas D D D D
L. Other (specify) D D D D
5. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
In general, how well do you think the current Woodburn parks and recreation facilities are
maintained? No
Good Satisfactory Poor On
A. Aquatics Center (swimming pool) D D D
B. Baseball/Softball facilities D D D D
c. Soccer facilities D D D D
D. Basketball facilities D D D D
E. Tennis facilities D D D D
F. Parks and picnic areas D D D D
G. Children's playgrounds D D D D
H. Community Center D D D D
I. Youth Drop-In Center D D D D
J. Other (specify) D D 0 D
6. Please let us know your ideas. Attach additional pages, if needed.
...
7. PAYING FOR FACILITIES
Which of the following should be used for new parks and recreation facilities?
Should Shouldn't
Use Use
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
8. PAYING FOR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Which of the following should be used for programs and maintenance?
Should
Use
D
D
D
D
D
A. Voter approved bond-issue (special property tax)
B. Neighborhood property fees for park improvements
D. Special fees on new development for growth costs
E. Business partnerships/ sponsorships
F. Other(specify)
A. Property tax base and levy revenues
B. User fees
C. Business partnerships/ sponsorships
D. Jointly sponsored city / school facilities and programs
E. Other (specify)
The following information will help insure that this questionnaire
representative sample of all W oodbum residents. The information
confidential, and will be used for statistical validation purposes only.
Oto 3to 6to
2 years 5 years 10 years
D D D
9. How long have you lived in Woodburn?
Under 5 to
5 years 17 years
10. Please list the number of people in each D D
age group within your household. Work
Full Time Part Time
11. Please list the number of adults within D D
your household in each category. Hispanic
Black Origin
12. Please list the number of people of each D D
race/ origin within your household. Less than $10,000 -
$10,000 19,999
13. What was your 1996 household income? D D
14. Do you live to the North or to the South of Lincoln Street?
18 to
39 years
D
Work
Student
D
Non- Hispanic
White
D
$20,000-
29,999
o
North
D
East
D
9A
No
Opinion
D
D
D
D
D
Shouldn't No
Use Opinion
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
is completed by a
is anonymous and
11 to 21 +
20 years years
D D
40 to 65 +
64 years years
D D
Retired Other
D D
Asian Other
D D
$30,000- $40,000
39,999 or More
D D
South
D
West
D
15. Do you live to the East or to the West of Settlemier Street?
Thank you for answering this questionnaire. Please fold and place it in the enclosed stamped,
addressed envelope and mail before April 10, 1997.
.City of,Woodburn
Parks and Recreation Planning Survey
1. ACTIVITIES AND A. GOLF
INTERESTS
B. SWIMMING
C. VISITING A PARK
D. JOGGING
. E. WALKING
F.PICNICKING
G. FISHING
H. NATURE
I. BICYCLING
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
.,NEVER
NQANSWER
OFTEN
SQMETIMES
. SELDOM
. NEVER
, NO ANSWER
:,OUEN
. SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
........ -.-......
. NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
. SELDOM
. NEVER
. NO ANSWER
',OFTEN
. SOMETIMES
· SELDOM
:, NEVER
. NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
9A
~~.;';':f}4;J,.'n; I
, I
TOTAL ' % of Total . % W/OPINION
19 10.16% 10.86%
23 12.30% 13.14%
11 5.88%, 6,29%
122 65.24% 69.71%
12 6.42% n/a
. . . . - - . .. .... ..
44 23.53%:23.53%
42 22,46% 22.46%
19 10.16%, 10.16%
82 43.85% 43.85%
J O. 5,35%.n/a
23 12.30% 12.fj4%
64 34.22%. 3S.1u6%
40 21u.39%. 21.~8%
55 29.41 % 30.22%
6, 3.2J%n/au
. 16. 8.56%.9.20%
1~ .. 10.Jfj% 10.~?%
28 14.97%, . Jfj,Q~%
111 u59,~()%.u .63.79%
14, 7.49%n/a
E;8. 36.36% . 3].9~%
u6Q32.09%L 33.52%
J4u 7.49%: .uu]&?%
. 37. 1 ~.79%u 20.fjl%
8: 4.28%jn/<:Im
20 '10,70% . u 11,1]%
55 29,41 %, 30.]3%
39: . 2Q.8fj% .2J.]~%
65. 34.76%.u .36.3J%
9, .'. 4.~J%'un/<:Iu
J3 .,fj,95%u!,41%
28 14.97% 16.09%
2] 14.44%.J5,52%
106: 56.68% E)0.92%
13 6.9S%,n/a
29 15.51%) 16,(;]%
45 24.06% 2,5.f39%
. .
u28, u 14.9n( 16.09%
72. 38.50%:.. 4L~a%
13. 6.95%,n/a
25 13.37% 14.29%
. ,... -.. .-.........__......
39 20.86%,u22,?9%
27. 14.44%, lSA~%
84, 44.92% 4~,Q096
12 6.42% n/a
.... 1ft'"
K. YOUTH
AFTER SCHOOL
L. RECREATION CLASS
M. COMMUNITY
CENTER
N. SENIOR EXCURSION
O. BASEBALL
P. SOFTBALL
Q. BASKETBALL
R. SOCCER
S. TENNIS
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
. SELDOM
NEVER
. NO ANSWER
. OFTEN
SOMETIMES
. SELDOM
. NEVER
. NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
.----------------------
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
. SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
. NO ANSWER
OFTEN
. SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
5.
24
36
107
14.
4
8
8.
153
13
1 .
17.
21
135
13.
14
22
39
102
9
6
16.
21
137.
7
8
12
15.
140
12
9
11
16
140.
11
17
12
17
131
11
16
7
10
143
11.
3
9
14
148
12
2.67% 2.91%]
. .. .HHI
12.83% 13.9~%1
19.25% 20.93%
57.22% 62.21%
7.49%. n/a
2.14% 2.31%
4.28%. 4.62%
4.28% 4.62%
81.82% 88.44%
6.95%, n/a
~:6~~ ~:ii~1
11.23% 12.07% I
72.19% 77.59%'
- - -. . - .- . . . ,...... .
6.95% n/a
7.49% 7.91%
11.76%. 12.4:3%
20.86%.22.03%
54.55% 57.63%
4.81 %.n/a
3.21 % 3.:33%
8,~ 6% 8.8~%
11.23% 11.67%
7.~ :i:~i.. n/~76..1.1..~.1
::~~~............::~.~.~.I
8.02% 8.57%1
74.8796..................80.00%.1
6.42% n/a HHHH .
4.81% 5.11%:
. - - - - - -- ---
5.88%. u6,25%:
8.56% 9.09%
... ....... ___.. n_____________
74.87% 79.55%
5.88%n/a
9.09% 9.60%
6.42% 6.78%
9.09% 9.E)O%
79.05% 74.01%
5.88% n/a
8.56%.9.09% :
3.74% 3.98%.
5.35% 5.68%
76.47% 81.25%
5.88%: n/a
1.60% 1.72%
4.81% 5.17%
7,49%. 8.05%
79.14%. 85.06%
6.42% n/a
9A
~
. U.. DANCING
.W. ARTS/CRAFTS
. X. OTHER
n?PROGRA~nNEEDS:2A.YOUTH
~BASKETI3ALL .
. 2B. YOUTH SOCCER
,2e. CHILDREN'SDANCE
2D.CHILDREN'S. SWIM
2E. OPEN SWIM
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
. NEVER
. NO ANSWER
. OFTEN
· SOMETIMES
S~LDOM
. NEYER
. NOANSWER
. OFTEN
. SOMETIMES
. SEL,PQM
: NEVER
· NO ANSWER
YERYnn
,SO~WHAT
NOT
. NO OPINION
. NO ANSWER
,VERY
. SOMWHA T
NOT
. NO OPINION
. NO ANSWER
: VERY
SOMWHA T
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
.____nun......
SOMWHA T
NOT
NO OPINION
. NO ANSWER
: VERY
. SQMWHA T
NOT
.' NO.OPINION
: NO ANSWER
13
21
17
123
13
14
20
21
120
12
6
15
8
145
12
12
24
19.
118
13
13
1
1
3
2.
92
44
6
26.
19
96.
41.
5
27
19.
40
62
31
30
24
105
41.
6
20
15.
90
47
6.
26.
18
9A
6.95%
11.23%
9.09%
65.78% 70.69%
6.95% n/a
7.49%8,()()%
10.70% 11.43%
11.23% 12.00%1
64.17% 68.57% I
6.42% n/a
3.21%, 3.45%
8.02% 8.62%:
4.28%. 4.60% i
77.54%: 83.33% I
6.42%. n/a .
. ,
6.42% 6.94% i
. n..nnnn i
i~'i~~:i6::~~
63.10% 68.21 %
6.9S%n/an
6.95% 12.??%
0.53% ..5,.5~%
0.53% 5.56%
1.60% 16.67%
1.07% n/a
49.20%. 64.]!:3%
23.53% .~O,!:39%
3.21%, 4.23%
13.90%.n/a ,
10.1~%.n/a I
51n.34%67.6J %
21.93%;28.87%
2.67% ~.5?%
14.44%n/a I
10.16%.n/an
21.}9% 30.08%
33.16% 46.62%
16.58%.23.31 %
1?,()4'Wn/an
12.~3% n/a
56.15%.69.08%
21.93% 26.97%
3.21% 3.95%
10.70% n/a
8.02% n/a
48,13%: 62.94%
25.13% 3?87%
3.21 %4.20%
l~,!)096'I1/~n
9.63% n/a
IW"
2G. SENIOR AQUATICS
2H. SENIOR EXCURSION
21. TEEN PROGRAMS
2J. ADULT
BASKETBALL
2K ADULT SOFTBALL
2L. YOUTH
AFTER SCHOOL
,2M.MIDDLE SCHOOL
CO-REC
2N. CHILDREN'S ART
20. OTHER
VERY
SOMWHAT
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHAT
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHAT
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHAT
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
- --------
. VERY
SOMWHA T
NOT
. NO OPINION
. NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHAT
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHA T
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHA T
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHAT
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
VERY
SOMWHA T
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
67
56.
16
29
20.
67
48
19.
32
21
50
67
23
26
20
107
33
7
25
15
26
65
35
41
22
25
70
30
39
22
87
48:
10
28
14.
E)8
59
9
30,
21
53
68.
20
29,
17.
8
4
2:
30.
9
9..<\.
35.83% 48.20%
29.95% 40.29%
8.56% 11.51%
15.51%n/a
10.70% n/a
35.83% 50.00%
25.67% 35.82%
10.16% 14.18%
17.11%n/a
11.23% n/a
26.74%. 35.71 %
35.83%. 47.86%
12.30%. 16.43%
13.90%n/a
10.70% n/a
57.22% 72.79%
17.65% 22.45%
3.74% 4.76%
13.37% n/a
8.02%.n/a
13.90%. 20.63%
34.76%51.5~%
18.72% 27.78%
21.93%,n/a
JJ.?6%:n/Cl.
13.37%20.90%
37.43% 56.00%
16:~:: nla24.()()%\
11.76%' nla I
46.52% 60.00%'
25.67%. 33.10%
5.35% 6,90%
14.97% n/a
7.49% n/a
36.36% 50.00%
31.55% 43.38%
4.81%. 6.62%
16.04% nla
1 1.23% n/a
28.34% 37.59%
36.36% 48.23%
10.70% 14.18% I
. . ... I
15.51% n/a
9.09% n/a
4.28%
2.14%
1.07%
1 6.04%
4.81%
3B. BASEBALL/
SOFTBALL
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
. .......... -.... -.., .
OFTEN
. ...............
. SOMETIMES
, SELDQM
, NEVER
· NO ANSWER
, OFTEN
. ...............
, SOMETIMES
,:, SELDQM
. NEVER
. NOANSWE:R
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
OFTEN
SOMETIMES
.--.--.----....... .
SELDOM
NEVER
NO ANSWER
3C. SOCCER
3D. BASKETBALL
3E. TENNIS
3F . PLAYGROUND
.. . .. ........ ~ , . . . .
3G. COMMUNITY
'CENTER
: 3H. YOUTH DROP-IN
31. PARKS
3J. GREENWAYS
41.
22
18
96,
13,
5
21
25
118
18
14
14
14
129
16,
14
17
16,
122
18
3
14,
18
134
18
..18
32
18
102,
16
15
26
36
95
15,
6
5:
16,
143
17
28
44,
40
61
15,
12
25
27
101
21
~l:~~:! . !t~i
51.34% 54.24%:
6.95%, n/a
2.67% 2.96%
11.23% 12.43%
. 'n..... 'H'
13.37%, 14.79%
63.10% 69.82%
9.63% n/a
7.49% 8.19%
7.49%, 8.19%
7.49% 8.19%
68.98% 75.44%
,____, ...___________ n__
8.56% n/a
7.49% 8.28%
... -.. ..........
9.09% 1..0.Q6%
8. ~6%9,47%
65.24% 72.19%
,9.63%,nja
1.60% 1.78%
7,49%, .8.2J3%
9.63% 10.65%
..................-.
71.66% 79.29%
.,-------------. ------------------
9.63%,n/Cl
..9,(5:3%...JQ.?~%
17.11 %) J8.a2%
9.f:)3% 1Q,5~%
54.55% 60.00%
8.56%~n/a ..
8.02% 8.72%
13.90%:..15.ii%]
19.25% ~0.~3%
50.80% 55,23%
8,02cW..n/a
3.21% 3.53%
._'n'___ _ _____n________
2.67% 2.94%
8.56%, 9,4 1%
76.47%: e4,12%
9.09%nla
14.97% 16.18%
23.53% 25.43%
21.39% 23.12%
32.62% 35.26%
8.02%, n/a
6.42% 7.27%
13.37%, 15.15%
14.44%, 16,3(j%
54.0 1 %(51.~J%
11.23% n/a
9A
!Ir
4B. BASEBALL/
SOFTBALL
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
. SAME
. NO OPINION
. NO ANSWER
. MORE
LESS
SAME
· NO OPINION
:NQANSWER
MORE
,LESS
.SAME
. NO OPINION
· NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINIQN
NO ANSWER
4. FACILITY NEEDS 4A. SWIMMING
4C. SOCCER
4D. BASKETBALL
4E. TENNIS
4F. PARKS AND PICNIC
4G. PLAYGROUNDS
4H. COMMUNITY
. CENTERS
41. YOUTH CENTER
4J. TRAILS/PATHS
'2-ii~
16 12.60%!
7 5.51%
104 55.61% 81.89%
41 21.93%.n/a
19 10.16%n/a
2~ 1 ~:~:: 3~:~::1
56 29.95% 62.92%1
77 41.18% n/a I
22 11.76%n/a
30 16.04% 33.71%
4 2.14% 4.49%
55 29.41 % 61.80%
77 41.18%,n/a
21 11.23%,n/a
32 17.11% 37.21%1
3 1.60%. 3.49%1
5127.27%L . 59.30%1
79 42.25% n/a i
. I
22 11.76% n/a I
- ~ !
19 10.16% 23.1]%,
I
5 2.67%. 6.JO%
58 31.02% 70,73%
84 44,!32%in/a
21 11.23% n/a I
.. -I
59 31.55% 48.76%.
8 4.28%. 6.61u%
54 28.88% 44.63%
48. 25.67%[ n/a
18 9.63%nla
63. 33.69%. uS6.76%i
4~: 2~:~;:3::~::1
59 31.5S%n/a..........uu.1
17 9.09%n/a
35. 18.72% 33.02%
7 3.74% 6.60%
64, 34.22% 60.38%
62. 33.16%n/a
1910.16%n/a
71: 37.97%. 62.28%
6 3.21 % 5.26%
37 19.79% 32-46%
63. 33.69% n/a
20 10.70% n/a
72 38.50%. 62.61%
9 4,81% 7.83%
34 18.18%, 29.57%
53 213.34% n/a
_.~J~LJg.J !5<tLn/~. ..~__J
9A
~
4L. OTHER
SA. AQUATICS
sB. BASEBALU
SOFTBALL
sc. SOCCER
SO. BASKETBALL
SEe TENNIS
SF. PARKS/PICNIC
SG. PLAYGROUNDS
5H. COMMUNITY
CENTER
MORE
LESS
SAME
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
MORE
LESS
.SAME
NOOPINION
NO ANSWER
GOOD
SATISF
POOR
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
GOOD
. SAUSF
POOR
NQOPINION
NQ.AN$WER..
GOOD
SATlSF
POOR
..NQ.OPINION
. NQANSWER
GOOD
SA TISF
POOR
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
GOOD
. SA T1SF
PQOR
. NOOPINIQN
NO ANSWER
GOOD
SATISF
. POOR
NO OPINION
...._---------.....
NO ANSWER
. GCXJI)
SATISF
POOR
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
GOOD
SATISF
POOR
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
9A
47 25.13%
16 8.56%
49 26.20%. 43.75%
s529.41%.n/a
20. 10.70%. n/a
5 2.67%
1 0.53%
1 0.53%.
48 25.67%
14 7.49%
61. 32.62%. 61u'OO%
36. 19.25% .36.00%
3 1.60%... . 3.00%
72 . 38.~O%un/au
15 8.02% n/a
17 ..9.09% 23.61%
4322.99%.. .59.72%
12 . u 6.42%.uuJ6.67%
92 49.2Q%n/a
23 J2.30%n{a
18 . 9,63%.2L6~%
35 18. 72% 5~J3~%
12 6.42% 18.46%
9952,!34%n/~u
23 12.~O%hn/au
1 05,:3~% .. .1Q.:3!3%
u:3i3 20.32% u62.30%
13u 6.!3S%u.. 21.3J%
1 03 5~,08%n/a ..
23 12.30%,n/Ct.
7 3.74%. JJ.48%
4f 22,4E596 68,8.~%
12. 6.42% ....J!3.~7%
104 55.61%,n/a
23.12.30%. n/a
2111.23% 19.81%
.. - -- ---------... ---..
49 26.20%. 4Q.?:3%
36 1u9.2S%33,!3E>%
59 3L55%,n/C1u
22 1-'.76%n/a
15. 8.02%.1].86%
44. 23.53%. 52.38%
25 1:3.37% 29.]6%
81. 43.32%.n/a
22. 1u1.76%n/a
22 ".76%,26.83%
46 24.60%, 56.10%
14 7.49%. 1].0796
83 44.39%n/au
22 11.76% n/a
1T
. ~A
GOOO 6 3.21% 12.77%
SA TISF 23 12.30% 48.94%
POOR 18 9.63% 38.30%
NO OPINION 11 60.96% n/a
NO ANSWER 26 13.90%, n/a
5J. OTHER GOOO 0 0.00%
SATISF 3 1.60%
POOR 2 1.07%
NO OPINION 59 31.55%
NO ANSWER 13 6.95%
6.IDEAS YES 43 22.99%,
r-o 142 75.94%
7A. BONDS SHOULD 56 29.95% 44.44%
NOT 70 37.43% 55.56% i
NO OPINION 29 15.51% n/a ....ddl
NO ANSWER 30 16.04% n/a
7B. FEES ,. SHOULD 32 17.11% 29.36%
NOT 77 41.18%, 70.64%
NO OPINION 37 19.79% n/a
NO ANSWER 39 20.86%nla
70. SDC'S SHOULD 88. 47.06%, 72.13%
NOT 34, 18,18% 27.87%
. NO OPINION 32 17.1J%. nla
. NOANSWER 32 17.1dl%n/a
7E. PARTNER/ ,SHOULD 105, 56.15%, 86.78%
,SPONSORSHIPS NOT 16 8.56% 13.22%
NO OPINION 36 19.25%n/a, I
. - -. -. - - - -- -- - --- I
,NOANSWER 29 15.51%.n/a
. 7F. OTHER SHOULD 14 7.49%
NOT 6 3.21%
NO OPINION 28, 14.97%.
NO ANSWER 18 9.63%.
8A. PROPERTY TAX SHOULD 56 29.95% 43.75%
NOT 72 38.50% 56.25%
, NO.OPINION 25, 13.37%,n/a
. NO ANSWER 34 18.18%n/a
8B. USER FEES SHOULD 118 63.10%, 83.10%
NOT 24 12.83% 16.~O%1
NO OPINION 19, 10.16%, n/a
. NO ANSWER 26 , 3.90% n/a
8C. PARTNER/ SHOULD 106 56.68%: 88.33%
SPONSORSHIPS . NOT 14, 7.49% 11.67%
NO OPINION 42 22.46%. nla
NO ANSWER 30 16.04% n/a
80. CITY/SCHOOL SHOULD 114. 60.96% 88.37%
.JOINT PROGRAMS NOT 15 8.02% 11.63%
NO OPINION 31 16.58% n/a
NO ANSWER 26 13.90% n/a
._-_._._...-._--------------~ --
. SHOULD
NOT
NO OPINION
NO ANSWER
0-2
3-5
6-10
11 -20
21+
NO ANSWER
c.._'_____._.._ .._..___.--.______
<5
.5-17
. 18-39
40-64
65+
NO ANSWER
11 A.WORK (HOUSEHOLDER)
FULL
PART
STLJDENT
RETIRED
. OTHER
. .NQANSWER ._
FULL
. PART
STUDENT
RETIRED
. OTHER
LNQ_~N~W~R___ ~_.
BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
ASIAN
OTHER
NO ANSWER
12. RACE/ORIGIN
5
1
25
8
22:
41
42
32.
47
3
39.
78
91
126
133.
8
85.
o
1
o
3
9.
7
6
30.
3
6
15
8
8
143
34
31
151
15.
.. m ..1J
86
6
1.
99
5
u_1i....
1
129
321 :
4
8
7
9A
2.67%
0.53%
13.37%
4.28%
1J.76%.
21.93%
22.46%
17.11%
25.13%
1.60%
-- ---_._~
45.45%
0.00%
0.53%
0.00%
1.60%
4.81%
3,74%
3.21%
16.04%:
l,f~O%
.3.fJ%!
8.02%.
4.28%
4.28%
45.99%
3.21%
0.53%
47.59%
2.67%
2.14%.
1fF
1 2A. RACE/ORIGIN
(MAJORITY OF HOUSEHOLD)
'BLACK
HISPANIC
WHITE
ASIAN
OTHER
NO ANSWER
- -" --- -- ---- - --
<10K
,10-19.9K
20-29.9K
30-39.9K
40K+
NO ANSWER
NORTH
SOUTH
NO ANSWER
EAST
WEST
NO ANSWER
N{IJ
NE
SW
SE
';1) .E
1 0.53%
31 16.58%
146 78.07%
3 1.60%.
4 2.14%
7 3.74%
10 5.35%
36 19.25%
40 21.39%
30 16.04%
50 26.74%
22 11.76%
111 59.36%
60 32.09%
15 8.02%,
69 36.90%
106 56.68%
11 5.88%
68 36.36%
39 20.86%
31 16.58%
u __________?~_____1 5.5 1 %___~__'
14. NORTH/SOUTH
9A
9B
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
November 22,1999
Mayor and City Council thru City Administrato~
To:
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
ANX 99-02, CPA 99-02, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14, and VAR 99-07; A proposal
to annex property to the City and change the Comprehensive Plan land
use designation and zoning to construct an assisted living facility
(Soones Ferry Place) on the west side of Soones Ferry Road and south
side of Country Club Lane.
At their public hearings of September 23, 1999 and October 14, 1999, the Planning
Commission reviewed a request by Wally Gutzler and Anthony Kreitzberg to annex 3.32
acres to the City of Woodburn. The applicant also requested a Comprehensive Plan and
Zone Map change from Marion County Urban Transition Farm (UTF) to City Multi-Family
Residential (RM), and a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map change for an adjacent tax
lot of .98 acres from Single-Family Residential (RS) to Multi-Family Residential (RM). The
Planning Commission also considered the applicants' request for approval of a Site Plan
Review for Soones Ferry Place, a retirement center, and the applicants' request for
variances to the lot coverage and lot area requirements in the RM zone.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 28, 1999, adopted a final order
recommending the City Council approve the proposed annexation and deny the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site plan review and variances.
This project has been scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council at this
meeting. However, the applicants submitted a letter on November 17, 1999 stating that
they have made substantial revisions to the proposed site plan in response to comments
made by the Planning Commission and adjacent neighbors (letter and revised site plan
attached). The applicants request that the City Council continue this hearing to a date
certain and that this proposal be remanded to the Planning Commission for their review
and recommendation pertaining to the revised proposal prior to the Council holding a
hearing on this matter.
In regard to the applicants' request, the City Council has the following options:
1 . Continue this hearing to a date certain and remand the project to the
~
9B
Planning Commission for their review and recommendation pertaining to the
revised proposal. Staff recommends that the City Council hearing be
continued to February 28, 2000. This would allow the Planning Commission
to have an initial hearing on January 13, 2000 and should provide sufficient
time for the Planning Commission to forward their recommendation to the
Council.
2. Do not consider the revised proposal and concur with the Planning
Commission's final order and approve Annexation 99-02, and deny
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02, Zone Change 99-06, Site Plan
Review 99-14, and Variance 99-07.
3. Do not consider the revised proposal and modify the Planning Commission's
final order.
4. Do not consider the revised proposal and approve Annexation 99-02,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02, Zone Change 99-06, Site Plan
Review 99-14, and Variance 99-07 based on the recommendation of the
staff report presented to the Planning Commission.
5. Continue the hearing to allow the applicant to submit all necessary materials
pertaining to the revised proposal. Staff would then provide a supplemental
staff report upon which the Council may base approval or denial of the
revised proposal.
As can be seen, the Council has numerous options pertaining to the applicants' request.
Staff recommends that the Council adopt Option 1 because it will allow the Planning
Commission to provide a new recommendation based on the revised proposal and will
minimize the cost and time involved in noticing the revised proposal.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Applicants' Letter and Revised Proposal, dated 11/17/99
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Final Order, dated 10/28/99
Exhibit C: Planning Commission 9/23/99 and 10/14/99 Minutes
Exhibit 0: Written Testimony Received by Planning Commission
Exhibit E: Planning Commission 9/23/99 Staff Report
11/1'/~~ ~~:~1 rrtA JUu uvi uv~i
"'C.;,l...............
Exhibit "A"
GARRETT, HEMANN ~
ROBERTSON,PAULUS
JENNINGS Be
COMSTOCK, P.C.
ATrORNEYS AT LAW
MARK B. COMSTOCK
PAULA.DAKOPOLOS
TAMMYM.DENTINGER
JAMESO. GARRETT
PAULA. GOODWIN
JAMES L. GUSE
JOHN L.. HEMANN
GEORGE M. JENNINGS
ANTHONY R. KRElTZBERG"
KATHARINE SMITM NYHUS
JOHN E. POLLINO..
JOSEPH D. ROBERTSON
D.t.NIEL L. STEINBERG
CHESS TRET'HEWY
PAULJ.WEDDLE
THOMASJ. WETTLAUFER
BRUCE A. ZAGAR
COUNSEL TO THE FIRM
J. WALLACE GUTZU:R
KIM E. HOYT
.. ADMITTED 'N OREGON
AND WASHINGTON
WILLAMETTE PROFESSIONAL
CENTER
10 II COMMERCIAL ST. NE
SUITE 2 10
MAILING Aoo......s
POST OFPICE BOX 74ft
1IAUM.0REGONII730&07G
(1103) 581.IBOI
1.eDOU 1.1110 I
I"oo.ao 1.....77
FAX
(503) 581....1
WWW.GAIIRCTI.LAW.COM
9B
November 17. 1999
VIA FAX: (503)982-5244
STEVE GOECKRITZ
JIM MULDER
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn OR 97071
Re:
Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02,
Zone Change 99-06, Site Plan Review 99-14, and
Variance Application 99-07
Our File No. 36977050
Dear Steve and Jim:
The applicants have made substantial revisions to the site plan in response to the
comments made by the Planning Commission and adjacent neighbors. The Planning
Commission has not had an opportunity to consider the amended site plan. Please
remand the site plan with modifications to the Planning Commission and continue
the scheduled City Council hearing to a date certain in the future.
Attached is a copy of the revised site plan. The written presentation of the revised
site plan will be forwarded to you soon.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
aW.com
JWG:dll
Enclosure(s)
..
n: \wpdOClI369770SO\goe5le.ltr .doc\dll
1111619910:5 1:00
J"
.
8 r
<<
I
~Q2 ..J
~ enm en --I ---I
ICO 0 ~m
ZQ :J: ~'"tI /-
~z m r-
I ml1J s: >
enen ~ z
-f"'l1 0
3:m c
>:0 m
z:o en
>-< -
G> "tJ Ci)
mr- Z
13:>
mo
IZm
-tr-
r- nn
0
%!i~ .
tl'i
. .11
J
9B
I
eee
II it
I ~ i
~ ! i
i
:IE.
h~
iiI 111~11
.
~e. r i ! n PU I q
, I kM I , III-~ Ii!
~ UIII; n Iii : Ii
E I ~I!J i H II! III
I E I~i II t j rrl I
I II: ~ &'-
i . i I i
I
~f!l J Ii j 1111 P I I 'lIP i U
dip ;;11 I' 'Ill ,
~!!~!! ii, iI ;;11 ! I! I I I I~
jSP1 ~ ~I. ~ I ~~~~ t t J i ~ I ;In I
ILl! i ~i~~~. ~ ~ : I ~ ~ n i
I IJ1 ~ ~ ! ~
~ ~ ~ ~
I
.
!1r
Exhibit "B"
9B
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street . Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TOD (503) 982-7433 · FAX (503) 982-5244
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
ANNEXATION 99-02
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 99-02
ZONE CHANGE 99-06
SITE PLAN REVIEW 99-14
VARIANCE 99-07
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, a request was made for the Planning Commission to hear a proposal
for approval of the Annexation of 3.32 acres into the City limits, an amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan Map from Single Family to Multi-Family, a Zone Change from Single
Family Residential (RS) to Multi-Family Residential (RM), and a Site Plan and Variance
request for 4.3 acres, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their regularly
scheduled meeting of September 22, 1999, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony
presented by staff, the applicant and proponents of the proposal, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to recommend the City Council to
approve Annexation 99-02, (8) Yea (0) Nay, and deny Comprehensive Plan Map 99-02,
Zone Change 99-06, Site Plan Review 99-14 and Variance 99-07 (8) Nay (0) Yea and
instructed staff to prepare findings and conclusions,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
1. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Annexation 99-02
and deny Comprehensive Plan 99-02, Zone Change 99-06, Site Plan Review 99-14
and Variance 99-07 based on findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and
subject to conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "8", which is hereto and by
reference incorporated herein.
Approved: ~ ~ (L. ~.
Royce Young, C irpers
trr.Z~ J;).~ (f f J
Date '
FINAL ORDER - Annex 99-02, CP 99-02, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14, VAR 99-07
9B
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL
FINDING:
1. The applicant has submitted a petition requesting to annex 3.32 to the City of
Woodburn.
2. The applicants site is adjacent to the City limits, south of Country Club and east of
Boones Ferry Road. The property is identified specifically as Tax Lot #400 (within
City limits) and Tax Lots 200,300,900 and 1000 (outside City limits) in NW 1/4, T5S,
R1W, Section 7.
3. The applicant requested a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Change from Marion
County Urban Transition Farm (UTF) to City Multi-Family Residential (RM) and a
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Change for an adjacent tax lot of .98 acres from
Single-Family Residential (RS) to Multi-Family Residential (RM), and a Variance to
the lot coverage and lot area requirements.
4. The applicant requested a Site Plan Review for a retirement center.
5. The land area consists of approximately 4.3 acres (3.32 acres outside the City and
.98 acres within the City)
6. The subject property (Tax Lots 200,300,900, and 1000) is designated for residential
development <12 units per acre.
7. The majority of the property (Tax Lots 200,300,900, and 1000) is currently zoned
"Urban Transition Farm" (UTF) by Marion County.
8. Tax Lot 400, is within the City limits is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS).
ANNEXATION
9. The property abuts the City limits on it's south boundary and a part of its east, west
and north boundaries.
10. The applicants parcels are an enclave surrounded in part by Woodburn's City limits
and therefore does not constitute sprawl.
11. The City infrastructure in the way of water, sewer, storm drain and streets are
available to the site.
A:\Findings & Conclusions -19991Findings & Conclusions - ANX 99-02, CP 99-02, zc~. SPR 99-14, VAA 99~7-Boones Feny PI wpd.wpd
Page 1 of 4
9D
CONCLUSION:
1. The subject properties are contiguous to the current City limit boundaries on the west
and south and Country Club on the north thereby constituting an enclave and not
urban sprawl.
2. City water, sewer and streets are adjacent to the site.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONE MAP
FINDING:
12. The proposed plan and zone designation would be in conflict with the concept of
single family residential areas being designed around a neighborhood and should be
an identifiable unit. That area bounded by Country Club, Soones Ferry and the
school property (Lincoln Elementary) is an identifiable neighborhood.
13. An amendment to multi-family development adjacent to Country Club Road
establishes a negative precedent that would encourage the remaining single family
parcels on that street to be amended to multi-family strip between Astor Way and
Soones Ferry Road and abut single family residential properties along its entire south
boundary.
14. There is sufficient vacant land (86 acres) designated as multi-family to accommodate
the proposed used.
15. A compelling need for an Alzheimer facility is not proven by the applicant in what the
Commission finds as an over saturated market at this time.
CONCLUSION:
1. The existing plan designation of single-family residential is more compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood land uses.
SITE PLAN AND VARIANCE
16. The proposal provides for its most intense use, a 21/2 story structure adjacent to
single family residences. The height of this building will have deleterious effects on
adjacent low density residential uses.
17. The site plan fails to promote a design, on its southerly structure that promotes a
feeling of openness.
A:lFinding. & Conclusions - 1999\Finclings & Conclusions - ANX 99-02, CP 99-<12, ZC 99-<l6, SPR 99-14, VAA 99-<17 -Boone. Feny PI wpd.wpd
Page 2 of 4
9B
18. The site plan fails to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent residential uses.
19. There is insufficient drainage capacity at this time which would result in Goose Creek,
which is already a problem, to accommodate additional storm water.
20. The site plan provides a waste pick-up location however, the access for removal by
sanitation trucks is difficult.
21. The applicant is requesting a Variance from the maximum lot coverage and lot area
requirements of the RM zoning district. The maximum lot coverage (For Building) is
30% and the applicant is proposing a 34% coverage.
22. There is sufficient space (4.30 acres) to modify the design of the buildings to meet the
requirements of lot coverage and area.
23. The proposed development by meeting the lot coverage and area requirements can
still enjoy their substantial property rights by developing a complex that meets that
standard.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed facility would have adverse and detrimental impacts on adjacent
residential uses.
A\Findings & Conclusions -1999\Findings & Conclusions. ANX 99-C2, CP 99.{)2, ZC 99-06, SPR 99-14, VAA ~7-800nes Ferry PI wpd.wpd
Page 3 of 4
-
9B
EXHIBITS "B"
CONDITIONS
ANNEXATION
1. Provide Planning Staff with a copy of a detailed description and map of the new
annexation boundaries prior to the City Council hearing.
A:\Findings & Conclusions -l999\Findings & Conclusions -ANX 99-02, CP 99-02, ZC 99..06, SPR 99-14, VAR 99-07-800nes Ferry PI wpd.wpd
Page 4 of 4
I __ (l).~ QG\ Exhibit "C" 9B
\?\~t'H'\il'\~ (om""':, ~<;:<"I\ (YI1V'\lA~- I ~, - - f I
. Chair erson Cox stated he is familiar with the situation. He requested Mr. Atkinson
leave 's telephone number and address so that Staff can contact him regarding this issue.
Staff will cn k with the Public Works Department regarding the Hwy. 214/Boones Ferry
Road situatio
COMMUNICA TIO
A. Letter from th Ci
Commissioner Lima ex ssed his displeasure with the Council's letter regarding the
portable toilet issue. He a ed how the Planning Commission can bring forward to the
City Council a problem that is health hazard within the community?
Commissioner Bandelow concurre ith Commissioner Lima.
Commissioner Lonergan also agreed wit the Commissioners and added he does not
believe the issue is a waste of the Commissi 's time especially when it is something that
is a potential health hazard.
Vice Chairperson Cox agreed with his fellow Com 'ssioners. He expressed his
resentment regarding Centennial Park plan not having en brought forward to the
Commission until after the Council had already made a decisio on it.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Site Plan Review 99-14. Variance 99-07, Comprehensive Plan 99-02.
Annexation 99-02 and Zone Change 99-06. proposed Alzheimer facility and
retirement center. 2523 and 2551 N. Boones Ferry Road. Boones Ferry Place.
Wally Gutzler I Anthony Kreitzberg. apolicant.
Vice Chairperson Cox opened the Public Hearing.
Ex-Parte Contacts
Commissioner Bandelow stated she lives in the subdivision that is adjacent to this project
and has visited the site.
Commissioner Lima and Loneraan are also familiar with the site.
Staff read the applicable ORS statements.
Staff made presentation as reflected in the Staff Report contair:led in the Planning
Commission packet, with review of the conditions of approval.
Vice Chairperson Cox commented the plan looks like it is a 3-story building and not two ~
story.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, .1999
Page 2 of 11
....-
9R
Commissioner Bandelow concurred with Vice Chairperson Cox. She also expressed her
concerns regarding the 20-foot setback that will back up to residential properties.
Staff read from the code book. He reported the code definition is not clear and therefore
is subject to interpretation, which the Commission has the authority to do. Staff
commented the applicant's architect would be the appropriate person to respond to
specifically what is intended for the ~ story and how they thought it met the code definition.
Testimony by Applicant
Wally Gutzler. Attorney. P.O. Box 749. Salem. OR 97308, reported the largest building is
a congregate care/retirement center with a central dining room. Mr. Gutzler stated they
opted for 110 units because that is the minimum optimum number of units that can be
operated financially effectively. He added they have no problems with the conditions of
approval and feel they have presented a very workable layout.
Vice Chairperson Cox commented he has no quarrel with the concept but is concerned
with the scope and magnitude. He felt the statements made contending the applicant
meets the various requirements seem to be statements that could be made in favor of
anybody who wants to do something different from what was otherwise allowed in the
zone. Vice Chairperson Cox requested further specifics and/or explanation stating why the
applicant contends they meet the various hardships for granting a Variance.
Wally Gutzler responded that a few units difference in a project can make the difference
between whether it operates a profit or it does not. He explained it is difficult to find a
facility that is nice, well maintained, has competent staff and accepts Medicaid. Their
facilities have been designed so that they can operate and still survive financially with
occupancy that a lot of facilities turn down. Mr. Gutzler further stated Sunwest
Management Inc., which are the number one operator of assisted living facilities in Oregon I
will manage the complex.
Patrick Bickler. Architect. 1313 Mill St. SE. Salem 97301, provided a very detailed
presentation. He stated he has designed $125 million worth of construction in retirement
related facilities. Mr. Bickler addressed Vice Chairperson Cox's issues and indicated they
want to attempt to bring a larger facility into a very residential format to create a
community within itself and not exclude the community outside. He pointed out the
Variance is very minor since they are going from 30% to 34% lot coverage. Mr. Bickler
also addressed Commissioner Bandelow's concerns. He referred to a diagram and
clarified that Building #3 is at an angle to the south boundary and the closest point is
setback 20' and increases to a setback of about 40'. Also, the architecture of the building
will be residential in style.
Commissioner Lima asked if there are any provisions for elevators in the building?
Patrick Bickler reported there will be an elevator located in the core area.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, 1999
Page 3 of 11
9B
Commissioner Lima also inquired which existing trees will be retained?
Patrick Bickler referred to a diagram. He indicated they will retain the Walnut, Maple and
several other trees.
Commissioner Lima asked why the building could not be located on the side where the
church is located?
Patrick Bickler responded there are a couple of issues with that location. Primarily for
circulation for the cars and emergency vehicles. One of the buildings would face the full
road width as you go by and not see the other building. He pointed out it would be even
more massive if you break the relationship to each property line. The building would be
a long linear structure by trying to go transverse to the site. Mr. Bickler also remarked if
height is an issue, the suggested orientation would not necessarily suffice any because
it would still be at the same height.
Commissioner Heer asked if everything on the property will be torn down when phase one
starts or will the older homes on Boones Ferry Road be left until phase two starts?
Patrick Bickler could not address this issue because he does not know if a decision has
been made yet.
Wally Gutzler interjected one of the buildings was burned down by the Fire Department and
the remaining vacant rental house will come down soon. Aletha Miller's home is presently
located on the site set for phase two and will remain there as long as possible.
Commissioner Heer inquired whether the applicant will build their own fence around the
perimeter and if so, what type of fence will it be?
Patrick Bickler replied they are required to provide fencing as well as landscape buffering.
He added they have proposed to use vinyl fencing. Mr. Bickler stated he is more than
happy to work with Staff in terms of fine tuning what seems site specifically appropriate.
Commissioner Heer asked Mr. Bickler what the square footage for each room in the
retirement facility will be?
Patrick Bickler responded it will vary from 900 sq.ft. for a two bedroom, 600 sq.ft. for one
bedroom and 400 sq.ft. for a studio.
Commissioner Lonergan expressed his concerns regarding the difficulty waste removal
trucks will have to get in and out of the long narrow access.
Patrick Bickler informed Commissioner Lonergan he has obtained approval from the
sanitation folks. Furthermore, he has obtained approval for the entry/exit of a fire truck
hammer head from Marion County which exceeds the sanitation department
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, 1999
Page 4 of 11
~ 11"1"
9B
requirements. They also have provision for recycling as well as solid waste. Mr. Bickler
reported they will probably end up with a compactor when phase two goes in which will
reduce the trips per weeks.
Commissioner Lima asked Mr. Bickler whether the existing cyclone fence on the west side
will be maintained or rebuilt?
Patrick Bickler replied iUs drawn to have a new fence along that line.
Commissioner Bandelow commented the project design is beautiful but sees some
problems with the project being in that location. She reported Henry's Farm CC&R's
prohibit vinyl fencing. If residents do not have back fencing, there will be conflicting fencing
(wood on the side and vinyl on the back). Commissioner Bandelow also expressed her
concerns regarding the possible back up of Goose Creek if additional water drainage from
Boones Ferry is dumped into it.
Patrick Bickler responded they intend to comply with the rules. He stated the flow into
Goose Creek can be restricted at a rate that would be superior to a contemporary rate.
The flow may be restricted so that it is slower and the volume is retained on site.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked there are two lot coverage requirements: (1) cannot be
more than 30% and (2) have at least so many sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit. Vice
Chairperson Cox pointed out the applicant is 4% over the lot coverage requirement and
19% over on the sq.ft. of lot area per dwelling unit.
Patrick Bickler indicated the code does not apply in their case because they do not have
provisions for cooking within the unit and therefore are not considered a dwelling unit. He
reported a dwelling unit requires provisions for cooking as defined by the Uniform Fire
Code, Uniform Building Codes and most Planning Codes. Mr. Bickler pointed out 30% lot
coverage is extremely low.
Vice Chairperson Cox felt the sq. footage of the units are not too far out of line with normal
apartment sizes in terms of sq. ft. per unit.
Patrick Bickler clarified the square footages he quoted earlier are completely different for
the assisted living facility to building #two.
Anthonv Kreitzberg. 1375 Moonbeam Ct.. Salem, mentioned the City Community
Development Director felt the density Variance would not be a probl?m for this particular
development because density requirement is set for standard multi-family residence which
requires more green space to accommodate an area for recreation for younger adults and
children. Mr. Kreitzberg stated his facility will house persons in an age group that will not
recreate outdoors and therefore, they do not need the amount of space required for
recreation.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, 1999
Page 5 of 11
9B
Testimony by Proponents
Beckv Miller. 2348 N. 800nes Ferry Road. Woodburn, stated she lives across the street
from the development. She pointed out all the beneficial points of this project and
believed it is a positive addition to the area. Furthermore, Mrs. Miller stated from a long
term development perspective it makes great sense to go more dense in that area. She
urged the Commission approve the project.
Steward Miller. 2348 N. 800nes Ferry Road. Woodburn, concurred with Mrs. Miller. He
remarked this project is better than they could have dreamed for to go across the street
from them. He pointed out the applicant has taken great care to make the building have
more form and function and have it blend into an area where other projects probably would
not be so kind to the neighborhood. Mr. Miller urged the Commission to look at the project
not just for its setbacks and size but also on what it could bring to the neighborhood
compared to what it would be replaced with.
Break
Testimony by Opponents
James Atkinson. 1219 Henry's Blvd.. Woodburn commented it is a beautiful building as far
as assisted living is concerned but he does not want it behind his property. Mr. Atkinson
referred to several chapters of the Staff Report. He remarked the development is shoved
up against his property destroying any view, placing him in close quarters and taking away
the feeling of openness. In closing, Mr. Atkinson said in rejection of this property, no Zone
Change, no Annex, no Variance or amendment to Site Plan Review is necessary.
Alan Hubenthal. 1223 Henry's Blvd.. Woodburn provided copies of a letter to the
Commission. He stated this project does not blend into the neighborhood. Furthermore,
Mr. Hubenthal requested the record be left open so he may submit further written
testimony.
Staff clarified the Commission may continue the hearing to a specific date and time, at
least seven (7) days from today or leave the record open for at least (7) days to allow for
additional written evidence or testimony. Staff explained to Mr. Hubenthal that he also has
the option of presenting all these issues before the City Council but certainly has the option
of doing it before the Planning Commission.
After discussion amongst the Commissioners, Vice Chairperson Cox informed Mr.
Hubenthal the record will be left open for the purpose of allowing him and anybody else
who identifies themselves before the closing of the hearing to submit additional written
testimony or evidence once the Public Hearing is closed. These will be submitted to the
Planning Department by the close of business on Friday, October 1st.
Vice Chairperson Cox clarified the Commission will defer any decisions until all the
evidence is in.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, 1999
Page 6 of 11
11"
9B
Alan Hubenthal said he cannot be a good sport about this project because it will ruin
everything he has worked for and he does not think it conforms to the requirements.
Additionally, he commented his back yard will be facing the property.
Vice Chairperson Cox reminded Mr. Hubenthal to submit his written testimony to the
Planning Department a week from tomorrow. He explained Staff will then provide the
Commission with copies and they will have a chance to review it before they reach their
final decision in this matter.
Staff interjected the Commission will not take any action on this project until the next
meeting. He further explained anybody who has participated has the opportunity to
provide written testimony up until 5 p.m., Friday October 1st. Prior to that point, anyone
who has participated has the opportunity to request to re-open the record to respond to any
new evidence that is submitted within that period of time. Staff further clarified if this is not
done, the applicant is allowed a minimum of seven (7) days to respond to any new
evidence that is provided. If a request to re-open the record is not received by October 1st,
the applicant can have the following seven (7) days to provide written evidence.
Bill Klein. 1245 Jacob St.. Woodburn referred to the map and pointed to the property next
to the apartment complex and west of the LOS Church. He stated this new facility will
create an additional multi-family facility in that area. Mr. Klein expressed his concern that
the property next to the existing apartment complex becomes multi-family.
Julie Ashberry. P.O. Box 1596. Wilsonville commented she is currently building on Lot #7
and was told at the time she purchased the property that the property behind her was
zoned as single family dwellings. Mrs. Ashberry stated it is hard for her to tell by the
drawing what is going to be actually facing her lot. She would not want to walk in her back
yard and have people staring at her. Mrs. Ashberry also worries once the land is re-zoned
there is a possibility they could end up with an apartment building.
Applicant Rebuttal
Wallv Gutzler stated the 7 foot fence is an Ordinance requirement. He stated they are
willing to submit their rebuttal in writing after they have heard from those who have asked
for seven (7) days in which to present more information.
Patrick Bickler suggested a condition be placed that the use be exclusive to
RetiremenUAssisted Living and Alzheimer as opposed to Multi-Family. Secondly, they
would be interested in reading the written proposal and try to work within a condition that
they believe can be compatible. Mr. Bickler said he understands that sometimes things are
not clear on a two-dimensional plan and they will attempt to give a better understanding
of what they are really trying to propose three-dimensionally.
Commissioner Lonergan asked Mr. Bickler whether the dormers behind Building #3 are
finished apartments?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, 1999
Page 7 of 11
9B
Patrick Bickler replied No.
Commissioner Lonergan then inquired whether there will be no one living in the upper half
level?
Patrick Bickler misunderstood the Commissioner's question and clarified that the dormer
areas are resident suites.
Commissioner Heer asked whether it would be a third floor living area or like one or two
floor with the second floor having a small loft?
Patrick Bickler responded it is a third floor.
Commissioner Lima questioned whether a zone change condition may be placed stating
only that type of development may go in?
Staff informed the Commission the Zone Change Ordinance does specify that the City
Council can make a Zone Change conditional based on a specific Site Plan, as in this
case. Furthermore, the Zone Change can be conditioned that it is only valid as long as
that approved Site Plan is completed. Staff explained if Phase II is not completed, then
that Zone Change would be invalid from that point and would automatically revert back to
Single Family Residential. Staff clarified the applicant would not have a right to put
apartments on the property without coming back with another Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and Zone Change.
Vice Chairperson Cox closed the oral testimony portion of the hearing but kept the record
open as previously stated.
Discussion
It was the Commission's decision to continue discussion of the proposal to their October
14th meeting.
FIN RDER
A. Co rehensive Plan Amendment 99-02 Ci of Woodburn Parks &
Recrea n.
Staff believes the . dings prepared by the Consultant should be more involved as far as
addressing the speci pproval criteria but in order to expedite the approval of the plan,
Staff recommends approv f the Final Order as written. He reported the Order presented
to City Council will include co te findings.
Commissioner Lonergan moved to accep omprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02 Final
Order. Commissioner Heer seconded the mo Motion unanimously carried.
age 8 of 11
B.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 23, 1999
".,
~ \Ql'\fl ~fl % C 0 ~V) 1'""'\ ~::.. ~'V' M (-'1 \A t<r I /0 -1c..J - CJ 1
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Site Plan Review 99-14. Variance 99-07. Comprehensive Plan 99-02.
Annexation 99-02 and Zone Change 99-06. proposed Alzheimer facility and
retirement center. 2523 and 2551 N. Boones Ferry Road. Boones Ferry Place.
Wally Gutzler I Anthony Kreitzberg. applicant (continued).
9B
This portion of the minutes were provided verbatim so
that Staff could pull all of the findings correctly.
Chairperson Young we'll go right into the Public Hearing for Site Plan Review 99-14,
Variance 99-07, Comprehensive Plan 99-02, Annexation 99-02 and Zone Change 99-06.
Can we have a staff report please.
Staff this item was heard at your last meeting and the Commission decided to continue it
to this meeting. The record was closed for all testimony but left open to allow for additional
written testimony and in your packet you received a letter that was received at the last
hearing and two letters in opposition to the project that was received while the record was
left open for additional written testimony. And then we received a response from the
applicant to those letters. I guess what I can do is couple of things. For those that were
not here at the last meeting, would you like me to go through kind of a summary of the
project or do you think you need a complete presentation of the project?
Chairperson Young I got an opportunity to review the material both from the September
23rd meeting and this evenings material but perhaps a recap would be in order just to bring
everyone up to speed.
Commissioner Mill I would also like to state for the record that I have had a chance to
review the minutes and also Commissioner Lima and I met and he also brought me up to
speed but I would like the recap as well.
Staff there are five parts to this application. First, it is an Annexation request. The property
is currently an enclave. The second application is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the current Comprehensive Plan for this area. The entire area is currently
Comprehensive Planned as low density residential. The proposal is to change that to a
high density residential. The next application is a Zone Change. The Zone Change would
affect the property to the north. There is an existing parcel here at the very south end that
is already in the City limits and it is zoned single family residential. The remaining part that
is unincorporated at this point is zoned urban transition farm under M~rion County zoning.
The applicant is requesting to change both of those zones to a multiple family residential
zone, the RM zone. The fourth application is the proposed site plan which is for a
retirement facility that consists of three different buildings. The building here would be an
Alzheimer unit with 12 rooms. This would be an assisted care facility with I believe 60
rooms. And the third building would be a retirement facility. It is not necessarily a
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 2 of 14
9B
congregated care but it would have rooms with a central cafeteria. Building number three
is a 2 % story building, the middle building is a 2 story building and the Alzheimer building
is a single story building. As part of the site plan review the applicant has submitted an
application for a Variance...actually two Variances. One would allow the lot coverage of
the buildings to exceed 30%. The applicant is requesting 34% lot coverage. The other is
to let the site be smaller than what would be required under the multiple family zoning
based on the number of units that are proposed. Based on the number of units I believe
they would be required to have around 40,000-45,000 square feet of additional area. If you
reviewed the minutes and the additional written testimony then that should get you up to
speed as far as what has occurred since the last meeting. As far as your options tonight,
I outlined those in the memo in your packet that you have various options. The one option
you have is to go ahead and deliberate at this time and render a decision. Your second
option is to reopen the hearing if you choose, the public hearing and allow additional
testimony. That would require however that anyone again can come up and request a
further continuance as was done at the last meeting. And then your third option is you can
continue the hearing again if you need additional time or if you desire additional evidence
or something happens at the hearing that could potentially modify the application . You can
certainly request a continuance to allow those things to be done. Are there any questions?
Chairperson Young how far along are we on the 120-days?
Staff since this is an annexation and zone change that is not applicable for this application.
Chairperson Young are there any questions of staff?
Staff you do have before you that correspondence and I would hope that you had
opportunity to read the points and counterpoints of that information.
Chairperson Young should we go through that then?
Staff that depends on how the Commission wishes to move forward with this application.
Like Jim has pointed out you do have three alternatives and of course discussion no doubt
is in order but how you want to proceed I believe the Commission should make that
decision.
Chairperson Young as far as where we are in the order, the Public Hearing has been
closed for all testimony and at this point the Commission could begin our discussion?
Staff yes.
Chairperson Younq anyone have comments to begin with?
Vice Chairperson Cox well Mr. Chairman of the three procedural options that are opened
to us outlined by Jim Mulder, I prefer number 1. The evidence is before us. Let's talk
about it. Make a motion or it's either up or down. I think we've got about as much
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 3 of 14
1Tr
9B
information as we need to make a good decision.
Chairperson Young okay.
Commissioner Mill I agree.
Chairperson Young well let's continue on then. There's a couple of things I'd like to
address. One was the lighting. The concern that the lights would be shining in the
residences windows and that's addressed in the letter from the applicant. Also, it was one
of the conditions. There's 52 conditions that I counted in the packet from...or of the first
meeting and one of those conditions is that the lighting doesn't interfere with the neighbors.
SO...let's start with that one.
Vice Chairperson Cox one new thing that came in our additional written materials was the
compromise proposal or the secondary position of the applicant to lower the height of the
one building by knocking one story off of one end of it. But that in turn requires other
adjustments for the uses and so forth of other buildings on the project. It is my personal
feeling, although maybe others don't agree with me, that it's kind of late in the process to
start redoing the plan here at the Commission. This is too complicated a project to try to
redesign it in midstream and it seems to me that is what we would be doing if we tried to
think of all the ramifications of other things that might be affected that you start changing
one part of the plan, what does that do to other things. I'm not sure I have enough
information to decide that or if everything else was okay, ifthe zone change and the comp
plan change were okay, then that might be appropriate. But even then it's an awfully big
change to try to work out here at the table by committee. My feeling is we should not
attempt to do that.
Commissioner Lima I agree with Commissioner Cox.
Chairperson Young they are requesting to have extended time after the granting of the
permit and I am not in favor of that. They are requesting four years and I think that is too
long of a time to keep that open.
Commissioner Mill I wasn't here for the discussion however, I have taken a look and
there's one thing that worries me a lot in this particular instance. If you're talking about
going back and amending the comprehensive plan, now it does say that the
comprehensive plan is supposed to be a living document. That we're supposed to be able
to change it if there is a compelling need in the community's best interest and so forth.
What I'm looking at is an area that is surrounded by single family residential. That it is a
usage that is consistent with what has been envisioned that seems to be a consistent
pattern in the area. When we put something in like this, we are convoluting that plan. We
are putting in a usage which is not compatible with what that original plan is for. We drew
up that plan for a reason. To stick with that plan. If we went along and changed every time
it appeared to be convenient or every time there's a very good looking project, there would
be no purpose in having the plan. And I really believe that in this particular case we need
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 4 of 14
9B
to take a very hard look at that plan and why it was put into place and why specifically that
area was designated the way it was designated and it's usage around it. And we also need
to take into consideration the feelings of the neighborhood around that regarding those
feelings, regarding that designation.
Chairperson Young I think that's a very good point.
Vice Chairperson Cox with regards to the comprehensive plan amendment, the City now
is in the middle of the revision process of this comp plan. And it may well be that after all
the dust settles the area might conceivably be re-designated to some thing other than
single family. I don't know. But it seems to me that we're kind of getting the cart before
the horse to do this on a piece of property on a piece meal basis. Which incidentally I see
that same problem on a bigger scale going up out west of the freeway on another
application that's before us.
Commissioner Bandelow I have some of the same concerns especially when it comes to
the re-zoning to multi family, even if there were restriction that approval, that zone change
would only be for this particular usage. It then creates a section of land, there is a section
of vacant land between this use and the apartment building that much against the desires
of the Planning Commission and the City Council became a RM zoning. We then are left
with this piece in between that I just foresee in the future someone is going to come and
want that re-zoned for multi family for apartment buildings because there it sits isolated
between two multi family zones. It would be so easy to request it. I just fully see that
would happen.
Vice Chairperson Cox is that the piece to the west that you're talking about?
Commissioner Bandelow yes directly to the west of this. There is the church and there is
this rectangle along Country Club and then further west there is another rectangle but it
has the apartment building. My concern is that it would just look like a continuation of use
and would be very easy in the future. I fully see that going RM if this happens. The
concerns for the neighborhood, when the homes around there were purchased, everyone
was looking at it as single family zoning. And the homes that back up to that I could
understand the opponents when they spoke if you have a 30 foot backyard and then as
little at one point as 17 feet to a building that is 50 feet tall. If you draw a line showing
those two and what the view would be from that window, those people are going to be
looking out their backyard at something that amounts to fortress back there. This is a huge
building. While it's a fantastic project in terms of design, it's a very large project on a very
small piece of land right in the middle of nothing but homes. My third concern is staff has
said if there is not sufficient drainage at this point for their storm crain they would be
allowed to run that water from that project into tiny little Goose Creek down there which is
already a problem for the City. And to add all the water from those roofs and that parking
lot into that little creek and we haven't been able to fix the problem we've got there now.
I think we would just be compounding it more.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 5 of 14
,..
Commissioner Lonergan I loved the design. I would love to see this come to Woodburn.
I see real need for a complex like this in Woodburn. In that location I definitely have a
concern. And my biggest concern is the height of it. And I'm with Commissioner
Bandelow. I agree in going out and looking at that again today with how close that would
be up to the homes. To me there's no question, this is not
2 % story, this is a 3rd story and with what we're looking at tonight is too tall for that
neighborhood. I think I should also share with the Commission in our minutes of our last
meeting. On page 4 I expressed my concern regarding the difficulty in waste removal with
trucks having access to that and Mr. Bickler informed me that he had obtained approval
from the sanitation folks. Well, I'm not sure who he talked to but after talking to the
sanitation folks and the person that would make that decision, he was not aware of this at
all. I know Mr. Gutzler has been a very reputable man and doing a lot of work in this area
but somewhere along the lines something was missed there. So, as far as the waste
removal, that was not looked at. So, I obviously have a problem with that.
9B
Chairperson Young I'd like to ask staff, on page 3 of the applicants response it says, "The
applicant requests Planning Commission impose a condition which restricts the
development of Phase 1/ to be consistent with the proposed site plan." I believe that would
be a normal condition but when you're going to continue on something that can only remain
consistent with what it's planned for. I just want to make sure that's clear on the record that
we have that in place.
Staff yes the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 15 I believe of the Zoning Ordinance that has to
do with zone changes specifically gives the City Council the authority to condition a zone
change contingent upon completion of an approved site plan. And then if that site plan
isn't completed as conditioned then the zone change would go away basically. No longer
be valid. It would revert back to the previous zoning.
Commissioner Lima I would like to address some of my concerns which have been
addressed by all other Commissioners I think about the size of the property. It is a
beautiful design. I have problems having an industry in a residential area. This is an
industry and this is acknowledged by the letter from the applicant rebuttal. A few other
things that caught my attention in the rebuttal. It says here "the subject property is not
attractive for single family development. If single family homes were forced to be
developed on this property..." Who is forcing? It mentions here that you have a
commercial telephone company building one side and the church on the other side. This
is exactly myself and Mr. Mill live. We have a church on one side and then we have
commercial property nearby and we have been very, very happy there. Very nice
neighborhood. Also, it says here that "because the small size and t,?e fact that the major
portion of the property abuts Boones Feny Road which is very busy, noisy arterial road. "
Well, if it is noisy now, adding an industry to that area is going to create more traffic, we'll
have to have staff around the clock to provide service to the people there. So, in the
previous Commission meeting was brought to our attention again the fact that the
intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Highway 214. If we increase the number of traffic,
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 6 of 14
~
9B
that is going to be a major bottleneck. I went there and I don't know if there is any way to
make that intersection any better other than going into the Presbyterian Church and the
School property. I don't know about density. It talks here, saying that in Salem 40% of the
lot area may be covered in a RM zone and then it mentions about Monmouth, Eugene and
in Canby. Well, we're not Salem, we're not Monmouth, we're not Eugene, we're not
Canby. So this is what we have in our books here. So, if you want to come to my dance,
you play to my music. At the bottom of the other page, which is page 3, there's a very
interesting comment here about the calculation of lot coverage. And it says at the last
sentence, "utilizing computers with design software". That is fantastic! Today we can do
a lot with computers. Exhibit "A" from the applicant. I have hand drawn pieces here trying
to convince me that it cannot be done. On the last page I have a nice computer layout.
Very, very nice. This is intimidation as far as I'm concerned. They have the knowledge,
they have the software, they have the computer, they have a highly paid individual to do
this. Why not do it? I really resent that. Furthermore, the timetable now, they are dictating
what we can do. This is something that...you know...if you don't do this, you have to do
that. The extension from two to four years and so on...this is something that really, really
upsets me. Proposed compromise. The applicant's request is if we so decide the site plan
be approved in it's original form as it meets the State and local zoning requirements...Why
are we here, a rubber stamp? So anyone can come with a project, present and the only
thing we have to do is say hi. I'm not paid to be here. I work. This is a volunteer thing but
this is another slap on my face. Perceived impact. Perception becomes reality and the
reality is that this is going to effect a lot of people. A lot of people. As I mentioned before,
on page 6, middle of the third paragraph, they acknowledge this is an industry. So what
they are trying to do is put an industry in a single residential area. This is much more than
I can stand. I have problems with this project. It's a beautiful project. I wished this would
be available in some other location. I have a little bit more to add. We're talking about
Alzheimer and I want for the record to be acknowledged that I'm licensed to practice
medicine in the State of Oregon. There are many things we can talk about Alzheimer and
if you want to really fall asleep I can start reading medical literature here but I have just a
few things here about Alzheimer and Dementia. I spent four hours yesterday on this and
I called several institutions in the Salem area asking about availability of Alzheimer beds.
Brookstone, Marion States, Farmington Square, Benedictine Center and so on and so
forth. "Our census is half full. The market is saturated, very soft. Most of us only have
50% occupancy." Even Benedictine Center here, which is 6 miles from us, has Alzheimer
beds. So, if we are going to talk about having really the need, region wide, which is a catch
man area, it appears to go against what the applicant is saying. Granted, if we think it is
for the future, you can extrapolate saying that yes, people are going to get older and they
may need. The thing is there are many non-Alzheimer type of dementia that will not
require any confinement at this type of institution. I think I'm speaking ,too much on all that.
Well, those are my concerns. Thank you.
Chairperson YounQ thank you very much. You really are our spokesperson at this point
because you are the one that's most familiar in the industry. Do we have any other
comments on Commissioner Lima or comments in general? Commissioner Heer.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 7 of 14
TIr
9B
Commissioner Heer Mr. Chair when I first saw the project and read over it a couple of
weeks ago, I thought it would be an addition to...a great addition to the neighborhood. I
live very close to that area. I don't see it as industrial. I see it as a good mix with the
community. Across the street you have a funeral home, you have an ambulance business,
so it's not that far off from what is just across the street. However, I was really glad that
we didn't make the decision at the last meeting because it really gave me some time to
think. I went to Wal-Mart the other day and I looked at the apartments, retirement living
complex that's three stories high and I visualizedwhat it would be like 20 feet or 17 feet
from that 3 story apartment building. It was pretty overwhelming and so with that I do not
agree with the Variance for this project. And I would probably vote no.
Vice Chairperson Cox I agree with most everything that's been said. The project in the
abstract is good, good design and all that. I don't think it belongs there. They told us that
they have to have over 100 beds, 100 and some odd beds in order for it to be economically
feasible and I just think this site is not big enough to support 100 and some beds.
Particularly where it's located on that end of the project. It becomes a closer call if you
weren't involving the property that's already in the City and already zoned single family.
I really have difficulty about rezoning what is now single family which butts up against a
new single family development. To rezone that and to put that big project there. That is
clear enough to me we shouldn't do that. And I guess that's probably all I need to say.
Although I do think that it would be a much closer call and perhaps I could approve it in a
completely different configuration on the other part of the property.
Chairperson Young as we go through the voting process I think we will split it up in each
of the five groups. The Planning Commission is responsible for the zone change. The City
Council will make the final decision on the other four items.
Staff the City Council is the final decision making body always on an Annexation,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Normally the Planning Commission
is final decision making body unless appealed to the Council on the Variance and the Site
Plan but since they're all going together as a package. I would recommend that you just
forward everything as a recommendation to them.
Chairperson Young so you want just one vote for the whole thing for recommendation?
Staff no, you can do a separate vote for each one but each one would be in the form of a
recommendation to the City Council. What Staff would do is at your next meeting bring
back a final order reflecting the motions you make tonight and then also I would assume
you would direct us to make the findings based on the informatio.n you have already
provided us or any additional findings or information you want to provide for us to bring
back to you.
Vice Chairperson Cox Are we ready for some motions now? Do you want me to do it that
way?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 8 of 14
'IT
Chairperson Young probably so. We've been around the table. We've all expressed our
ideas and thoughts.
9B
Vice Chairperson Cox the one part of the application which I have no problem with, is the
Annexation. Although the applicant may choose not to go ahead with the Annexation if the
rest of the project isn't approved. But just to open the ball game here, I would move that
we recommend approval of the Annexation to the City Council on the grounds that this is
an appropriate piece of property to be Annexed and it meets all the criteria for Annexation.
Commissioner Lonergan I'll second that.
Chairperson Younq okay we've got a motion to accept Annexation 99-02 and a second.
Do we need a roll call?
Staff yes please.
Chairperson Younq okay. We've had a motion to accept the Annexation 99-02 and we had
a second. Can we have a roll call vote please?
Vice Chairperson Cox do we need findings on something like that when it's just a
recommendation to the City Council? I'm not clear on that.
Staff on the Annexation we should develop findings on all the actions to take. Yes.
Chairperson Young so we would request to return with the findings at the next meeting and
a recommendation to City Council.
Motion unanimously carried.
Vice Chairperson Cox I move that we recommend to the City Council to deny the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02 and have Staff come back with findings for a final
order on that. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion, which carried.
Vice Chairperson Cox I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that it deny the Zone Change application 99-06 on this property and also with
findings to be brought back. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion. Motion carried
with Commissioner Heer voting No.
Vice Chairperson Cox with Staffs consent, I think we can cover the Site Plan Review and
the Variance in one motion. I move that we recommend City Council deny the Site Plan
and deny the Variance. Site Plan Review 99-14 and Variance 99-07 on this property.
Commissioner Lima seconded the motion.
Chairperson Young we have had a motion to deny the combined Site Plan Review 99-14
and the Variance 99-07 and we're asking the Staff to return with the findings and the
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 9 of 14
1r
recommendation to the City Council. May we have a roll call vote please?
9B
Motion carried.
B.
Staff read the a plicable ORS statement. Staff entered the following Exhibits into the
record:
Exhibit I
Exhibit II
Exhibit III
Exhibit IV
Exhibit V
Exhibit VI
Exhibit VII
Exhibit VIII
Staff informed the Commission the applicant requesting a continuance of this public
hearing. He recommended the Planning Comm sion continue this hearing based on the
amount of information, questions. issues and co rns raised by various jurisdictions.
Staff reported he is not sure as to the time line 0 when it will come back before the
Commission. Most likely the Periodic Review proce will be completed prior to coming
forward with this application.
Chairperson Young moved to recommend to continu the hearing off calendar.
Commissioner Lonergan seconded the motion.
Vice Chairperson Cox interjected Staff should not be required h.ave to work through
OOOT or LCOC issues. He suggested the application be denied 0 erhaps open it up for
public hearing and see what the evidence is and then render a dec ion. It is not good
policy to have an application pending without a specific time. Vice Chai erson Cox stated
his opposition to postponing the hearing.
Commissioner Mill agreed with Vice Chairperson Cox.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 14, 1999
Page 10 of 14
'Ii
GARRETT. HEMANN
ROBERTSON, PAULUS
JENNINGS Be
COMSTOCK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MARK B. COMSTOCK
PAUL A. DAKOPOLOS
TAMMYM.DENTlNGER
JAMES O. GARRETT
PAUL A. GOODWIN
JAMES L. GUSE
JOHN L. HEMANN
GEORGE M. JENNINGS
ANTHONY R. KREITZBERG**
KATHARINE SMITli NYHUS
JOHN E. POLLlNO**
JOSEPH D. ROBERTSON
DANIEL L. STEINBERG
~
Exhibit "0"
9B
,_.-, :
OCT 1 :' L
.. ; .
October 8, 1999
CITY OF WOODBURN
Planning Commission
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn OR 97071
CHESS TRETHEWY
PAULJ. WEDDLE Re:
THOMAS J. WETTLAUFER
BRUCE A. ZAGAR
COUNSEL TontE FIRM
J. WALLACE GlfTZLER
KIM E. HoYT
*. ADMITTED IN OREGON
AND WASHINGTON
WILLA-METTE PROFESSIONAL
CENTER
1011 COMMERCIAL ST. NE
SUITE 21 0
MAILING ADoREs5
POSTOFFlCE BoX 749
SALEM. OREGON 9730&0749
(503)581-1501
1-800-S8l-l5O 1
1-8OO-llO 1-9477
FAX
(503) 581-5891
WWW.GARRETTL.AW.COM
Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02,
Zone Change 99-06, Site Plan Review 99-14, and Variance 99-07
Our File No. 36977050
Dear Commissioners:
The following is the Applicant's response to comments presented in opposition to the
above proposal by two couples who are neighbors: Allen L. Hubenthal & Lana G.
Fowler and James & Laura Atkinson.
Hubenthal Letter
The following comments are in response to the Allen L. Hubenthal & Lana G.
Fowler comments in opposition ("Hubenthalletter").
Alzheimer Care
The Hubenthal letter points out that a new Alzheimer care facility "just opened in
August". The Applicants submitted their land use application on June 19, 1999,
well before the new Alzheimer care facility was completed. The Applicants were
unaware that an Alzheimer facility was in the process of being completed. The
initial feasibility study for the proposed development was conducted in February,
1999.
The new Countryside Living Alzheimer facility is relatively small and will have
only 15 units. This one new facility does not change the fac! that Woodburn still
has a need for additional Alzheimer care facilities. Within the Woodburn market
there are 2,131 seniors over the age of 75. More than 3% of men and women over
the ages of 65 have some form of Alzheimer disease. Thus, approximately 64
people in the Woodburn area may need assistance from an Alzheimer facility. The
new facility know as Countryside Living will provide assistance to 15 Alzheimer
patients, which still leaves a significant deficit in the number of Alzheimer care
units needed within the Woodburn area. Therefore, there still remains a substantial
need for additional Alzheimer residential care in the Woodburn area, which will be
n:\wpdocsI369770S0\woodbwn-ltr .doc\vln
10/819911 :26:00
111"
9B
October 8, 1999
Page 2
Alzheimer care units needed within the Woodburn area. Therefore, there still
remains a substantial need for additional Alzheimer residential care in the
Woodburn area, which will be partially met by the proposed 12 unit facility.
Buildable Lands
The Hubenthal letter states that the current inventory for high-density residential
land is 121 acres. However, the 121-acre figure represents the high-density
residential land available within the Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") versus
within the City. Woodburn Buildable and Urbanization Project, 9/15/99, Table
1. According to the Annexation Goals, Policies, Standards and Criteria Report
generated by the City of Woodburn in March, 1999, "there is approximately 345
gross acres of vacant residential land within the City. This supply is comprised of
280 gross acres of vacant single family residential land (RS, R1S, RD) and 65
gross acres of multi family residential (RL, RM, RH) land. A gross acre
represents raw, undeveloped land, while a net acre reflects "lot area" and
excludes 20 % of the gross area assumed to be dedicated for streets." Our
application is referring to acres available within the City of Woodburn, which are
approximately 86 acres.
The City of Woodburn is currently in the process of implementing policies which
will make it more difficult to annex property outside of the City of Woodburn, but
within the UGB. The goal of the City is to minimize enclaves and to provide the
opportunity for the urban in-fill of vacant and under-utilized property that is
currently unincorporated and surrounded by the City. The City is avoiding the
annexation of other property within the UGB into the City whenever possible.
Therefore, for practical purposes the applicant must consider only the land within
the City available for high-density residential development. There are currently
no attractive parcels within the City of Woodburn zoned for high-density
residential development, which would be suitable for the proposed development.
Large vacant and undeveloped parcels are generally found near the edge of the
UGB, and smaller buildable sites are located within the City limits. Woodburn
Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project pg. 3.
The subject property is not attractive for a single-family development. If single
family homes were forced to be developed on this property, some homes would
fall between a commercial telephone company building on one side, and a church
on the other side. The property is also unattractive for single family development
because of its small size and the fact that a major portion of the property abuts
Boone's Ferry Road, which is a busy, noisy, arterial road. The subject property
is best suited for the proposed development and is the only suitable site within the
City of Woodburn.
n: Iwpdocsl36977050lwoodbum-ltr .docldll
(100899:1109)
-
9B
October 8, 1999
Page 3
Speculative Development
The Hubenthal letter alleges that the applicant will hold the Phase II portion of the
property which is approximately 2.3 acres, for speculative purposes after the
rezoning is approved. The applicant only intends to development Phase II in a
manner consistent with a retirement facility. In order to alleviate the neighbors'
concerns that the Phase II property will be developed in some other manner, such
as apartments, the Applicant requests that the planning commission impose a
condition which restricts the development of Phase II to uses consistent with the
proposed site plan and retirement facility.
Density
The Hubenthal letter objects to the density variance request made by the Applicant
and recommended by the City staff in the Staff Report. Within Woodburn's
zoning ordinance, all multi-family residences are treated the same when
calculating the maximum lot coverage and lot area requirements within a RM
zone. The zoning ordinance does not take into consideration that a retirement
facility has less impact on surrounding areas than typical apartment buildings.
The residents of retirement facilities are quiet neighbors without pets or small
children. The retirement residents will not be engaging in outdoor activities
which would cause noise or disturb surrounding neighbors. The proposed project
will be very well landscaped with attractively designed, expensive buildings. The
quiet nature and attractiveness of the proposed development will enhance the
livability of the neighborhood.
Woodburn lot coverage limitations are very restnctIve compared to other
jurisdictions. The maximum lot coverage for the proposed buildings is 30% and
the Applicant is proposing a 34% coverage. In Salem, 40% of a lot area may be
covered in a RM zone. SRC 148.110. In Monmouth, buildings may occupy up to
40% of a lot area. MRC 21.050. Within Eugene, buildings and structures can
cover up to 50% of a lot area. ERC 9.556. In the City of Canby, up to 40% of a
lot can be covered for multi family developments. CRC ~16.20.030 (E).
Therefore, within all of these jurisdictions they have determined that a lot
coverage ratio of greater than 30% is consistent with land use goals and policies.
The Hubenthal letter alleges that Buildings I and II will have a lot coverage of
40.9% of their corresponding properties. In calculating this figure, the parking
area must have been erroneously included. Under Woodburn's density ordinance,
only the building and not the parking lot coverage is considered. WZO 26.080
(c). The Applicant's calculation of lot coverage for Building I and Building II on
land used for them is 31.43 % utilizing computer aided design software.
n: Iwpdocsl36977050lwoodburn-ltr .docldll
(100899:1109)
111"
9B
October 8, 1999
Page 4
Atkinson Letter
The following is our response to the letter submitted by James and Laura Atkinson
(" Atkinson letter") in opposition to the proposed development.
Lighting
The Atkinson letter expresses concern that security lighting will be disruptive to
neighbors because it will shine into their backyards and bedroom windows. The
proposed project has been specifically designed so that the shape of Building III
and Building II shields the adjacent neighbors from the development parking area
(please see the Site Plan). There will be light poles within the parking area but
the light from the parking area will be shielded from adjacent neighbors. On the
South side of Building II will be residential type lighting, but no pole lighting.
There will also be small path lights along the walkway. There will not be any
security lighting which will shine into the backyards or the bedroom windows of
the Atkinson home or other Henry's Farm neighbors. This potential problem has
already been addressed by City staff in the Staff Report under Condition 5. This
condition provides that "A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall
indicate intensity of site illumination and shall ensure that light impacts on
adjacent uses are minimized."
Design Consideration and Screening
The Atkinson letter alleges that no design consideration was made by the
developer to alleviate the impact of the proposed development on the Henry's
Farm residential neighborhood. The architecture of Building III, which abuts the
neighborhood, was specifically designed by the architect to lessen the impact on
the neighborhood. Instead of having one, long, flat building wall, the architect
has designed a V shaped building with segments of the building angled. The
surface plane of the building has been broken up by adding dormers, recessed
areas, numerous rooflines and other architectural enhancements to make the
buildings very attractive.
There will be substantial screening between Building III and the adjacent
neighbors to the South. The original landscape plan called for at least eight trees
between Building III and the adjacent neighbors to the South. Condition four of
the City Staff Report also requires that the "final landscaping plan shall include a
significant number of Evergreen trees along the South property line to provide a
sufficient buffer for the adjacent residences." The significant number of trees will
provide an attractive, natural screen and buffer between the proposed development
and the adjacent single family homes to the South.
n: \wpdocs\36977050\woodburn-Itr .doc\dll
(100899:1109)
9B
October 8, 1999
Page 5
Change in Use
The Atkinson letter expresses concern that the developer will decide later to put in
an apartment complex or sell the remaining property to another party that will
change the purpose of the development. As mentioned above, in order to alleviate
this concern a condition of approval to the land use applications may provide that
the subject property can only be developed with buildings which are consistent
with a retirement facility. The developer has every intention of completing Phase
II of the proposed development as outlined in the site plan because it is an integral
part of the overall development.
COMPROMISE PROPOSAL
Alternative Building Locations
The applicant is sensitive to neighbors concerns and has considered alternative site
plans, which might lessen the perceived impact on adjacent single family homes.
One proposed alternative would be to move the Alzheimer building to the
Southern portion of the subject property adjacent to the Henry's Farm single-
family residences. The current site plan design is preferred because it allows for
the primary access into the development to be from Boones Ferry Road. By
placing the Alzheimer facility in the Northwest corner of the subject parcel with
its respective parking lot, the Applicant minimized the traffic impact to Country
Club Road. The proposed site plan allows for the most efficient access for
emergency vehicles including fire trucks. Moving the Alzheimer building to the
southern portion of the subject property would prevent adequate fire truck access.
(See Exhibit" A"). One attractive feature of the proposed site plan is that it is
designed so that Buildings II and III screen the parking area from neighboring
single family residences. The existing site plan also allows for a wedge shape for
Buildings II and III versus long linear buildings, which are less attractive.
Moving the Alzheimer facility next to the single-family residences would require
one of the buildings to be linear in design.
Proposed Compromise
The Applicants request that the submitted site plan be approved in its original
form, as it meets state and local zoning requirements and has been recommended
by the City staff in the Staff Report. However, the planning commission may
want to condition approval of the proposal based on the following suggested
changes by the developer which have been designed to lessen the perceived impact
of the proposed development on adjacent single family homes to the South of the
subject property in response to their concerns.
n: Iwpdocs\36977050lwoodbum-llr ,doc\dll
(100899:1109)
11f
October 8, 1999
Page 6
9E
The proposed changes are minor, so the site plan will still be in substantial
conformance with its original design, as recommended by City staff in the Staff
Report.
From the comments made in the September 23 hearing and the written comments
submitted by occupants of two neighboring houses, it appears as if the primary
concern of the single-family residential neighbors in Henry's Farm is the height of
the proposed Building III adjacent to their neighborhood. Only the Southwest
wing of Building III significantly impacts these single-family residences. As an
alternative, one floor from the Southwest wing of Building III could be removed,
which will reduce the proposed roof ridge height on this portion of the building by
18 feet from 50 feet to 32 feet (See Exhibit "B"). This would give the portion of
the building nearest the single-family residential neighborhood a roof ridge height
less than the allowed height of 35 feet in a single-family residential area.
WZO 22.040. This way, the single-family residential neighborhood will be
adjacent to a building which is lower in height than some other single-family
residences in their neighborhood. The revised building will continue to have
dormers, varying rooflines, recessed areas and other features, which will make
the building very attractive.
However, removing one floor from the Southwest wing of Building III will have a
significant impact on the financial feasibility of this building as a retirement
residence. The Applicant is familiar with approximately 250 retirement
residences and knows from industry experience that it takes approximately 107 -
118 residential suites in order for a congregate care retirement residence to be
economically feasible. Large portions of the first and second floors in a
retirement residence are committed for common area purposes, such as dining
room, meeting room, reading room, kitchen, entry ways, etc. Decreasing the
number of suites reduces the amount of revenue available to cover overhead and
expenses from the common areas. Removing one floor from the Southwest wing
of Building III will reduce the number of suites by about 25, which means that
Building III would no longer be feasible strictly as a congregate care retirement
residence. In order for Building III to be economically feasible with about 85
suites, it will need to be at least partly an assisted living facility like Building II.
Assisted living facilities create more revenue per suite, which means they can be
profitable with a lower number of suites.
Since Building II is already an assisted living community, it will be more difficult
to fill Building III as an assisted living facility than it would have been as a
congregate care retirement residence. Condition 9 imposed by the City Staff
Report states that "Site plan review approval for Phase II (Building III) is valid
for up to two (2) years after a certificate of occupancy has been granted for
Building I or II. Should a building permit for Phase II (Building III) not be issued
n: Iwpdocs\369770S0\woodbum-ltr .doc\dll
(100899: 11 09)
rr
October 8, 1999
Page 7
9B
within that time, the Applicant must submit a new site plan review application.
Since the demand for all the space in Building III as an assisted living facility may
not exist so soon after Building II is occupied, the Applicant requests that the
above condition be changed to provide for a site plan review approval for Phase II
(Building III) to be valid for four (4) years after a certificate of occupancy has
been granted for Building I or II.
In the summary, if the planning commission determines that it is necessary to
lessen the impact of the proposed development on the neighbors in Henry's Farm
a condition should be imposed on the Applicant to remove one floor of the
Southwest wing of Building III. Then the height of the building nearest the
neighbors in Henry's Farm, will be lower than that allowed for a single family
home. In order for this condition to work, the planning commission must also
make conditions that Building III can be used for assisted living suites and that the
site plan review approval for Phase II (Building III) will be valid for up to four (4)
years after a certificate of occupancy has been granted for Building I or II. The
planning commission should also find that the site plan, with this minor
modification to decrease the impact on the single-family residential area, is in
substantial conformance with the original site plan submitted for approval.
Finally, as mentioned before, the Applicant would expect a condition limiting the
use of the subject property in Phase II for a purpose consistent with the proposed
site plan to alleviate the concerns of neighbors that the Applicant intends to build
an apartment complex once rezoning has been approved.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
'-
. Wallace Gutzler
wgutzler@garrettlaw .com
~((~
JWGI ARK:vln
n: IwpdocsI36977050lwoodburn-llr .docldll
(100899: 1109)
1lT"
~~
s (!", r,,~~
r8A~~
en >
~ ~
m :r
3:;.....=i
- wm
0......0
:otol-..
m::"
8f:~
zcn;:j
IO~-
c:4f1)~
~[llCXI
~ (')
CII X
aA ~
\~l
~.
}- ~
r \.r]
, 1
\ \ ~~
l. .~
.J> . ;r~,
-- \
..
~
~-~
\ ~.-
.. ~
.. ~
~~ \
Y. 't..
.. <S
'"
\\
~
~
s..
1-
~
\
.
~
..
L
..-
r
.
.
. .
9B
-
1>
N
, 10/08/99 09:37 FAX 503 316 0455
ARCHITECT PB
./
.
..
l
j
1
'-
~.
~-
-.OJ
.
.
.. ~
---0 ~.,
I
-- - .
~ ""
$
--l~~;?,,:
C1 I
, J
, I
J I
l_~ .
.
'"
~
;'1)
~
-t
.
..
~02
9B
.
~ enm en
~ co 0
! ZO :I:
~:Ez m
* mm s::
8 en en )>
z-t -t
s:: ~ 0
)>:0 0
z:O m
)> -< en
G) -0 G5
~~r Z
~m)>
..zO
.. m
-t
r
r
(')
-( AI \j l=1
~8$lz
~'liY~
t1 VI 0
-\ m"
\i 0
o
z
9B
~
~~
..-i
,m
~"tJ
r
)>
z
-
l""""\"""" "......L. 1':':\'" ,......"._
9B
-. r' ;:~. (~ 'f) ~
OCT 0 1 1999
City ofW('odbu1ll
Planmng CommisslOIl
270 Montgomery SL
Woodbul11, UR 9707{
Jumes flnd Laura Atkilb('l1
1219Iknry':-i Blvd
Woodburn, OR 97071
To \\\'l'db\lnl I'laIll1111~ (\':Jlll11S:-iioll
We are opposed to. Boones Ferry Place, proposed development, Comprehensive Plan Map
:'\mendment 99-02, Zone Map Amendment 99-06, Site Plan Review 99-] 4. Variance 99-07.
for the following rC<lsons:
Taken From f;lalT Rep0r1:
Page 4 A-3 Open and Spacious - -nlC most dense of the developement is shoved up <1gainst
my residence, 1()rcing closed quarters and taking away the feeling of opellliess.
Page 5 A-IO Two and a Ha]f Story Living Center - How this can be considered 2]/2 story. I don't
see how, since this will have THREE levels of residences within a 50 ft. high building where we \<.rill
see nothing but a wall when we look out all of our back \\iindows, or when we are in our yard. TIus
does not minimize deleterious e1fects this is destructive to our neighborhood and home life.
Three stories and 50 ft high is in violation and should not even be allowed to be considered.
Page 7 G-l- 2 StaiT comment line 10 - It doesl1"t fit inwith the sUITOllliding development of
residential single f.'mlily homes. Security lighting surrounding the perimeter of the entire complex will
be on all night, shining into our back yard, and our bedroom windows causing sleeping problems and/or
disorders. There has been no consideration to the families living in the surrounding residences.
Chapter 13 page 14 - Variance - What good are ordinances and standards and procedures when they
are subject to being changed by a variance whenever someone wants to break the rules. 'This
proposal. does not provide a feeling of spaciousness or opelmess to the slllTonnding residences they
are affecting. And since in violation, tlley expect to be granted a variance to make it even more
dense
Page] 5 sec. J 3-020 B 'nlt exceptional and extraordinary circlilllstances existed prior to the plans
with full knowledge of tile developer. Southern properties being damaged is exceptional
and extraordinary circlUllstances and with no design consideration ii-om the developer as to
aieviate the probiems this large of a stmciure brings to a residential neighborhood.
Page 16 - 6 lone Change - TIle mere change liom RS to RM deflates my property value and the
property values ofllle whole PUD and makes me not want to live directly in front of a huge wall.
Weare told tins is so open and spacious that we can go from residential less tllan 12 units per acre
to greater than 12 units per acre (from 30% - 34%) tl)ey arc an acre shOJi! Once the RM is changed there
is nothing stopping the developer from deciding later, if business is not good, to put in an apartment
complex since they will have their zone change, or whats to keep them from selling the remaining
property to someone else 10 do what they want with it. Even if this were not allowed in writing, a short
trip back to the Plaruting Commission or Planning Staff could change it for ti)enl.
..- ",..
9B
An assis1ed living, residentiaL three storv wmplex with employee parkin!!, strects for cmnrncrcial
ddivencs, a business otliee, and money bemg exchanged, SL'llJlds like a eonullercial busmcss docsnt
It? How many employees do any orus have working in our residences? How lllany employees per
sillfl and how many working sillfts are there in our residences') TIle assisted living housing is an industry
regardless ofRM allowance. Hm'\' doc:; this fit in with om sin~k t:1I11ily rcsioenti,IJ ncighborhooo'7
According to 'Woodburn ComprehenSIve Plan A-O states: lnrllbtlics wlllch Ie'cale adjacent to rcsHknlial
areas should bu1Ter their use by screenlllg aud DrSI(j~ CO?<TRUL. and should be contmlled \Vlt1l
sufficient setback so as thell' ]0(;811on willno\ ADVERSEL \ i-\fo'FLCT the residential areas }\-6 page 47
Non-res](lcntial uses should be preven1ed from locating in RFS1JW:--JTI:'\L :--JFIGHnORll00D~
F. Administration and Enforcement t>olicies
~_1 T ...,Anrll1c'O ArJ'l~n<)o"t"l"".t'>c ....aJ"1..'nf'Ofl h,.. th(.~ (t~1,r ...-h.~lllv~ ,,-tnr-th, ~nf^n't:\rl 'l.r1vilca f-h03 (\["nln,.~h~ncnlca
J --J. .lJLU1U tJJv \..1\..JU1UJ1'v....u uu\..'t"......\.. 'IX 1.11...... '-_11)' ._'JIUU ~I"", .:'OUJ.....,.1....'1 '...JU'_'J'v......'J. V\'Jill\.. IJI..... ......."_-'JI'1-,.IJvJi\w.-Jl.)J\......
Plan and zoning ordinances are important phasl~s of the land use planning pwcess, without slrict
enforcement ofl11e code, what actually occurs in the City ""ill not have a direct relationship to
Ute plans and ordinances adopted by tht: Council Therefore, STR leT ENFORCEMENT must be
prClcticcd by the City to insme that the policies of the City are Clctllally heing implemented.
In closing, t11e City is mandated to protect its residential single family areas as to not allow deleterious
hard5hips to the sunounding residential areas created by multi familyiindustrial development that has
no concern for the effects they force on families and specifically to a really nice, at the moment, highly
livahle. desireahlc neighborhood. Would this he allowed in Tul.:wila?
'Ii
Allen L Hubenthal & Lana G. Fowler
1223 Henry's Blvd.
Woodburn, OR. 97071
fJ' REC'I) *
OCT 0 1 1999
9B
.'(': ,~I-\".,i ~:~i!{<iTY
, ''', 'I
Woodburn Planning Commission
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR. 97071
Re: Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02, Zone Change 99-06, Site
Plan Review 99-14, And Variance 99-07
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for keeping the record open to allow further comments in opposition to the
above proposal.
1 have recently learned of, and appreciate the fact that you the commissioners serve the
City of Woodburn without compensation. I commend you! As for my own part I must
admit to a degree of poor citizenship in that; were I not directly and severely effected by
the proposals now before you it is unlikely that I would be offering any testimony.
This is not an attempt to "butter up" the commission; but, to display the logic in assuming
that you must, of necessity, rely heavily on the staff report and recommendation. It is with
the.s.e. that I take exception.
With the critical eye of one directly and adversely effected, I have studied the staff report
and find it: incomplete, erroneous, inconsistent, and misleading; in that, it does not
support the conclusions and recommendation of acceptance. In comparing the staff report
with the application, I find that, in too many cases, the staff comments are taken verbatim
frnm. the application. Nothing has been challenged nor verified and worse; what is omitted
is even more significant than what is included.
Having been publicly warned by Chairman Cox that; " the commisSion has a short
attention span", I will depart from the intended order of presentation and attempt to
capture your interest with the following statement that:
The application contains false statements; which Dot only go
unchallenged in the staff report, but actually appear to be confirmed!!
1J['
9B
False Statements
Application
Section II Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Site Plan Review
Exhibit 3 Statement of Intent
Page 3 Item 4 Existing Use of Property
Applicants state existing property use is two single family dwellings.
Staff Report
Page 2, III. Relevant Facts:
Existing Land Use
a) No. single family units 2-
b) No. Multiple family units Q
c) Commercial Q Industrial Q Public Uses Q
e) Pole Barns 2.
My Comment
Reference: Application, Section I Annexation, Exhibit C.
This a survey map displaying the locations of the structures on the subject
property. At a glance there would appear to be more of them than listed
above. There is, in fact, one more building, but several of the rectangles on
the drawing are actually concrete bins used for the storage of bark, gravel
and other landscaping materials; for this is the location from which;
Applicant Eugene R Gascho has and does operate Woodburn Landscaping
Inc License # 5060 Woodburn, OR Ph 981-0716. This activity covers
Lot 300, the back half of Lot 200 and the back half of Lot 900 and with
front end loaders dump truck etc. would seem to me to be light industry.
On the front portion of these same lots are the rental houses described
repeatedly in the application as "dilapidated".
It is worth noting that the applicants have managed these properties for a
number of years and if the property has been neglected it is ~ who are
responsible.
Now these same "slum lords" propose to become our "good neighbors'.
Let us not forget that in order to create this four acre parcel it will first be
necessary to destroy several very desirable ( and rare) one acre lots. One of
which,(lot 400), is already in the city properly zoned and on which stands a
fine old house built in 1915 which some have suggested should be
preserved as a historical landmark. This house is also incorrectly described
in the application as 982 sq. ft. and on lot 900.
2
rr
9B
False Statelnent used as Justification for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Application
Section Il Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Site Plan Review
Exhibit 3 Statement of Intent
Page II Item 5.4 There is a Public Need for the Proposed Change
This is an attempt to show a public need for the development most of which I will take
exception to later, but for now~ please note the last paragraph, which is on page 12.
The Applicant states:
" Currently, there are no Alzheimer specialty care facilities in Woodburn. The proposed
facility will fulfill the need for this very specialized care within the community."
Staff Report
Pagel8 Item(c)
This staff comment is an echo of the applicants statement most of which I will disprove
later and again I direct your attention to the last sentence.
The Staff states:
"Lastly, there is currently no Alzheimer specialty care facilities in Woodburn and this
segment of the population is in need ofa local facility."
My Comment
Country Side Living
1605 E. Lincoln St.
Woodburn, OR. PH. 981 9571.
A residential care facility specializing in Alzheimer
care and Dementia. (15 unit facility) 50% vacant
Endorsed by Senior and Disabled Services Div..
It is remotely possible that the Applicant was unaware of Country Side, if~ their market
research consisted of merely looking in the phone book and judging by the accuracy of
some of their figures I suspect it did. It is not in the phone book as it just opened in
August. I stumbled onto it by accident while trying (unsuccessfully) to verify the
statements attributed to the Senior and Disabled Services Division.
On September 29, 1999 I phoned SDSD in Salem and was refereed to: Alice Snider, who
is the Unit Supervisor of the MlD-WILLAMETTE V ALLEY SENIOR AGENCY. at:
1320 Meridian Drive Woodburn, OR. 97071. Phone 981-2213. Over the telephone 1
read the comments attributed to her in the application. She denied the statements as well
as the February meeting which the applicants quote and asked me to come right over so
that she could make copies of these statements. I did so and while there I learned of the
Alzheimer Facility which; she had been aware of from it's inception. Had the applicants
interviewed her in February they would surely have learned just as I did.
1 then went to Country Side and met Eric Berkey who told me that he had worked
extensively with the staff and that they are definitely aware of his facility. (See Fax)
3
~
l
9B
Annexation
As the previously mentioned dilapidation has occurred it seems that each new renter has
been a little more obnoxious than his predecessor. We therefor welcome annexation in the
hope that it will enable City Police to enforce the laws of the City of Woodburn on that
property.
COlnpressive Plan Amendment Not Necessary
Source: Woodburn Buildable Lands And Urbanization Project
Final Report Dated September 15, 1999.
Page 7 Table 4
Projected need for High density Residential land (RM) till the year 2020 is
117 Acres.
Current inventory is 121 acres. Not 86 acres as the
applicant contends.
Page 5
" Sometime after 1980, the average household size in Woodburn started
to increase, running counter to the regional and national trend of
decreasing household sizes.
4
9B
Zone Change
Building nUlnber three is a smoke screen designed to
focus attention on the variance!
It has been all to successful!
To date their has been more public debate on trees and
fencing than on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Phase I
If Phase I were to be completed on 2 acres as proposed and Phase
II were never begun; then Phase one would have a lot coverage of(40.9%).
One need only read paragraph 2. of the applicants statement of intent to realize
that this scenario is not only possible but probable. I quote; (emphasis my own),
Statement of Intent
1. Proposal
1.1 Phase 1. ......................... "The phase one proposal includes developing a
two-story sixty (60) unit assisted living residence of approximately 48,000 square
feet and a one-story twelve (12) unit Alzheimer's facility on the northerly two (2)
acres of the property."
1.2 Phase II After completion and satisfactory occupancy of the assisted
living facilities in Phase 1, but as of an undetermined future date, the applicants
propose developing the southern portion of the property with a two and one -half
story 11 O-unit retirement center.
I submit that, "an undetermined future date," includes never!
but as of an undeterminate date
This is the most significant phrase in the intire appliction for it reveals;
5
!JT'
9B
The Applicants true intent.
1. To build an incredibly lucrative facility on two
acres with a lot coverage of (40.90/0).
2. To acquire, through devious means, the ability to hold in
speculation 2.3 acres of reclassified and rezoned real property,
until "an undetennined future date".
I have run out of time but iI will have more befor the Council Hearing.
~{xa~~y
~q'4~;;:::~~~
6
9B
WE'RE OPEN
COUNTRYSIDE LIVING
RESIOENTiAL CARE COMMUNfTV
1605 E. LINCOLN
503-981-9571
. "A Nice Place to Call Home"
SPECIALIZING IN ALZHEIMER'S AND OTHER
DEMENTIA RESIDENTS
RIGHT BEHIND RomS IGA, WOODBURN
Telephone: (503) 981-9571
www.countrysideliving.com
Call For A Tour
~v~,,:p
J
'Ir
. . ,_~ . -::.;.. 1 ..,' ,;.
I ., ;'.:,.' J . -', ':_:! :.;- ~ .',. r ".1
L 'I ,o:;t:. i~ 1 .: ~1 i
C1XJN[RY 51DE LlVil~6
FA rlLfl~,I
1\0 . i)
~. I- ~4~f
9B
A NiGC Ploac< tQ (::;;-H-~
QU1(
lot I tif
FAX COVER SH.E~T
-;:e+ h-J1.(5b<'e.vV OvP""F +0
""""1 ~..ftT?14./ +tv.;I- ; "'-' -f1..L.. 5 h;:15
. . _L uI ~ O/-Y' c/ uJpob1;;>u-~
V~~~ .p V I
.5fdZ; ~ ~'J.--' o-rL. JA.P A I~; ~
+MA t, f--t t vv wt?P tfbvV''<--'. -::r: ~'(/ uJ 5Y 14:..-d..
v~i ~J ovr-v- ~ t-+ .rw<> y~"--s
Jw...4>p; ......;} '" ....rl c0' (f i ",-' ~l .(,........ hy6~ I>e-.
1-;-V''t; 't,c..-&<f.. 0~ t.e-w....d 'Rv~r&4-
l' a q q ~,-rz..u (;.J-jp -f1...Mv ~ W C',pd!r, <-Yt.t.-
5 f..,~ k..- <1 "'?...vL- 1 ...;-z....:. ~ f 1; ~ &- v..d
~v wo{t.7/'v'V Jp -t..lP 'v-0- </t> ~ ov-v/ tf ,....~.;/;./ Y
t)-b ~ oS... Y J..v- 15 ~<>V 5,...,-v1l.k'>. t eS 0&0
p<i?r-vt--' " o.,--,,-hy 5: Tx..-- L-V;7' ff ,0"'-L..--
.~~ ~1' 6v-v.fkV .8~~ rr-fl'J
aA3~~ J ,.f;e--l/;+I+;> ~ .j:c.e-- Jd
&?vv./-...e;f -f~..Ji/bwl"'-;r ~M$.t-.p~ ;~
6.J#;-.J-e.' ·
2-
9B
&~~~ (P44~
/ ~<.~v1_J~/~--tv
t(Y')-~ L/i?~
~\A,~.i 5'. f'::L, L'iv; 0
~ 1 K 'B e.-Vk....t ~
qYI-1~~ 0
Lft)/9S7(
tJ'Pv t:P~ ~. It'~?>o~
'*' au!--- ~ V ; /AA.f\c.of- <' 1>$
Or' ~~
.5t!%v~ U!:,. L. ~ 'B"'-$; ~ ~ -6,f..-,,<-~l'j
~F.k-v 'P~Ff- ~ 5~.r ..J
~~ J~~ ~~ ov-e~
~ /!J k....-v ; VV w pzxI h~ ~~
~__J-6~t-r )h>~ -c./p~
~..p.l> "'-' <10 -+-C,;u, "P1.r'ed-' '5
vw'f "vv-f"v'~' f6 yP"'-- /.Ik-
y.......-v .f1> ..vIA../ e>ru ~ ..r:;~b ..~K.
~.J-- t?V' eb,uJvc....-- 5P~~.-h; ~~.
~ ~p~ I: lLe-./o ~ ~
--b .eft, bu..8l~ It>~
~F4
~" d-"
A /
. tit.. t:~
3
-
r
,,~e;:ty('c-:. ~ l v.....;-- I'
f ~ I\(W( ""'}
1'A 9B
v'
September 23, 1999
Allen L. Hubenthal & Lana G. Fowler
1223 Henry's Blvd.
Woodburn, OR. 97071
Woodburn Planning Commission
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR. 97071
Re: Annexation 99-02, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 99-02, Zone Change 99-06, Site
Plan Review 99-14, And Variance 99-07.
Dear Commissioners:
We wish to go on record as opposed to the above proposal.
Our property borders on the .98 acres currently within the city and Zoned RS. We want
that zoning to remain as is and if the 3.32 acres is to be annexed then it should also be
zoned RS.
We have seen the Site Plan and are convinced that it will have a negative effect on our
property. We do not believe that it meets the Relevant approval Criteria outlined in the
staff report now before you. An example can be found in the staff report on pageS:
Paragraph A-I 0 addresses the issue of density but, the staff comment appears to be
about landscaping. The fact is that the densest part of this facility is pushed right
up against the single family housing. This takes the form of a three story, 110 unit
apartment building overlooking our back yard.
On page 11:
The issue is whether or not the arrangement of the buildings minimizes the effect
on the adjacent properties and again the staff comment is about landscaping.
The truth is that the Site Plan makes no effort whatsoever to minimize the impact and
harm to adjacent property owners and should therefor be rejected.
Sincerely,
~A~
~-a/~
'l1"
@
co" "
9B
Exhibit II E II
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street . Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TDD (503) 982-7433 · FAX (503) 982-5244
STAFF REPORT
ANNEXATION 99-02
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 99-02
ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 99-06
SITE PLAN REVIEW 99-14
VARIANCE 99-07
(September 23, 1999)
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Wally Gutzler and Anthony Kreitzberg
1011 Commercial Street NE, Suite 210
Salem, OR 97308
Property Owners: Eugene R. Gascho Trust; Judith A Gascho Trust
28600 S. Meridian Road
Aurora, OR 97002
Willis A. Byers, Rachel L. Byers
Rodney Lee Byers Trust, Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust
779 New Terrace Court NE
Salem, Or. 97303
Application Deemed Complete: July 19, 1999
120 Day Rule Deadline: November 16, 1999
Staff Report Available for Public Review: September 17, 1999
II. NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant has submitted a petition requesting to annex ~.32 acres to the City
of Woodburn. The owners of the subject property have filed the necessary petition
and do consent to the proposed annexation. In addition, the applicant is requesting
a Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map change from Marion County Urban Transition
Farm (UTF) to City Multi-Family Residential (RM), and a Comprehensive Plan and
Zone Map change for an adjacent tax lot of .98 acres from Single-Family
Residential (RS) to Multi-Family Residential (RM). The annexation, Comprehensive
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 1
- 1ft'""
9B
Plan/Zone District map change is being sought by the applicant in order to request
approval of a Site Plan Review for Boones Ferry Place, a retirement center, on a
total of 4.3 acres. As part of the Site Plan Review, the applicants are requesting a
variance to the lot coverage and lot area requirements in the RM zone.
III. RELEVANT FACTS:
Land area: Approximately 4.3 acres (3.32 acres outside city and .98 acres within
city).
The applicant's site is adjacent to the City Limits, south of Country Club and east
of Boones Ferry Road. The property is identified specifically as Tax Lots #400
(within city limits) and Tax lots 200, 300, 900, and 1000 (outside city limits), in NW
1/4, T5S, R1W, Section 7.
The subject property is designated for residential development < 12 units per acre
on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The majority of the property (tax lots 200,
300, 900, and 1000) is currently zoned "Urban Transition Farm" (UTF) by Marion
County. The UTF zone is applied to land outside of the city, within the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB), to ensure that it remains undeveloped until annexation to
the city for development at urban densities. Tax lot 400, within the city limits is
zoned Single-Family Residential (RS).
Because the site is surrounded by development within the city, public facilities are
readily available to the site.
General description of the area:
a) Slopes - generally level
b) Vegetation - field with some trees
c) Drainage - generally sheet flow with no delineated channels
d) Flood area - there are no flood plains within the immediate area
e) Utilities - This development is proposing to relocate an east-west
sanitary sewer line and easement within the site (refer to Site
Plan - Exhibit D in application). Sewer, water and other
utilities exist in the adjacent streets
Existing Land Use
a) No. single family units 2
b) No. multiple family units Q
c) Commercial Q Industrial Q Public Uses Q
d) Open space Q
e) Pole barns 2
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 2
'Ir
9B
Schools: The nearest school facilities are Lincoln Elementary and French Prairie
Middle Schools located about 600 feet to the south of the site. Because of the
nature of the development - housing for aged persons - there will be no school aged
children.
Park and Recreation Facilities: The applicant is proposing walkways, benches, and
substantial landscaping to create a park-like setting on the site.
No topographical or environmental constraints have been identified on the subject
property.
IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan:
Chapter IX. Goals and Policies:
A. Residential Land Development Policies (pg. 2)
D. Annexation Policies (pg. 6)
G. Housing Goals and Policies (pg. 6)
H. Public Services Goals and Policies (pg. 7)
M. Growth and Urbanization Policies (pg. 7)
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 8 General Standards (pg. 8)
Chapter 9 Residential Standards (pg. 9)
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards (pg. 10)
Chapter 11 Site Plan Review (pg. 11)
Chapter 13 Variance Procedures (pg. 14)
Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedure (pg. 16)
Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure (pg. 17)
Chapter 26 Multiple Family Residential District (pg. 19)
Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-lieu-of (pg. 24)
C. Woodburn Landscaping Standards (pg. 24)
D. Woodburn Sign Ordinance (pg. 24)
E. Woodburn Transportation System Plan (pg. 25)
F. Woodburn Access Management Ordinance (pg. 25)
v. ANALYSIS:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IX. Goals and Policies:
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 3
11"
9B
Residential Land Development Policies (IX-A):
A-1 Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood.
Neighborhoods should be an identifiable unit bounded by arterial
non-residential uses, or natural features of the terrain. The
neighborhood should have a community facility, such as a
school, park, or privately owned community facility to allow for
interaction within the neighborhood.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed facility will not create a
neighborhood but will become part of the existing and developing
neighborhood in the area.
The applicant is proposing no specific community facility. However,
the applicant states that the facility will be available for community
meetings by groups such as local service clubs. The proposal
complies with this policy.
A-2 Living Environment - Developments in residential area be
constructed in such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate
over time. Zoning ordinances should be strictly enforced to
prevent encroachment of degrading non-residential uses.
Construction standards in the state Building Code shall be
vigorously enforced, and if necessary, additional standards the
City determines should be imposed to insure non-degrading
housing units, should be encouraged by the City.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development is designed and will
be developed in full conformance with the City of Woodburn Zoning
Ordinance and all other applicable ordinances. The City's preliminary
and final reviews of the proposed development will help to secure
code compliance. Additionally, the City of Woodburn's building
permit process will assure that the buildings built within this
development are established in compliance with applicable City
standards and the state of Oregon Building codes. These factors
combined will ensure that the proposed development is a quality
living environment, and that the development will not seriously
deteriorate over time. The proposal complies with this policy.
A-3 Development should promote, through the use of moderate
density standards and creative design, a feeling of openness and
spaciousness with sufficient landscaped area and open space to
create a pleasant living environment.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 4
'If
9B
STAFF COMMENT: The proposal will be developed at a moderate
density comparable to other retirement home and assisted living
complexes. Its design, which is residential and campus-like in
character helps create an open and spacious feeling.
The applicant, in their landscape plan, has shown open space,
shrubs, lawn, and trees thus providing a feeling of openness and
spaciousness. The proposal complies with this policy.
A-5 Residential developments should strive for creative design
which will maximize the inherent values of the land being
developed and encourage slow moving traffic. Each residential
development should provide for landscaping and tree planting
to enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhoods.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development includes design
elements (e.g., two access points) and the lack of traffic demand for
the elderly which encourages slow-moving traffic. Additionally, a
landscaping and street tree planting plan has been established, and
pedestrian connections are provided to enhance the livability and
aesthetics of the neighborhood. The proposal complies with this
policy.
A-10 High density residential areas should be located so as to
minimize the possible deleterious effects on adjacent low
density residential developments. When high density and low
density areas abut, density should decrease in those areas
immediately adjacent to low density residential land. Whenever
possible, buffering should be practiced by such means as
landscaping, sight-obscuring fences and hedges, and increased
setbacks.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development is located so as to
minimize possible deleterious effects on adjacent low density
residential developments. It accomplishes this with a generous
amount of landscaped yard with shrubs, lawn, and trees, with fences,
and low profile residential-appearing buildings. The setback to
single-family lots on the south will be a minimum 20 feet and to the
west, 17 feet. These setbacks increase in most areas along the west
and south property lines and are greater than the minimum required
(refer to Staff Comments under B, Chapter 26, Section 26.050 of this
Report). The fence will be an attractive 7 foot high permanent vinyl
style fence on the property lines to further reduce any impact. The
buildings architectural features provide many roof and wall variations
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 5
-
9B
to mitigate its mass. However, to further minimize visual impacts of
the building on the adjacent residences to the south, it is
recommended that landscaping along the south property line include
planting of a significant number of evergreen trees.
A-11 Traffic from high density residential areas should have access to
collector or arterial streets without going through other
residential streets.
STAFF COMMENT: This proposed development will have direct
access onto Boones Ferry Road, an arterial and Country Club Road,
an access road that connects to Boones Ferry Road. No traffic will
go through the residential areas on the south or west to access this
site.
Annexation Policies (IX-D):
D-1 Annexation policies are extremely important for the City. While
it is important that enough land is available for the necessary
development anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also
essential to prevent too much land being included in the city
limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling development.
Because of the need to plan for public improvements, the City
should insure that there is a five year supply of vacant land
within the City. Services should be provided to that land during
that five year period.
STAFF COMMENT: The Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in
1980. This boundary designates areas outside Woodburn's City
Limits that could be annexed to accommodate growth to the year
2000. The annexation of this land is to accommodate the growth
demands of the City in a timely manner. The subject property is
contiguous to the current city limits line on the west and south and
across Country Club Road on the north. Because the site is almost
an island surrounded by the city, because city facilities are adjacent,
and because there is urban development on all sides of it, it cannot
be considered "sprawling". The applicant states that the need for
another retirement center in the city and the surrounding development
makes this a timely annexation and development. This site is one of
only a few large parcels of land available for multi-family development
without substantial extension of urban services.
Housing Goals and Policies (IX-G):
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 6
9B
G-1-1 The City will insure that sufficient land is made available to
accommodate the growth ofthe City. This requires that sufficient
land for both high density and low density residential
developments is provided within the confines of the growth and
development goals of the City...
STAFF COMMENT: Lands within the urban growth boundary and
outside of the city limits are available for development. The subject
property has been planned for residential development. Market
conditions and supply of developable land dictate what parcels within
the city's planning area are developed. The applicant states that the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Inventory (table 4) indicates that less
than 86 acres of multi-family zoned land was available in 1996. Even
less land may be available in 1999. The lack of many large 4-5 acre
parcels is apparent in the land use inventory. The demand for this
site and use indicates a need for the proposed project.
G-1-2 It is the policy of the city to encourage a variety of housing types
to accommodate the demands of the local housing market.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development provides for housing
of aged persons in a retirement home with an assisted living unit and
an Alzheimer's care unit. This type of housing is a needed housing
type based on market response and complies with this policy.
Public Services Goals and Policies(IX-H):
H-1 Public Facilities and services shall be appropriate to support
sufficient amounts of land to maintain an adequate housing
market in areas undergoing development or redevelopment.
STAFF COMMENT: Sewer, water, and storm drain lines are available
to the property. It will be the responsibility of the developer to
construct the infrastructure that is needed for this development to
occur. Adequately sized lines will be required to provide sufficient
capacity to serve this area of the city. All sizing and location will be
subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department.
The applicant is proposing to remove and relocate a sewer line that
extends east-west through the property to serve points west. The
Public Works Department has indicated that the project can be
served by the city. The proposal complies with this policy.
Growth and Urbanization Policies (IX-M):
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 7
....
9B
STAFF COMMENT: The developer will be required to pay systems
development charges for their impact on the infrastructure. The City
of Woodburn and Marion County have maintained a process for
providing an exchange of information relative to the proposed
annexation. A comment form and the application materials were
forwarded to Marion County so that they would have the opportunity
to review and comment on the annexation as part of the application
review process. Marion County stated that they did not have
comments for this proposal. Once the annexation takes place, the
property will fall under the City's jurisdiction.
The conversion of land within the urban growth boundary to a land
use that is planned and anticipated by the city's comprehensive plan,
subject to public facility improvements and other standards, is
acknowledged by the state and therefore conforms with the statewide
planning goals.
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
1. Chapter 8 General Standards
Section 8.030 Dwellings to be Accessible to Public Streets.
(c) If more than 4 dwelling units.. To be served by private
access driveway. . . the following provisions shall apply:
(2) Two way driveways shall have an improved width of
at least 22 feet and the inside radius at the curb
shall be 25 feet for any curves or corners.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development shows a 24 foot
access driveway with a minimum 25 foot radius.
Section 8.040 Special Setback Distances.
(a) To permit or afford better light, air, and vision, on the
more heavily traveled streets; protect -the arterial streets
and highways; and to permit the expansion of street areas
for traveling purposes, or eventual widening of streets,
every building or structure exclusive of signs, flood light
standards, and the supporting members thereof, shall be
setback from the streets or parts of streets hereinafter
named the number of feet set forth below in the right-hand
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 8
~
9B
column, measured at right angles to the center line of the
street as constructed and improved with a hard surface
pavement, and where not paved, then the actual center
line of the street, plus the required front yard setback for
the district or zone, via
(6) Country Club Road, Hwy. 214 to Boones Ferry
Road.....30 feet
(b) In case the corporate boundaries of the city be extended
by annexations of additional territory, and the newly
annexed territory contains an extension of any street or
streets enumerated in this section, the setback or building
lines herein established for such street or streets shall
apply to such extension thereof.
STAFF COMMENT: Building #1 shows a setback of more than 30
feet from the centerline of Country Club Road and therefore complies
with this policy.
Section 8.190 Vision Clearance
STAFF COMMENT: Each driveway access with the public street
shows a vision clearance of more than 30 feet and therefore complies
with this policy. This standard will be enforced during review of
access and building permits.
2. Chapter 9 Residential Standards
STAFF COMMENT: At such time that the building permits are issued,
each building will be reviewed for compliance with residential set
back requirements. Any new fencing will also be reviewed for
compliance with this section prior to permit issuance.
Section 9.045. Front Yard Setback. Every building shall setback
from lot lines adjacent to streets at least 20 feeL.When by this
Ordinance or any other ordinance a greater setback or a front
yard of greater depth is required than specified in this section,
then such greater setback line or front yard depth shall apply.
STAFF COMMENT: A condition of approval is that the applicant shall
comply with the required front yard setback to both public streets
(Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road).
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 9
!1r
9B
3. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards:
Section 10.050 Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements.
Off-Street automobile parking shall be provided in the amounts
not less than those listed below:
(I) Convalescent Hospital, Nursing Home, Sanitarium,
Rest Home, Home for the Aged:
(1) One space perfourbeds for patients or residents.
STAFF COMMENT: A total of 182 units is proposed consisting of a
12 unit Alzheimers Facility, a 60 unit Assisted Living Facility, and a
110 unit Retirement Facility. Some of the units will have more than
one bed for a total of 243 beds in the 182 unit development.
Accordingly, 61 parking stalls (243/4) are required. The applicant is
providing 81 parking stalls and therefore complies with this
requirement.
Section 10.060 Off-Street Loading Requirements
Off-Street loading spaces shall be provided in the amounts listed
below:
(a) A minimum loading space size of 12 feet wide, 20
feet long, and 14 feet high when covered shall be
required as follows:
(1) For multi-family dwellings with 10 or more
dwelling units - one space.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's site plan illustrates that one
loading space that meets the dimensional standards above will be
provided for each building. The proposal complies with this standard.
Section 10.070 Parking and Loading Area Development
Requirements.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's site plan meets (with two
exceptions) all of the requirements with respect t010cation, surfacing,
bumper guards, size, access, fences, lighting, and landscaping. The
access aisle between Building 2 and the covered drive-thru on
Building 3 is only 20 feet wide and it is required to be a minimum of
24 feet wide. The parallel parking spaces shown adjacent to Boones
Ferry Road are only 20 feet in length and they are required to be a
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 10
9B
minimum of 22 feet in length. Conditions of approval have been
added to correct these issues.
Section 10.080 Driveway Standards
(c) Driveway access for Multi-Family units with oft-street parking:
Dwelling Unit
11- 100 units
Maximum Width
Minimum of two accesses of 24 feet
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's site plan shows two accesses,
each 24 feet in width, one connecting to Boones Ferry Road and the
other connecting to Country Club Road. The proposal complies with
this standard.
4. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize
adverse impacts on adjacent uses
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that "Building 2 and 3 are
oriented on the property so that the majority of the parking area and
cars are shielded by the building from adjacent properties." The site
plan and building elevations also show that the buildings are offset
and use angled walls, overhangs, and dormers for a less obtrusive
view from adjacent properties. Setbacks of 17 feet on the west and
20 feet on the south are the minimums provided and the setbacks
increase to 45 feet in some areas. The locations and style of
buildings serve to minimize any adverse impacts from adjacent uses.
However, to further minimize visual impacts of the building on the
adjacent residences to the south, it is recommended that landscaping
along the south property line include planting of a significant number
of evergreen trees.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize the impact on
adjacent uses; and
(c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its aesthetic
value.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that" . . . the proposed
project will have perimeter plantings, trees and ornamental fences to
buffer the development from adjacent lots." The applicant's
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 11
...
9B
landscaping plan shows that several existing trees on the perimeter
of the site will be saved and supplemented with many new medium
and large trees. These trees are maples, hemlocks, cedars, ash, and
other species - which should help provide visual screening of the
upper walls and roofs of the development. Shrubs planted on three
(3) foot centers will screen (along with the fence) lower walls of the
development. A condition requiring a significant number of evergreen
trees along the south property line will provide added buffering for the
residences to the south of the site. The combination of trees, shrubs,
and lawn will maximize its aesthetic value. The applicant is proposing
36 % of the site in landscaping while 20 % is required. The proposal
complies with this standard.
The applicant proposes to phase the development of the project.
Phase 1 is proposed to include construction of all improvements
needed for Buildings 1 and 2, while Phase 2 is proposed to include
construction of Building 3. The line separating Phase 1 from Phase
2 is shown on the site plan. This line indicates that all parking and
access needed for Phase 1 will be provided in compliance with City
requirements. However, the applicant indicates that landscaping is
not proposed to be installed on Phase 2 until construction of Building
3. This means that no landscaping will be installed adjacent to the
drive aisles and parking along the phase line and on the south side
of the entrance driveway on Boones Ferry Road. To provide for a
uniform landscaped entrance on Boones Ferry Road landscaping
should be provided on the south side of the driveway. This can be
accomplished by requiring landscaping be provided consistent with
the landscaping plan within a 50 foot by 50 foot triangular area
beginning at the intersection of the driveway with Boones Ferry Road.
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of
traffic patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be
allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be
shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature.
STAFF COMMENT: Access to the site is proposed from two access
driveways, located on (one each) Soones Ferry Road and Country
Club Road. The access drives are located far enough from the
intersection of those two roads and are wide enough so that no traffic
impact should occur. The applicant has prepared and submitted a
transportation analysis (Exhibit E) which shows no impact as a result
of the driveways.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 12
9B
(e) The design ofthe drainage facilities shall minimize the impact
on the city's or other public agencies drainage facilities.
STAFF COMMENT: The City has no improved storm sewer in the
vicinity except an existing 10" diameter storm sewer at the
intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road that
discharges to Miller Farm Road. Public Works staff have indicated
that this system may be utilized temporarily if capacity is available
based on a hydraulic analysis of the existing storm sewer. The
permanent system will need to discharge to Goose Creek by a piped
system within Boones Ferry Road as part of the ultimate street
improvement. The applicant may be required to share some of the
cost of constructing this system.
(f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting
on the lot, and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic.
STAFF COMMENTS: Sidewalks will be provided throughout the
facility and to connect to both ofthe adjacent public streets. This and
the bicycle parking facilities for staff will provide the opportunity for
staff or visitors to walk or bike to the facilities. The buildings, for the
most part are ori~nted east-west to take advantage of southern
exposure for natural heating gain. Existing and proposed trees will
help to shade the buildings, and current insulation code requirements
will ensure minimum loss of heat through walls, roof, and windows.
(g) The proposed site development, including the architecture,
landscaping and graphic design, is in conformity with the site
development requirements of this ordinance and with the
standards of this and other ordinances insofar as the location
and appearance of the proposed development are involved.
STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant's proposal has complied with the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance and other ordinances as
discussed in this staff report.
(h) The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all
structures and signs are compatible with the proposed
development and appropriate to the character of the immediate
neighborhood.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that "the project will use
residential type materials including composite lap siding, composite
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 13
"..
9B
roofing and vinyl windows. The design of the structures, by its nature
and use, will be residential in character. The color scheme will be
earth tones, using natural colors on the siding, trim and roofing. The
building facades are designed to vary the wall plane for aesthetic
value and to enhance the residential nature of the buildings. Each
building has wing ends which arch gradually to provide a subtle
transition for an aesthetically pleasing design." The proposal
complies with this standard.
5. Chapter 13 Variance Procedure
Section 13.020 Conditions for Granting a Variance
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is requesting a variance from the
maximum lot coverage and lot area requirements of the RM zoning
district - section 26.080(c). The maximum lot coverage (for buildings)
is 30% and the applicant is proposing a 34% coverage. The
proposed (34%) lot coverage is 63,863 square feet out of a total of a
188,896 square foot site. A 30% lot coverage on the site would allow
a maximum of 56,689 square feet in building coverage. Under
section 26.080 (a) and (b), 232,250 square feet in lot area are
required to support 182 units. The applicant's lot area is 188,896
square feet, requiring a variance to the lot area requirements.
(a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or
practical difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the
literal requirements of the Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that they" . . .will be
required to reduce the footprint of building 3 by approximately 8,000
square feet. . . . A 24,000 square foot loss in floor space for building
3 would make construction of building 3 economically unfeasible."
The applicant could make the difference up by increasing the height
of building one and/or two. However, that will not make the project
feasible because the Alzheimers unit must be a separate building as
its clients may not be part of the other two facilities. The concept of
the project is to keep the use of each building for the benefit of its
specific clients and to create an atmosphere in each where the clients
feel part of the same group. Adding height to the other two buildings
to reduce building 3 adds cost for the construction and does not fit the
client service program that the applicant's seek to provide. The size
of the required lot area is to limit the density of multi-family projects,
which normally have many more people and children who require city
services. This development is unlike typical multi-family projects
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 14
~
9B
because the space needs of its residents are much smaller and the
use of the yard and city services is much less. This results in
unnecessary and unreasonable hardship on the applicants.
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applying to the land, buildings, or use referred to in
the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply
generally to land, buildings, or uses in the same District. . .
STAFF COMMENT: The exceptional circumstance that apply to the
proposed use which do not generally apply to uses in the same
district is the fact that this is a proposed retirement center. The RM
district is normally used for multi-family dwellings where lots of open
space is needed to offset the higher density of the uses. Because the
occupants of the retirement center are aged, they do not need as
much recreation space as families and children of a typical multi-
family dwelling. Lot area standards control density and that is
important, especially for multi-family dwellings. However, these units
are much smaller and will be occupied by only one or two people
each, making this development much different than a typical
residential development.
(c )That granting the application will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood of the premises.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that they are II . . . only
requesting that the percentage of lot coverage be increased from 30
to 34 percent. This small change will not be noticeable to neighbors
and, therefore, will not be injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood of the premises." The applicant has substantially
mitigated the impacts of the proposed facility, and while it is larger
than most dwellings in the neighborhood, it is not out of character,
and is designed to blend in with the neighborhood.
(d) That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the substantial property right of the petitioner.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that "there are no otherfour
acre parcels that are available and suitable for the proposed
development within the vicinity of the proposed site. Without this
variance, the development of the retirement residence becomes
economically unfeasible. . ." Staff knows of no other site suitable for
the proposed use and if the Comprehensive Plan and Zone change
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 15
-
~
9B
is granted, the applicant must expect the right to develop the site in
an economically viable manner, which, without the variance, would
not be possible.
(e) That the granting of the application will not, under the
circumstances ofthe particular case, adversely affect the health
or safety of persons working or residing in the neighborhood of
the property of the applicant.
STAFF COMMENT: Based on earlier findings, and a review of the
site plan, no health or safety impacts will result from the granting of
this minor variance to the lot area and lot coverage requirements.
(f) That the granting of the application will be in general harmony
with the intent and purpose of this ordinance and will not
adversely affect any officially adopted Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The general purpose of the zoning ordinance
and of the lot coverage requirement is to ensure that development
does not block light and air movement, overburden public facilities,
create a safety hazard, or lack sufficient open space and recreation
for the residents of the city. The minor variance requested will be in
general harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance,
particularly since the use is for persons who do not require
substantial open space and recreation opportunities on site. The
granting of the variance will not adversely affect implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan, since the plan has many goals, including the
economic provision of housing for all segments of the population.
6. Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedures
STAFF COMMENT: The zone change is necessary in order to
reclassify the area to be annexed from the current zoning of "Marion
County Urban Transition Farm (UTF)" to a city designation of Multiple
Family Residential (RM). It is also necessary to reclassify the small
.98 parcel within the city from Single-Family Residential (RS) to
Multiple Family Residential (RM). The applicant is also requesting
that the plan designation be changed from Residential < 12 units per
acre to Residential> 12 units per acre through an amendment to the
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The findings for a change to the
Zoning map are the same as for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and are addressed in the following chapter (Chapter 16 - section
16.040).
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 16
9B
7. Chapter 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedure.
Section 16.040 Concurrent Zone Change Request. Plan changes
can be reviewed concurrently with Zone Change requests. . .
Section 16.050 Plan Amendment Criteria. Before a Plan
Amendment can be made, the Common Council must find that
the proposal meets the following criteria:
(a) The proposal complies with all applicable Statewide Goals
and Guidelines:
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
STAFF COMMENT: This goal requires that Plans be
acknowledged by the state LCDC, be coordinated with other
agencies, and be factually based and of sound policy. The
city's Plan was acknowledged by LCDC and found to be in
compliance with state Goals. The city is currently undergoing
a periodic review of its Plan at this time. The proposed
development was coordinated with Marion County and the
Department of Land Conservation and Development. Findings
for a decision on the application provide a factual basis for
amending the Plan and meeting this Goal.
Goal 1 0: Housing
STAFF COMMENT: This goal calls for land availability of
adequate numbers of needed housing units, and allows for
flexibility of housing location, type, and density. The applicant
is meeting the goals of the city's housing needs by providing
retirement housing. The city's compliance with the housing
goal remains intact, since the change is minor and driven by
a need (refer to findings under public need criteria below).
Goal 14: Urbanization
STAFF COMMENT: This goal is to provide for an orderly and
efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The property
is within the city's urban growth boundary and is expected to
be urbanized over time. The proposal is entirely consistent
with this goal and with the city's growth and annexation goals.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 17
9B
(b) The proposal complies with the remammg Goals and
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The application complies with this criteria
based on findings made within other parts of this staff report
(section V-A).
(c) There is a clearly demonstrated public need for the
proposed amendment.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has provided convincing
evidence of a public need for the proposed use. They state:
"Population demographics show that there are 21,157 people
living within the zip code boundary of Woodburn. There are
2,131 seniors, aged 75 and above, within this area." The state
Senior and Disabled Services Division office states that
current assisted living projects in Woodburn have avoided
taking Medicaid residents who require high levels of care. The
proposed project will accommodate level 4 and 5 Medicaid
residents who need high levels of care, including incontinence
care. Further, there is a low vacancy rate for existing
retirement and assisted care facilities in Woodburn - 4%. A
4% vacancy rate is indicative of a tight market and a need for
more units. With 265 residents at existing facilities, 1,866
elderly seniors remain who may need assisted living or
retirement units. The proposed project will provide units for
approximately 10% of these persons. Lastly, there is currently
no Alzheimer specialty care facilities in Woodburn and this
segment of the population is in need of a local facility.
(d) The proposal best satisfies the public need.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that the need "will be
best met by the site which is close to medical services, public
library, a grocery, and other supporting commercial services".
The applicant is also in the best position to meet the need
because of their expertise in managing retirement and assisted
living facilities. The proposal is a comprehensive facility that
will best meet the needs of the current and future population
in the city of Woodburn. Lastly, the site also best satisfies the
need because of its location on a minor arterial street and in
close proximity to city services. The Comprehensive Plan
states that multi-family land uses should be sited on arterial
streets.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 18
'T!'
9B
Section 16.080 Burden of Proof.
The following specific questions shall be given consideration in
evaluating requests regarding plan and zoning amendments and
are as follows:
(a) To support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
applicant shall:
(1) Prove that the original Plan was in error;
(2) Show that the community has changed since the
original plan was adopted; or
(3) Show that there has been a change in the planning
and growth policy of the city.
STAFF COMMENT: The community's and society's
demographics in general are changing. As the aging of the
population increases, more facilities to serve this population
will be needed. When multi-family land was designated in the
original plan, it was not anticipated that such a change would
occur and that it would require multi-family zoned land to
provide those services. Based on the above findings and
those within the application, the applicant has met criterion (2).
(b) To support a zone change, the applicant shall:
(1) Show there is a need for the use proposed;
(2) Show that the particular property in question will
best meet that need.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has met this criterion
through findings made under Chapter 16, section 16.050 (c)
and (d) of this Report.
8. Chapter 26 Multiple Residential (RM) District
Section 26.010 Use
Within the RM Multi-Family Residential District no building,
structure, or premises shall be used, arranged or designed to be
used except for one or more of the following uses:
(b) Unlimited number of dwelling units as prescribed in Section
26.080 including:
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 19
....
9B
(6) Homes for the Aged;
(7) Retirement Homes;
(8) Rest Homes;
(9) Nursing Homes
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development is an allowed use.
Section 26.040 Height. In an RM District, no building or structure
shall exceed 35 feet or two and one-half stories in height, except
churches and public and semi-public buildings, where permitted
may be built to a height not to exceed 70 feet or six stories,
provided any such building sets back from every street and lot
line one foot for each foot of height of the building in excess of
35 feet, in addition to other yard and setback requirements
herein specified.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed development includes buildings
of one, two, and two and % stories, thus meeting the maximum height
standard of two and % stories.
Section 26.050 Side and Rear Yards
(a) There shall be a side yard and a rear yard on every lot in
a RM District, which yards shall have a minimum depth as
follows:
(1 ) One Story - 5 feet;
(2) Two Stories - 7 feet;
(3) Three Stories - 8 feet.
Provided there shall be added to the side yard and rear yard
minimum requirements aforesaid, one foot for each multiple for
15 feet or portion thereof, that the length of that side of the
building measures over 30 feet. Notwithstanding Section 1.610,
the rear yard in an RM District shall be measured from the
property line.
(b) In lieu of subsection (a) above, side and rear yards may be
provided which will allow placement of portions of a main
building with offsets and jogs at varying yard depths,
provided that the said yards shall conform to the following
conditions:
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 20
9B
(1) The minimum yard depth for any continuous wall
between offsets and jogs shall be computed and
provided as in (a) above for that portion of the wall
between offsets and jogs; provided the total yard
area equals that which would have been otherwise
provided in (a) above, which area shall be
determined by multiplying the length of the yard
times the depth of the yard.
(2) The minimum yard depth for any portion of a
building shall be six feet.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a and (b)
of this section, any side yard or rear yard adjacent to a
street shall have a minimum yard depth of 20 feet. No
parking shall be allowed within ten feet of the street
property line, provided, however, in no case shall parking
be allowed in a required rear yard abutting the parallel or
approximately parallel street of a through lot. For the
purpose ofthis subsection, <<'through lot" shall be defined
as a lot having frontage on two parallel or approximately
parallel streets.
(d) The yard depth between two or more main buildings on
the same lot shall be equal to that side yard depth
measured to an assumed property line drawn between the
buildings. The yard depth between the assumed property
line and the building shall be not less than as provided in
(a) above.
STAFF COMMENT: Building 1 has an east and west facade of 141
feet. Under subsection (a) the side yard must be 5 feet (for a one
story building) plus 7.4 feet (141-30/15) for a total of 12.4 feet. Its
side yard setback is 12.6 feet on the east and 84 feet on the west,
thus meeting the requirement. Building 2 has a northern facade of
151 feet. Under subsection (a) the side yard must be 7 feet (for a two
story building) plus 8 feet (151-30/15) for a total of 15 feet. Its side
yard setback on the north is 25 feet, thus meeHng the requirement.
Building 2 also has a west facade of 195. The side yard must be 7
feet (for a two story building) plus 11 feet (195-30/15) for a total of 18
feet. Its side yard setback on the west is 30 feet at the nearest point,
thus meeting the requirement. Building 3 has a southern facade of
200 feet. The side yard must be 7.5 feet (for a two and % story
building) plus 11.3 feet (200-30/15) for a total of 19 feet. Its side yard
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 21
'1r
9B
setback on the south is 20 feet at the nearest point, thus meeting the
requirement. Building 3 also has a western facade of 66 feet. The
rear yard must be 7.5 feet (for a two and % story building) plus 2.4
feet (66-30/15) for a total of 9.9 feet. Its rear yard setback on the
west is 17 feet, thus meeting the requirement.
Under subsection (c), yards adjacent to a street must be a minimum
of 20 feet. All three building have a street side yard of more than 20
feet and thus meet the requirement.
Under subsection (d), yards between two or more buildings on the
same lot must also meet the side and rear yard setback requirements
of subsection (a). Buildings 1 and 2 must have at least a 12 foot (5
feet for one story and 7 feet for two story buildings) yard between
them per subsection (a). These buildings meet this requirement with
a 27 foot yard. Buildings 2 and 3 far exceed the yard requirement
with a 65 foot yard.
Section 26.060 Front Yard. In an RM District, there shall be a
minimum front yard of 20 feet. No parking shall be allowed
within 20 feet of the front lot line.
STAFF COMMENT: The site plan demonstrates that the front lot line
on buildings that front Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road
exceed 20 feet, and that no part of the parking lot protrudes into this
setback.
Section 26.065 Solar Access. For the purpose of providing solar
access protection, development (including accessory structures
and fences) shall not cast a shadow on the south wall or any
solar access buildable area between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. on December 21st.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has demonstrated through the
shadow pattern drawing (Exhibit F) that the buildings comply with this
standard.
Section 26.070 Landscaped Yards.
(a) In an RM District the following landscaped yards shall be
provided for residential uses other than single and two
family dwellings:
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 22
'If
Ii
9B
(1) For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms -
300 feet. One hundred additional square feet for
each bedroom over one.
(b) In an RM District all required yards adjacent to a street
shall be landscaped, except that portion devoted to off
street parking. Such landscaping may be counted in
fulfilling the requirements of subsection (a).
STAFF COMMENT: Assuming one bedroom and studio units, the
minimum required would be 54,600 square feet of landscaped yard.
The site plan shows over 68,000 square feet, and thus meets the
landscaped yard requirements.
Section 26.080 Lot Area and Width. . . . In an RM District the
minimum requirement for lot area for other uses shall be 5,000
square feet plus additional lot area computed as follows:
(a) For the first through fifth unit:
(1) For each dwelling unit with one orfewer bedrooms -
1,200 square feet.
(b) For the sixth dwelling unit and each succeeding dwelling
unit, the following additional lot area shall be required:
(1) For each dwelling unit with one or less bedrooms,
one story - 1,250 square feet.
(c) No main building or group of main buildings shall occupy
more than 30 percent of the lot area. . .
(d) Every lot in an RM District shall have a minimum of 60 feet
at the building line. The minimum lot area requirements
for buildings other than dwellings shall be an area not less
than the sum of the area occupied by the building or
buildings, and the area required for yards herein, or 5,000
square feet, whichever is greater.
STAFF COMMENT: The lot width is 214 feet on Country Club Road
and 462 feet on Boones Ferry Road, far exceeding the 60 foot width
requirement. This proposed development exceeds the 30% maximum
lot coverage by 4% and maximum area requirement by 43,354 square
feet. The applicant has requested a variance for these as discussed
under Chapter 13 of this Report.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 23
t
9B
Buildings 2 and 3 as proposed will be constructed across existing
property lines. The applicant anticipates that each building will be
located on its own lot. To address this issue, a condition of approval
will require that existing lot lines be removed or relocated by lot line
adjustment and/or lot consolidation prior to issuance of building
permits.
9. Chapter 39 Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu
STAFF COMMENT: The System Development Charge (SDC) for park
purposes is $483 per dwelling unit. At 182 dwelling units, SDCs for
this development will total $87,906. A condition of approval specifies
that the applicant shall pay the required parks systems development
charges in full as building permits for each dwelling unit are issued.
C. Woodburn Landscaping Policies and Standards:
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is providing 36% of the site in
landscaping and this exceeds the 20% requirement. The applicant is
providing a landscaped strip next to both public streets of more than 20 feet
in width and this exceeds the 5 foot requirement. Over 18% of the interior
area will be landscaped and this meets the standard.
The landscape plan shows 12 large trees and several existing trees along
the Boones Ferry frontage, and 4 large trees and 2 medium trees along the
Country Club Road frontage. This meets the requirement.
At 8 trees per acre, this development is required to have a minimum of 34
trees exclusive of the frontage trees. It will have 47, thus meeting the
standard. The landscape plan also shows that the required small, medium,
and large trees will be planted around the parking lot.
The applicant is complying with the 7 foot fence and 15 foot landscaped strip
adjacent to the west and south property lines (next to single-family
residential). Also, additional evergreen trees will be required along the
south property line as discussed previously in this report. The combination
of trees and dense shrubs - as shown on the landscape plan - will provide
an effective buffer.
D. Woodburn Sign Ordinance
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is proposing an entry monument sign at
the driveway entrances along Boones Ferry and Country Club Road. Exhibit
F shows the profile of the signs and the Site Plan shows their location.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/VAR07 - Page 24
I
9B
E. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
STAFF COMMENT: Associated Transportation Engineering & Planning
(ATEP) prepared a traffic analysis for the proposed development. The
analysis states that this proposal would "generate approximately 538 trips
per day with 23 new trips during the p.m. peak hour."
The analysis concludes that the development would have no significant
impact on the surrounding traffic network and that no operational problems
are expected.
A condition of approval will be that the applicant dedicate additional right-of-
way on Boones Ferry Road and sign a non-remonstrance agreement to
participate in improvements to Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road.
F. Woodburn Access Management Ordinance
STAFF COMMENT: Boones Ferry Road is classified a minor arterial with a
100 foot driveway spacing standard. Country Club Road is classified an
access street with a 50 foot driveway spacing standard. As shown on the
enclosed Site Plan, both driveways will be over 300 feet from the intersection
of the two streets and meet driveway spacing standards.
VI COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS:
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Woodburn Fire District
Parks Department
Building Department
Transit Manager
Public Works
VII CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information in this report, the findings required to approve the
proposed annexation, comprehensive plan amendment, zone change, site design
review and variance applications can be made. Staff recommends approval of
these applications subject to the following conditions of approval:
Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change:
1. Provide Planning Staff with a copy of a detailed description and map
of the new boundaries prior to the city council hearing. This will be
necessary for the City Recorder.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 25
",.
9B
Site Plan Review and Variance:
2. Site Plan Review and Variance approval is subject to approval of the
annexation, plan amendment, and zone change.
3. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with
the preliminary site plan, except as otherwise amended by these
conditions.
4. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance
of building permits. Said plans shall indicate the names (botanical
and common), sizes and locations of all plants and shall be prepared
in compliance with all requirements of the Woodburn Landscaping
Policies and Standards. The final landscaping plan shall include a
significant number of evergreen trees along the south property line to
provide a sufficient buffer for the adjacent residences.
Garbage collection, loading and unloading areas, and other utility
areas, shall be screened around their perimeters by a buffer strip a
minimum 3 feet wide or by an opaque fence six foot in height.
All landscaping shall be maintained year round. Plantings shall be
watered regularly and in a manner appropriate for the specific plant
species through the first growing season, and dead and dying plants
shall be replaced by the applicant during the next planting season.
No buildings, structures, storage of material, or parking shall be
permitted within the required landscape and buffer areas. All
landscape and buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of all
debris, weeds and tall grass.
5. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits. Said plan shall
indicate intensity of site illumination and shall ensure that light
impacts on adjacent uses are minimized. The applicant shall comply
with parking lot lighting and area and building lighting as specified by
the Woodburn Police Department.
6. Comply with the parking and loading area development requirements
as specified in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
7. Meet vision clearance standards of Chapter 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 26
'II'
9B
8. Curbing, striping, sprinkler system, lighting and bicycle racks shall be
kept in good condition. Any damage shall be repaired in a timely
manner.
9. Site Plan Review approval for phase II (Building 3) is valid for up to
two (2) years after a certificate of occupancy has been granted for
Building 1 or 2. Should a building permit for phase II (Building 3) not
be issued within that time, the applicant must submit a new Site Plan
Review application.
10. At such time that building permits are issued, each building will be
reviewed for compliance with residential set back requirements. The
new fencing will also be reviewed for compliance with residential
standards prior to permit issuance.
11. Comply with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, the Woodburn
Transportation Plan, the Woodburn Access Management Ordinance,
the Sign Ordinance, and the following chapters of the Woodburn
Zoning Ordinance: Ch5, Ch8, Ch9, Ch10, Ch11, Ch15, Ch19, Ch26
and Ch39, except as modified by variances granted herein.
12. Six bicycle racks must be installed at the complex. It is recommended
that three be placed at the entrance of building two and three be
placed at the entrance of building three.
13. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the applicant shall comply with
the conditions of approval established by the Planning Commission
and submit one set of reproducible as-builts.
14. This variance allows the proposed development (as shown on the
proposed site plan) to exceed the maximum 30% lot coverage
requirement and allows the lot area to be less than required as
specified in Sections 26.080(c) and 26.080(a) and (b) of the
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance respectively. This variance shall be
valid for the life of the proposed development. This variance shall be
null and void if the development is altered in such a way as to
eliminate the need for the variance (Le., number of dwelling units
reduced or structures reduced in size).
15. Existing lot lines shall be removed or relocated by lot line adjustment
and/or lot consolidation prior to issuance of building permits. New lot
lines shall be adjusted to ensure that all buildings meet required
setbacks.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 27
!11"
9B
16. The preliminary site plan shall be revised prior to submittal of plans
for a building permit. The revised site plan shall show that the access
aisle between Building 2 and the covered drive-thru on Building 3 is
widened to a minimum of 24 feet and that the parallel parking spaces
shown adjacent to Boones Ferry Road are lengthened to a minimum
of 22 feet.
17. Landscaping shall be installed in conjunction with construction of
Phase 1 of the project consistent with the landscaping plan within a
50 foot by 50 foot triangular area beginning at the south side of the
intersection of the driveway entrance with Boones Ferry Road.
18. The System Development Charge due for parks purposes is $483 per
dwelling unit. This must be paid in full prior to the issuance of the
building permit.
19. Any conditions attached to the approval of the site plan shall be
conditions on the issuance of a building permit. A violation of the
conditions shall be considered a violation of the ordinance.
Fire District Conditions:
20. Driveable access to within 150 feet of all sides of all structures is
required. Dead end access ways more than 150 feet in length require
a turnaround provision. Turnaround provision at southwest corner of
Building 3 and south end of Building 1 will need to be identified as a
Fire Lane and marked accordingly. Minimum width of access way is
20 feet.
21. The following information shall be submitted prior to issuance of
building permits: occupant load, number of exits, exit hardware, exit
signage, and emergency lighting.
22. Fire flow is based on type V-1 hr. Construction and all buildings being
sprinkled. Minimum flow would be not less than 1500 g.p.m. or that
required by the sprinkler system and its supporting hose requirement.
23. FDC shall be located off of the buildings and at a location agreed
upon by the Fire District, City of Woodburn and the developer.
24. Alarm system required in all facilities.
25. Premise identification shall meet city standards. Apartment
numbering system shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 28
r
9B
26. Building 1 shall meet appropriate SR requirements for the intended
use. Building 2 shall meet 1-2 requirements and Building 3 shall meet
R-1 requirements. Multi story buildings will need a 2 % inch dry or
wet stand pipe in each stairwell for firefighting purposes. If dry and
not connected to the sprinkler system contact Fire District for FDC
connection and location on building.
27 Buildings are over sized and shall be sprinkled and have appropriate
setbacks for allowable area increase. Sprinkler may not be used as
substitution for 1 hour construction as there is not enough separation
for building of less than 1 hour construction.
28. An onsite water supply system shall be available, operational and
acceptable to the city prior to the construction of combustible
buildings. Access during construction shall support the weight of Fire
Apparatus and allow access to the facility.
Public Works Conditions:
29. Final construction plans shall be submitted to the city for review and
approval and. shall conform to the construction plan review
procedures and standards.
30. On-site existing water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems
shall be abandoned by the applicant in conformance with all state
regulations and requirements. However, use of the existing water
well for irrigation purposes may be allowed subject to approval of the
Woodburn Water Department and in compliance with all city and
state regulations.
31. All city maintained facilities located on private property will require a
minimum 16 foot wide easement be conveyed to the city by the
property owner. This is the applicants responsibility to provide, not
the city's.
32. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from
any state, county and/or federal agencies which may require such
permit or approval.
33. All work within the public right-of-way or public easement shall
conform to the City of Woodburn standard construction specifications
and details.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 29
!lI'
9B
34. The development shall be responsible for street improvements
meeting city standards on Country Club Road and Boones Ferry
Road. Prior to any Building permits being issued, the property owner
shall be required to sign a non-remonstrance consent form to
participate and pay a fair share cost as determined by the City
Council, for street improvements meeting city standards on Country
Club Road and Boones Ferry Road.
35. The property owner shall dedicate to the city an additional 5 feet of
property along Boones Ferry Road for roadway purposes prior to any
building permits being issued.
36. Access improvements onto Boones Ferry Road and Country Club
Road if installed prior to the street improvements, shall be designed
to provide adequate temporary ingress and egress traffic and shall be
constructed of asphaltic concrete. A permanent concrete approach
meeting the City of Woodburn commercial standard shall be required
to be installed by the applicant in conjunction with the future street
improvements.
37. On-site storm water runoff detention shall be required meeting city
standards.
38. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded
on adjacent properties.
39. The city has no improved storm sewer in the vicinity except an
existing 10" diameter storm sewer at the intersection of Boones Ferry
Road and Country Club Road that discharges to Miller Farm Road,
this system may be utilized temporally if capacity is available. The
applicant shall provide a hydraulic analysis of the development and
existing storm sewer. The permanent system shall discharge to
Goose Creek by a piped storm sewer system within Boones Ferry
Road, this would be part of the Boones Ferry Road Street
Improvements. Ifthe existing system does not have sufficient capacity
the storm sewer system to Goose Creek shall be installed by the
applicant at this time. The applicant will be responsible for the cost
and size associated with the development, material cost in over sizing
would be the city's responsibility.
40. Sanitary sewer service to the property shall be installed by the
applicant from the existing sanitary sewer main within Boones Ferry
Road. Currently an adequate service is not stubbed to the property,
the city may elect to provide this stub in preparation for the upcoming
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 30
9B
street improvements, the applicant shall reimburse the city for the
cost of this installation at the time of building permit issuance.
41. The applicant shall comply with City of Woodburn Wastewater
Department regulations.
42. The sanitary sewer easement and sanitary sewer service proposed
to be relocated through the site is a private service and easement, not
a city facility. The applicant shall obtain the proper approvals from the
beneficiary of said easement.
43. The water main shown on the plan as an existing 12" D.1. water main
to serve this development is a 14" dia. concrete cylinder transmission
line and shall not be tapped to provide service to this development.
The applicant shall install an 8" diameter water main from the existing
8" diameter main on the west side of Boones Ferry Road at its
intersection with Henry's Boulevard, along Boones Ferry to the
intersection of Country Club Road, then along the south side of
Country Club Road to the existing water main near the Northwest
corner of this development. The proposed fire hydrants and service
lines can then be tapped from this line.
44. Domestic water meters shall be placed in the public right-of-way.
45. Comply with City of Woodburn Water Department standards in
regards to proper backflow devices. If the existing well is used for
landscape irrigation, the minimum backflow prevention on each
service will be a reduced pressure device.
46. Fire hydrant locations and fire protection requirements shall comply
with Woodburn Fire District conditions of approval.
47. On site construction shall not commence until the improvement plans
have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department,
and all right-of-way permits, system development charges have been
paid.
Building Department Conditions:
48. Applicant shall submit to the Building Dept. letters of "Evacuation
Capabilities" in order to assign the appropriate occupancy
classification to each structure.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 31
'1r
9B
49. Structures shall be a minimum of V-1 hour construction for the
proposed SR 1.2 (Alzheimer's) and 1-2 for the Assisted Adult Care.
50. The proposed 1-2 may be oversized and will need to be checked for
allowable size versus yards.
51. All buildings shall be provided sprinkler systems, manual and
automatic alarms. Sprinklers may not be used for area increases.
52. All required building permits shall be obtained prior to start of work.
ANNEX99-02/CPA99-02/SPR99-14/V AR07 - Page 32
It tf-~c ~ Vt\e lid- A-
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
Preventioll Division
9B
Site Plan Review Comments
Memo To: Jim Mulder, Sr. Planner
City of Woodburn
Date: 08-17-99
From:
Robert Benck
Fire Marshal
Facility! Project Name: Boone's Ferry Place
Location: ?17 North Boones Ferry Rd.
Att: Eugene Gascho & 1. Wallace Gutzler
Occupancy Class: R-l
A. Access:
1. Exterior of Facility:
Driveable access to within 150 feet of all sides of all structures is required.
Dead end access ways more than 150 feet in length require a turnaround provision.
Turnaround provision at southwest corner of building 3 & south end of Building 1
will need to be identified as a Fire Lane and marked accordingly.
Minimum width of access way is 20 feet.
2. To Interior of Facility:
Preliminary drawings indicate that access to the interior is provided.
B. Building Exit System: Information for the items below will need to be provided at
time plans are submitted for review. This should be submitted as a code summary.
1. Occupant Load:
2. Number of Exits:
3. Exit Hardware:
4. Exit Signage:
s. Emergency Lighting:
C. Fire flow/ Water Supply:
Fire flow is based on type V -1 hr. Construction and all buildings being sprinkled.
Minimum flow would be not less than 1500 gpm or that required by the sprinkler
system and its supporting hose requirement.
D. Hydrants:
The five hydrants proposed and their location are acceptable..
E. SprinkIer/FDC:
Required, FDC to be located off of the buildings and at a location agreed upon by
the Fire District, City of Woodburn and the developer.
'IT'
9B
F. Alann System:
Required in all facilities.
G. Premise Identification:
To meet city standards. Apartment numbering system to be submitted to Fire
District for approval.
H. Special Occupancy Requirements:
Building 1 to meet appropriate SR requirements for intended use.. Building 2 to
meet 1-2 requirements. Building 3 to meet R-l requirements.
Multi story buildings will need a 2 ~ inch dry or wet stand pipe in each stairwell
for firefighting purposes. If dry and not connected to the sprinkler system contact
Fire District for FDC connection and location on building.
1. Building Size & Limitations! Type of Construction:
Buildings are over sized and must be sprinkled and have appropriate set backs for
allowable area increase. Sprinkler may not be used as substitution for 1 hour
construction as there is not enough separation for building of less than 1 hour
construction.
J. Fire and Life Safety Review Requirement:
Will be completed by City of W oodbum Building department.
K Special Comments:
An onsite water supply system must be available, operational and acceptable to the
city prior to the construction of combustible buildings. Access during construction
must support the weight of Fire Apparatus and allow access to facility.
COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
PERMISSION TO BUILD. BUILDING PERMITS AND PLANS REVIEWS BY THE
APPROPRIATE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED. PERMITS AND APPROVED
PLANS MUST BE ON SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
1776 Newberg Hwy.
Woodburn, OR. 97071
(503) 982-2360 Fax (503) 981-5004
A-ffc..cilM e~ IS
9B
,A, R ,.-: j -" I" ...1>..
, . ~ I _ ".,J I. J ..... ~
Memo
AUG 1 6 1999
.. - -.. - p - .
- -------- -- ------
.____.~_~__._ T_." ._. ....___
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department
to: Jim Mulder, Community Development Department
from: D. Randall Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director
~
date: August 16, 1999
subject: Site Plan Review - Boones Ferry/Country Club Retirement Center
Park Systems Development Charges for tllis project are calculated as follows:
Phase I
72
Charge per Unit
$483
Total
Units
Totals
110
182
$483
$483
$34,776
$53,130
$87,906
Phase 2
,...
A-Hq~~wtf~f C-
9B
Site Plan Review
ProTJosed Boone's Ferrv Place
August 23, 1999
To: Jim Mulder
From: Building Department
The nature of this proposed project is of high concern for Fire, Life, and Safety.
Egress:
The applicant shall submit to the building department letters of' Evacuation Capabilities' in-
order to assign the appropriate occupancy classification to each structure.
Construction:
The proposed structures shall be a minimwn of V-I hour construction for the proposed SRI.2
(Alzheimer's) and 1-2 for the Assisted Adult Care.
Allowable Area:
The proposed 1-2 may be oversized and will need to be checked for allowable size versus yards.
Sprinklers:
All buildings shall be provided sprinkler systems, manual and automatic alarms.. Sprinklers may
not be used for area increases.
Permits:
All required permits shall be obtained prior to start of work.
Other comments reserved for plan review.
4Ifct~W\~ b
.
9B
MEMO
FROM:
Jim Mulder, Community Development ~
Randy Rohman, Public workS;?!
TO:
SUBJECT:
Traffic Study for Soones Ferry Place
DATE:
August 19, 1999
I have reviewed the application material and the traffic study that was completed
on Soones Ferry Place by Associated Transportation Engineering and Planning.
The traffic study accurately analyzed the existing and proposed traffic volumes
and levels of service. The applicants trip generation calculations and assumptions
regarding proposed and existing zoning impacts appeared to be correct. All
applicable intersections impacted by the development were analyzed. The two
access points proposed are appropriate and are appropriately located in the site
plan.
I concur with the conclusion reached in the traffic study that this development will
not have a substantial impact on the surrounding street system now or in the
future. No offsite mitigation will be required. The applicant should be required to
submit a non remonstrance agreement for the planned local improvement district
for Soones Ferry Road.
- ...
4 tta.. c/'" WI. ~J- E 9B
SITE PLAN REVIEW
BOONES FERRY PLACE
PUBLIC WORKS
DRAFT
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Final construction plans shall be submitted to the city for review and approval and shall
conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
2. On-site existing water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned
by the applicant in conformance with all state regulations and requirements.
3. All city maintained facilities located on private property will require a minimum 16 foot
wide easement be conveyed to the city by the property owner. This is the applicants
responsibility to provide, not the city's.
4. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state, county
and/or federal agencies which may require such permit or approval.
5. All work within the public right-of-way or public easement shall conform the City of
Woodburn standard construction specifications and details.
STREET AND DRAINAGE:
1. The development shall be responsible for street improvements meeting city standards on
Country Club Road and Boones Ferry Road. Prior to any Building permits being issued,
the property owner shall be required to sign a non-remonstrance consent form to
participate and pay a fair share cost as determined by the City Council, for street
improvements meeting city standards on Country Club Road and Boones Ferry Road.
2. The property owner shall dedicate to the city an additional 5 feet of property along
Boones Ferry Road for roadway purposes prior to any building permits being issued.
3. Access improvements onto Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road if installed prior
to the street improvements, shall be designed to provide adequate temporary ingress and
egress traffic and shall be constructed of asphaltic concrete. A permanent concrete
approach meeting the City of Woodburn commercial standard shall be required to be
installed by the applicant in conjunction with the future street improvements.
4. On-site storm water runoff detention shall be required meeting city standards.
5. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties.
'Tr
9B
6 The city has no improved storm sewer in the vicinity except an existing 10" diameter
storm sewer at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road that
discharges to Miller Farm Road, this system may be utilized temporally if capacity is
available. The applicant shall provide a hydraulic analysis of the development and existing
storm sewer.
The permanent system shall discharge to Goose Creek by a piped storm sewer system
within Boones Ferry Road, this would be part ofthe Boones Ferry Road Street
Improvements. If the existing system does not have sufficient capacity the storm sewer
system to goose creek shall be installed by the applicant at this time. The applicant will be
responsible for the cost and size associated with the development, material cost in over
sizing would be the citys responsibility.
SANITARY SEWER:
1. Sanitary sewer service to the property shall be installed by the applicant from the existing
sanitary sewer main within Boones Ferry Road. Currently an adequate service is not
stubbed to the property, the city may elect to provide this stub in preparation for the
upcoming street improvements, the applicant shall reimburse the city for the cost of this
installation at the time of building permit issuance.
2. The applicant shall comply with City of Wood burns Wastewater Department conditions of
approval.
3. The sanitary sewer easement and sanitary sewer service proposed to be relocated through
the site is a private service and easement, not a city facility. The applicant shall obtain the
proper approvals from the beneficiary of said easement.
WATER:
1. The water main shown on the plan as a existing 12" D.l. water main to serve this
development is a 14" dia. concrete cylinder transmission line and shall not be tapped to
provide service to this development.
The applicant shall install an 8" diameter water main from the existing 8" diameter main on
the west side of Boones Ferry Road at it's intersection with Henry's Boulevard, along
Boones Ferry to the intersection of Country Club Road, then along the south side of
Country Club Road to the existing water main near the Northwest corner of this
development. The proposed fire hydrants and service lines can then be tapped from this
line.
2. Domestic water meters shall be placed in the public right-of-way.
3. Comply with City of Woodburn Water Department conditions of approval in regards to
proper backflow devices. If the existing well is to used for landscape irrigation, the
minimum backflow prevention on each service will be a reduced pressure device.
4. Fire hydrant locations and fire protection requirements shall comply with the W oodburns
Fire Districts conditions of approval.
'11"
/~
~
~~
~i
.. ....y
ill ~ ~ ~
~ ~
tB~ ~ ti<
~ 0
~
Of ....y
ill
URBAN GROWTH
NDAAY
(")
-t
-<
r-
~
-t
en
9B
EXIS1ItJC;
20 tJ ING
V\ A:t
~-
~~--
~--.--~.. -
o<a
0011
COUJ:Sr;
RS
'IT
..
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
II.
......
~
,:y
.
.
.
II~
.. 0
---1
.60
.v
2Q.~ I
I
1311.T1
3400
- gzJ030n
C!
c;
8
~.OO
8
~ 7 100.00
3200
8 6ZJ(X105f
o
..,
~ 5
'<b 70.().(
:' " " 'T:)'
~ u L ^' 1,,--- 1
LCL/b
900
~l22OXl:J
....
..,
...
~
4
78..79
3
!iT JI!J
HENRYS U)
( 6800 TRACT c &lZJCS87~ )
. t1 ~ BOULEVARD
~ e6.71I 7'9.91 !i7.76 <b
46 . 45 44 .~
II ~~, i~' J~. - ~
~
.
9B
ROAD
EJ.IS TJ/v' l7
(OMP. PLAN bt'5,/Crli/4T10tJ
.+AlP (2...otJ /10,1& )~.T ....,
:E ~.c. -=~--';'.::--=:-c.-
r. h__"
!fP-([~;~~~;~~:~ -
N.!7 .(
213.92
1100
"==
.~"
~.
/,.Su BJEc,
/ SirE
-! lJ(}v\J/ Dltf.. ~
1200
~
~
RESIDSNTI4L
1./60
%1; _
<<;i.-t
sa7 22 .7E 3-<<l.3I!J
376.43
( UTF) '\
. 1C \
y .
\
1300
~
----
~s
300
2-<O.-!
228.2Jj
200
~:JSJ
!.
100
~
.
!
6900
~ IIZ>>3<'OI -
~TRAcTB _
.~
36977050\Exhibil A.doc\dcp
06/11/99 10:45 AM
'1r
( l~~
'I ,,-- ') "
f ." f--. '-1
,
\ ,- \
._~ h
ROAD
I~ 'I"'" ,! - -', f- j"\
\.., ~,/'
eel ,q I~ PU/ij PEst(~t4-T{ON
'. .',.1' [\ '., ," .:\
_ \ ..,( ^ i tv C:-,) :--"-..
:E:~r .j; - -:'''- -= ~. ~.: :.~:-- .
;'f:(; [~X'''~t' ~;-
9B
~
)
...
f7 23E 289.A3
co:) ~1-;
3 J
I
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
2lS2.43 I
I
~
1000
~.=T5
1100
~
\.....--/
...CD
~
<- ~.'-
o ~
G ~~
cp
sf;
1200
C\
,J
2
~
o
~
N
o
0')
~
J---
200 .Q1
"-160
0JlV
0.-(
SJrr n HE 3-<<l.3~
~543
1300
~
~=
'Q , .
'.j \t:. ~ I b E Iv';1 /+ L-
ff
/
( RM)~
~5 \
\
-----------
,
..
~'
<0' ~
<0 ,
- .
,
.
T::j
~o'
,.....
~
900
3(X)
2~...
2:2:8 .26
-
C!
o
200
~
So
p
.
8
~.OO
1f
~
Q
8
~ 7
100.00
o
p
""t,(3
~~.
300
....~ .."J / -
LCl-..J'.fIvIOT'
&37 SgE / L /A1Iu-
22s
!
p
-r
3200
8~T
o
c>
8
g
400
~
0.98 AC
-'\[
jY"
500 r\J
~ A
+M
W E
.S
6
3..J
:)
:)
-1
H8
~ 3100
N 1JZJC304' ~
011 0.23 AC N
3000
~T
2900
co $I:Z3O:J021
00
)()
8
~ 5
'io
7O.~
4
T8..79
3
67J~
~46
6100
~,
HENRY'S
( 6800 TRAcT c
PZ}OJ8T ,
~ BOULEVARD
05.]v 79.91
45
6200
IJZXl3..U T
U')
'"
6900
&'1-" ~T
vr.r----... TRAcT B
.33
36977050\Exhibil A .doc\dep
061\ 1/99 1045 AM
. 9B
.
I'" linll t-.
'u f;
... ,.
- , ~f!
! ~ ~ ;
, j "I' , I L H i j~!! ...1 i r ~I J~S
I ! , ..
j iH! i 4 !I i _ ! . . _ ~., ;;F
- .
~ " . l - 'fl ~
i ill I ' !~ j '" ;. '11 ~ H! H I ~; If!
~ I ~~ ,! , q I 'Ii . "I'! II f 1
." .. I ,
t i I . [11. Bid ,(
I hll I 1 ~ '" II d~~ r ~l · Iti'l' Ii!
i II ... q I . Jil I' ~ illr I I ~ l
i ~ lij I ~i ._,. 'f'
dHl; I In ~UI Ii II t I II ~Ii L pl pm r! ~!.!l
! I ~ r! 0 00 0 88
I I il1i
~ III
z
oe(
--I
a...
w
t:
(/)
o
...J
...J
wI-
OZ
<(w
Z ...J aJ
<9 a. C!)
(/) >- <{
w a:z
o a:<{
() w~
_ll..
t- I-~
<( (f) (f) 0
~ [uw ~
WZ3::1
:r: Oz
() o~
(/) m (f) ~
~
11r
.
11
Community
Development
9C
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
October 21, 1999
To:
Mayor & City Council thru City Administrator
From:
Planning Commission
Subject:
Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-09
At their hearing of September 9, 1999 the Planning Commission reviewed a request to
approve an application for a subdivision to divide approximately 1.8 acres into 9 lots. In
addition, the applicant is requesting a Variance to the flag lot width standards for Lots 6 & 7.
On September 23, 1999, the Planning Commission approved an order for Subdivision
99-02 and Variance 99-09 based on findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A" and
conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "B".
In regards to this proposal, the City Council has the following options:
(1) Concur with the Planning Commission's Final Order and approve Subdivision
99-02 and Variance 99-09.
(2) Modify the Commission's Final Order.
(3) Deny Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-09.
It is recommended the City Council instruct Staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate your decision.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" Planning Commission September 9,1999 Staff Report
Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Final Order dated September 23, 1999
Exhibit "C" Planning Commission September 9, 1999 Minutes
Exhibit "D" Wilhelm Engineering Regarding Infrastructure
....- 1fr
9C
ATTACHMENT "A"
Planning Commission
9/9/99
Staff Report
'lI"
~
Q,-,-q'q'W
v
9C
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TDD (503) 982-7433 · FAX (503) 982-5244
ST AFF REPORT
SUBDIVISION 99-02
VARIANCE 99-09
APPLICANT:
Wilhelm Engineering Inc.
1771 Mt. Jefferson Ave.
Woodburn, OR 97071
II
OWNER:
Grigory & Olga Saverchenko
2785 Pacific Highway
Hubbard, OR 97032
III NATURE OF THE APPLICATION:
The applicant has submitted an application for a subdivision to divide approximately
1.8 acres into 9 lots in the city of Woodburn. The owners of the subject property
have proposed to name the subdivision "Oakwood". In addition, the applicant is
requesting a variance to flag lot width standards for lots 6 & 7. Subdivision
standards require a flag lot to be 30 feet wide, the applicant is requesting 1 5 feet.
IV RELEVANT FACTS:
Land area: Approximately 1.8 acres
The applicant's site is within ~he City Limits, approximately 30 feet southwest of the
intersection of Luba street & Parr Road. The property can be identified specifically
as Tax Lots #8000,8100,8201, 58, 1 W, Section 18CB.
One single family residence is located on the subject site as identified by lot 1 .
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 1
~
9C
V RELEV ANT APPRO V AL CRITERIA:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 5 Permits and Enforcement
Chapter 6 Planning Commission
Chapter 7 Public Hearing
Chapter 8 General Standards
Chapter 9 Residential Standards
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Chapter 13 Variance
Chapter 22 Single Family Residential District
Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash in Lieu
C. Woodburn Subdivision Ordinance
D. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
STAFF COMMENT: The applicable comprehensive policies have been addressed by
the implementing ordinances of the adopted subdivision standards, zoning ordinance
and any other ordinances in affect at the time of approval.
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 8 General Standards
Section 8.010 Minimum Street Width.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's proposal will access onto an existing
street ( Parr Road) that meets city standards.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 2
'11"
9C
Section 8.190 Vision Clearance
STAFF COMMENT: Each lot will require a separate building permit. At such
time that building permits are issued, each lot will be reviewed for
compliance with vision clearance standards.
Chapter 9 Residential Standards
STAFF COMMENT: Each lot will require a separate building permit. At such
time that the building permits are issued, each lot will be reviewed for
compliance with residential set back requirements. Any new fencing will also
be reviewed for compliance with this section prior to permit issuance.
Section 9.045. Front Yard Setback. Every building shall setback from lot
lines adjacent to streets at least 20 feet... When by this Ordinance or any
other ordinance a greater setback or .a front yard of greater depth is required
than specified in this section, then such greater setback line or front yard
depth shall apply.
STAFF COMMENT: A condition of approval is that the applicant shall comply
with the required front yard setbacks.
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Section 10.080 Driveway Standards
STAFF COMMENT: A condition of approval is that each lot will be subject to
single family driveway standards.
Chapter 13 Variance Procedures
Section 13.020 Conditions for granting a variance
(a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical
difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the literal requirements
of the ordinance;
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 3
9C
APPLICANT COMMENT: Requiring 30 foot wide drives for each lot would
waste valuable residential land, a 60 foot access to serve two residential lots
is a needless waste of residential property. The proposed 15' lot frontages
for lots 6 and 7 with reciprocal easements would combine together to form
a 30 foot access which would be sufficiently wide to permit a 24' paved
driveway to both flaglots. The city driveway standards ordinance requires
that where. the property frontage is 30' or less the maximum driveway width
is 12 feet. The proposed 30' easement has sufficient width for utilities to
access the two lots.
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applying to the land, buildings or use referred to in the application, which
circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, or uses
in the same district; however, non-conforming land uses or structures in the
vicinity shall not in themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions;
APPLICANT COMMENT: The flag lots are created be dividing a land locked
parcel which, otherwise would have no roadway access. This parcel is
approximately 100' removed from a public street. Requiring the pole section
of flag lots to meet the lot width requirement defeats the generally accepted
purpose for flaglots (to provide a means to develop residential property
where the geometry is difficult.) Creating an access easement to these
properties which is larger than necessary would remove buildable land from
the adjoining lots to the east and west, and place it in non buildable areas as
part of access to lots 6 and 7. The proposed variance provides adequate
access while using the residential land efficiently in spite of difficult
geometry.
(c) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or the premises;
APPLICANT COMMENT: Granting this application will in no way be
detrimental or hazardous to the public welfare. The proposed plat provides
adequate access and turn around for fire and emergency vehicles. This
configuration will make the area more visually pleasing by reducing driveway
area which is generally not as aesthetically pleasing as home landscaping.
The same access configuration is used in the Steklov addition just north of
Parr Road.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 4
'lI"
9C
(d) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the
substantial property rights of the petitioner;
APPLICANT COMMENT: The variance will allow the petitioner to create lots
in this subdivision which are consistent in size with the lots of the
surrounding area and reflective of the property zoning. Without the variance
the applicant would lose one lot which would significantly reduce the density
for this plat.
(el That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of
the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons working
or residing in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant; and
APPLICANT COMMENT: Granting of this application will not compromise the
health or well being of the citizens working or living in the surrounding
community. Adequate access and turnarounds are provided for fire and
emergency vehicles. If the variance is approved, this development would be
similar to recent developments in the area. The same access configuration
is used in the Steklov addition just north of Parr Road.
(f) That the granting of the application will be in general harmony with the
intent and purpose of this ordinance and will not adversely affect any
officially adopted comprehensive plan.
APPLICANT COMMENT: Granting of this application would be in accordance
with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Although there is confusion as to
ordinances that may apply to flaglots, the zoning ordinances clearly allow
for flaglots. The variance is required because there is a section of the
subdivision standards that requires a 30 foot minimum width for flaglots and
that is being interpreted a applying to the pole or access section. It may be
appropriated to clarify the interpretation to apply to the body of the lot and
in particular at the building line. Approval of this variance will allow practical
application of flaglots to provide density consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 5
~
9C
Chapter 22 Single Family Residential District
Section 22.010 Allowed Uses
Within the RS Single Family Residential District no building, structure, or
premises shall be used, arranged or designed to be used except for one or
more of the following uses:
(a) Single Family Dwelling
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed subdivision and single family residences are
an allowed use.
Section 22.040 Height. In an RS District, no building or structure shall
exceed 35 feet or two and one-half stories in height...
Section 22.050 Rear Yard. There shall be a rear yard on every lot in an RS
District which shall have a minimum depth of 24 feet for a one-story building,
30 feet for a two-story building and 36 feet for a two and one-half story
building. In the case of a corner lot, the minimum depth shall be 14 feet for
a one-story building, 20 feet for a two-story building and 26 feet for a two
and one-half story building.
Section 22.060 Side Yards. There shall be a side yard on each side of the
main building on every lot in an RS District in width not less than five feet for
a one-story building, nor less than six feet for a two or two and one-half
story building.
Section 22.070 Front Yard. Every building erected, constructed, or altered
in an RS District shall conform to the front yard setback set forth in Section
9.040.
Section 22.080 Lot Area and Width. In an RS District the minImum
requirements for lot area shall be 6,000 square feet for each dwelling...
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 6
T
9C
STAFF COMMENT: Each of the proposed lots meet the 6,000 square foot
minimum lot area requirement as shown by the applicant on the preliminary
plat. The side and rear yard setbacks specified in the Woodburn Zoning
Ordinance vary according to the height of the proposed home. If the
applicant proposes to build two story homes, then greater side and rear
setbacks are required. The applicant is requesting a variance to the flag lot
width requirement for lots 6 and 7. The existing residence meets the side
yard setback requirements.
Chapter 39 Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu
STAFF COMMENT: The System Development Charge for park purposes is
$483 per lot. A condition of approval specifies that the applicant shall pay
the required parks systems development charges in full, or on a per-lot basis
as building permits are issued. -See-A-ttachment-e:-
C. Woodburn Subdivision Standards
Chapter III Section 7
A. Tentative plans for subdivisions shall include the following information:
a. Name of proposed subdivision
b. Vicinity map
c. Subdivision plan
d. Names and addresses in notification area
e. Diagram of water system
f. Diagram of sewage & storm drain system
g. Diagram of streets and sidewalk system
h. Legal description of subject property
I. Name of proposed streets
J. Lot numbers
k. Identification of easements, parkland dedication, and private
utilities.
ST AFF COMMENT: Sufficient information has been submitted by the
applicant. Attached with this application is a preliminary plat that indicates the
proposed lots.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 7
'Ir
9C
Section 12 (A). General Street Standards
The location, width and grade of all streets shall be considered in their
relation to existing and planned streets, to topographical conditions, to
public convenience and safety.....
Section 13 (8) Lots:
All lots shall have a minimum size of the zoning district in which they are
located. In the case of a curved lot line where the radius of curvature is
100 feet or less, the minimum lot line fronting that curvature shall be 40
feet... and in no case shall the lot width be less than 60 feet at the buildinq
line...The minimum size for various types of lots shall be given in the
following table:
Tvpe of Lot
Minimum Width
Corner lot
Interior lot (fronting one street)
Flag Lot
Double Frontage (fronting two streets)
80 feet
60 feet
30 feet
60 feet
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has met this criteria with the exception
of lots 6 and 7. The applicant is requesting to the flat lot width standards
from 30 feet to 15 feet.
D. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
STAFF COMMENT: Parr Road is a improved residential street. Ten vehicle
trips per day is standard for single family residential units. Additional road
dedication along Ogle street is a condition of approval as well as a non-
remonstrance consent form to participate with improvements to Ogle
street.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 8
,..
9C
VI CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide approximately 1.8 acres
into 9 single family lots with lot sizes of greater than 6,000 square feet. Lot
number 1 will already have a single family residence on it that will meet the
required setback. Lot numbers 6 and 7 are proposed to be flag lots. The
subdivision ordinance requires the lot width to be 30 feet wide, the
applicant is requesting to make the lots 15 feet wide. With conditions of
approval, the proposal can meet applicable policies and standards of the
city of Woodburn, as found in the previous sections.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: If the commission chooses to approve the applicant's request,
Staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The proposed development shall be In substantial conformance with the
preliminary plan.
2. The subdivision shall be platted according to standard surveying practice,
approved and recorded with Marion County.
3. Prior to recordation with Marion County submit two paper copies of subdivision
plat for review to planning department.
4. Applicant shall provide for the installation of all franchised utilities and shall
provide any required easement on final plat.
5. Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar of the final plat shall be filed with
the public works department after all required signatures have been obtained and
the plat has been recorded with Marion County.
6. On site construction shall not commence until the improvements plans have been
reviewed for compliance with subdivision and street width standards and
approved by the public works department and all right-of-way permits, park fees
and system development charges have been paid.
7. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit one set of reproducible
as-builts.
8. Meet vision clearance standards.
9. The applicant shall comply with the Woodburn Subdivision standards.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99~09 9
'I!'
9C
10. Meet private driveway standards.
11. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall comply with the comments
provided by the fire department and public works department.
12. Comply with the following chapters of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 8, 9,10,13,22,39
13. Construct property line sidewalks
14. Provide street plantings as approved by Planning Staff
Waste Water Department:
15. Cross connections; Water Department - All units that put in either a underground
irrigation system, swimming pool, hot tub and fire sprinkler system will be required
to install backflow prevention assemblies (DC) (Double Checks). The assemblies
shall be installed by the water meter next to the property line. Unless approved
by city engineers. Please see Inspector on Installation Standards phone 982-
5283.
Public Works Conditions:
16. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
17. The subdivision shall be platted according to standard surveying practice,
approved and recorded with Marion County.
18. The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an improvement agreement as
outlined in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Chapter III, Section 6 prior to
acceptance of the final plat. Also, prior to construction of the subdivision
commencing the city will require approved construction plans, a performance bond
in the amount of 100% of the improvement cost and public works permit fee's
paid.
1 9. Existing on-site water wells or sewage disposal systems shall b,e abandoned by the
applicant in accordance with state regulations.
20. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state
and/or federal agencies which may require approval or permit.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 10
T
9C
21 . This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties
22. Applicant shall dedicate to the City of Woodburn an additional 30 feet wide strip
of land adjacent to Ogle Street for roadway purposes.
23. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn standards and all State Building
Codes and Regulations.
STREET:
24. To accommodate the installation of the required services. The applicant shall grind
the existing asphalt surface of Parr Road to a depth of 1 % ", and inlay with 1 % II
of class "C" mix asphaltic concrete, after all services have been installed. The
grinding and inlay shall be required adjacent to the entire north line of this
subdivision, and shall include the intersection of Luba Street.
25. The shared driveway access serving the flag lot 6 and lot 7 shall conform to
Chapter 10 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance for driveways serving more than
one dwelling unit. A proper road maintenance agreement shall be recorded for
shared driveway with the subdivision plat, this shall be reviewed and approved by
the city prior to recording.
26. This development shall be responsible for street improvements to Ogle Street. The
owner will be required to sign a non-remonstrance consent form to participate and
pay the fair share cost of such improvements meeting city standards on Ogle
Street as determined by the City Council.
27. The driveway approach serving the shared access shall comply with the City of
Woodburn Commercial Driveway Standards.
DRAINAGE:
28. Single family residential lots, other then the flag lots, shall drain to the street
though weep holes in the curb.
29. The flag lots shall be served by an underground piped st,?rm sewer service
connecting to the existing city storm sewer main within Parr Road. The applicant
shall install a separate service to each lot. New taps on the storm sewer main will
be done by the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 11
'rr
9C
SANITARY SEWER:
30. The existing sanitary sewer main within Parr Road shall be extended westerly and
a sanitary service installed to each of the proposed lots by the applicant. The lots
adjacent to the existing sewer main shall require a sanitary service line to be
installed to each lot by the applicant. New taps on the sewer main will be done by
the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
WATER:
31 . The applicant shall install a water service in conformance with city standards from
the existing city water main on the north side of Parr Road to each lot. New taps
on the water main will be done by the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
32. Oriveable access to within 150 feet of all side of all structures is required. Access
ways more than 150 feet in length require a turnaround provision. Minimum width
of access way is 20 feet.
33. Residential flow is 1000 gpm.
34. One hydrant within 250 feet of all properties. Coordinate with Woodburn
engineering department prior to placement of any hydrants.
35. Local residential alarms as required by ORS.
36. Flag lots need to be addressed on a sign located at entrance way from public road.
address numbers to be assigned by the fire district in cooperation with the city
building official. (Parr road name is incorrect. Please change to Bridlewood Lane).
37. An onsite water supply system must be available, operational and acceptable to
the city prior to the construction of combustible buildings. Access during
construction must support the weight of fire apparatus and allow access to
facility.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 12
...
9C
PARKS
38. A Park fee of $483.00 per lot is required at the time of issuance of a building
permit.
Any conditions attached to the approval of the site plan shall be conditions on the
issuance of a building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be considered a
violation of the ordinance.
SUB 99-02 V AR 99-09 13
~
9C
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
OAKWOOD SUBDIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
2. The subdivision shall be platted according to standard surveying practice, approved and
recorded with Marion County.
3. The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an improvement agreement as outlined
in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Chapter III, Section 6 prior to acceptance of the final
plat. Also, prior to construction of the subdivision commencing the city will require
approved construction plans, a performance bond in the amount of 10'.1% of the
improvement cost and public works pennit fee's paid.
4. Existing on-site water wells or sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned by the
applicant in accordance with state regulations.
5. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining pennits from any state and/or
federal agencies which may require approval or permit.
6. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties
7. Applicant shall dedicate to the City of Woodburn an additional 30 feet wide strip of land
adjacent to Ogle Street for roadway purposes.
8.. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn standards and all State Building Codes
and Regulations.
STREET:
1. To accommodate the installation of the required services. The applicant shall grind the
existing asphalt surface of Parr Road to a depth of 1 Y2", and inlay with 1 ~" of class "c"
mix asphaltic concrete, after all services have been installed. The grinding and inlay shall
be required adjacent to the entire north line of this subdivision, and shall include the
intersection of Luba Street.
2. The shared driveway access serving the flag lot 6 and lot 7 shall conform to Chapter 10 of
the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance for driveways serving more than one dwelling unit. A
proper road maintenance agreement shall be recorded for shared driveway with the
subdivision plat, this shall be reviewed and approved by the city prior to recording.
3. This development shall be responsible for street improvements to Ogle Street. The owner
...
9C
will be required to sign a non-remonstrance consent fonn to participate and pay the fair
share cost of such improvements meeting city standards on Ogle Street as determined by
the City Council.
4. The driveway approach serving the shared access shall comply with the City of Woodburn
Commercial Driveway Standards.
DRAINAGE:
1. Single family residential lots, other then the flag lots, shall drain to the street though weep
holes in the curb.
2. The flag lots shall be served by an underground piped storm sewer service connecting to
the existing city stonn sewer main within Parr Road. The applicant shall install a separate
service to each lot. New taps on the storm sewer main will be done by the city, tap fee
shall be paid by the applicant.
SANITARY SEWER:
1. The existing sanitary sewer main within Parr Road shall be extended westerly and a
sanitary service installed to each of the proposed lots by the applicant. The lots adjacent to
the existing sewer main shall require a sanitary service line to be installed to each lot by
the applicant. New taps on the sewer main will be done by the city, tap fee shall be paid by
the applicant.
WATER:
1. The applicant shall install a water service in confonnance with city standards from the
existing city water main on the north side of Parr Road to each lot. New taps on the water
main will be done by the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
2. Fire protection requirements shall be as per the Woodburn Fire Districts conditions of
approval.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
Prevention Division
9C
Site Plan Review Comments
Memo To: Teresa Engledinger, Planner
City of Woodburn
Date: 08-24-99
From:
Robert Benck
Fire Marshal
Facility/ Project Name: Oakwood Subdivision
Location: Birddlewood & Luba
Occupancy Class: R-3
A. Access:
1. Exterior of Facility:
Driveable access to within 150 feet of all sides of all structures is required.
Access ways more than 150 feet in length require a turnaround provision.
Minimum width of access way is 20 feet
2. To Interior of Facility:
NA
B. Building Exit System: NA
1. Occupant Load:
2. Number of Exits:
3. Exit Hardware:
4. Exit Signage:
5. Emergency Lighting:
C. Fire flow/ Water Supply:
Residential flow is 1000gpm
D. Hydrants:
One hydrant within 250 feet of all properties. Please confer with City Engineering
department prior to placement of any hydrants.
E. Sprinkler/FDC:
NA
F. Alann System:
Local Residential alarms as required by ORS.
...
G. Premise Identification: 9C
To meet city standards. Flag lots need to be addressed on a sign located at
entrance way from the public road.
Parr road name is incorrect please change to Bridlewood Lane.
Address numbers to be assigned by the Fire District in cooperation with the City
Building Official
H. Special Occupancy Requirements:
NA
I. Building Size & Limitations! Type of Construction:
NA
J. Fire and Life Safety Review Requirement:
NA
K. Special Comments:
An onsite water supply system must be available, operational and acceptable to the
city prior to the construction of combustible buildings. Access during construction
must support the weight of Fire Apparatus and allow access to facility.
COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
PERMISSION TO BUILD. BUILDING PERMITS AND PLANS REVIEWS BY THE
APPROPRIATE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS REQUIRED. PERMITS AND APPROVED
PLANS MUST BE ONSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
1776 Newberg Hwy.
Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 982-2360 Fax (503) 981-5004
'''J '-y.
OFFICE USE ONLY:
App. Rec. By:
Date:
Application No.
Receipt
9C
. F' - -,., i) -t:l
-:'r ; : - ~ . ,
......... ,'.-- ,-
JUL 3 0 1999
VARIANCE APPLICATION
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
NAME: Wilhelm Enoineerino Inc.
PHONE: (503981-3181
ADDRESS: 1771 Mt. Jefferson Avenue. Woodburn. Oreoon. 97071
1. We, the undersigned applicants, beings owners of the property herein described, do hereby
make application for permission to (list each variance separately):
To allow 15' lot widths for f1aolots 6 and 7 (combined 30') versus 30' foot each (minimum
width per the Subdivision Standards).
2. Location of the property (street address, or if not addressed, then state the distance to the
nearest intersecting street or known landmark) including the section, range and township:
SW 1/4. Section 18. Township 5 South. Ranoe 1 West. Willamette Meridian. City of
Woodburn. Marion County, Oreoon. Approximately 30' southwest of the intersection of
Luba Street and Parr Road.
3.
Legal description of the property as it appears on the deed:
Map No. 51W18CB Tax Lot #(s) 8000.8100. 8201
Lot , Block , of
Subdivision.
NOTE: If a fraction of the lot, then attach a full description as if it were metes and bounds or
attach a metes and bounds description, marked "EXHIBIT An.
4. Zone in which property is located: RS
5. Attach a copy of the applicable Marion County Assessors Map. Mark "EXHIBIT B".
6. Plot Plan to be attached. mark "EXHIBIT cn and including land uses on surrounding lands in
notification area, site layout of subject parcel and structures with dimensions and lot lines
shown. The plot plan should show clearly the nature of the variance.
...
7. CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE:
9C
Submit a detailed statement explaining why the request is being made. Address the variance
of adjustment approval criteria given under "Considerations", A-F. Attach and mark
"EXHIBIT D".
8. NAMES AND ADDRESSES:
Submit a list of all property owners with 100 feet of the subject's property boundaries.
NAME ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE
9. THE APPLlCANT(S) ATTEST THAT:
a) The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached or
imposed upon the subject property.
b) If the variance application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in
accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the
approval by the Planning Commission.
c) All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments and exhibits
transmitted herewith are true; and the applicant(s) so acknowledge that any permit
issued on the application may be revoked if it be found that any such statements are
false.
DATE:
day of
,19
SIGNATURES of each owner (husband and wife) or contract purchaser.
~~~
~a..- Sau~
ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE
2785 Pacific Hwv
Hubbard. OreQon 97032
Application received: By
Date
Page 4 - VARPROC=6193
r
9C
()" 'f--'. :.-~~~ ~h.~ j 1-) ~'1:
JUL 3 0 1999
CONSIDERATIONS:
A) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties
which can be relieved only by modifying the literal requirements of the ordinance;
Requiring 30 foot wide drives for each lot would waste valuable
residential land, a 60 foot access to serve two residential lots is a
needless waste of residential property. The proposed 15' lot frontages for
lots 6 and 7 with reciprocal easements would combine together to form a
30' access which would be sufficiently wide to permit a 24' paved
driveway to both f1aglots. The City driveway Standards ordinance requires
that where the property frontage is 30 foot or less the maximum driveway
width is 12 feet. The proposed 30' easement has sufficient width for
utilities to access the two lots.
8) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applying to the land, buildings, or use referred to in the application, which
circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land,. buildings or uses in
the same district; however, nonconforming land, uses, or structures in the
vicinity shall not themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions;
The flag lots are created by dividing a land locked parcel which, otherwise
would have no roadway access. This parcel is approximately 100'
removed from a public street. Requiring the pole section of flaglots to
meet the lot width requirements defeats the generally accepted purpose
for flaglots (to provide a means to develop residential property where the
geometry is difficult.) Creating an access easement to these properties
which is larger than necessary would remove buildable land from the
adjoining lots to the east and west, and place it in nonbuildable areas as
part of access to lots 6 and 7. The proposed variance provides adequate
access while using the residential land efficiently in spite of difficult
geometry.
C) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or
premises;
Granting this application will in no way be detrimental or hazardous to the
public welfare. The proposed plat provides adequate access and turn
around for fire and emergency vehicles. This configuration will make the
area more visually pleasing by reducing driveway area which is generally
1
'lI"
9C
not as aesthetically pleasing as home landscaping. The same access
configuration is used in the Steklov addition just north of Parr Road.
D) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the
substantial property rights of the petitioner;
This variance will allow the petitioner to create lots in this subdivision
which are consistent in size with the lots of the surrounding area and
reflective of the property zoning. Without the variance the applicant
would lose one lot which would significantly reduce the density for this
plat.
E) That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the
particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons working or
residing in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant; and
Granting of this application will not compromise the health or well being of
the citizens 'MJrking or living in the surrounding community. Adequate
access and turnarounds are provided for fire and emergency vehicles. If
the variance is approved, this development would be similar to recent
developments in the area. The same access configuration is used in the
Steklov addition just north of Parr Road.
F) That granting of the application will be in general harmony with the intent and
purpose of this ordinance and will not adversely affect any officia11y adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
Granting of this application would be in accordance with the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan. Although there is some confusion as to ordinances
that may apply to flaglots, the zoning ordinances clearly allow for flaglots.
The variance is required because there is a section of the Subdivision
Standards that requires a 30 foot minimum width for flag lots and that is
being interpreted as applying to the pole or access section. It may be
appropriate to clarify the interpretation to apply to the body of the lot and
in particular at the building line. Approval of this variance will allow
practical application of flag lots to provide density consistent with the
zoning ordinance.
0- RF.C'f) -&
JUL 3 0 1999
- "'-it. ::Jr-~i~-'!
.~ ,# j);.~FT
2
OFFICE USE ONLY:
App. Rec. By: 9C
Date:
Application No..,. ;' :::: .:.~' ,'J !'l
SUBDIVISION PARTITION
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
JUL 7 1999
',y
SUBDIVISION NAME: OAKWOOD
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
Wilhelm EnQineerinQ Inc.
(NAME)
1771 Mt. Jefferson Ave.
(ADDRESS)
Woodburn
( CITY)
OreQon
(STATE)
97071
(ZIP CODE)
ADDRESS & ZIP CODE
PROPERTY OWNER: (Please print or type)
1.
GriQorv & OIQa Saverchenko
2785 Pacific HiQhway
Hubbard. OR 97032
2. Certified list with the names and addresses of property owners with 250 feet for a Subdivision
and 100 feet for a Partition.
3. REQUEST: To divide 1.8 acres into 9 lots with a varience to allow 15' frontage widths for
f1aglots 6 and 7 (combined 30').
4. The ZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN designation in which the parcel is located:
The parcel is zoned RS. with a Comprehensive Plan desiQnation of SinQle Family Residential
by the City of Woodburn.
5. Describe the location of the property or give the address:
The property is located at the intersection of OQle and Parr Road.
6.
Map No. 5S 1 W Sec.18 It)3
Tax Lot #(s) 8000,8100 and '_
8201.
7. Attach a written statement, marked Exhibit "A" which explains your reasons for subdividing the
land and provides evidence that the request conforms to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Policies.
The applicant bears the burden of proof that all approved criteria has been met.
Page 2 - SUBPART0:6J93
'I'r'
8. Attach 10 preliminary plats which contain the following information (Exhibit UB"): Preliminary
Subdivision (Partition) Plat Checklist. 9C
( ) Date
( ) Vicinity Map
( ) Subdivision Name
(The name of any proposed subdivision shall not be the same as or similar to any name
used on a recorded plat in the County or City).
( ) Township, range, section, tax lot number(s), acreage of the property to be divided.
( ) North arrow, scale (one inch equals 200 feet or larger).
( ) Locations and names of all existing streets within or on the boundary of the proposed
subd ivision/partition.
( ) Location and names of all proposed streets.
( ) Lot (parcel) layout with approximate dimensions, lot (parcel) numbers and areas for all
lots (parcels).
( ) Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations in the proposed subdivision (partition)
and area adjacent to the proposed subdivision (partition).
( ) Indicate which buildings are to remain and which ones are to be removed.
( ) Topography within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision/partition.
( ) Location of drainage ways, flood ways, or floodplain within and adjacent to the
proposed subdivision/partition.
( ) The location and size of all proposed water, sewer, and storm drain lines.
( ) The location of all proposed fire hydrants.
Signatures of each owner (husband and wife) or contract purchaser.
4tQ1 ~~
ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE
2785 Pacific Hwv.
Hubbard. OreQon 97032
otp~ ..Qu/~
Page 3 . SUBPARTK6193
'Il'
9C
REQUEST: The purpose of this subdivision is to divide 1.8 acres into 9 lots
with a variance to allow 15' frontage widths for flaglots 6 and 7 (combined 30').
A-1 Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood concept.
Neighborhoods should be an identifiable unit bounded by arterials, non-
residential uses, or natural features of the terrain. The neighborhood should
provide a focus and identity within the community and should have a community
facility, such as a school, park, or privately owned community facility to allow for
interaction within the neighborhood.
The proposed subdivision strives to afford a comfortable and
harmonious environment. This single family residential
development is bordered on all sides by single family residential
zoning and single family residential developments. To the
northeast of the property is Steklov's Addition Phase I. Nearby,
northwest of the property, along Parr Road are two public
schools. These schools would serve this proposed subdivision
nicely as a community recreation and leisure facility.
A-2 Living Environment - Developments in residential area be constructed in
such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate over time. Zoning ordinances
should be strictly enforced to prevent encroachment of degrading non-resident
uses. Construction standards in the State Building Code shall be vigorously
enforced, and if necessary, additional standards the City determines should be
, ", ;. :.~: I ._~ 'n ..fr
JUL 3 0 1999
Oakwood Subdivision Application
. .......:.~:jl;;-:y
- ; :-'~\T
'1r
9C
imposed to insure non-degrading housing units, should be encouraged by the
City.
The developer proposes to follow existing zoning ordinances.
Also, care has been taken to adequately design streets and
sewer systems so as to ensure graceful aging. The infra-
structure will be designed to City standards
A-3 Development should promote, through the use of moderate density
standards and creative design, a feeling of openness and spaciousness with
sufficient landscaped area and open space to create a pleasant living
environment.
The design of the subdivision is such that all lots meet and most
vastly exceed the minimum square footage requirements. Most
lots are rectangular in shape and thus provide continuity for
landscaping and an appealing neighborhood environment.
A-4 Streets in residential areas should be used by residents for access to
collectors and arterials. Residential streets should be designed to minimize their
use for through traffic, however, whenever possible dead-end streets and cui-oe-
sacs should be avoided.
There are no dead-ends or cul-de-sacs located within this
project. There is also no good reason for excess traffic to travel
through this proposed development because the residential
streets around the development provide efficient transportation
to Soones Ferry Road, which is a major collector. The layou.L<.>f
'. r..;-. ('~' 0 -<&
JUL 3 0 1999
Oakwood Subdivision Application
,..,"...,......"'.......1-""\..'!'.'1Io'.~.1
'II'
9C
the street within the project provides effective and efficient traffic
flow for its residents.
A-S Residential developments should strive for creative design which will
maximize the inherent values of the land being developed and encourage slow
moving traffic. Each residential development should provide for landscaping and
tree planting to enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhood.
Each property owner will be responsible for landscaping their lot.
A-6 Non-residential uses should be prevented from locating in residential
neighborhoods. Existing non-conforming uses should be phased out as soon as
possible.
Upon development of this parcel, there will be no existing non-
residential or non-conforming uses of the area.
A-7 Home occupations and combination business and home should be
allowed if the residential character is unaffected by the use. In the case of home
occupations, these can be allowed through the zoning ordinances.
All homes will have adequate use of the roadway which should
provide ample means of transportation for residents with or
without a business.
A-B High traffic generating non-residential uses should not be located in such
a manner as to increase traffic flows on residential streets or residential
collectors.
,At' hl.~(~'n -tr
JUL 3 0 1999
Oakwood Subdivision Application
". .~;'" :.~)' 'i7Y
.~ :
'1r
9C
This subdivision is designed to provide lots for single family
residential dwellings with minimal amounts of traffic. The
proposed subdivision is designed to efficiently transport traffic to
Boone's Ferry Road, a major collector.
A-9 Industrial and commercial uses which locate adjacent to residential areas
should buffer their use by screening and design control, and should be controlled
with sufficient setback so as their location will not adversely affect the residential
areas.
There are no industrial or commercial buildings bordering the
property and with the current residential zoning and
development of the surrounding property there is no reason to
expect there ever will be.
A-10 High density residential areas should be located so as to minimize the
possible deleterious effects on adjacent low density residential developments.
When high density and low density areas abut, density should decrease in those
areas immediately adjacent to low density residential land. Whenever possible,
buffering should be practices by such means as landscaping, sight-obscuring
fences and hedges, and increased setbacks.
There are no high density developments currently in existance or
planned for properties bordering the propsed subdivision.
......." !:". ..~ ,"-'.' .....t ...'....
JUL 3 0 1999
Oak'NOod Subdivision Application
'Ir
9C
A-11 Traffic from high density residential areas should have access to collector
or arterial streets without going through other residential areas.
There are no high density residential areas to deal with in this
capacity either abutting or adjacent to the property.
JUL 3 0 1999
Oakwood Subdivision Application
'1r
9C
LOCATED IN THE SW 1/Ll. SECTION 18. T.5.S.. R.1.W.. W.M.
C I T Y OF WOODBURN. MAR I ON COUNT Y. OREGON
JUNE 25. 1999
RS - SINGLE FAMILY
RES IOENTl AL
(0
9<1 I;::.
2& v
So
~I
NORTH
1"=60'
9&
. 2</.
1vcS'0 .
<?cS' .
S'cS' ~
Ir
<2'0
.00.
~
1r
If; '~ ~. ". , '11. "'er "~J
"-""~' .. ,t!i', :~.. . " l-'
.... _ ; 1 11_
~.'" C'lty, r ~ 60:' _ ~
If- :,; it'~ F. "J,
~I -,.. ~
..: '''''i .' !!!o. ". ,I
~l!' .1 ,,:::--~ - I
.i~: !! 0 ,~' ..!"f .'
~fii:~--~
<';'0 ,~~~!t. J '
'"'. I~ 1(1 , "~CI:' _.;- - - ~
~ ...,t I
<> ,<
I -_ _ _ _.-' _ .:.... ~ :::- ~
...- " ...-
-- "
t----I--~' ;~i':' ~~ -", ..~ ,',;..<--7 ~
- .1 : \1 /:It ' _ .!'. (0-.' ~ .' _ - -' g2O('
...-f..,,!,.,'1 -. - - - - - -,' - o~, r I ". .. ..
I ..... I ,.... jl ':. . - - - / ~ " . ~ .. -
· 1 -- .. i;j /: ".; I ~: (t)]. << r, . /~
r'Ti"'---7~-. .~~' '<i.~ ..
, ~....A
./ F...... ..
" :' ... // '
,
1'" C'::>F.
---
I ......4 :..J
I{ I _ ~I
r--;::..--'r - - - --I
':;~ - - - ~- - - - ~ k
I I I'::"
I f. I .,f-
r - - - - r - - - -<I
, , Ii
.. ZJW 5 a:sug /4
i : ' e . . . STREET' , . .
" ,
~
,
~....
103 .0303 . 5
'1r
'.-' I_,_.~.~~----
(~
" 'J
'"
o ...
o 0
~.
2:
o
~
Z
In
o
-f
'"
..
~. (;:J~s_ _. ~J .
",' ,..- ~
u,
<>
~ Q(j'-J
[;.0> .' CI
hJ .'
... Iv ~ 0
08....
fit. 10 (:l
13}O--
17."
.J
;;- ~-\ - ~
'"
~ 1.3 V'-~
8 '- -- . 16.410
10 \ ....c.-...:
l7 o.
01 ~
~ \.';/0
o 0
o <J 'C---
...
o
(.1
..~
W
g ;~
_ ;;
Wl:l
~'>.. IS
'I
",
u ~
0
... 0
0
~
...
0
<=> e
<....N i~ I"
.... -'
)..0
<=> ~, r) Cl
<....N I~I <J
e
,t:, ~
In
I~I l:
....
0
e
;J
00.'7
00_
~ ---!~-
g; / r- "I
o \ n
o <J I'; RJ-t - 0 I'; n!: '
00 1\J 8 ,--".::-::E
~ -2!J~ ~ ~~
g ct 0>;1>" ::1
W g
!: g 8 '0/.1'; I';
~1- -"
.5
S\-0
~ g!: .
-16)
w
.. 0
..
g Cl
Cl
11<4.08
50
I\)
v.
..
0,
C>
11..ce
1Il
8:
.bo
0>
o
o
..
a>
g <J
't. 0
o
o III
7.
13
<J
16.83__
~
C)
'<..N .
8
cz)
~..
(.11"
'~'\
\. \
~'
'en
-f'
J:r
m: g
/ m.
-I.
\
..
RO
f-'
I~ /!.'" :I/~'~;/' ~~~J;:tP' !:~'T>.>
,>J - If _, ~. I
......'....,."" ..,<;'" ""Pi
.----- ~~--'?,~ 1\ \.,' ~ -.' 1\.
~/'<I:--- --'::_-..';u' _' ~~',
\<::/ 0 "-..g~I' . ';
<;'\~.~--: ~~. . llltl\jl] \'-':":-~~r~
"1'\1 7.~ (', I'"
fI '" '3.__
~ (s,'!. !r,.~.~.... ".._ Sr-
. -\.-~rl... '< ~~',g6~'(':' If g')~ ~~.?~~ /.
\. \. \'8 (l ~ ,: ~
I I I. " (<.~< /;' /:..'<
I I I I '\ _, '<"3 ,~
-.J(,.!. __ l!:'_ _ :.... _y\'~,~_ _"'. ~
. 656.<6
70'
.po
z
..
..
tI
:E
- 1\ \ \
10\
-,.
I
I
I
,
-,
I
I
I
',(..
\
-, -~I-i-,(,-;-
". - 1.)-; - I \.
I I \: :
' , , I
I I
I 1\ I I
-, -s -,--,
I I \ I
I I
: I : \. .I,
1-/ I I ,
, ----........ I,,) l!:.l _'~ \-
~- ~ - -
i;i.~___~._
. I
I
I
\-. I \
L_
1 .'
\
1 \ \
I.....
I(
I.!'-
-!l"~Sll'~\
"- ~~--- -' - -
-, - ,-- I:: - ,... -------ry~ .16.
.f... I (~-; "J .' /' /<l20.....,
70/ , I ;~I 1\.":-. ~3'-1'
I I 0 H i3 I I
I (f. Ail;: I I!~ f I
, .
-.,..... I I I I
'" ----------..l " fl't-
.: 'l.li,,:'.---.: I I
';~~~r;:~" .~'\~~/I.~~ ""'- ..J!"_._:,,'/
~ \2~'- \ ". -. BO~\_J..,.. ..,;
r:5~ ". <"~ ~ ~~Il'-_,
' -.' - :l:rm<' I / ~., . .__.
Id'~./, '~i'" :.': f / ~~ t 621.1'1
~~rf2:".=- _.~;{/~ "i'" .~
... ""~\-.'I:I (. I
. .~ II. .
~ "\ ".... if .I
... ~ . - I
'-
'-,
~ "
ISb~
~J' .~~
..... Q\.l~ . "'.
".,~
"\
..
""
'. ....Ji'r
"- ...
b '\.
b
I .
)..
I .
(
~/
~
1r
9C
ATTACHMENT "8"
Planning Commission
Final Order
Dated 9/23/99
.. -..---
-
"..
" \ \ .. ~, ~"J II' , }-,
9C
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TOO (503) 982-7433 · FAX (503) 982-5244
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
SUBDIVISION 99-02
VARIANCE 99-09
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, a request was made for the Planning Commission to hear a
proposal to create a 9 lot single family subdivision and grant a variance to the
subdivision standards allowing for 15 feet wide flag lots instead of 30 feet wide.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their regularly
scheduled meeting of September 9,1999, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony
presented by staff, the applicant and proponents and opponents of the proposal, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved at their hearing of September 9,
1999 to approve Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-09 and instructed staff to prepare
findings and conclusions.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
1. The Planning Commission approves Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-09
based on findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit A, and conditions of
approval contained in Exhibit B which are attached hereto and by reference
incorporated herein.
Approved:
q-Ia)) qq
Date
FINAL ORDER - SUB 99-02. VARIANCE 99-09 - Oakwood
(
1l'r
9C
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: The applicable comprehensive policies have been addressed by the
implementing ordinances of the adopted subdivision standards, zoning ordinance and
any other ordinances in affect at the time of approval.
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
FINDING: The applicant's proposal will access onto an existing street ( Parr
Road) that meets city standards.
FINDING: Each lot will require a separate building permit. At such time that
building permits are issued, each lot will be reviewed for compliance with
vision clearance standards.
FINDING: Each lot will require a separate building permit. At such time that
the building permits are issued, each lot will be reviewed for compliance with
residential set back requirements. Any new fencing will also be reviewed for
compliance with this section prior to permit issuance:
FINDING: A condition of approval is that the applicant shall comply with the
required front yard setbacks.
FINDING: A condition of approval is that each lot will be subject to single
family driveway standards.
Variance:
FINDING: Requiring 30 foot wide drives for each lot would waste valuable
residential land, a 60 foot access to serve two residential lots is a needless
waste of residential property. The proposed 1 5' lot frontages for lots 6 and
7 with reciprocal easements would combine together to form a 30 foot access
which would be sufficiently wide to permit a 24' paved driveway to both flag
lots. The city driveway standards ordinance requires that where the property
frontage is 30' or less the maximum driveway width is 1'2 feet. The proposed
30' easement has sufficient width for utilities to access the two lots.
FINDING: The flag lots are created be dividing a land locked parcel which,
otherwise would have no roadway access. This parcel is approximately 100'
removed from a public street. Requiring the pole section of flag lots to meet
the lot width requirement defeats the generally accepted purpose for flag lots
(to provide a means to develop residential property where the geometry is
difficult.) Creating an access easement to these properties which is larger
than necessary would remove buildable land from the adjoining lots to the
east and west, and place it in nonpuildable areas as part of access to lots 6
'11"
9C
and 7. The proposed variance provides adequate access while using the
residential land efficiently in spite of difficult geometry.
FINDING: Granting this application will in no way be detrimental or hazardous
to the public welfare. The proposed plat provides adequate access and turn
around for fire and emergency vehicles. This configuration will make the area
more visually pleasing by reducing driveway area which is generally not as
aesthetically pleasing as home landscaping. The same access configuration
is used in the Steklov addition just north of Parr Road.
FINDING: The variance will allow the petitioner to create lots in this
subdivision which are consistent in size with the lots of the surrounding area
and reflective of the property zoning. Without the variance the applicant
would lose one lot which would significantly reduce the density for this plat.
FINDING: Granting of this application will not compromise the health or well
being of the citizens working or living in the surrounding community.
Adequate access and turnarounds are provided for fire and emergency
vehicles. If the variance is approved, this development would be similar to
recent developments in the area. The same access configuration is used in
the Steklov addition just north of Parr Road.
FINDING: Granting of this application would be in accordance with the
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Although there is confusion as to ordinances
that may apply to flag lots, the zoning ordinances clearly allow for flag lots.
The variance is required because there is a section of the subdivision
standards that requires a 30 foot minimum width for flag lots and that is
being interpreted a applying to the pole or access section. It may be
appropriated to clarify the interpretation to apply to the body of the lot and in
particular at the building line. Approval of this variance will allow practical
application of flag lots to provide density consistent with the zoning
ordinance.
FINDING: The proposed subdivision and single family residences are an
allowed use.
FINDING: Each of the proposed lots meet the 6,000 square foot minimum lot
area requirement as shown by the applicant on the preliminary plat. The side
and rear yard setbacks specified in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance vary
according to the height of the proposed home. If the applicant proposes to
build two story homes, then greater side and rear setbacks are required. The
applicant is requesting a variance to the flag lot width requirement for lots 6
and 7. The existing residence meets the side yard setback requirements.
FINDING: The System Development Charge for park purposes is $483 per lot.
A condition of approval specifies that the applicant shall pay the required
parks systems development charges in full, or on a per-lot basis as building
permits are issued. See Attachment C.
Woodburn Subdivision Standards: .
9C
FINDING: Sufficient information has been submitted by the applicant. Attached
with this application is a preliminary plat that indicates the proposed lots.
FINDING: The applicant has met this criteria with the exception of lots 6 and
7. The applicant is requesting a variance to the flag lot width standards
from 30 feet to 1 5 feet.
FINDING: Parr Road is a improved residential street. Ten vehicle trips per
day is standard for single family residential units. Additional road dedication
along Ogle street is a condition of approval as well as a non-remonstrance
consent form to participate with improvements to Ogle street.
CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide approximately 1.8 acres
into 9 single family lots with lot sizes of greater than 6,000 square feet. Lot
number 1 will already have a single family residence on it that will meet the
required setback. Lot numbers 6 and 7 are proposed to be flag lots. The
subdivision ordinance requires the lot width to be 30 feet wide, the
applicant is requesting to make the lots 15 feet wide. With conditions of
approval, the proposal can meet applicable policies and standards of the city
of Woodburn, as found in the previous sections.
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary
plan.
2. Prior to recordation with Marion County submit two paper copies of subdivision
plat for review to planning department.
3. Applicant shall provide for the installation of all franchised utilities and shall provide
any required easement on final plat.
4. Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar of the final plat shall be filed with
the public works department after all required signatures have been obtained and
the plat has been recorded with Marion County.
5. On site construction shall not commence until the improvements plans have been
reviewed for compliance with subdivision and street width standards and approved
by the public works department and all right-of-way permits, park fees and system
development charges have been paid.
'l!'
9C
6. Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall submit one set of -reproducible
as-builts.
7. Meet vision clearance standards.
8. The applicant shall comply with the Woodburn Subdivision standards.
9. Meet residential setback requirements.
10. Meet private driveway standards.
11 . Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall comply with the comments
provided by the fire department and public works department.
12. Comply with the following chapters of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 8, 9,10,13,22,39
13. Construct property line sidewalks
14. Provide street plantings as approved by Planning Staff
Waste Water Department:
15. Cross connections; Water Department - All units that put in either a underground
irrigation system, swimming pool, hot tub and fire sprinkler system will be required
to install backflow prevention assemblies (DC) (Double Checks). The assemblies
shall be installed by the water meter next to the property line. Unless approved by
city engineers. Please see Inspector on Installation Standards phone 982- 5283.
Public Works Conditions:
16. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
1 7. The subdivision shall be platted according to standard surveying practice, approved
and recorded with Marion County.
18. The owner/applicant will be required to enter into an improvement agreement as
outlined in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Chapter III, Section 6 prior to
acceptance of the final plat. Also, priC?,r to construction of the subdivision
9C
commencing the city will require approved construction plans, a performance bond
in the amount of 100% of the improvement cost and public works permit fee's
paid.
19. Existing on-site water wells or sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned by the
applicant in accordance with state regulations.
20. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any state
and/or federal agencies which may require approval or permit.
21 . This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties
22. Applicant shall dedicate to the City of Woodburn an additional 30 feet wide strip
of land adjacent to Ogle Street for roadway purposes.
23. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn standards and all State Building
Codes and Regulations.
STREET:
24. To accommodate the installation of the required services. The applicant shall grind
the existing asphalt surface of Parr Road to a depth of 1 }'2", and inlay with 1 }'2"
of class "c" mix asphaltic concrete, after all services have been installed. The
grinding and inlay shall be required adjacent to the entire north line of this
subdivision, and shall include the intersection of Luba Street.
25. The shared driveway access serving the flag lot 6 and lot 7 shall conform to
Chapter 10 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance for driveways serving more than
one dwelling unit. A proper road maintenance agreement shall be recorded for
shared driveway with the subdivision plat, this shall be reviewed' and approved by
the city prior to recording.
26. This development shall be responsible for street improvements to Ogle Street. The
owner will be required to sign a non-remonstrance consent form to participate and
pay the fair share cost of such improvements meeting city standards on Ogle Street
as determined by the City Council.
27. The driveway approach serving the shared access shall comply with the City of
Woodburn Commercial Driveway Standards.
DRAINAGE:
28. Single family residential lots, other then the flag lots, shall drain to the street
though weep holes in the curb.
29. The flag lots shall be served by an underground piped storm sewer service
connecting to the existing city storm sewer main within Parr Road. The applicant
'lr
9C
shall install a separate service to each lot. New taps on the storm sewer main will
be done by the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
SANITARY SEWER:
30. The existing sanitary sewer main within Parr Road shall be extended westerly and
a sanitary service installed to each of the proposed lots by the applicant. The lots
adjacent to the existing sewer main shall require a sanitary service line to be
installed to each lot by the applicant. New taps on the sewer main will be done by
the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
WATER:
31 . The applicant shall install a water service in conformance with city standards from
the existing city water main on the north side of Parr Road to each lot. New taps
on the water main will be done by the city, tap fee shall be paid by the applicant.
WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT
32. Driveable access to within 150 feet of all side of all structures is required. Access
ways more than 150 feet in length require a turnaround provision. Minimum width
of access way is 20 feet.
33. Residential flow is 1000 gpm.
34. One hydrant within 250 feet of all properties. Coordinate with Woodburn
engineering department prior to placement of any hydrants.
35. Local residential alarms as required by ORS.
36. Flag lots need to be addressed on a sign located at entrance way from public road.
address numbers to be assigned by the fire district in cooperation with the city
building official. (Parr road name is incorrect. Please change to Bridlewood Lane).
37. An onsite water supply system must be available, operational and acceptable to the
city prior to the construction of combustible buildings. Access'during construction
must support the weight of fire apparatus and allow access to facility.
Any conditions attached to the approval of the site plan shall be conditions on the
issuance of a building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be considered a
violation of the ordinance.
'Ir
9C
ATTACHMENT "C"
Planning Commission
9/9/99
Minutes
'lr
9C
c. Subdivision 99-02 to divide approximately 1.8 acres into 9 lots between
Ogle and Brown Street south of Parr Road. Variance 99-09 to lot width
standards to two flag lots requirement 30 feet rest is'. Oakwood
Subdivision. Wilhelm Engineering applicant.
Break
Chairperson Young opened the Public Hearing.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided presentation as reflected in the
Staff Report. Staff indicated he concurred with the applicant's rationale to approve this
Variance request. He pointed out that Staff comments were not incorporated into the
Staff Report because he was unable to review the application. However, they would
make sure that any order that would come back to the Planning Commission, if it is
favorable to the Variance, that would substantiate the recommendation. The following
are two recommendations made by Staff that are not conditions within the existing Staff
Report: (1) the applicant can be required to have property line sidewalks so that a
planting strip can be allowed; (2) tree plantings in front of each proposed parcel. Staff
recommended approval of Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-09.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired whether property line or curbside sidewalks are
addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance?
Staff reported it is not addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance but it does say that
sidewalks will be required but it is up to the discretion of Staff and the Commission to
determine where' those sidewalks can be placed on the property. He added it is a
judgement call on each application because there are no particular standards set forth
in the Ordinance.
Chairperson Young thanked Staff for including the blue prints. He said they are much
easier to read than the small condensed versions that they normally get.
Vice Chairperson Cox commented that Staff slipped back to incorporating by reference
other departments comments in the Staff Report instead of spelling them out in the list
of conditions.
Staff explained he did not have the opportunity to review this Staff Report once it was
developed. If he had seen this he would have had the individual incorporate them into
a long list. He said the order will reflect what the previous process has been.
Commissioner Lonergan asked if 30 foot access on the flag lots is good enough for the
Fire Department?
Staff responded yes. He explained the Fire Department's primary concern is making
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
9C
sure that we have adequate area for them to access the site and back out and turn
around.
Chairperson Young commented he did not notice any fire hydrants out at the site.
Staff stated those become conditions by the Fire Department and Public Works.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired how to work it into the conditions to require tree
plantings in the parking strip?
Staff replied it would be worded "tree in front of each individual lot". He added we
would be looking at a total of six trees. There are requirements as to trees that we
make allowance for and those trees that we do not allow within the right-of-way under
our Ordinance.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if the language of the dedication on the actual plat is done
by Public Works? He remarked somebody has to double check and make sure that this
reciprocal easement and that the easement for utilities in the flag poles of lots 6 and 7
winds up getting in the dedication language on the plat or by a separate easement
document.
Staff reported there is one person in the Public Works Department that specializes in
just reviewing these plats, conditions of approval and making sure that those things that
are stated in the Staff Report are followed through on.
Testimony by the Applicant
George Wilhelm. Wilhelm Engineering. P.O. Box 561. Woodburn. OR stated he is
representing the owners, applicant Greg and Olga Saverchenko. He said they believe
the requirement of a minimum width of 40 feet for flag lots severely limits and maybe
eliminates the option to use flag lots for unique situations. Mr. Wilhelm further stated
the proposed 15 foot access with reciprocal easements will provide adequate width for
a 24 foot wide paved access way and still leave room for utility services. He believes
the application and exhibits adequately address all of the pertinent criteria for approval.
Testimony by Proponents
Paul C. Sedoruk. LDCD Design GrouP. 3400 State St. NE. Salem. OR 97301
represents the Lucky Company that developed Steklov Subdivision. He stated they
support the subdivision 100%. However, he expressed concerns based on the
conditions of approval with their subdivision. Firstly, he reported thei( concern with the
run off water from this new subdivision draining into the detention pond which is owned
and maintained by the Lucky Company. He reported his client is liable for this
detention pond and suggested that perhaps the City take ownership and maintenance
of the pond. Mr. Sedoruk said it seems like an unfair burden if someone is maintaining
a detention pond to allow anyone in the neighborhood that develops this property to
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9. 1999
...
9C
have access to this pond with no additional cost or responsibility that goes along with
maintaining and being liable for such a facility. Secondly, he conveyed their concern
with Parr Road. Mr. Sedoruk explained that his client has a contract with the City
stating that after a year the road has been put in the City will come out and look at the
condition of the road. If the road is found to be in good condition, the City will accept
the road and release his clients maintenance bonds. He reported in order to develop
the new subdivision Parr Road will have to be cut open for water laterals, sewer and
storm water connections. He questioned how his client will be relieved of the
responsibility of maintaining Parr Road in good stead during that period? They feel a
continuance of two weeks to discuss with the City, the Project Engineer and the
property owners regarding these issues which at this time, would be in the benefit of the
public good.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked Mr. Sedoruk if there was a provision placed at the time the
detention pond or the road was put in by his client for cost sharing by other properties
as they developed to contribute towards the cost of the detention pond?
Paul Sedoruk did not believe so. He said they would love to have cost sharing but
from what he understands it is too late to ask for that. There was a cost sharing
agreement when they did Steklov that even though Brown Road had been approved
adjacent to their property that his client had to pay their fair share for Brown Road's
improvement. He commented he was not the person representing the Lucky Company
during the subdivision of Steklov and did not know why they did not ask for cost sharing
at that time. Mr. Sedoruk commented George Wilhelm was the engineer on record and
perhaps he could explain why cost sharing was overlooked.
Opponents
None
Applicant Rebuttal
George Wilhelm stated he felt Mr. Sedoruk's issue is with the City. As far as his
representation with the Lucky Company, they did negotiate with the City on the
detention pond and as far as he knows they did receive some concessions. He added
the Lucky Company does have an obligation to provide for a storm water that is
upstream from their property. Mr. Wilhelm said it is his understanding that this hearing
tonight is primarily to consider testimony with regards to the land use issues and
although he appreciates the comments from the Lucky Company and their
representatives, he thinks they need to address City policies, standards and ordinances
at a different time and place. Mr. Wilhelm remarked the applicant he'repre~ent5 tonight
will comply with all of the City's appropriate ordinances.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if the development of this subdivision will change the
natural course of the surface water flow and divert it into the Lucky Company's
subdivision?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
9C
George Wilhelm replied it will not. He added he believes Parr Road is designed so that
the adjacent property will drain onto Parr Road. There will be some drainage that now
goes onto Parr Road that will continue to go there as a result of this development. Mr.
Wilhelm further commented it is his understanding that Public Works does have a
condition that any cuts made in Parr Road, the applicant for this subdivision will be
required to grind down the asphalt an 1 % inch and replace a whole new surface along
there.
Chairoerson Young announced we are looking at Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-
09 and therefore not really prepared to go beyond that because they do not have
information on it. Additionally, it has been noted and it is in the record. He suggested
perhaps the Lucky Company discuss the issue with Staff at a later time.
Staff stated if additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the Planning
Commission may allow any party a hearing, a continuance of the hearing or leave the
record open to allow the party a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Vice Chairoerson Cox remarked Mr. Sedoruk has the right to submit new evidence if
he wants to but if he just wants time to talk, the Commission will not stop him from
talking to Staff or to the applicant.
Chairoerson Young inte~ected as part of the order at any public hearing you have the
opportunity to submit other evidence for five days afterwards.
Vice Chairoerson Cox asked Mr. Sedoruk if he is willing that the Public Hearing be
closed?
Paul Sedoruk replied affirmatively. He stated they just wanted their concerns stated for
the record.
Chairoerson Young closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion
Vice Chairperson Cox stated it is a good application. He remarked the Commission has
no authority over the issues raised by Mr. Sedoruk on behalf of Lucky Company. If
there were some decision for the City to take over the detention pond, the decision
would have to made initially by Public Works and then approved by City Council. Vice
Chairperson Cox stated the new project will be required to take good care of the
pavement and will have their own separate obligations in addition to the obligations that
the original builder of the street had. He does not foresee any problems sorting those
two things out at the Staff level.
Commissioner Bandelow has no objections to the project and stated it fits in with what
is going in that end of town.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
f
9C
Commissioner Heer concurred and sees no problems with the 30 foot driveway.
Commissioner Lonergan stated he has no problems with the applicant or the project but
he personally does not like flag lots. He sees cramming a lot of homes to a small piece
of area and would like to see a cul-de-sac or something better.
Chairperson Young expressed his concerns with the requirements for the trees being in
the sight view. He added the street will have circulation at some point in time but sees
no other way to change the configuration. He also stated he does not like flag lots but
he thinks it works well in this situation because these lots are much larger than the lots
in some of the surrounding developments.
Commissioner Heer moved to accept the Staff Report on Subdivision 99-02 and
Variance 99-09 with the added conditions of the landscaping and the property line
sidewalks and Staff will return with an order. Vice Chairperson Cox seconded the
motion. Motion carried with Commissioner Lonergan voting No.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9. 1999
I!'
9C
ATTACHMENT "0"
Applicant Response
-
Property Surveys - Construction Management - Computer Aided Design and Drafting
Land Use and Project Planning - Civil Engineering - Land Development 9C
@
WILHELM ENGINEERING, INC.
A FULL SERVICE COMPA.'''}'
1771 Mt. Jefferson Ave. P.O. Box 561 Woodburn, Oregon 97071
Area Code 503 981-3181 - 266-6168 - Fax 981-8925
Email wei@web-ster.com
October 25, 1999
Mayor Dick Jennings and Councilors
Woodburn City Hall
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re: Oakwood Sub.
Proj. No. 99006
Dear Mayor Jennings and Councilors:
At about 11 :00 am Monday 10/25,99 we received from City staff a copy of a fax from
"Land Development Cons" (LDC) regarding delaying the Oakwood Subdivision. First, we
need to set the record straight, LDC is correct in that they were notified of the public
hearing on Oakwood Subdivision 99-02; however, they mistakenly indicate that they
immediately contacted the Owner or the Engineers, in fact it was not until approximately
3:00 on Sept. 9 the day of the hearing that Mr. Luckey phoned to say that he intended to
object to the project because they were still maintaining the detention pond. A Mr.
Sedoruk did testify at the planning commission hearing and was given opportunity to
provide information and request a continuance; he declined. To my knowledge no
further contact was made by LDC or Mr. Luckey. It was not until today that my client was
able to find out why his project was called up by the council.
Wilhelm Engineering Inc. was not involved in the original planning action for the
Steklov Addition; however, a review of the facts indicates that no oversizing or additional
infratstructure was required. All of the conditions of approval were available when the
Luckey Company was considering the purchase.
We agree with LDC that the City should take over the maintenance of the storm
detention facility; however, because of the size cf the Oakwood Subdivision, detention :3
not required and the downstream properties are required to pass the upstream flows. All
of the facilities that the Luckey Co. constructed were required to service the subdivision
that they developed. As a matter of fact the Luckey Co. was not required to extend the
sanitary sewer to Ogle Street; we believe that was based on sentence #2 & 3, paragraph
8, section 1 of Resolution # 901 "In addition to above, the developer is required to
extend the main lines from one end to the other end of the property unless it is
determined by the City Engineer that the extension does not serve future needs.
This portion of extension will not have reimbursement policy benefits."
The delays caused by LDC and Mr. Luckey are very significant at this time of the
year. The Luckey Company was notified by the August 19th mailing and chose not to
contact anyone until the day of the hearing. While we do appreciate your diligence in
examining the facts of this matter, we respectfully request that the council act on the
",.
Property Surveys - Construction Management - Computer Aided Design and Drafting
Land Use and Project Planning - Civil Engineering - Land Development 9C
@
WILHELM ENGINEERING. INC.
A FULL SERVICE COMPA.V}'
1771 Mt. Jefferson Ave. P.O. Box 561 Woodburn, Oregon 97071
Area Code 503 981-3181 - 266-6168 - Fax 981-8925
Email wei@web-ster.com
subdivision based on the relevant criteria. Please feel free to call if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
George H. Wilhelm; P.E., P.L.S.
Cc: Mr. Frank Twari
Mr. Steve Goeckritz L/
-
'1r
U~I-~~-~~ rKi i~;qc
CONSUL TING
ENGINEERS
LAND USE
PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
HILLSBORO
(Corporate Office)
233 S.E. Washington 51.
HiIIsboro. OR 97123
503.648.4061
FAX: 503.631.7646
Emal1: Idch@e-z.net
SALEM
3400 State Street
Suite G.710
Salem. OR 97301
503.370-8424
Fax: 503.370.8426
Email: ldcs@C-z.net
VANCOUV~R
1400 Washington SI.
Suite 150
Vancouver, WA 98660
360.695.1071\
Toll Free: 503.241.8657
Fax: 360.695.4142
Email;ldcv@e-z.net
KLEIN CONSULTING
ENGINEER
1904 Elm Street. Suite 1
Forest Grove. OR 97116
503-359.5956
Fax; 503.357.5474
Ernail: kce_dlS@lriax.com
LHl'IU ut V tLUnlW 1 \.Juri.;)
rH^ NU. ~UJJIU04CO
. r. Ul
FAX TRANSMITTAL
TO:
FIRM:
FAX NO:
RE:
COMMENTS:
Frank Tiwari
City of Woodburn
(503~
~<6''2-.. -$"2.*
Subdivision # 99-02
9C
DATE: 10/22/99
FROM: Paul C. Sedoruk
JOB NO: 2254
Cc: Steve Geoekritz
City Council Members
Please review following items for the next scheduled hearing:
1) Letter regarding cost sharing for Casefile # 99-02 (3 pages).
2) Ordinance No. 1515 (1 page).
3)
Resolution No. 901 (3 pages).
We: Ire sending a total of <t pa~C$. inc:luding this cover $hc:c:t. Plnse nullfY the above person If you did not rc:c:eive all of
the enc:I()~ pages.
'l!
OGI-cc-88 r I< lIe: ~~
CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
LAND USE
PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
HIL1.SBORO
(CO~f'O~.. TF O~~}CE)
233 S.E. W"SHINGTON ST.
HILLsaCRO, OR 971.23
503.648.4061
FA>:: 503.681.7646
CMAIL: Idch@e-z.net
SALE M
3400 ST,ATE STRe.~r
SUITI, G-71 0
SALeM, OR 97301
503.370.3424
FJVC.: 503.370.8426
EMAIL: Idcs@e-z.net
VANCOUVER
1400 WASHIN<3T(.)N ST.
SUrTE 150
V":'NCOUV~l1, WA 92660
360.695.1074
TOLL FREE: 503.241.8657
FAX: 360.695.4142
EMAIL: Idcv@e-z.net
KLEIN CONSULTING
ENGINEERS
1904 eLM 5TREF.'I, SUITE 1
rOtlCST G~OVto. OR 97116
503.359.5956
F~; 503.357.5474
EMAIL: kce_dlsl2hriax.com
LANU UtVtLU~ntNI GONS
rAX NV. ~UJJ(Uti4cb
~. Uc
9C
City Council
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
October 21, 1999
Re:
Written Testimon). that Cost Sharing for Public Facilities
Should Appl)' to SubdivisioD 99-02.
I arn writing on behalf of my client, the Luckey Company.
which developed Steklov Addition. This development was approved
by the City of Woodburn as Casefile # 94-02. As pact of the
Conditions of Approval, the developer was required to improve Parr
Road from Brown Road to the Railroad tracks (Condition VI. 4),
provide an acceptable Stonn Drainage Study to Public Works, and to
make other necessary improvements (Site Plan Review, Carn
Meadows Subdivision, General Conditions, Storm Sewer). These
improvements were made at the developer's expense and will benefit
adjacent property owners. My client is requesting that the CitY
Council review City Ordinances and make a determination as to
whether Cit)' policies on Cost Sharing applies to the subdivision
under review this l;:vening (Subdivision 99-02).
As stated above, the Luckey Company developed Steklov
Addition (Casc:file # 94.02) as approved by the City of Woodburn.
Construction started in the fall of 1997 and was completed in the
summer of 1998. This work included the construction of Parr Road
to the full City standards and the construction of a regional detention
pond and related infrastructure. In addition to bearing the cost of
improvements, the Luckey Company is responsible for the
maintenance and ownership of the regional detention pond. The
Luckey Company bought Steklov Addition from the original
developer. The original developer and his representative evidently
did not request the Council to approve cost sharing for public
improvements which benefit adjacent property o~ncrs. I am asking
the Council to review existing City ordinance to s.ee if this oversight
can be addressed at this hearing.
As pan of the City's Public Notification Policy, the Luckey
Company received public notice on Subdivision 99.02. This
prompted them to contact the applicant's engineer and myself. They
are requesting that the developer of Casefile # 99-02 pay his fair
share for infrastructure improvements already constructed by my
client within the Parr Road right-of.way and to the regional detention
pond facility. I made a similar request to the applicant's engineer at
'lr
UGI -~~-88 H< J 1 c: ~j
LHNU UtVtLU~MtKI GUNS
rAX NU, ~UJJ(U~4cb
~, UJ
9C
the public hearing on September 9, 1999. While testifying in favor of the proposed subdivision
that evening, I expressed my concerns about cost sharing and the discharge of stonn water into a
privately OWIIt:d detention pond on my client's property. At that hearing, I also brought up the.
issue of the developer clItting and patching the section of Parr Road that was still under guarantee
by my client. As of this date, I have not heard from the developer or his engineer about a
willingness to enter into a cost sharing agreement.
I have to admit that after reading the relevant City Ordinance, I am stilI ignorant as to who
has the authority to apply for cost sharing for proposed developments. I have supplied the City
Engineer with a copy ofthis letter with the hope that he is empow.ered to Condition cost sharing
with the approyal of Casefile # 99-02 and that he will address this i~slle at this hearing. However,
in the event that my client's issues and concerns are beyond the City Engineer's authority, I
request the support of the City Council in my client's position through the admini!.tration of
Ordinance No. 1515 and Resolution No. 901.
My client acknowledges that the City has the authority to Condition necessary
infrastructure improvements and that developers are responsible for the financing of those
improvements. He is requesting that the City implement Ordinance No. 1515 ("AN
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF THE COST OF EXTENDING WATER OR
SEWER LINE BY PROPERlY OWNERS BENEFITING FROM SUCH EXTENSIONS") as a
Condition for Subdivision #99-02 so that the developer pays his fair share for the following
improvements: a portion of the cost tor the paving of Parr Road adjacent to the proposed
development, portion of cost for public sewer line and water lines which benefits the developer,
and a portion of the cost of the public storm water system which benefits the adjacent property
owner's development. The storm water system includes underground stonn lines and the above
ground detention pond.
Since my client o\\,ns the detention pond, p8.lt oftht: acUacent property O\Vner's fair share
which should be considered by the City Council includes:
I) The value of the land where the facilit)' is located.
2) The necessary oversizing of the facility and pipes to accommodate the stonn water
needs of adjacent property owners.
3) The long term maintenance and ownership responsibilities of my client.
The City required that the developer ofSteklov Addition (the Luckey Company) own and
maintain the detention pond, therefore, he is reluctant to allow the use of the pond by adjacent
propelty owners. He is suggesting that the City Condition adjacent property owners to also be
responsible for the o,",llership and maintenance of this region detention pond. Currently, a
Homeowner's Association for Stcklov Addition has been established to ensure tJ~at each lot
holder is equally responsible for. the ownership and maintenance of the detention pond.
Alternatively, he would like to suggest that all lots which drain into the pond enter a similar
agreement. He would also like to suggest to the City Council that it consider the possibility of the
City assuming the ownership and maintenance of this public facility.
UCI-~~-~~ ~~l l~:~j
LANU UtVtLU~ntNI GUN~
~AX NU. ~Ujj(U~4~b
1". U4
9C
I have summarized the applicable City Resoluti()ns and Ordinances to this issue beJol\.'. In
addition, J have attached a copy of them at the end of this letter. Ordinance No. ]515 contains
threc sections which are appJicable to the above issues. Section 1 establishes that a developer is
responsible fonhe cost of sewer and water lines which service an applicant's premise. Section 2
states that if a person is required by the City to extend waler and sewer lines to adjacent property,
the City shall require the benefiting property o'Wner to pay his fair share to the property o"'1ler
who extended the said utility. Section 2 limits the refund period to 15 years and empowers the
common council to determine the amount to be refunded. Section 3 allows direct pro rata share
to be paid directly to the developer who financed the improvement.
Resolution 901 has several sections, which address the City's reimbursement policy.
Section I(E) limits reimbursement benefits to portions of infrastructure eXT.ensions which do not
serve future needs as well as defining the frnancial responsibilities for the extensions. Section
I(E) states that it is the intent of the Council that each development pay its fair share of cost for
public improvements and that all cost associated with serving a development are to be bome by
the development itself. Section l(G) requires the Council's attention on any request to modify
the general policy on pavement cutting. Section 2(A) auiliorizes the City Engineer to implement
Ordinance No. 1515 in respect to the reimbursement policies.
Based on the above evidence, we request the City Engineer with the approval of the City
Council to Condition Subdivision # 99-02 to pay its fair share to the developer of Steklov
Addition for the following infrdstructuraI improvements.
1) Land cost of detention pond area.
2) Oversi:,dng of storm water lines.
3) Stonn lines extensions adjacent to his property.
4) Cost associated with the establishment ofa homeowner's association.
5) Cost of owning and maintainin.g the detention pond.
6) Cost involved in adding his lots into the existing homeowner's association.
7) Cost of paving that portion of Parr Road which is adjacenr to his property.
8) Sanitary sewer line and water line which serves his property.
To date, J estimate that my client has financed over $100,000 worth of public infTastructure
improvements wh ich benefit adjacent property owners. The pro rata share of the proposed
Subdivision # 99-02 can be established in reviewing invoices and billings for the construction of
Stcklov Addition. J am estimating that the fair share amount \vould be approximately 10% of the
above amount. My clienT. is willing to meet with the City to determine the specific cost my client
incurred to benefit the developer of Subdivision # 99.02. I ask that the Council consider
Conditioning Subdivision 99-02 to subject itself to the Council's finding on this matter. We
request that the Council grant a continuance of tonight's bearing so that all inter<:sted parties can
meet and determine a fair share cost amount can be determined for the Council's future
consideration.
Respectively submitted,
Paul C. Sedoruk
ce. Frank Tiw:ll'i, City .I;nginccr
Steve Ooeckritz, Community Dcvelopm~nt Director
1
OCl-cc-88 r I< lIe : ~4
LAND D~V~Lupn~NI' CUNS
tAX NU, oUjj(Uti4~b
P. O~
9C
Woodburn Ordinances
2-7
2-7.4
ORDINANCE NO. 1515
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF THE COST OF EXTENDING WATER
OR SEWER LINES BY PROPERTY OWNERS BENEFITING FROM SUCH EXTENSIONS;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF WOODBURN DO ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subject to the reimbursable policy of the city subdivision ordinance
in the event new water or sewer lines, or both, are required to service applicant's
premises, said applicant will be required to finance the total cost of said lines.
Section 2. If any person is required by the city to pay the cost of extending
water or sewer lines adjacent to property other than his own so that service for
domestic use is available for such other property without further extension of the
water or sewer lines, the city shall require the owner of the other property to refund
to the person required to pay the cost of extending the lines a pro rata portion of the
COSt of the extensions. The right to require such refund shall not continue for more
than 15 years after the date of installation of the extensions of the water or sewer
lines. The amount to be refunded shall be determined by the common council, and
such determination shall be final.
Section 3. The pro rata share shall be paid over directly to the applicant who
financed the water or sewer to the city prior to the intervening property owner being
entitled to connect to the water or sewer lines.
Section 4. [Emergency clause.]
Passed by the Council and approved by the Mayor May 24, 1976.
~
OCT-22-99 FRI 12:55
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONS
\,
FAX NO, 5033708426
p, 06
9C -
\
COUNCIL BILL No. 1081
RESOLtrrIO!f !fo. 901
RESOLUrIOH ESTABLISHING CBRrAZH UTILITY RAr~SION POLICIES,
PAVEMENT CUTTING POLICY, AND ITS IHPLEHElrrA1'ION.
in the development of the community, and
WHEREAs, the e~tension of utilities plays an important role
WHEREAs, the City Council has established speci!ic policies
for facilitating development of the City, and
WHEREAS, the sizing of utilities are based or. the technical
require~e~ts anc nct o~ political Considerations, ~nc
WHEREAS, the City Engineer is responsible for deterr..ining
the shc~t a~d lo~~ range utility needs of the cor~unity and
1mplementing the Council's cevelop=ent POlicies, anc
WHEREAS, City Council has established certain fees, City
'ntributicn and reimbursement policies by ordi~ances and resolu-
_...ons; NOW I THEREFORE
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In general the utility e~ter.sion policy of the
City is as follows:
(1'.) The ~ t i 1 i ty (~'la ter, sani tary set'!er and sto::-:n drain}
extension must be analysed with future needs of other develop~ble
properties in mind and no! only the property under consideration
in a proposal. Although, it is best if the master p,lan of the
City shows these e~tensions, however, its absence or its obsoles-
cence will net void th~s policy require~ent. Any past mis~ake in
the master plan or in the implementation of the extene10n policy
does not set a precedent for.it to be followed in the future.
(B) If the p::-operty under consideration is' not .!ocatec.
2.C:~;;.,:-;._:.: -:;:,;:. .:.. ;:.:.. ;.;p.:.;; ;.>i~..;; ~ti~i'(y main, 'Chen 'the eX'teIls1on or
mains will be developers responsibility. !n addition to above,
'the developer is required to extend the main lines from one end
to other end of the property unless it is determined by the City
Engineer tha. t the extension does not serve future needs. This
portion of extension will not have reimbursement policy benefits
. this er.tension is to be limited to 1/2 the perimeter of the
perty unlces City 1s Wi~li~g to share a portion of the cost.
PAGE 1 - COONCIL BILL No. 1081
RESOLU'l'ION NO. 901
'1r
:
LHNU UtVtLUrntNJ vUN~
(
'.
rH^ NU, ~Ujj(UbqLb
r. U I
UGI-Li-~~ rKl Ji;~~
(
9C
Creation of an island within a developable property does not
exempt. the developer from the responsibility of extending the
lines to the other end of the property. However, extension of
lines 1,n different phases may be accepted by the City. The
internal looping required to serve the development itself is
ObViously to be completed at developers cost.
(C} All public utilities are to be kept in public right-ot-
way or on pUblic easements. Easements inside the development. if
needed, =ust be recorded prior to project acceptance by the City.
CD) All public utility main lines needed for the property
develop~ent must be completed prior to start of super structure
construction. An extension of tir.e may be granted under certain
circumstances with approval of Woodburn Fire District, however,
the OCCupancy permi t is to be withheld until utility work is
satisfactorily completed and accepted by the City(s Public Works
Department. Normally no building permits are to be issued in a
subdivision unless public improvements are completed and accepted
by the City.
{E} It is i~tent of the Council that each development ~ay
its fair share of cost for the public i~provements, all the cos~s
associated witb serving a development are to be borne by the
deve 1 op!!1e~ t i tsel f. !n unusual ci rcumstances, an approved
reimburse~ent policy ~ay be used. I~ addition, witbin the budget
constraints, the City Engineer is authorized to use City forces
to help ~utual1y beneficial infra-structure !mprove~ents in
public right-Of-way or on public ease=en~s. This policy is not
in tended t:o be used to benefi't O:1e property at'mer alo::.e, and
therefore it is particularly useful for small stor~ drain
projects.
(F} ~ach develop=e:1t ~ust provide engineering plans
prepare:: oy an ~ppropriately licensed person or firm. Or.ly
approved plans are to be used for conetruction. A reproduceable
copy of "As-Builts<< oust be prOvided to the City for all public
i:1f:a-structure improve1:l.ents. In addition, City cay require
Plu~bing plans or. the private property because of cross-connec-
tion ap.c w~ste monito:ing requi~ementg.
(G) ?avecent cuttinq because of utilitv line installations
lt is general policy of the Council not to allow pavement
cutting for Cl. period of five years or more after a street has
been paved, unless there is no other reasonable alternative as
ceterr:ined by the City Ensineer. The extension and service
pavement cuts necessary in a newly paved area need to be brought
to the attention of the COUncil, the cuts needed for utility
repai~ do ~ot need to be brought to the attention of Council.
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL Bo. 1081
MSOLurroN NO. 901
'If
UGI-ii-~~ rKl lc'~o
LHNU UtVtLUrntNI 0UN~
(
rH^ NU, ~UjjIU6~io
1", Ud
(
9C.
Section 2. UTILIZATION OF RELEVANT POLICIES: The C1 ty
Engineer is authorized to combine relevant parts of policies
'stablished in differeht ordinances and resolutions and apply it
~o each ,proposal under consideration. These po11cies may include
but not limited to the fOllowing:
(A) Reimbursement POlicies established under water and
sewer extensions Ordinance #1515, and policies established under
sub-division ordinance #1518 and standards.
(B) Rejlnbu:rse~ent policies established by Resolution #782
for 1/2 cost sharing for utility bores under railroad tracks a~d
rnajo::- roadHays.
(C} Construction pe::-=i t fees estao.!,ished fo!" i~fra-et:!"~c-
ture improvement by Ordinance #1795.
(D) Those policies adopted for inclusion into the City's
!1aster Plan.
Sectio~ 3. IM?!.EMENTATION OF UTILITY EXTENSION PAVEME!'IT
~~NAGEMENT POLICIES: The City Engineer shall have authority and
responsibility to ir.terpret and implement the policies es-
tablished by the Council and make all technical decisio~s as it
:elates tc ~tility extensions and ~avement ~anagement.
ll.pp:ovec ~s tc fO=-J:1; ~. ~ ~ S- - /7- - rg- r
City Atto:ney
Date
unci' President
Passe~ by Co~~c~l
Sub~itted to the ~ayo=
May 23, 1988
May 73. 1988
May ?~ lq~R
!!lay 21, lqRR
App=-oved by the Mayc~
Filed i~ the Office of the Recorce=
ATTEST, ~..ft.l11 A/-tA~./
~ARNEY a.BURRIS, Recorde=-
City of Woodbu=n. Ore?o~
\GE 3 - COUNCIL BILL No. 1081
RESOLUTION No. 901
".
9D
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
Date:
October 25, 1999
Mayor and City Council thru City Administrator J6o/
To:
From:
Planning Commission
Subject:
Annexation 99-03, Zone Map Change 99-04, Subdivision 99-03, and
Variance 99-10
At their hearing of September 9,1999, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by
Tony Caragol to approve an annexation of 1.32 acres to the City of Woodburn, a Zone Map
change from Marion County Urban Transition Farm (UTF) to City Single Family Residential
(RS), a subdivision to create 6 lots from 3 existing parcels, and a variance to the lot
coverage requirement for accessory structures in the RS zone. The subject property is
located on the north side of Aztec Drive east of Highway 99E.
On September 23, 1999, the Planning Commission approved an order recommending that
the City Council approve Annexation 99-03, Zone Map Change 99-04 and Subdivision 99-
03 and recommending that the City Council deny Variance 99-10 without prejudice.
In regard to the proposal, the City Council has the following options:
(1) Concur with the Planning Commission's final order and approve Annexation
99-03, Zone Map Change 99-04 and Subdivision 99-03 and deny Variance
99-10 without prejudice.
(2) Modify the Planning Commission's final order.
(3) Deny Annexation 99-03, Zone Map Change 99-04, Subdivision 99-03 and
Variance 99-10.
It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate your decision.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Planning Commission 9/9/99 Staff Report
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Final Order, dated 9/23/99
Exhibit C: Planning Commission 9/9/99 Minutes
,..
]
9D
ATTACHMENT "A"
Planning Commission
9/9/99
Staff Report
~
9D
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TOO (503) 982-7433 · FAX (503) 982-5244
STAFF REPORT
ANNEXATION 99-03
ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 99-04
SUBDIVISION 99-03
VARIANCE 99-10
(September 9, 1999)
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant: Tony Caragol
489 SW 1st Avenue
Canby, OR 97013
Property Owner: Gene Koffler
1542 Big Valley Way -7b
Reno, NV 89511
Pete Bagdanoff
20965 S. Virginia
Reno, NV 89511
Application Deemed Complete: July 21, 1999
120 Day Rule Deadline: nfa
Staff Report Available for Public Review: September 3, 1999
II. NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant has submitted a petition requesting to annex 1.32 acres to the City
of Woodburn. The owners of the subject property have filed the necessary petition
and do consent to the proposed annexation. In addition, the applicant is requesting
a Zone Map change from Marion County Urban Transition Farm (UTF) to City Single
Family Residential (RS). The annexation and Zone Map ,change are being
proposed in conjunction with a request to subdivide the property to create 6 lots
from 3 existing parcels. As part of the subdivision, the applicant requests a variance
to the lot coverage requirement for accessory structures in the RS zone.
III. RELEVANT FACTS:
The subject property consists of approximately 1.32 acres and is located on the
Page 1
IT"
9D
The subject property consists of approximately 1.32 acres and is located on the
north side of Aztec Drive east of Highway 99E. The property is bounded by the City
Limits on the south, east and west sides. The property is identified specifically as
Tax Lots 4400,4500,4600 in T5S, R1W, Section 17BA.
The subject property is designated for residential development < 12 units per acre
by the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned "Urban
Transition Farm" (UTF) by Marion County. The UTF zone is applied to land outside
of the city, within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), to ensure that it remains
undeveloped until annexation to the city for development at urban densities.
The subject property is currently developed with an existing shop building located
at the northwest corner of the site. The size of the building is approximately 1,695
square feet.
Surrounding zoning and land use:
North: Zoned UTF (outside City Limits) and developed with single
family residences.
Zoned RS and developed with single family residences.
Zoned RS and developed with a single family residence.
Zoned CR (Retail Commercial) and developed with a duplex.
South:
East:
West:
General description of the area:
a) Topography - generally level.
b) Vegetation - field with grasses, weeds and a few trees.
c) Drainage - generally sheet flow with no delineated channels.
d) Flood area - there are no flood plains within the immediate area.
e) Utilities - sewer, water and other utilities exist in Aztec Drive adjacent
to the site.
Schools: The nearest school is Washington Elementary located approximately %
mile from the site. The Woodburn School District uses a ratio of .54 students per
dwelling to determine the number of students a subdivision could generate. Based
on this formula, the proposed 6 lots would generate approximately 3 students.
Park and Recreation Facilities: The project does not include any parks or open
space.
. No topographical or environmental constraints have been identified on the subject
property.
IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 2
'"
9D
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan:
Chapter IX. Goals and Policies:
A. Residential Land Development Policies
D. Annexation Policies
G. Housing Goals and Policies
H. Public Services Goals and Policies
K. Transportation Goals and Policies
M. Growth and Urbanization Policies
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 8 General Standards
Chapter 9 Residential Standards
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Chapter 13 Variance Procedures
Chapter 15 Zone Change
Chapter 22 Single Family Residential District
Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-lieu of
C. Woodburn Subdivision Ordinance
D. Woodburn Transportation System Plan
E. Woodburn Access Management Ordinance
V. ANALYSIS:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IX. Goals and Policies:
Residential Land Development Policies (IX-A):
A-1. Residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood.
Neighborhoods should be an identifiable unit bounded by arterial
non-residential uses, or natural features of the terrain. The
neighborhood should have a community facility, such as a
school, park, or privately owned community facility to allow for
interaction within the neighborhood.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed subdivision will not create a
neighborhood but will become part of the existing and developing
neighborhood in the area. The applicant is proposing no specific
community facility due to the very small scale of the 6-lot subdivision.
The proposal complies with this policy.
A-2 Living Environment - Developments in residential area be
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 3
'Ir
9D
constructed in such a way that they will not seriously deteriorate
over time. Zoning ordinances should be strictly enforced to
prevent encroachment of degrading non-residential uses.
Construction standards in the state Building Code shall be
vigorously enforced, and if necessary, additional standards the
City determines should be imposed to Insure non-degrading
housing units, should be encouraged by the City.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed subdivision is designed in
compliance with the City of Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and all other
applicable ordinances. Additionally, the City of Woodburn's building
permit process will assure that the buildings built within this
development are established in compliance with applicable City
standards and the state of Oregon Building codes. These factors
combined will ensure that the proposed development is a quality
living environment, and that the development will not seriously
deteriorate over time. The proposal complies with this policy.
A-3 Development should promote, through the use of moderate
density standards and creative design, a feeling of openness and
spaciousness with sufficient landscaped area and open space to
create a pleasant living environment.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed subdivision, due to its small size,
will not include any open space. However, the subdivision will be
developed with lots that exceed the minimum 6,000 square foot lot
size. The proposed lots will range from 7,791 square feet to 10,238
square feet. The relatively large size of the lots will contribute to a
feeling of openness and spaciousness which will enhance the living
environment in the area. The proposal complies with this policy.
A-5 Residential developments should strive for creative design
which will maximize the inherent values of the land being
developed and encourage slow moving traffic. Each residential
development should provide for landscaping and tree planting
to enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhoods.
STAFF COMMENT: The design ofthe proposed subdivision is limited
by existing street improvements in the area and by the size and
shape of the property. The relatively large lots will provide ample
yard areas for landscaping to enhance the livability and aesthetics of
the neighborhood. The proposal complies with this policy.
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 4
-
'1r
9D
Annexation Policies (IX-D):
0-1 Annexation policies are extremely important for the City. While
it is important that enough land is available for the necessary
development anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also
essential to prevent too much land being included in the city
limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling development.
Because of the need to plan for public improvements, the City
should insure that there is a five year supply of vacant land
within the City. Services should be provided to that land during
that five year period.
STAFF COMMENT: The Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in
1980. This boundary designates areas outside Woodburn's City
Limits that could be annexed to accommodate growth to the year
2000. The annexation of this land is to accommodate the growth
demands of the City in a timely manner. The subject property is
contiguous to the current city limits line on the east, west and south.
Because the site is almost an island surrounded by the city, because
city facilities are adjacent, and because there is urban development
on all sides of it, it cannot be considered "sprawling". The proposal
complies with this policy.
Housing Goals and Policies (IX-G):
G-1-1 The City will insure that sufficient land is made available to
accommodate the growth ofthe City. This requires that sufficient
land for both high density and low density residential
developments is provided within the confines of the growth and
development goals of the City...
STAFF COMMENT: lands within the urban growth boundary and
outside of the city limits are available for development. The subject
property has been planned for residential development. Market
conditions and supply of developable land dictate what parcels within
the city's planning area are developed. The proposal complies with
this policy.
G-1-2 It is the policy of the city to encourage a variety of housing types
to accommodate the demands of the local housing market.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed subdivision is being proposed in
response to local housing market demand for single family
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 5
9D
residences.
Public Services Goals and Policies (IX-H):
H-1 Public Facilities and services shall be appropriate to support
sufficient amounts of land to maintain an adequate housing
market in areas undergoing development or redevelopment.
STAFF COMMENT: Sewer, water, and storm drain lines are available
to the property. It will be the responsibility of the developer to
construct the infrastructure that is needed for this development to
occur. All sizing and location will be subject to review and approval
by the Public Works Department.
Transportation Goals and Policies (IX-K):
STAFF COMMENT: Transportation policies are implemented through
the Woodburn Transportation System Plan and Woodburn Access
Management Ordinance. The project's compliance with these is
discussed in Sections V-D and V-E below.
Growth and Urbanization Policies (IX-M):
STAFF COMMENT: The developer will be required to pay systems
development charges for their impact on City infrastructure. The City
of Woodburn and Marion County have maintained a process for
providing an exchange of information relative to the proposed
annexation. A comment form and the application materials were
forwarded to Marion County so that they would have the opportunity
to review and comment on the annexation as part of the application
review process. Marion County has not submitted comments for this
proposal. Once the annexation takes place, the property will fall
under the City's jurisdiction.
The conversion of land within the urban growth boundary to a land
use that is planned and anticipated by the city's comprehensive plan,
subject to public facility improvements and other standards, is
acknowledged by the state and therefore conforms with the statewide
planning goals. The proposal complies with the policy encouraging
in-fill development of developed areas before conversion of
urbanizable areas in that the proposed subdivision is adjacent to
existing uses developed at urban densities.
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 6
9D
1. Chapter 8 General Standards
STAFF COMMENT: Section 8.010 requires through streets to have
a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet. Aztec Drive currently has a
right-of-way width of 50 feet with 30 feet provided on the south side
of the centerline. A condition of approval will require an additional 1 0
feet of right-of-way be dedicated. The area to be dedicated is shown
on the preliminary map.
The proposal complies with all other general standards including the
requirement that all dwellings be accessible to public streets -- all lots
will have frontage on an existing public street.
2. Chapter 9 Residential Standards
STAFF COMMENT: Section 9.020 restricts lot coverage by
accessory structures to no more than 25% of the rear yard. Lot 1
shown on the preliminary subdivision map is proposed to contain an
existing shop building. The shop building is approximately 1,695
square feet in size and falls under the definition of an accessory
structure which is defined as, "A detached subordinate structure or
building, the use of which is incidental to that of the main building or
to the use of the land." The intended primary use of the land is for a
single family residence. The shop building will cover more than 25%
of the rear yard area of Lot 1 if a future dwelling exceeds a depth of
21 feet, assuming compliance with the required 20 foot front yard
setback. The applicant does not believe that it is feasible to construct
a dwelling with only 21 feet of depth. Accordingly, the applicant has
applied for a variance to allow the shop building to cover more than
25% of the rear yard area and proposes a dwelling footprint that is 50
feet deep. This will result in the shop building covering approximately
37% of the rear yard area.
Section 9.030 limits the height of accessory structures to a maximum
of 8 feet at the lot line and increases this limit one foot for each foot
set back from the lot line up to a maximum height of 15 feet. The
shop building is set back 1 0 feet from the rear lot tine which will allow
a height of 15 feet. The shop building is 15 feet in height which
complies with this standard.
Section 9.050 requires accessory structures to be set back a
minimum of 5 feet from side lots lines. The side yard setback of the
shop building exceeds this requirement.
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03. VAR 99-10
Page 7
T
9D
The proposed lots in the subdivision are all of sufficient size and
dimensions to allow a typical dwelling to be placed in conformance
with all setback requirements.
3. Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
STAFF COMMENT: Each lot in the proposed subdivision is
configured to provide for direct driveway access to Aztec Drive in
conformance with City driveway standards.
4. Chapter 13 Variance Procedure
Section 13.010. Power to Grant Variances. Subject to the
restriction and provisions contained in this Ordinance, the
Planning Commission shall have the power to vary or modify the
strict application of any of the regulations or provisions of this
Ordinance in any case where such strict application would result
in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships with reference
to requirements governing lot area, lot width, percentage of lot
coverage and number of dwelling units or structures permitted
on a lot, height of structures, location, yards, signs, parking and
loading space, vision clearance and use of property.
The power provided herein to the Planning Commission to grant
Variances from the strict application of the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be used sparingly, within the limits granted the
Planning Commission, within the spirit and intent of this
Ordinance, and applied reasonably to maintain and not abolish
the distinctive classifications created by the Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant is requesting a variance from the
maximum rear yard coverage requirement of 25% for accessory
structures. Lot 1 shown on the preliminary subdivision map is
proposed to contain an existing shop building. The shop building is
approximately 1,695 square feet in size. The shop building will cover
more than 25% of the rear yard area of Lot 1 if a future dwelling
exceeds a depth of 21 feet, assuming complian~ with the required
20 foot front yard setback. The applicant does not believe that it is
feasible to construct a dwelling with only 21 feet of depth. The
applicant proposes a dwelling footprint that is 50 feet deep which will
result in the shop building covering approximately 37% of the rear
yard area. The Planning Commission has the authority to approve,
modify or deny the applicant's request.
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 8
111"
9.D
Section 13.020 Conditions for Granting a Variance. The Planning
Commission may permit and authorize a Variance when it
appears for the application, or the facts presented at the public
hearing, or by investigation:
(a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or
practical difficulties which can be relieved only by
modifying the literal requirements of the Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states that "the costs involved in
removing the building could make the value in the lot considerably
less and actually the building could be of considerable value to a
hobbyist." In order to construct a dwelling on Lot 1 (as currently
configured) it will be necessary to construct one with a depth of 21
feet or less. or, the shop building would need to be removed or
reduced in size so that it occupies no more than 25% of the rear yard.
Constructing a dwelling with a depth of 21 feet, while feasible, is not
practical. According to the City Building Inspector home plans are
typically at least 24 feet in depth. Another alternative would be to
require that Lot 1 be increased in size to remove the need for a
variance. This would be difficult to do without adversely impacting
the configuration of the entire subdivision since Lots 2. 3 and 4 are
the minimum width of 60 feet and there is a jog in the lot line between
Lots 4 and 5. Lot 1 has already been configured to maximize its width
to accommodate the shop building.
Because a dwelling with a 24 foot depth is the minimum practical
standard and because the lot is relatively large (9,965 square feet),
allowing a greater depth can be justified. Therefore, there appears
to be an unreasonable hardship or practical difficulty applicable to
this situation which only can be relieved by modifying the rear yard
coverage requirement. The question is how much of a modification
is necessary? The applicant's request to allow a dwelling with a 50
foot depth would result in a rear yard coverage of 37%. This is an
increase of 12% which is almost 1 % times the amount allowed by
code. This appears to be excessive. An increase of 5% (30%
coverage) is more reasonable. This would allow-a dwelling depth of
36 feet which is sufficient depth to construct a typical dwelling and will
minimize the magnitude of the variance in relationship to the
perceived hardship.
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applying to the land, buildings, or use
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 9
'II
9D
referred to in the application, which circumstances or
conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, or
uses in the same District; however, non-conforming land
uses or structures in the vicinity shall not in themselves
constitute such circumstances or conditions.
STAFF COMMENT: The exceptional condition that applies to the
subject property which does not generally apply to properties in the
same district is the fact that the subject property has an existing large
accessory building on it and other properties generally do not.
(c) That granting the application will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood of the
premises.
STAFF COMMENT: The requested variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or
improvements in the neighborhood in that a small change in the
coverage of the rear yard not be noticeable to neighbors.
(d) That such Variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of the substantial property right of the
petitioner.
STAFF COMMENT: The substantial property right of the petitioner in
this application is the right to allow an existing accessory building to
remain on the site. It could be considered unreasonable to require
removal or reduction of a building, especially one which still has
significant value, that will otherwise conform to all City codes and
ordinances.
(e) That the granting of the application will not, under the
circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect the
health or safety of persons working or residing in the
neighborhood of the property of the applicant.
STAFF COMMENT: Based on earlier findings, fmd a review of the
proposed subdivision, no health or safety impacts will result from the
granting of this minor variance to the rear yard coverage
requirements.
(f) That the granting of the application will be in general
ANX 99-03. ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 10
-
'1r
9D
harmony with the intent and purpose ofthis ordinance and
will not adversely affect any officially adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: The general purpose of the zoning ordinance
and of the lot coverage requirement is to ensure that development
does not block light and air movement, overburden public facilities,
create a safety hazard, or lack sufficient open space and recreation
for the residents of the city. The minor variance requested will be in
general harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.
The granting of such a minor variance will not adversely affect
implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. However, to ensure that
the building is used in a way consistent with the RS zone, the use of
the shop building shall be limited to uses allowed in the RS zone and
not be used for commercial or industrial purposes.
Section 13.090. Variance Right Must be Exercised to be
Effective. Variances granted under this Ordinance shall be
effective only when the exercise of the right granted thereunder
shall be commenced within six months from the effective date of
that Variance, unless a longer period is specified or thereafter
allowed by the Planning Commission.
The applicant requests that if the variance is granted that it be
effective for one year. Inasmuch as the variance is linked to a
subdivision proposal, it is reasonable to allow one year for the
variance to be exercised since 6 months may not be sufficient time to
record the final subdivision plat and obtain a building permit for a
dwelling on Lot 1. Obtaining a building permit for Lot 1 would be
necessary in order to exercise the variance approval.
5. Chapter 15 Zone Change Procedure
STAFF COMMENT: When property is annexed into the City the
property must be rezoned from the County zoning to the City zoning.
The zone change is necessary to reclassify the subject property from
the current zoning of "Marion County Urban Transition Farm (UTF)"
to the City RS (Single Family Residential) zone. The RS zone
conforms to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan designation for the
property which is Residential <12 units per acre.
6. Chapter 22 RS Single Family Residential District
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 11
9D
STAFF COMMENT: The applicant's request for approval of a
subdivision and variance are subject to City Council approval of an
annexation and a zone change from County UTF to City Single
Family Residential District (RS).
Section 22.01 0 allows single family dwellings and accessory buildings
as permitted uses.
All proposed lots are of sufficient size and dimension to accommodate
front, rear and side yard setback requirements. All proposed lots will
exceed the minimum required area of 6,000 square feet and meet or
exceed the minimum required width of 60 feet.
7. Chapter 39 Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-Iieu-of
STAFF COMMENT: The System Development Charge for park
purposes is $483 per lot. A condition of approval specifies that the
applicant shall pay the required parks systems development charges
in full, or on a per-lot basis as building permits are issued. The Parks
Department had no other comments beside specifying the system
development charge.
C. Woodburn Subdivision Standards
1. Section 6(2):
No tentative plan for a proposed subdivision and no tentative
plan for a proposed partition and replat shall be approved
unless:
(a) The streets and roads are laid out so as to conform to
the plans of subdivisions and partitions already
approved for adjoining property as to width, general
direction and in all other respects unless the City or
County determines it is in the public interest to modify
the street or road pattern.
STAFF COMMENT: All proposed lots will front on Aztec
Drive which is a public street that has been improved with
pavement, curb and gutter. The planned right-of-way width
of Aztec Drive is 60 feet. The portion of the right-of-way in
front of the proposed subdivision is only 20 feet wide from
centerline. An additional 10 feet shall be dedicated to the
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 12
J
9D
City. Sidewalks are required and shall be installed at the
time each lot is developed. Sidewalks shall be constructed
adjacent to property lines and one street tree per lot provided
in the parkway strip.
(b) Streets and roads held for private use are clearly
indicated on the tentative plan and all reservations or
restriction relating to such private roads and streets are
set forth thereon.
STAFF COMMENT: No private roads or easements are
proposed with this application.
(c) The tentative plan complies with the applicable zoning
ordinances and regulations and the ordinances or
regulations adopted under ORS 92.044 that are then in
effect for the City.
STAFF COMMENT: The tentative plan complies with
applicable zoning, subdivision, and access management
ordinances of the City and with applicable regulations
adopted under ORS 92.044 as discussed in those specific
sections of this report.
2. Section 7 Procedure For Subdivisions
STAFF COMMENT: Sufficient information has been submitted by
the applicant to adequately review the proposed subdivision.
3. Section 12 (A) General Street Standards
STAFF COMMENT: Aztec Drive is an existing improved street right-
of-way and provides street access to the proposed lots. The
planned right-of-way width of Aztec Drive is 60 feet. The portion of
the right-of-way in front of the proposed subdivision is only 20 feet
wide from centerline. An additional 1 0 feet shall be dedicated to the
City. Sidewalks are required and shall be installed at the time each
lot is developed. .
4. Section 13 (B) Lots:
All lots shall have a minimum size of the zoning district in
which they are located. In cul-de-sacs the minimum lot line
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 13
'Ir
9D
fronting the turnaround shall be 40 feet... and in no case shall
the lot width be less than 60 feet at the buildina line...The
minimum size for various types of lots shall be given in the
following table:
Tvpe of Lot
Comer lot
Interior lot (fronting one street)
Flag Lot I
Double Frontage (fronting two streets)
Minimum Width
80 feet
60 feet
30 feet
60 feet
STAFF COMMENT: All lots in the proposed subdivision will
meet the minimum lot area and width standards.
D. Woodburn Transportation System Plan (TSP)
STAFF COMMENT: Aztec Drive is classified as a local residential street
on the TSP. The policies and recommendations of the TSP are
implemented through the Woodburn Zoning, Subdivision, and Access
Management Ordinances. The proposed subdivision has been designed
in compliance with these ordinances or conditions of approval have been
attached to this application to ensure such compliance as discussed in the
sections of this report pertaining to each ordinance.
E. Woodburn Access Management Ordinance (AMO)
Section 18. Connectivity
A. The street system of a proposed subdivision shall be designed
to coordinate with existing, proposed, and planned streets
outside of the subdivision as provided in this section.
B. Local residential access streets shall connect with surrounding
streets to permit the convenient movement of traffic between
residential neighborhoods or facilitate emergency access and
evacuation, but such connections shall not be permitted where
the effect would be to encourage the use of -such streets by
substantial through traffic.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed subdivision is located on Aztec
Drive which is an existing local residential street. The subdivision
will not create a new street and each lot will take direct access from
the existing street. The applicant wilt be required to dedicate 10
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 14
-
1T1'
9D
feet of street right-of-way to provide a 60 foot street right-of-way.
The 10 feet to be dedicated is shown on the preliminary plan.
VI. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS:
Attachment A - Public Works Department
Attachment B - Parks Department
VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information in this report, the findings required to approve the
proposed annexation, zone change, subdivision and variance applications can be
made. Staff recommends approval of these applications subject to the following
conditions of approval:
Annexation and Zone Change:
1. Provide Planning Staff with a copy of a detailed description and
map of the new boundaries prior to the City Council hearing. This
will be necessary for the City Recorder.
Subdivision and Variance:
2. Subdivision and Variance approval is subject to approval of the
annexation and zone change.
3. Approval shall be as shown on Attachment "C" - Preliminary
Subdivision Map, dated August 5, 1999. The final plat must be in
substantial conformity with the tentative plan for the subdivision and
shall be platted according to standard surveying practices. The
applicant shall submit a copy of the final plat map to the Planning
and Public Works Departments prior to recordation with Marion
County. The final plat shall be approved by the Community
Development Director and recorded with the Marion County
Recorder.
4. Following recordation with Marion County, provide three (3) copies
of the final plat to the Planning Department. Builging permits shall
not be issued until said copies are submitted to the Planning
Department.
5. The applicant shall comply with residential lot standards.
6. Each lot will require a separate building permit. At such time that
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 15
~
9D
building permits are issued, each lot will be reviewed for compliance
with residential setback and lot coverage requirements. Any new
fencing will also be reviewed for compliance with residential
standards prior to permit issuance.
7. The applicant shall comply with Woodburn Subdivision Standards.
8. Meet Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway
Standards. Each lot shall comply with the single family driveway
standards.
9. This variance allows the existing shop building on Lot 1 to cover up
to a maximum of 30% of the rear yard area.
10. This variance shall be valid for the life of the existing shop building
on Lot 1. This variance shall be null and void if the shop building
is demolished or removed.
11. The use of the shop building on Lot 1 shall be limited to uses
allowed in the RS zone and not be used for commercial or industrial
purposes.
12. This variance shall be exercised within one year of the date the
annexation is effective. Exercised shall mean that a building permit
is issued for a dwelling on Lot 1 .
13. Parks System Development Charges shall be payed in full prior to
recordation of the final plat, or on a per-lot basis as building permits
are issued.
14. Any conditions attached to this approval shall be conditions on the
issuance of a building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be
considered a violation of the applicable ordinance.
Public Works Conditions:
15. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures
and standards.
16. Existing on-site water wells or sewage disposal systems shall be
abandoned in accordance with state regulations.
17. The applicant is responsible for obtaining permits from any other
agencies that may require approval or permit.
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 16
lIT'
9D
18. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be
impounded on adjacent properties.
19. Property owner shall enter into an improvement agreement as
outlined in the Woodburn Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter III,
Section 6, prior to acceptance of the final plat. Also, prior to
construction of the subdivision, the City will require approved
construction plans, a performance bond and payment of
construction permit fees.
20. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn Standards and all
State Building Codes.
21. Dedicate to the City an additional 1 0 feet of right-of-way adjacent to
this subdivision along Aztec Drive.
22. The asphaltic concrete street surface of Aztec Drive adjacent to this
subdivision shall be milled to a depth of 1 %" of class "C" mix, after
all of the services have been installed to the proposed lots.
23. Sidewalks conforming to City standards shall be installed adjacent
to each lot at the time of building construction. Sidewalks shall be
constructed adjacent to property lines and one street tree per lot
provided in the parkway strip in conformance with City street tree
standards.
24. Only two 6" diameter sewer services are stubbed to the parent
parcel. The remaining sanitary services shall be installed by the
applicant. Open cut will be allowed in the existing street, subject to
the above requirement for milling and inlaying with AC.
25. If Lot 1 is used for commercial purposes, a backflow device shall be
required.
26. Comply with fire protection requirements of the Woodburn Fire
District.
27. Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar o(the final plat shall
be filed with the Public Works Department after all required
signatures have been obtained and the plat has been recorded with
Marion County.
ANX 99-03, ZMC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 17
'Ir
4 ft<lt ~ IVlh 1 t- i-l
9D
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
PROMISED LAND
I, Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards
2 On-site existing water wells and subsurface sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned in
accordance with state regulations.
3. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining permits from any other agencies that may
require approval or permit.
4. This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent properties.
5. The Subdivision shall be platted in accordance with standard surveying practice, approved and
recorded with Marion County.
6, The owner applicant shall be required to enter into an improvement agreement as outlined in the
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Ill, Section 6, prior to acceptance of the fmal plat. Also prior
to construction of the subdivision commencing the city will require approved construction plans, a
performance bond and construction permit fee's paid.
7. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn Standards and all State Building Codes.
STREET AND DRAINAGE:
I. Dedicate to the city an additional I 0 feet of right-of- way adjacent to this subdivision, along AztJx,
Drive.
2. The asphaltic concrete street surface of Aztec Drive adjacent to this subdivision shall be milled to a
depth of I ~ and inlaid with I WI of class "c" mix, after all of the services have been installed to
the proposed lots.
3. Sidewalks conforming to city standards will be installed adjacent to each lot at the time of building
construction.
SANITARY SEWER:
1 , Only Two six inch diameter sewer services are stubbed to the parent parcel, the remaining sanitary
services will need to be installed by the applicant. Open cut will be allowed in the existing street,
subject to the above requirement requiring milling and inlaying with AC.
WATER:
I. If the existing lot currently being used as a commercial use and the use is to remain the same a
backflow device will be required.
2. Water service can be provided from the existing water main on the south side of Aztec Drive.
3, Fire protection requirements shall be as per the Woodburn Fire Districts conditions of approval,
-
11r
4Hc.chh1pnf 8
9D
SUBDIVISIONI SITE PLAN REVIEW - PRE-APPLICA TIONI NOTES
------------------------------------------
REQUEST DATE:
July 22, 1999
DEPARTMENT: Planning
CONTACT PERSON: Jim Mulder, Planning Department, 982-5246
APPLICANT: Tony Caragol
TYPE OF PROJECT:
Annexation of 1.3 acres, Zone change from County zoning to RS, and
Subdivision to create 6 lots from 2 existing lots.
PROJECT LOCATION:
North side of Aztec Drive, east of Hwy. 99; Map No.5 1 W 17BA
TL4400, 4500, 4600
CONFERENCE
PLACE: Conference Room
Woodburn City Hall
Date: August 4, 1999
TIME: 2:00 p.m.
GENERAL INFORMATION TO APPLICANT
I have read the information sheet provided me and understand that which is pertinent to my Site Plan
Review/Pre-Application request. All materials are to be collated and folded.
Signature - Owner/Agent
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
1>A(l..\(. F<-~s- feLot",",'k X rH11>3/l-t.",,-;t~ ct2,<b9~.oo
w (t() 0 ~~
~
l(~ ~~-t~~.
;!J, /LM ~
THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED AFTER PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
1) Eight (8) copies of Final Plan must be brought into Public Works
2) "As Builts" must be provided prior to issuance of the building permit
Blank SPAPRE FORM
\ \
\ h\
\ - \.
I \;
\ ~- \\',
\ rn\ fl' \~
I n ~. \
\~~.\\:\'.~'
rn i '\ \ z
I Z "
I a> ,
I ~! .0_
i \~: :\S '
~\l~\ !~~
i' g
N - \,q;
L~
~_~'~;d n
\ "c \ 'Il
\
I
~
'-<
. f') r-
'. ~::t:
_ 0,l1 III n,
l!: ~l'r-
~H.:::~
~!~~n,
w ,."" <:
! to~(;)
. :::i:~
= ~i~
! n...:tJ
)1 ; ~~~~
· i~"~
- :'l- ~....,
IIl~
ljr
D.
0-<
, m
- JJ
.~ r
oD -
0'"
'" -
\oj .
('
- '"
N~'3\ .0 W \AO 00
;;.
6A ~ )1
'" ~ ::; fiO 00 .-1~
._~:~~ 1:'~ "1- ~ If .: ~
~~'~~-:.__ .D ~ - :
-.. "
'~;; , . ....... ;;\
\
,1'1 "';
'2:--":...:.
~;
"
\2999
.-
o
'"
<;
"'.-
~~
.,.
:. ('I
1~9.68
69691 3 or \(.~S
\ - -.
I I I
I '. I
n t--
I I I
~ ~ ~ ! ~ l~oZ
.. '" 0:
VI VI ", VI
z ': 1J ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
%
~
'"
, /"
z
a>
'"
g:
'"
o
o
o
..~')l .0."
~_ 29 69
'l: z
0; ~
o
....
: ~~r.
;;:,
~ a>
~ ~
D-Cl L' n.. ii H .. il- ~I::! ~
..
mlJ1m ~ - ~i
ZhZ Z -i ~~ l1D R~~n
af\)m rn ~~ -. ... ~...~
D oil .. Af rl
CD7 "- ~ WZi lCIlCI "II: ~!. ":-~I ~ 9D
z~a .. .. ::~ II ~j ..... rw. I
<Cl"TI lJ DD o ~
.. l~ ~i
" lJ 0 .-. .;:~,,-
< ,- r .,- I?" R~~ 9
ftl 1> P \ ~ ~~ ~.. 0 "iii
1(11 1 ' ~il: " ... -z_ r
tJ11 " '" " ..~ ~~~ I
.~ ~} Dm
. ~ 111 /- ~c k<
~] '-' _0 '" .
, D
. ~~ ~"'~
, '68 no ~,!'~ I
,- , <~ '"~
~~ i
. -.-
; -, ~~"
- ::.~~
- ~i;
. ;:~lZ;:
,
"
," Z
Cl
1)
1:.... ~ ~
--, T
L-----
n
<-<
~ -<I
~a
Z'"
~
-<~
-<0
o
3:0
~CD.
lJC
D
Z
r't)
aD
no
J>L
~m
~n
0'-4
z
~
[JUl
~
~ ~ ,..--J
~' '----l
~~
c;
c=
~
UU1
~
~
~
--<
~ fTl
o
:s:
- Z
n~
>-<I
-lm
-<
-l
OI
Tlm
:::EZ
O:::E
l>0
CO~
G)OJ...........
CCb.
(f)JJ
-;ZO
- ."
Ul
:S:(f)
~l>m
lDTIn
lD>-<-l
lD 0 >-<
ZO
Z
n
O~
C""-l
Z.
-l
-< -l
~
~
cg
~
r::::
@
[W
E
Ul
0'
TI(f)
m-
G)'
o
ZTI
~~
~
E
A fl-a c ~ ~ eL-\ + "c."
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NATURE OF APPLICATION/PROPOSED USE:
Annexation of 1,3 acres, Zone Change from County Zoning (UTF) to Residential
(RSl. Subdivision to create 6 lots from two lots on the north side of Aztec Drive
and Variance from lot coverage of rear yard,
APPLICANT:
Tony Car ago I
489 SW 1'1 Ave.
Canby, OR 97013
PROPERTY OWNER:
Gene Koffler
1542 Big Valley Way
Reno, NV 89511
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: The subject property is generally located on
the north side of Aztec Drive east of Highway 99E. It can be identified specifically
on Marion County Assessor Map T5S, 1 W, 17BA Tax Lot #4400, 4500, 4600.
HEARING DATE/TIME: September 9, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION: Woodburn City Hall, Council Chambers
DECISION MAKER: Woodburn Planning Commission
APPLICABLE ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRITERIA:
11 WOODBURN ZONING ORDINANCE
Chapter 8. General Standards
Chapter 9. Residential Standards
Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards
Chapter 13. Variance Procedures
Chapter 15. Zone Change Procedures
Chapter 22. Single Family Residential District
Chapter 39. Mandatory Parkland Dedication or Cash-in-lieu of
2) WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Residential Land Development Policies
Housing Goals & Policies
Annexation Policies
Public Service Goals and Policies and Plan (19851
Transportation Goals and Policies
Growth and Urbanization Policies
3) WOODBURN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
4) WOODBURN LANDSCAPING PO~ICIES AND STANDARDS
5) WOODBURN ACCESS MANAG'EMENT ORDINANCE
6) WOODBURN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
INFORMATION:
a) A copy of the application. all documents, and evidence relied upon by applicant and
applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be available at a
reasonable cost.
bl A copy of the staff report will be available for inspection at no cost at least 7 days
prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost.
9D
,....
9D
c) Any person wishing to speak either for or against this proposal may do so in person or
by an attorney at the public hearing,
d) Written comments may be filed with the Planning Director or submitted into the record
at the time of the public hearing.
e) The failure of an issue to be raised in a hearing, in person or by letter, or failure
to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker an
opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land Use Board of
Appeals based upon that issue.
PLEASE CONTACT THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTATIVE FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION:
JIM MULDER, WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 270
MONTGOMERY STREET, WOODBURN, OREGON 97071, (503) 982-5246,
lf~~lf&uOW~ ~[L&lf ~rm@lM]D@~[Q) [L&~[Q)
LOCATED IN THE THE NW j/Il Of SECTION 17. T.5.S.. Fl,j,W,
W M CITY Of WOODBURN, MARION COUNTY, OREGON
AUGUST 5, 1999
..-oL .......-.'_
=r,::'~1""'." ." *CD ~
-..u.!.rn;;,li'e .t.:'t:.rt=:.'4;
,"}.'
un- \.
..- PRO.JEt T
I LOCATION
~,
~ :1e:-.=:':c.
=r..1:I'~.t.r ....,-
a==:s:a~tI:::.,:c.u,'-
_~-=.: =-Ul~ ... (0""""
fP~_"'''''''I''-
_R/APPl.I(LN'
GlHE ....()frLE~
1!>4Z BIC, YAllE'
IIII(NCt NV ~9";::
Nor;:t-
1 ..:,
,;..
~:
..'"01 ,. t r..6 '0
\
"I:
~\
,-0' .-..
..,.. ~". "
~
-<
,
'....k\,~w. ."1 ~
,- \U"\ ~ .\
q .:
t , .~
I ...... ~ .~. I ......
... .--=-=-- \~I~.O~. ~ . =---' "'!
__.n:=__-o' .~:~'.:Oi_~. ~~._~..n --:
__'-'-'~ORi~{ . -\"",,'101( ~\ _____~._
------- '. ~\ i\ \
,., ,
l',~; >", \
\I
<.;
J d,l' s:
:I '~I "".. I.i
.
$
'....11...' $('Ili[....114:
I'" KII['I-<<
_11'1-<<
~11"" ll.ca ~t
C.'Cft ..,....
~
I~A
un.,
, c;.\'..:-- ,,I"fJ
"~,~~/
>ilLHElH ENGINEERING, IN(
CClHSlA.I'~ (1IIC,lItlftS' Sl,IIIt'(t"OII'S
"~~':I ..~ :.c~:':.
_ """ ..._.... .fU "'to .....,...
...,(R \.151 PQ(.p!'.1
PRO.' 99(1)
1Jr
9D
ANNEXATION INFORMATION SHEET
* REG'O -tr
I. DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
JUN 2 9 1999
Trmy 1'.:'1 R ll.c::nr.
(NAME)
V'~jCOi:':'~U,:' ~ ~ ,-:.. ': .' : ". .\'
DE\....~~-~j~_..:~ I '-~'
xxxtxxx 489 SW 1st Ave.
(ADDRESS)
503-266-6861
(TELEPHONE)
Canby
(CITY)
II. PROPERTY OWNERS:
OR
(STATE)
97013
--
(ZIP CODE)
(.;pnp Knt=t=lpr
NAME (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
1542 Bia Valley W~y _. Reno,NV 8951
. ADDRESS & ZIP CODE
III. LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE PROPERlY:
Aztec Drive, Woodburn, OR 97071 1.3 acres
******************************************************************************
OFFICE USE ONLY
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
~ NO
ANNEXATION PETITION SIGNED, (NOTORIZED SIGNATURES) BY PROPERTY OWNERS
EXHIBITS:
1. REASON FOR ANNEXATION REQUEST (Exhibit "N')
2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF AREA (Exhibit IIB'~
3. EXISTING CONDmONS OF AREA (Exhibit IIC~
4. SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS (Exhibit "0")
5. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AVAILABILITY (Exhibit"P)
6. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY (Exhibit lip}
7. PLOT PLAN (Exhibit "G'?
8. UST OF ALL PROPERlY OWNERS WITHIN 100
FEET OF THE PROPERTY (Exhibit "H") ~ _
9. ASSESSOR'S MAP (Exhibit "1'~ Y _
******************************************************************************
/
~-
~ V"" -
K.k: _
xV'// ~
~=
SCHEDULED HEARING DATE:
APPLICATION RECEIVED BY:
DATE:
annu,bslbw
'II'
9D
Exhibit "A"
June 14,1999
Subdivision name "PROMISE}} LAND"
The intent of this application, is to change the zone from Marion County-Urban
Transition Farm (UTF), to City of Woodburn-Residential Single Family (RS). This is
in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
This application will divide a 1.3 acre tract of land into six large single family
residential lots. This property borders Woodburn City limits on the south, west and east
and is within the Urban Growth Boundary. The zoning does conform to the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan.
City services including water, sewer and storm drainage are located on Aztec
Drive. Phone and pwer are available and will need to be extended.
!lr
9D
Exhibit "8"
PROMISED LAND
All properties to the north, south, east and west of subject are developed. The
owner intends to sell the lots as soon as possible for single family dwellings. (See site
plan)
'1r
9D
Exhibit "e"
PROMISED LAND
Land area-1.3 ACRES
The ground is flat, typical to the area with only wild grasses and weeds growing.
Drainage is typical for the area with no flooding. Sewer is available to all lots along
Aztec Drive and phone and power are available.
Immediately to the south, east and north are existing single family residences and
to the west is a commercially zoned property previously housing Neal's Framery.
-
111"
.9D
Exhibit "0"
PROMISED LAND
The nearest school to the subject is Washington Elementary approximately 1/8th of
a mile northwest. It is conceivable that an average of two children per lot or twelve
children maximum could enter the school district.
'IT
9D
B. What is the expected student population of the area upon completion of the
development:
5.
PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Exhibit lip
A. Is there sufficient area to provide for park or open space for the
development:
6.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPRlY
Exhibit "P
7. PLOT PLA.N: Show all properties within 250' from and parallel to the subject
property and the land use of each. ExhibirlGII
8. NAMES AND ADDRESS OF ALL PROPERlY OWNERS (husband and wife) within
250' from an parallel to the subject property. Obtain certified list and map from title
company and attach. Exhibit "H"
9. ASSESSOR'S MAP. Attach copy of Marion County Assessor's Map showing
subject area and outlining 250' notification area. Exhibit "I"
We the undersigned, hereby certify that all the statements in the plot plan,
attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith are true and complete, and we are
the owners of record or contract purchasers of property which the annexation is
requested:
K..e.tlO 69
.~1t
tIJ:#~
annex,bs;bw
{_........_ 0--.-' -...... - ~ ~\
" " \ ORI MENDENHAll
:.~-.' NO"-.' ,ftr..S10IeofNovodO
',~, .;i. Api' T>Ont No. 9W8732
'.. '( '.." ~Jly '\1.'1'. I; l(plfes Mar I. 2000 -
,I ". ;;0
... ""-.'-""" ." '-.. -' --- - -- --
,. }! l; .. \ \ \ {_' . ·
- ..,-
f r -',
r<'"
~., (~
!1r
L.II l VI- VVVVUl)VI~I\j. UI~t:UVIII
ANNEXATION PETITION AND CONSENT
9D
Wc, the undersigned legal owner or contract purchaser nnd resident electors of a certain parcel of land herein
dCsCfibed and attached to this Annexation Petition 2S Exhibit l. petition the Honorable Mayor and City Council of
Woodburn for anncxation of that certain property to the City of Woodburn. We further desire that by this petition that
the certain property be annexed to and be Include<! within the corporate limits of the City of Woodburn, Oregon, a
municipal corporation, and we do hC("eby consent to such annexation, without the necessity of any election being
called with the area above desCfibed, and we do hereby consent that the City Council of the City of Woodburn,
Oregon, take steps as arc necessary to determine whether or not the said above described area shall be annexed.
Absentce Owncr(s! or Contract Purchascr(s):
&rt;~L ~
Resident Owner(sl or Contract Purchaser(s)
that are Resident Elector(s).:
Resident Electors. that are not land Owners:
Address: ( \
'S~ 'L DIe) ~ n u~ ) uJrl'(
;?09C j S U~~~
I<l nu, N J 'i/'lS (t
~A-CJ ;J j), f1 /
,
Address:
Address:
Resident Electors means Registered VotefS
(\~ ~ouLCL
STATE OF OReGON
COUNTY OF MA~GN 55
vJA~l1~
I. lJ..::. \ ~\,\.ulct ft ^- 1-1 U I' . being duly SWorn upon oath, say that I secured each name appearing on the
within and foregOing petition, and each name was signed freely, voluntarily, without undue influence of any nature
and under no misrepresentation as to the facts, furthef affirm, that to the best of my knowledge the individuals above
named constitute a majority of the electors registered in the territory proposed to be annexed and the owners/contract
purchasers of more than half of the land in that territory.
(Signature) di+'\...... - \'\ ~ ~,0.l--'- Date: k' 2. \. - t:\\
Subscribed and sworn to me this 2 I
ANNEXATION PETITION AND CONSENT
ANNEXPCl.693
day of ~ '---'-''--'- , 19 C\~
dQ-~ Y\'\.C:.. ~"~
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR OREGON I'\tva.d(_____
My Commission cxpires: 3. \. C,(:j
@"LORlMENDENHAll
;t . '" Nolav PubIc, Stale of Nevado
:V:t. - . AppoIntment No. 9608732
. '-.:!,;,i'" My Appl. ElCplres Mar 1. 2000
~
PETITION FOR ZONE MAP CHANGE" n-. J
LOtfl'!J.6/7e-NS7,J 0- PV7/'-/
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
/6 f-J'i CAf~A~~'--
(NAME)
'-f 8) -~ w /~ /tv;;
(ADDRESS)
CA~1>1
(CITY)
..A.. c~~. ,-- '" l._
U ',l_V~,. .
JUN 2 9 1999
"'''-'(I''''''~:l :P"" ...... ~...~
DR-
(STATE)
REQUEST:
9D
/Y/f-P C/y~- o.:.,I(J"
;;1-(- b -6l?~ {
(TELEPHONE
<;1)0 '--~
(ZIP CODE)
!t:J"Tr- Y1M.-t ..JCo<,.(.
To change I. 0_:) AC of (present zone/present compo plan)~ ; ~)~~ ~ ~,,9~ "
- I.
To (desired zone/desired comp. plan)&S . L.k\~~ such zones are defined
by the City of Woodburn Zoning OrdinanCe.
OWNERS:
NAME (pLEASE PRINT OR lYPE)
.~lJe IL[)FS=~-
\1>~ jJ A-; dA- Iv J fr-
ADDRESS & ZIP CODE
',I f\-.T II ~ ({lIlO, N
'5c:t2. ,~ ~t) \1 Q _rj:tYJ . gq'Slt
~,,~ A.U~~ /UJ.8
tOeA llON AND SIZE OF lliE PROPERlY: or if not addressed, then state
cflStance to the nearest intersecting street or know landmark.
******************************************************************************
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
OFFICE USE ONLY
YES
~ ~'
.x: V'
~/
_/
IS- v'
1.
2.
3.
4.
Statement of Intent (Exb. A)
Plot Plan (Exb. B)
Legal Description of the Property
Ust of All Property Owners within
250 Feet of the Property
Assessors Map
5.
NO
TIr
9D
REQUIRED AlTACHMENTS
1. STATEMENT OF INTENT should discuss/explain the reason this request is made.
Include brief description of any proposed construction or land use change. show
that the request is: 1) in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) there is a
public need for this mange; 3) that need is best met by this proposal; 4) there is
no other available and appropriately zoned land in the vicinity; 5) petitioner's
cannot make a reasonable use of the land as it is currently zoned. (See zone
change policy considerations). (Mark EXHIBIT "AJ
2. PLOT PLAN: Show all properties within 250' from and parallel to the subject
property and the land use of each. Mark EXHIBIT "B", Draw to scale.
3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION of the property in metes and bounds (as it appears on the
deed); Mark EXHIBIT "C', or if property is within a platted subdMsion:
* Lot:
. Block:
. of
(Subdivision) .
*NOTE: If a fraction of the lot, then attach full description as if it were metes and
bounds.
4. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF AlL PROPERTY OWNERS (husband and wife)
within 250 feet from and paraflel to the subject property. Obtain certified list
and map from title company and attach. Mark EXHIBIT "OIC.
5. ASSESSOR'S MAP. Attach copy of Marion County Assessor's map showing
subject area and outlining 250" notification area Mark EXHIBIT fl.pl
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that all the statements in the plot plan,
attachments, and exhibits transmitted herewith are true and complete, and we are
the owners of record or contract purchasers of property for which {hoe zone map
chanqe is requested:
NAME
DATE
\~4 L ~lC.) JQ llQ) J~ .7b( Rt.l1c ~ J
961{" iJ -s,.v~-:11 PHS
f(1'~<' ".1) ~
~~
cU ~cId-1-:/!-
...-a.'~ ..... .-. ........ .1',. .". ~."'A. ....tIrIo-oll
,
'~,. I .rr-/fllNH/"
1,';" .. '. No' ," . " ~'10Ie 0t NQVodo
( \~~"'\.' AlJi~1:",,',~.~n' No, Qf(H'!32
; ,'."'~. _ t. . I , .,..\ "': '}OOO
.~''''4' ...... .-'."'.;r~' ..... .~.
J. \\\.(,'.,.
, \ (,. L
-J), I ( ( ,
lr ' I I . l'~1
,,-
SUBDIVISION/PARTITION
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
mn: ~ (""'''
Rec. Bv:_ 9D
Date:
^" '-.'- ,I '") Agp. No.- J
."" HCL-, ~
JUN 2 9 1999
CONCURRENT REVIEWS:
ADJUSTMENT SITE PLAN REVIEW
VARIANCE CONDITIONAL USE
SUBDIVISION NAME: PR()MTC::Rn T.llNn
REPRESENTATIVE OR CONTACT PERSON:
. ", ~", :, '~'.: 1" I ""Y"
~~ ZONE MAP AMENDM~NT
COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT
Tony Caragol
266-6861 263-6223
(NAME)
(PHONE)
(FAX)
489 sw 1st Ave.
(ADDRESS)
C'rlnhy
OR
(STATE)
C}7013
(ZIP CODE)
(CITY)
PROPERTY OWNER:(Please print or type)
ADDRESS & ZIP CODE
1. Gene Kodifler
1542 Bi9 Valley Way
Reno, NV 89511
A. Certified list, on pre-pasted labels for mailing, with the names and addresses of property owners
within 250 feet for a Subdivision and 100 feet for a Partition.
/3. REQUEST:
~.
Give the acreage, number of lots, average lot size and any variances being requested. For
example: "To divide 32.6 acres into 74 lots with variances to allow for lot frontage on a cul-de-
sac of 38" where 40" is required."
4. The ZONE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN designation In which the parcel is located.
R~ :iton~ Woodburn. COl;lpr~hEinsiHQ Pl~h
5. Describe the location of the property or give the address:
1.3 Acres on north side of Aztec Drive
6. MapNo.S/IAI rTM TaxLot#(s) 4400,4500 & 4600
7. Attach a written statement, marked Exhibit" A " which explains your reasons for subdividing the
land and provides evidence that the request conforms to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Policies.
8. Attach a preliminary plat and narrative which contains the following information (Exhibit "B"):
The applicant bears the burden of proof that all approved criteria has been met.
11f
nellnllllClry ~uoalVlslon (t'artltlon) t'lat Checklist.
(t Date
('l<f Vicinity Map
(4 Area map identifying adjacent structures and lots
W' Subdivision Name
(The name of any proposed subdivision shall not be the same as or similar to any name used
on a recorded plat on the county or city).
K~ Township, range, section, tax lot number(s), acreage of the property to be divided.
0J Attach a legal description(s) of the property.
(t{ North arrow, scale (one inch equals 200 feet or .Iarger)
W Locations and names of all existing streets within or on the boundary of the proposed
subd ivision/partition.
c{) Locations and names of all proposed streets.
(\) Lot (parcel) layout with approximate dimensions, lot(parcel) numbers and areas for all lots
. (parcels).
y{ Provide a footprint of the buildable area for each lot.
(Xf Zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations in the proposed subdivision (partition) and area
adjacent to the proposed subdivision' (partition).
.<i Indicate which buildings are to remain and which are to be removed.
M Topography within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision/partition,
W Locations of drainage ways, flood ways, or floodplain within and adjacent to the proposed
subdivision/partition. .
N The location and size of all proposed water, sewer, and storm drain lines.
(I() The location of all proposed fire hydrants.
9D
Signatures of each owner (husband and wife) or contract purchaser.
NAME
ADDRESS AND ZIP CODE
\S4 2- ~ I 5 ~ oj. tLj ~ - lb. 'i2..ll.I")() jJ. J
e~~l(
. cffi--~
fd~~
f)D'fb5 --l tI~, ~ /f.J37S!
~. LORI MENDENHALL
. Nolav PublIc. Slole of Nevada
. ~ - Appolntroont No, Q608732
.!; " My App!. Expires Mnr 1.2000
~ ~~ ~ ...., "-- --- _ ...' -- .....
~ L I "\ ( I :1 l . < ;.~
7V.::;....,.. . ,,~.~~ - '- - 1..(' -
'.\ I. <.,
'II'"
08/10/99 13:58
'fi'503 982 5244
WDBN PUBLIC WKS
04
9D
Application: II VO" qq-/v
App rcc'd by:
Date:
Rcceip(:
VARIANCE APPUCATION
~^^~~^^^A^^^^^^A^A~^A~^^^^~^A~^AA^^^A~^^^^^~^^AA^^~^~^^^^^^^^^^^
DIRECT QUESTIONS TO:
-; D I-' -I CA,-?"A- Gu <OJ L--
PHONE: ,7-L ~ ~.y> (;. (
NAME
ADDRESS
i..liS,
, ~- /1 ~J ~.
,) 1.0 (~__I rll./.c. L-n t-1 /'~ '1 0/L C'J? t:.-' (3
,
1. We. the undersigned applicants. being owners of the property herein described, do hereby make
application for permission to (list each variance separately):
Lf!::.f.lV2 ~ E )Lt.>"',,,....} ~ B v i J-};,{ I-J C>.- ,~ ~-,- d~
~'-M-!lv2 PL-A-7 P.P-cJ Nt ~a> LA~, LoT /
(
2. Location of the property (street address. or if not addressed. then state the distance to the
nearest intersecting street or known landmark} including the section. range and township:
1.Jt...J (/4- ~F ~e>~ I?t -r 0 s , ~{vJ - , w..M~
~ I I
A ~ 'l'e c... . (.//l-'- Vt; W i':J ~~ S .,.,I AI-! 01?-
~ , I
1./'tF- L t'-
3. legal description of the property as it appears on the deed:
Map No. Tax lot #(s) ~'-/ {} 0
lot I , Block . of ~JA"..-('J~ '-/JO-'~P-(7P6~ep) subdivision.
NOTE: If a fraction of the lot, then attach a full description as if it were metes and bounds or
attach a metes and bounds description. marked "EXHIBIT "A".
4. Zone in which property is located:J ~
5. Attach a copy of the applicable Marion County Assessorls Map. Mark "EXHIBIT "B".
6. Plot plan to be attached. marked "EXHIBIT "e" and inCluding land uses on surrounding lands in
notification area, site layout of subject parcel and structures with dimensions and lot lines
shown. The plot plan should show clearly the nature of the variance.
Peae :I. VARl'R()CaGI83
...
. I'
". J c;
"., 'j~9 !i.42AM 1S'!OJ 9825~H
WD8t-J Pl'BLIC WK5
NC
, - .
9D -
7. CONDITIONS for GAANTJNG a VARIANCE:
Submit 8 detailed 5t8tement txplainlng why the request is being m,d.. Address tf)e varianco ~
or adjustment approvu! criteria given under "Considorations.. A.F-. AttDch aod mar~ "FXHIBlj
"0",
8. fII_AM~S AND ADDAESS.fS;
Submit ('lJ.rnt~o.Orty Own... w;(/';" 100 'eeT of tho .ubjeo", oropony boundaries ~~ f ~-r
\ "'\?~f:, ~ rnCl.,t "j'
~[ ~RESS &~IP CPDJ:
_l2-:c~~..(~ t'~t9~ 0 P<---Av ~H~~"
9. T.H! APPLlCANT(S) ATTEST THAT:
al The above request d08& not violate any deed restrictionG that may b. .nached to or impOS9d
upon the lubject propeny.
b) It the variance application I, granted, the appficant will ex.rofse the right!; granted in
accordance with ~ term; end subj.ct to all the con<fttions and limltntions of the approv61
by the Planning Comml&sJon.
cl AU the above statements and the $ta~menta In the plot plan, uttaohments and exhibits
transmitted herewith ar. true; and the applicant(s) so acknowfedgfl that any permi't issued
on the applioation may b. revoked if it be found that any .uoh statements am false.
DATE;
I PI day of ..l1u C:--
_' 19:21
SIGNA TURfS of ~ach owner (husband end wife) or contract pUl"eftaser.
N~ME
~l;G
ADDRESS & ZIP CODE:
/S4:l13l~ VAc,.L.ey WAY. fle~~v ~9SI/
I
Applic8tion r~cC!ivcd: By
Date }t;;/?"':'!'-
~..... ......."'oe.~l1I:1
t=:1H d> I T
d (I
J:;
9D
VARIANCE APPLICATION
LOT 1, PROMISED LAND
AZTEC DRIVE
WOODBURN
The subject building has been on the property since the late 1960's and is
located on the rear boundary of the proposed lot. The lot is considerably larger
by todays standards and after deducting for the building and set backs, the
remaining lot size is very close to accomodating a home approximately 50' by
50'.
The costs involved in removing the building could make the value inthe lot
considerably less and actually the building could be of considerable value
to a hobbyist.
I am aware of other like buildings existing presently on like residential lots in
Woodburn and since this building exists already, the applicant was hoping the
building would be allowed to remain on the lot.
Allowing the building to remain on the lot should have no detrimental impact
on adjoining property owners or the public welfare or adversely affect the health
or safety of the neighboring propertifLS .
!II"
yP~
vJt:iPv~\
>fJO V
~-
o
o
o
.q'
~
~rt811 C
\ 9D
76 . 7 A . 6 . 58' .
60.00'
10.01 .
SHOP
~
('I) 0
CO 0
.
o
(11
.
8 . '58 .,
56.A9'
,.
.0
o
LO.T 2
7792 SO FT
'. ,0)
~ '.,,,,,.,,
- . ~
.. . '
o 'IL""1
q- ~"(\J
~
, '
. .
, , ,
#~
~':s'-
, "
-
.
~
sa FT
.
\ 0'
5011- Sf) ~~~~ ('l)
~!\'t;;~ ~.
y~ '
.
~~
t-4'~
~~
,
\
s-
~
en
.'
, .'to
%
,f
....
.,- - -
i
\-"<0 -
:l'r. ~
6~ '-\}
~.
60.00.
76.
. I
rac ~,;, 'f'
f
S 1 s.
STORM SEWER.EXIST'ING
s ~, ~
'AZTEC
"'~' ~.".
s
s '{
. .
.," .
5 -
'lr
~D
ATTACHMENT "8"
Planning Commission
Final Order
Dated 9/23/99
- ",.
, '
91'
CiTY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · (503) 982-5222
TOD (503) 982-7433 . FAX (503) 982-5244
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
ANNEXATION 99-03
ZONE CHANGE 99-04
SUBDIVISION 99-03
VARIANCE 99-10
)
)
)
)
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, a request was made by Tony Caragol for the Planning Commission to
hear a proposal for approval of an annexation of 1.32 acres to the City of Woodburn, a
Zone Map change from Marion County Urban Transition Farm (UTF) to City Single Family
Residential (RS), a subdivision to create 6 lots from 3 existing parcels. and a variance to
the lot coverage requirement for accessory structures in the RS zone, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their regularly
scheduled meeting of September 9, 1999, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony
presented by staff, the applicant, and other interested persons to the proposal, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to recommend the City Council
approve Annexation 99-03, Zone Map Change 99-04, and Subdivision 99-03, but
recommended that the City Council deny Variance 99-10 without prejudice and instructed
Staff to prepare findings and conclusions,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
1. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Annexation 99-
03, Zone Map Change 99-04 and Subdivision 99-03 and recommends the City
Council deny Variance 99-10 without prejudice, based on findings and conclusions
contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to conditions of approval contained in Exhibit
"B", which is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
Approved:
9-i1bh~
Date
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
rr
9D
EXHIBIT
"AU
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Annexation, Zone Map Change and Subdivision:
1. FINDING: The proposed subdivision will not create a neighborhood but will become
part of the existing and developing neighborhood in the area. The applicant is
proposing no specific community facility due to the very small scale of the 6-lot
subdivision.
2, FINDING: The proposed subdivision is designed in compliance with the City of
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable ordinances. Additionally, the
City of Woodburn's building permit process will assure that the buildings built within
this development are established in compliance with applicable City standards and
the state of Oregon Building codes. These factors combined will ensure that the
proposed development is a quality living environment, and that the development will
not seriously deteriorate over time.
3. FINDING: The proposed subdivision, due to its small size, will not include any open
space. However, the subdivision will be developed with lots that exceed the
minimum 6,000 square foot lot size. The proposed lots will range from 7,791
square feet to 10,238 square feet. The relatively large size of the lots will
contribute to a feeling of openness and spaciousness which will enhance the living
environment in the area.
4. FINDING: The design of the proposed subdivision is limited by existing street
improvements in the area and by the size and shape ofthe property. The relatively
large lots will provide ample yard areas for landscaping to enhance the livability and
aesthetics of the neighborhood.
5. FINDING: The subject property is contiguous to the current city limits line on the
east, west and south. Because the site is almost an island surrounded by the city,
because city facilities are adjacent, and because there is urban development on all
sides of it, it cannot be considered "sprawling".
6. FINDING: Lands within the urban growth boundary and outside.ofthe city limits are
available for development. The subject property has been planned for residential
development. Market conditions and supply of developable land dictate what
parcels within the city's planning area are developed.
7. FINDING: The proposed subdivision is being proposed in response to local housing
market demand for single family residences.
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 1
-
9D
8. FINDING: Sewer, water, and storm drain lines are available to the property. It will
be the responsibility of the developer to construct the infrastructure that is needed
for this development to occur.
9. FINDING: The conversion of land within the urban growth boundary to a land use
that is planned and anticipated by the city's comprehensive plan, subject to public
facility improvements and other standards, is acknowledged by the state and
therefore conforms with the statewide planning goals. The proposal complies with
the policy encouraging in-fill development of developed areas before conversion of
urbanizable areas in that the proposed subdivision is adjacent to existing uses
developed at urban densities.
10. FINDING: The proposal complies with all requirements of Chapters 8, 9, and 10 of
the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance.
11. FINDING: When property is annexed into the City the property must be rezoned
from the County zoning to the City zoning. The zone change is necessary to
reclassify the subject property from the current zoning of "Marion County Urban
Transition Farm (UTFr to the City RS (Single Family Residential) zone. The RS
zone conforms to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan designation for the property
which is Residential <12 units per acre.
12. FINDING: Section 22.010 allows single family dwellings and accessory buildings
as permitted uses. All proposed lots are of sufficient size and dimension to
accommodate front, rear and side yard setback requirements. All proposed lots will
exceed the minimum required area of 6,000 square feet and meet or exceed the
minimum required width of 60 feet.
13. FINDING: All proposed lots will front on Aztec Drive which is a public street that has
been improved with pavement, curb and gutter. The planned right-of-way width of
Aztec Drive is 60 feet. The portion of the right-of-way in front of the proposed
subdivision is only 20 feet wide from centerline. An additional 10 feet shall be
dedicated to the City. Sidewalks are required and shall be installed at the time
each lot is developed. Sidewalks shall be constructed adjacent to property lines
and one street tree per lot provided in the parkway strip.
14. FINDING: The tentative plan complies with applicable zoning, subdivision, and
access management ordinances of the City and with applicable regulations adopted
under ORS 92.044.
15. FINDING: Aztec Drive is an existing improved street right-of-way and provides
street access to the proposed lots. The planned right-of-way width of Aztec Drive
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 2
9D
is 60 feet. The portion of the right-of-way in front of the proposed subdivision is
only 20 feet wide from centerline. An additional 10 feet shall be dedicated to the
City. Sidewalks are required and shall be installed at the time each lot is
developed.
16. FINDING: All lots in the proposed subdivision will meet the minimum lot area and
width standards.
17. FINDING: Aztec Drive is classified as a local residential street on the TSP. The
policies and recommendations of the TSP are implemented through the Woodburn
Zoning, Subdivision, and Access Management Ordinances. The proposed
subdivision has been designed in compliance with these ordinances or conditions
of approval have been attached to this application to ensure such compliance as
discussed in the sections of this report pertaining to each ordinance.
CONCLUSION: The proposal satisfies all approval criteria relating to the
annexation, zone map change and subdivision.
Variance:
18. FINDING: The fact that an existing accessory structure will make it difficult to locate
a new dwelling on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision does not in itself result in an
unnecessary or unreasonable hardship or practical difficulty. There are viable
options that can be implemented in lieu of modifying the requirements of the zoning
ordinance such as removing the accessory structure or reducing its size, or design
a home which is 24 feet deep or less. In addition, the request for a variance is
premature in that this variance should not be requested until such time as a building
permit application for a new dwelling is proposed. At that time, the practical
difficulties relating to that specific proposal can be better assessed.
CONCLUSION: The findings necessary to grant the proposed variance cannot be
made and the variance should be denied. The denial should be made without
prejudice to allow the applicant to return with a variance request once a building
permit application is submitted for a new dwelling on the lot.
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03. VAR 99-10
Page 3
11r
9D
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Annexation and Zone Change:
1 , Provide Planning Staff with a copy of a detailed description and map of the new
boundaries prior to the City Council hearing. This will be necessary for the City
Recorder.
Subdivision:
2. Subdivision approval is subject to approval of the annexation and zone change.
3, Approval shall be as shown on Attachment "C" - Preliminary Subdivision Map, dated
August 5, 1999. The final plat must be in substantial conformity with the tentative
plan for the subdivision and shall be platted according to standard surveying
practices. The applicant shall submit a copy of the final plat map to the Planning
and Public Works Departments prior to recordation with Marion County. The final
plat shall be approved by the Community Development Director and recorded with
the Marion County Recorder.
4. Following recordation with Marion County, provide three (3) copies of the final plat
to the Planning Department. Building permits shall not be issued until said copies
are submitted to the Planning Department.
5. The applicant shall comply with residential lot standards.
6. Each lot will require a separate building permit. At such time that building permits
are issued, each lot will be reviewed for compliance with residential setback and lot
coverage requirements. Any new fencing will also be reviewed for compliance with
residential standards prior to permit issuance.
7. The applicant shall comply with Woodburn Subdivision Standards.
8. Meet Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards. Each lot
shall comply with the single family driveway standards.
. 9. The use of the shop building on Lot 1 shall be limited to uses allowed in the RS
zone and not be used for commercial or industrial purposes.
10. Parks System Development Charges shall be payed in full prior to recordation of
the final plat, or on a per-lot basis as building permits are issued.
11. Any conditions attached to this approval shall be conditions on the issuance of a
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 4
'If
9D
building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be considered a violation of the
applicable ordinance.
Public Works Conditions:
12. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards.
13, Existing on-site water wells or sewage disposal systems shall be abandoned in
accordance with state regulations.
14, The applicant is responsible for obtaining permits from any other agencies that may
require approval or permit.
15, This development shall not cause storm water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties,
16. Property owner shall enter into an improvement agreement as outlined in the
Woodburn Subdivision Ordinance, Chapter III, Section 6, prior to acceptance of the
final plat. Also, prior to construction of the subdivision, the City will require
approved construction plans, a performance bond and payment of construction
permit fees.
17. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn Standards and all State Building
Codes.
18. Dedicate to the City an additional 1 0 feet of right-of-way adjacent to this subdivision
along Aztec Drive.
19. The asphaltic concrete street surface of Aztec Drive adjacent to this subdivision
shall be milled to a depth of 1 %" of class "C" mix, after all of the services have
been installed to the proposed lots.
20. Sidewalks conforming to City standards shall be installed adjacent to each lot at the
time of building construction. Sidewalks shall be constructed adjacent to property
lines and one street tree per lot provided in the parkway strip in conformance with
City street tree standards.
21, Only two 6" diameter sewer services are stubbed to the parent parcel. The
remaining sanitary services shall be installed by the applicant. Open cut will be
allowed in the existing street, subject to the above requirement for milling and
inlaying with AC.
22. If Lot 1 is used for commercial purposes, a backflow device shall be required.
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 5
111"
9D
23. Comply with fire protection requirements of the Woodburn Fire District.
24, Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar of the final plat shall be filed with the
Public Works Department after all required signatures have been obtained and the
plat has been recorded with Marion County. '
FINAL ORDER - ANX 99-03, ZC 99-04, SUB 99-03, VAR 99-10
Page 6
~
9D
ATTACHMENT "C"
Planning Commission
9/9/99
Minutes
9D
C. Subdivision 99-02 to divide approximately 1.8 acres into 9 lots between
Ogle and Brown Street south of Parr Road. Variance 99-09 to lot width
standards to two flag lots requirement 30 feet rest 15". Oakwood
Subdivision. Wilhelm Enaineering applicant.
Break
Chairperson Youna opened the Public Hearing.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided presentation as reflected in the
Staff Report. Staff indicated he concurred with the applicant's rationale to approve this
Variance request. He pointed out that Staff comments were not incorporated into the
Staff Report because he was unable to review the application. However, they would
make sure that any order that would come back to the Planning Commission, if it is
favorable to the Variance, that would substantiate the recommendation. The following
are two recommendations made by Staff that are not conditions within the existing Staff
Report: (1) the applicant can be required to have property line sidewalks so that a
planting strip can be allowed; (2) tree plantings in front of each proposed parcel. Staff
recommended approval of Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-09.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired whether property line or curbside sidewalks are
addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance?
Staff reported it is not addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance but it does say that
sidewalks will be required but it is up to the discretion of Staff and the Commission to
determine where those sidewalks can be placed on the property. He added it is a
judgement call on each application because there are no particular standards set forth
in the Ordinance.
Chairperson Young thanked Staff for including the blue prints. He said they are much
easier to read than the small condensed versions that they normally get.
Vice Chairperson Cox commented that Staff slipped back to incorporating by reference
other departments comments in the Staff Report instead of spelling them out in the list
of conditions.
Staff explained he did not have the opportunity to review this Staff Report once it was
developed. If he had seen this he would have had the individual incorporate them into
a long list. He said the order will reflect what the previous process has been.
Commissioner Loneroan asked if 30 foot access on the flag lots is good enough for the
Fire Department?
Staff responded yes. He explained the Fire Department's primary concern is making
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
'Ir
9D
sure that we have adequate area for them to access the site and back out and turn
around.
Chairperson Young commented he did not notice any fire hydrants out at the site.
Staff stated those become conditions by the Fire Department and Public Works.
Vice Chairperson Cox inquired how to work it into the conditions to require tree
plantings in the parking strip?
Staff replied it would be worded "tree in front of each individuallot". He added we
would be looking at a total of six trees. There are requirements as to trees that we
make allowance for and those trees that we do not allow within the right-of-way under
our Ordinance.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if the language of the dedication on the actual plat is done
by Public Works? He remarked somebody has to double check and make sure that this
reciprocal easement and that the easement for utilities in the flag poles of lots 6 and 7
winds up getting in the dedication language on the plat or by a separate easement
document.
Staff reported there is one person in the Public Works Department that specializes in
just reviewing these plats, conditions of approval and making sure that those things that
are stated in the Staff Report are followed through on.
Testimony by the Applicant
George Wilhelm. Wilhelm Engineerina. P.O. Box 561. Woodburn. OR stated he is
representing the owners, applicant Greg and Olga Saverchenko. He said they believe
the requirement of a minimum width of 40 feet for flag lots severely limits and maybe
eliminates the option to use flag lots for unique situations. Mr. Wilhelm further stated
the proposed 15 foot access with reciprocal easements will provide adequate width for
a 24 foot wide paved access way and still leave room for utility services. He believes
the application and exhibits adequately address all of the pertinent criteria for approval.
Testimony by Proponents
Paul C. Sedoruk. LOCO Design Group. 3400 State St. NE, Salem. OR 97301
represents the Lucky Company that developed Steklov Subdivision. He stated they
support the subdivision 100%. However, he expressed concerns based on the
conditions of approval with their subdivision. Firstly, he reported their concern with the
run off water from this new subdivision draining into the detention pond which is owned
and maintained by the Lucky Company. He reported his client is liable for this
detention pond and suggested that perhaps the City take ownership and maintenance
of the pond. Mr. Sedoruk said it seems like an unfair burden if someone is maintaining
a detention pond to allow anyone in the neighborhood that develops this property to
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
II!'
9D
have access to this pond with no additional cost or responsibility that goes along with
maintaining and being liable for such a facility. Secondly, he conveyed their concern
with Parr Road. Mr. Sedoruk explained that his client has a contract with the City
stating that after a year the road has been put in the City will come out and look at the
condition of the road. If the road is found to be in good condition, the City will accept
the road and release his clients maintenance bonds. He reported in order to develop
the new subdivision Parr Road will have to be cut open for water laterals, sewer and
storm water connections. He questioned how his client will be relieved of the
responsibility of maintaining Parr Road in good stead during that period? They feel a
continuance of two weeks to discuss with the City, the Project Engineer and the
property owners regarding these issues which at this time, would be in the benefit of the
public good.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked Mr. Sedoruk if there was a provision placed at the time the
detention pond or the road was put in by his client for cost sharing by other properties
as they developed to contribute towards the cost of the detention pond?
Paul Sedoruk did not believe so. He said they would love to have cost sharing but
from what he understands it is too late to ask for that. There was a cost sharing
agreement when they did Steklov that even though Brown Road had been approved
adjacent to their property that his client had to pay their fair share for Brown Road's
improvement. He commented he was not the person representing the Lucky Company
during the subdivision of Steklov and did not know why they did not ask for cost sharing
at that time. Mr. Sedoruk commented George Wilhelm was the engineer on record and
perhaps he could explain why cost sharing was overlooked.
Opponents
None
Applicant Rebuttal
George Wilhelm stated he felt Mr. Sedoruk's issue is with the City. As far as his
representation with the Lucky Company, they did negotiate with the City on the
detention pond and as far as he knows they did receive some concessions. He added
the Lucky Company does have an obligation to provide for a storm water that is
upstream from their property. Mr. Wilhelm said it is his understanding that this hearing
tonight is primarily to consider testimony with regards to the land use issues and
although he appreciates the comments from the Lucky Company and their
representatives, he thinks they need to address City policies, standards and ordinances
at a different time and place. Mr. Wilhelm remarked the applicant he represents tonight
will comply with all of the City's appropriate ordinances.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if the development of this subdivision will change the
natural course of the surface water flow and divert it into the Lucky Company's
subdivision?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
,...
9])
George Wilhelm replied it will not. He added he believes Parr Road is designed so that
the adjacent property will drain onto Parr Road. There will be some drainage that now
goes onto Parr Road that will continue to go there as a result of this development. Mr.
Wilhelm further commented it is his understanding that Public Works does have a
condition that any cuts made in Parr Road, the applicant for this subdivision will be
required to grind down the asphalt an 1 % inch and replace a whole new surface along
there.
Chairperson Young announced we are looking at Subdivision 99-02 and Variance 99-
09 and therefore not really prepared to go beyond that because they do not have
information on it. Additionally, it has been noted and it is in the record. He suggested
perhaps the Lucky Company discuss the issue with Staff at a later time.
Staff stated if additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the Planning
Commission may allow any party a hearing, a continuance of the hearing or leave the
record open to allow the party a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Vice Chairperson Cox remarked Mr. Sedoruk has the right to submit new evidence if
he wants to but if he just wants time to talk, the Commission will not stop him from
talking to Staff or to the applicant.
Chairperson Young inte~ected as part of the order at any public hearing you have the
opportunity to submit other evidence for five days afterwards.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked Mr. Sedoruk if he is willing that the Public Hearing be
closed?
Paul Sedoruk replied affirmatively. He stated they just wanted their concerns stated for
the record.
Chairperson Young closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion
Vice Chairperson Cox stated it is a good application. He remarked the Commission has
no authority over the issues raised by Mr. Sedoruk on behalf of Lucky Company. If
there were some decision for the City to take over the detention pond, the decision
would have to made initially by Public Works and then approved by City Council. Vice
Chairperson Cox stated the new project will be required to take good care of the
pavement and will have their own separate obligations in addition to the obligations that
the original builder of the street had. He does not foresee any problems sorting those
two things out at the Staff level.
Commissioner Bandelow has no objections to the project and stated it fits in with what
is going in that end of town.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9. 1999
~D
Commissioner Heer concurred and sees no problems with the 30 foot driveway.
Commissioner Lonergan stated he has no problems with the applicant or the project but
he personally does not like flag lots. He sees cramming a lot of homes to a small piece
of area and would like to see a cul-de-sac or something better.
Chairperson Young expressed his concerns with the requirements for the trees being in
the sight view. He added the street will have circulation at some point in time but sees
no other way to change the configuration. He also stated he does not like flag lots but
he thinks it works well in this situation because these lots are much larger than the lots
in some of the surrounding developments.
Commissioner Heer moved to accept the Staff Report on Subdivision 99-02 and
Variance 99-09 with the added conditions of the landscaping and the property line
sidewalks and Staff will return with an order. Vice Chairperson Cox seconded the
motion. Motion carried with Commissioner Lonergan voting No.
"
Planning Commission Meeting - September 9, 1999
~
llA
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2005
ORDINANCE NO. ,j~ 41
AN ORDINANCE MAKING TEXTUAL AMENDMENTS TO THE WOODBURN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ADOPTING A PARKS AND RECREATION
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan has been adopted by the City and
acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC); and
WHEREAS, the City is currently in the process of Periodic Review, and
WHEREAS, Task No.5 of the City's Periodic Review Work Program states that the
Recreation, Parks and Open Space Plan will be updated, and
WHEREAS, the passage of this ordinance represents completion of Task No.5; and
WHEREAS, certain textual amendments to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan regarding
open space and parks have been proposed; and
WHEREAS, a Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update has been prepared;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have conducted public hearings
on the proposed textual amendments and Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, notice of the amendments has been forwarded by the City to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (OLCD) as provided by state law; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, IV Existing
Land Uses, E. Open SpacelParks, is hereby amended to read as follows:
There are approximately 474 acres of Open Space and Parks within the city and
UGB. A majority of the Open Space in the planning area is private la:nd.
Development of this private land is limited because it is in the floodplain area.
The Park Plan has inventoried existing park resources and has identified the need
and vicinity for three additional neighborhood parks. The Plan also identifies
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
!1r
ttA
existing floodplain along Mill Creek, Senecal Creek and Goose Creek for
greenways to be preserved as a natural greenway and transportation corridor as
encouraged by Policy L-l, of Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan.
Systems Development Charges have assisted with funding for the first phase of
development for Centennial Park located on Parr Road in South Woodburn. The
first phase was completed in 1999 with two more phases planned for completion
by 2006.
City Ordinance #1908 establishes a Tree Ordinance for inventory, preservation and
replacement of public and private trees. This effort resulted in Woodburn gaining
recognition as a "Tree City, USA", by the National Arbor Day Foundation in
years, 1985, 1986, and 1987. In 1998, the City adopted a program to assist
homeowners with repair, removal and replacement of trees within the public right-
of-way.
Section 2. The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Element, X The Land
Use Plan, F. Open Space/Parks, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Open space lands are indicated for three new 3-5 acre neighborhood parks. The
vicinities for these parks include east ofl-5, north of Parr Road and south of
Hayes~ another south of Cleveland, east of Union Pacific mainlineIBoones Ferry,
and west ofHwy. 99E; and another east ofHwy. 99E, south of Blaine and north of
Hwy. 211. Additionally, the floodplain areas of the City are indicated for open
space. This does not mean that the City will necessarily own these lands, however,
any development scheme should leave these floodplain lands as open and
undeveloped with structures.
In 1998, the City annexed the 25 acre Centennial Park site located south of Parr
Road. In 1999, the City completed Phase 1 of the park's development including
two soccer fields, a softballlbaseball field and two playgrounds. Future phases,
projected for completion in 2006, will construct three additional softballlbaseball
fields, picnic and concession facilities, athletic field lighting and hard court play
surfaces.
The other open space uses such as floodplain areas could serve as transportation
routes for pedestrian traffic, golf carts and bicycle paths. There would have to be
a concerted effort by the city to acquire R.O.W. easements through private
properties to establish these routes.
Section 3. The City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan, Land Use element, IX Goals and
Policies, is hereby amended to add a new subsection "R. Recreation and Parks Goals and
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11r
ttA
Policies" which shall read as follows:
R. Recreation and Parks Goals and Policies
Goal
R-l. It is the goal of the City to provide adequate parks, recreation facilities, and
open space to maintain Woodburn's livability and managed growth, and to
provide social, economic and environmental benefits to individuals, families
and the community.
R-2. Downtown Woodburn should remain a centerpiece of activity, culture, and
commerce within the City. Library Park, Woodburn Aquatic Center,
Settlemier Park, the Woodburn World's Berry Center Museum, and
Locomotive Park should be used as catalysts for downtown revitalization.
Policies
R-l-l.
R-I-2.
R-I-3.
R-I-4.
The City will insure that sufficient land is made available for parks and
open spaces by adopting the system of facility types and standards in the
1999 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan including: Mini-Parks;
Neighborhood/School Parks; Community Parks; Municipal Parks;
Greenways, Open Space, Trails and Pathways; and Cultural Resources
and/or Special Use ParkslFacilities.
The City will insure the most efficient and effective means of providing
sufficient land for neighborhood parks by adopting a neighborhood/school
park concept including joint land acquisition and development, thereby
strengthening the existing partnership between the City and the Woodburn
School District.
Where neighborhood/school parks are not feasible, it is the policy of the
City to acquire neighborhood parks, when practicable, through the
development review process.
As a supplement to the City's neighborhood parks, it is the policy of the
City to encourage new subdivisions to provide mini-parks, meeting City
approved standards. The city shall insure that the excessive maintenance
impacts of mini-parks are avoided by requiring ownership to be retained by
the developer or a homeowner association, with maintenance provided by
the developer, the homeowner association, or by the City through a
maintenance LID. These facilities may not be used to reduce the
Page 3 - COUNCll.. Bll..L NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
I1r
R-1-5.
R-1-6.
R-1-7.
R-1-8.
R-1-9.
ttA
requirements for System Development Charge payments.
It is the policy of the City to manage Mill Creek, Goose Creek and Senecal
Creek corridors as public green ways and pathways; multiple functions will
include open space and habitat preservation, flood control, cycling and
walking on all-weather pathways, nature recreation and education, and
limited playground activities where there is a deficiency of neighborhood
parks.
To provide for a continuous public greenway and pathway system, it is the
policy of the City to acquire privately-owned segments along Mill Creek,
Goose Creek, and Senecal Creek and other stream corridors including the
west tributary from Settlemier Park to Parr Road. It is the policy of the
City to seek dedication of floodplains and creek corridors for natural areas,
neighborhood recreation areas, open space and transportation.
To insure adequate maintenance of the City's parks, recreation, and open
space facilities, the City will prepare comprehensive management plans
including maintenance management standards for each facility.
It is the policy of the City to require multi-family housing projects which
exceed four (4) units to provide basic neighborhood park and playground
facilities, based on development standards of the Recreation and Parks
Department.
Because recreation participation preferences and interests vary among
employment ethnic, social, and cultural groups, it is the policy of the City
to exercise special sensitivity in selecting the types of recreation programs
it offers, and in the design and management of parks, recreation and open
space facilities.
Section 4. The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update, affixed hereto as
Attachment "N' and incorporated herein, is hereby adopted.
Section 5. The textual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the adoption of the
Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update is justified by the legislatiye findings which are
affixed as Attachment "B" and, by this reference, incorporated herein.
Section 6. This ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, an
emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by
the Council and approval by the Mayor.
Page 4 - COUNCll.. Bll..L NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11r
ttA
Approved as to form~'~ ~
City Attorney
1 \- 1 <l- ~ ~
Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
...
IIA
ATTACHMENT "A"
The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update was recently provided to the
City Council. A complete copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update is attached to
the original ordinance.
11!'
ATTACHMENT /!!J
Page --l- of .A..
ttA
ATTACHMENT "B"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
RELEVANT FACTS
1. The City of Woodburn is currently conducting Periodic Review for the City's
Comprehensive Plan. As a part of this review the City is updating the Parks and
Recreation Comprehensive Plan.
2. The City of Woodburn recognizes that quality recreation and park facilities and programs
are vital components of a healthy and safe community.
3. Woodburn is expected to grow within the next 20 years. The City's Parks and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan Update addresses projected development patterns, community
demographic composition and facility and program needs.
FINDINGS
1. Woodburn is in a major growth cycle, and is expected to continue to increase in population
and employment over the next several years. Policies of the Woodburn Comprehensive
Plan call for orderly, efficient and managed growth, enhancement of community livability,
and for new public facilities to be paid for by development fees.
2. Woodburn's population characteristics are unique: a substantial number of adults over 65
years of age and children below the age of 17; an increase in family size; a multi-ethnic
community; a large number of families with low to moderate incomes; and a relatively large
seasonal populations.
3. Multifamily housing makes up over 25 percent of the housing stock; many of these
developments lack access to open space or playground facilities; there is a trend toward
a decrease in minimum lot sizes and increased densities in new single family
developments.
4. Compared with other cities of comparable size, Woodburn's crime index is relatively high.
There is a shortage of sports fields and sports courts, and the distribution of developed
public parks and recreation facilities does not provide equitable access for many residents.
5. The City is concerned about deterioration of the downtown and is working to revitalize the
area; policies include improving open space in the Central Business District (CBD), and
improving Library Park as a catalyst for rejuvenation.
6. Woodburn's drainage system is extensive, but other than a few public greenways and
playgrounds, little public use is made of the creek corridors. Much of the system is owned
by the City, and by plan policy is recognized as a natural greenway system and
transportation corridor. Although parts of the creek system have been channeled, there
is excellent potential for accommodating non-vehicular transportation, and for natural
greenways, linear parks, and playgrounds.
11T'
ilA
ATTACHMENT er
Page ~ of ,;L
7. While a blend of private and public recreation facilities can meet the needs of the
community, there is some indication that the private recreation facilities and greenways
(i.e. Meadow Park, Tukwila, Senior Estates) may negatively impact the City's parks and
recreation system as a whole.
8. Woodburn school grounds and play facilities make a substantial contribution in providing
neighborhood and community recreation and open space opportunities. A close working
relationship exists between the School District and the City of Woodburn.
9. The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update complies with applicable
requirements included in Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines(1995)
including Goal 1 : Citizen Involvement, Goal 5: Open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and
natural resources, Goal 8: Recreational needs, and Goal 11 : Public facilities and services.
10. The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update complies with applicable Goals
and Policies related to parks, recreation, and open space included in Woodburn 2014, as
amended, including Residential Land Development Policies A-1 and A-3; Commercial land
Development Policy B-5; Annexation Policy 0-1; Public Services Goal H-2, and Policies
H-1, H-6, and H-7; Transportation Goal 1-4, and Policies K-1-2, 1-2-2, 1-4-1,1-4-2, 1-4-5, 1-4-
6, 1-5-4, 1-6-1 and 1-6-2; Growth and Urbanization Policies K-3 and K-10; Natural and
Cultural Resources Goals L-1 and L-2, and Policies L-2, and L-3; Downtown Development
Policies N-2-1, N-3-1, and N-3-4; and Woodburn Transportation System Plan Goal 1
Policies 4 and 5, Goal 2, and Goal 3 Policy 2.
11. Woodburn 2014 does not currently include a Parks and Recreation Element. Opens
Space/Parks are addressed only briefly in the Land use Plan (Chapter X, Section F).
Because parks and recreation facilities and programs may have a significant role in the
development patterns and livability of the City, a comprehensive plan element devoted to
these facilities and programs is warranted.
12. The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update was developed with public
involvement, and is based on a thorough review of community needs and interests. This
plan addresses expected parks and recreation facility needs through the year 2020 and
best satisfies the public need for parks and recreation facilities and programs.
CONCLUSION
The Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update will serve as a practical guide for the
development of recreation and park facilities and programs in Woodburn through 2020.
!Ir
I J 8 ~Q,
MEMO
FROM:
City Council through City Administ/~
Public Works Program Manager~ ~
TO:
SUBJECT:
Traffic Impact Fee Implementing Ordinances
DATE:
November 17, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the two attached ordinances which:
1) Implements the updated Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) methodology; and
2) Modifies existing Ordinance 2111 to remove TIF references and allows it to
remain in effect for storm water drainage system development charges (SDC).
BACKGROUND:
After evaluating public input at a public hearing held on November 8, 1999, Council
directed staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the revised Traffic Impact Fee
methodology. That ordinance has been prepared and is attached for Council
approval. Staff recommends that this new TIF implementing ordinance be approved.
Previously enacted Ordinance 2111 implemented both the TIF and stormwater SDC.
With the implementation of the new TIF methodology, it was decided to develop a
new ordinance, which is attached, dealing with only the TIF. Therefore, the existing
ordinance that dealt with both the TIF and stormwater SDC required modification to
remove references related to traffic impact fees and allow it to remain in effect for
stormwater. The modified definition for what is a "qualified public improvement"
which had been changed by the legislature was also included. Staff is also
recommending that the attached amending ordinance incorporating these
modifications be approved.
-
liB
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2006
ORDINANCE NO. ! ~ .::l1-B
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A METHODOLOGY FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
(TIF) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, future growth should contribute its fair share to the cost of improvements and
additions to city transportation facilities that are required to accommodate the needs of such growth;
and
WHEREAS, the imposition of system development charges will provide a source of revenue
to fund the construction or improvement of the city's transportation facilities necessitated by growth;
and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 - 223.314, adopted in 1989, authorizes local governments to impose
system development charges; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are charges incurred upon the election to develop
property at a specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than the
actual cost of providing public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density, and/or
intensity; election of other uses, densities, and/or intensities causes direct and proportional changes in
the amount of the incurred charge; and system development charges are separate from and in addition
to any applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee provided by law or
imposed as a condition of development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon a
development's receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not on
the land, owner, or property, and therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a direct
consequence of ownership of property within the meaning of Section lIb, Article XI of the Oregon
Constitution or the legislation implementing that section; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is intended only to be a financing mechanism for needed extra
capacity capital facilities associated with new development and does not represent the consideration of
land use planning issues or elimination of any possible existing capacity deficiencies; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. The following definitions apply:
(A) "Applicant" shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building permit or
development permit.
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Ilr
lIB
(B) "Bancroft Bond" shall mean a bond issued by the city to finance a capital improvement in
accordance with ORS 223.205 - 223.295.
(C) "Building" shall mean any structure, either temporary or permanent, built for the support, shelter
or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. This term shall include tents, trailers,
mobile homes or any vehicles serving in any way the function of a building. This term shall not
include temporary construction sheds or trailers erected to assist in construction and maintained
during the term of a building permit.
(0) "Building Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction or
siting of any building. For purposes of this ordinance, the term "Building Permit" shall also
include any construction or installation permits which may be required for those structures or
buildings, such as a mobile home, that do not require a building permit in order to be occupied.
(E) "Capital Improvements" shall mean public facilities or assets used for transportation.
(F) "Citizen or Other Interested Person" shall mean any person who is a legal resident of the City
ofW oodbum as evidenced by registration as a voter in the city, or by other proof of residency;
or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property which is located
within the city limits or is otherwise subject to the imposition of system development charges,
as outlined in Section 3 of this ordinance.
(G) "City" shall mean the City of Woodburn, Oregon.
(H) "Credit" shall mean the amount of money by which.the TIP SDC for a specific development may
be reduced because of construction of eligible capital facilities as outlined in this ordinance.
(I) "Development" shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a change in the use
of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements or
which will contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements.
(1) "Development Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate, other than a building
permit, authorizing development.
(K) "Dwelling Unit" shall mean a building or a portion of a building designed for residential
occupancy, consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living
quarters for one family only.
(L) "Encumbered" shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that
obligates the city to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of
services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or
Owner.
Page 2 - COUNCll.. Bll..L NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11r
liB
(M) "Improvement Fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed after the effective date of this ordinance. Notwithstanding anything in this ordinance
to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the availability for use
of the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and facilities necessary to
meet the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and to provide for the public
health and safety upon development.
(N) "Off-site" shall mean not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development
approval.
(0) "On-site" shall mean located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of developmental
approval.
(P) "Owner" shall mean the person holding legal title to the real property upon which development
is to occur.
(Q) "Person" shall mean an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or
any other similar entity.
(R) "Prime Rate of Interest" shall mean the base rate on corporate loans posted by at least 75% of
the nation's 30 largest banks as posted in the Wall Street Journal.
(S) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is:
1) Required as a condition of development approval;
2) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP);and either
3) a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development approval;
or
b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is
necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is related
(T) "Right-of-Way" shall mean that portion of land that is dedicated for public use.
(U) I' System Development Charge" shall mean an improvement fee assessed or collected at the time
of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit or building
permit. System development charges are separate from and in addition to any applicable tax,
assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law or imposed as a
condition of development.
(V) "Traffic Impact Fee" shall mean a system development charge for transportation capital facilities.
(W) "Transportation Impact Fee (TIP) Update" shall mean the report adopted pursuant to Section
(3)(B), as amended and supplemented pursuant to Section (3)(H).
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
!1r
liB
Section 2. Rules of Construction. For the purposes of administration and enforcement of this
ordinance, unless otherwise stated in this ordinance, the following rules of construction shall apply:
(A) In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of this ordinance and any
caption, illustration, summary table, or illustrative table, the text shall control.
(B) The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" is permissive.
(C) Words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular shall include
the plural and the plural the singular, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary; and use
of the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender.
(0) The phrase "used for" includes "arranged for", "designed for", "maintained for", or "occupied
for".
(E) Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two or more items,
conditions, provisions, or events connected by the conjunction "and", "or" or "either...or", the
conjunction shall be interpreted as follows:
1) " And" indicates that all the connected terms, conditions, provisions or events shall apply.
2) "Or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events may apply singly
or in any combination.
3) "Either" ... or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events shall
apply singly but not in combination.
(F) The word "includes" shall not limit a term to the specific example, but is intended to extend its
meaning to all other instances or circumstances of like kind or character.
Section 3. Imposition of System Development Charges. System development charges are
hereby imposed, subject to the following conditions:
(A) DeveloDment Subiect to Charszes. System development charges are imposed on all new
development within the city for capital improvements for transportation. The system
development charges shall be paid in addition to all other fees, charges and assessments due for
development, and are intended to provide funds only for capital improvements necessitated by
new development.
(B) Rates of Charges.
1) The city hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the report entitled "City of
Woodburn Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Update" report dated October 29, 1999, particularly
the assumptions, conclusions and findings in such study as to the determination of
anticipated costs of capital improvements required to accommodate growth and the rates
for system development charges to reimburse the city for such capital improvements.
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11f
liB
2) System development charges shall be imposed and calculated for the change in use,
alternation, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit if such change in use,
alternation, expansion or replacement results in an increase in the use of capital
improvements compared to the present use of the development. The amount of the system
development charges to be paid shall be the difference between the rate for the proposed
development and the rate that would be imposed for the development prior to the change
in use, alternation, expansion or replacement.
3) The city shall, based upon the report referred to in subsection (1) above, adopt by
resolution the amounts of system development charges.
4) An additional systems development charge may be assessed by the city if the demand
placed on the city's capital facilities exceeds the amount initially estimated at the time
systems development charges are paid. The additional charge shall be for the increased
demand or for the demand above the underestimate, and it shall be based upon the fee that
is in effect at the time the additional demand impact is determined, and not upon the fee
structure that may have been in effect at the time the initial systems development charge
was paid. This provision does not apply to single family or other residential units unless
additional rental units are created.
5) Notwithstanding any other provision, the SDC rates adopted pursuant to this ordinance
may on January lit of each year, after the first year that the ordinance is effective, be
adjusted by the City Administrator to account for changes in the costs of acquiring and
constructing facilities. The adjustment factor shall be based on the change in average
market value of all land in the city, according to the records of the County Tax Assessor,
and the change in construction costs according to the engineering News Record (ENR)
Northwest (Seattle, Washington) Construction Cost Index; and shall be determined as
follows:
Change in Average Market Value X 0.50
+ Change in Construction Cost Index X 0.50
= System Development Charge Adjustment Factor
The System Development Charge Adjustment Factor shall be used to adjust the System
Development Charge rates, unless they are otherwise adjusted by action of the City
Council based on adoption of an updated methodology or capital improvements plan
(master plan).
(C). Payment of Charges. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, applicants for building permits
or development permits shall pay the applicable system development charges prior to the issuance of the
permits by the city.
1) When the total amount due for Traffic Impact Fees exceeds $5,000 for existing buildings,
or $25,000 for new buildings, the applicant may request an alternative payment
arrangement to pay the fee in annual payments over a period not to exceed five years.
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11r
liB
2) The Finance Director shall provide application and contract forms for installment
payments, which shall include a waiver of all rights to contest the validity of the lien,
except for the correction of computational errors. The interest to be charged for
installment payments and for delinquent payment of such installments is initially established
at the prime rate of interest plus 0.5 percent for new or existing buildings for which the
amount due is $25,000 or more, and at the prime rate of interest plus 3.0 percent for
existing buildings for which the amount due is between $5,000 and $25,000, but may be
adjusted by the City Council by resolution.
3) An applicant for installment payments shall have the burden of demonstrating the
applicant's authority to assent to the imposition of a lien on the parcel and that the property
interest of the applicant is adequate to secure payment of the lien.
4) The City Administrator or his designee shall cause a report to be made of the amount of
the Traffic Impact Fees, the dates on which the payments are due, the name ofthe owner,
and the description of the parcel.
5) The City Recorder shall docket the lien in the lien docket. Except as otherwise expressly
provided, from that time the city shall have first lien upon the described parcel for the
amount of the Traffic Impact Fees, together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate
established by the City Council. The lien shall be enforceable in the manner provided in
ORS Chapter 223.
6) Under no circumstances shall payment of the TIP or SDC fees exempt any development
from complying with any and all standards, rules, and regulations required of the
development as a condition of development approval. Specifically, development must
meet all road standards, storm water retention requirements, and stormwater quality
requirements intended to minimize the degradation of water quality resulting from
development.
(D) Alternative Rate Calculation. Applicants may submit alternative rates for system development
charges, subject to the following conditions:
1) In the event an applicant believes that the impact on city capital improvements resulting
from a development is less than the fee established in Section (3) (B), the applicant may
submit alternative system development charge rate calculations, accompanied by the
alternative rate review fee established by resolution for this purpose, to the City
Administrator. The city may hire a consultant to review the alternative system
development charge rate calculations, and may pay the consulting fees from system
development charges revenues.
2) The alternative system development charge rate calculations shall be based on data,
information and assumptions contained in this ordinance and the adopted system
development charges study or an independent source, provided that the independent
Page 6 - COUNCIL Bll..L NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
- \III"
llB
source is a local study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions contained in
such study performed pursuant to a generally accepted methodology and based upon
generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities planning, cost
analysis and demographics.
3) If the city council determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the
applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates comply with the
requirements of this section by using a generally accepted methodology, the alternative
system development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth in Section
(3)(B).
4) If the city council determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by the
applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not comply with
the requirements of this section or were not calculated by a generally accepted
methodology, then the city council shall provide to the applicant (by certified mail, return
receipt requested) written notification of the rejection of the alternative system
development charges rates and the reason therefor.
5) Any applicant who has submitted a proposed alternative system development charges rate
pursuant to this section and desires the immediate issuance of a building permit or
development permit shall pay the applicable system development charges rates pursuant
to Section (3)(B). Said payment shall be deemed paid under "protest" and shall not be
construed as a waiver of any right of review. Any difference between the amount paid and
the amount due, as determined by the city council, shall be refunded to the applicant.
(E) Exemptions. The following development shall be exempt from payment of the system
development charges:
1) Alternations, expansion or replacement of an existing dwelling unit where no additional
dwelling units are created.
2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not create additional
dwelling units and which do not create additional demands on the city's capital
improvements.
3) The issuance of a permit for a mobile home on which applicable system development
charges have previously been made as documented by receipts issued by the city for such
prior payment.
(F) Credits for Developer Contributions of Qualified Public Improvements. The city shall grant a
credit, not to exceed 1000.!o of the applicable TIF SDC, against the system development charges
imposed pursuant to Section (3)(A) and (B) for the donation ofland as permitted by Ordinance
1807, or for the construction of any qualified public improvements. Such land donation and
construction shall be subject to the approval of the city.
Page 7 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11r
liB
1) The amount of developer contribution credit to be applied shall be determined according
to the following standards of valuation:
a) The value of donated lands shall be based upon a written appraisal of fair market
value by a qualified and professional appraiser based upon comparable sales of
similar property between unrelated parties in a bargaining transaction~ and
b) The cost of anticipated construction of qualified public improvements shall be based
upon cost estimates certified by a professional architect or engineer.
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit or development permit, the applicant shall submit to
the City Administrator a proposed plan and estimate of cost for contributions of qualified
public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall include:
a) a designation of the development for which the proposed plan is being submitted.
b) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated pursuant to Chapter 39 of the
W oodbum Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 1807, and a written appraisal prepared in
conformity with subsection (l)(a) of this section;
c) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the plan~
d) an estimate of proposed construction costs certified by a professional architect or
engineer; and
e) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed plan.
3) The City Administrator shall determine if the proposed qualified public improvement is:
a) Required as a condition of development approval;
b) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP)~and either
c) i) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development
approval; or
ii) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or witli greater capacity than
is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related
4) The decision of the City Administrator as to whether to accept the proposed plan of
contribution and the value of such contribution shall be in writing and issued within fifteen
(15) working days of the review. A copy shall be provided to the applicant.
Page 8 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
r
liB
5) A proposed improvement which does not meet all three (3) of the criteria included in
Section 3(F)(3) above shall not be considered a qualified public improvement and the city
is not required ORS 223.297 - 223.314 to provide a credit for such an improvement.
However, the city shall grant a credit, in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (500.10) of
the total amount of the applicable TIP SDC, for certain other contributions of capital
facilities under the following conditions:
a) The capital facilities being contributed must exceed the local street standard (for
TIP) required for the specific type of development (Le., residential, industrial, etc.);
and
b) Only the value of the contribution which exceeds the local street standard (for TIP)
required for the specific type of development (i.e., residential, industrial, etc.) shall
be considered when calculating the credit; and
c) Donations for on-site right-of-way are not eligible for the credit.
6) Any applicant who submits a proposed plan pursuant to this section and desires the
immediate issuance of a building pennit or development pennit, shall pay the applicable
system development charges. Said payment shall be deemed paid under "protest" and shall
not be construed as a waiver of any review rights. Any difference between the amount
paid and the amount due, as detennined by the City Administrator, shall be refunded to the
applicant. In no event shall a refund by city under this subsection exceed the amount
originally paid by the applicant.
(G) Appeals and Review Hearings.
1) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to
request a hearing to review the ITE land-use category selected by the City Engineer as the
basis for the TIP, or the denial by the City Administrator of a proposed credit for
contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section (3 )(F).
2) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within fifteen (15) days of the date of first
receipt of the denial by the City Administrator. Failure to request a hearing within the time
provided shall be deemed a waiver of such right.
3) The request for hearing shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall contain the
following:
a) The name and address of the applicant;
b) The legal description of the property in question;
c) If issued, the date the building pennit or development pennit was issued;
Page 9 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
""
liB
d) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken pursuant to
the building permit or development permit;
e) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and
f) A statement of the reasons why the applicant is requesting the hearing.
4) Upon receipt of such request, the City Administrator shall schedule a hearing before the
city council at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose
of conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of the time and
place of the hearing. Such hearing shall be held within forty-five (45) days of the date the
request for hearing was filed.
5) Such hearing shall be before the city council and shall be conducted in a manner designed
to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing. Formal rules of
civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the hearing shall be
conducted in a fair and impartial manner with each party having an opportunity to be heard
and to present information and evidence.
6) Any applicant who requests a hearing pursuant to this section and desires the immediate
issuance of a building permit or development permit shall pay prior to or at the time the
request for hearing is filed the applicable system development charges pursuant to Section
(3)(B). Said payment shall be deemed paid under "protest" and shall not construed as a
waiver of any review rights.
7) An applicant may request a hearing under this section without paying the applicable system
development charges, but no building permit or development permit shall be issued until
such system development charges are paid in the amount initially calculated or the amount
approved upon completion of the review provided in this section.
(II) Review of Study and Rates. This ordinance and the Traffic Impact Fee System Development
Charge Methodology Report shall be reviewed at least once every five (5) years. The review
shall consider new estimates of population and other socioeconomic data, changes in the cost
of construction and land acquisition, and adjustments to the assumptions, conclusions or findings
set forth in the report adopted by Section (3)(B). The purpose of this review is to evaluate and
revise, if necessary, the rates of the system development charges to assure that they do not
exceed the reasonably anticipated costs of the city's capital improvements. In the event the
review of the ordinance or the report alters or changes the assumptions, conclusions and findings
of the report, or alters or changes the amount of system development charges, the report adopted
by reference in Section (3)(B) shall be amended and updated to reflect the assumptions,
conclusions and findings of such reviews and Section (3)(B) shall be amended to adopt by
reference such updated reports.
Section 4. Receipt and Expenditure of System Development Charges.
Page 10 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
r
lIB
(A) Trust Accounts. The City hereby establishes a separate trust account for each type of system
development charge to be designated as the "Transportation Impact Fee" which shall be
maintained separate and apart from all other accounts of the city. All system development
charge payments shall be deposited into the appropriate trust account immediately upon receipt.
(B) Use of System Development Charges. The monies deposited into the trust accounts shall be
used solely for the purpose of providing capital improvements necessitated by development,
including, but not limited to:
1) design and construction plan preparation;
2) permitting and fees;
3) land and materials acquisition, including any costs of acquisition or condemnation;
4) construction of improvements and structures;
5) design and construction of new drainage facilities required by the construction of capital
improvements and structures;
6) relocating utilities required by the construction of improvements and structures;
7) landscaping;
8) construction management and inspection;
9) surveying, soils and material testing;
10) acquisition of capital equipment;
11) repayment of monies transferred or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the city which
were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein provided;
12) payment of principal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any bonds
or other indebtedness issued by the city to fund capital improvements;
13) direct costs of complying with the provisions ofORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the
costs of developing system development charges methodologies and providing an annual
accounting of system development charges expenditures.
14) consulting costs for the review of alternative rates as provided for in Section (3)(0) of this
ordinance.
Page 11- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11T'
lIB
(C) Prohibited Uses of Svstem Develooment Charges. Funds on deposit in system development
charge trust accounts shall not be used for:
1) any expenditure that would be classified as a routine maintenance or repair expense; or
2) costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more than
an incidental part of other capital improvements.
(D) Capital Improvements Authorized to be Financed by System Development Char2es.
Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system development charges
revenue shall be included in the city's capital improvement program. The capital improvement
program shall:
1) list the specific capital improvement projects that may be funded with system development
charges revenues;
2) provide the cost of each capital improvement project, and an estimate of the amounts of
each revenue source, including system development charges, that will be used to fund each
project;
3) provide the estimated timing of each capital improvement project; and
4) be updated at least once every five (5) years.
(E) Investment of Trust Account Revenue. Any funds on deposit in system development charges
trust accounts which are not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested by the city.
All income derived from such investments shall be deposited in the system development charges
trust accounts and used as provided herein.
(F) Refunds of System Development Charges. System development charges shall be refunded in
accordance with the following requirements:
1) An applicant or owner shall be eligible to apply for a full or partial refund if:
a) The building permit or development permit has expired and the development authorized
by such permit is not complete;
b) An error was made in calculating the amount of the system $1evelopment charges
resulting in overpayment, and the error is discovered within three months of the date the
SDC was paid. The amount of the refund will be limited to the amount collected in
excess of the appropriate SDC.
c) The system development charges have not been expended or encumbered prior to the
end of the fiscal year immediately following the ninth anniversary of the date upon which
such charges were paid. For the purposes of this section, system development charges
Page 12 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
",.
liB
collected shall be deemed to be expended or encumbered on the basis of the first system
development charges in shall be the first system development charges out.
2) The application for refund shall be filed with the City Administrator and contain the
following:
a) The name and address of the applicant;
b) The location of the property which was the subject of the system development charges;
c) A notarized sworn statement that the petitioner is the then current owner of the property
on behalf of which the system development charges were paid, including proof of
ownership, such as a certified copy of the latest recorded deed;
d) The date the system development charges were paid;
e) A copy of the receipt of payment for the system development charges; and, if
appropriate,
f) The date the building permit or development permit was issued and the date of
expiration.
3) The application shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the expiration of the building permit
or development permit or within ninety (90) days ofthe end of the fiscal year following the
ninth anniversary of the date upon which the system development charges were paid.
Failure to timely apply for a refund of the system development charges shall waive any right
to a refund.
4) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a petition for refund, the City
Administrator will advise the petitioner of the status of the request for refund, and if such
request is valid, the system development charges shall be returned to the petitioner.
5) Refunds will not be granted based on a change in use of the property which results in a
reduced impact on the city's capital facilities.
6) A building permit or development permit which is subsequently issued for a development
on the same property which was the subject of a refund shall pay the systems development
charges as required by Section (3).
(G) Annual Accounting Reports. The city shall prepare an annual report accounting for system
development charges, including the total amount of system development charges revenue
collected in each trust account, and the capital improvement projects that were funded.
(II) Challenge ofExpenditures. Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an expenditure
of system development charges revenues.
Page 13 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
-
1lI"
lIB
1) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing, to the City Administrator for review within
two years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the following information:
a) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the
expenditure;
b) The amount of the expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate date
on which it was made; and
c) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
2) If the City Administrator determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance with
the provisions of this ordinance and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of system
development charges trust account revenues from other revenue sources shall be made
within one year following the determination that the expenditures were not appropriate.
3) The City Administrator shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure
review to the citizen or other interested person who requested the review with ten (10) days
of completion of the review.
Section 5. Severability. If any clause, section, or provision of this ordinance shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause, the remaining portion of said ordinance shall be in
full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporate herein.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be legally effective on January 1, 2000.
ApProVedastofO~~ 11- Il-q?
City Attorney Date
APPROVED:
Richard Jennings. Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 14 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Ill"
IIC
2007
~ ~ 'fq
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2111 TO ADDRESS ONLY
STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND SETTING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1999, the City conducted a public hearing on traffic impact fees
(TIP's); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 223.297-223.314, a methodology justifying the new TIP's was
adopted by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2111 established a prior methodology for TIP's and stormwater
drainage system development charges; and
WHEREAS, the stormwater drainage system development charges are still based on the
methodology contained in Ordinance No. 2111 which has been reviewed and found to be still sufficient,
and
WHEREAS, certain housekeeping amendments are now necessary to modify Ordinance No.
2111 so that it references only stormwater drainage system development charges; NOW, THEREFORE
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS
Section 1. Section 1 (E) of Ordinance No. 2111 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(E) "Capital Improvements" shall mean public facilities or assets used for stormwater drainage.
Section 2. Section 1 (S) of Ordinance No. 2111 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(S) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is
(1) Required as a condition of development approval~
(2) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (eIP); 8lld either
a) not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval; or
b) located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be build larger or with greater capacity than
is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related.
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11r
IIC
Section 3. Section 1 (V) of Ordinance No. 2111 is hereby repealed.
Section 4. Section 3 (C) of Ordinance No. 2111 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(C). Payment of Chanzes. Applicants for building permits or development permits
shall pay the applicable system development charges prior to the issuance of the
permits by the city.
Section 5. Section 3 (F) (3) of Ordinance No. 2111 is hereby amended to read as follows:
3) The City Administrator shall determine if the proposed qualified public improvement is:
a) Required as a condition of development approval;
b) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP);and either
c) i) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development
approval; or
ii) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than
is necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related
Section 6. Section 3 (F) (5) of Ordinance No. 2111 is hereby amended to read as follows:
5) A proposed improvement which does not meet all three (3) of the criteria included in
Section 3 (F)(3) above shall not be considered a qualified public improvement and the city
is not required ORS 223.297 - 223.314 to provide a credit for such an improvement.
However, the city shall grant a credit, in an amount not to exceed fifty percent (500.10) of
the total amount of the applicable SDC, for certain other contributions of capital facilities
under the following conditions:
a) The capital facilities being contributed must exceed the local stormwater drainage
capacity (for SDC) required for the specific type of development (i.e., residential,
industrial, etc.); and
b) Only the value of the contribution which exceeds the local- stormwater drainage
capacity (for SDC) required for the specific type of development (i.e., residential,
industrial, etc.) shall be considered when calculating the credit; and
c) Donations for on-site right-of-way are not eligible for the credit.
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
II!'
IIC
Section 7. Section 3 (G) (1) of Ordinance No. 2111 is amended to read as follows:
1) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right to
request a hearing to review the denial by the City Administrator of a proposed credit for
contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section (3)(F).
Section 8. Section 4 (A) of Ordinance No. 2111 is amended to read as follows:
(A) Trust Accounts. The City hereby establishes a separate trust account for each type of
system development charge to be designated as the "Stormwater SDC ", which shall be
maintained separate and apart from all other accounts of the city. All system development
charge payments shall be deposited into the appropriate trust account immediately upon
receipt.
Section 9. This ordinance shall be legally effective on January 1,2000.
Approved as to form{/} ~ ~ ll- \ <(J -11
City Attorney Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 3 .: COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
-
liD
MEMO
FROM:
City Council through City Administrator~ ____
Public Works Program Manager 4 ~
TO:
SUBJECT:
Traffic Impact Fee Resolution
DATE:
November 1 7, 1 999
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached resolution establishing a schedule of Traffic Impact Fees.
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance, which was approved earlier, requires that the
TIF schedule be established by resolution. The attached resolution establishes the
fee schedule that was developed in the TIF update methodology and was directed for
adoption after Council received public input at the November 8, 1999 public hearing
on TIFs. This new TIF schedule will be effective on January 1, 2000. Staff
recommends that the resolution be approved.
Ill"
lID
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2008
RESOLUTION NO. J 5b3
A RESOLUTION SETTING THE AMOUNTS OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF),
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE, ALTERNATIVE RATE REVIEW FEE, AND
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT REQUEST FEE IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2248; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPOSmON OF THE FEES
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 - 223.314 authorizes local governments to impose system
development charges~ and
WHEREAS, the City has developed methodologies to support the implementation of a
Traffic Impact Fee Systems Development Charge; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. 2248 establishing a Traffic Impact Fee
Systems Development Charge; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2248 provides that the amounts of the Traffic Impact Fee
Systems Development Charge shall be set by resolution; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2248 provides for the imposition offees to be charged for the
review of alternative rates and alternative payment requests; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2248 provides that the amounts of the fees to be charged for
the review of alternative rates and alternative payment requests shall be set by resolution; NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS
The Schedule of Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) charges attached as Exhibit "A", and, by this
reference, incorporated herein is hereby adopted to be imposed beginning on the effective date
identified in Section 4 of this resolution. For those land uses that are not specifically identified by the
ITE land-use categories included in Exhibit "J.:', the City Engineer shall use the land-use category
identified in Exhibit" A" that is most similar to trip generation. An applicant who does not agree with
the City Engineer's decision may appeal this decision in accordance with Ordinance No. 2248.
Page 1 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
if
lID
Section 2.
ALTERNATIVE RATE REVIEW FEE
The minimum fee for review of an alternative rate calculation shall be two-hundred-and-fifty
dollars ($250), to be paid at the time the alternative rate calculation is submitted for review. If the
City hires a consultant to assist in reviewing the information submitted, the cost of the consultant's
review shall be shared equally by the City and the applicant, and the applicant shall pay this additional
fee at the time the City decides whether or not to accept the alternative rate.
Section 3.
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT REQUEST
The fee for review ofan alternative payment request shall be one-hundred dollars ($100.00).
This fee includes the cost of recording a lien against the property associated with the request.
Section 4.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The effective date for imposition of the fees and charges identified in this resolution shall be
January 1, 2000.
Section 5.
REPEAL
This Resolution repeals all prior resolutions which establish Traffic ImpactF ees(TIF) Systems
Development Charges.
Approved as to formm . rnr ~ 11- ,~ - '1 ~
City Attorney Date
APPROVED:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATIEST:
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2 -
COUNCil BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
111"
EXHIBIT "A"
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF) SCHEDULE
lID
ITE LAND USE CODE/CAT.
RESIDENTIAL
210 Single Family Detached (also
Duplex, Mfgd Housing not in Park)
220 Apartment
230 Residential Condorrownhouse
240 Manufactured Housing (in Park)
TOT AL TIF PER UNIT
$ 3,092/dwelling unit
$ 2, 1 42/dwelling unit
$ I ,893/dwelling unit
$ 1 ,554/dwelling unit
RECREATIONAL
411 City Park
412 County Park
416 Campground/RV Park
420 Marina
430 Golf Course
432 Golf Driving Range
435 Multipurpose Rec. Facility
443 Movie Theater w/ out matinee
444 Movie Theater w/matinee
473 CasinoNideo Poker/Lottery
480 Amusementffheme Park
491 Tennis Courts
492 Racquet Club
494 Bowling Alley
495 Recreational Community Center
$ 568/acre
$ 815/acre
$ 1 ,455/camp site
$ 1,435/berth
$ 17,321/hole
$ 4,468/tee
$ 43,803/facility
$ 78,629/screen
$ 54,801/screen
$ 48,000rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 27,077/acre
$ ll,094/court
$ 14,486/court
$ 11,912/lane
$ 11,089rr.S.F.G.F.A.
INSTITUTIONAL/MEDICAL
501 Military Base
520 Elementary School
522 Middle/Junior High School
530 High School
540 Junior/Community College
550 University/College
560 Church
565 Daycare Center/Preschool
590 Library
610 Hospital
620 Nursing Home
630 Clinic
$ 610/employee
$ 131/student
$ 187/student
$ 434/student
$ 371/student
$ 574/student
$ 2,208rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 583/student
$ 6,961rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 4,030Lbed
$ 894/bed
$ 10,770rr.S.F.G.F.A.
NOTE:
T.S.F.G.F.A = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area
T.S.F.G.A = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area
V.F.P = Vehicle Fueling Position
Page 1 of3
if
lID
ITE LAND USE CODE/CA TEGORY TOTAL TIF PER UNIT
COMMERCIAUSERVICES
310 HotellMotel $ 2,546/room
812 Building Materials/Lumber $ 8,334rr.S.F.G.F.A.
813 Free-Standing Discout Store
with Groceries $ 6,272rr.S.F.G.F.A.
814 Specialty Retail Center $ 8,536rr.S.F.G.F.A.
815 Free-Standing Discount Stores
without Groceries $ 7,564/T.S.F.G.F.A.
816 HardwareIPaint Stores $ 10,765rr.S.F.G.F.A.
817 Nursery/Garden Center $ 7 ,573rr.S.F .G.F.A.
820 Shopping Center $ 5,732rr.S.F.G.F.A.
823 Factory Outlet Center $ 3,55l/T.S.F.G.F.A.
831 Quality Restaurant (not a chain) $ 22,422rr.S.F.G.F.A.
832 High Turnover, Sit-Down Rest. $ 11,370rr.S.F.G.F.A.
833 Fast Food Rest. (No Drive Thru) $ 31,231rr.S.F.G.F.A.
834 Fast Food Rest (Dri ve- Thru) $ 21,640rr.S.F.G.F.A.
836 Drinking Place/Bar $ 1O,067/T.S.F.G.F.A.
837 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop $ 5,888/Service Stall
840 Automobile Service Center $ 8,416rr.S.F.G.L.A.
841 New Car Sales $ 7,871rr.S.F.G.F.A.
844 Gasoline/Service Station (no Market
or Car Wash) $ 11,282N.F.P.
845 Gasoline/Service Station (with
Convenience Market) $ 10,896N.F.P.
846 Gasoline/Service Station with
Convenience Market & Car Wash $ 10,230N.F.P.
848 Tire Store $ 5,220rr.S.F.G.F.A.
850 Supermarket $ 14,590rr.S.F.G.F.A.
851 Convenience Market (24 hour) $ 43,348rr.S.F.G.F.A.
853 Convenience Market with Fuel Pump $ 31,871N.F.P.
860 Wholesale Market $ l,413rr.S.F.G.F.A.
861 Discount Club $ 8,773rr.S.F.G.F.A.
862 Home Improvement Superstore $ 7,356rr.S.F.G.F.A.
863 Electronics Superstore $ 9,453rr.S.F.G.F.A.
870 Apparel Store $ 9,773rr.S.F.G.F.A.
880 Pharmacy/Drugstore w/out Drive
Thru Window $ l2,029.rr.S.F.G.F.A.
881 PharmacylDrugstore w/Drive Thru $ 11,775rr.S.F.G.F.A.
NOTE:
T.S.F.G.F.A = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area
T.S.F.G.A = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area
V.F.P = Vehicle Fueling Position
Page 2 of3
1n"
ITE LAND USE CODE/CAT
TOT AL TIF PER UNIT
lID
COMMERCIAL/SERVICES
890 Furniture Store
895 Video Arcade
896 Video Rental Store
911 Bank/Savings: Walk-In
912 Bank/Savings:Drive-In
$ 1,062/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 75,877rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 42, 126rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 36,255rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 61,446rr.S.F.G.F.A.
OFFICE
710 General Office Building
714 Corp. Headquarters Building
715 Single Tenant Office Building
720 Medical-Dental Office Building
730 Government Office Building
731 State Motor Vehicles Dept.
732 US Post Office
750 Office Park
760 Research/Development Center
770 Business Park
$ 3,770/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 2,644rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 3,962/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 12,372rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 23,604/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 56,8511T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 37,048/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 3,9111T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 2,777/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 4,369/T.S.F.G.F.A.
PORTIINDUSTRIAL
030 Truck Terminals
090 ParklRide with Bus Service
093 Light Rail Station w/Parking
110 General Light Industrial
120 General Heavy Industrial
130 Industrial Park
140 Manufacturing
150 Warehouse
151 Mini-Warehouse
170 Utilities
$ 3,373/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 1,227/Parking Space.
$ 684/Parking Space
$ 2,387rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 514rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 2,383/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 1,308rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 1,698rr.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 856/T.S.F.G.F.A.
$ 1,678rr.S.F.G.F.A.
NOTE:
T.S.F.G.F.A = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area
T.S.F.G.A = Thousand Square Feet Gross Floor Area
V.F.P = Vehicle Fueling Position
Page 3 of3
,..
lIE
Memo
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department
to: Mayor and City Council via John Brown, City Administrato$
from: D. Randall Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director
date: November 19, 1999
subject: Parks System Development Charges Implementing Ordinances
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the two attached ordinances which:
1) Implements the updated Parks Systems Development Charges (SDC) methodology; and
2) Modifies existing Ordinance 2070 to remove references to Parks SDC's and allow water and
sewer SDC's to remain in effect.
BACKGROUND:
After evaluating public input at a public hearing held on November 8, 1999, Council directed staff
to prepare an ordinance implementing the revised SDC methodology. That ordinance has been
prepared and is attached for Council approval. Staff recommends that this new SDC implementing
ordinance be approved.
Previously enacted Ordinance 2070 implemented SDC's for parks, water and sewer. With the
implementation of the new Parks SDC methodology, it was decided to develop a new ordinance,
which is attached, dealing with only the Parks SDC's. Therefore, the existing ordinance that dealt
with both the parks, water and sewer SDC's required modification to remove references related to
parks and allow it to remain in effect for water and sewer. The modified definition for what is a
"qualified public improvement" which had been changed by the legislature was also included. Staff
is also recommending that the attached amending ordinance incorporating these modifications be
approved.
I1r
lIE
COUNCIL BILL NO.
2009
ORDINANCE NO. o?d-.t;;o
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A METHODOWGY FOR PARKS AND
RECREATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES; AND SETIING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, future growth should contribute its fair share to the cost of improvements and
additions to city Parks and Recreation facilities that are required to accommodate the needs of such
growth; and
WHEREAS, the imposition of system development charges will provide a source of
revenue to fund the construction or improvement of the city's Parks and Recreations facilities
necessitated by growth; and
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 - 223.314, adopted in 1989, authorizes local governments to
impose system development charges; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are charges incurred upon the election to develop
property at a specific use, density and/or intensity, and the incurred charge equals, or is less than the
actual cost of providing public facilities commensurate with the needs of the chosen use, density,
and/or intensity; election of other uses, densities, and/or intensities causes direct and proportional
changes in the amount of the incurred charge; and system development charges are separate from
and in addition to any applicable tax, assessment, charge, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee
provided by law or imposed as a condition of development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are fees for services because they are based upon
a development's receipt of services considering the specific nature of the development; and
WHEREAS, system development charges are imposed on the activity of development, not
on the land, owner, or property, and therefore, are not taxes on property or on a property owner as a
direct consequence of ownership of property within the meaning of Section lIb, Article XI of the
Oregon Constitution or the legislation implementing that section; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is intended only to be a financing mechanism for needed extra
capacity capital facilities associated with new development and does not represent the consideration
of land use planning issues or elimination of any possible existing capacity deficiencies; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Page 1 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~ 'IW'"
lIE
Section 1. Definitions. The following definitions apply:
(A) "Applicant" shall mean the owner or other person who applies for a building permit or
development permit.
(B) "Bancroft Bond" shall mean a bond issued by the city to finance a capital improvement in
accordance with ORS 223.205 - 223.295.
(C) "Building" shall mean any structure, either temporary or permanent, built for the support,
shelter or enclosure of persons, chattels or property of any kind. This term shall include
tents, trailers, mobile homes or any vehicles serving in any way the function of a building.
This term shall not include temporary construction sheds or trailers erected to assist in
construction and maintained during the term of a building permit.
(0) "Building Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate authorizing the construction
or siting of any building. For purposes of this ordinance, the term "Building Permit" shall
also include any construction or installation permits which may be required for those
structures or buildings, such as a mobile home, that do not require a building permit in order
to be occupied.
(E) "Capital Improvements" shall mean public facilities or assets used for Parks and Recreation.
(F) "Citizen or Other Interested Person" shall mean any person who is a legal resident of the City
of Woodburn as evidenced by registration as a voter in the city, or by other proof of
residency; or a person who owns, occupies, or otherwise has an interest in real property
which is located within the city limits or is otherwise subject to the imposition of system
development charges, as outlined in Section 3 of this ordinance.
(G) "City" shall mean the City of Woodburn, Oregon.
(II) "Credit" shall mean the amount of money by which the SDC for a specific development may
be reduced because of construction of eligible capital facilities as outlined in this ordinance.
(I) "Developmentt. shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a change in the
use of a structure or land, in a manner which increases the usage of any capital improvements
or which will contribute to the need for additional or enlarged capital improvements.
(1) t'Development Permit" shall mean an official document or certificate, other than a building
permit, authorizing development.
(K) "Dwelling Unit,t shall mean a building or a portion of a building designed for residential
occupancy, consisting of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living
Page 2 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
-
llE
quarters for one family only.
(L) "Encumbered" shall mean monies committed by contract or purchase order in a manner that
obligates the city to expend the encumbered amount upon delivery of goods, the rendering of
services, or the conveyance of real property provided by a vendor, supplier, contractor or
Owner.
(M) "Improvement Fee" shall mean a fee for costs associated with capital improvements to be
constructed after the effective date of this ordinance. Notwithstanding anything in this
ordinance to the contrary, it is an incurred charge or cost based upon the use of or the
availability for use of the systems and capital improvements required to provide services and
facilities necessary to meet the routine obligations of the use and ownership of property, and
to provide for the public health and safety upon development.
(N) "Off-site" shall mean not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval.
(0) "On-site" shall mean located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
developmental approval.
(P) "Owner" shall mean the person holding legal title to the real property upon which
development is to occur.
(Q) "Person" shall mean an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association,
or any other similar entity.
(R) "Prime Rate of Interest" shall mean the base rate on corporate loans posted by at least 75%
of the nation's 30 largest banks as posted in the Wall Street Journal.
(S) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is:
1) Required as a condition of development approval;
2) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP);and either
3) a) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of development
approval; or
b) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval and required to be built larger or with greater capacity than is
necessary for the particular development project to which the improvement fee is
related
(T) "Right-of-Way" shall mean that portion ofland that is dedicated for public use.
(U) "System Development Charge" shall mean an improvement fee assessed or collected at the
Page 3 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
ifr
liE
time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit or
building permit. System development charges are separate from and in addition to any
applicable tax, assessment, fee in lieu of assessment, or other fee or charge provided by law
or imposed as a condition of development.
(V) "Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Executive Summary, Methodology,
and Rate Study Update" shall mean the report adopted pursuant to Section (3)(B), as
amended and supplemented pursuant to Section (3)(H).
Section 2. Rules of Construction. For the purposes of administration and enforcement of
this ordinance, unless otherwise stated in this ordinance, the following rules of construction shall
apply:
(A) In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of this ordinance and any
caption, illustration, summary table, or illustrative table, the text shall control.
(B) The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" is permissive.
(C) Words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular shall
include the plural and the plural the singular, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary;
and use of the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender.
(0) The phrase "used forll includes "arranged for", "designed forll, "maintained for", or "occupied
for".
(E) Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two or more
items, conditions, provisions, or events connected by the conjunction "and", "or" or
"either...or", the conjunction shall be interpreted as follows:
1) "And II indicates that all the connected terms, conditions, provisions or events shall
apply.
2) "Or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events may apply
singly or in any combination.
3) "Either" ... or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events shall
apply singly but not in combination.
(F) The word "includes" shall not limit a term to the specific example, but is intended to extend
its meaning to all other instances or circumstances of like kind or character.
Section 3. Imposition of System Development Charges. System development charges are
hereby imposed, subject to the following conditions:
Page 4 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~ ",.,.
liE
(A) Development Subiect to Char~es. System development charges are imposed on all new
development within the city for capital improvements for transportation. The system
development charges shall be paid in addition to all other fees, charges and assessments due
for development, and are intended to provide funds only for capital improvements
necessitated by new development.
(B) Rates of Charges.
1) The city hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the report entitled "Parks and
Recreation Systems Development Charges Executive Summary, Methodology, and
Rate Study Update" dated September 30, 1999, particularly the assumptions,
conclusions and findings in such study as to the determination of anticipated costs of
capital improvements required to accommodate growth and the rates for system
development charges to reimburse the city for such capital improvements.
2)
Page 5 -
System development charges shall be imposed and calculated for the change in use,
alternation, expansion or replacement of a building or dwelling unit if such change in
use, alternation, expansion or replacement results in an increase in the use of capital
improvements compared to the present use of the development. The amount of the
system development charges to be paid shall be the difference between the rate for the
proposed development and the rate that would be imposed for the development prior
to the change in use, alternation, expansion or replacement.
3)
The city shall, based upon the report referred to in subsection (1) above, adopt by
resolution the amounts of system development charges.
4)
An additional systems development charge may be assessed by the city if the demand
placed on the city's capital facilities exceeds the amount initially estimated at the time
systems development charges are paid. The additional charge shall be for the
increased demand or for the demand above the underestimate, and it shall be based
upon the fee that is in effect at the time the additional demand impact is determined,
and not upon the fee structure that may have been in effect at the time the initial
systems development charge was paid. This provision does not apply to single family
or other residential units unless additional rental units are created.
5)
Notwithstanding any other provision, the SDC rates adopted pursuant to this
ordinance may on January lit of each year, after the first year that the ordinance is
effective, be adjusted by the City Administrator to account for changes in the costs of
acquiring and constructing facilities. The adjustment factor shall be based on the
change in average market value of all land in the city, according to the records of the
County Tax Assessor, and the change in construction costs according to the
engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington) Construction Cost
Index; and shall be determined as follows:
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
-
liE
Change in Average Market Value X 0.50
+ Chan~e in Construction Cost Index X 0.50
= System Development Charge Adjustment Factor
The System Development Charge Adjustment Factor shall be used to adjust the
System Development Charge rates, unless they are otherwise adjusted by action of
the City Council based on adoption of an updated methodology or capital
improvements plan (master plan).
(C) Payment of Charges. Applicants for building permits or development permits shall pay the
applicable system development charges prior to the issuance of the permits by the city.
(D) Alternative Rate Calculation. Applicants may submit alternative rates for system
development charges, subject to the following conditions:
1)
Page 6 -
In the event an applicant believes that the impact on city capital improvements
resulting from a development is less than the fee established in Section (3) (B), the
applicant may submit alternative system development charge rate calculations,
accompanied by the alternative rate review fee established by resolution for this
purpose, to the City Administrator. The city may hire a consultant to review the
alternative system development charge rate calculations, and may pay the consulting
fees from system development charges revenues.
2)
The alternative system development charge rate calculations shall be based on data,
information and assumptions contained in this ordinance and the adopted system
development charges study or an independent source, provided that the independent
source is a local study supported by a data base adequate for the conclusions
contained in such study performed pursuant to a generally accepted methodology and
based upon generally accepted standard sources of information relating to facilities
planning, cost analysis and demographics.
3)
If the city council determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by
the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates comply
with the requirements of this section by using a generally acceptt?d methodology, the
alternative system development charges rates shall be paid in lieu of the rates set forth
in Section (3)(B).
4)
If the city council determines that the data, information and assumptions utilized by
the applicant to calculate the alternative system development charges rates do not
comply with the requirements of this section or were not calculated by a generally
COUNCn.. BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
""
lIE
accepted methodology, then the city council shall provide to the applicant (by
certified mail, return receipt requested) written notification of the rejection of the
alternative system development charges rates and the reason therefor.
5) Any applicant who has submitted a proposed alternative system development charges
rate pursuant to this section and desires the immediate issuance of a building permit
or development permit shall pay the applicable system development charges rates
pursuant to Section (3)(B). Said payment shall be deemed paid under "protest" and
shall not be construed as a waiver of any right of review. Any difference between the
amount paid and the amount due, as determined by the city council, shall be refunded
to the applicant.
(E) Exemptions. The following development shall be exempt from payment of the system
development charges:
1) Alternations, expansion or replacement of an existing dwelling unit where no
additional dwelling units are created.
2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not create additional
dwelling units and which do not create additional demands on the city's capital
improvements.
3) The issuance of a permit for a mobile home on which applicable system development
charges have previously been made as documented by receipts issued by the city for
such prior payment.
(F) Credits for Developer Contributions of Oualified Public Improvements. The city shall grant a
credit, not to exceed 1000.10 of the applicable Parks and Recreation SDC, against the system
development charges imposed pursuant to Section (3)(A) and (B) for the donation ofland as
permitted by Ordinance 1807, or for the construction of any qualified public improvements.
Such land donation and construction shall be subject to the approval of the city.
1) The amount of developer contribution credit to be applied shall be determined
according to the following standards of valuation:
a) The value of donated lands shall be based upon a written appraisal offair
market value by a qualified and professional appraiser based upon comparable
sales of similar property between unrelated parties in a bargaining transaction;
and
b) The cost of anticipated construction of qualified public improvements shall be
based upon cost estimates certified by a professional architect or engineer.
Page 7 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
,..-
lIE
2) Prior to issuance of a building permit or development permit, the applicant shall
submit to the City Administrator a proposed plan and estimate of cost for
contributions of qualified public improvements. The proposed plan and estimate shall
include:
a) a designation of the development for which the proposed plan is being
submitted.
b) a legal description of any land proposed to be donated pursuant to Chapter 39
of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance 1807, and a written appraisal
prepared in conformity with subsection (1)(a) of this section;
c) a list of the contemplated capital improvements contained within the plan;
d) an estimate of proposed construction costs certified by a professional architect
or engineer; and
e) a proposed time schedule for completion of the proposed plan.
3) The City Administrator shall determine if the proposed qualified public improvement
IS:
a) Required as a condition of development approval;
b) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP);and either
c) i) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval; or
ii) Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval and required to be built larger or with
greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to
which the improvement fee is related
4)
The decision of the City Administrator as to whether to accept the proposed plan of
contribution and the value of such contribution shall be in writing and issued within
fifteen (15) working days of the review. A copy shall be provid~ to the applicant.
5)
A proposed improvement which does not meet all three (3) of the criteria included in
Section 3(F)(3) above shall not be considered a qualified public improvement and the
city is not required ORS 223.297 - 223.314 to provide a credit for such an
improvement. However, the city shall grant a credit, in an amount not to exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the total amount of the applicable Parks and Recreation SDC, for
Page 8 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
lIE
certain other contributions of capital facilities under the following conditions:
a) The capital facilities being contributed must exceed the city standard required
for the specific type of development (i.e., residential, industrial, etc.); and
b) Only the value of the contribution which exceeds the city standard required
for the specific type of development (i.e., residential, industrial, etc.) shall be
considered when calculating the credit; and
6) Any applicant who submits a proposed plan pursuant to this section and desires the
immediate issuance of a building permit or development permit, shall pay the
applicable system development charges. Said payment shall be deemed paid under
I'protest" and shall not be construed as a waiver of any review rights. Any difference
between the amount paid and the amount due, as determined by the City
Administrator, shall be refunded to the applicant. In no event shall a refund by city
under this subsection exceed the amount originally paid by the applicant.
(G) Appeals and Review Hearings.
1) An applicant who is required to pay system development charges shall have the right
to request a hearing to review the denial by the City Administrator of a proposed
credit for contribution of qualified public improvements pursuant to Section (3)(F).
2) Such hearing shall be requested by the applicant within fifteen (15) days of the date of
first receipt of the denial by the City Administrator. Failure to request a hearing
within the time provided shall be deemed a waiver of such right.
3) The request for hearing shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall contain the
following:
a) The name and address of the applicant;
b) The legal description of the property in question;
c) If issued, the date the building permit or development permit was issued;
d) A brief description of the nature of the development being undertaken
pursuant to the building permit or development permit;
e) If paid, the date the system development charges were paid; and
f) A statement of the reasons why the applicant is requesting the hearing.
Page 9 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
1lr
lIE
4) Upon receipt of such request, the City Administrator shall schedule a hearing before
the city council at a regularly scheduled meeting or a special meeting called for the
purpose of conducting the hearing and shall provide the applicant written notice of
the time and place of the hearing. Such hearing shall be held within forty-five (45)
days of the date the request for hearing was filed.
5) Such hearing shall be before the city council and shall be conducted in a manner
designed to obtain all information and evidence relevant to the requested hearing.
Formal rules of civil procedures and evidence shall not be applicable; however, the
hearing shall be conducted in a fair and impartial manner with each party having an
opportunity to be heard and to present information and evidence.
6) Any applicant who requests a hearing pursuant to this section and desires the
immediate issuance of a building permit or development permit shall pay prior to or at
the time the request for hearing is filed the applicable system development charges
pursuant to Section (3)(B). Said payment shall be deemed paid under "protest" and
shall not construed as a waiver of any review rights.
7) An applicant may request a hearing under this section without paying the applicable
system development charges, but no building permit or development permit shall be
issued until such system development charges are paid in the amount initially
calculated or the amount approved upon completion of the review provided in this
section.
(Ii) Review of Study and Rates. This ordinance and the Parks and Recreation System
Development Charges Executive Summary, Methodology, and Rate Study shall be reviewed
at least once every five (5) years. The review shall consider new estimates of population and
other socioeconomic data, changes in the cost of construction and land acquisition, and
adjustments to the assumptions, conclusions or findings set forth in the report adopted by
Section (3)(B). The purpose of this review is to evaluate and revise, ifnecessary, the rates of
the system development charges to assure that they do not exceed the reasonably anticipated
costs of the city's capital improvements. In the event the review of the ordinance or the
report alters or changes the assumptions, conclusions and findings of the report, or alters or
changes the amount of system development charges, the report adopted by reference in
Section (3)(B) shall be amended and updated to reflect the assumptions, conclusions and
findings of such reviews and Section (3)(B) shall be amended to adopt by reference such
updated reports.
Section 4. Receipt and Expenditure of System Development Charges.
(A) Trust Accounts. The City hereby establishes a separate trust account for each type of system
development charge to be designated as the "Parks and Recreation SDC" which shall be
Page 10 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~
liE
maintained separate and apart from all other accounts of the city. All system development
charge payments shall be deposited into the appropriate trust account immediately upon
receipt.
(B) Use of System Development Charges. The monies deposited into the trust accounts shall be
used solely for the purpose of providing capital improvements necessitated by development,
including, but not limited to:
1) design and construction plan preparation;
2) permitting and fees;
3) land and materials acquisition, including any costs of acquisition or condemnation;
4) construction of improvements and structures;
5) design and construction of new drainage facilities required by the construction of
capital improvements and structures;
6) relocating utilities required by the construction of improvements and structures;
7) landscaping;
8) construction management and inspection;
9) surveying, soils and material testing;
10) acquisition of capital equipment;
11) repayment of monies transferred or borrowed from any budgetary fund of the city which
were used to fund any of the capital improvements as herein provided;
12) payment ofprlncipal and interest, necessary reserves and costs of issuance under any .
bonds or other indebtedness issued by the city to fund capital improvements;
13) direct costs of complying with the provisions ofORS 223.297 to 223.314, including the
costs of developing system development charges methodologies and providing an annual
accounting of system development charges expenditures.
14) consulting costs for the review of alternative rates as provided for in Section (3)(D) of
this ordinance.
Page 11 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11T'
liE
(C) Prohibited Uses of System Development Charges. Funds on deposit in system development
charge trust accounts shall not be used for:
1) any expenditure that would be classified as a routine maintenance or repair expense; or
2) costs associated with the construction of administrative office facilities that are more
than an incidental part of other capital improvements.
(D) Capital Improvements Authorized to be Financed by System Development Charges.
Any capital improvement being funded wholly or in part with system development charges
revenue shall be included in the citYs capital improvement program. The capital
improvement program shall:
1) list the specific capital improvement projects that may be funded with system
development charges revenues;
2) provide the cost of each capital improvement project, and an estimate of the amounts of
each revenue source, including system development charges, that will be used to fund
each project;
3) provide the estimated timing of each capital improvement project; and
4) be updated at least once every five (5) years.
(E) Investment of Trust Account Revenue. Any funds on deposit in system development
charges trust accounts which are not immediately necessary for expenditure shall be invested
by the city. All income derived from such investments. shall be deposited in the system
development charges trust accounts and used as provided herein.
(F) Refunds of System Development Char2es. System development charges shall be refunded in
accordance with the following requirements:
1) An applicant or owner shall be eligible to apply for a full or partial refund if:
a) The building permit or development permit has expired and the development
authorized by such permit is not complete;
b) An error was made in calculating the amount of the system development charges
resulting in overpayment, and the error is discovered within three months of the date
the SDC was paid. The amount of the refund will be limited to the amount collected
in excess of the appropriate SDC.
Page 12 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~ 1ft'"
liE
c) The system development charges have not been expended or encumbered prior to the
end of the fiscal year immediately following the ninth anniversary of the date upon
which such charges were paid. For the purposes of this section, system development
charges collected shall be deemed to be expended or encumbered on the basis of the
first system development charges in shall be the first system development charges
out.
2) The application for refund shall be filed with the City Administrator and contain the
following:
a) The name and address of the applicant;
b) The location of the property which was the subject of the system development
charges;
c) A notarized sworn statement that the petitioner is the then current owner of the
property on behalf of which the system development charges were paid, including
proof of ownership, such as a certified copy of the latest recorded deed;
d) The date the system development charges were paid;
e) A copy of the receipt of payment for the system development charges; and, if
appropriate,
f) The date the building permit or development permit was issued and the date of
expiration.
3) The application shall be filed within ninety (90) days of the expiration of the building
permit or development permit or within ninety (90) days of the end of the fiscal year
following the ninth anniversary of the date upon which the system development charges
were paid. Failure to timely apply for a refund of the system development charges shall
waive any right to a refund.
4) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt ofa petition for refund, the City
Administrator will advise the petitioner of the status of the request for refund, and if such
request is valid, the system development charges shall be returned to the petitioner.
5) Refunds will not be granted based on a change in use of the property which results in a
reduced impact on the citYs capital facilities.
6) A building permit or development permit which is subsequently issued for a development
on the same property which was the subject of a refund shall pay the systems
development charges as required by Section (3).
Page 13 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
...
liE
(G) Annual Accounting Reports. The city shall prepare an annual report accounting for system
development charges, including the total amount of system development charges revenue
collected in each trust account, and the capital improvement projects that were funded.
(H) Challenge of Expenditures. Any citizen or other interested person may challenge an
expenditure of system development charges revenues.
1) Such challenge shall be submitted, in writing, to the City Administrator for review within
two years following the subject expenditure, and shall include the following information:
a) The name and address of the citizen or other interested person challenging the
expenditure;
b) The amount of the expenditure, the project, payee or purpose, and the approximate
date on which it was made; and
c) The reason why the expenditure is being challenged.
2) If the City Administrator determines that the expenditure was not made in accordance
with the provisions of this ordinance and other relevant laws, a reimbursement of system
development charges trust account revenues from other revenue sources shall be made
within one year following the determination that the expenditures were not appropriate.
3) The City Administrator shall make written notification of the results of the expenditure
review to the citizen or other interested person who requested the review with ten (10)
days of completion of the review.
Section 5. Severability. If any clause, section, or provision of this ordinance shall be
declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason or cause, the remaining portion of said ordinance
shall be in full force and effect and be valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been
incorporate herein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be legally effective on January 1,2000.
Approved as to form~. ('rfJ?)~
City Attorney
II--IZ- qCj
Date
APPROVED:
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
Page 14 -
COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.
~
IIF
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2010
ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~ t;; J
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1070 TO ADDRESS ONLY WATER
AND SEWER SYSTEM DEVEWPMENT CHARGES AND SE1TING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1999, the City conducted a public hearing on Parks and
Recreation Systems Development Charges (SDC's). and
WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 223.297 - 223.314, methodology justifying the Parks and
Recreation SDC's was adopted by ordinance, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2070 established a prior methodology for Water, Sewer and
Parks and Recreation SDC's; and
WHEREAS, the Water and Sewer System Development Charges are still based on the
methodology contained in Ordinance No. 2070; and
WHEREAS, certain housekeeping amendments are now necessary to modify Ordinance
No. 2070 so that it references only Water and Sewer System Development Charges; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLWWS:
Section 1. Section 1 (D) of Ordinance 2070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(D) "Capital Improvements" shall mean public facilities or assets used for any of
the following: (1) water supply, treatment, storage and transmission/conveyance;
or (2) sewer collection/conveyance, treatment and disposal
Section 1. Section 1 (M) of Ordinance 2070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(M) "Qualified Public Improvement" shall mean a capital improvement that is:
(1) required as a condition of development approval;
(2) identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP); and either
a) not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval; or
b) located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval and required to be build larger or with
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
...
IIF
greater capacity than is necessary for the particular development project to
which the improvement fee is related.
Section 3. Section 3 (A) of Ordinance No. 2070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(A) Development Subject to Charges. System Development Charges are
imposed on all development within the city for capital improvements for
water and sewer. System Development Charges are imposed on any
development outside the city boundary for water and sewer capital
improvements, if such development connects to or otherwise uses the city's
water or sewer systems. The System Development Charges shall be paid in
addition to all other fees, charges and assessments due for development,
and are intended to provide funds only for capital improvements
necessitated by new development.
Section 4. Section 3 (B) (1) of Ordinance No. 2070 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(1) For the purpose of setting Water and Sewer System Development Charges,
the city hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the study entitled "System
Development Charges for Woodburn, Oregon." dated July 29, 1991, particularly
the assumptions, conclusions and findings in such study as to the determination of
anticipated costs of capital improvements required to accommodate growth and
the rates for system development charges to reimburse the city for such capital
improvements.
Section 5. Section 3 (F) (3) of Ordinance No. 2070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(3) The City Administrator shall determine if the proposed qualified public
improvement is:
( a) Required as a condition of development approval;
(b) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP); and either
i) Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject of
development approval; or
II Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property that is the
subject of development approval and required to be built larger or
with greater capacity than is necessary for the particular
development project to which the improvement fee is related.
Section 6. Section 4 (A) of Ordinance No. 2070 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~
11F
(A) Trust Accounts. The city hereby establishes a separate trust account for each
type of System Development Charge to be designated as the "Water SDC
Account," and the "Sewer SDC Account," which shall be maintained separate and
apart from all other accounts of the city. AU System Development Charge
payments shall be deposited into the appropriate trust account immediately upon
receipt.
Section 7. This ordinance shall be legally effective on January 1, 2000.
ApproVedastoformm~ ~ j 1- J g - "I&]
City Attorney Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
-
IIG
Memo
_ Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department
to: Mayor and City Council via John Brown, City Administrator~
from: D. Randall Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director ~
date: November 19, 1999
subject: Park System Development Charges Resolution (SDC)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached resolution establishing a schedule of System Development Charges (SDC) for
Parks.
BACKGRQUND:
The Parks SDC ordinance, which was approved earlier, requires that the SDC schedule be established
by resolution. The attached resolution establishes the fee schedule that was developed in the SDC
update methodology and was directed for adoption after Council received public input at the
November 8, 1999 public hearing. This new SDC schedule will be effective on January 1,2000.
Staff recommends that the resolution be approved.
-
IIG
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2011
RESOLUTION NO. I 5" ~
A RESOLUTION SETI1NG THE AMOUNTS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION
SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE, ALTERNATIVE RATE REVIEW FEE, AND
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT REQUEST FEE IMPOSED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2250; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR IMPOSITION OF THE FEES
WHEREAS, ORS 223.297 - 223.314 authorizes local governments to impose system
development charges; and
WHEREAS, the City has developed methodologies to support the implementation of Parks
and Recreation Systems Development Charge; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted Ordinance No. 2250 establishing Parks and Recreation
Systems Development Charge, and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2250 provides that the amounts of the Parks and Recreation
Systems Development Charge shall be set by resolution; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2250 provides for the imposition offees to be charged for the
review of alternative rates and alternative payment requests; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2250 provides that the amounts of the fees to be charged for
the review of alternative rates and alternative payment requests shall be set by resolution; NOW
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEMS DEVEWPMENT CHARGE.
The schedule of Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge attached as Exhibit" N',
and, by this reference, incorporated herein is hereby adopted to be imposed beginning on the effective
date identified in Section 3 of this resolution.
.-
Section 2.
ALTERNATIVE RATE REVIEW FEE
The minimum fee for review of an alternative rate calculation shall be two-hundred-and-fifty
dollars ($250), to be paid at the time the alternative fate calculation is submitted for review. If the
City hires a consultant to assist in reviewing the information submitted, the cost of the consultant's
review shall be shared equally by the City and the applicant, and the applicant shall pay this additional
fee at the time the City decides whether or not to accept the alternative rate.
Page 1 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
,f
~
IIG
Section 3.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The effective date for imposition of the fees and charges identified in this resolution shall be
January 1, 2000.
Section 4.
REPEAL
This Resolution repeals all prior resolutions which establish Parks and Recreation Systems
Development Charges. A j ~
Approved as to formm.r( ~ , /- I r -1 '1
City Attorney Date
APPROVED:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2 -
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
...
IIG
EXHIBIT "A"
PARKS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
CHARGE SCHEDULE
DEVELOPMENT TYPE
SDC PER UNIT
Single Family (also duplex,
manufactured housing not in a park)
S 762/dwelling unit
Multi-Family
S l109/dwelling unit
Manufactured housing (in a park)
S 635/dwelling unit
Non-Residential
S 5/employee
...
IIH
MEMO
TO:
City Council through the City Administrator pf7
Ben Gillespie, Finance ~
Annual Audit Report
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
December 17, 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1998-99 financial statements have been finalized, and the City's auditors, Boldt, Carlisle,
& Smith, have issued an unqualified opinion on them. As required by statute the financial
statements and the opinion will be filed with the Secretary of State before December 31, 1999.
The auditors stated:
In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the CITY of WOODBURN,
Oregon as of June 30, 1999, and the results of operations. . . for the year then
ended. . .
They also wrote:
The accounting records and internal controls are adequate considering the
size and complexity of the municipal corporation's financial activities.
Copies of the document and their transmittal letter are available for review in the Finance
Office.
The report did note three items that are out of the ordinary: expenditures in excess of appropri-
ations, deficit Fund Balances, and bank deposit reserves.
Expenditures exceeded budget in the Building Permit program. This function is performed by a
contractor who is compensated a fixed percentage of the Building Permit Fees. A large
development paid its Building Permits in the last week of June. The revenue was recorded and
that necessitated paying the contractor, causing the expenditure budget to be overspent.
Three funds had negative Fund Balances as of June 30, 1999:
-
liB
Housing Rehabilitation
Special Assessment
Parks Capital Improvement
$(104,945)
$(241,282)
$(145,821)
The Housing Rehab Fund is financed by a grant. Claims against the grant are made on a
reimbursement basis. It is not uncommon for a fund that is reliant on this type of grant to
have a negative fund balance between grant reimbursements. Grant monies are expected to be
received in November, which will put the fund back in a positive position.
A Special Assessment Fund by its very nature will have a negative fund balance. This type of
fund is used to account for the issuance of debt to pay for local improvements. Until the debt
is paid off, this fund will be negative.
The Parks Capital Improvement Fund is negative for two reasons. First, the fund has bor-
rowed $110,000 from the General Operating Reserve Fund to finance construction of Phase I
of Centennial Park. This was planned and is not a cause for concern. The remaining $35,821
of negative Fund Balance is the result of Parks SDC's not meeting budget expectations for
1998-99. To compensate 1999-00 expenditures are being reduced to make up the deficit.
Finally, the city required the bank to carry $1,000,000 in collateral to protect the City against
the event of a bank failure. The City's policy is that the collateral will equal at least 25% of
the deposits the City holds with the bank. The auditors noted that on several days cash depos-
ited with the bank exceeded $4,000,000. On those days large sewer loan payments were
received from DEQ after 11:00 a.m. That is the latest time each day that money can be
transferred to the State Pool. In each case the excess cash was invested in the pool the next
day. City staff has directed US Bank to increase the collateral held on the City's behalf to
$2,000,000. This is sufficient to cover any daily deposits recorded last year, and is expected
to be more than enough to satisfy the City's policy for the coming year.
A year ago it looked likely that the city, and almost all other jurisdictions in the U.S., would
receive a qualified opinion on its 1998-99 financial statements. The reason was a disagreement
over financial disclosure between two governing bodies. The Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) had issued a technical bulletin requiring that Y2K preparedness be
disclosed. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has taken the
position that any disclosure regarding Y2K on 1999 financial statements would result in a
qualified opinion. The issue was resolved mid year. The City of Woodburn's Y2K prepara-
tions are disclosed in the "Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)", and the auditors
were still able to issue an unqualified opinion.
-
III
MEMO
To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator )iIlJ
From: Randy Scott, C.E. Tech III, through the Public Works Director
Subject: Acceptance of Utility Easement, Heritage Park Subdivision
Date: November 16, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is being recommended that the City Council Accept the attached Utility Easement as described
on Attachment "B"
BACKGROUND:
The utilitiy easement is being conveyed by Hidden Creek Properties in Conjunction with the
Heritage Park Phase 4 Subdivision. The Utility Easement is to be used for an underground 49" x
33" arch pipe for the storm system.
Included as Attachment "A" is a map showing the boundary of the Utility Easement
Included as attachment "B" is the properly signed Utility Easement
~
()
x
. .. . ~.
q~~~6~
(..IO'lO'lO't .
~ .~~~
. V'
~ ~
~
m
:I:- ----- '"
(I) ~
"
m
S
m -__.
Z
-t(
S
:1:->-
-a I
o.
'"
).
.!
I 1 I . ;---
I 1"'1'..
il
I '
: I
I~
: I
I
,
_ i I I ~- ~
. i ': ! ~ '~:
.~~:: ! I \}1:~ :
r; J I "J '''' 10. i:>> '
:' ., I VI ()
: i ~;I :1 ~ - - - -1 ':
_ ;:, ~i ~ ~I I I ~ :~
I: .!Il ~j ~ ".f.)
!~'~ i qq
-.1~4--, :E \
> ; i! I r
'I'
, : I
:~ :'J"
~ .
~.J:--=~
::; --, ~
I'
I
) i:
~,-~,~
",'"
<:) ~
'"
'<>
~I~
".
~
jij I
l~
".
". .!
; -'I
,III
~ ~211
'~II
en
m
== I~
m
z:
-t I~
!~
O~
"
C, ~
": i
, . II
:S II
:8 II
:/
~: ;
.
;.
---...' ''''1O"'6'{
(;
'"
'c
..;
~
"
'l~
i:;
'<0
><00',. UlJ ~
z
'"
10
,:
..
o
o
.~ :e'
.
;.,
=~
~-
'"'
_.~...
kOl' ,
j----10.-~_:_U-C--------.... ~
I I
I.-Ill ~...
I ....
, ~CD
I
I
I
!.. I
ii,. ;--< ~'"
_ .... "00'"16'00"( 'OlI
"
, ~
" 'I~' ~;
;,~ en.....
l~ ~
-I:
2~' 11;:
; ,-
,0
I..
- ~::.
~
.r,
,-
.
'"
li:&
VI
-t
-
r-
-
-t
-<
~
en
m
s:
m
z:
..,JO"',-ocl"( lOt
~....
-..
~'"
'"
IWO"' '00' Ie
.
~-
~..
~..
:~
+
'l;:
589'44'00'[
11.S7'
.:::
j~ ! I
I~
, I:
I I~
tl i I~
~ -.
,~ Ii
~
~-
..~
- ~
'"
""l()'or'O'l-l
~
: k-
3 : 0,,", g
~'"
~
..C'O'16UO[ """
.
:,; ~-
8 0,,", 8
" ~""'
'0 :
"'00"6'00-( "'"''
k- 0, g
0,,",
0 ~.. " 8
'"
"00'"'6'00'( ." 00
8,
.
k-
0,,",
~'"
'"
"'00"600-(
"
8:
~-
0,,",
~'"
:~
1'100011'00'( '06 00
~
ic....
0'"
~...,
'"
ftOO"l'"OO-[ '06 00.
~
~
~<;:
~'"
'"
h/OO'I"OO-[ '0600
, '
~:
0>
k-
0'"
~IO
'"'
..00'1'.00'[ '06 00
~
~....
~..
~o
'"
NOQ'I'"oo-[ 1M I~
~ ,
. ,
0>
~-
-..
~-
NOO',C,"oo-( IOJ n
- ,
I
~ :
'. ,
~
N-
~..
~N
'"
",,00"600-
~:
.
~.
~...
;
. I
~,
1-
500'16'00'W
100.00'
....
c.,
",
~: ~
!"~ ': ~
~. en '''i
,...,:
~.::I
i f.
.,
,
, 'en
,0",
, 8 10
. . .
..
.. ,
~ ~
: ..,
, 10
. g V'
: 8 9
. . U)
~... q
~
8
'.
:8
, .
i~
,
,
,
0.: g
" g
:;;:
,
:g
:~
I
I
l
I
:1
I
I~~~~
I ~ <-Vi !:=
I 0 ~ 2-g::-
~~C).
IZ:ll~ -
"'aJ~CXl
l:ll~;;l!'"
~ "':ll v.
IVl%~~
C' ~
11::'~
IO~aJ
,.... ..to
"tl!v:x
i ~:Z c
:;llo9
; ~ ~ U)
::< ~ g
, I....
i-~ -
+-+--
I
I
I
I
1<
I)>
'Z
I~
.~
jR I
i~ I
I :
I I
I
I I '
I ~-:-
I I I
I ~
I
I
I
1
I
I
,----
I
,
I
-
111
:.c
~
~
::t
~
m
Z
-I
---
---
)>
...
...
...
ATTACHMENT "B"
UTILITY EASEMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Hidden Creek Properties LLC, for the
consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration to them paid, the receipt
whereof hereby is acknowledged, hereby forever grant unto the CITY OF WOODBURN, a
Municipal Corporation, of Marion County, Oregon referred to herein as the CITY, a permanent
right-of-way and easement over and along the full width and length of the premises described as
follows, to wit:
The southerly Ten Feet (l0.00) of Lots 144 through 155 Heritage Park Phase 4 as recorded in the
Marion County Book of Town Plats in Volume 43, Page 47.
with the right, privilege and authority, to said City, to construct, maintain, replace, reconstruct,
remove and add to, a utility pipeline or pipelines, with all appurtenances incident thereto or
necessary therewith, in, under and across the said premises, and to cut and remove from said
right-of-way any trees and other obstructions which may endanger the safety or interfere with the
use of said pipelines, or appurtenances attached or connected therewith; and the right of ingress
and egress to and over said above described premises at any and all times for the purpose of doing
anything necessary or useful or convenient for the enjoyment of the easement hereby granted.
The City Shall, upon each and every oc~asion that such utility facility is constructed, maintained,
replaced, reconstructed of removed, or added to, restore the premises of the Grantors, and any
improvement disturbed by the City, to as good condition as they were in prior to any such
installation work, but if not practicable, then pay to Grantors reasonable compensation.
The Grantors, heirs and assigns, reserve the right to use the premises for walkways, driveways,
planting, and related purposes, and all utility facilities shall be at a depth consistent wiht these
purposes. EXCEPTION: No structure shall be placed within the easement, or within 450
projection u ward from the bottom of the pipe.
,
Accepted by the Woodburn City Council
On ,1999
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
ST A TE OF OREGON
S.S,
COUNTY OF MARION
On this~day of 11/.,1'.1," 6" I 1999, before me a Notary Public in and for the County
and State petsonally appeared A. Lee Sjothun known to me to be the same person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he voluntarily executed the same for
the purpose therein contained.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
Before me:
. OFFICIAL SEAL
, JANET KUDNA
} NOTARY PUBLIC. OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 314017
1M COMMISSION EXPIRES JUN. 29. 2lXl2
.--,
L ) /'/hJ Jp(('/JI\...__
NOTAR~ PUBLIC FOR OREGON
My Commission expires: /;..) 'I - /; ~+...
-
III
11r
IIJ
MEMO
To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator y1(
From: Randy Scott, C.E. Tech ill, through the Public Works Director
Subject: Contract award for North 6th Street Sanitary Sewer Rehab and Extension
Date: November 16, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
It is being recommended the City Council award the construction contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, Bob's Backhoe, LLC for the North 6th Street Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
and Extension in the amount of$15,709.20.
BACKGROUND:
The contract is in conjunction with Project No. 990030-30, Bid No. 20-05, the installation of
approximately 250 lineal feet of8" dia. sanitary sewer main at the North end of 6th street. The
existing sanitary sewer system is to be rehabilitated. It is an older shallow system and is
approximately 160 lineal feet, it is being replaced because of problems associated with
deteriorated pipe and insufficient access it can not be maintained properly. The main is also
shallow and can not provide sufficient grade to existing residences on the North end of 6th Street.
The project will also include the extension of the sanitary main, approximately 90 lineal feet
further to the North. The extension will provide service to existing residences that currently do
not have sanitary service and are septic systems.
The project will be funded using approved sanitary sewer system rehab and expansion budgeted
funds. The property owners that will benefit from the sanitary main extension will be required to
pay proportionate cost share of the extension at the time of connection to city sanitary service.
Staff received a total of twelve qualified bids as listed below
1. Bob's Backhoe, LLC. $15,709.20
2. Kyllo Construction $16,180.00
3. Cushing Bros. Inc. $16,990.00
4. Valley Excavating, Inc. $18,936.00
5. Cipriano & Sons $19,700.00
6. Rychart Excavating Inc. $20,660.00
7. Kerr Contractors $20,S70.00
8. Emery & Sons Const. $23,215.00
9. Sun Quest Construction $23,998.00
10 APC Underground, Inc. $24,120.00
II Rasch General Contractors $29,860.00
12 Cardwell Construction $34,500.00
Engineers Estimate $28,790.00
The low bidder is substantially below the engineers estimate, staff however feels comfortable with
the bid as submitted. The low bidder is only $470 dollars below the second lowest bid and the five
lowest bids are competitively grouped. Staff did contact the lowest bidder after the bid opening
and they are comfortable with the bid as submitted, therefore staff is recommending the contract
be awarded.
Attachment" A" is a Project Location Map
~
I~
'0
~
>
~
~
o
~
~
~
o
t;3
n
~
>
~
>
'\
~ llJ
-->--1------
003:'1;1""
~g~m
o~::oz
l"" tw.lg
~~t:
l:CtljZ
0"'<":1
o~o
l""~~
~
0<
>
~
n
()Z
S
m
Z
-1-
..,.
:.:;
~
~
,
,
,
11T'
MEMO
TO:
City Council though City Administrator ~
Public Works Program Manager 4
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Bid Award for Asbestos Abatement for City Annex Building at 190
Garfield Street
DATE:
April 26, 1999
RECOMMENDATION: Award contract for abatement of an asbestos hazard at the
city annex building to Insulation Removal Corporation for $5,680.00
BACKGROUND: City of Woodburn bid number 99-21 for asbestos abatement at the
city annex building, the old bank building at 190 Garfield Street, was opened at 3:00
pm on April 15, 1999. The results were as follows:
Bidder
Insulation Removal Corporation
Rose City Contracting
Keystone Contracting
Lincoln Christi Inc.
Global
Amount
$ 5,860.00
$ 6,891 .00
$ 9,300.00
$ 9,814.00
$12,920.00
During renovation of the old bank building at 1 90 Garfield Street, it was discovered
that a tunnel around the edge of the building contained an old unused insulated hot
water line. The insulation for this hot water line was discovered, after testing, to
contain asbestos. An earlier heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HV AC)
renovation of the building had also damaged the insulation in spots. The old tunnel,
as a result of the HV AC renovation, was used as part of the air distribution system.
Extensive testing of the building revealed additional minor asbestos contamination is
some of the HV AC ductwork in the building and on the roof of the building.
The testing of the building and expert opinions on the asbestos contamination were
provided by an environmental consultant, PBS Environmental. PBS prepared plans and
specifications to abate the asbestos hazard in the building by removal of the insulation
from the water pipes and cleaning of the HV AC ductwork. PBS will also be retained
to monitor removal of the asbestos and conduct post removal testing to ensure the
hazard has been abated. Total cost for the removal, environmental consultation and
the extensive testing should not exceed $12,500. Staff is recommending award of
the contract for abatement of the asbestos hazard to Insulation Removal Corporation.