The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - 03/24/1997 AGENDA WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 24, 1997 City of Woodbum 270 Montgomery Street * * * Woodburn, Oregon 97071 ® ~ALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE A. Council minutes of March 10, 1997 regular and executive meetings and March 11, 1997 workshop. B. Recreation and Park Board minutes of March 10, 1997. AppQ~NTS/ANNOUNCEMI~NTS/PROCLAMATIONS ^PPOINTM~NTS ANNOUNCEMI~N'I~ A. ANNUAL CITYWIDE CLEANUP DAY - SATURI)AY, MARCH 29, 1997, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM. YARD DEBRIS ONLY ACCEPTED AT UNITED DISPOSAL HEADQUARTERS, 2215 N. FRONT STREET. B. Cable TV Advisory Board Meeting: April 8, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Woodbum City Hall. C. Public Hearing: Water Master Plan, April 14, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Woodburn City HaH. D. Budget Hearing: April 15, 1997, 7:00 p.m., Woodburn City Hall. PROCLAMATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Other Committees COMMUNICA~ON$ A. BUSIN~-qS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) Page 1 - Council Agenda, March 24, 1997. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continuation: Downtown Alley Local Improvement District. B. Parr Road Local Improvement District. TABLED BUSINESS A. Council Bill No. GENERAL BUSINESS A. 1758 - Ordinance increasing local gas tax. ~A Council Bill No. 1784 - Ordinance granting Site Plan Review Application 95-10 (LUBA No. 95-195) on remand. 10A B. Council Bill No. 1785 - Resolution entering into an agreement with State Department of Transportation for Operating Assistance Grant for transit service. 10B C. Contract award for Hardcastle storm sewer project. 10C APPROVAL OF CLAIMS PIJ-BLIC COMMENT NI~W BUSINESS SITE PLAN ACTIONS STAFF REPORTS A. Enhanced Safety Properties Program. 15A B. Donation from Woodbum Women's Club to the Library. 15B C. Resumption of Greyhound bus service to Woodbum. 15C CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. ORS 192.660(1)(e) To consult with counsel concerning the legal fights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. ORS 192.660(1)(h) ADJOURNMlgNT Page 2 - Council Agenda, March 24, 1997. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 TAPE READING 00Ol DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MARCH 10, 1997. CONVENED. presiding. ROLL CALL. The Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Kirksey Mayor Kirksey Present Councilor Chadwick Absent Councilor Figley Present Councilor Hagenauer Present Councilor Jennings Present Councilor Pugh Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Childs, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Wright, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Goeckritz, Finance Director Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, City Recorder Tennant Mayor Kirksey stated that Councilor Chadwick had contacted her earlier today to inform her that she was ill and unable to attend this meeting. 0022 City Administrator Childs requested that Item 10A (Council Bill 1782) be removed from the agenda since there are some technical details within the agreement that need to be resolved before it is adopted by the Council. Councilor Jennings questioned if the references to Southern Pacific Lines should be changed to Union Pacific. Administrator Childs stated that he would have staff look into this matter and make any necessary changes to the proposed bill. It was the consensus of the Council to remove the item from the agenda. 0O52 JENNINGS/FIGLEY... approve the regular Council meeting minutes of February 24, 1997; accept the Planning Commission minutes of February 13, 1997 and the Library Board minutes of February 19, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. 0063 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) The Council will hold a public hearing on March 24, 1997, 7:00 p.m., to receive input from property owners affected by the Parr Road Local Improvement District (LID). Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 3A TAPE READING O088 0139 0251 0283 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 B) A public hearing before the Council will be held on April 14, 1997, 7:00 p.m., to receive public input on the Water Master Plan. C) A joint workshop meeting of the City Council, School District representatives, and OSU-CSFA staff will be held on Tuesday, March llth, 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers regarding Woodbum "Mammoth Park". D) The City-wide Cleanup Day is scheduled for Saturday, March 29th, and yard debris can be taken to the United Disposal headquarters at 2215 N. Front Street between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm. PROCLAMATION - WOODBURN TULIP FESTIVAL DAYS. Mayor Kirksey read the proclamation declaring March 20 through April 21, 1997 as Woodburn Tulip Festival Days and urged our local citizens to participate and support this annual event which promotes Woodburn nationwide. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Larry Crooker, Chamber Board member from Lennon Implement Co., stated that the Tulip Festival will begin on Wednesday, March 19th, 11:30 am, with a bus trip scheduled for Chamber members to the Wooden Shoe Bulb Company tulip fields. On Saturday, March 22nd, the Tulip Festival Pancake Breakfast will be held between 7:00 am and 11:00 am at the Woodburn Fire Station. A schedule of festival events will be published in the March 19th Woodbum Independent and the public is encouraged to participate in the various events. Jane Kanz, Chamber Executive Director, presented the Mayor with an official T-Shirt for the 1997 Tulip Festival. The Chamber will be selling T-shirts, sweatshirts, banners, and other promotional materials at their office beginning March 1 l th. Mr. Crooker also mentioned that Lennon Implement is celebrating their 80th birthday and invited the public to visit their business on March 29th and April 5th to join in the activities and celebrities being held in honor of the Tulip Festival. LETTER FROM CITY OF LOMITA, CA. RE: DISPLAY OF POW/MIA FLAG. A Councilor from the City of Lomita, CA has requested that the City adopt a resolution which would be sent to federal officials urging them to modify current federal regulations to allow local post offices to display a POW/MIA flag at the discretion of each post office. Councilor Jennings stated that he would have no objection to thi.q request, however, he would not like to have it made law that the post office would have to display the flag. PUBLIC HEARING - LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FROM 3A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Mayor Kirksey declared the public hearing open at 7:12 p.m.. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 TAPE READING 0410 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 Police Chief Wright stated that the City was awarded a $16,454 grant from the LIS Department of Justice on June 17, 1996 which required a 1051; match from the City. These funds were included within the 1996-97 budget for the purchase of a Community Action Vehicle which is a custom built trailer to be used for public education purposes and a crime scene investigation command post. Two conditions must be met before the money is received one of which is the formation of a local advisory board and the other is that a public hearing must be held before the governing body. He stated that the staff had previously went out to bid for this vehicle and it is scheduled for delivery within the next 30 days. No one in the audience spoke on this issue. Mayor Kirksey declared the public hearing closed at 7:15 p.m.. JENNINGSfPUGH .... approve the receipt and allocation of Law Enforcement Block Grant funds for the purchase of a Community Action Vehicle. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - DOWNTOWN ALLEY LOCAL IMPROVEMENT 0853 DISTRICT. Mayor Kirksey declared the public heating open at 7:16 p.m.. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that the project involves the improvement of the alley between Hayes Street and Harrison Street and project costs would be shared by the City and benefitted property owners. He reviewed the procedure for establishing Local Improvement District (LID) and stated that this public hearing gives the benefitted property owners an opportunity to express their opinions on the proposed project. If more than 50% of the benefitted property owners object to the project, then no further action will be taken by the City at this time to make the alley improvements. He stated that staff had taken an extra step in this process to notify individual property owners of this project by sending out letters to inform them of the public hearing date and explain the costs and payment plan options. Unfortunately, the letter contained incorrect payment amounts, therefore, staff is recommending that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting so correct payment information can be sent to the benefitted property owners. Director Tiwari stated that the City would be paying the costs associated with storm drain correction, making ADA improvements, and replacing the lead-jointed water line. The property owners would be paying for costs associated with the asphalt paving and curbs. He reviewed the options outlined in the engineering report which ranged from $109,200 to $127,100. Property owners who have responded to date indicate that they would prefer option B which eatimated at $109,200. John Verbin, 11912 S. Bamards Rd, Molalla, stated that he was speaking for Constantine and Mafia Verbin who are objecting to this improvement since the cost of the project is more than they can afford. They are a retired couple on a limited income who own the apartments located at 162/164 Grant Street. These apamnents generate a small profit margin and the estimated $5,000 cost to them is excessive since they do not feel that they benefit from this project. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 3A TAPE READING 1027 1245 COUNCIL MEETING M1NUTES March 10, 1997 Charles Sauvain, 2616 N. Boones Ferry Rd., questioned which option the City would be pursuing and whether or not curbs and/or sidewalks would be included since the area is not normally used for foot traffic. The estimated cost for his share of this improvement is approximately $11,000 and he wanted to be assured that sidewalks would not be included in the project and that the City would not come in and dig up the asphalt within a relatively short period of time after the project has been completed. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that curbs would be included in the project in order to properly connect the drain pipes to the storm drain system. Option B is the project that would be constructed in this LID and it does not include sidewalks. Councilor Jennings stated that the Director has assured him that making all of these improvements at one time will eliminate the need to dig up the asphalt as the City has done in the past. Director Tiwari reminded the Council that the staff has taken a similar approach in the past to cost share with property owners in the alley area between Garfield and Hayes Streets and they have worked with the property owners to design an alley which would meet their needs and yet provide appropriate infrastructure improvements. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... public hearing be continued to March 24, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.. The motion passed unanimously. Director Tiwari stated that he would provide information to the Council at the next meeting regarding the percentage of property owners in favor of the project. PUBLIC HEARING - LAPOINT LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA) REMAND. Mayor Kirksey declared the public hearing open at 7:42 p.m.. Community Development Director stated that original site plan application approved by the Council had been appealed by Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan to LUBA. Subsequently, LUBA remanded the proposal back to the City to address signage and exterior surface color issues. He submitted into the record the following exhibits: I) Profile of station canopy and of the station itself with its color board (Exxon station); II) Exxon canopy and gas pumps under the canopy; m) signage, square footage and measurements of the sign if it was an Exxon station; IV) original application submitted in May 1995 to the Planning Commission which had been approved by the Planning Commission and Council with conditions in August 1995; V) a second submittal was made by Mr. LaPointe in October 1996 which identifies a site plan which staff considers not in substantial conformance with thc original site plan; and VI) the original and newly submitted site plan on one page for comparison purposes. He stated that if the applicant would use the Exxon signage and use the exterior color as proposed, the staff would have no objection and the development could proceed with the project. However, staff does not feel that the more recent site plan is in substantial conformance with the original site plan and the staff report outlines 10 differences between the two plans. 3A Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 TAPE READING Director Goecl~tz stated that the applicant had not informed the City of the status of the LUBA case for several months after the remand was ordered since the applicant had been in'the process of trying to find a new gas station franchi~. It was noted that it took LUBA 8 months before they issued the remand back to the City Council. He reiterated that the staff recommendation is to 1) not consider the applicant's submittal since it is not in substantial conformance with the original application, and 2) direct staff to prepare fmdings and conclusions that would address the signage and exterior color issues applicable to the original application. Councilor Pugh questioned if the new submittal has changed enough to go against any zoning ordinance or other existing roles. Director Goec~ stated that it sets a precedent on allowing changes to site plans that may or may not be in conformance with the original plan. He reiterated that he is only taking issue with the submittal of the new plan not with the plan itself. Councilor Jennings expressed concern regarding the length of time it has taken for the developer to once again come before the Council in response to the remand and then further delays if the Council were to accept the staWs recommendation when there does not seem to be substantial changes to the site plan. 1861 Dale Crandall, attorney representing Gary LaPoint, stated that the LUBA remand addresses the issues of signage and exterior color and staff finds that those two issues have been fulfilled by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant requests that the Council approve findings and conclusions in support of these two issues. In regards to configuration changes, he referred the Council to page 7 of the LUBA findings, foomote 3, and stated that he believes that the updated plan can be submitted and accepted by the governing body. He disagrees with staff interpretation of what is permissible for Council review at this hearing. In their view, changing the location of the building and/or size is not affecting anybody else and the property is zone correctly. The delay at LUBA has had its impact on the applicant in that Texaco had dropped its franchise and the applicant had to search for another franchise. Attorney Crandall reviewed each point of concern within the staff report and explained the reasons for the reconfiguration of the design. He reiterated that the changes in the site plan submitted in October 1996 are within the scope of changes that does not affect anyone in the surrounding area. The gas station will be having the same number of pumps, there will be no change in the traffic volume, and there will be no variances associated with this development. 2305 Vance Croney, attorney representing Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan, stated that they concur with staff if the signage and exterior color shown on Exhibit I are used on the original site plan (Exhibit IV). In his opinion, the site plan submitted in October 1996 is a new site plan and needs to follow the complete process. It is unknown if the revised plan meets the required development criteria and he emphasized the need for a new site plan review process to be in conformance with the City ordinances. He stated the City code does not ask an applicant to present a Use Plan (gas station and car wash) rather it Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 TAPE READING requires applicants to submit a Site Plan to present details of the layout. They are also concerned about the cluttered look that may result from the 40% increase in size of the building. Councilor Jennings questioned why Mr. Croney's clients are so opposed to this development since there is no need for a zone change or variances. Mr. Croney stated that they have been concerned about the traffic impact around Stacy Allison Way, Evergreen Rd, and Hwy. 214 even though LLIBA upheld that portion of the site plan. Attorney Shields stated that the letter from Attorney Vance Croney, dated March 7, 1997, to the City Council has been entered into the record as Exhibit VIII. 2684 Tape 2 Attorney Crandall expressed his hope that the City Council would uphold the applicant's updated site plan which is well within any of the criteria the Council would apply for this type of development. If the Council approves the updated plan, the City Attorney has offered to allow him to prepare findings and conclusions since he may need to defend this case before LUBA to show substantial conformance to the original site plan. Mayor Kirksey declared the public heating closed at 8:23 p.m.. Councilor Sifuentez questioned if the updated plan went before the Planning Commission and, if not, could it be remanded back to the Commission. Director Goeckritz stated that only the original plan had been reviewed by the Commission and the updated plan cannot go before the Commission at this time since LUBA remanded the two issues back to the Council. Attorney Shields reviewed the staff's recommendation and stated that if the Council decides to approve the signage and exterior colors with the updated plan, it would be the applicant's attorney who would be defending this decision at the Land Use Board of Appeals. Options available to the Council are to either go with staff recommendation or to fred that the plan is in substantial conformance. In his opinion, the reason this issue should not be remanded to the Planning Commission is because LUBA is forwarding this to the Council to address. The Councilors expressed their opinions on the updated plan and, in summary, they felt that the plan was in substantial conformance with the original site plan. 0207 JENNINGS/PUGH... Council accept the revised submittal as being in conformance with the applicant's original application. On roll call vote, the motion laa r t unanimoualy. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... find that .the applicant has adequately addressed the exterior colors and the signage as required by LUBA's remand. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. JENNINGS/PUGH... staff be directed to prepare findings and conclusions and submit an ordinance that would constitute the final land use decision in conformance with the previous first and second motions. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 3A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 TAPE READING 0283 COUNCIL BILL 1783 - RESOL~ION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT 3A 0544 0569 WITH DEHASS AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR PARR ROAD/SETTLEMIER AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS. Council Bill 1783 was introduced by Councilor Hagenauer. Recorder Tcnnant read thc bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Jennings questioned why outside consulting services were necessary on this particular project. Director Tiwari stated that the City does have engineers on staff, however, there is a limited amount of time the engineers arc available since we have a large number of infrastructure projects being worked on at this time. This particular project will take a considerable amount of time if only 1 staff member is able to work on it. In this case, the project needs to be designed within a short period of time in order to complete the project before this summer. Councilor Pugh stated that the City should be looking at ways of saving money especially in light of Ballot Measure 47. Director Tiwari stated that staff continues to work on smaller on-going projects whereas this one particular project will amount to costs in excess of $1 million. Councilor Figley agreed with staff that slx:ed and efficiency are very important as it relates to this project in light of the school being opened this fall and safety for the children. On roll call vote, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Kirksey declared Council Bill 1783 duly passed. ACCEPTANCE OF BID FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE COVERAGE. Staff recommended that the City accept the insurance bid from City County Insurance Services for property insurance coverage effective March 17, 1997. By making the change in carder, the City will be taking a advantage of a $5,068.48 dividend credit which is scheduled to expire on March 18, 1997. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... authorize the change in property insurance coverage from Zurich Insurance to City County Insurance Services (CIS) effective March 17, 1997. For the record, a conflict of interest declaration was included in the agenda packet from Administrator Childs stating that his decision to concur with the City Recorder's recommendation was not influenced by the fact that his wife is employed by CIS. The motion to authorize the change in carrier passed unanimously. CLAIMS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1997. SIFUENTEZ/HAGENAUER...approve voucher checks//35541 - 36090 as submitted for the month of February 1997. The motion passed unanimously. Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 TAPE READING 0590 0669 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 SITE PLAN ACTIONS. A) Site Plan Review 97431: Specialty Polymers Laboratory expansion -- No action was taken by the Council. B) Site Plan Review 97-02: Universal Forest Products addition -- No action was taken by the Council. STAFF REPORTS. A) Building Activity Report for the month of February 1997. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. - In regards to the workshop scheduled for tomorrow evening, Administrator Childs encouraged the public to attend this meeting since creative financing ideas are needed in order to proceed with this project during the summer months. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Figley urged the public to contact City Budget Committee members or the Councilors to comment on program funding for fiscal year 1997-98 since there will be competition for fuming within several departments. She also requested that the Administrator provide them with a budget update so that they can be better prepared for the budget hearing. Councilor Jennings stated that he had attended a Mid-Willamette Valley Advisory Committee on Transportation and has subsequently been elected to a voting position on that committee. He will reporting back to staff on Wednesday, 2:00 pm, in case the Mayor or other interested Councilors would like to attend this briefing. He also stated that the coalition of Mayor's is writing a letter to the legislature opposing their silence on the issue of financial aide to cities. In regards to the budget, Councilor Jennings suggested that the Administrator prepare a memo to the Council to bring them up-to-date on what programs and/or projects will not be funded in the budget as proposed by the Administrator. Since the fLrSt budget meeting will not be held until the middle of April, he does not want to be put in a position of making major budgetary decisions within a very short period of time. Administrator Childs stated that the budget is not complete at this time, however, he assured the Council that he will present a balanced budget as it reflects the lesser property tax to received under Ballot Measure 47. Secondly, he encouraged the Council to discuss the budget at anytime but he is not prepared to give specifics at this time. Councilor Sifuentez also requested that, if possible, budget information be given to them in advance of the first budget meeting so they can be informed as to what program changes are included in the budget documem. 3A Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 TAPE READING 0918 0927 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 Councilors Pugh and Hagenauer also concurred with comments made by the other Councilors on receiving the budget information prior to the first meeting. Mayor Kirksey expressed her appreciation of Councilor Jennings willingness to serve on the MWV Advisory Committee on Transportation meeting. She felt that he was a good representative for the City since he had Chaired the City's Transportation Committee. EXECUTIVE SESSION. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... adjourn to executive session to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be fried as authorized under ORS 192.660(1)(h). The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned to executive session at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:23 p.m.. The Council took no action as a result of the executive session. ADJOURNMENT. JENNINGS/FIGI.EY .... meeting be adjourned. meeting adjourned at 9:24 p.m.. The motion passed unanimously. The 3A APPROVED NANCY A. KIRKSEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 10, 1997 3A DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MARCH 10, 1997. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:02 p.m. with Mayor Kirksey presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Kirksey Present Councilor Chadwick Absent Councilor Figley Present Councilor Hagenauer Present Councilor Jennings Present Councilor Pugh Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Mayor Kirksey reminded the Councilors, staff, and press that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. Staff Present: City Administrator Childs, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder Tennant Press: Patrick Johnson, Woodburn Independem The executive session was called under the authority of ORS 192.660(1)(h) to consult with legal counsel concernin~ the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be fried, and ORS 192.660(1)(0 to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 9:20 p.m.. APPROVED NANCY A. KIRKSEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 1997 TAPE READING 0001 0003 0030 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1997 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MARCH 11, 1997. CONVENED. The Council met in a workshop session on the Water Master Plan at 7:10 p.m. with Mayor Kirksey presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Kirksey Presem Councilor Chadwick Absem Councilor Figley Absent Councilor Hagenauer Absent Councilor Jennings Absent Councilor Pugh Absent Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Childs, CE Tech. III Julie Moore, City Recorder Tennant Also Present: Rob Bonnichsen, Alan Schneider, Bob Engle, Patrick Jackson, Riana Doan, Mila Bonnichsen Note: The Woodbum School District had been invited to this meeting, however, no one from the District was in attendance. Rob Bonnichsen, archaeologist and Director of the Center for the Study of the First Americans stated that peat blocks are still being dissected to determine what material is represented in the samples. This technical work is very time consuming and yet rewarding when specimens are found. His department is in the process of developing a conservation plan as it relates to preserving specimens in addition to the inventory and cataloging of specimens. In regards to working the site this summer, he feels that most of the digging should be in and/or around the areas in which a lot of specimens were found last year. He is still researching possible funding sources for this summer's project. He has made contact with numerous individuals who are interested in this type of project and he knows of several specialists in a number of fields at OSU and U of O who are also interested and some funding may be available through the colleges. He has been working with other college staff members to look at the scientific issues that are involved with this project to determine if an educational program can be developed at OSU. Current plans are to perform survey work in June 1997 and work the site in August and September. 3A Page 1 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1997 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1997 TAPE READING 0460 Administrator Childs stated that he had tried to obtain the services of a college intern to help coordinate this project between the School District, City, and College and to help research fimding sources. He had received only 1 applicant for this position who ultimately decided not to take the position. He also mentioned that at the last workshop a suggestion was made to contact the Confederate tribes to see if they would provide some f'mancial support towards this project, however, they are now going to be giving a portion of their income to the State and they may not be as willing to help us at this time. In regards to Ballot Measure 47, he does not see funding of any tax dollars in the City's budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year even though he feels that this is a very worthwhile project. Rob Bonnichsen stated that he had contacted the State Historic Preservation Department inquiring about a possible grant and was informed that the site does not qualify for funding since it has not produced sufficient strands of hair to qualify for funding. The college does have continuing education funds that they are trying to obtain to help offset total costs. In his opinion, this is a good community based program, however, creativity is required in order to acquire more funding. He has not prepared a formal budget as of this date, however, he feels that he will need to obtain another $4,000 - $6,000 for this summer's project. Discussion was held regarding the use of volunteers and in obtaining donated equipment and materials to help offset the cash requirement. Mr. Bonnichsen was very receptive to this idea and stated that there are some grant funds that could be obtained if local match dollars are available. Administrator Childs stated that the City could not actively solicit for funds, however, the Council and other interested citizens could individually solicit for cash and in-kind services. In regards to volunteers, Alan Schneider urged the City to get the community involved since volunteers can be used not only at the site but in the lab. Training would be provided to all volunteers who participate in the program. When site work is being done, they requested that a building or room be made available (minimum size of 15' x 24') that is well lighted and can be secured when not in use by project staff and/or volunteers. 1430 Mayor Kirksey requested that Mr. Bonnichsen prepare a budget outlining the costs along with a list of materials and equipment that could be donated to reduce the overall cash requirements. Discussion was also held regarding the appointment of a committee to pursue local funding, donations of equipment and materials, and volunteers. Bob Engle agreed to chair this committee and appointments of other members will be forthcoming. Julie Moore will serve as staff liaison to work on this committee and Sue Fofana-Dura will assist in recruiting volunteers. Page 2 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1997 3A TAPE READING COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1997 3A 1954 The meeting concluded at 8:15 p.m.. APPROVED NANCY A. KIRKSEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 - Council Workshop Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1997 MINUTES Woodbum Recreation and Parks Board Budget Meeting Monday, March 10, 1997 Woodbum Community Center 3B CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at the Woodbum Community Center at 6:15pm Chairman Frank Anderson. by ROLL CALL Members Present: Frank Anderson, Barbara Rappleyea, Mel Schmidt, Art Montgomery. Members Absent: Char Quinones, Lee Ehrens & Dave Ott. Staff Present: Nevin Holly, Director, Shirley Pitt, Parks Secretary and John Pitt Parks Superintendent BUDGET DISCUSSION: Nevin Holly presented the budget he had prepared for the Recreation and Parks Department. He explained in detail where the cuts had to be made and the results of these cuts. He reported that the Department would lose 3 full time positions; 1 in Parks Maintenance, along with 2 part-time positions) and 2 full time positions at the swimming pool. Materials and Services will be cut back to the bare minimum and no Capital Outlay in any Division is proposed. The major cuts take place in the Maintenance and Facilities Division. The Swimming Pool will be cut to I and % full time personnel. The Recreation Coordinator from Leisure Services will be in charge of the Program Marketing for the Swim Pool along with working at the front desk as needed for 4 hours per day. Leisure Services Division is cut in Wages and Salaries with only 1 and % in Full Time and cuts made in Part Time Salaries. Due to Intergovernmental Services being a major line item in Administration Division this Division's major cuts were in Materials and Services. The Board discussed each of these areas and then focused on their three major concerns: the increased Contingency Fund amount; the amount set aside for the new phone system; and, the large amount taken for Intergovernmental Services. The Director was asked about the Custodial Division in Parks and Facilities. Director told the Board he hoped to have that information at the next meeting as he was still waiting to hear from the City Administrator just what was happening in that area. MOTION: MEL SCHMIDT: Moved to present the prepared proposed Budget to the City Administrator with the following reservations and questions; Intergovernmental Services, New Phone System and Contingency. B. RAPPLEYEA: Motion passed unanimously. Seconded the Motion. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjoumed at 8:15pm. MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: To City Council through City.Administrator Public Works Director~ ~ March 19, 1997 Continuation of Public Hearing on Downtown Alley Local Impovement District (LID) Project SA RECOMMENDATION: After completion of the formal hearing process, i.e., after the public hearing is closed, staff be directed to perform analysis on the input received and present a recommendation for further council action in the next meetina. BACKGROUND: After the project initiation process, the council instructed staff to prepare the engineering report which council reviewed and approved. Afterward, the resolution of intent to improve was approved by the council, which established the public hearing date to receive public input from the benefitted property owners in the L. I. D. The public hearing notice was properly published in the local newspaper in accordance with Ordinance No. 2105. In addition to the legal requirements of notification, notice of the hearing was sent to the benefitting property owner of record by the Public Works' staff. Please see the attached outline of the LID process that must be followed by the city. Both the Downtown Alley and Parr Road projects are at the public hearing stage. Note: - The continuation of the public headng on the Downtown Alley Improvement is taking place because the letter that was mailed to each property owner understated the semi-annual payment due to an error in the interest rate used for computation. It should be noted that the copy of the resolution that was attached to the letter did contain correct payment plan information. - Public Works' staff has mailed corrected copy of the letter to each property owner in the Local Improvement Distdct (LID). GST:Ig ALLEY~.ID.HRG OUTLINE OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) PROCESS 8A The creation of a 'Local Improvement District' requires that the city follow a defined process outlined below Project is initiated by petition from interested property owners or by action of the city council. o City council, by approval of a resolution, directs staff to prepare an engineer's report for its review. Preliminary engineering is performed, engineer's report with method of assessment, estimated amount of assessment to benefitted properties is presented to the city council. If the engineer's report is acceptable, city council directs staff to prepare a "Resolution of Intent to Improve." City Council approves a 'Resolution of Intent to Improve" that defines the Local Improvement District boundary and sets a date for the required public hearing. 5. Legal requirements of advertising for public hearing takes place. City council holds a public hearing on the project and receives input from affected property owners. After public input, if 50% of the property owners do not object to the proposed LID improvement, then the city council may direct staff to: 1) Bring an assessment ordinance that makes assessment cost allocation against the benefitted properties legal, or 2) city council may postpone the decision or modify the terms of the resolution, or 3) abandon the improvement. After assessment ordinance has been approved, city council may authorize sale of bond to generate revenue to pay for the project, or city council may allow borrowing of funds from other city sources on a temporary basis. Preparation of final engineering plans, specifications, and contract document, takes place. 10. The project is advertised and bids are received; the city council reviews staff recommendation and awards the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 11. The construction activities take place under the supervision of Engineering. 12. The Finance Department performs the last step by completing the final assessment process and placing the assessment amounts on the city docket; the borrowed money is returned as payments from benefitted property owners are received. PARR~UTUNE.LID MEMO 8B TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: To City Council through City Administrator Public Works Director March 19, 1997 Public Hearing on Parr Road Local Impovement Distdct (LID) Project RECOMMENDATION: After completion of the formal hearing process, i.e., after the public hearing is closed, staff be directed to perform analysis on the public input received and present a recommerldation for further council action in the next meeting. Note: Staff needs to discuss right-of-way issues with the council prior to final recommendation. BACKGROUND: After the project initiation process, the council instructed staff to prepare the engineering report which council reviewed and approved. Afterward, the resolution of intent to improve was approved by the council, which established the public hearing date to receive public input from the benefitted property owners in the Ll.D. The public hearing notice was properly published in the local newspaper in accordance with Ordinance No. 2105. in addition to the legal requirements of notification, notice of the hearing was sent to the benefitting property owner of record by the Public Works' staff. Please see the attached outline of the LID process that must be followed by the city. GST:Ig PARR~LID.HRG 8B OUTLINE OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) PROCESS The creation of a 'Local Improvement District' requires that the city follow a defined process outlined below: Project is initiated by petition from interested property owners or by action of the city council. City council, by approval of a resolution, directs staff to prepare an engineer's report for its review. Preliminary engineering is performed, engineer's report with method of assessment, estimated amount of assessment to benefitted properties is presented to the city council. If the engineer's report is acceptable, city council directs staff to prepare a "Resolution of Intent to Improve." City Council approves a "Resolution of Intent to Improve" that defines the Local Improvement District boundary and sets a date for the required public hearing. 5. Legal requirements of advertising for public hearing takes place. City council holds a public hearing on the project and receives input from affected property owners. After public input, if 50% of the property owners do not object to the proposed LID improvement, then the city council may direct staff to: 1) Bdng an assessment ordinance that makes assessment cost allocation against the benefitted properties legal, or 2) city council may postpone the decision or modify the terms of the resolution, or 3) abandon the improvement. After assessment ordinance has been approved, city council may authorize sale of bond to generate revenue to pay for the project, or city council may allow borrowing of funds from other city sources on a temporary basis. Preparation of final engineering plans, specifications, and contract document, takes place. 10. The project is advertised and bids are received; the city council reviews staff recommendation and awards the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. 11. The construction activities take place under the supervision of Engineering. 12. The Finance Department performs the last step by completing the final assessment process and placing the assessment amounts on the city docket; the borrowed money is returned as payments from benefitted property owners are received. PARR~3UTLINE.LID [lB March 6, 1997 To: City of Woodbum Please enter this document into the record for the Public Hearing Re: Public' Heating on Council Bill No 1773 Resolution No. 1399 Parr Road improvements I am unable to be present at the public hearing. I am in favor of improving Parr Road and will pay my assessment, but ..... I feel very strongly that those property owners to the east of Parr Acres should be assessed for the street improvement if no curbs or street widening were done during development of these lots. Also if there were no sidewalks constructed at time of development, the property owners should also pay the full amount, not half as you now recommend. The city should not be subsidizing development which did not conform to the city standards when built. These property owners have never paid for the improvements, now its their time to pay, not the city. In Smith's Addition No. #2, # 3 and # 4 where I have been building for 20+ years, we have always installed sidewalks on both sides of all corner lots and the purchasers of the homes have paid for it. Are we going to re-bate those people for ½ of their sidewalks on the adjacent street not in front of their home? Keep in mind that by making correct decisions now, will have a long lasting effect on the proper assesments, growth and developments in the city of Woodburn. March 5, 1997 To: City of Woodbum Please enter this document into the record for the Public Heating Re: Public Heating on Council Bill No 1773 Resolution No. 1399 Parr Road improvements Correction to Council Bill No. 1773 Resolution No. 1399 Section 4 of Resolution of intent to improve Parr Road: Reads: THE BEN~'ffED PROPERTIES NOT LOCATED WrFHIN THE CITY BOUNDARY, SUBJF. L-T TO PAYMENT. OF REIMBURSEMENT FUNDS UPON ANNEXATION WITHIN A 10 YEAR PERIOD OR NECK)TIATED PAYMENT PLAN. TAX LOT NO. OWNER 100 SMITH, HAZF. L M. TRUSTEE CORRECTION: When the portion of Tax Lot # 100 of 393 feet abutting Parr Road improvements 500 feet deep is annexed to the city, then at that time the assesment is due. 8B HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH - MISSOURiSS~OI) II 211 Parr Road ~k~dburn, Ore,on 970~ 503 981 -O-~C~) 8B March 10, 1997 MAR ! 7 Mayor and City Council Members City of Woodburn City Hail, Woodburn, Oregon This letter to each of you from the Board of Trustees of Hope Lutheran Church tells you about the church's concerns and position on the Parr Rd. improvements. We are sending an advance copy to each of you now so that it will not come as a complete surprise at the public hearing. It may also give you a chance to start you thinking about solutions~ A church representative will be at the hearing to make it'd presentation and answer your questions. The church agrees that the Parr Rd. improvements should be made at this time. It does not agree that its property should be assessed over $47,000.00 as its share of improvement costs. Before specifics, some basic general matters with our underlining for emphasis because they seem very important to us in their application to this assessment. References are to Woodburn local improvements and Special Assessment Ordinance No. 2105. 1. Each lot is to be assessed ~ccording to the special peculiar, benefits accruing to it from the improvements. (Sec. 9(3)) - The basic benefits to property from street improvements are access to the street and the right to use it. There may be additional special benefits. 2. The City Council makes the final determination of the amount to be assessed to the property. (Sec. 9 (3), 12) 3. Each assessed property is entitled to individual assessment amount determination by the Council. (Sec. 1 (1); 9 (1) and (3)) This is because all properties are not alike, may not receive the same improvement benefits, or for other'reasons should not be assessed as much or at all. "' This project clearly illustrates this because it involves public and private property needs and property uses, funding by property assessments, city, school district and other sources, and various construction and funding categories. 4. The ordinance sets the standards to be used by the council determining the amount to be assessed to each benefitted property and provides for methods to be used by the Council in its determination. Its decision must not be arbitrary and must have reasonable basis in fact. 5. The ordinance standards for the Council's use are (a) according to benefits conferred (Sec. 1 (1)); (b) fair apportionments (Sec. 2 (5)); (c) just and reasonable (Sec. 8 (1) (6)); (d) partial or no payment by the property (Sec. 8 (1) (C) and 9 (!); (e) assessment of each lot according to the special and peculiar benefits to it from the improvements (Sec. 9 (3)); (f) just and equitable (Sec. 13); (g) (Council is not to arbitrarily injure an owner's) substantial right (Sec. 15 (2)); {h) assess~lent is (not to be) unfair or unjust in its effect (Sec. 17 (1) (d)); and the Council may even reassess when it doubts the assessment's validity ( Sec 18). 6. The method the council may use to apportion the sum to be assessed among the benefitted properties is any just and reasonable method. (Sec. 8 (1) (6)). 7. (a) The church does not object to the proposed improvements. {b) The church is willing to pay for the fair, just and reasonable assessments to its property for the property benefi%s from the improvements. It expects to be able to transfer some of its property needed for the improvement. (c) The church's objection submitted by this letter is that the developed properties to the South and West of the church property must be included by the Council .in the local street assessment district; and the church asks the Council (a) to take the proposed assessments on Parr Rd. beginning at the East end of the church property proposed assessed frontage and ending at the West boundary of all property on Elena Way and Elena Drive on both sides of Parr Rd, and (b) assess those proposed assessments to all the church property frontage on Parr Rd. and all the property with street frontage on Kelowna St., Kelow~.a Court, Elena Way, Elena Drive and Brand,-wine Court using the front footage method Which the Council can do per the ordinance. (Sec. 8 (1) (a and b)) This would result in all developed property at the East end of the project being assessed for its fair share of the benefits each property receives from the improvement and meets ordinance assessment standards and method requirements. 8. Our main reasons for making this objection are: (a) The basic, ordinance requirement is that all benefitted property is to be justly and fairly assessed consistent with the benefits it receives from the improvements. Assessment exemption or reduction must have a sound factual or legal basis. 9. Per front foot is not an ordinance standard for determining the fair, just and reasonable amount to be assessed for the benefit to a specific property. This is a critical distinction because a front foot or square foot method, for example, does not of itself result in an 8B assessment amount which meets the fair, just and reasonable ordinance standards requirements. 10. Section 8 of the ordinance provides: (1) The Council, in adopting a method of assessing the cost of the improvement', may, (a) Use any just. and reasonable method to determine the extent of an improvement district consistent with the benefits derived. (b) Use any just and reasonable method of apportioning the sum to be assessed among the benefitted properties. Up to this point, we have set out what to us are what needs to be known and understood before we explain in more detail exactly why we are satisfied that %he irrlprovement district should be enlarged to include all properny benefitted by the improvement. 11. (a) For this objection's purposes, the proposed improvement should be seen'as two different kinds of properties the East end previously developed ones and those being developed at this time. (b) The previously developed properties are the church property and all the residential properties on both sides of Kelowna St., Elena Way, Elena Drive, Brandywine Court and Kelowna Court. (c) All these properties should be part of the local street improvement district and assessed for the benefits the property receives from the local street improvement because all of them receive the same benefits access to the improved Parr Rd., the right to use it and the aesthetic benefits from the improvement. (d) The developed residential properties are likely to receive improved market value and marketability benefits. The church property is not likely to receive market value benefits if the Council considers that in Woodburn in the past 50 years only four churches have been sold to non-church owners (Woodburn Community Center, Willamette Ballet, the old Presbyterian Church and the old Immanuel Lutheran Church). The church property may receive some improved property drainage benefits along its.~arr Rd. frontage. 12. Regarding the West end properties, it seems to us that they will have no reason to object to this East end matter which doesn't affect their assessment. After all, the school property will get greatly improved early access and property use benefits; and the other properties improved access, marketability and market value. 13. The front foot method of assessing East end improvement cost only to property with Parr Rd. frontage is not fair, just or r~a~0nabl~ because:~ (a) it does not assess all the East end properties for the benefit conferred to each property by the local street improvement. 8B (b) there is no apparent factual or legal basis for not assessing the proposed non-assessed property for those benefits. Why should they not pay for those benefits? Like the residential areas, the church has also paid for its street, sidewalks and parking lot improvements as approved by the city. There is no apparent relevant difference between those properties and the church property for local street assessment purposes in the ordinance. Each receive the same basic benefits from-the local street improvements. (c) The $47,000.0C proposed assessment gives.the church a vex/ substantial right'to object. This is a long letter becauss this co~.plex matter simply can't be briefly explained. We have just tried to tell you all we felt you should know to understand what we ask the Council to consider. It was prepared for us by our church member, Harold Eichsteadt. To conclude: 15. The church does not ask that it's property not be assessed. It simply asks that it's property and ~all East end properties be assessed by the council a¢cordinq to the standard required bY the ordinaDcewh~¢h is that each benefitted property i~ to be assessed for i~'s fair~ just and reasonable sh~re of thn improvement costs. 16. We see no need to delay construction because of this object!on. Construction and assessment appear to be separate matters followin~ their separate courses. Finally, we will continue to cooperate with you and your staff to try to work out solutions acceptable to the City and the church. 8B Respectfully submitted, MOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF WOODBURN Chairr~an, Board ~f Trustees By: . . . ~CI~onSgBre~aCth~ofnf a 1 V~c~e~res~dent HE/eh IOA MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THROUGH CITY ADMINISTRATOR STEVE GOECKRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ORDINANCE APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW 95-10 (LUBA NO. 95-195) MARCH 20, 1997 Pursuant to Council direction, staff has prepared an ordinance approving Site Plan Review Application 95-10 (LUBA No. 95-195). The findings and conclusions supporting this ordinance were prepared by Dale Crandall, the attorney for the applicant. 10A COUNCIL BILL NO. 1784 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION 95-10 (LUBA NO. 95- 195) ON REMAND; MAKING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary LaPoint, originally applied for Site Plan Review approval in case 95-10; and WHEREAS, the City Council granted the application in Site Plan Review Case 95-10 and this decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in LUBA No. 95-195; and WHEREAS, after its review, LUBA remanded the case to the City Council to address two assignments of error: Woodburn Zoning Ordinance 11.020(d) (Exterior Surfaces) and Woodburn Zoning Ordinance 11.020(e) (Sign Plan); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a remand hearing on March 10, 1997, and heard testimony relevant to the assignments of error; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CiTY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council, after considering the testimony at the remand hearing, grants Site Plan Review Application 95-10 (LUBA No. 95-195). Section 2. This site plan review application is approved based upon the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and by this reference is incorporated herein. Section 3. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. City Attorney Dante Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 10A APPROVED: Nancy A. Kirksey, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. ; IOA SPR 95-10 Findinqs and CQnclusions EXHIBIT "A" FINDING: WZO 11.020 requires, as part of any application for site plan review, "Specifications as to type, color and texture of exterior surfaces of proposed structures." The applicant has submitted colored exhibits with explanatory text, in compliance with this standard, and adequately addressing the issue remanded from LUBA. FINDING: WZO 11.020 requires, as part of any application for site plan review, "A sign plan, drawn to scale, showing the location, size design, material, color and methods of illumination of all exterior signs." The applicant has submitted colored exhibits with explanatory text, in compliance with this standard, and adequately addressing the issue remanded from LUBA. FINDING: Applicant submitted a modified site layout diagram, identified as the "Proposed Submittal", and at hearing, through counsel, explained the modifications. The "Proposed Submittal" is in substantial compliance with the standards for review of a site plan, and is substantially similar to the site layout diagram submitted with the application originally, such that it does not substantially change the application nor substantially alter the consequences, upon other landowners or the public, of this proposed use of the subject property· CONCLUSION: The applicant-is requesting site plan review approval of a gas station and car wash. 2. SPR 95-10 is a permitted use. The applicant has submitted evidence satisfying the remaining issues remanded from LUBA, fulfilling the site plan review approval. The site plan, with the submitted evidence and with the "Proposed Submittal" layout diagram complies with all applicable standards, and should be approved. The applicant has submitted data adequately satisfying the governing Woodburn Zoning Ordinances, and satisfying the issues remanded from LUBA. lOB MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager Operating Assistance Grant Agreement for Transit Service March 18, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into the 1996-97 Small City Operating Agreement with the State of Oregon and authorizing the mayor and city recorder to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. BACKGROUND: The city has been receiving annually operating assistance from the Federal Transit Administration's Section 5311 (formerly Section 18) program for small cities for several years. These funds are administered by the Oregon Department of Transportation and the city applies for these funds each year. There are three major changes in this agreement. The agreement has been reformatted and the reference to "rural area" has been removed from the agreements title and wording. The basics of the agreement have not been changed but they have been rearranged and reordered. The second change is that the certifications and assurances which were formerly part of the agreement have been removed and are now handled separately. Finally, the Federal Transit Administration Master Agreement has been deleted from the agreement. The operating assistance agreement has provided $16,700 annually for at least the last eight years. For the past two years this funding has been provided 1OO% from federal sources and that trend continues with this agreement. It appears that federal funding for this program will remain stable but no increases are anticipated at this time. Attempts to provide increased state funding for public transportation face an uncertain future in the current legislative session. Approval of the attached resolution authorizing the mayor and city recorder to sign this agreement will provide the operating assistance grant funds programmed for this fiscal year. 10B COUNCIL BILL NO. 1785 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KNOWN AS THE "SMALL CITY OPERATING AGREEMENT" FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY RECORDER TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the State of Oregon acting through the Oregon Transportation Commission is authorized to enter into agreements and disburse funds for the purpose of supporting public transportation pursuant to ORS 184.670 to 184.733, and WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn has applied for operating assistance funds for Fiscal Year 1996-97 under Title 49, United States Code, Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Laws, and WHEREAS, the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, has been designated to evaluate and select recipients of assistance and to coordinate grant application, and WHEREAS, the State of Oregon Department of Transportation, has approved the city application for $16,700 from such funds, NOW THEREFORE; THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into an agreement with the State of Oregon acting by and through its Department of Transportation to secure Federal funds through Title 49, United States Code, Section 5311 of the Federal Transit Laws, for operating assistance during fiscal year 1996-97. Said agreement is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Recorder of the City of Woodburn be authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City. Approved as to form:~-~ ~ City Attorney Date APPROVED: NANCY A. KIRKSEY, Mayor Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. lOB 1996-97 SMALL CITY OPERATING AGREEMENT CITY OF WOODBURN THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Oregon, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, Public Transit Section, hereinafter referred to as "State" and City of Woodburn hereinafter referred to as "Recipient". Purpose Recipient, having submitted an application which describes the budget and the activities to be conducted, enters into this Agreement with State to secure financial assistance to complete the Operation project as put forth in the Project Description and Budget as shown in Exhibit A. Effective Date and Duration This contract shall become effective on July 1, 1996 (or on the date at which every · party has signed this Agreement) and shall expire, unless otherwise terminated or extended on June 30, 1997. The time period stipulated between the beginning date and the end date shall hereinafter be known as the Term of Agreement. Consideration State agrees to pay Recipient a sum not to exceed $16,700 hereinafter to be known as the Agreement Amount, for accomplishment of work and allowable expenses. Compliance State and Recipient agree to comply with applicable obligations, requirements, and provisions as stipulated in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Attachments As Marked, Attached Hereto And By This Reference Made A Part Hereof. I~Exhibit A-Project Description and Budget [] Special Transportation Discretionary Fund [] Section 5310 [] Section 5311 [~Exhibit B-Recitals and Obligations, [~Exhibit C-Section 5333 Warranty I~Exhibit D-Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Statement I'-IExhibit E-FY 1996-97 Certifications, and Assurances, for Federal Transit Administration Assistance Programs and Signature Page [-JExhibit F-FTA Master Agreement I~Exhibit G-Auditor's Information The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented, or amended, in any manner whatsoever, except by written instrument signed by the parties. PAGE 1 OF 2 10B This Agreement is approved by the Manager of the Transportation Development Branch under authority granted from the Oregon Transportation Commission. This authority is set forth in the current Oregon Transportation Commission Delegation Order No. 2, which was adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission on April 12, 1995 and which became effective on May, 1995 Oregon Department of Transportation Public Transit Section 555 13th St. NE, Salem Oregon 97310 ', '--' . -"-:. Name Name Title Date ~ Title-'~'~ -'~. ~~¢,.~... Dat~ ~'- Woodburn 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn Oregon 97071 RECIPIENT's Legal Counsel Date Name Title Date Name Title Date PAGE 2 OF 2 lOB I1. II1. IV. Exhibit A PART I FY 1996-97 CITY OF WOODBURN SMALL CITY OPERATING ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION This a Title 49 Section 5311 Operating Assistance Agreement to sustain.the public transportation related activities provided by Recipient. Recipient shall submit to State reports in a format as supplied by State. State reserves the right to request such additional information as may be necessary to comply with federal or state reporting requirements. Request for final payment shall include a detailed statement of revenues and expenditures for the project, including documentation of local match contributions. Costs incurred in carrying out the project, subject to the grant limitations as shown below, are eligible for reimbursement based on reports submitted by Recipient. The State will reimburse, up to eighty (80) percent of Recipient's administration expenses, and up to fifty (50) percent of the net operating deficit of Recipient's project. In the event that the actual cost of the approved project differs from the estimated cost of the project, State and Recipient shall abide by the following: A. Actual Project Cost is Less Than Estimated Project Cost The State will reimburse up to eighty (80) percent of Recipient's administration expenses, and up to fifty (50) percent of the net operating deficit of Recipient's project up to the limit of the grant as set out in the Agreement Amount regardless of project's actual cost. B. Actual Project Cost is More Than Estimated Project Cost 1. Recipients may elect to: contribute local money and continue the project. State shall contribute no more than the amount specified as the Agreement Amount; or, b. discontinue the project. Recipient shall operate equipment under this Agreement to meet the transportation needs of the clientele identified in Recipient's Application for Assistance. However, the equipment may be made available for use by others lOB as space is available, provided this use does not interfere with use by identified clientele. VI. Recipient shall maintain, in amounts and form satisfactory to State, such insurance or self insurance as will be adequate to protect Recipient, vehicle drivers and assistants, vehicle occupants, and project equipment throughout the period of use. Recipient shall bear the cost of said insurance. At a minimum, this shall include comprehensive and collision insurance adequate to repair or replace project property and equipment in the event it is damaged or destroyed, liability insurance of $10,000 for property damage, $25,000 for bodily injury per person, $50,000 bodily injury per occasion, uninsured motorist protection, and personal injury protection insurance as required by ORS Chapter 806. Recipient shall be responsible for all deductibles or self-insured retentions. Recipient shall include the Oregon Department of Transportation, Public Transit Section, as Additional Insured on the above insurance policies. VII. Recipient shall operate project facilities and/or equipment in a high level of cleanliness,, safety, and mechanical soundness. All ddvers of equipment shall have a valid Oregon driver's license and shall have passed a defensive ddving course or bus driver's training course. Ddvers of equipment designed to carry sixteen (16) or more passengers, including the driver, shall have a valid Commercial Driver's License (CDL). IX. When applicable, State shall provide Recipient with guidelines to assist with the project, as requested by Recipient, including the applicable state and federal rules, regulations, and laws. Recipient, in accepting this Agreement, certifys that neither Recipient nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participating in this Agreement by any state or federal agency or department. XI. Recipient receiving $100,000 or more in Federal funds shall comply with Title 31 U.S.C. Section 1352, which prohibits the use of Federal funds for lobbying any official or employee of any Federal agency, or member or employee of Congress. In addition, even though Recipient uses no Federal funds for lobbying, Recipient shall disclose any lobbying of any official or employee of any Federal agency, or member or employee of Congress in connection with Federal assistance, and to comply with USDOT regulations, "New Restrictions on Lobbying," Title 49 C.F.R. Part 20. lOB Exhibit A PART II FY 1996-97 CITY OF WOODBURN SMALL CITY OPERATION ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT OPERATING GOALS AND BUDGET The performance objectives listed below are repeated from the Recipients 'application. These objectives are advisory and will not be used as a basis for payment for this Agreement. Operating Goals Service Hours: 5,932 Service Mileage: 87,200 Rides: 45,500 II. The figures listed below reveal the allocation of this grant. Operating Budget Administrative Allocation $ 9,700 Operation Allocation 7,000 Total Allocation $16,700 lOB DUE TO THEIR LENGTH EXHIBITS B. C. D AND G ARE NOT INCLUDED THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW A T THE COUNCIL MEETING MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: City Administrator for Council Action Randy Scott C.E.Tech III, through Public Works Director East Hardcastle Storm Sewer March 17, 1997 10C RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R & D Construction for the storm sewer improvements on East Hardcastle Avenue. In the amount of $93,583.00. BACKGROUND: The existing 12" dia. storm sewer within East Hardcastle collects runoff from surrounding streets in addition to Hardcastle, such as Greenview Drive and Orchard Lane, in the past these streets have experienced flooding because the existing system does not have the capacity to convey the existing runoff to the larger 24" dia. storm sewer on Cooley Road. The capacity will be increased by installing a storm sewer main from the existing system on Cooley Road to the existing system located near Mall 99/HWY. 99 E, diameters will vary between 15-inch and 24-inch The installation of the proposed storm sewer in conjunction with the existing storm sewer and current detention requirements will provide sufficient capacity for the existing and future runoff and will also provide the proper drainage system for the future improvement of the street surface. The runofffrom 99E at present discharges to Mill Creek through the 30" Dia. storm sewer installed with the highway improvements. Centennial Park Subdivision which was approved in 1991, will be funding their fair share cost amount which council previously approved to accept to fulfill the developers obligation. The remaining will be funded using city storm drain system capacity funds, budget line item 70-770- 710.011 Staff received a total of 11 qualified bidders, as listed below 1. R & D Construction $93,583.00 2. ScaffBros. $116,280.00 3. Cushing Bros. Inc $124,081.50 4. E A Backhoe Inc. $139,877.50 5. Geico Construction $140,114.00 6. 4 Rivers Construction $146,151.00 7. J.L.S. Inc. $147,067.00 8. Western Oregon Excavation $169,169.50 9. Miller & Sons Contractors $170,153.50 10. Canby Excavating $205,628.95 11. Davidson Utilities $223,558.00 The Engineers Estimate $105,021.00 (Note: Low bidder is 10.8% below the Engineers estimate) City of Woodburn Police Department MEMORANDUM 15A 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 Ext. 351 C n Eubank, Lieutenant riminal Operations Date: March 19, 1997 To: Mayor & Council Through: Ken Wright, Chief Chris Childs, City Administrator Enhanced Safety Properties PrOaram - Award of ~rt~ncates The Woodburn Police Department in its' commitment to Community Policing and in developing community partnerships announces the Enhanced Safety Properties Program Certification Awards. Thc Enhanced Safety Properties Program is designed to provide our community with the best of the programs available nation wide for reducing illegal activity in rental property. The program is three phases and certificates arc awarded for each phase. Phase I: Landlords Completion of the Landlord Training Program. Phase II: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) modifications. Phase IH: Resident Crime Prevention Training. Once all three certificates are received, thc property is enrolled as a one year "member" of the program and the owner/manager is granted permission to display the Enhanced Safety Properties Program Sign. Woodbum Police Officers presented this program in the City of Woodburn to Owners, Landlords and Property Managers on October 25, 1996. On March 17, 1997, those Multi-Housing Rental Properties that qualified for one or more of the above listed certificates attended a meeting at Barclay Square Apartments. Certificates were handed out to those properties. In April, The Enhanced Safety Properties Committee of Oregon, of which Woodbum is a member, is planning a media event to Certify those properties that have completed all three phases of the program. Signs will then be issued to those who qualify and the sign will be put up on those properties. Listed below are participating properties and levels of certifications awarded: Barclay Square Apartments Britewood Apartments 109 Gatch Street Apartments 895 E. Lincoln Apartments Nuevo Amanacer Stonehedge Apartments Phases I, II and IH Phases I, II and IH Phase H Phase II Phases II and IH Phases I, II and IH 15B CITY OF WOODBURN 280 Garfield Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · 982-5252 Library MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: WOODBURN MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL through CHRIS CHILDS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LINDA SPRAUER, LIBRARY DIRECTOR~, March 19, 1997 RE: Library Donations & Projects Donation from Woodbum Women's Club The Public Library has received a donation from the Woodburn Women's Club. The Club is the organization which started the Public Library in 1906, financed and operated it until 1911 when it wes turned over to the City. In order to qualify for the (Andrew) Carnegie Grant to build a building the City (or other acceptable organization) needed to include the provision for continued funding - thus the ongoing serial levy for the Library (and later for the Parks). Sadly, the reason for the donation is that the Woodbum Women's Club is disbanding and the money is the balance of funds remaining in their treasury. As of 3-7-97, a Certificate of Deposit wes renewed for 1 year. As of that date the value was $1,991.82. This donation will be posted to the Endowment Fund. Reader Board The new Reader Board in Library Park was installed today, March 19, 1997. This project has been underway for some time now, and has seen several setbacks to its progress. The initial plan was put into place as a result of a donation from the French Prairie Kiwenis of funds held in trust for the education of the sons of Alan Hamilton. Alan's widow, Lynda, asked that the remaining $1,000 be given to the Library and the Library Board voted to have it spent to install a reader board to announce activities of the Library. The total cost will exceed the original $1,000, but additional costs are funded by the library with existing funds and also by having portions of the work done by the City's Maintenance Crew. Those workers are to be commended on a job well done. '"" 15C MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager Resumption of Greyhound Bus Service to Woodburn March 18, 1997 Greyhound Lines Inc. has not had an agent or stop in Woodburn for some time. The city has been contacted recently by Greyhound and they are in the process of developing service to the city again. They have asked if they could utilize the currently established bus stop area used by the city transit system on Hayes Street in the downtown area. They were informed that such an arrangement would be satisfactory if interference with the city's fixed route bus could be kept to a minimum. Greyhound has indicated that they are negotiating with LA-KZ, located in the old pharmacy building, to become an agency for the company. Greyhound is projecting two northbound and three southbound buses per day to stop at Woodburn. The service is projected to start on March 19, 1997. Projected utilization of the Hayes street bus stop area should have a minimum impact on this areas utilization by the transit bus. Police train landlords to keep apartments safe Program in Woodburn has helped managers reassert control. BY JANET DAVIES WOODBURN -- After apartment manager Judy Nelson heard 150 gunshots in her complex during New Year's Eve parties, she de- cided to get some help. Nelson joined a landlord training program conducted by the Woodburn Police De- partment. "Guess what? We never had one shot this past New Year's," she said. The complex, Stonehedge Court at 280 Stonehedge Place, was one of three honored recently for com- pleting all three phases of the "Enhanced Safety Prop- erties Program." The nationwide program, started in Woodburn and Salem last October, is de- signed to ward off drug and other criminal activity on rental property. "It's helped a lot," Nelson TIMOTHY J. GONZALEZ/Statesman Journal TRAINED AND READY.' Judy Nelson, manager of the Stonehedge Apartments in Woodburn, has wod(ed closely with the police department in a program that is designed to keep the complex safe for its residents. said of her training. "The program is going to be won- derful if everybody gets in- volved.'' Woodburn Officer Scott Hogan said the other com- plexes that completed the program were Barclay Square Apartments, 2363 W. Hayes St., and Britewood Apartments, 1398 E. Cleve- land St. Three others have fin- ished one or two phases, and seven more have signed up for crime prevention inspec- tions. Woodburn has nearly 45 rental complexes. In Salem, about 300 apartment managers from around the area have taken the training. "We expect to have 40 to 50 buildings en- roiled in the program by June," said Emily Cedarleaf, SEE SAFE ! ~C Safe: Managers gain control of apartment property CONTINUED FROM lC no authority. Any complaints to to reward tenants who report 'I know it's helped in crime prevention," he 8aid. 'We had cases where officers would go back on a daily and weekly basis to deal with the same issues. By getting the tenants, landlords and police involved, we've elimi- hated going beck.~ The holiday gunfire problem at Stonehedge was a good example, Hogan said. Nelson and' the police coop- crated in a letter, written in both English and Spanish, to all ten- ants. They were informed that ' firing guns was not an acceptable way to celebrate. Those who tried it would be subject not only to arrest but also to eviction, the letter said. The result, as Nelson noted: No arrests, no evictions. executive director of the Multi- family Housing Council of Or- egon. The inspections include sur- veys of lighting, maintenance of bushes and trees and checks for locks and peephole devices -- anything that will help prevent crime, Hogan said. Managers also learn how to better screen prospective tenants and get tips on how to recognize drug activity before it gets out of control. Linda Lorenz, resident man- ager at Barclay Square, said she thinks the "lease enabling clause" is a major benefit to her Traditionally, apartment park- ing lots and sidewalks are public areas, so managers have little or the police technically have to come from the whole building. But the enabling clause, when signed by 70 percent of the ten- ants, gives managers the control -- and the right to tell people to get off the property. 'Before, l didn't have anything I could sink my teeth into to get them off," Lorenz said. Now, if · omeone doesn't leave, she can call the police. Nelson said she also liked that benefit. Oocnzionally, a carload of people would drive into the parking lot of Stonehedge, just off Front Street. They'd park and party, and there was nothing Nelson could do. ~low we're keeping trespass- ers out," she said. Nelson also started a program crimes. They get a giR certificate to a popular local store. So far, she's given five certifi- cates al~er tenants reported such incidents as graffiti writing and trespassing. 'It encourages people to watch out for each other,' she said. It also promotes pride in their neighborhood. Having the programs also dis- courages potentially bad tenants from renting apartments, she said. ~Those people don't want to live in an environment where you're checked up on," Nelson said. Hogan said the police think the safety program has made a difference in the past few months. 3- 3zl- q WALLACE W. LIEN Managing Shareholder Associates MARK C. HOYT VANCE M. CRONEY WALLACE W.. LIEN, P.C. ATI'ORNEYS AT LAW CAPITOL HOUSE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 5668 SALEM, OREGON 973134-0668 Email: lienlaw~ navicom.com March 7, 1997 ROBERT C. CANNON Of Counsel 1991 Office Manager JANET K. LIEN Woodbum City Council 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 By fax to: (503) 982-5244 And Regular Mail! Re: LaPoint Site Plan Application 95-10 Dear Council Members: This letter will serve as the objection to the submission of the revised site plan by Gary LaPoint in Site Plan Application No. 95-10. The objection is based on the grounds that Mr. LaPoint's latest site plan drawings are not in substantial conformance with the original site plans and the subsequent plans require a new application process. As this Council is no doubt aware, the site plan application approved by this Council was appealed to LUBA in Case No. 95-195. Two bases for the appeal were upheld; failure of applicant to submit a sign plan and failure of applicant to provide examples and information on the style, color and texture of the exterior surfaces of the proposed structures. Rather than submit information addressing those two remand issues, applicant has submitted an entirely new site plan. Such a submission constitutes a new application which must be treated as a separate and distinct site plan requiring a pre-application conference, new staff report, new notices and hearings, as well as consideration by the Planning Commission. The only similarities between the original site plan and the new site plan are the uses, i.e., gas' station and car wash, location of car wash, and location of pumps. Aside from those similarities, the site plan is significantly different in the following respects: 1. The original site plan consisted of two separate buildings, as well as a pump area and canopy, essentially creating three separate structures on site. The new site plan contains just two structures, the pump area and canopy, along with the combined office and car wash. -This alteration alone is enough to require applicant to submit a new site plan application. The original site plan was approved for three building areas, not two, and was based on the plan showing two distinct structures for offices and car wash. The new, revised site plan combines those structures into one, significantly. larger building. OFFICE (503) 585-0105 1191 CAPITOL STREET NE ° SALEM, OREGON 97301-1102 FAX (503) 585-0106 Woodburn City Counsel Page 2 March 7, 1997 The combined square footage of the new office and car wash building is 2900 square feet. On applicant's original site plan, the office contained 828 square feet, while the car wash was to be 901 square feet, for a total of 1,729 square feet for those two buildings. The combination office and car wash is significantly larger, in fact, the combined structure is 40% larger than the two structures originally proposed by applicant. In addition to the significantly increased size of the main structure, the location of the buildings on site has changed. In the original application, the office and restrooms were to be located on the east side of the property, with the car wash located on the south side. Under the new site plan, both facilities will be located in one building on the south side of the property. This alteration will change the on-site traffic circulation pattern, revise the parking location, and alter the landscaping elements of the plan. Clearly, such a change has a ripple effect on all elements of the site plan drawing creating a new and entirely different site plan which must be considered a new application. The total combined square footage of the structures under the new site plan is 6,948 square feet; the combined square footage of the structures on the original application is 6,237 square feet. The relocation of the structures, combination of two of the buildings and enlargement of the main structure have created a significantly larger pair of structures to be built on the property. With the discrepancy and changes in number of buildings and sizes, characterization of the site plan submitted by applicant as is an "update" is inaccurate and incorrect. The new site plan is an entirely new site plan requiring applicant to begin the site plan application process anew. 2. The parking spaces originally designated on applicant's site plan numbered 8. The parking spaces shown on the new site plan totaled 6. This change alone is enough to warrant closer scrutiny by the Planning Department as to the ability of the site to meet on site parking requirements. Yet, applicant would have this Council believe that the reduction in number of parking spaces by 25% is merely an "update" of the original site plan application. 3. In the original site plan, the landscaping elements comprised 16% of the total area of the subject property. The minimum reqUirement for landscaping is 15% of the overall subject property. The new and revised site plan appears to reduce the square footage of landscaping which may reduce the total amount of landscaped square footage below the required 15%. Again, this change is not an "update", but a complete revision of the original proposed site plan. The new site plan submitted by applicant must be submitted to the Planning staff' for initial review and evaluatior~ This Council cannot approve the latest plan submitted by applicant under his original site plan application number 95-10. The changes to the new site plan are simply too great and of too significant a nature to be considered updates. The new plans are not in substantial conformance with the original plans. Woodbum City Counsel Page 3 March 7, 1997 Furthermore, applicant has not submitted information as required by the LUBA Remand Order and his original Application, No. 95-10, should be denied. Of course, applicant has ample recourse in the event this Council denies his application. He can either pursue review of his new site plan at LUBA or he cam submit a new site plan application for review of the new site plan. Applicant is not without options. Opponents simply urge this Council to require applicant to take proper steps to have his new application properly reviewed under the initial site plan application procedures. If you have any questions or concerns about this letter, please feel flee to contact me at your convenience. VMC:jcl cc: Barry Sullivan Dale Baker Yours truly, Vance M. Croney PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 10, 1997 REMAND OF SITE PLAN REVIEW 95-10 TEXACO GAS STATION AND CAR WASH TO: FROM: RE: DATE: STAFF REPORT MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THROUGH CITY ADMINISTRATOR STEVE GOECKRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REMAND HEARING ON SITE PLAN REVIEW 95-10 TEXACO GAS STATION AND CAR WASH MARCH 4, 1997 ~,(_~ I APPLICANT: Gary LaPoint 10618 Crosby N.E. Woodburn OR 97071 II NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting site plan approval of a gas station with car wash. This is an evidentiary hearing based on a remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The applicant is entitled to a remand hearing on the original Texaco application. LUBA has limited the scope of this hearing to Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 11, Section 11.020 (d) (Exterior Surfaces) and WZO 11.020 (e) (Sign Plan) under the original application. III THE ISSUE: The original application (SPR 95-10) sought approval of a Texaco gas station and car wash. The applicant, however, is now requesting approval of an Exxon gas station and car wash with modifications of the original site plan. It is the applicant's position that the Page I - Staff Report modifications being proposed to the original application are in substantial conformance with the original site plan. See correspondence (Dale L. Crandall, attorney) Attachment I. Planning staff does not agree with this position and takes the position the proposed Exxon site plan is not in substantial conformance with the original Texaco site plan. IV CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS: Mr. LaPoint originally made application for the construction of a Texaco service station. The Woodburn City Council and Planning Commission approved Mr. LaPoint's request for SPR 95-10. Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan appealed the approval to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). After review, LUBA remanded the proposal to the City Council, and ordered it to address signage and exterior surface color issues. Staff has outlined the major events that have taken place over this period. March 17, 1995 - Gary LaPoint submitted an application to develop a Texaco gas station with car wash. April 5, 1995 - a preliminary meeting was held regarding site plan review between city staff and the applicant. Page 2 - Staff Report May 25, 1995 - a public hearing was held by the Woodburn Planning Commission who aooroved the applicant's request with conditions. (See Staff Report 95-10 Attachment II) June 5, 1995 - Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan, through attorney Vance M. Croney, appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. (Attachment III) The City Council was informed of the appeal and established July 24, 1995 as the council hearing date. The City Council continued the evidentiary hearing of July 24, 1995 to August 14, 1995. This was to give additional time for the council to review additional written testimony that was submitted at the July 24, 1995 hearing. The City Council heard additional evidence on August 14, 1995 by the applicant, closed the hearing, and directed staff to submit a proposed ordinance granting approval of the application. (Attachment IV) August 28, 1995 - the City Council aooroved Ordinance No. 2156, granting original application for a Texaco service station. (Attachment V) the September 18, 1995 - Vance M. Croney, representing Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan,, appealed the City Council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Page 3 - Staff Report May 24, 1996 - After 8 months, LUBA remanded the case back to the City Council to address Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 11, Section 11.020 (d) (Exterior Surfaces) and WZO 11.020 (e) (Sign Plan) under the original application. (LUBA No. 95-195, Attachment VI) June 18, 1996 - Planning staff received a Memorandum Opinion No. 96-03 from the City Attorney clarifying the LUBA remand. (Attachment VII) July 3, 1996 - A memorandum from the planning staff to the City Administrator and City Attorney conveying that staff was not going to pursue this matter. (Attachment VIII) October 21, 1996 - Mr. Gary LaPoint made an additional submittal development of an Exxon gas station rather than a Texaco gas station. for the Correspondence ensued from December 1996 through January 1997 between the applicant's attorney and Planning staff over the matter as to whether the 'new" Exxon submittal was in substantial conformance with the original Texaco site plan. This correspondence was followed up with a meeting between city staff and the applicant and his attorney on January 9, 1997. · Staff contacted the applicant's attorney and informed him that after he provided copies of the applicant's submittal a hearing would be held on the LUBA remand on March 10, 1997 before the City Council. Page 4 - Staff Report APPLICANT'S NARRATIVE: 'This site plan application for an office, car wash, and gasoline pumping station was unanimously approved by the Woodburn Planning Commission and Woodburn City Council in 1995. Two competing gasoline station operators appealed the approvals to LUB,4. Their appeal was denied except for submission of a sign plan and specifications as to type, color and texture of exterior surfaces of proposed structures. The sign plan and specifications have now been reformed and supplied to the city, in complete compliance with the remand from LUBA. During the nearly two years since this site plan was submitted for approval, the applicant's plan for the site has been updated in the following respects, none of which change the criteria to be applied, and none of which change in any significant degree the use, nature or impact of the proposed project: the station will be under the Exxon flag instead of Texaco so the colors and sign will be different, a different (less water-demanding) car wash, the restroom-office area is larger, and the restroom-office area is connected to the car wash. The updated site plan should be approved. VI STAFF INTERPRETATION: Planning staff has concluded that the applicant's proposed submittal is not in substantial conformance with the original site plan approved by the City Council. The following differences should be noted. Page 5 - Staff Report The original site plan consisted of 828 square feet for offices and 908.16 square feet for the car wash for a total of 1,736.16 square feet. The new submittal has a reconfigured and combined car wash and office complex. The total square footage is 2,900 square feet, this is 1,163.84 square feet larger than the original structures. The original site plan shows the office to the easterly property line and the car-wash on the southerly portion of the site. The new submittal shows the entire facility on the southerly portion of the site. The original site plan had two buildings; the new submittal consists of one building. The canopy for the gas pumps on the new submittal is 4,048 square feet while the canopy on the original site plan is 4,508 square feet. The trash enclosure has been repositioned and a vacuum station added on the eastern portion of the property in the new submittal. · The parking configuration has changed in the new submittal. The planter-strip on the eastern portion of the property has been reconfigured in the new submittal to reflect the removal of the office complex on that portion of the site. Page 6 - Staff Report The LUBA remand requires the City Council to address the Texaco sign and color scheme and site plan not the new submittal of the Exxon service station. VIII STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council follow a two step process: First, the City Council should refuse to consider the applicant's submittal based upon the fact that the submittal is not in substantial conformance with the applicant's original application. Second, the City Council must consider whether the applicant has adequately addressed the subject of the remand. (LUBA No. 95-195, Attachment VI.) If the Council finds that Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 11, Section 11.02 (d) (Exterior Surfaces) and WZO 11.020 (e) (Sign Plan) have been adequately addressed by the applicant under the original application, the application should again be approved. If the City Council finds that Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 11, Section 11.020 (d) (Exterior Surfaces) and WZO 11.020 (e) (Sign Plan) have not been adequately addressed under the original application, the application should be denied. After the City Council concludes its deliberations and makes a tentative decision, it should direct staff to prepare an ordinance, with findings and conclusions, which will constitute the final land use decision. Page 7 - Staff Report ATTACHMENT I DALE L. CRANDALL Attorney At Law Phone (503) 363-4971 280 Court Street NE · Suite 14 · Salem, Oregon 97301 January 29, 1997 FAX and Mail FAX 503-371-1587 Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director N. Robert Shields, City Attorney 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Sullivan v. City of Woodbum LUBA No. 95-195 Dear Mr. Goeckritz and Mr. Shields: In response to your letter of January 26: Place the original application on the Council agenda for review on remand. You should have been already supplied (and let me know ff no0 with the exterior surfaces and sign plan information sufficient to satisfy the two remand issues, and the Council should be informed of that in your staff report. Your staff report to the Council should also contain the plan and supporting materials for the proposed modifications to the original applicatiom Your staff report should individually address each proposed item of modification, and the staffs position on whether that item presents a departure from the original plan so significant that it falls outside spectrum of the site plan review process. On behalf of the applicant, I would respond to each of the items of modification. Our view of the modification issue is that a site plan review process allows modification of the plan at any stage so long as the changes are not so substantial as to impair use of surrounding services and properties. To us, it seems apparent that, for example, if an objection was made by a citizen or council member to the appearance, obstruction of view, shadow, configuration, or footprint of a building is raised during review by the Council, the applicant would have the right during the meeting to propose changes satisfying the objection even during the meeting, that being the very purpose of the process of review. The council should then act on a) the issues remanded and then b) the items of proposed modification. We will proceed with the development based on whatever approval is allowed, and consider our options for resubmission to the planning commission of any items of modification not allowed. Very truly yours, Dale L. Crandall cc: Garry L. LaPoint ~ REC'D ~ JAil $ 0 1997 WOOOBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. ATTACHMENT II 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 982-5222 STAFF REPORT Site Plan Review 95-10 Texaco Gas Station and Car Wash II III iV APPUCANT: Gary LaPoint 10618 Crosby NE Woodburn, OR 97071 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting site plan review approval of a gas station with car wash. The total building area is approximately 6,237 square feet. No convenience store is being proposed with this development. RELEVANT FACTS: 'The site is located on Lawson Street, south of McDonald's. The current site is vacant. The property is surrounded by commercially zoned property to the north, south/east and west. The subject property is part of a larger parcel that was recently approved for a partition (MP 95-01). No new tax lot number has been assigned to this parcel, but the parent parcel was identified on Marion County Assessors Map 5S,2W, Section 12C, tax lot number 500 and 602. The site is zoned Commercial General. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Commercial'.Land Development Policies Administration and Enforcement Policies Public Services Goals and Policies Transportation Goals and Policies Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 Permits and Enforcement Chapter 6 Planning Commission Chapter 7 Public Hearings Chapter 8 General Standards Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveways Private Street Standards Chapter 11 Site Plan Review Chapter 29 Commercial Retail Chapter 30 Commercial General C. Sign Ordinance D. Landscaping Standards Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Staff: Applicable approval criteria have been met through the implementing ordinances of the adopted Zoning Ordinance and any other ordinances in effect at the time of approval. The subject property is within one of the four ma]or commercial areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Adequate public services are available and can be extended to the property at the owners ex~i~ense. A traffic study has been prepared by Lancaster Engineering. This has I~ reviewed by staff and Oregon Department of Transportation. The City concurs with the conclusions reached in the traffic impact study. The motel will not generate a large number of peak hour trips which tend to more adversely affect roadway capacities. As pointed out in the study, trips to the gas station will be primarily composed of vehicles currently on the roadway system which are called 'pass-by' trips. As found in the study and concurred with by ODOT, the proposed project will not adversely impact the existing road network and mitigation measures, therefore, are not required. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance The following sections of the zoning ordinance were found to be relevant to the approval of this application. Chapter 8 General Standards Section 8.140 No Parking in Front Yard or Landscaped Area Staff: Tho applicant has not proposed any parkino within the requirad setback, therefore, this standard has been met. Section 8.190 Vision Clearance Staff: The final plan will be reviewed for compliance with the required vision clearance areas. Page 2 - SPR95-10 Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards Section 10.050 Off-Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards Staff: The applicant is providing 8 parking spaces per planning staffs request. No specific standards exist for gas stations. Section 10.060 Off Street Loading Staff: The Zoning Ordinance would require I loading space. The Planning Commission may waive this requirement. The applicant has indicated that office Supplies etc. will be delivered through the main entry doors and therefore no loading spaces are being provided. Section 10.070 Parking and Loading Area Development Staff: The applicant has provided evidence that this approval criteria (a - i) can be met. Chapter 11 Site Plan Review Section 11.030 Approval of Site Plan Required (a) No building permit for construction of structures governed by this chapter shall be issued until the Site Plan for that structure has received approval under the provisions of this Chapter. (b) Any conditions attached to the approval of the Site Plan shall be conditions on the issuance of the building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be considered a violation of this Ordinance. Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan Staff: The applicant has addressed this site plan review criteria adequately, see attached narrative from applicant. (a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse impact on adjacent uses. Staff: The applicant has complied setbacks and landscaping. with City standards regarding Page 3 - SPR95-10 (b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize impact on adjacent uses. (c) Landscaping shall be located as to maximize its aesthetic value. Staff: The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan. It indicates that 16% of the entire site is landscaped. This exceeds the 15% minimum standard. No landscaping is being proposed within the parking area. However, landscaping will be provided at the front of the parking stalls. (d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Wherever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of similar nature. Staff: The applicant's proposal indicates shared driveway access points to Lawson Street and the private access road between McDonald's and the subject property, therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. (e! The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on the City's or other public agencies drainage facilities. Staff: Storm drainage is subject to public works review. Notes have been generated regarding this issue, see attachment A. (f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on the lot and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Staff: The applicant has stated that this building will not cast shadows on any adjacent properties. Since it is a proposed gas station and car wash, it is not oriented to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. '{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: This staff report has discussed the approval criteria as it relates to site plan review. The applicants proposal is in substantial conformance with the current ordinances and standards as discussed in' this staff 'report. Page 4 - SPR95-10 (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: The applicant has not provided a color board that indicates the materials or the color of the building. Section 11.085 Time Limitation At the time of final approval the applicant has six months to initiate construction. If construction has not begun within this time frame, the applicant can request, in writing, a six-month extension. The site plan becomes void one year after final approval, therefore, the applicant would have to reapply after that time period. Chapter 30 Commercial General Section 30.010 Within any CG Commercial General District, No building, structure or premises shall be used, enlarged or designed to be used, erected, structural altered or enlarged except for one or more of the following uses: Any use permitted in the Commercial Retail District: Section 29.030 (b) (3) (4) automobile service station and washing automobile laundries. Staff: The proposed use is permitted in the Commercial General District. Sign Ordinance Standards Staff: The proposed signs as submitted do not meet the standards in the sign ordinance relative to directional signs and off premise signs. The applicant has indicated on the site plan the locations of some of signs. Specit'm sign locations (canopy area, car wash, building) and sizes will be reviewed separately by staff, and the Planning Commission. Landscaping Standards Staff: The applicant submitted a preliminary landscaped plan. The applicant has provided substantial evidence that landscaping standards have been met. A final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department following preliminary approval. Page 5 - SPR95-10 V COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS: Engineering: See attachment A Fire Dept: See attachment B Wastewater Dept: See attachment C Police: Building: ODOT: See attachment D See attachment E See attachment FI & FII VI VII CONCLUSION: The applicant is requesting site plan review approval of a gas station and car wash. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Based on staff's findings in this report, the following conditions of approval are suggested: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plan. 2. Submit a final landscape plan to the planning department following preliminary approval. 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 materials, or parking shall be permitted within the required landscape and buffer areas. All landscape and buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of all dribs, weeds' and tall grass. This maintenance shall also be required for the those areas that are in the public right-of-way adjacent to the property. Provide wheel stops in parking stalls. Because there is no specific parking area landscaping, this will preserve and enhance the landscaping that is in front of the stalls. Comply with vision clearance standards per section 8.190. These triangles shall be drawn on the final landscape plan. Comply with parking and loading area development requirements of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 10. Page 6 - SPR95-10 Se 10. 11. Submit sign plan to planning department for review. On-site construction shall not commence until the improvement plans have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and all non- remonstrance consents forms are signed, right-of-way permits, and system development charges have been paid. Refer to part two Pg 9 of the standards document for site plan preview (Randy Scott 982-5247). Upon acceptable completion of all improvements to be maintained by the City, the applicant shall provide the City a maintenance bond good for one year; in the amount of 10% of the of the improvement. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the applicant shall submit one set of reproducible as-builts. Conditions of Approval also include the following attachments as submitted by: Engineering Department Building Department Fire Department Wastewater Police Prior to building permit issuance, pay appropriate Systems Development Charges in effect at that time. Page 7 - SPR95-10 SITE PLAN REVIEW WOODBURN TEXACO GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Final plan shall conform to the Construction Plan Standards. Review Procedures and 2. Construction shall conform to DEQ and EPA rules and regulations. Partition and access agreements shall be completed and recorded prior to building permit issuance. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn standards and specifications and all state building codes. STREET AND DRAINAGE 1. Driveway approach onto public street shall be constructed of concrete and shall conform to the City of Woodburn commercial standards. 2. Shared access to vacant lot shall be curbed or barricaded to prevent vehicle traffic entering undeveloped area. 3. On-site storm runoff detention shall be required. Calculate on a 10-year storm, 2-year release. 4. On'site catch basins shall be the pollution control type. 5. Storm runoff discharge: The existing catch basin to be utilized as the discharge point shown on plan may not have sufficient depth for gravity flow from site or capacity even with the detention as specified. This shall be analyzed and verified. · 6. No open street cuts will be allowed on Evergreen, Stacy Allison, or Lawson. Ce WATER 1. Water meters Shall be placed within Lawson Avenue right-of-way. 2. Domestic service can be provided from Lawson Avenue. 3. Backflow prevention device for domestic and/or irrigation service shall be placed at property line. 4. Fire protection shall be as per the Woodburn Fire District's Condition of Approval. Attachment A SANITARY SEVVER 1. Sanitary sewer service as shown on the plan is acceptable providing this is a private line within private easements and maintenance agreements. 2. Car wash shall discharge into sanitary sewer system, not storm sewer. Memo To: From: Teresa Engeldinger, Planner City of Woodbum Bob Benck, Fire Marshal Woodburn Fire District Super 8 Motel & Texaco Station Date: March 28, 1995 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT A. ACCESS .' Minimum access appears to be provided. B. FIRE FLOW .' The minimum requirement for Super 8 motel will be 2000 gpm based on Type V 1hr. construction and sprinkled to NFPA 13R 'requirements. The Texaco station will require the minimum 1500 gpm. C. HYDRANTS: A minimum of three additional hydrants will be required, one hydrant will be dedicated to support the sprinkler system and located near the Fire Department Connection. The two additional hydrants will be located near access points at the north and south entrances to the property. D. SPRINKLERS I FDC: An NFPA 13 R system will be required for the motel with a 21/2 inch stand pipe in each stairwell. Each standpipe will have a 21/2 inch · outlet on each floor. The FDC for the sprinkler system must be located off of the building and within 25 feet of a fire hydrant at a location approved by the Fire District. The Stand pipe FDC's may be attached to the building at a location approved by the Fire District. E. ALARM SYSTEM: As required by UFC for R I occupancies. 1776 Ncwl~rg Highway '~Voodburn, Or. on 97071 Attachment B F. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: Street address numbers must be of contrasting material with its background, and visible from the public way. G. CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION: Approved building permits and approved plans must be on site. At least two additional hydrants must be inservice, approved by the city and operational prior to the beginning of combustible construction. H. BUILDING PLANS: All construction must comply with Building Codes as adopted by the City of Woodbum. Uniform Fire Code compliance as adopted by Woodburn Fire District and the State of Oregon. A Fire and Ufe Safety Review must performed by Marion County Building Department and be completed prior to the beginning of construction. A final inspection for Uniform Fire Code compliance by the Fire District is required prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy. 1776 Newberg Highway Woodbum, Oregon 97071 REQUEST DATE: CONTACT PERSON: Teresa EngeldingeG Planning Dept, 982-5246 TYPE OF PROJECT: PROJECT LOCATION: ~_'~-'~.~N LA~%~t~ ~'~.. At~ F--~E,-C..,D,.E._FzJq [(~1~ CONFERENCE PLACE: Conference Room Woodbum City Hail -DATE:~A~ 199~5 TIME: GENERAL INFORMATION TO APPUCANT ' have read the Information sEcct provided me and understand that which is pertinent to my ;ire Plan Revlew/Pre-Appllcatlon reques~ All materials are to be collated and folded. Signature - Owner/Agent DEPARTMENT COMMENTS FHE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED AFTER PRE-APPUCATION CONFERENCE= 1) Eight (8) copies of Final Plan must be brought into Public Works 2) 'As BUlits' must be provided prior to issuance of the building permit Attachment C To .' T~-,esa En~ldin~,.r (l:'lannin~') From: Lan~ Arend~ (Indu.s~ W~r,e Subject: Woodbum Te,~. I~wso- The Wa~,~-~r ~~ w~ll ~ W~ Te,.~o ~ ~ ~ ~ &s~ Separat~ ~ ~ found m Or.-on', ~ 11~ Code Sec 708 from whe~ they wesh down a,-ound ~o 8o~ puml~ TOTal_ P. City of Woodburn Police DeparOnent MEMORANDUM 270 Montgome~~t Ke.n WrightS.) ) Chief of Date: March 23, 1995 Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 To: Planning Dept., T. Eageldinger Subjm: Super 8frexaco Sexvice Station - Site Review In review of the proposed Super 8/Texaco site plan I would comment as follows: Lawson at Hwy 214 - recommend right in and right out only from and onto Lawson. Lawson at the West Texaco drive-way - the narrowness 00 feet) of the drive-way could cause traffic to backup on Lawson SL This concern is prompted by traffic entering and exiting the Texaco and 'proposed site'. Lawson is a two lane street with no turn lane. All traffic entetin~exVtmg thc Texaco west entrance will turn across a lane of Waffic. The narrow 3Oft drive will allow two vehicles to use the drive at the same time but only if each vehicle stays to the right. Should one vehicle not stay right the drive would be rendered useless for free flow of traffic. Another consideration would be the use of the drive by combination RV vehicles and semi-truck combinations. In order for the combination vehicle~ to adequately enter and exit they will swing wide. Thiz will cause them to use the entire drive. Recommendation: Widen Lawson SL drive to 40 feet to allow for vehicle~ to enter and exit at the same time and allowing for the comb~aOon vehicles to have adequate turning space. Attachment D REQUEST DATE: ~.\ CONIACT PERSON: APPUCANT: Co~{ '~ '~EPAiTrME~: ~'O[L~tiqC~ Teresa Engeldinger; Planning Dept., 982-5246 ~N~CE P~ ~nfemn~ ~m 'DA~:5~ 199~ ~ME: ~:~0 Wo~bum ~ Hall GENERAL INFORMATION TO APPUCANT ' i have read the Information sheet pnwlded me and understand that which is pertinent to my ~ ISite Plan Review/Pre-Application reques'c All materials are to be collated and folded. II Signature - Owner/Agent DEPAITrMENT COMMENTS I ~ 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 Attachment REQUEST DATE: '~,\ ~l~{~,C. ¥~ c~ ~ '. DEPARTMENT: CONTACT PERSON: Teresa Engeldinger; Planning Dept, 982-5246 Conference Room Woodbum City Hall GENERAL INFoRMATIoN TO APPUCANT ' I have read the Information sheet provided me and understand that which is pertinent to my ~ JSite Plan Review/Pre-Application reques~ NI materials are to be collated end folded. I Signature - Owner/Agent DEPARTMENT COMMENTS /~ · / / .TIE FOLLOWING 18 REQUIRED AFTER PRE-APPUCATION 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 Attachment May 3, 1995 Mr. Steve Goeekfim, Community Development Director City of Woodbum 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 3 SUBJE~: Tnmsportation Impact Study for Super $ Motel/Tez~co CODE: Dear Steve: Oregon Depamneat of Transportation (ODOr) staff have reviewed the subject tr~n.~portation impact study (TIS) to determine potential impacts to .the state highways in the area. The scope of the study was determined in consultation between the preparer (Tom Lancaster) nnd appropriate ODOT-staff We have ooneluded that, re'though the analysis was not prqmred using methodology acceptable to ODOT ([e., SIGCAP), the findings of the study would not be materially altered if revisions were required. We, therefore, find that the. study adequately descn'bes the existing and future traffic conditions in the area the potential impacts of the proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to review this TIS. Please feel flee to contact me at 986-2663 or W'fllard Bradshaw, Region 2 Traffic Engineer, at 986-2656 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Daniel L. Fricke Region Planner Rich Mc~wain W'dlard Bradshaw Tom Lancaster ~-~3 0-94) Salem, OR 97310 (5o~) 9~2s74 FAX (5O3) 9~-288~ Attachment F STATEMENT OF INTENT - ATTACHMENT WOODBURN TEXACO LAWSON STREET WOODBURN, OREGON SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NARRATIVE Owner: Garry LaPoint Submitted by: Garry LaPoint 1061 8 Crosby NE Woodburn, OR 97071 (503) 981-8648 NARRATIVE Pro~ect objectives; Garry LaPoint proposes to construct a Texaco Gas Station with Car Wash in the Woodburn community. The Gas Station is a permitted use within the CG General Commercial zone. The applicant seeks approval of the proposed site development plan for construction this summer. The design will be based upon the architectural style developed in recent projects and as required by franchise standards. The applicant has gone to great lengths to develop a project that is compatible with existing zoning regulations and compatible with adjacent uses. Access roads and signage are being coordinated with two adJacent uses, the existing McDonald's and the proposed Super 8 Motel. A Partition Plat for Keith and Warde Hershberger (Sellers) to provide three parcels of property from the two existing parcels is being submitted concurrently with this site plan application. That application was prepared by Devco Engineering, Inc. Following the finalization of the partitioning, the project will be on Lot No. 2. The final design documents submitted for approval prior to construction of the project will include the following: ao A detailed landscape and irrigation plan conforming to City of Woodburn standards. A detailed utilities plan indicating modifications to existing sanitary sewer, storm sewer, drainage, water service, electrical service, and gas service. A detailed outdoor lighting plan designed to avoid glare on all adjacent properties and streets. A detailed signage plan indicating signage in conformance with the City of Woodburn Sign Ordinance requirements. Construction drawings and specifications indicating full compliance with City of Woodburn Development Department and State construction and energy conservation standards. The building and site design shall meet handicapped accessibility standards. 2203-spr.doc Page 1 WOODBURN TEXACO Ownership pattern: The project will be privately owned and operated by Garry LaPoint. Project statistics: SITE DATA: Tax Lot: Map Number: Dimensions: Site Area: S00 & 602 S-W! 2C 177' x 200' 35,520 s.f. (0.82 acre) PROJECT DATA: Office/Restroom Building Areas: Pump Canopy Building Areas: Car Wash Building Areas: Total Building Footprint Area: Parking Area: Parking/Building Area: Parking Landscape Area:. Total Landscape Area: 828 s.f. 4,508 s.f. 901 s.f. 6,237 s.f. (1 8 ~) ! 9,877 s.f. (56 ~ 26,114 s.f. (74 ~ N.A. - See Total Landscape Area 5,699 s.f. (16 ~) - 1 5 % Required BUILDING DATA: Total Building Area: Height: 4,508 s.f. (1 Story) 18' - O" Maximum SETBACKS: Front Yard Building Setback: Landscape Setback: Code: 5' Proposed: 45.5' Code: 5' Proposed: 5' Minimum Side Yard Parking Setback: Code: 5' Proposed: 5' Rear Yard: Code: Proposed: S' Minimum Parking: Code: Proposed: Service use ,- 3 stalls 8 stalls (1 accessible) Loading Zones: Code: Proposed: 1 Space none (not applicable to use) Project timetable and Developer: Construction is projected to begin in the summer of 1995. The General Contractor will be Pacific Northern Environmental. Page 2 WOODBURN TEXACO What Lot Development Qptions (Variances) are proposed for the project? None. Will existing _physical systems be adversely affected by the development of this project? No, the proJect will be built to conform with City and State code requirements and will add minimal loading to existing utilities. Utilities adequate to accommodate this project are available at site. A Joint Traffic Study is being prepared by Tom Lancaster of Lancaster Engineering as required by ODOT to analyze the Intersection of Highway 214 and Evergreen Road. Will the architectural features of the oro_oosed pro~iect be comoatible to the design character of the exlsttnq develo_oment~? The design of the proJect shall be compatible in design and scale with the existing and proposed adjacent buildings. APPLICABLE ZONING AND ORDINANCE SECTIONS. Chapter 10, Off-street Parking, Loading, and Driveway Requirements: This application is being submitted to meet or exceed the criteria outlined in Chapter 10 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. Section 10.050 Off-street Automobile Parking Requirements: Off-street automobile parking shall be provided as required by Section 10.070 and approved by the Planning Director, in amounts not less than those listed below: ADDlicant Response: 8 spaces meeting tl~e City requirements will be provided. Section 10.060 Off-street Loading Requirements: Off-street loading space shall be provided in the amounts listed below except that in appropriate cases the Planning Commission may waive the requirements for loading space: (b) A minimum loading space size of 12 feet wide, 20 feet long, and 14 feet high when covered shall be required as follows: (I) For all buildings except residential and those used entirely for office use; up to 2,000 square feet of gross floor area - one space; (2) For each additional 40,000 square feet of gross floor area or any portion thereof- one space. Aoolicant Resoonse: The applicant requests that the Planning Commission waive the loading dock requirements for this proJect as the operation will not receive or ship any Items requiring loading operations other than fuel which will take place at the tank location. Office sUpplies, operating supplies and fund transfers shall be hand carried through the main entry doors to a van-sized vehicle at infrequent intervals. Page 3 WOODBURN TEXACO Section 10.070 Parking and Loading Area Development Requirements: All parking and loading areas except those for single family dwellings shall be developed and maintained as follows: (a) Location on Site: ... (I) Plans and Permits: ADDlicant Response: The on-site parking has been positioned and detailed to conform with requirements of the Woodburn Development Code. All driveways and parking have been designed to provide adequate drainage, and will be paved with asphalt. The perimeter of all paving areas will have extruded concrete curbing, and all parking stalls will be provided with wheel bumpers (in most locations, the curb will be positioned to act as wheel bumper). The driveways and parking spaces will be dimensioned as follows: (1) The shared street approaches shall be 30 feet in width with rolled transition section at each side of approach. (2) Typical parking stalls shall be 9 feet by 19 feet, with the Van- accessible stall having an adjacent unloading zone 8 feet wide by 19 feet long. (3) Pavement markings and directional signs will be provided to control on-site vehicular traffic. (4) All parking areas have been provided with adequate back-out and turn-around space as applicable. (5) All site lighting will be designed to avoid direct glare or reflection upon residential areas or public right-of-ways. (6) All parking areas will be landscaped to meet or exceed the City of Woodburn standards. Section 10.080 Driveway ~;tandards: (d) Commercial and Industrial driveway widths, number, and location shall be evaluated at the time of the Site Plan or building Permit submittal, and reviewed against existing City Engineering Standards and land use policies. Applicant Response: The proposed design provides a shared access on the north side with the existing McDonald's and the proposed Woodburn Super 8 Motel, providing access from Lawson Street and Evergreen Road. On the east side of the site, a shared access is provide with adjacent undeveloped parcel to Lawson Street. Chapter 11, Site Plan Review: This application is being submitted to meet or exceed all the criteria outlined in Chapter 11 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. Section ! 1.070 Criteria for evaluation of the Site Plan. The following criteria shall be used in evaluation of the Site Plan: Page 4 WOODBURN TEXACO (a) The placement of structures on a property shall minimize impact on adjacent uses. (b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize impacts on adjacent uses. (c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize it's aesthetic value. (d) Access to public streets shall minimize the effect of traffic impacts. Whenever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature. (e) The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on the City's or other public agency drainage facilities. (f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in the position on the lot, and it's accommodation of pedestrian bicycle traffic. (g) The proposed site development, including the architecture, landscaping, and graphic design, is in conformity with the site development requirements of this Ordinance and the standards of this and other Ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of the proposed development are involved. (h) The location, design, color, and materials of the exterior of the structures and signs are compatible with the proposed development, and appropriate to the immediate neighborhood. Applicant Response: (a) The proposed structure will be placed within the setback boundaries of the CG district. (b) ProJect landscaping has been designed to enhance the proposed buildings, and to minimize the appearance of the parking areas. lc) Landscape materials have been selected to compliment the building design and material colors, and to provide seasonal variations in flowers and leaf colors to present an attractive enhancement to the Woodburn community. (d) The buildings have been sited so that it does not cast shadows on any adjacent properties solar access. Cha_Dter 30. General Standards; This application is being submitted to meet or exceed the criteria outlined in Chapter 30 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. Section 30.010 Use: A Hotel is a permitted use under provisions CG District. Section 30.040 Height: At one story and 18 feet in height, the proposed structure is within the allowed six stories and 70 feet in height. Page 5 WOODBURN TEXACO Section 30.050 Side and Rear Yards: The proposed project provides setbacks meeting or exceeding CG District requirements, see project statistics. Section 30.060 Front Yards: The proposed project provides setbacks meeting or exceeding CG District requirements, see proJect statistics Ordinance No. 1827, Sign Ordinance: This application is being submitted to conform to the criteria outlined in the Woodburn Sign Ordinance. Applican.t ResDonse: The project developers are working to coordinate signage with McDonald's and the proposed Woodburn Super 8 Motel to provide directional signage to reduce overall impact and improve readability for customers. See attached letter of description from Jon Rhoads, Carlson Sign and separate sign permit submittal. Landscaping Policies and Standards: This application is being submitted to conform to the landscape design criteria outlined in the Woodburn Standards Document for Site Plan Review. Ih General Planting Specifications: Applicant Response: The proposed design conforms to City standards for tree sizing and spacing. III. Buffering Specifications and Guidelines: Applicant Res_oonse: The proposed design screens trash collection and mechanical equipment with masonry landscape walls as augmented with planting materials to provide year-round screening of these functions. VII. Landscape Design Elements: Applicant Response: The proposed design conforms to City standards for number, size, type, and location of landscaping material, buffers, and screens (site lighting has been indicated on the architectural site plan). The submitted documents include a permanently installed irrigation plan. VIII. Landscaping and Buffering Requirements for Zoning Districts: Commercial Zone - CG B. General Applicant Response: The proposed design conforms to City standards for the CG District. The proposed plan provides landscaping area in excess of the 15% landscape coverage required. Landscape strips adjacent to the street frontages exceeds the S foot minimum width. Parking lot landscaping area in excess of the 10% required by CG standards is provide. Street frontage and parking lot landscaping conform to District requirements for size and number. Please see attached landscape drawings for specific proposed plant materials and sizes. END OF NARRATIVE Page 6 February 17, 1995 City of Woodburn Planning Department Directional signage for the new proposed Super 8 Motel, Texaco and McDonalds joint access and shared parking is very important to the success of the businesses. The goal in the design was 'to create signage that could easily be understood during light hours and during night time hours. Many of the customers drive RV's, trucks and larger vehicles which require additional time to safely manuever a turn, thus a longer viewing distance is needed. The 3' x 3' logo for each of the 3 joint tenants is the minimum size that is visible from 100 feet to 300 feet in distance. We feel this modest size directional sign will help create a smooth flow of traffic by giving the first time visitors adequate time to make a safe turn to the businesses. The height of the sign at 8 feet from grade to the bottom of the sign was developed to help fit the UBC clear vision rules and a ground mounted sign could easily be obscurred by other vehicles. I trust this modest request will receive favorable consideration and I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. Jon Rhoads General Manager JR/rw DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DRAWINGS WOODBURN TEXACO LAWSON STREET WOODBURN, OREGON SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Owner: Garry LaPoint Submitted by: Garry LaPoint 1061 8 Crosby NE Woodburn, OR 97071 (503) 981-8648 PROJECT STATISTICS: SITE DATA: Tax Lot: Map Number: Dimensions: Site Area: PROJECT DATA: Office/Restroom Building Areas: Pump Canopy Building Areas: Car Wash Building Areas: Total Building Footprint Area: Parking Area: Parking/Building Area: Parking Landscape Area: Total Landscape Area: BUILDING DATA: Total Building Area: Height: 500 & 602 5-Wl 2C 177' x 200' 35,520 s.f. (0.82 acre) 828 s.f. 4,508 s.f. 901 s.f. 6,237 s.f. (18 %) 19,877 s.f. (56 %) 26,114 s.f. (74 %) N.A. - See Total Landscape Area 5,699 s.f. (16 %) - 1 5 % Required 4,508 s.f. (1 Story) 1 8' - 0" Maximum 2203spr2.doc Page I 03/01/95 14:56 '~503 982 5244 ~DBN I~.~LIC ~ES ~002 NV~Id O~VX:J.L NMI1BQOOM AYM Nosmv ! z O O:~VX~L NIIf'~QOOM AW& I~OSZ'i'IV J~VJ.S ~-~-~ --i NY'Id :1~ Bd¥~$QNV'! NUhBQOOM A¥/~ NOSlTIY ATTACHMENT III WALLACE W. LIEN MARK C. HOYT MARK D. SHIPMAN WALLACE W. LIEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1191 CAPITOL STREET NE SALEM. ORI~CK)N 97301-1102 OFFICE (503) 585-0105 FAX (503) 585-0106 CAP[TO~ HOUSE..Ciit. 1918 VANCE M. CRONEY J~e5,1~5 City Clerk ~ City o f_.~Vo~odburn 27~]~[ontgomery S _t~t____ ,/,~/oodbu~ Oregon 97071 HAND DELIVE~F~D Re: Appeal ofLaPoint - "Texaco" Decision Dear Clerk: Please be advised that this office has been r~ained by Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan to represent them in their opposition to the location of a Texaco gasoline station on Lawson St., one block south of Highway 214, Woodbum, Oregon The property is identified in the notice of public hearing as 5S, 2W, 12C 'FL 500 and 602, and the applicant is Gary LaPoint. The case number is SPR 95-10. It is my understanding that the Woodbum Planning CommL~sion on May 25, 1995 made a final land use decision approving the site plan the Texaco gasoline station, although I have not been provided with the Order or any of the findings and conclusions necessary to justify such action. TiqlR LETTER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE FORMAL NOTICE OF APPEAL of the decision of the Planning Commission relative to the approval of the siting. Based on this office's prior dealings with the city, I understand that a lette~ of this nature would ~ffice to serve notice of our intent to appeal the decision. I would request that this matter be placed on the next available hearing agenda for the Woodbum City Council for consideration of this appeal. I would further request that you contact my office to arrange scheduling of that hearing so that I will not have a conflict with other previously scheduled appearances. While I have not had a thorough opportunity to review the file or the record in this case, there does appear to be several problems with the decision that are apparent even upon cursory review. The first grounds for appeal ofthis case.is that both my client and my office were not provided an adequate opportunity to review and prepare for the heating before the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission hearing, new evidence was submitted by the applicant. At that time, I invoked the provisions of ORS 197:763 which entitled my clients, as a matter of law, to either a continuance or an open record period of at least seven days, depending upon the circumstances present in the case. The Planning Commission denied my clients any extra time whatsoever in violation of the statute. On this basis alone the process is flawed and must be reopen~ The second grounds for appeal involves the inadequacy of the traffic impact study submitted by the applicant. The traffic report focused on Ev~ Road as the primary access road, with little or no discussion of the actual access road - Lawson St. Furthermore, the data utilized in the report was based on general, national statistics and failed to consider the specific level of service on Highway 214. Finally., the report greatly underestimates the volume of traffic the proposed Texaco station will produce. The allowance of another gas station, at this location with access that directly and adversely impacts an already overburdened street (Highway 214) is not supported by applicant's information and simply does not make good sense. It is my understanding that the siting of this proposal, and the placement of driveways as proposed is questioned by at least one city department which recognizes that approval of this use will make the problems immediately worse and perhaps eliminate other ways to help solve the situatiom I would like to reserve the right to raise other issues before the City Council at its hearing after I have had the opportunity to more carefully review the record in person. My clients stand ready to present additional facts, argument and justification for why this application should not be approved at this time. This appeal should be accepted and the decision of thc Planning Commission revec~xl, or at a minimum this case should be remanded to the Planning Commission to take additional evidence and to properly and reasonably apply all of the criteria to the facts presented. When that is done this application will be denied. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Yours truly, Vance M. Croney /~. Steve Goeckritz Mr. Barry Sullivan Ms. Dale Baker Mr. Bob Shields ATTACHMENT IV WALLACE W. LIEN Managing Shareholder Associates MARK C. HOYT MARK D. SHIPMAN VANCE M. CRONEY WALLACE W. LIEN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW August 14, 1995 P.C. In Practice Since 1979 Staff JANET K. ~ MARY C. ALDERMAN MARY H. TOROK Mayor and Woodburn City Council City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Written _Option Subm~_'_~ in Sup_mn of _App._ I~nts Oral T~i ~mg_ ny at August 14, Dear Hon.o. ~ble Mayor'and. City Co~m~il Members: My' July 24, 1995 letter setting forth the basis ofodr appeal of site plan review SPR95-10 has already been submitted into the record. This letter will serve as written support for appellants Barry Sullivan and Dale Bakers contln~! oppodlion as evidenced by oral testimony at the August 14, 1995 hearing~ Rather than reiterate the points raised in the first hearing, I would like to address the points addressed by applicant, Gary LaPointe at the original hearing, as well as points raised by the city's Planning Director. 1. Conditional Use Requirement For Waiver Requirements Of Off Street Loading As discussed earlier, it is our position that before the applicant may receive a waiver of the off-street loading requirements as set forth in Woodbura zoning ordinn~ce (WZO) 10.010 and 10.060, he must go through Conditional Use proceedings and receive a waiver from the Planning Commi~o~ This requirement is set forth very clearly in WZO 10.060. Unfortunately, the drafters of that particular ordinance left some ambiguity as to how the Conditional Use proceedings are to take place. The exact language of the ordinance is as follows: "Off-street loading space shall be provided in the mounts listed below except that in appmpiiate cases the Planning Commission may waive the requirements for loading space, after proceecrmgs are had as for a Conditional Use as provided for in Sections 10.010 and I0.070, and when tho Plam~n~ Conunl~on has d~tetmined that thc USO to which the building is to be put is of a kind not requiring the loading or unloading for delivery of merchandize or other property by commercial tracks or delivery vehicles .... " Sections 10.010 to 10.070 refered to in the ordinance do not contain Conditional Use criteria. This is the ambiguity. On the other hand, WZO Sections 14.010 to 14.070 contain the Conditional GFY-ICE (503) 585-0105 FAX (503) 595-0106 Page 2 August 14, 1995 Mayor and Woodbum City Council Use criteria and procedures. It is therefore possible, perhaps even probable, that the transcribers of the WZO 10.060 merely committed a typographical error, ~ substituting I0.010 to 10.070 for the correct Conditional Use pwvisions found in 14.010 to 14.0'/0. Such a clerical mistake is a logical explanation of the ambiguity, particularly when one considers that the transcription error occurred within the.finalization of Chapter 10. On the other hand, if the Conditional Use provisions referred to in WZO 10.060 are not clerical errors, it is nevertheless clear that the ordinance requires a Conditional Use proceeding in situations where an applicant seeks a waiver of the off-street loading requirements. The Conditional Use proceeding reference is not an off-hand or oblique reference. On the contrary, the Conditional Use proceeding requirement is specifi~y set forth ~ the requirement that the Planning Commission determine that an off-street loading facility is not required. Reading the two requkements together clearly indicates that both a Conditional 'Use proceeding and a Planning. Commission wa~er of the off-i;tree/l, oading requirement criteria must occur before such a waiver .can ' be granted. If this council determines that a Conditional Use proceeding was held, is not required or that off-street loading requkements can be a condition of the site plan approval, applicant's application is still inadequate and incomplete. WZO 11.020 sets forth the required elements of any application for site plan review. Included in those requirements is the following provision: '(a) A site plan, drawn to scale, showing the proposed hyout of all structures and other improvements including.., off- street parking and loading areas .... The site plan shall indicate the location of entrances and exits and direction of tr~ffic flow into and out of off-street parking and loading areas, the. location of each parking space and each loading berth in areas of turning and maneuvering vehicles.~ Applicant's site plan contains no provision for off-street loading facilities as requked under both Chapter 11 and Chapter 10 of the Woodbum zoning ordinance. As such, the site plan is incomplete and a clearly stated mandatory approval criteria has not been met. Accordingly, the application for site plan review is incomplete and inadequate and this coundl cannot approve such an applicatior~ As mentioned in the July 24, 1995 hearing, the Woodbum P~ Director acknowledged that WZO 10.060 is unclear and that the Planning Department is uncert_~in as to how it should be applied. If this council is to give strict meaning to its ordinances, the ordinance at issue can only be applied correctly by requiring applicant to submit a Conditional Use application in addition to his site plan review. F_siling that requirement, applicant's site plan review is still inadequate because it provides for no off-street loading as required in the site plan review zoning ordinance. 2. Traffic Report Inadequate Much has been said of the traffic report submitted on bebslf of applicant by Lancaster Engineering. Rather than rehash my earlier statements on this issue, I would like to point out some Mayor and Woodbum City Council Page 3 August 14, 1995 discrepandes and areas of additional concern. At the July 24 heating, Mr. Lancaster of Lanc~er Engineering pointed out that Lawson Street was only briefly disamqed in his report. He further added that the report was based on two elements: local and non-local traffic. Mr. Lancaster stated that local tm_ffic won't utilize Lawson Street to access the proposed gas station; his study substantiates that assertion at page 11 where he states that 90°,4 of the traffic will be generated by one time users. The coneem of appellants is that one time users will not know that the traffic signal at Evergreen and Highway 214 provides easier aeces,~'bility back to Interstate 5. Because of this hck of knowledge of the cit3ls local street system, the Highway 214 - Lawson Street intersection will become even more congested and dangerous. Mr..Lancaster attempted to clarify his 90% figure used h t~. study-by stating that the number . was atm'butable to one4ime users for the motd traffic alone. Yet, nowhere in the traffic ~-eport does that qualification appear. Furthermore, Mr. Lancamer anticipates that at the very least, half of the gas station business will be derived from one time users. Again, one time Use~ will not be familiar with the local traffic pattern and may well attempt to return to Interstate 5 via the Lawson Street - Highway 214 entrance. The statistics submitted by Mr. Baker indicate that a gas station of the proposed size and volume as applicants will generate more than 900 trips per day. II'half of these vehicles Wili:,e the Lawson Street - Highway 214 intersection, more than 450 additional cars will bo attempting to access Highway 214 - Lawson Street. Even using applicant's figures, the increased uaflie ~t the Lawson Street - Highway 214 intersection will remit in 250 additional ears utilizing the interseetiom For a highway-local street intersection which is currently at level of service F, the additional traffic would make an already unbearable situation intolerable. At this point, a word about Mr. Baker's method of ealaflating vchide trips should be mentioned. At the July 24 heating, we emphasized that the 916 trips per day figure arrived at by Mr. Baker was derived from his own experience operating three gas stations here in Woodbum. He stated that his figures were based on the number of gasoline dispensers. Applieam's attorney pointed out that there were not dghteen dispensers located on the proposed Texaco site. Mr. Baker's definition of dispensers means hoses, not pumps or islands. The proposed Texaco station will dispense three types of gasoline bom three separate homa at each pump. Accordingly, each island will have at least two pumps which will have at least three hoses, or dhpenscrs. This equates to eighteen hoses, or dispensers which formed the basis of Mr. Baker's calculations. I would also like to point out that while Mr. Lancaster emphasized that the State Department of Transpo~tion has reviewed and conaxrred with his find!rigs,. ODOT has but one concern in mind. Highway 214 is the only state highway within the effected arm Accordingly, ODOT is concerned only with the traffic patterns, impact and circulation on Highway 214. ODOT has no interest in.the levd of service, eiro_,l-~on, impacts or traffic patterns of Evergreen and Lawson streets. Therefore, when it is pointed out that ODOT has no concerns about the traffic report, ODOT is really saying that Mayor and Woodbum City Council Page 4 August 14, 1995 the highway it is concerned with, i.e. Highway 214, will not suffer any impacts which warrant its interference. A member of this council expressed concerns about making Lawson Stre~ a one-way road, as well as Evergr .e~x The concern was that traffic heading south down Lawson would turn east on Stacy Allison Street creating a traffic problem at the intersection of Stacy Allison and Evergreen. This is a valid and distressing concern particularly in light of the fact that that particular intersection was not analyzed in the traffic report submitted by applicant. Becauz~ applicant is anticipating that some of the traffic w~ take that circuitous route to the traffic light at Evergreen, it is apparent that the traffic report is incomplete by failing to address the traffic impact on that particular traffic route. 3. Private Driveway Is Contrary to City Policy. Applicant is proposing to utilize a private roadway along the south edge of the McDonalds property as the pfima~ means of routing traffic from Lawson Street to Evergreen Street. Applicant insists that the private roadway wFll alleviate any problems generated by return traffic exiting Lawson Street west onto Highway 214. Unfortunately, because the proposed roadway be~een Evergreen and Lawson Street is private, the city will have no control over the maintenance, improvements or future use of this throughway. By allowing a private driveway to serve as the primary feeder street onto Evergreen, the city w~l lack control over the use, volume and direct maintenance of the heavily used private roadway. The only control the city will have will be at the outset where'm it may implement conditions for initial use. When the private roadway is in need of repair, becomes potholed or deteriorates to a point where through tm~c does not use it, the city has no means of requiring the private owners to upgrade the roadway to assure continued through traffic use of the roadway. Furthermore, in the event the private roadway deteriorates to the point where it is not being used by through traffic, vehicles entering the public access driveway of the proposed gas station w~l be forc~l to use Lawson Street as a means ofingress and egress. This would amplify an already critical traffic situation at the intersection of Lawson Street and Highway 214. Appellants have been unable to uncover any city policy wherein the city approves of routing traffic from businesses across a private roadway to public $1a'eets. The proposed route separates two city blocks and connects two city streets. It is a prime location for a public road.~ 4. Conclusion Based on the information contained in my July 24, 1995 letter, as well as the information contained herein, applicant has not submitted a complete or adequate' application, the procedural requirements for off-street loading facilities have not been met and the traffic report is inadequate to Mayor and Woodburn City Council Page 5 PaJgust 14, 1995 determine the uaftic impacts resulting from the proposed gas statio~ Accor~y, this council must deny applicant's application or at the veo' least, remand this matter back to the Planning Commission to make further determinations concerning the traffic impact, Conditional Use procedure and impact on the city of a private driveway to serve as a primary means of routing commercial traffic. Vance M. Croney ,~/ VMC:drs cc: Barry Sullivan ATTACHMENT V COUNCIL BII'L-NO. 1661 FACILITY, ADOPTING 'RNDING$ ANO .CQNCLUSION$, AND Ut=Ut-~3 ~- EMERGENCY.' -: ";..:. WHEREAS, the Woodbum..l~anq. lng Cd~m. lsslon.c~,nd, ~u~ _fl?~ _r~__e_v. idv~e~nti~ hearing in Site Plan Review' Ca~e: g5-10-aa .May z.a, m a=g eno appru ~ ap~led ~ ~e W~dbum ~ ~1, a~ "-' lgg5, and in res~ m a r~ue~ by ~ ~ll~ a~ op~~, publi~ hearing until Augb~ 1~, 1995~.a~. -. the public hearing, a~ dim~_~ff ~ s~m~ a. pm~s~ g?[~, g u approval of ~e appli~n, bas~ u~ ~nd~g~ and ~ncmusmons, 10 and considered ~ p~~ny pr~en~eo, mvw, THE CITY OF WOODBURN.ORDAINS. AS.FOLLOWS: Section 1. The appli~etio'n ~ Site I~lan Review C~se 96-10 is hereby approved.-~:- concluslo'n$ attached hereto as .F.~.~lt 'AW ..~t' are, by this rare.fence, irmorporated herein. ..- ' in Exhibit A, . '. .:; :... ' · Se~on 4. This ordinanoe .13'eing n .ecessary for the Immediate pr ervati.on. _f the oublio oeace, health and safety, an emergency Is declared to ~ an? m~ ordinance s~all take e~fedt ul~on passage'l~, rrm'Council end approval by the Mayor. · Page 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 2'1.56' .- EXHIBIT "A" Page 1 of 2 Approved as to for . - Date City Attorney :' Nancy A. I~a~sey, Mayor / Passed bY the Council ~aust 28 1995 ... '" -. August 29, 1995 Submitted to the Mayor August 29, 1995 Approved by the, Mayor ----'--------' 'Filed in the Office of the Reoorder . Au. st ~ 1995 - ' ~a~~~ c~y aeoorder CiW °f'Woodb~m~.Oreg°n- Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. 1661 ORDINA.NCE NO: ~156.. -! EXHIBIT "A" Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT VI 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON BARRY SULLIVAN and DALE BAKER, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) VS. ) ) CITY OF WOODBURN, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) GARRY LaPOINT, ) ) Intervenor-Respondent. ) LUBA No. 95-195 FINAL OPINION AND ORDER Appeal from City of Woodburn. Vance M. Croney, Salem, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of petitioners. With him on the brief was Wallace W. Lien, P.C. No appearance by respondent. Dale L. Crandall, Salem, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of intervenor-respondent. LIVINGSTON, Chief Referee; HANNA, Referee participated in the decision. ' REMANDED 05/24/96 You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.950. Page 1 1 Opinion by Livingston. 2 NATURE OF THE DECISION 3 Petitioners appeal a decision of the city council approving 4 a site plan for a gas station. 5 MOTION TO INTERVENE 6 Intervenor-respondent Gary LaPoint (intervenor) moves to 7 intervene on the side of the city in this proceeding. There is 8 no opposition to the motion, and it is allowed. 9 FACTS 10 Intervenor proposes to construct a gas station with a car 11 wash on a vacant lot within the city's General Commercial (CG) 12 zone. We adopt petitioners' undisputed description of the site: 13 "The subject property is surrounded on all four sides 14 by commercially zoned property. * * * It is bordered 15 on the north by an existing McDonald's restaurant, on 16 the west by Lawson Street, on the south by a vacant 17 lot and on the east by a vacant lot which has been 18 approved for the construction of a Super 8 motel. 19 * * * The subject property is one-half block south of 20 State Highway 214 and a block and a half east of 21 Interstate-5. * * * 22 "The proposed gas station and car wash are permitted 23 uses within the CG zone. * * *" (Record citations 24 omitted.) Petition for Review 3. 25 Intervenor's application was submitted in March, 1995, and 26 considered by the city planning commission on May 25, 1995. The 27 planning commission approved the site plan. 28 Petitioners appealed the planning commission's decision to 29 the city council, which considered the appeal on July 24, 1995. 30 Petitioners describe the appeal: 31 "[At oral argument] Petitioners presented oral 32 testimony in opposition to the site plan application. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 * * * At the close of the hearing, the City Council voted to continue the hearing until August 14, 1995. * * * "On August 14, 1995, Petitioners submitted written evidence into the record. * * * At the hearing, the city Planning Director submitted a memorandum introducing written evidence in response to testimony provided at the July 24, 1995 hearing. * * * Additional written materials were submitted into the record on behalf of [intervenor]. "Petitioners requested the record be kept open an additional seven days in order to evaluate the information submitted at the August 14, 1995 hearing and to determine whether to submit rebuttal evidence on behalf of opponents. * * * The City Council denied the request. * * * The City Council then voted to approve the application * * *. - Petition for Review 4-5. This appeal followed. PRELIMINARY ISSUE Intervenor contends that under ORS 215.428, the city was required to issue its final decision within 120 days. Intervenor reasons that (1) since the city's final decision was not issued within 120 days, he was entitled to apply for a writ of mandamus under ORS 215.428(7); and (2) since ORS 215.428(7) provides that a writ of mandamus to compel the city to issue the approval shall be issued unless the approval would violate a substantive provision of the city's comprehensive plan or land use regulations, and since petitioners do not claim such a substantive violation, petitioners' entire appeal is moot. We see two problems with intervenor's argument. First, ORS 215.428 governs county, rather than city, actions on permit applications. However, since ORS 227.178, which governs city Page 3 1 actions, contains similar provisions, we apply it instead.1 2 Second, ORS 227.178(7) provides a remedy to an applicant in 3 the event the governing body of the city or its designate does 4 not take final action on an application for a permit, limited 5 land use decision or zone change within 120 days after the 6 application is deemed complete.2 If that remedy is exercised, 7 the circuit court, rather than the city governing body or its 8 designate, becomes the decision maker. However, the mere 1ORS 227.178 provides, in relevant part: "(7) Except when an applicant requests an extension under subsection (4) of this section, if the governing body of the city or its designate does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days after the application is deemed complete: '(a) The city shall refund to the applicant either the unexpended portion of any application fees or deposits previously paid or 50 percent of the total amount of such fees or deposits, whichever is greater. The applicant is not liable for additional governmental fees incurred subsequent to the payment of such fees or deposits. However, the applicant is responsible for the costs of providing sufficient additional information to address relevant issues identified in the consideration of the application. "(b) The applicant may apply in the circuit court of the county where the application was filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body or its designate to issue the approval. The writ shall be issued unless the governing body shows that the approval would violate a substantive provision of the city comprehensive plan or land use regulations as defined in ORS 197.015. The writ may specify conditions of approval that would otherwise be allowed by the city comprehensive plan or land use regulations.' 2As an approval of an application for site review-within an urban growth boundary, the challenged decision falls within the definition of "limited land use decision" stated in ORS 197.015(12) (b). However, the city processed the application using the procedures for a land use decision. Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 existence of a remedy under ORS 227.178(7) for delay in processing an application does not affect the city's review of an application or the standard of review at LUBA. If the remedy is not exercised, it has no import. FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR A. Area of Building Petitioners challenge the city's decision on the ground that it is not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners contend there is no evidence "approving construction of a Petition for Review 6. to support the city's order 6,237-square-foot building." The challenged decision finds "the proposed building area is approximately 6,237 square feet in size." Record 3. The application describes the "project data," in relevant part, as: "Office/Restroom Building Areas: "Pump Canopy Building Areas: "Car Wash BuildingAreas: "Total Building Footprint Area: Record 59. 828 s.f. 4,508 s.f. 901 s.f. 6,237 s.f." We see no inconsistency between the project data and the city's finding. The project data show that the total building area (the sum of the areas of the office/restroom building, pump canopy building, and car wash building) is 6,237 square feet. That is what the city found. This subassignment of error is denied. Page 5 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 B. Impact on Traffic Petitioners contend that in response to woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) ll.070(d), the city found "the proposed use will have a minimal impact on traffic patterns." Petition for Review 8. Petitioners argue the city's determination is not supported by substantial evidence. WZO 11.070(d) states in full: "Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Wherever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of similar nature." The challenged decision addresses WZO ll.070(d) as follows: "The applicant's proposal indicates shared driveway access points to Lawson Street and the private access road between McDonald's and the subject property, therefore, this criteria [sic] has been satisfied." The city did not determine that "the proposed use will have a minimal impact on traffic patterns." The challenged decision finds only that the proposed driveway access minimizes the impact of traffic patterns by sharing driveway access points to Lawson Street and utilizing a private access road between McDonald's and the subject property. Petitioners challenge the evidentiary support for a determination the city did not make. Furthermore, the above-quoted finding indicates the proposed design itself minimizes the impact of traffic patterns in exactly the manner suggested by WZO ll.070(d). Petitioners do not dispute the finding, and no further evidence of compliance with WZO llo070(d) is necessary. This subassignment of error is denied. Page 6 1 The first assignment of error is denied. 2 SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 3 A. Site Plan Procedure 4. Petitioners contend intervenor's site plan should not have 5 been considered by the city, because it did not contain 6 information required by WZO 11.020 and therefore was incomplete 7 when filed. We disagree with petitioners. The absence of 8 relevant or even essential information in an application does 9 not preclude consideration by the city, although it may result 10 in a denial of the application.3 11 This subassig~%ment of error is denied. 12 B. Inadequate Information 13 Petitioners contend the city approved intervenor's site 14 plan without certain information required by WZO ll.020(d)-(f). 15 WZO 11.020 provides, in relevant part: 16 "Site Plan Composition. The following shall be 17 required for any application for Site Plan Review: 18 "***** 19 "(d) Specifications as to type, color and texture of 20 exterior surfaces of proposed structures. 21 "(e) A sign plan, drawn to scale, showing the 22 location, size, design, material, color and 23 methods of illumination of all exterior signs. 24 "(f) Shadow patterns of proposed structures (showing 3Consideration of an incomplete application is inevitable if neither the governing body nor the applicant are aware when the application is submitted that information is missing. An applicant can provide additional information during the proceedings prior to a decision. ORS 227.178(2) specifically allows consideration of an incomplete application when the governing body notifies the applicant of exactly what information is missing and the applicant refuses to submit the missing information. Page 7 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 shadow during the Solar Access Standard period)." 1. WZO ll.020(d) (Exterior Surfaces) The challenged decision addresses WZO ll.020(d) as follows: "The staff report submitted to. both the City Council and Planning Commission contained illustrations of what'.the structure would look like and the type of siding. Although a specific color board was not submitted the applicant's report states on page one, paragraph 2, 'the design will be based upon the architectural style developed by recent projects' This would indicate the structure will conform to all other Texaco stations such as the one on the west side of the I-5 interchange." Petitioner's challenge is expressly directed at "missing information." The apparent consequence of that missing information is a finding that does not respond to WZO ll.020(d). The above-quoted finding addresses the architectural style of the proposed gas station, not the "type, color, and texture of exterior surfaces." This subassignment of error is sustained. 2. WZO 11.020(e) (Sign Plan) The challenged decision .states: "The proposed signs as submitted, do not meet the standards of the Sign Ordinance relative to directional signs and off premise signs and the applicant has not applied for a variance. However, the applicant has indicated on the site plan the location of some of the signs. Therefore this standard has not been met." Record 7. The decision explains that a sign plan will be resubmitted for staff review and "It]his is an administrative decision not requiring Planning Commission approval." I__d. The approval of a site plan without the sign plan violates Page 8 1 WZO 11.020, which unequivocally requires a sign plan prior to 2 site plan approval. 3 This subassignment of error is sustained. 4 3. WZO ll.020(f) (Shadow Patterns) 5 Petitioners object that intervenor failed to provide any 6 diagrams or site plans depicting the shadow patterns of the 7 proposed structures. The challenged decision concludes WZO 8 ll.020(f) is not applicable, both because the proposed one-story 9 building would have to cast a shadow over 280 feet to reach an 10 adjacent property; and because there are no solar access 11 recordations in the city. We agree WZO ll.020(f) is not 12 applicable. 13 This subassignment of error is denied. 14 The second assignment of error is sustained, in part. 15 THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 16 Petitioners contend the challenged decision is unlawful 17 because the city did not require intervenor to "go through a 18 conditional use procedure as required by its ordinance." 19 Petition for Review 18. Petitioners' contention is based on 20 intervenor's request for a waiver of the off-street loading 21 facilities requirement in WZ0 10.010 under the procedure set 22 forth in WZ0 10.060, which provides: 23 "Off-street loading space shall be provided in the 24 amounts listed below, except that in appropriate cases 25 the Planning Commission may waive the requirements for 26 loading space after proceedings are had as for a 27 conditional use as provided for in Sections 10.010 Page 9 1 [14.010] to 10.070 [14.070] * * * .4 (Emphasis 2 added.) 3 WZO 14.030 requires a hearing before the city planning 4 commission on conditional use applications. We interpret the 5 emphasized phrase to mean only that such a hearing is required 6 to address'a request for a waiver of the WZO 10.010 off-street 7 loading facilities requirement. Because intervenor's proposed 8 gas station is a permitted use, we reject petitioners' argument 9 that WZO 10.060 requires an application for a conditional use be 10 filed to obtain a waiver of the off-street loading space 11 requirement. Since the planning commission held a public 12 hearing on the site plan review application, including the 13 request for a waiver, WZO 10.060 is satisfied. 14 The third assignment of error is denied. 15 FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 16 On July 24, 1995, the city council held a hearing on 17 petitioners' appeal from the planning commission. Because of 18 uhcertainty surrounding the meaning of WZO 10.060, as discussed 19 under the third assignment of error, the hearing was continued 20 to August 14, 1994 at petitioners' request. Petitioners then 21 requested the record be kept open an additional seven days to 22 provide an opportunity to address "new evidence" in the form of 23 (1) oral testimony of intervenor's attorney; and (2) a 4wzo 10.010 to 10.070 establish parking requirements. We accept petitioners' conclusion that the reference in WZO 10.060 to WZO "10.010 to 10.070" is in error, and that the reference should read 'WZO 14.0.10 to 14.070." Page 10 1 memorandum and oral testimony submitted by the planning staff on 2 the topic of WZO 10.060. Petitioners now assign error to the 3 city's refusal to accede to their request.5 4 Oral evidence submitted at a continued hearing provides no 5 basis for a request that the record be left open for a response. 6 See ORS 197.763(6) (b). A memorandum from the planning staff to 7 the city council concerning the appropriate interpretation of 8 the city code is not "evidence." Therefore, the fact that 9 petitioners did not have an opportunity to rebut the substance 10 of the memorandum provides no basis for reversal or remand of 11 the challenged decision. See McInnis v. City of Portland, 25 Or 12 LUBA 376, 381-82, aff'd 123 Or App 123 (1993). 13 Moreover, petitioners have not shown how the city's 14 interpretation of WZO 10.060, if incorrect, prejudiced their 15 substantial rights. The off-street loading facilities waiver 16 was considered by both the planning commission and the city 5petitioners rely on ORS 197.763(6) (1993 edition), which provides: "[I]f a participant so requests before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing." The legislature amended ORS 197.763(6) in 1995. The relevant provision is now found in ORS 197.763(6) (b), which states: "If the hearings authority grants a continuance, the hearing shall be continued to a date, time and place certain at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing., for persons to present and rebut new evidence and testimony. ' If new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony for the purpose of responding to the new written evidence." Page 11 1 2 3 council. The conditional use process requires no more. The fourth assignment of error is denied. The city's decision is remanded. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 95-195, on May 24, 1996, by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof contained in a sealed envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney as follows: Vance M. C~oney Wallace W. Lien, P.C. PO Box 5668 Salem, OR 97304 N. Robert Shields Woodburn city Attorney 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Dale L. Crandall Attorney at Law Suite 14 280 Court Street Salem, OR 97301 Dated this 24th day of May, 1996. ATTACHMENT VII CITY OF WOODBURN ~270 Montgorneo/Street · Woodbum, Oregon 97071 · 98~-5~2~2 MEMORANDUM OPINION NO. 96-03 TO: FROM: CHRIS CHILDS, CITY ADMINISTRATOR STEVE GOECKRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR N. ROBERT SHIELDS, CITY ATTORNEY/~//~"5 SUBJECT: PROCEDURE ON REMAND SUII IVAN Vo CITY OF WOODBURN. LUBA NO. 95-195 DATE: JUNE 18, 1996 I recently received the attached copy of the Final Opinion and Order from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in I~arrv Sullivan and Dale Baker v. City of Woodburn and Gary LaPoint. What follows is my legal analysis of the LUBA opinion and' my assessment of what procedure is applicable on remand. Assipnments of Error When a case is taken to LUBA, the appellant must specify certain 'assignments of error." These are legal arguments that an error occurred. In the course of the opinion, LUBA addresses each of these assignments of error individually. If the assignment of error is 'denied,' LUBA concludes that there was no legal error. If the assignment of error is "sustained," LUBA is concluding that an error was mede on. that point. It is then up to the city to correct the error. This case involved four distinct assignments of error which were further divided into certain subassignments of error. LUBA completely denied the first assignment of error and concluded that the findings and decision adequately addressed the areas of the building3 and the trafr~; impa~t, Similarly, the third assignment of error, involving the argument that a conditional use was required, was denied. LUBA also denied the fourth assignment of error, involving the procedural argument that a continuance should have been granted. What is significant on remand is the second assignment of error which LUBA discussed and then partially sustained. As stated above, the MEMORANDUM OPINION 96-03 June 18, 1996 Page 2 fact that LUBA sustained part of this assignment of error places the city in a position where the legal error must be addressed and corrected. ~;econd Assiqnment of Error. In the second assignment of error, petitioner first argued that the site plan procedure was generally defective. LUBA rejected this argument. However, petitioner next argued that the staff finding which addressed exterior surfaces was deficient. Section 11.020(d) of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance provides as follows: Site Plan Composition. The following shall be required for any application for Site Plan Review: (d) specifications as to type, color and texture of exterior surfaces of proposed structures. The staff finding that addressed this part of the zoning ordinance is as follows: The staff report submitted to both the City Council and Planning Commission contained illustrations of what the structure would look like and the type of siding. Although a specific color board was not submitted, the applicant's report states on page 1, paragraph 2, 'The design will be based upon the architectural style developed by recent projects.' This would indicated the structure will conform to all. other Texaco stations such as the one on the west side of the I-5 interchange. LUBA sustained the portion of this assignment of error which addressed exterior surfaces because it found that the staff finding addressed the 'architectural style of the proposed gas station' and not the 'type, color, and texture of exterior surfaces,' as required by the zoning ordinance. Finally, petitioner argued that a sign plan was not submitted prior to site plan review approval and that this also constituted a legal error. LUBA agreed with petitioner's argument and also sustained this portion of the second assignment of error. LUBA quoted Section 11.020(e) which provides: MEMORANDUM OPINION 96-03 June 18, 1996 Page 3 Site Plan Composition. The following application for Site Plan Review: shall be required for any (e) A sign plan, drawn to scale, showing the location, size, design, material, color and methods of illumination of all exterior signs. LUBA's analysis next examined the staff finding in regard to the sign plan which reads: The proposed signs es submitted, do not meet the standards of the Sign Ordinance relative to directional signs and off-premise signs and the applicant has not applied for a variance. However, the applicant has indicated on the site plan the location of some of the signs. Therefore, this standard has not been met. in sustaining this portion of tho assignment of error, LUBA simply concludes that the zoning ordinance requires a sign plan submission prior to site plan review. LUBA stated that "the approval of a site plan without the sign plan violates WZO 11.020, which unequivocally requires a sign plan gZJ9.[ to site plan approval. (emphasis in original)" Procedure on Remand. As a first step, the representatives of each party should be contacted regarding their position. If the Community Development Director pursues this contact, he should advise the parties that he has obtained a legal opinion and solicit their input as to the procedure that the city intends to follow. Second, a public hearing on remand should be noticed and scheduled before the City Council. The parties should be allowed adequate time to present their testimony. Also, a planning staff report to the City Council is appropriate and probably imperative. Third, the scope of the hearing on remand should be limited to that portion of the assignment of error that LUBA sustained. In other words, only two matters should be addressed: (1) exterior surfaces (pursuant to Section 11.020(d) of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance), and (2) the sign plan (pursuant to Section 11.020(e) of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance). MEMORANDUM OPINION 96-03 June 18, 1996 Page 4 Fourth, after the public hearing is conducted, the City Council must make a determination as to whether the two relevant portions of the zoning ordinance have been adequately addressed. If the City Council finds that substantial evidence exists in the record that these requirements have been met, a motion should be made to direct staff to prepare an amended final order approving the site plan with the appropriate findings and conclusions. If, on the other hand, the City Council finds that substantial evidence addressing the zoning ordinance requirements does not exist, staff should be instructed to prepare an order denying the site plan approval with appropr'mte findings and conclusions. ~onclusion I hope that this memorandum opinion is of some assistance. available to discuss these issues with you further. I will, of course, be Enclosure ATTACHMENT VIII MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chris Childs, City Administrator Bob Shields, City Attorney Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director Procedures on Remand Sullivan and Baker vs City of Woodburn and Gary LaPoint LUBA no,95-195 DATE: July 3, 1996 Bob, I am in receipt of your memorandum of June 18, 1996 regarding LUBA Remand 95-195. To date I have received no communication either written nor verbal from either of the appellants Barry Sullivan and Dale Baker nor Gary LaPoint the defendant. I assume that if either party was interested in pursuing this matter they would have contacted my or your office by this time. Since there appears to be a lack of interest by both parities I will not pursue a hearing until i am contacted by one of the concerned parties. The reason for taking this tact is due to the staff and City Council time and energy required to process this remand. If neither party is interested in following through with this issue I don't believe it to be in the city's best interest to resolve the issue for them. WHY THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS NOT IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: The new site plan has a reconfigured car wash and offices complex. The total square footage for the car wash and offices unit is 2,900 square feet. The original site plan dated 12/15/94 shows the offices to the east of the property and the car wash on the southern portion of the site. The offices are 828 square feet and the car wash is 908.16 square feet for a total of 1,736.16 square feet. The canopy in the new site plan is 4,048 square feet while the canopy in the original site plan dated 12/15/94 is 4,508 square feet. The trash enclosure has been repositioned and a vacuum station added on the eastern portion of the property in the new site plan. The parking configuration has changed in the new site plan. The planter strip on the eastern portion of the property had been reconfigured to reflect the removal of the offices complex on that portion of the site.