Loading...
Agenda - 02/26/1996 AGENDA WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL February 26, 1996 - 7:00 P.M. 270 Montsomery Street, Woodburn, Ore$on A. Council minutes of February 12, 1996 regular and executive meetings. B. Recreation and Park Board minutes of February 10,. 1996. ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. Annual Citywide Cleanup Weekend - March 23 amd 24, 1996 B. Budget Committee Meeting - March 5, 1996 - 7:00 p.m., City Hall. C. Employee Recognition Dinner, Friday, March 8, 1996, 6:30 p.m. at the Community Center. D. Public Hearing: March 11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. i) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 95-06, Zone Map Amendment 95-08 (Henkes) ii) Zone Map Amendment 95-09 (Miller) APPOINTMENTS: PROCLAMATIONS m A. Chamber of Commerce B. Other Committees (This allows public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) Page I - Council Agenda, February 26, 1996. Se A. 1996 Liquor License Renewal: B. 1996 Liquor License Renewal: Raven Inn. LaLinda's, Inc. 10. A. Council Bill No. 1692 - Resolution granting the application in Site Plan Case 95-20 and denying the application in Variance Case 95-14 B. Council Bill No. 1693 - Resolution entering into operating assistance grant agreement for transit service. C. Acceptance of public right-of-way, Elm Street. D. Council of Governments membership. IOA 10B 10C 10D 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 19. A. Summary of Transportation Plan coordination meeting. B. Waster Master Plan. 15A 15B Page 2 - Council Agenda, February 26, 1996. 3A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 TAPE READING 0001 0003 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARIONv STATE OF OREGONv FEBRUARY 12v 1996. CONVENED. The Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Kirksey presiding. 0013 ROLL CALL. Mayor Kirksey Present Councilor Chadwick Present Councilor Figley Present Councilor Hagenauer Present Councilor Jennings Present Councilor Pugh Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Childs, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Police Chief Wright, Finance Director Gillespie, Park & Recreation Director Holly, Library Director Sprauer, Public Works Manager Rohman, Asst. Planner Engledinger, City Recorder Tennant 0020 MINUTES. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... approve the Council regular and executive session minutes of January 22, 1996, the Council workshop minutes of January 22 and 29, 1996; and accept the Planning Commission minutes of January 11, 1996, the Recreation and Park Board minutes of January 29, 1996, and the Library Board minutes of January 24, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. 0034 APPOINTMENT - RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD. 0046 Mayor Kirksey appointed Art Ledesma to the RSVP Advisory Board with his term expiring December 1998. JENNINGS/PUGH .... appointment of Art Ledesma to the RSVP Advisory Board be approved. The motion pa~d unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 1) A public hearing will be held on February 26, 1996, 7:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers, regarding Comprehensive Plan Map amendment ~95-06 and Zone Map amendment #95-08 (applicant: Henkes). 2) A public hearing on Zone Map amendment $95-09 will also be held on February 26, 1996, 7:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers (applicant: Leroy Miller). Page I - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 TAPE READING 0065 PROCLAMATION - SPAY DAY USA. Mayor Kirksey proclaimed February 27, 1996 as "Spay Day USA 1996" in Woodburn to encourage local residents to either have their dogs or cats spayed/neutered or to sponsor the spaying/neutering of another person's dog or cat in an effort to reduce cat and dog overpopulation. 0140 CHAMBER OF COM~ERCE REPORT. Bob Wolfe, representing the Chamber Board, inviting the public to attend the annual First Citizen Recognition Banquet on Tuesday, February 13, 1996, 7:00 p.m., at the United Methodist Church. He also informed the Council that on Wednesday, February 21st, the Chamber's Greeters program will be held at Woodburn High School between 8:00 am and 8:45 am. At 12:00 noon on February 21st, the monthly Chamber Forum will be held at Yun Wah's Restaurant with the guest speaker being Jerry Berger from Chemeketa Community College. 0180 Mayor Kirksey stated that she had received a telephone from a gentleman would was inquiring as to who is responsible for the clean-up of debris following a traffic accident. Chief Wright stated that the owner/driver of the motor vehicle is responsible for the clean-up and if they leave debris on the roadway, they could be cited for allowing hazardous materials to be left on the street. The debris includes liquids (i.e. oil, antifreeze, fuel), and the remnants from the traffic accident. Mayor Kirksey stated that the law places the responsibility onto the driver of the vehicle, however, in her opinion, if the tow company is charging for this service they should be the responsible party. 0237 PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PL2%N REVIEW ~95-20 ~ VARIANCE #95-14 (APPLICANT= ~NDY SNEGIREV). The Mayor declared the public hearing open at 7:10 p.m.. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required by ORS Chapter 197. Assistant Planner Engledinger reviewed the staff report which outlined the site plan and variance applications. The property is located at 749 N. Front Street and is zoned Residential Multi-Family (RM). The Planning Commission approved the site plan and variance applications at their December 14, 1995 meeting. The variance allows for the construction of a 2-story 5-plex rather than a 4-plex unit. Under the city's zoning ordinance there is sufficient land available at the site to allow for a 4-plex but the site lacks 1,600 sq. ft. to accommodate the 5-plex. Ms. Engledinger stated that by deleting the 5th unit, only 500 sq. ft. of land space will be made available under the established formula for calculating the allowable size of a structure. Ail other Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A COUNCIL MEETING I~INUTEB February 12, 1996 TAPE READING requirements such as setbacks, parking, fencing, and landscaping have been met by the developer. Councilor Jennings questioned if the memo within the agenda packet was prepared by the Planning Commission (as stated on the memo) or by staff. Ms. Engledinger stated that the memo was written by Director Goeckritz and Attorney Shields. 0610 Andy Snegirev, 34095 S. Hwy. 213, Molalla, stated that he has been working with the Planning and Building Departments to design an apartment complex that would fit into the available area and still make it financially feasible to build the structure and recoup on his investment. He stated that he was led to believe that, following the Planning Commission decision, the variance would be allowed, therefore, he had proceeded to remove the old existing structure in preparation of starting the new complex as soon as possible. He stated that the City will also benefit through the allowance of a 5- unit complex in that they will receive additional property taxes, new construction fees, and a building improvement within the neighborhood. He also stated that he was unaware of the process as it relates to final approval and that he would not have removed the existing building if he would have known that the action taken by the Planning Commission was not final. Josephine Lamore, 806 First St., spoke as a translator for Maria Lada, homeowner at 799 N. Front Street. Mrs. Lada stated that she has a problem with apartments being built at 749 N. Front Street due to her past experience with the types of individuals who lived in the large house before it was removed. She stated that she has lived at 799 N. Front St. for 13 years and having the apartment complex will again mean more gangs, drugs, violence, loud music, and sexual acts being done outside of the building. She has several children and she does not want to expose her children to this type of activity again. Ms. Lamore also stated that she lives in the area of this proposed complex and other children have found syringes on or near the property. Additionally, Mrs. Lada stated that, in the past, her husband was physically threatened by tenants of the complex, a shooting occurred at khe complex, and a drunk driver who wag a kenank ak khe complex hit their house with his vehicle. Councilor Jennings expressed his sympathy for Mrs. Lada and the problems she has had to experience over the years, however, he reiterated that the property is zoned for RM and a 4-plex will be allowed under the current zoning. The Council is only reviewing the variance request which would allow for a 5-plex rather than the allowable 4-plex. Councilor Jennings also stated that he needs to declare an ex-parte contact on Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 TAPE READING this matter since Planning Commission member Terry Will had called him after the meeting for the purpose of sharing some evidence with him. Rather than discussing the information over the telephone, Commissioner Will wrote a letter to Councilor Jennings. This letter was intercepted by Administrator Childs and given to the City Attorney. He stated that he has not seen or read the letter, however, he did have verbal contact with the Commissioner Will. 0992 1131 Marilyn Whitehead, 729 N. Front, stated that there has been property line dispute on the north boundary of her property which is adjacent to the applicant's property. She stated that her attorney had written a letter to the City, however, for some unknown reason, the letter was never entered into the record. She stated that the fence has been there for over 13 years and the applicant has created an expense for her because of the line dispute. She stated that she and the applicant had come to some type of an agreement but it was her impression that the unit would be a 4-plex. She did not object to the construction of a 4-plex but she did object to moving a fence that she could not afford to move which has existed at that location for over 13 years. It was noted that the dispute involves 8" or 9" on the back portion of the property and up to 18" on the front portion. She will contact her attorney to have a copy of the letter that should have been included as part of the exhibits on the Planning Commission hearing sent to the Council. Andy Snegirev briefly reviewed his letter from her attorney outlining the proposed agreement. He has advised her attorney that he will not be making a decision on the proposed agreement until after this hearing. Additionally, he advocated the allowance of the variance since the actual space necessary to construct the 5th unit is minimal and having a new complex at that site will enhance the neighborhood. Attorney Shields informed the Council that they need to decide if they want to continue the public hearing in order to obtain the letter from Attorney Engle. Mayor Kirksey felt that the letter would not be a relevant issue on the number of units since the property owner has already counted that portion of the land as part of the formula and the fence issue is between the property owners. Since there were no objections from the Council, Mayor Kirksey declared the public hearing closed at 7:43 p.m.. 1270 Mayor Kirksey expressed her opinion that variances do have an impact on the neighborhood since it creates more density and potentially more problems. She suggested that variances not be allowed and that the Council be consistent in not granting variances. Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 TAPE READING 1449 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 3A Councilor Pugh agreed with the Mayor's comments adding that a lot of hard work was done by the Planning Commission and the City several years ago and feels that we are deteriorating the City when those basic standards are being ignored. He stated that he does understand the economic consequences of having 4 units rather than 5 but does not feel that there is a logical reason for changing the basic rule and granting the waiver. Councilor Figley expressed her opinion that the variance is sensible. She expressed her appreciation to the applicant for tearing down the building, however, she felt that he should not have presumed that the approval was final until after the complete planning process had been exhausted. Councilor Jennings stated that he is concerned with the Council setting a precedent in telling one developer that they can get a variance for a certain amount of land whereas other developers may be treated differently. He stated that~he would make his decision on the variance at the time of the final vote. Councilor Hagenauer stated that he did not feel that the variance should be granted and the Council should be consistent in not granting variances. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she understood the economic issue being addressed by the applicant, however, she also is concerned about the families living in the surrounding area and adding one more unit only increases the density and potential problems in that neighborhood. Councilor Chadwick agreed with Councilor Figley and stated that the type of people living at those units will determine to what extent, if any, problems will exist in that neighborhood and rather than the number of units. JENNINGS/PUGH .... staff be requested to bring back findings that the variance is denied and the site plan is approved for a 4-plex. After a brief discussion on the motion, roll call vote was taken. The vote was 3-3 with Councilors Figley, Jennings, and Chadwick voting nay. Mayor Kirksey voted aye to break the tie and pass the motion. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 1590 COUNCIL BILL 1689 - ORDINANCE READOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF 1638 ORDINANCE NO. 1934 (TELEPHONE FRANCHISE ORDINANCE} UNTIL A NEW FRANCHISE IS APPROVED. Council Bill 1689 was introduced by Councilor Hagenauer. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Kirksey declared Council Bill 1689 duly passed with the emergency clause. COUNCIL BILL 1690 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING THAT A STOP SIGN BE INSTALLED ON PATRICK WAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 99E. 1664 Councilor Hagenauer introduced Council Bill 1690. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Kirksey declared Council Bill 1690 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL 1691 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITW THE BTATE FOR A wB1995-96 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION GRANT CAPITAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT". Council Bill 1691 was introduced by Councilor Hagenauer. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, Council Bill 1691 passed unanimously. The Mayor declared the bill duly passed. 1695 LIOUOR LICENSE RENEWALS FOR 1996. In a memo from Police Chief Wright, he recommended that the following liquor license applications be renewed for 1996: Package stores: AM/PM Mini Mart, Bi-Mart, Crossroads Deli, Gary's Market, Highway 99 Market, Lind's Plaza Market, OLCC Store $60, Piper's Jewelry, Roth's IGA, Safeway Store, Salvadore's Bakery, Shop N Kart, 7-11 Store, Westview Texaco, Woodburn Chevron, Young Street Market, and Payless Class "B" Dispensers: Eagle's Lodge, Woodburn Elks Retall Malt Beverage: Abby's Pizza Inn, Izzy's Pizza, Heide's Cafe, Senior Estates Country Club, Woodburn Lanes, Pizza Hut, La Unica, E1 Nopal, Corner Sports Pub, Members Club Inc. Class "A" Dispensers: The Pier, Yun Wah Chinese Restaurant, Chu's Eatery, Playa de Crc, Chung Sing Restaurant JENNINGS/FIGLEY... recommend to OLCC that the liquor licenses for 1996 be renewed per the memorandum from Chief Wright. The motion passed unanimously. The Chief's memo also recommended that non-renewal recommendations be forwarded to OLCC for the following establishments: La Linda's, 293 N. Front St., and The Raven Inn, 292 N. Pacific Highway. Since a non-renewal recommendation requires a public hearing, Chief Wright suggested that a hearing be scheduled for February 26, 1996. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 TAPE READING 1755 1786 1821 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 3A JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... a public hearing be scheduled for the next regular meeting to be held on February 26, 1996, 7:00 p.m., for the purpose of considering the 1996 liquor license renewals for La Linda's and The Raven Inn. The motion passed unanimously. BID AWARD - POLICE VEHICLE STORAGE BUILDING. The City had advertised for bids and specifications were sent to 7 contractors of which only one contractor submitted a formal bid. Following a review of the bid, the staff recommended that Parker Building be awarded the bid which would add additional storage space onto an existing wastewater building to store vehicles required to be retained for criminal evidence. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... the bid from Parker Building in the amount of $11,035.00 be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. BID AWARD - VIBRATORY ROLLER (BTREET FUND}. Bids were received from the following vendors for a self- propelled vibratory roller which is used to compact a base coat: Sahlberg Equipment, Inc. (model DynaPac CC102), $24,930.00; Sahlberg Equipment, Inc. (model DynaPac CC122), $25,500.00; Clyde/West Inc. (model Bomag BW100), $25,808.00; Ingersol-Rand Sales Inc. (model Ingersol-Rand BD22), $26,750.00; Halton Company (model Cat CB224), $27,285.00; and Western Power & Equipment (model Hamm HD12), $29,750.00. JENNINGS/PUGH... bid $96-11 for self-propelled vibratory roller be awarded Sahlberg Equipment in the amount of $24,930.00. The motion passed unanimously. MANAGEMENT AND NON-UNION COMPENSATION BTUDY. A memo from Administrator Childs outlined the process followed in soliciting proposals from various Oregon-based personnel consulting firms and in the evaluation of the proposals to determine which firm should be selected to conduct the study. The staff requested authorization to negotiate a agreement with PC Northwest to perform the study at a total cost not to exceed $13,000. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... authorize staff to negotiate a professional services agreement with PC Northwest to conduct a total compensation study of city management and non-union personnel classifications at a total cost not to exceed $13,000. Councilor Figley stated that she was a member of the interview committee and she is in agreement with staff on the selection of this consultant who is highly skilled in communications and has a very good background in this type of work within the public and private sector. The motion passed unanimously. Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 TAPE READING 1884 CLAIMS FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1996. SIFUENTEZ/PUGH .... approve claims ~30169 - 30553 for the month of January 1996. The motion passed unanimously. 1917 STAFF REPORTS. 1) Final Audit Report for Fiscal Year 1994-95 -- In a memo from Finance Director Gillespie, he informed the Council that the final audit report has been filed with the Secretary of State and copies of the report are available in the Finance Office for review. Councilor Pugh requested that each Councilor be given a copy of the audit report. During a brief discussion on the distribution of the audit report, several Councilors stated that they were not interested in receiving the document provided that they could review it upon request. At the conclusion of the discussion, Councilors Pugh and Figley requested copies of the audit report. 2) Annual City-Wide Cleanup Weekend -- As in the past, United Disposal will be offering a free city-wide cleanup weekend on March 23 and 24, 1996. Only yard debris will be accepted and drop boxes will be placed at several locations throughout the City. 3) Building Activity Report for January 1996 4) "How to Control Your Sewer Bill" Brochure -- Director Tiwari unveiled the artist's display of the newest brochure which will be sent out to all water/sewer customers. The graphic display will provide cost information on a variety of common uses of water which directly affect the customer's sewer bill. The reverse side of the brochure will answer the most common questions asked by customers in both English and Spanish. Director Tiwari reminded the public that the sewer charge will remain the same for a 12-month period beginning with the March 1996 bills. It was noted that the funds now being collected under the new sewer charges provide necessary revenues to continue existing wastewater operations and to be used for future improvements and expansion of the treatment plant facility. 2225 CITY ADMINISTR~TOR'B REPORT. Administrator Childs provided the Council with specific information for residents who suffered property loss from the flood. Residents need to call Marion County to report any flood damage. The Marion County Disposal site will be accepting items damaged from the flood free of charge through February 18th and United Disposal Service will be lowering their drop box rental rates during this time period for Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 TAPE READING customers who would like to have a box delivered to their business or residence in lieu of taking the flood damaged items directly to the disposal site. Applications for financial assistance are being taken by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and a toll-free telephone number was provided to the public. 2403 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Pugh stated that Woodburn was very fortunate compared to other areas of the State. He also expressed his appreciation to the County regarding their minimum requirements for the bridge which was constructed in Senecal Estates. More loss of property would have been experienced by the residents along Senecal Creek had the bridge been any smaller. He also suggested that the staff look at the wetlands area to insure that the creek is draining properly. Councilor Figley also expressed appreciation to the present and past staff whose foresight and advanced planning kept the flood damage to a minimum within the City versus other areas of the State. She also thanked those volunteers who assisted with the sandbags and commented particularly on the number of young people that helped with this project. She also encouraged our citizens to help others who did suffer flood damage. Councilor Jennings complimented Finance Director Gillespie on changes that he has made in his department. He also informed the Council that the City Attorney is reviewing changes to Ordinance 1971 which adopted Council by-laws. Councilor Jennings briefly discussed the rights and duty of the Council to bring up issues that have been before the Planning Commission. He feels that the Council should consider a workshop with the Commission to discuss this issue to assure the Commission that the Council is only doing their duty. He reiterated that, in his opinion, the City has the best Planning Commission in the State. Councilor Hagenauer stated expressed his appreciation to the volunteers, staff, and postal employees who bagged and distributed sand to local residents last week. 2836 Councilor Sifuentez invited the Mayor and Council to be her VIP's at a luncheon at MacLaren on Friday, February 23rd, at 12:00 noon. The cost for the lunch is $4.00 and all of the money collected will go to the local food bank. Following the luncheon, there will be a tour of the MacLaren facility. Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3A COUNCIL ~EETIN~ ~INUTES February 12, 1996 TAPE READING Councilor Chadwick agreed with the statements made by the other Councilors that the City was spared from much flood damage and the volunteer help was very much appreciated. Mayor Kirksey stated that she had driven around town on Thursday to survey the flood damage. In her opinion, one of the reasons for Woodburn's minimal flood damage is due to the last 21 years of leadership under Public Works Director Tiwari. His foresight in requiring detention ponds within subdivisions prevented mass flooding and our well-developed storm drain system took most of the water away from most areas of the community. She stated that Woodburn is not a place in which shortcuts will be allowed. 3006 EXECUTIVE SESSION. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... adjourn to executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660(1) (e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned to executive session at 8:27 p.m. and reconvened at 10:09 p.m.. Councilor Jennings questioned the status of the sound system. Administrator Childs stated that the sound system has been ordered but a portion of the system is on back order. 3073 FIGLEY/JENNINGS .... staff be authorized to finalize a lease/purchase document for future presentation to the City Council for the purchase of property located at 121 Broadway subject to written consent of Southern Pacific regarding the assignment of an existing lease which must be approved by Southern Pacific and subject to an acceptable environmental assessment report. Tape 2 The motion passed unanimously. 0028 ADJO~E~F~. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... meeting be adjourned. unanimously. The motion passed The meeting adjourned at 10:11 p.m.. APPROVED NANCY A. KIRKSEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 ,, 3A Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 12, 1996 DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 12, 1996. CONVENED. presiding. ROLL CALL. The Council met in executive session at 8:30 p.m. with Mayor Kirksey Mayor Kirksey Present Councilor Chadwick Present 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, Public Works Director Tiwari, Finance Director Gillespie, City Recorder Tennant, Public Works Manager Rohman (left at 8:47 p.m.) Press: Shelby Case, Woodburn Independent The executive session was called under the authority of ORS 192.660(1)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. Staff provided the Council with information regarding potential real property transactions. ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 10:07 p.m.. APPROVED NANCY A. KIRKSEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page I - Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, February 12, 1996 3B MINUTES WOODBURN RECREATION AND PARKS BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1996 2:00PM The Workshop Meeting was called for the purpose of taking a tour of Woodburn Recreation and Parks facilities, buildings and grounds. The intent of the Board is to update the Department's Capital Improvement List. The meeting was called to order by Park Board Chairman, Frank Anderson. Members Present: Frank Anderson, Barbara Rappleyea, Dave Ott, Lee Ehrens, Marl Worley, Gilbert Baltazar and Art Montgomery. Staff Present: Nevin Holly, Director. The meeting commenced with a facilities tour. First visit was Front Street Park. A discussion of the needs at this park included: the need for drainage tiling and the installation of an underground sprinkler system, upgrading the playground equipment and installing a basketball court as also discussed. Next, the Board visited Legion Park where they examined the Youth Drop In Center, the stadium complex and the park itself We were joined at this point of the tour by Board Member Art Montgomery. The Drop In Center had few comments and suggestions other than Board Member Marl Worley suggesting the installation of a larger sink to be used for crafts. Within Legion Park, Board Member Lee Ehrens noted the need for upgrading the football field. A Iongtime need of new drainage was noted. The condition of the locker rooms was also discussed. Director Holly pointed out the possibility that the School could share in any costs of upgrading the locker rooms in that they are heavy users of this area. A discussion regarding Legion play area followed. Board Member Art Montgomery had concerns as to the location of the play equipment. Several of the Board felt if the playground were located closer to the picnic areas more children would use the area. The need to upgrade the equipment was also noted. The possibility of adding a sand volleyball court was discussed. Before leaving Legion Park the Board visited the picnic shelter which had been damaged by a tree that fell on it during the recent windstorm. Next on the tour was a visit to Nelson Park. Board Member Dave Ott noted the playground equipment at Nelson park which was the result of a similar tour he took 4 years ago. The Board discussed the need for leveling of the field area at Nelson and the installation of an irrigation system. The Board also discussed the need for upgrading the ballfield. Next visit on the tour was a visit to the Hermanson Parks. The Board agreed that they did not see a great deal of additional development in these Parks except for the possibility of some half court basketball areas and the construction of a paved green belt walking area which would meander through these areas. The Board's next stop was the Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center and the grounds of Settlemier Park. The Board agreed that there was a need for additional parking at this site. The open area just South of the Tennis Courts bordered by Front Street was identified as an area to be developed into parking. Board Member Lee Ehrens had suggestions as how to best utilize Settlemier ballfields. Lee suggested squaring off the fences and installing 3 or 4 backstops making small fields for children as well as maintaining one main field for adults. Lee also suggested grassing in the infield with cutouts for bases so the entire area could also be utilized for youth soccer. It was also suggested by Board Member Ehrens that the cement baseline wall be extended higher at one end to make a handball wall. The Settlemier Tennis Courts were examined. It was noted by Director Holly that we needed a resurfacing job on the 3B Page - 2 - Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board Workshop Meeting February 10, 1996 courts and the electrical to the lights worked on. The picnic shelter at Settlemier was discussed and all agreed it needed to be replaced. Other improvements for Settlemier are upgraded playground areas, irrigation systems installation and improved lighting throughout the park. Next on the tour was a visit to Centennial Park. Director Holly noted that the new drainage system at Centennial was working very well with little standing water after the storm other than the roadway which is not up to grade. The Board all agreed that Centennial park completion remains atop their goals. Director Holly noted that engineering plans for roadway and parking lot areas are currently being developed by Wilhelm Engineering as an initial start-up project scheduled for the Summer of 1996. Director Holly asked for the Board's help in pursuing additional alternatives for development of Centennial Park. The next site visited was Burlingham Park. Board Member Dave Ott noted how nice he felt the park looked. Board Member Art Montgomery suggested installing a walking path around the perimeter of the park. Director Holly pointed out that the installation of a irrigation system in this park as its greatest need. The installation of an irrigation system would open up needed usage during summer months. Moving of the backstop was also suggested. The development of a youth soccer field was discussed. The addition of an on site recreation/equipment check-out rooms was also discussed. Next visit on the tour was Senior Estates Park. Director Holly indicated there was not a lot of additional development in terms of new amenities needed at Sr. Estates Park. This is because of the passive use nature and the location of the park. Director Holly did say that there was a need to upgrade the current drainage system. The Board next drove by the new development of Miller Farms and Heritage. The Board concurred with the need for the mini play area which is part of the Heritage Development. The Board next visited the World Berry Museum. The Board was given a nice tour of the Museum by Museum Volunteer Bob Baynham. The Board was very impressed with how nicely the Museum is kept and what an asset it is to the community. Director Holly explained to the Board that although the Museum is a City Building, volunteers totally operate it. Director Holly also informed the Board only 2 more payments remain and the Museum will be paid off. The Board next visited the Railroad Museum. Director Holly told the Board that the excellent condition of the train is due to the volunteer efforts of volunteer Frank Shear who comes to the train weekly from Portland. The Board next visited Library Park. A suggestion was made by Board Member Lee Ehrens that flowered garden areas would be nice in this park. During the tour a discussion also took place regarding the need for a new Community Center. Realizing this issue could surface in the near future the Board agrees that the time for a new Community Center is probably overdue. The Board wishes to keep the development of Centennial to the forefront however. The Board returned to the Community Center and agreed to meet in 2 weeks to further discuss Woodburn Recreation and Parks Capital needs. The meeting adjourned at 5:30pm. City of Woodburn Police Department MEMORANDUM BA 270 Montgomery/Spet Ken Wrightt_/ l i.' Chief of Polic " Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 Date: February 21, 1996 To: Mayor and Council C. Childs, City Administrator Subject: Staff Report - OLCC License Renewal - 1996 Raven Inn In 1990 the OLCC developed a compliance plan with the licensee as a result of a non- renewal recommendation by the city. The basis of the negative recommendation was illegal drag and disorderly activity in and about the business located at 292 N. Pacific Hwy., Raven Inn. Over the past five years special conditions have been apart of the license renewal annually. As a result of licensee's request of OLCC the compliance plan restrictions were lifted by the OLCC in a letter dated June 13, 1995. Stated in the letter by OLCC was an urging for the licensee to continue to work with the City of Woodbum, Chief Wright and be responsive to their concerns. A revised Compliance Plan was initiated. This past year, 1995, the police department investigated a total of 49 incidents in or about the Raven Inn resulting in 14 arrests. Of the 49 incidents 12 are indicative of the problems occurring at the business. 95-1951 March 23, 1995 officers contacted a highly intoxicated female who claimed she was being harassed by other patrons inside the tavern. Upon contact with the person officers noted she was highly intoxicated and when quizzed the complainant stated that she had been drinking at the tavern since 4 P.M. and the time of the officers investigation was 11:28 P.M. 95-3532 May 24, 1995 officers were involved in a elude situation. The suspect driver of the car and passenger were identified as being in the Raven Inn prior to the elude. Subsequent investigation resulted in illegal drugs being found in the car. SA 95-6198 95-5698 95-6712 95-6758 95-6788 95-6801 95-7065 95-7384 95-7992 August 8, 1995 a undercover police officer on assignment made contact with a employee of the Raven Inn. The person was employed to operate the Karaoke music. The employee provided marijuana to the undercover officer in the parking-lot of the Raven Inn. August 10, 1995 at 0130hrs, officers on patrol heard people yelling inside the Raven Inn. Officers entered and were accosted by subject using profanity towards the officer. As it turned out the person who accosted the officer appeared to be intoxicated was also employed to provide Karaoke music at the business. I met with licensee Wiltse and sent her written notification that it appeared that the on-duty bartender did not have control of the situation. September 18, 1995 undercover officer met with a suspect inside the Raven Inn and purchased illegal narcotics, methamphetamine. September 20, 1995 undercover officer met with a suspect inside the Raven Inn to purchase illegal narcotics. Upon arrival the focal suspect was not present. The undercover officer asked a customer where he might fred the suspect and subsequently purchased methamphetamine, a illegal narcotic from the customer instead of the focal suspect. September 21, 1995. Undercover officer made contact with the on-duty bartender. The officer told the bartender that when suspect 'K' arrived the he, the officer, would be outback to meet him. The bartender acknowledged. Upon meeting with suspect the Undercover officer purchased a quantity of illegal drugs, methamphetamine. September 22, 1995. Undercover officer made contact with suspect inside of the Raven Inn. Upon arrival inside both went outside and completed a drug transaction in the parking-lot. October 3, 1995. Undercover officer met suspect at the Raven Inn and purchased illegal drugs. October 16,1995. A fight erupted inside of the Raven Inn. Customer-Victims asked the bartender to call the police numerous times. The bartender responded that she did not want to. Eventually police were called and responded. Officers cited the bartender for allowing a disorderly bar and the district attorney refused to prosecute. November 8, 1995. Officers responded to the Raven Inn upon hearing gun shots. Upon investigation it was determined that two patrons had been struck by bullets fired from the outside of the building. The building and vehicles in the area received damage from bullet holes. Case still being investigated by SA 95-8773 December 9, 1995. Officers responded to the Raven Inn and investigated a fight. The fight had taken place inside of the Raven and numerous persons were involved. The bartender signed citizens arrest for disorderly conduct and three persons were arrested. The above described incidents all show that there is a history of serious and persistent problems involving disturbances, unlawful activities, noise either in the premises or in the vicinity of the premises. The licensee has attempted to overcome these types of activities for over five years and failed to do so. As it appears that the safety of the customers of the Raven Inn and the community is effected by the activities of the Raven Inn and; RECOMMENDATION: based upon the activities occurring in the establishment in the year 1995 it is my recommendation that the Woodburn City Council provide a non-renewal recommendation to the OLCC for the Raven Inn. 8A CR#96-305 RECEIVED ON JANUARY 16TH 1996 AT 0912 HRS THE RAVEN INN TAVERN 262 N, PACIFIC HWY, WOODBURN OWNER; TINA WILTSEY IN 1995, THE WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO 49 CALLS FOR SERVICE AT THE RAVEN INN TAVERN. IN 1994, THE WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO 29 CALLS FOR SERVICE AT THE RAVEN INN TAVERN. THIS REPRESENTS A 69 % INCREASE IN CALLS FOR SERVICE. 1995 CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE AS FOLLOWS: CITIZEN INITIATED BY CR~ TYPE OF CALL ARREST ARREST OWNER CITIZEN POLICE 95-0134 ALARM/FALS E X 95-0296 VANDALISM X 95-0317 MAN WITH GUN X 95-1636 NSF CHECK X 95-1765 ALARM X 95-1824 VANDALISM X 95-1950 CITIZEN DUI! REPORT X 95-1951 HARASSMENT X 95-1954 DETOX 1 X 95-2182 DUII 1 X 95-2215 DUII 1 X 95-2299 ALARM X 95-2394 FOUND PROPERTY X 95-3173 ASSAULT X 95-3438 TRESPASS X 95-3532 PCS/ELUDE X 95-4797 TRESPASS 1 Y X 95-4863 TRESPASS X 8A 95-04906 SUSPICIOUS PERSONS X 95-05309 SUSPICIOUS PERSON X 95-05698 CITIZEN CONTACT X 95-05749 ALARM/ACCID X 95-05911 THEFT OT X 95-06204 DUll 1 NO X 95-06251 THEFT/PURS E X 95-06860 CRIM MISCH X 95-6189 DCS METHAMPHETAMINE 1 X 95-6712 DCS METHAMPHETAMINE 1 X 95-6758 DCS METHAMPHETAMINE 1 X 95-6788 DCS METHAMPHETAMINE 1 X 95-6801 DCS METHAMPHETAMINE 1 X 95-7065 DCS METHAMPHETAMINE 1 X 95-7074 SUSPICIOUS 95-7285 FUGITIVE 1 X 95-7316 CRIM MISC X 95-7334 HR X 95-7384 MENACE/DISORDERLY X BAR 95-7509 TRESPASS X 95-7931 DISORDERLY CONDUCT X 95-7966 VANDALISM X 95-7992 UNLAW USE WEAPON X 95-7992 SHOTS FIRED X 95-8187 ALARM X 95-8643 ALARM X 95-8773 DIS COND/TRESP/A~ 3 YES X 95-8808 THEFT X 8A 95-9005 SUSP PERSON X 95-9198 ASSAULT X 95-9270 STOLEN VEHICLE X 95-296 95-1636 95-1824 95-1954 95-2182 95-2215 95-3173 95-4797 95-4863 WINDOW BROKEN OUT OF PATRON VEHICLE PARKED IN PARKING LOT. NSF CHECK WRITTEN TO BAR BY A PATRON. BROKEN WINDOW/ ATrEMPTED THEFT OF A STEREO FROM A VEHICLE BELONGING TO A PATRON OCCURRED IN THE PARKING LOT. INTOXICATED PATRON CALLED POLICE TO REPORT BEING HARASSED BY OTHER PATRONS INSIDE THE BAR. INTOXICATED PATRON ADVISED SHE HAD BEEN IN BAR DRINKING SINCE 1600 HRS AND CALLED AT 2331 HRS. BARTENDER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THAT THE PATRON VO-IO CALLED THE POLICE WAS THE ONE THAT WAS CAUSING PROBLEMS. INVESTIGATION WAS DISCONTINUED BY OFFICERS. INTOXICATED PATRON OF BAR FROM CRg95-1951 ARRESTED FOR DETOX OUTSIDE OF BAR. PERSON ARRESTED FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE STATED THAT HE HAD JUST LEFT THE RAVEN INN TAVERN AFTER CONSUMING 8 BEERS THERE. BAC. 180 PERSON ARRESTED FOR DRIVING IJNDER THE INFLUENCE STATED THAT HE HAD BEEN DRINKING AT THE RAVEN INN TAVERN. BAC. 167 WOMAN WHO WENT INTO THE TAVERN TO SEE A FRIEND WAS ASSAULTED INSIDE THE TAVER BY ANOTHER TAVERN PATRON. NO ARRESTS WERE MADE. PASSENGER IN A VEHICLE THAT ATFEMPTED TO ELUDE OFFICERS STATED THAT SHE HAD BEEN PICKED UP BY THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE AT THE RAVEN INN AND GIVEN A RIDE. DRIVER WAS NOT LOCATED. A QUANTITY OF METHAMPHETAMINE WAS LOCATED IN THE VEHICLE. PATRON OF BAR THAT WAS TOLD TO LEAVE RETURNED OT THE BAR AT A LATER TIME WITH AN OPEN BEER AND WAS ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS. OFFICER REPORT STATED THAT THE SUBJECT WAS INTOXICATED. OFFICERS RESPONDED TO A TRESPASS COMPLAINT CALLED IN BY BARTENDER REGARDING INTOXICATED SUBJECTS. SUBJECTS WERE GONE ON OFFICERS ARRIVAL. SA OFFICER DRIVING NEAR BAR COULD HEAR YELLING AT BAR AND STOPPED TO DO BAR CHECK. OFFICER LOCATED SEVERAL INTOXICATED DISORDERLY SUBJECTS INSIDE BAR. BARTENDER WAS CONTACTED AND DID NOT FEEL SUBJECTS WERE BEING DISORDERLY. BARTENDER SUBSEQUENTLY TOOK BEERS AWAY FROM PATRONS AND CLOSED BAR. 95-5911 95-6204 95-6251 95-7285 PATRON OF BAR REPORTED THEFT OF CELLULAR PHONE FROM COUNTER IN BAR. UNDERCOVER POLICE OFFICER INSIDE BAR MET WITH A SUBJECT WORKING IN THE BAR DOING KAROKE. THIS SUBJECT SUBSEQUENTLY OFFERED TO SMOKE MARIJUANA WITH THE OFFICER. THE OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA FROM THE BAR EMPLOYEE. SUBJECT INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT AT HWYU 99E AND CLEVELAND DROVE TO RAVEN INN TAVERN PARKING LOT WHERE HE WAS ARRESTED FOR DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICANTS. BAC. 196 A PATRON OF THE BAR REPORTED THE THEFT OF HER PURSE FROM THE BAR. UNDERCOVER OFFICER MET WITH A SUBJECT IN THE BAR AND TALKED WITH THE SUBJECT ABOUT PURCHASING METHAMPHETAMINE. THE OFFICER DID SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASE THE METHAMPHETAMINE IN THE BAR. UNDERCOVER OFFICER MADE A PURCHASE OF METHAMPHETAMINE INSIDE THE BAR. UNDERCOVER OFFICER MADE A PURCHASE OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN THE PARKING LOT AT THE TAVERN AFTER GOING INSIDE THE TAVERN AND TELLING THE BARTENDER TO HAVE THE SUSPECT MEET WITH HIM OUT BACK. UNDERCOVER OFFICER MADE A PURCHASE OF METHAMPHETAMINE FROM A SUBJECT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE TAVERN AFTER MEETING WITH THE SUSPECT INSIDE OF THE TAVERN. VANDALISM TO TIRES OF A PATRONS CAR PARKED IN PARKING LOT. UNDERCOVER OFFICER MET WITH A SUBJECT OUTSIDE THE BAR WHO GQAVE HIM A SAMPLE OF THE QUALITY OF HIS METHAMPHETAMINE IN PREPARATION FOR A LARGER PURCHASE AT A LATER DATE. WARRANT ARREST OF A PATRON OF THE BAR DURING OFFICER BAR CHECK ON FORGERY CHARGE. 95-7316 VANDALISM TO WINDSHIELD OF A PATRONS CAR PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT. 95-7334 95-7931 95-7966 95-8808 95-9198 HIT AND RUN TO WALL AND DOOR OF THE BUSINESS BY A VEHICLE IN THE REAR PARKING LOT. PATRON OF THE BAR WAS HARASSED INSIDE THE BAR BY OTHER PATRONS, ATTEMPTED TO LEAVE AND WAS ASSAULTED OUTSIDE THE BAR BY THE OTHER PATRONS WHO FOLLOWED HIM OUT. BARTENDER WAS CITED FOR DISORDERLY HOUSE. BARTENDER SIGNED A CITIZENS ARREST FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT FOR PATRONS FIGHTING INSIDE THE BAR. VANDALISM TO WINDOW OF PATRONS VEHICLE PARKED IN PARKING LOT. SHOOTING FROM OUTSIDE OF TAVERN INTO THE INSIDE OF THE TAVERN CAUSES GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO TWO PATRONS. EIGHTEEN (18) BULLET HOLES WERE FOUND IN THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUSINESS. THIS CASE IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION. A FIGHT INSIDE THE BAR INVOLVING THREE SUBJECTS ASSAULTING AANOTHER SUBJECT RESULTED IN THE ARREST OF THREE FOR DISORDERLY CONDUCT. THEFT OF 400.00 FROM A MONEY BAG BEHIND THE COUNTER. OFFICERS RESPONDED TO A REPORT OF A FIGHT IN THE TAVERN. ONE SUBJECT REPORT HAVING BEEN ASSAULTED BUT DID NOT WANT ANY ACTION TAKEN. 95-9270 VEHICLE STOLEN FROM TAVERN PARKING LOT City of Woodburn Police Department MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Ken Wright Chief of Police Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 Date: To: Subject: BUSINESS: MANAGER: February 22, 1996 Mayor and Council 1996 Liquor License LA LINDA' S, INC 293 N. FRONT ST.,WOODBURN, OREGON XAVIER CARBAJAL In 1995, the Woodburn Police Department responded to 49 calls, between January and July 20, 1995 resulting in 21 arrests resulting from investigations from La Linda's at 293 N Front St., Woodburn. A RMB (Retail Malt Beverage) Liquor License was issued to this location in 1983. The owners of the license was a family by the name of Carbajal. This license continued until January 1994 when members of the family purchased the business. Applicants were Xavier Carbajal, Evlalia Carbajal, Teodora Garza and Lydia Valdivia. As the business opened with severe license restrictions and the business has had previous problems with drug dealers, intoxicated persons, fights, disorderly conduct; a continuation of a compliance plan was initiated and agreed to by the new owners. In 1992 the police department was called to and responded to 55 incidents at La Linda's and in 1993 with a compliance plan the business reduced the calls to 28 calls for service. This showed a substantial decrease in activities. As the new corporation was essentially the same persons that had been running and working at the business it was my recommendation in January 1994 for the City Council to approve the license transfer with a compliance plan. In June 1994 it was brought to my attention that calls for service at La Linda's were reaching unacceptable levels. I made several phone calls attempting to contact the owners to set a appointment for a review of activities but was unable to have anyone call me back. I then sent a letter, copy attached, with a printout of activities to date. As of this date I have not had a response. In the June 1994 letter I pointed out that the police department had responded to eighteen calls of which eleven arrests had been affected for disorderly conduct, harassment and trespass. ,, Council policy in the form of Resolution No. 1037, dated February 12, 1991 clearly directs the police department to recommend to deny the renewal when there are persistent problems and the police department will automatically recommend denial of a renewal application when there is a record of ten arrests in the prior 12 months of employees or patrons of the licensed business for unlawful activities related to the sale or service of alcohol under the license either on the premises or in the immediate vicinity. The police department has attempted to work with the licensee and previous licensees of La Linda's with varying degrees of success. In 1995 the police department engaged in a city-wide undercover investigation of illegal drug activity in the city. A major focal point of the investigation was the activity in and about La Linda's, 293 N. Front St.. This past year, 1995, The police responded to 49 incidents at 293 N. Front St., La Linda's Resturant and of those incidents the following are representative of the business and its environment. 95-836 95 -2005 95-2724 95-2931 95-3077 95-3104 95-3279 95-3419 95-3420 February 23, 1995 La Linda's Security reported shots fired behind the business. No damage, casing or physical evidence was located. March 26, 1995 a vehicle was observed pulling away from the curb near La Linda's. The driver was eventually arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants. April 22, 1995 a Police Agent met with a suspect inside La Linda's and purchased illegal narcotics, Methamphetamine. May 1, 1995 police arrested a person for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants. The person reported drinking at La Linda's prior to being arrested. May 6, 1995 a Police Agent met with one suspect inside La Linda's and made two purchases of illegal narcotics, Methamphetamine. The agent was handed the illegal narcotics by the same suspect both times. One time the suspect had the narcotics in his pants pocket. The other time the suspect went into a back room of La Linda's to get the narcotics. The suspect then handed them to the agent. May 7, 1995 a Police Agent met two persons in La Linda's. The agreed to sell the agent Methamphetamine. The actual transaction took place in an apartment parking lot. The agreement for the sale took place inside La Linda's. May 15, 1995 a Police Agent met a person inside La Linda's. This person agreed to sell the agent some Cocaine. The actual transaction took place in a parking lot near La Linda's. The agreement for the sale took place inside La Linda's. May 20, 1995 a Police Agent met a person inside La Linda's. This person gave the agent a quantity of Methamphetamine. This transaction took place inside La Linda's. May 20, 1995 a Police Agent met a person inside La Linda's. This person agreed to sell the agent a quantity of Methamphetamine. The actual transaction took place at an apartment complex in the city. The agreement for the sale took place inside La Linda's. '. 95-3446 95-3621 95-3655 95-4027 95-4029 95-4171 95-4352 95-4789 May 21, 1995 a Police Agent met a person inside La Linda's. This person agreed to sell the agent a quantity of Methamphetamine. The narcotics was delivered inside La Linda's to the agent. May 28, 1995 a fight was reported at La Linda's. One female was assaulted by another. Security has separated them and they were reported to still be trying to fight. Officers arrived and no one wanted to file charges. May 28, 1995 two female patrons began to fight in La Linda's. They were separated by security. One of the patrons had walked up to the other and slapped her and pulled her hair. The victim signed a citizens arrest for Harassment. June 11, 1995 while Officers were conducting an investigation they observed the Security Officers of La Linda's grab a person who had tried to enter the business. They then held him and one guard sprayed a chemical agent into the mans face. A shot time later the guards returned to La Linda's and the man walked away. One Security Guard was arrested at a later time for Assault. June 11, 1995 a Police Agent contacted a person on the sidewalk in front of La Linda's right next to the security guards. This person gave the agent some Cocaine. June 17, 1995 a Police Agent contacted a person inside La Linda's. The agent made arrangements to buy a quantity of Methamphetamine. The transaction took place in the womens bathroom. Jun 24, 1995 a Marion County District Court Search Warrant was served on La Linda's. Employment records and other documents were seized in an attempt to locate an employee who sold drugs while employed at La Linda's. Two people in the business were taken into custody for previous drug sales to a police agent. Two patrons were arrested for some outstanding arrest warrants. Some marijuana smoking devices were found on the premises. A small quantity of Marijuana was found in an ash tray in the band break room. July 8, 1995 officers found La Linda's open for business with the exception of the service of alcohol. The owner was allowing only persons 21 years of age and older in for a $5.00 cover charge. The music was being provided by a stereo system. No one was observed dancing in the business. The owners did not have a dance permit and their OLCC License was suspended. 8B Over the past eight years the police department has worked with all liquor by the drink establishments in Woodburn. This process requires the establishment to provide commitments above and beyond the necessary minimum and are supported by the police department. Consistently, by working with the businesses we have assisted them in eliminating and greatly reducing disorderly activities through compliance plans negotiated with the licensee and OLCC. Over the past eight years there have been three plans with La Linda's with varying degrees of success. This past year there has been little or NO cooperation by the licensee. RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council recommend to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission a non-renewal recommendation for La Linda's, 293 N. Front St., Woodburn. That the City cite past history of the establishment and lack of licensee response to the police department and that the licensee is in violation of City Council Resolution 1037. CR#96-306 RECEIVED ON JANUARY 16TH 1996 AT 0913 LA LINDA'S INC 293 N. FRONT STREET, WOODBURN MANAGER: XAVIER CARBAJAL IN 1995, THE WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO 49 CALLS FOR SERVICE AT LA LINDA'S INC. IN 1994, THE WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO 81 CALLS FOR SERVICE AT LA LINDA'S INC. 1995 CALLS FOR SERVICE ARE AS FOLLOWS: CITIZEN INITIATED BY CPd/ TYPE OF CALL ARREST ARREST OWNER CITIZEN POLICE 95-00123 RECOVERED GUN-O/S X STLN 95-00174 SUSP PERSONS / UTL X 95-00313 ASSIST PUBLIC X 95 -00320 DUll X x 95-00338 FIGHT X 95-00487 ASSIST MED X 95-00657 MIS REP AGE BY MINOR 1 X 95-00836 ~ SHOTS FIRED X 95-00844 SUSP INC/SUSP DRUGS X 95-01030 TRAFFIC/POSS DRUNK X 95-01347 INTOXICATES X 95-01393 PUB INDECENCY 1 NO X 95-01484 ' DIS CON 1 YES X 95-01486 SUSP PERSON X 95-01549 UNWANTED X 95-01683 MISC/GANG SIGHTING X 95-01974 POSS DRK DRIVER X 95-02001 INFO POSS DRUG DEAL X SB 95-02005 DUII/ARR 1 NO X 95-02008 DUII/ARR 1 NO X 95-02296 TRESPASS/ARR 1 YES X 95-02317 DETOX/WARR/PCS 1 NO X 95-02524 TRESPASS/ARR 1 YES X 95-02527 ASLT X 95-02555 PCS X 95-02615 SUSP INCIDENT X 95-02724 DRUG INVEST X 95-02928 FUGITIVE/ARR 1 X 95-02931 DUII 1 X 95-03077 DRUG INVEST X 95-03078 UNWANTEDS X 95-03104 DRUG INVEST X 95-03279 DRUG INVEST X 95-03419 DRUG INVEST X 95-03421 TRESPASS/OK 1 YES X 95-03440 ORD VIOL/ARR 1 X 95-03446 DRUG INVEST X 95-03621 ASSAULT X 95-03623 HR X 95-03651 LARC F/PERSON 1 NO X 95-03655 HARASSMENT 1 NO X 95-03986 TRAFFIC MOVING X 95-04027 ASSAULT 4 X 95-03981 DUII 1 NO X 95-04029 DRUG INVEST X 95-04146 ASLT X 95-04171 DRUG INVEST X 95-08091 UNSECURED BLDG X .. 10A COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPLICATION IN SITE PLAN REVIEW CASE 95-20 AND DENYING THE APPLICATION IN VARIANCE CASE 95-14. WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in Site Plan Review Case 95-20 and Variance Case 95-14, and WHEREAS, the City Council "called up" these land use actions and conducted a de novo hearing; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing it was determined by the City Council that substantial evidence in the record justifies granting the Site Plan Review application and denying the Variance application, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The application in Site Plan Review Case 95-20 is granted based upon evidence in the record before the Woodburn City Council and is justified by the findings which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are, by this reference, incorporated herein. Section 2. The application in Variance Case 95-14 is denied based upon evidence in the record before the Woodburn City Council and is justified by the findings which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and are, by this reference, incorporated herein. Approved as to form:~~~ City Attorney Date APPROVED: Nancy A. Kirksey, Mayor Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 95-14 SITE PLAN REVIEW 95-20 EXHIBIT "A" Page I - of 25 IOA APPLICANT: Andy Snegirev PO Box 1166 Molalla, Or 97038 NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: The applicant wishes to construct a 5,100 square foot 2-bedroom 5 plex building. This building will be used for multi-family housing. The site is 11,000 sq ft in size. III IV RELEVANT FACTS: The property is located at 749 Front Street in Woodburn and is zoned RM Multi- Family. The property can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map 5S, 1W, Section 7DC Tax Lot #300 Account #42454000. The acreage of the property is .25 acres. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter ,5 Permits and Enforcement Chapter 6 Planning Commission Chapter 7 Public Hearing Chapter 8 General Standards Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards Chapter 11 Site Plan Review Chapter 13 Variance Procedures Chapter 26 Multi-Family District C. Landscaping Standards Woodburn Comprehensive Plan STAFF FINDINGS: The proposed use is consistent with and has complied with Comprehensive plan by addressing the relevant approval criteria identified in the Zoning Ordinance. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Page I - Staff Report IOA EXHIBIT "A" Page2- of 25 Chapter 8 General Standards Section 8.040 Special Setback Distances (a)(8) Front Street, Settlemier Ave to North City Limits ...... 40 feet. STAFF FINDING: The applicant has shown compliance with this special setback. Chapter 10 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Driveway Requirements Section 10.050 Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements Off-Street automobile parking shall be provided in the amounts not less than those listed below: (b) Dwellings containing 2 or more dwellings units located on the same lot. (2) two spaces per dwelling unit having two or more bedrooms. STAFF FINDINGS: Five two-bedroom units are proposed, therefore ten (10) parking spaces are needed. Ten spaces are being provided. 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 this 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 FINDING: The applicant has addressed the Site Plan Review criteria adequately, see attached narrative with the Site Plan Review application from applicant. (a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse impact on adjacent uses. STAFF FINDING: The applicant states that all structures to be placed on the site will be less than 25 feet in height and will be placed within the setback boundaries. The property to west is zoned single family, therefore the applicant has provided for the necessary 15 foot buffer on the west side of the property. The remainder of the property is contiguous to property that is also zoned for multi-family and therefore there are no specific buffering requirements. (b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize impact on adjacent uses. Page 2 - Staff Report EXHIBIT "A" Page3- of 25 IOA STAFF FINDING: The applicant has addressed this Site Plan Review criteria. The site plan indicates that 35% of the site is landscaped and that 24% of the parking lots is landscaped. Both of these figures exceed the landscaping requirements. Buffering has been provide for along the western boundary of the development and a 5 foot buffer along Front Street has also been identified. (c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its aesthetic value. STAFF FINDING: The applicant has adequately addressed this Site Plan Review criteria in stating that the landscaping has been designed to provide a residential appearance to the 5-plex. As stated above, the applicant has met the landscaping standards. (d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Whenever possible, direct access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature. STAFF FINDING: The traffic circulation will remain the same via the existing driveway. The proposed 5-plex will generate less trips than did the existing 8 units. (e) The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on the city's or other public agencies drainage facilities. STAFF FINDING: No new City services are required. The proposed use will utilize existing facilities. (f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its sitting on the lot, and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. STAFF FINDING: The applicant has addressed this criteria adequately. The building will be subject to the Uniform Building Code. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic can be accommodated by sidewalks. The applicant is also installing § bike racks. (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 FINDING: The applicants proposal has complied with the current ordinances and standards discussed in this staff report. (h) The location design, color and materials of the exterior of all structures and signs are compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood. Page 3 - Staff Report EXHIBIT "A" Page4- of 25 10A STAFF: The applicant has addressed this Site Plan Review criteria. The character of the neighborhood is both single family and multi-family. The site plan indicates that the structure will have lap siding, composition roof, lighting, and covered porches. 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 13 Variance Procedures Section 13.020 (a)-(f) Conditions for Granting a Variance (a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties which can be realized only by modifying the literal requirements of this ordinance. STAFF FINDING: LUBA and the appellate courts have interpreted this criterion to allow a variance only if the subject property will be virtually useless without the variance and the hardship arises from conditions inherent in the land which distinguish it from other land in the neighborhood. Since the subject property will not be rendered useless and the alleged hardship is not inherent in the land, the criterion has not been met. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not generally apply to land, buildings, or uses in the same district, however, nonconforming land uses or structures in the vicinity shall not in themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions. STAFF FINDING: Under this criterion the applicant must demonstrate the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions arise out of the property itself and not out of something personal to the property owner. This has not been demonstrated and this criterion has not been met. (c) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the premises. STAFF FINDING: Site plan review of the proposed new building has been approved. However, it is not in the public interest, or the interest of the surrounding neighborhood to grant the variance to allow a greater number of units than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Page 4 - Staff Report EXHIBIT "A" Page5- of 25 1 oa (d) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the petitioner. STAFF FINDING: The variance cannot be justified as "necessary" simply because not obtaining the variance will force the applicant to incur additional expense. (e) That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant. STAFF FINDING: There is no evidence in the record to indicate that granting the variance would adversely affect neighborhood health and safety. (f) That granting of the application will be in general harmony with the intent and purpose of this ordinance and will not adversely affect any officially adopted Comprehensive Plan. STAFF FINDING: Granting of the variance would not be in general harmony with the Zoning Ordinance because the ordinance does not permit the requested number of units and the variance criteria enumerated in the ordinance have not been met by the applicant. Section 13.030 Limiting Variances The planning commission may impose such limitations, conditions and safeguards as it may deem appropriate so that the spirit of this ordinance will be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice be done. The planning commission may limit the time duration of a variance. A violation of any such condition or limitation shall constitute a violation of this ordinance. Section 13.090 Variance right must be exercised to be effective. Variances granted under this ordinance shall be effective only when the exercise of the right granted thereunder shall be commenced within six months from the effective date of that variance, unless a longer period is specified or thereafter allowed by the planning commission. In case such right is not exercised, or extension obtained, the variance shall be void. A written request of an extension of time filed with the planning director at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the application shall extend the running of the six-month period until the planning commission has acted on said request. Section 13.130 Resubmission of Variance Application: No application which has been denied wholly or in part by the planning commission or by the common council shall be resubmitted for a period of one year from such denial, unless consent for resubmission be given by two-thirds of the members of the planning Commission. Page 5 - Staff Report EXHIBIT "A" Page6- of 25 1 0A Section 13.140 Revocation Permit Any variance granted under this ordinance may be canceled by the planning commission if it develops or is ascertained that the application therefore contains any false statements. In such case, it shall be unlawful; for any person to exercise any right granted by the Planning Commission or the Common Council pursuant to such application. Chapter 26 RM Multi-Family District Section 26.080 Lot Area and Width In the RM District the minimum lot area requirements for other residential uses shall be 5,000 square feet plus additional lot area computed as follows: first through fifth unit: (2) For each dwelling unit with two bedrooms 1,600 sq. ft. STAFF FINDING: The site is approximately 11,000 square feet in size. This would make allowance for 4 units. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct 5 units. Landscaping Standards STAFF: Approximately 34.8% of the lot is proposed to be landscaped. sufficient to meet the landscape requirements of the RM district. Fire Dept: Police: Building: Public Works: Wastewater: Planning: V Comments from other departments: See Attachment A See Attachment B See Attachment C See Attachment D See Attachment E See Attachment F VI Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. 2. This is The site plan review is subject to the approval of the variance. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plan. Page 6 - Staff Report e 10. 10A EXHIBIT "A" Page7- of 25 Comply with vision clearance standards per Chapter 8 and 9 if applicable. Comply with parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Comply with general planting specifications, buffering specifications and guidelines and maintenance standards as per the standards document (pgs 1 and 2) for site plan review/landscaping. Curbing, striping, sprinkler system, lighting and bicycle rack shall be kept in good condition. Any damage shall be repaired within a timely manner. On site construction shall not commence until the improvement plans have been reviewed and approved by the public works department and all right-of- way permits, systems development charges have been paid. Refer to part two Pg 9 of the standards document for site plan review (Randy Scott 982- 5247). Prior to building permit issuance, pay appropriate systems development charges in effect at that time. Applicant shall show to the building department a set of approved engineering drawings and a site plan drawn to scale that indicates building location and setback distances to property lines. Prior to occupancy permit issuance, the applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval established by the Planning Commission and submit one set of reproducible as-builts. Conditions of approval also include the following attachments A through F. Page 7 - Staff Report EXHIBIT "A" - Page 8 of 25 10A Memo To: From: Re: Teresa Engeldinger, Planner City of Woodburn Bob Benck? Fire Marshal Woodburn Fire District Apartment 749 Front St_ Date: Aug. 16,1995 SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS WOODBURN FIRE DISTRICT A. ACCESS : Appears :o meet minimum reo~uirements. B. FIRE FLOW: Minimum flow requirement is 2000 gpm. C. HYDRANTS: Two hydrants within 500 feet of the structure are required. D. SPRINKLERS / FDC : Not required E. ALARM SYSTEM : A manual alarm system will be required in additioq to local smoke detectors unless individuals dwelling units and contiguous attic and crawl spaces are separated from each other by 1 hour fire- resistive occupancy separations and each dwelling exits direc:ly to the public way. F. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION : Street address numbers must be of contrasting material with its background, and visible from the public w~',. 1-76 NeT.-berg F.¥.?.way ','- :.odbt:.-v,., Oreg:r' 9707: Attachment A EXHIBIT "A" - Page 9 of 25 G. CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION : AForoved building permits and plans must be on site. H. BUILDING PLANS : All plans must compy with Building Codes as adopted by,the City of Woodburn. Uniform Fi'e Code compliance as adoptec by WoodDurn Fire District and the State of O'egon. Marion County Building department will conduct a Fire and Life safe~ review if required. i. Special Comments: None 1776 Ne~'be.'g Highv=v Woodb,_-.-n, Oregon :'-971 , City of Woodburn Police Department EXHIBIT "A" - Page 10 of 25 IOA 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 [~Scott Russell Detective Date: August 9, 1995 To: Re: Teresa Engeldinger, Planning Department Lt. Don Eubank SITE PLAN REVIEW 749 N.Front St., Woodbum, OR Andy Snegirev / Future Construction After reviewing this site plan, I would make the following comments: 1. Proper security fighting should be placed in front of and behind the new building and on the parking lot and acx:~s/easements. 2. Landscaping (shrubbery/busheqtrees) should be no higher than 3 to 4 feet to allow observation of the building from thc street. 3. New driveway approach should be clear of line of sight obstructions to facilitate safe traffic flow on to and off of Front Street. 4. Numbering on each unit should be such that it is easily readable by emergency personnel from the driveway of the complex. Please feel free to contact myself or Lt. Eubank if you need any further information or clarification. Attachment B EXHIBIT "A" - Page 11 of 25 ' SUBDIVISION/SITE PLAN REVIEW -- PRE-APPLICATION/NOTES REQUEST DATE: August 8, 1995 CONTACT PERSON: Teresa Engeldinger, Planning Dept, APPLICANT: Andy Snegirev / Future Construction DEPARTMENT: Building 982-5246 TYPE OF PROJECT: Site Plan Review of a 5-plex apartment unit. PROJECT LOCATION: 749 N. Front St. Woodburn OR 97071 T5S RIW Sec 7DC TL3000 TA42454000 CONFERENCE PLACE: Conference Room DATE: August 16, 1995 Woodburn City Hall TIME: 3:30 P.M. 10A GENERAL INFORMATION TO APPLICANT I have read the information sheet provided me and understand that which is pertinent to my Site Plan Review/Pre-Application request. All materials are to be collated and folded. Signature - Owner/Agent DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Attachment C EXHIBIT "A" - Page 12 of 25: SITE PLAN REVIEW 149 N. Front Five-plex Randy Scott Public Works 10A GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Final plan shall conform to the cOnstruction plan review procedures and standards. 2. Comply with special setback of 40 feet in addition to the required front yard setback. 3. Driveway approach shall comply with Woodburn commercial standards. 4. Existing wells or septic tanks shall be abandoned in conformance with state regulations. 5. Sanitary and storm sewer service can be provided from existing mains at the rear property line at applicant's expense. 6. Domestic service can be provided from Front Street. Meter to be placed within the right-of-way. Backflow devices may be required depending on water usage. 7. Fire protection shall be as per the Woodburn Fire District's condition of approval. 8. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn standard and specifications and all state building codes. FIVEPLEX Attachment D EXHIBIT "A" - Page 13 of 25 ? SUBDIVISION/SITE PLAN REVIEW o-PRE-APPLICATION/NOTES REQUEST DATE: August 8, 1995 CONTACT PERSON: Teresa Engeldinger, Planning Dept, APPLICANT: Andy Snegirev / Future Construction TYPE OF PROJECT: Site Ptan Review of a 5-plex apartment unit. PROJECT LOCATION: 749 N. Front St. Woodburn OR 97071 T5S R1W Sec 7DC TL3000 TA42454000 CONFERENCE PLACE: Conference Room DATE: August 16, 1995 Woodburn City Hall DEPARTMENT: Wastewater 982-5246 TIME: 3:30 P.M. 10A GENERAL INFORMATION TO APPLICANT I have read the information sheet provided me and understand that which is pertinent to my Site Plan Review/Pre-Al~plication request. All materials are to be collated and folded. Signature - Owner/Agent DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Post-it"' brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Attachment E EXHIBIT "A" - Page 14 of~25 SITE PLAN REVIEW 95-20 FRONT STREET APARTMENTS 5-UNITS PLANNING DEPARTMENT.PRE-APP COMMENTS 8/16/95 10A Applicable approval criteria: 1. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 Permits and Enforcement Chapter '6 Planning Commission Chapter 7 Public Hearings Chapter 8 General Standards Chapter 9 Residential Standards Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveways Private street standards Chapter 11 Site Plan Review Chapter 13 Variance Criteria Chapter 26 RM Multi-Family Residential District Landscaping Standards Sign Ordinance The following information is needed in order to review the application for completeness. This information must be submitted to the Planning Department no later than 4:30 PM August=l~B, 1995. Please note that a complete application must be submitted, reviewed and accepte'"d by the Planning Department at least 21 days prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing on September 14, 1995. Review for completeness takes 10 working days. A certified list prepared by a title company of property owners within 100 feet of the site. Appropriate application fees. Applicable sections of Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 8 General Standards Section 8.040. Special Setback Distances (a) (8) Front Street, Settlemier Avenue to North City Limits ....... 40 Feet Chapter 10 Section 10.010 (a) Section 10.050 (b)(2) Section 10.070 (a) through (i) Parking and Loading Area Development Requirements. Section 10.080 Driveway Standards (c), (I) (9) (a) (b) Attachment F ~: ..' EXHIBIT "A" - Page 15 of Address variance approval criteria section 13.020 (a) through (f) if applicable. Review of the application is subject to Section 11.070 (a) through (h) of the Woodburn ZOning Ordinance. The applicant must submit 13 copies of a narrative addressing all of this approval criteria. Provide a site plan per Section 11.020 Site Plan Composition that shows circulation, access, parking/loading location and total number of parking spaces, total square footage of the proposed building, and the location of the existing landscaped areas with dimensions of those areas. Specifically address the following: location of entrances and exits and direction of traffic flow into and out of parking areas areas of turning and maneuvering of vehicles type, color and texture of exterior surfaces sign plan existing contours existing storm drainage/proposed storm drainage existing easements Provide information per VII of landscape policies and standards 1,2,3,4,5, Total area (sq ft) of the proposed landscaping needs to be broken into three major components: Total square footage of site Street frontage landscaping sq. ft and % of site Parking lot landscaping sq. ft and % of site buffer strip landscaping sq, ft and % of site Total % of site landscaped Indicate total square footage of impervious surface. The proposed use is allowed per chapter 26 section 26.010 (11) Show compliance with section 26.040 height section 26,050 rear and side yard setback section 26.060 front yard setback section 26.070 landscaped yards section 26.080 lot area and width IOA : -e EXHIBIT "A" - Page 16 of 25 ' 10A Pr~3vide thirteen (13) copies of application, site plan, and supporting documents for Planning Commission Members and staff. General Conditions and Recommendations Staff's recommendations to the Planning Commission will include Police Department comments. Staff feels these recommendations lend compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Policies. Landscaping, play areas (tot Iots),lighting, anti-graffiti paint are just some techniques that can be utilized to combat some of the problems identified by the Police Department. Meet landscaping requirements. Provide irrigation plan following preliminary approval. Meet sign ordinance requirements if applicable. Meet parking standards for parking spaces and driveway dimensions and access spacing. Provide a preliminary lighting plan. A final a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Police Department following preliminary approval. After preliminary approval by Planning Commission, the developer shall submit engineering plans to Public Works Department (see part two pg. 9 Standards Document for Plan Review). After Engineering approval, building permits may be issued. Please call if you have any questions. Community Development Department 982-5246 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 17 of 25. 10A RECE-IV DNOV 1 SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR 11,000 SQFT,. RM DISTRICT PROPERTY AT 749 FRONT ST NORTH'OF HARISSON FOR USE OF APARTMENT COMPLEX 5-UNITS APPLICANT/OWNER ANDY SNEGIREV 34095 S HWY 213 MOLALLA, OR 97038 503 829-3519 PROJECT NAME FRONT ST. APARTMENTS DEVELOPER/BUILDER FUTURE CONSTRUCTION P.O.BOX 1166 MOLALLA OR 97038 503 829-3519 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TAX & ACCOUNT NO 42454000 STATEMENT OF INTENT It is Andy Snegirev intent to utilize this property for a 5-Plex. Presently the site is an existing 8-Plex, Which is in need of a major repair, It is my intention to demolish the old building and replace i7 with a new 5-Plex. Which will further enhance the neighborhood. The. 5-Plex will be profesionaly managed. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 18 of 25 10A Section 11.070. C.z:/tefia for ivaluat/ng a Site evaluat/n~ a Site Plan: The following criteria sh~l! be used irt The placement of structures on the property shall m;n;miy, e adverse impact on adjacent Co) Landscaping shall be used to rn{n{rn{we impact on adjacent uses. (c) Landscaping shall be so located as to m~xqmlze its aesthetic value_ (d] Acce~ to the public streets stm]J m{nirn{~e the {mpact of traffic patterns. Wherever lmaSm'ble, direct driveway access'~ not be allowed to arterial stzeets. Wherever possible, access .~h~11 be shared with adjacent uses of a s~mil~ar natztre. (e) The desiga of the ~ge facilities skall rn{nlm{y.e the impact on the City's or other public agencies drainage facilities. ~ (f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on the lot., and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic_ (Note: specific sqlar access provisions are deScn"oed in Section 8.200.) (g) The proposed site development, including the architecture, landscaphag and graphic dedgn, is in conformity with the rite developmonr requirements of th~ Ordlu~nce and ' with the stan~ of this and other ord;n~nces ~n-~o~a~ as the'location and appearance of the proposed development are involved. - .-~ (h) The location, design, color and materials of.the exterior of all structures and signs are compatible with the proposed devdopment and appropriate to the character of the imraediate neighborhood. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 19 of 25 i0A APPLICANT (A) Ail structures to be placed on the site will be less than 25 feet in height and will be placed within the set back bounderies of the RM district as they apply to the subject site. The structures will be located in such a manner that no adverse impacts to the adjacent pro- perties will occur. (B) Landscaping has been designed to provide a residential appearance to the 5-plex (C) Landscaping has been designed to provide a residential appearance to the 5-plex, included in the landscape design, lawn, shrub area, planter baskets also there is 15 feet of buffer at the rear of the building which will include trees and grass and as well as 5 feet buffer on the side yard of the property and a5 feet buffer between the city side walk and parking area which will provide a visual softening and a physical buffer between the public street and the 5-plex while maintaing visual access for safety and security (D) Traffic access at the entrance will have arrows showing the direction of the traffic there are no adjacent uses of a similar nature therfore no shared access whith adjacent uses proposed. (E) Site drainage has been designed to utilize exsisting city facilities which have sufficient capacity to absorb any excess drainage generated by the proposed development (F) The propsed 5-plex placed on the property will meet the city and state uniform code requirement and none will be of sufficient size to shadow or reduce solar access to the adjacent properties: nothing at the site design gill inhibit or prevent the ability of cyclis~ we will provide access and a bike rack (G) Due to the fact of the 5-plex the site is designed to have a residential appearance and design of the landscape and the siting of the building which is proposed, better than the existing 8-plex that has no lan- dscaping and no asphalt pavement over all the new 5-plex will have more positive appearancm. (H) The character of the immediat neighborhood is a mixture of residential homes, due to the overall design of the site including the landscaping, structural siting, the tope colors of the wooden structures that this project will further enhance the character of the neighborhood. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 20 of 25 Applicaio~ # App ~o'd b~... Date: · - :":" IOA VARIANCE APPLICATION DIRECT QUESTIONS TO: NAME Andy Sneqirev ADDRESS P.0 BOX 1166 Molalla O.R 97038 PHONE: 503-829-3519 We, theundersignedapplicants, beingownersofthepropertyhereindescribed, dohe~eby make applicationforpermissionto(listeachvarianceseparately): I~ proposinq to the planninq commision to buid a 5-plex The lot area does not'meet the requirement. The 5-plex is more conformin_o than the existing 8-plex Location of the property (street address, or if not addressed, then state the distance to the nearest intersecting street or known landmark) including the section, range and township: 749 n l~rang. .qm WonShnrn C~.I~ q7~71 Legal description of the property as it appears on the deed: Map No. Tax Lot #(s) 4?~nnn Lot , Block , of subdivision. NOTE: If a fraction of the lot, then attach a full description as if it were metes and bounds or attach a metes and bounds description, marked "EXHIBIT Zone in which property is located: Attach a copy of the applicable Marion County Assessor's Map. Mark "EXHIBIT "B". Plot plan to be attached, marked "EXHIBIT "C" and including land uses on surrounding lands in notification area, site layout of subject parcel and structures with dimensions and lot lines shown. The plot plan should show clearly the nature of the variance. Page 3- VARPROC~6193 _CONDITIONS for GRANTING e VA~IXA~ "A"- Page 21 of. ~.5''~?'' Submit a detailed statement explaining why the request is being made. Address the variance or adjustment approval criteria given under "Considerations', A-F. Attach and mark "EXHIBIT 8. NAMES AND ADDRESSES: Submit a list of all property owners within 100 feet of the subject's property boundaries. NAME ADDRESS & ZIP CODE IOA THE APPLICANT(S) ATTEST THAT: a) The above request does not violate any deed restrictions that may be attached to or imposed upon the subject property. b) If the variance application is granted, the applicant will exercise the rights granted in accordance with the terms and subject to all the conditions and limitations of the approval by the Planning Commission. c) All the above statements and the statements in the plot plan, attachments and exhibits transmitted herewith are true; and the applicant(s) so acknowledge that any permit issued on the application may be revoked if it be found that any such statements are false. DATE: // day of /J/[3Y;,~/ ~- ,19 ~ ~" SIGNATURES of each owner (husband and wife) or contract purchaser. NAME ADDRESS & ZIP CODE Application received: By Date Page 4 - VARP~OC~6/93 · --' ¥~cF~HIBIT "A" - Page 22 of 25 IOA 'PURPOSE: The purpose of a variance is to vary or modify the strict application of the regulations of a zoning ordinance in a case where they would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. However, the purpose and intent of each regulation must be upheld. Veriances are significant exceptions and applications are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing. This process usually takes thirty (30) days. The variance procedure may be applied to requirements governing lot area, lot width, percentage of lot coverage and number of dwelling units or structures permitted on a lot, height of structures, location, yards, signs, parking and loading space, and vision clearance. CONSIDERATIONS: The Planning Commission will consider the following approval criteria when reviewing a variance request: a) That there are uhnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the literal requirements of the ordinance; b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings or uses in the same district; however, nonconforming land, uses, or structures in the vicinity shall not in themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions; c) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the premises; d) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property rights of the petitioner; e) That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons working or residing in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant; and f) That granting of the application will be in general harmony with the intent and purpose of this ordinance and will not adversely affect any officially adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant bears the burden of proof t'hat the above approval criteria has been met. Page 1 - VARPROC-6/93 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 23 of 25 10A A) B) It is my intention to build a 5 unit complex on the lot but acording to the city ordinance the lot area does not meet the city requirements,presently the site is an existing 8-plex which is in need of a major repair, It is my inte- ntion to demolish the old 8-plex, and replace it with a 5-plex. I believe the design of the 5-plex and site plan will further enhance the the neighborhood, instead of the existing structure. As indicated in criteria (A) the existing 8-plex has no pavement, landscaping, and in need of a major repair I believe that demolishing the old 8-plex and replacing it with a new 5-plex will further enhance the neighborhood and the property. C) The 5-plex Will have a 6' fence in the back and there is an existing fence on each side of the property that will not be detrimental to neighbors, with the improvements to the property Im quite sure that will not be detrimental to the neighborhood in any way. D) With acceptance by the planning commisi~m of our proposal we will be allowed to demolish the old 8-plex and complete the new 5-plex then we will be able to provide housing to people and better care for the property. E) F) As indicated above our 5-plex will be fenCed at the back of the property and the side yards, also landscaped and asphalt paved parkway and professionally · managed, which will not have any adverse affect on the health or safety to the neighbors much less to the tenants and the property. My purpose and intent for wanting the acceptance of this application is to make the 5-plex more productive and easily rentable than the existing 8-plex, which will provide our tenants with living in harmony. oO ~" - Page 25 of 2§'- IOA lOB MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager Operating Assistance Grant Agreement for Transit Service February 21, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into the 1995-1996 Small City and Rural Area Operating Grant 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 18 program for small city and rural area 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 ma]or changes in this agreement. Previously federal funds were from the Federal Transit Administrations Section 18 program. The program has been recently codified into Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 5311. The second is inclusion of a new Federal Transit Administration Master Agreement. Last is an expanded section on federal fiscal 1996 certifications which must be signed by the city. The operating assistance agreement has provided $16,700 annually for at least the last six years. Recently passed funding bills in the U.S. Congress reduced funding for the small city and rural program by approximately 17%. The State has indicated that although there are no changes in this years grant it is anticipated that next fiscal's years will have to be decreased somewhat. 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. C:~,~dy~.~ bw COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. lOB A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION KNOWN AS THE "SMALL CITY AND RURAL AREA OPERATING GRANT AGREEMENT" FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 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 1995-96 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 916,700 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 1995-96. 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 fo rm.'(~ City Attorney Date APPROVED: NANCY A. KIRKSEY, Mayor Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. · 10C MEMO TO: FROM: City Administrator for Council Action ~ Randy Scott, CE Tech II1, through Public Works Director SUBJECT: Acceptance of Public Right-of-Way, Elm Street DATE: February 22, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: It is being recommended that the city council accept the attached public right-of-way, as described on Attachment "A". BACKGROUND: The right-of-way being conveyed is in conjunction with a lot line adjustment, Case No. 95-13, the dedication is established as a condition of approval. The existing Elm Street right-of-way narrows down to 18 feet in width near Young Street, adjacent to the subject property. The additional 11 feet in width to be conveyed will increase the right-of-way to 29 feet in width. The city in the future will request the same 11-foot dedication from the property to the east allowing sufficient right-of-way to extend Elm Street to Young Street. The surveyor of record indicated the owner was not available to sign the document prior to the agenda deadline, but is willing/agreeable to sign. The right-of-way to be conveyed is described on Attachment "A" and an area map is provided as Attachment "B". RS:lg Attachments RGTt,/AY. ELM FORM- W~rr~=t~j, I~eci (Indl~duM or corporma) WARRANTY DEED 10C gz'am=r, for thc ccmldct'a~ton h~ st~red, ~o ~mr ~ ~ C~ OF WOODBURN, A MUNICIP~ CORPO~ON, ~ ~at ~ r~ pro~, ~ ~c t~cm~ h~m~ and app~an~ ~cre~to bdo~ or Bc~ a~ s ~t on ~c no~ l~c'of Yo~ S~ 2~.S feet No~ 57'05' We~ of~c ~ntcr linc of P~c ~gh~y ~, 1~ ~ ~c no~ ~m~ of Section 17, To~Mp 5 Sou~, ~q~ ~ S~lcy ~ ~u~, h~d ~d ~c, r~d~ ~ Vo]~c 542, Page ~98 Dc~ ~r~ for ~o= Co~, ~egon; ~cn~ Nc~ 57'05' West ~o~ ~d Yo~ S~t 1].01 ~cct; ~encc No~ 35015'30" ~t ~H ~ ~d I 1.00 F~t wc~ly of~e ~ ~ of~d ~l ~act 223.91 Feet; ~en~ ~o~ 16'15'30' ~ ~.89 F~ to ~e no~ ~c of~d ~ ~; ~cn~ Sou~ 57'01'5]" ~ 18.79 F~t to ~= no~ ~er of said ~act; ~n~ Sou~ 35'15'30" We~ ~ong ~c ~cs[ l~e l~.00 F~: ~]ey 24~.80 FCCt [O ~c ~ of~nninE ~ ~ni~ 2,8~ Sq~e Fcct mo~ or less. ~ ~ave aD~ ~o Hold the s~c u~to ~e ~d gmnt~ ~ g~nree's hcin, suc~o~ and a~ig~ forever, ~d ~id g~tlor he,by ~c~an~ to sad with s~id g~tee and grantee's h~. su~so~ ~d assi~s, ~at g~nto~ ~ lawf~ seiz~ ~ f~ simple of th~ above g~n~ pr~b~, free from all encumbran~ &nd that ~'~ntor will v~rra~t and forever defend the said prctnises and every part and parcel thereof against the l~wful claims &~ demands of all persons whomsoever, except those claiming under the above dcscn'bcd encumbrances. The true an~ actual ~onsldcrat~on paid for this transfer, stated tn terms of dollars, is ~_0j00 . tHowevcr, the n~-~nnl consideration con.~Ists of or. btcludcs other property or value gw_cn or promised which i~ thc whole/part of thc consideration .(indicate Which).~ (Tire sgnt¢~tc~ between thc symbols~, if not appUcablc, should bc deleted. See ORS93.030.) In co~truin~ this deed and where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be implied to make thc provisions hereof apply equnlly to corporations and to individualx. In ~/irnc~$ ~'h~reof, the grantor has executed this instrument this ~ day of ,1996; if a corporate g~.ntor, it h~s caused its name to be signed lad its seal' af.f-~ed by an ofl~ccr or"oth,.r person duly authorized to dc so by order of its board of directors. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL N{3T A[.t. OW UGg: OF TH;: PROPERTY SCRIBED IN THIS II~'TRUMENT IN VIOLATION O1: APPUCASI, E IJI, ND USE LAWS AND RE;;IUI. ATION~. BEFORE ~I~NIN~ OR ACC~I~rlN¢~ THIS INSTRUMEKT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TIT1.E TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK V~'~P~! THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNI~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO 1=.FI]FY APPROVED USES. Accepted by the Woodburn City C<~uncll on , lg96 STATE OF OREGON, County of This Instrument was acknowledged I~efore me on by This instrument was acknowledged bef<~re r~a on by_ _ _ .... _ .... :.~_ of, )SS. ,1996, ,1996, City Recorder Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires OC IOD TO: FROM: SUBJ.: DATE: MEMO Mayor and City Council Chris Childs, City Administrator ~/~ Renewal of Council of Governments Membershi__n February 21, 1996 RECOMMENDATION; By motion, provide direction to staff regarding renewal of membership in Mid-Willamette Council of Governments (COG) through either: a. Motion reaffirming intent to rejoin COG (in which case staff will present, at a subsequent meeting, an appropriate ordinance adopting the COG bylaws). b. Motion declining to rejoin COG (in which case staff will notify the COG accordingly). BACKGROUND; Along with other local governments in Marion County, dating back to the 1960's, the City of Woodburn has historically been a member of the Mid- Willamette Council of Governments. On April 26, 1993 the City Council voted to drop its membership, effective with the 1994-95 fiscal year, and funds for this purpose were not included in the 1994-95 budget. On April 24, 1995, Marion County Commissioner Mary Pearmine and COG Executive Director Alan Hershey made a presentation to the Council encouraging the City to renew its membership in the COG. At the conclusion of that presentation, the Council voted to rejoin the COG effective July 1, 1995. Although the City has been informally treated as a COG member since the July 1st date, and I believe that Mayor Kirksey has attended some meetings on the City's behalf, our official status has still been uncertain. Only in late December, 1995, did we finally receive paperwork outlining the process for formal membership renewal, which would provide the basis for the necessary ordinance if the Council reaffirms its intent to rejoin the COG. Pending a final determination by the Council, no fees have yet been paid to the COG, although they are budgeted. The 1995-96 membership fee is $5,282. Estimated 1996-97 membership fee is $5,871, tentatively included in the upcoming proposed budget. The COG offers a variety of services, including urban and transportation planning assistance, grant writing, and also serves as a clearinghouse for information Page 2 - COG Membership Renewal (2/21/96) 10D and data that may be of value to its member organizations. In 1990-91, the City of Woodburn contracted with the COG to reconfigure ward maps, based on the federal census, to comply with charter provisions concerning uniform ward sizes. Although continuing to be available as a resource, the COG has not performed other ~ projects for the City during the past five years. If the City rejoins the COG and then decides at a later date to once again cease participation, COG bylaws require formal notice at least six months in advance. This means that a decision to terminate must be made prior to December 31st preceding the applicable membership fiscal year beginning the following July 1st. Example: as previously occurred with the City, formal notice of withdrawal from membership had to be made prior to December 31, 1993 in order for the City to opt out of the COG's 1994-95 fiscal year. As additional general background information, Alan H. Hershey, long-time Executive Director of the Mid-Willamette Council of Governments, resigned his position effective February 15, 1996. Interim Executive Director for the past several months has been Richard W. Schmid, a senior COG staff associate. ' ~ 15A MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager/~~~~ Marion County Transportation Plan Coordination Meeting February 22, 1996 Marion County coordinated a meeting on Wednesday 21, 1996 to discuss transportation issues relating to the I-5 area in North Marion County around Woodburn. Representatives from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) were present to provide input on their policies and philosophy. Woodburn was represented by Mayor Kirksey, Council President Jennings and various city staff representatives. Two County Commissioners, county public works and planning staff members were present along with other interested individuals including the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce and the Mt. Angel City Manager. The meeting included discussion of the status of the Woodburn Transportation Plan and the Marion County Transportation Plan primarily regarding interchange options in the Woodburn area. It was presented that the three interchange alternatives developed in the Woodburn plan were left as options in the plan and that no selection of an alternative was being made in regard to a proposed interchange. There was a discussion on the potential regional issues regarding proper placement of an interchange facility. ODOT representatives discussed how interchange were approved through interaction with the Federal Highway Administration. ODOT indicated a willingness to partner with the agencies involved to arrive at solutions to problems with congestion and access to and off of the interstate. The DLCD representatives discussed siting and operation of new interchanges as they related to State land use goals and policies. They expressed concerns on how communities grow and the development pressures that would come from an interchange sited outside of an urban growth boundary and the exception process that would be required to justify placement of such an interchange. Impact of regional transportation problems that are not included in individual city plan was discussed. There was a discussion of the transportation plan status of other cities and how the DLCD periodic review process fit into the process. There was a general discussion of various elements of the transportation planning process and the situation in the Woodburn and north Marion County area. The value and limitations of computer generated traffic analysis was discussed. There was a consensus that the exchange of ideas was valuable and that future meetings between the regulatory agencies, the communities and the county on mutual transportation issues would be valuable as the planning process goes on. 15B MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program ManagerY'~~- Water Master Plan February 22, 1996 In response to a council goal to develop a Water Master Plan for the City of Woodburn during 1996, Public Works staff has been engaged in the preparatory work required to get this project initiated. Public Works worked with the Oregon Health Division, Drinking Water Section who administers the rules regarding what is required in a master plan. A goal of staff was to develop a plan that would provide direction for providing the best quality water possible in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of the citizens of Woodburn. To accomplish this the plan will look at treatment options that would reduce iron and manganese levels, provide options for disinfection, provide options for reduction in arsenic levels, and comply with requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Storage, distribution systems, and additional source requirements will also be evaluated. Staff evaluated various consultants who were qualified to accomplish this type of project. HDR Engineering Inc. was selected and the scope of work and other aspects of the project are currently being negotiated. HDR has a strong background in water supply engineering and provides the professional expertise in this field that will produce a valuable planning tool for the city. Final review of the consultant scope of work is now underway and it is anticipated that a contract for this work will be presented for council approval at the March 11, 1996 meeting. C:\randy~memos\wtrmst.pln MICHAEL MILLS CRAIG McMILLIN MILLS & McMILLIN, P.C. Attorneys at Law 715 Commercial Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301 Telephone (503) 588-0556 Facsimile (503) 588-0948 FEBRUARY 26, 1996 SHAWN M. SORNSON* HEIDI L. NEEL *Also admitted to practice in California MAYOR and COUNCIL PERSONS City of Woodbum Woodburn OR 97071 Re: Public Hearing on the Matter of Renewal of Liquor License The Raven Inn, Inc., 262 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, Oregon Dear Mayor and Council Persons: Please include the following testimony in the record of the Public Hearing now set for 7:00 P.M. on February 26, 1996 in the above matter. I am an attorney, practicing law in the state of Oregon since 1972, with primary emphasis on representation of clients before administrative agencies, including the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. On January 25, 1996, Tina Wiltsey, primary corporate officer of the licensee corporation, received Notice of Intent to Recommend Non-renewal,. In that notice, the Police Department of the City of Woodburn indicates that the non-renewal recommendation for The Raven Inn comes under the "City Council guidelines that directs the Police Department to automatically deny renewal of a liquor license for excessive fights, liquor law violations, excessive noise, illegal drug use, trespass, public drunkenness, and failure of the licensee to take appropriate action to prevent or control problems caused by patrons on the premises or within the local vicinity. The only portion of the "City Council Guidelines" that are possibly applicable in this case are the allegations of "illegal drug use and trafficking in and about the premises." Shortly after the letter was received, Tina Wiltsey requested copies of all of the pertinent police reports upon which the City of Woodburn Police Department relied in making their recommendation. Police Chief Wright indicated that there were thirteen reports that were pertinent and released to Ms. Wiltsey the thirteen reports. It is important to note that there have been no allegations of liquor law violations, "excessive" fights, excessive noise, trespass, public drunkenness, or failure of Ms. Wiltsey as the corporate officer responsible for the licensee to take appropriate action to prevent or control problems caused by patrons on the premises or within the local vicini~'. MAYOR and COUNCIL PERSONS February_ 26, 1996, Page Two The licensee has agreed to a compliance plan consisting of fifteen points. There have been no liquor law violations alleged by the OLCC, and there have been no allegations that the fifteen-point compliance plan has not been followed in every particular. In fact, on June 13, 1995, the OLCC removed some of the restrictions on the license because the OLCC had felt that the licensee had cooperated with the OLCC and that some of them were onerous and no longer required. The licensee did not receive any information regarding the perceived problems of illegal drug activities on the premises until November 28, 1995 when she called Chief Wright, and he informed her that there were allegations of illegal drug activities on the premises. At no time prior to that time were employees or corporate officers of the licensee told that there were on-going investigations at The Raven, that a patron or patrons had offered to purchase drugs, or that there were allegations that illegal drug activities had taken place on the premises. If at any time the employees or Ms. Wiltsey had been informed of that, immediate steps would have been taken to "86" those persons permanently from the premises. Also, the allegation regarding an employee smoking marijuana in the back parking lot is somewhat misleading. The person was technically an employee, but had no responsibility for serving alcoholic beverages or food, or otherwise dealing with the public except through the coordination of the karaoke program on a once-a-week basis. Allegations were made against that person by other patrons that the person had been dealing in drugs in or about Woodburn, and that person was immediately terminated from their karaoke duties and any other duties associated with The Raven, prior to the knowledge of the allegation involving marijuana. You should review each of the police reports that form the basis for the recommendation. 1. Report dated 3-23-95. This indicates that The Raven employees acted properly in cutting off and "86'ing" a person who caused a disturbance inside of the premises. It indicates that this person made conflicting statements to the police, that the police investigated the incident and then discontinued the investigation. The Raven personnel did not do anything wrong in this instance, and acted positively. 2. Report dated 5-24-95. It is not known ~vhy this particular report is attributed as a "incident" at The Raven Inn. Although the Raven Inn is listed as an affected business on the front page, the only contact with The Raven is that there were two employees of The Raven Inn interviewed, Sparling and Hart, about their knowledge of a person who was a subject of the investigation regarding a car. The only mention of drugs is that when a vehicle was stopped on McKee School Road, they found a bag containing suspected methamphetamine. Further contact was made then with Sparling at The Raven Inn tavern to obtain statements and information about suspects in the case. There is no allegation in this report that drugs were found in or about the premises, or that any patrons or employees used or dealt drugs. It is not known why this particular incident is used as part of the reason for recommending non-renewal of the license at The Raven. I suggest that the linkage by the computer of a business where interviews are conducted with unrelated activities MAYOR and COUNCIL PERSONS Februa~_ 26, 1996, Page Three outside of the premises concerning drugs shows an error in computer programming that prejudices businesses and that you should look into. You should find out why this particular incident is listed as an incident on the police records and why it counts toward the automatic recommendation of non-renewal in your procedures. 3. Report dated 5-24-95. Same comments as above, this is listed as an "incident," but the only reference in the report is that one of the persons interviewed said that she had "gotten a ride, from The Raven Inn,". 4. Report dated 8-10-95. 5. Report of 8-27-95. This is the incident with the person who was running the karaoke machine. A small amount of marijuana is alleged to have been smoked outside in The Raven parking lot. There is no allegation that any one of The Raven employees or principals knew that this was going on. Tina Wiltsey categorically denies that she ever said to this person or any other person statements attributed to her. 6. Report dated 9-18-95. This involves a person named "John-John". You should note that to our knowledge, John-John has not been arrested or charged with any of these alleged incidents. You should also note that it appears that undercover Of fi ece~r Spru~ arranged to have this person meet him at The Raven Inn. Assumedly he could have arranged tO rrt~._et him in the Wal Mart parking lot, or across from City Hall, or at any other business or tag~rn in th"e~area, the undercover police officers are inviting persons suspected of selling drugs to a particular location such as The Raven Inn, the drugs may or may not change hands at that location, the drugs are exchanged without knowledge of any of the employees or principals, and then the business is sought to be closed down or penalized because of "illegal drug activity." No one at The Raven Inn, employees or principals, were given any knowledge that this activity was taking place so that they could evict or "86" John-John from the premises. Once this allegation was made known, John-John has been "86' d" from the premises and is no longer welcome there. 7. Report dated 9-19-95. There is no information in the~police report that indicates that employees or principals of The Raven Inn were aware of the drug activity. It also appears that the undercover officer solicited the sale of drugs at that particular location. 8. Report dated 9-21-95. This was a transaction that allegedly took place in the parking lot of The Raven Inn. There is no indication that employees or principals of The Raven Inn were aware of the drug activity. 9. Report dated 9-22-95. There is no indication that employees or principals of The Raven Inn were aware of this drug activity and it took place in the parking lot. 10. Report dated 10-03-95. There is no indication that employees or principals of The Raven Inn were aware of this transaction. 11. Report of 10-16-95. It appears that the bartender did call the police after an altercation broke out. A citation was initially written to the bartender by the police for allowing disorderly conduct, this charge was later dropped by the District Attorney and was not prosecuted. The bartender did not allow disorderly premises or conduct. MAYOR and COUNCIL PERSONS February_ 26, 1996, Page Four 12. Report of 11-08-95. There is no evidence that the incident was instigated by anyone inside of The Raven Inn or any employees or principals. It seems like a random drive-by shooting, and was not the result of any actions by employees or principals. 13. Report of 12-09-95. To our knowledge no prosecution or convictions have resulted from this incident which was not observed by police personnel. The reality of the situation is that if the law enforcement agencies make the owner of The Raven Inn aware that there are patrons who are trying to sell drugs in their establishment, she will "86" those people so that The Raven Inn cannot in any manner be used for drug sales. This has always been her policy and will always be her policy. I agree that undercover investigations can have value, but it seems to be unfair that an undercover police agent can invite dealers to a particular location to conduct drug transactions, and then that establishment is punished even though there is no indication that there is knowledge, cooperation or corroboration on the part of the establishment in the illegal drug sales. This establishment does not deserve a non-renewal recommendation by the City Council of Woodburn. They should continue to work with the owner. There have been no OLCC liquor violations, no laws have been broken by the owner, and the most serious allegations involve "set ups" on the premises by undercover agents. All an undercover agent has to do is to inform the owner of the persons who are attempting to buy or sell drugs on their premises, and they will no longer be welcome, and in fact will be permanently barred. Thank you for the opportunity to present tlhis t~ti y ~/I~ fiaeYMill¢~~ Iv[m'mo