Loading...
Minutes - 05/23/1994 TAPE READING .QJUU 0015 QQll 0046 0060 0074 COUNCIL HEBTIBG KIBUTBS May 23, 1994 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY BALL, CITY 01' WOODBURN, COUNTY 01' KARIOH, STATB 01' OREGOH, KAY 23, 1"". CONVBBED. The Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Kelley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Kelley Figley Galvin Hagenauer Jennings Mitchell Sifuentez Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present staff Present: City Administrator Childs, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Goeckritz, Police Chief Wright, Public Works Manager Rohman, Park Director Holly, Library Director Sprauer, Finance Director Gritta, City Recorder Tennant MINOTES. JENNINGS/FIGLEy.... approve the special Council meeting minutes of May 4, 1994 and the regular and executive session minutes of May 9, 1994; and accept the Planning Commission minutes of April 28, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. AnOUNCBMEN'l'S. A Special Council Meeting will be held on May 24, 1994 at 12:30 p.m. to review bids received from the advertised swimming pool general obligation bond sale and to consider the award of the bid. The Transportation Task Force will hold their next meeting on May 26, 1994, 7:00 p.m., at Woodburn City Hall. An Open House relating to Wastewater issues will be held at City Hall on June 6, 1994, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.. PROCLAMATIOB - VETBRANS 01' POREIGB WARS CVPW) BODDY POppy SALB. Mayor Kelley proclaimed May 26, 27, & 28, 1994 as the dates set aside for the annual sale of Buddy Poppies with the proceeds used exclusively for disabled and needy veterans. CHAMBBR 01' COMMERCE REPORT. Tony Orlandini, representing the Chamber Board, stated that the Chamber is actively working on the Settlemier Days program scheduled for June 18 & 19, 1994. A new event at this year's program is a traveling circus to be located at the corner of Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 TAPE READING Tape 2 0880 ll.Q..Q --r COUNCIL MEETING KIBUTES May 23, 1994 attached diagram ad letter to the editor (Opponent Exhibit #3); and letter from Virginia Hunt (Opponent Exhibit #5). Dale Baker, applicant, verified that the letter was on file from Mr. Hill which requested the removal of the variance application. The following individuals provided testimony in opposition to the site plan: Jack Donly, member of Senior Estates Board of Directors; Dan Glennon, representing Lind's Market and u.s. Bank; Doc Gheen, 2035 Camilla Way; Jack Tallman, 382 Columbia Dr.; Or en Thomas, 2136 Rainier Rd.; Keith Woolen, 259 W. Clackamas Circle (letter & map opponent Exhibit 2); J.D. Mitchoff, 2333 W. Hayes; Mark Shipman, representing senior Estates Neighborhood Association (SENA); Virginia Hunt, 781 Oregon Way, and Betty Stuchlik, 938 Oregon Way. At 8:57 p.m., Mayor Kelley closed the public hearing. During the discussion, Councilor Mitchell asked a question of the applicant, Mr. Baker, which Attorney Shipman expressed concern regarding ex-parte contact. A lengthy discussion was held on this issue. SIFUENTEZ/GALVIN.... reverse back to the Planning Commission for further study and, specifically, I am very concerned on the traffic impact and the Lind's parking lot. Councilor Mitchell stated that he felt he could make an impartial and unbiased decision, however, he elected to abstain from voting on the issue. On roll call vote, the motion was tied 2-2-1 with Councilors Figley and Jennings voting nay and Councilor Mitchell abstaining. The Mayor voted aye to pass the motion and remand the site plan back to the Planning Commission. Following this hearing, the Council took a recess from 9:13 pm to 9:21 pm. COUNCIL BILL 1543 - ORDINANCE SETTING TIMES POR JUVENILE CURFEWS. Council Bill 1543 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the first reading of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Patti Milne, Sub-committee co-chair from the Gang Forum, stated that their committee had reviewed several ordinances from other communities to arrive at the ordinance which was before the Council. She stated that the proposed ordinance has enforcement capabilities and requires parental involvement. It is hoped that the proposed ordinance will provide a substantial deterrence for young people to get into trouble. The second reading of the bill was also read by title only. On roll call vote for final passage, Council Bill 1543 passed Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 r TAPE READING 1686 .l1ll 1758 .l1.ll llll -r COUNCIL KBETIBG KIBUTES May 23, 1994 unanimously. Mayor Kelley declared the bill duly passed with the emergency clause. COUNCIL BILL 1544 - RESOLUTIOB ENTERIBG INTO AGREEMENT WITH PORTLABD STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR POPULATIOB RESEARCH AND CEBSUS. Council Bill 1544 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, Council Bill 1544 passed unanimously. Mayor Kelley declared the bill duly passed. COUNCIL BILL 1546 - RESOLUTIOB AUTHORIZIBG AN UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (LAWRBNCE COMPANY). Council Bill 1546 was introduced by Sifuentez. Tennant read the bill by title only since there objections from the Council. On roll call vote passage, Council Bill 1546 passed unanimously. declared the bill duly passed. Recorder were no for final Mayor Kelley COUNCIL BILL 1547 - RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNBXATION 01' PROPERTY LOCATBD NORTH 01' PARR ROAD AND WBST 01' CITY LIMITS (HAZBL SMITH PROPBRTY). Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 1547. 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 Kelley declared Council Bill 1546 duly passed. INSURANCE AGBNT 01' RBCORD. Request for proposals were received from 5 different agencies of which three agencies received interviews by the Selection Committee. Following the interview process, the Committee recommended the appointment of Huggins Insurance Agency for a three year term beginning July 1, 1994. JENNINGS/FIGLEy.... appoint Huggins Insurance Agency as the City's Agent of Record for a three year term beginning July 1, 1994. Councilors Jennings and Mitchell stated that Councilor Hagenauer, who had served on the Committee, felt that Huggins Insurance would provide the City with excellent service. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. UTILITY PAYMBNTS -- SERVICBNTER AND OTHBR OPTIONS. A memo from Finance Director Gritta provided the Council with alternatives to receiving utility payments. Additionally, the new owner of the Servicenter has requested an increase in the collection rate from $.25 to $.30 per bill, however, Director Gritta was hesitant to propose a new contract until the number of errors currently being experienced by staff are greatly Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 TAPE READING ~ 2562 -r COUNCIL KEETING KINUTES May 23, 1994 reduced. Until then, the current contract with Servicenter will remain in force even though there is a new owner of the business. JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ.... City explore the possibility of putting drop boxes at various locations within the City. The motion passed unanimously. Lynn Reinhart, owner of the Servicenter since February 1994, questioned the status of her contract. It was reiterated that the current contract language will remain in effect unless changes are made at which time a new contract would be necessary. If the City elected to terminate the service, the business would be given a 30 day notice as provided for within the contract. Mayor Kelley stated that he had. met with Ms. Reinhart and Finance Director Gritta and he felt that the problems currently being experienced by city staff can be worked out. Director Gritta concurred with the Mayor and stated that exploring other alternatives can still be accomplished even though a contract is in place with Servicenter. It was noted that the Council will receive a status report on this issue after a 30-day review period. REOUEST POR INSURANCE COVERAGE AND USE OP SOUND AMPLIFICATION EOUIPKENT -- JULY 4TH CELEBRATION. Police Lt. Eubank, General Chairman and Coordinator of the City sponsored July 4th Celebration, requested City liability coverage for the 2nd annual Firecracker Run and the 4th of July picnic. The events will take place at the Woodburn High School field between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.. This is the first year in which workers' compensation insurance coverage will be required for those individuals actually involved in the set-up and lighting of fireworks. Therefore, he also requested that volunteer insurance be purchased under the City'S workers' compensation program with cost of the insurance to be paid from funds collected by the 4th of July Committee. Lastly, the Committee requested permission to use a sound amplification device for the full day's activities. JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ.... grant the requests as outlined in the memorandum from Police Lt. Eubank. The motion passed unanimously. ACCEPTANCE OP PUBLIC RIGHT-OP-WAY REI COUNTRY CLUB ROAD REALIGNMENT. Staff recommended the acceptance of public right-of-way from Glyn and Barbara Hilligoss and prairie Corporation which would provide for the relocation of Country Club Road and certain utilities. JENNINGS/FIGLEy.... accept the warranty deed as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 r TAPE READING 2607 2634 2655 2685 2853 "'1 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 23, 1994 ACCEPTANCE OP UTILITY EASEMENT REI COUNTRY CLUB ROAD REALIGNMENT. staff recommended the acceptance of a utility easement from Oren and Blanch Thomas which would provide for the placement of certain utility easements including traffic control devices. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... accept the utility easement from Oren and Blanch Thomas as recommended. The motion passed unanimously. REOUEST POR STREET CLOSURE - SETTLEMIER DAYS ACTIVITIES. The Woodburn Downtown Association has requested permission to block off First Street between Garfield and Grant Street on Saturday, June 18th, between 8:00 am and 12:00 noon for the purpose of conducting the annual bedraces. JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ.... request from the Downtown Association be granted. The motion passed unanimously. LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - MEMBERS CLUB. INC. Police Chief Wright recommended the approval of the Retail Malt Beverage (RMB) liquor license application submitted by Members Club, Inc. (OGA golf course). JENNINGS/FIGLEY... recommend to OLCC the approval of the RMB liquor license submitted by Members Club, Inc.. The motion passed unanimously. BID AWARD -- LEGION PARK PICNIC SHELTER. Bids for the repair and reconstruction of the picnic shelter, which was damaged during a wind storm a few months ago, were received from the following contractors: Security Construction, $26,398.00; Woodburn Construction, $75,000; O.A.K. Construction, $60,000; and Columbia Cascade Construction, $57,500. Staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid from Security Construction. JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ.... accept the low bid from Security Construction. Brief discussion was held on the disparity in bids submitted by the contractors. Park Director Holly stated that staff also had some concerns on this issue, however, the low bidder recently completed the Parks utility Maintenance shop and they did an excellent job. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. RECOGNITION OP LONG-TERM RSVP VOLUNTEERS. Staff recommended Council approval of a policy to recognize RSVP volunteers with twenty or more years of volunteer service to the community with the presentation of a lifetime pass on the Woodburn Transit Bus. JENNINGS/FIGLEy.... recognize RSVP volunteers with twenty (20) or more years of volunteer service with a lifetime pass on the transit system. The motion passed unanimously. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 " TAPE READING ~ Tape 3 0785 0797 ,'[ COUNCIL MBBTING MINUTBS May 23, 1994 STATUS RBPORT - CITY BALL HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM. Administrator Childs advised the Council that the heating and air conditioning system which serves the Police Department is no longer operable and it would take approximately $10,000 to repair the existing unit. He requested Council direction as to whether the unit should be repaired or authorize the search for a mechanical engineering consultant to evaluate and provide bid specifications for the replacement of this unit and/or complete system for City Hall. If a consultant is hired, this project would be combined with the Library project in which funds have already been allocated for an engineering study to evaluate their heating and air-conditioning system. Lengthy discussion was held regarding the need for a mechanical engineer rather than having the heating/air conditioning companies provide their own engineer to evaluate the building and submit a bid. staff expressed the need to have general bid specifications that would allow for a variety of heating/air conditioning brands carried by various companies for the purpose of meeting established purchasing rules. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... hire a consultant to evaluate and prepare bid specifications for City Hall and the Library in amount not to exceed $15,000 with the result from the consultant due within 90 days. It was the consensus of the Council that during the interim period, a temporary solution to the problem be sought which would cost substantially less than $10,000. SITB PLAN REVIEW - KILROY'S MANUPACTURBD HOMB SALBS LOT. No comments were received by the Council on this site plan. STAPP RBPORTS. (1) Notice of Transportation Growth Management Grant award - The City will receive $35,000 towards the cost of a consultant to assist the City with their transportation plan. (2) Open House on Wastewater Treatment Facility options - The open house is scheduled for Monday, June 6th, City Hall, between 4:00 pm and 8:00 pm. The public is encouraged to attend. (3) Status of Stacy Allison street lighting -- This project is underway with proposals being submitted a~d easements being obtained from property owners. (4) Informational memo - Burley v. City of Woodburn -- This case will be going. to trial on June 15th and 16th. The City Administrator will be in attendance at the trial, however, the City is being represented by our insurance carrier. (5) Police Cadet Downtown Clean-up -- On April 16th, the police cadets sponsored a downtown Clean-up in which several cadets, citizens, and Cadet Advisor Officer Coggins participated. Recognition was also given to United Disposal, Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 1~ i~l COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 23, 1994 TAPE READING Dip N Donuts, and Woodburn High School Pharmacy for their donation of services during this event. (6) completion of Park utility/Shop Building -- The new facility is now complete and the Mayor and Council were invited to tour the new facility. (7) Transit route and Dial-a-Ride schedule changes -- Effective July 1, 1994, some minor transit route changes will occur and a third day will be added to the Dial-a-Ride van service. (8) Clarification of street tree pruning and removal standards -- Director Tiwari provided a response to the Council on the City's street tree pruning and removal standards that were addressed in the recent letter from Terry will. The memo stated that, unless otherwise directed by the Council, the requested reimbursement from Mr. will would be denied. It was noted that Mr. will would receive a copy of the memo. (9) Final unofficial election results -- As of this date, the tally of votes is 1,409 yes and 1,310 no. The final official abstract of votes will be available around June 6th. 0894 ADJOURNMENT . JENNINGS/FIGLEy.... adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.. APPROVED ~E~~YOR ATTEST 1'7 ~ Mary T~nt, Recorder City pf Woodburn, Oregon Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 23, 1994 r -. Transcript of continuation of public hearing before the Woodburn City Council on May 23, 1994 on SPR 94-01 and VAR 94-03; Sandwich Express. Taoe Readin<;J 0535 Mayor: We shall move to the continuation of the hearing SPR94-01 and Variance 94-03, Sandwich Express. The continuation is open. City Recorder Tennant: Mr. Mayor, I would like to read a statement that is required. Statement required by ORS 197.763. Members of the Council and ladies and gentlemen: This is the time set for public hearing of Site Plan Review #94-01 and Variance Case #94- 03. The nature of the application is the continuance of the May 9, 1994 appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the site plan for Sandwich Express and a variance to the landscaping standards. The applicants are Dale Baker and Timothy Brown. Oregon law requires that persons who attend a land use hearing be advised of certain rights and duties before the hearing begins. These include applicable criteria, the "raise it or waive it" rule, and the right to have the record remain open. First, approval criteria. The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The applicable substantive criteria are listed in the notice of public hearing and are as follows: 1. 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 Standards; Chapter 13, Variance Procedures; Chapter 29, Commercial Retail District; Chapter 30, Commercial General District; Landscaping Standards, Sign Ordinance. 2. Woodburn Comorehensive Plan, Commercial Land Development Policies; Administration and Enforcement Policies; Public Service Goals and Policies; Transportation Goals and Policies. The full text of all listed criteria is printed in the staff report which has been distributed prior to this hearing and is also available for inspection by any interested person. Page 1 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,. - The testimony and evidence presented at the hearing must be directed toward the listed criteria or other criteria in the Comprehensive Plan or land use regulations which you believe apply to the application. Second, the "raise it or waive it" rule. The law says that any issue which might be raised in an appeal of a decision after this hearing must be raised before the record of this hearing is closed. If you don't raise the issue before the record is closed you can't raise the issue on appeal. You must identify the issue clearly enough so that the city and all interested parties have an opportunity to respond to the issue. The failure to raise the issue with sufficient clarity to afford the decision makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the land Use Board of Appeals based upon that issue. Third, the right to have the record remain open. The law grants a participant the right, upon proper request, to have the record of the hearing remain open for at least seven (7) days. The request must be made before the conclusion of the initial hearing. A participant is the applicant or anyone who has submitted oral or written testimony regarding the application. The request may be made at any time during the initial hearing, but must be made prior to the time that the hearing is closed. Once the hearing has been closed, there is no longer a legal right to have the record remain open for additional evidence. Fourth, the right to a continuance of the hearing. The law requires that all documents or evidence relied upon by the applicant be submitted to the local government and made available to the public at the time notice is mailed, or at least 20 days before the public hearing. If any additional documents or evidence is provided in support of the application, any party, upon request is entitled to a continuance of the public hearing. Now we will continue with the hearing. Mayor: Thank you Mary. 0670 Community Development Director Goeckritz: It was on March 24, 1994 that the Planning Commission acknowledged the site plan and the variance for the Sandwich Express, a facility that would contain approximately 1,950 square feet. Along with that, the Planning Commission approved a variance of 5 foot for a landscape that is normally a landscape standard of 5 foot, they allowed for a variance to that landscape variance. This resulted in appeal to the City Council from Mr. Wallace W. Lien, representing the Senior Estates Neighborhood Association, which resulted in the meeting that the Council held on May Page 2 - Transcript of Public Hearing r 9, 1994. The Council took testimony and continued the hearing until this date. Prior to this hearing and on May 10th which was only one day after the public hearing that is being continued, the applicant submitted a letter to the planning staff in regards to their request that the variance be removed or withdrawn from this application. The Council does have a copy of that letter in their packet, signed by Mr. Arthur Hill who represents the Sandwich Express. Now what this basically means by withdrawing the variance application, as you can see on this site plan here, this was the site with the two alternatives that the Planning Commission reviewed. One would have had the facility set on the existing service station site, where the service station is. This is the alternative in which some right-of-way is vacated along Country Club Road and the road is realigned to intersect with Oregon Way, therefore removing one of the two lights that area. On this site plan you can see this being Country Club Road, this being Highway 214, this being an ingress into the facility, this being an egress onto Highway 214, right- hand turn only, no vehicles allowed to make left-hand turns if you're going in an easterly direction into the facility, thereby only making allowance for right-turn only. As the facility sets on this site, what it doesn't meet is the 5 foot landscape standard that would be required along here. After the meeting of May 9th and reassessing the facility, the applicant believed that by making two compact parking spaces in this area here, that he could move the building back to meet the 5 foot setback. Initially, what we're looking at here is a cross section, to give you some idea of just how they're going to meet that standard. Initially, they had a situation, as you can see here where the drive was very close to the property line, under ordinance and this being Country Club Road here, realign Country Club Road, this being the 5 % feet of sidewalk and then 5 foot of right-of-way, now this city right-of-way, not property that is owned by the applicant, must be landscaped. Above and beyond that though, by ordinance, the city says that you also have to landscape 5 foot of your property next to the right-of-way. So what we normally have to look at is a 10 foot landscaped strip. This initially was not met with their first application. However, based on the fact that since we're just looking at one design alternative and not two, as before, they can now shift that building back to accommodate that requirement of the 5 foot landscaped strip. Based on that, the applicant wishes to withdraw his variance request. In turn, staff would recommend that two specific conditions be established in regard to this. One is that you reduce the size of the parking spaces that were on the one corner there of the facility to compact spaces or remove them altogether because of the fact that they do have ample spacing for car parking. They have 21 where Page 3 - Transcript of Public Hearing r - there's only about 12 that's required of that facility. Also that they meet the landscape standards when they move the facility back to meet the standards as identified in section 30.060 of the zoning ordinance. Now I think it is important to point out that this facility is conditioned on the realignment. In other words, if this realignment does not occur, then facility won't exist. This site plan goes away. So it requires that this realignment happen and the vacation of this portion of the street take place prior to them being able to develop. If this realignment doesn't happen, then that development proposal falls away. Now, after the City Council takes testimony from opponents and proponents and concerned citizenry and has staff answer questions that you may have in regard to this proposal, it's Council's requirement that they go ahead and close the hearing if you so wish and that you either reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, the decision of the Planning Commission, with any conditions that are appropriate. In this case, staff would recommend that you approve with the conditions as identified in your staff memo. Now after Council deliberation, it will be necessary to direct staff, by motion, to prepare a proposal ordinance with findings and conclusions for consideration and adoption by the Council at the next meeting. So whether you approve it or deny it, staff will still be in a position where we will want to develop findings of fact and conclusions of law to substantiate this Council's decision. Now in regards to additional information that we recently received, we understand that we have one individual who has submitted a letter for testimony. However, I can't conclude whether or not he wishes this to be incorporated in the record. However, it is attached to another letter that is from Mr. Ole who initially, and I'll paraphrase this and you can go ahead read this in detail. Basically, he was in objection to the Sandwich Shop Express, but after he was able to meet with Frank and I and to discuss the issue he has decided to be in favor of this proposal. So, he has the objection and then his favorable comments within the same testimony. So if you seem a little confused, that's what that was about. And I'll pass those out for the Council and, of course, we'll incorporate this into our record. That's alii have at this time for the Mayor and Council unless there are some questions you wish to ask me at this time. 0940 Mayor Kelley: Does Council have any questions, any comments? Page 4 - Transcript of Public Hearing 1. - Mayor Kelley: Are there any comments from the Council? Any questions that would be like, to ask? Councilor Sifuentez: I do have a question. Apparently, this gentleman had alot of questions that he was uncertain of. Was he the only one that met with Steve and Frank, or were others invited to attend this meeting? Community Development Director Goeckritz: No, he just came in on his own, handed us the letter and wanted to discuss the issues with us. Councilor Sifuentez: So only one person? Community Development Director Goeckritz: Yes. Mayor Kelley: Any other questions from the Council? Councilor Figley: Yes, I have. The obvious one, which is, obviously, we are no longer then considering a variance, we're simply reviewing the site plan as modified. Community Development Director Goeckritz: Yes, and what you would have to do is make, if you so wish to follow staff's recommendation, you would have to make a motion to remove the variance from the applicant's proposal here. City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor, I believe that the applicant, at any time, would have the authority to withdraw the application for variance, and he's done that. So Council, at this point, wouldn't be addressing that. The applicant can withdraw that and it's withdrawn. Mayor Kelley: He's withdrawing it? City Attorney Shields: That's correct. I don't think that would take a motion by the Council. It's simply that the applicant has withdrawn that land use application. Mayor Kelley: Alright, then where will we go on the next step on this now? City Attorney Shields: Well, the planner's incorrect and Councilor Figley's correct. You are at this point considering the applicant's application for site plan review. That's what's before you. Page 5 - Transcript of Public Hearing r .-. Mayor Kelley: So anybody that's in the audience now does not get the opportunity to talk, is that correct? City Attorney Shields: No, there still would be a public hearing on the site plan review. I'm just saying it would not take a motion to withdraw the variance. The applicant himself has the authority to do that. Mayor Kelley: Alright. And you state that the applicant did make that.. City Attorney Shields: The Planning Department stated that and that's what the letter provided does say. That aspect of the application is withdrawn. Right. Mayor Kelley: Alright, fine. Now, the next one. Does the applicant got any testimony that they want to present? City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor, maybe at this time we could, just to make the record absolutely certain, it would probably be a good idea just to have the applicant confirm that he has withdrawn the variance application, just for the record. Mayor Kelley: May the applicant go ahead and take the stand, please. 1079 Dale Baker: Thank you, Mayor, Council. My name is Dale Baker and for the record, we do want to have that letter on file that was written by Mr. Hill... Thank you Mayor Kelley: Thank you, Mr. Baker. The next thing on the public hearing then is the testimony by the proponents. If the proponents got any testimony they wish to give. City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor. Excuse me one more time on this. The applicant made reference to a letter dated May 10, 1994 and that's from Arthur Hill, representing the applicant, that withdraws the application for the variance. That's the letter that Mr. Baker referred to and for the record I will mark that as applicant's exhibit no. 1 and enter that into record with the Council and Mayor's permission. Mayor Kelley: Alright, the next. Testimony by the opponents. And speak up nice and loud so everyone can hear you. Jack Donley: My name is Jack Donley, can you hear me alright? I'm a member of the Board of Directors of Senior Estates Golf and Country Club. I live at 1349 Vanderbeck Lane in Woodburn. The Board of Page 6 - Transcript of Public Hearing r ,--. Directors represents over 1500 residences in Senior Estates, comprising about 2500 voters. We are about one-sixth of the population of Woodburn. I have some comments that I've written out here which I would like to propose as an exhibit if you'll accept them. I am here to express my concern about the Planning Commission's proposal to approve construction of a sandwich shop at the realigned intersection of Highway 214 and Country Club Road. I think the realignment of Country Club Road to intersect with Oregon Way is an excellent idea which will eliminate one set of traffic lights and result in significantly improved flow of traffic on Highway 214. This change will be costly, but the rewards certainly justify the cost. It seems to me to be extremely bad judgment, however, to allow the construction of a sandwich shop in that realigned intersection, thus wiping out part of the benefits secured by the street revision and interjecting a new traffic impediment. We already have eleven eating places between 1-5 and Oregon. They are the Chalet Restaurant, Denny's, J's Restaurant, McDonald's, Taco Bell, Burger King, Wendy's, Dairy Queen, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Chevron Mini- Mart, Arco AM-PM Mini-Mart. They could feed a convoy of Oregon National Guard Troups. We surely don't need another fast food restaurant in that area. Increased traffic congestion on Highway 214 and adjoining streets is not just a Senior Estates problem. It is a problem for the entire city of Woodburn. Hayes Street traffic has increased all the way to the railroad tracks and Garfield Road from there to Highway 99 just to get off the congested Highway 214. I urge the Council to turn down this sandwich shop plan and concentrate on arousing all of Woodburn to turn up the heat on the ODOT to address this problem with the urgency it deserves. 1223 Councilor Jennings: Are you open for a question, sir? Mr. Donley: Yes. Councilor Jennings: Are you speaking for the entire Board or as a member of the Board? Mr. Donley: I am speaking as an individual... on a member of the board. Councilor Jennings: The reason I ask is because as late as 5 :45 tonight I was informed that the Board has not taken an official position either for or against, but each individual member has an opinion, is that true? Mr. Donley: Well, each member of the Board has an opinion about every.. .. Page 7 - Transcript of Public Hearing 1" ....... Councilor Jennings: But you're not speaking for the Board, you're speaking as an individual on the Board. Mr. Donley: Well, we have four or five other Board members here.....let you know their opinion. Several people in the audience speak at the same time. Mayor Kelley: One minute please. Mr. Donley: If it's a matter of finding out who all supports the Board of Directors over there, I think we could get a petition signed pretty rapidly with an overwhelming majority of the people in Senior Estates and if you'd like us to do that we can certainly.... Councilor Jennings: I just wondered if you were speaking for the entire Board or for yourself. Mr. Donley: Well, this matter just come before the Board and we haven't even had a meeting. So we're down here individually until we can have a public meeting tomorrow in the auditorium at Senior Estates at which this matter will be introduced again. Does that answer your question? Councilor Jennings: Yes sir, thank you City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor, again, does this gentlemen, he seems to be, I think the Mayor called for proponents and he seems to be an opponent. And that's fine, but we probably should mark, is there an exhibit we need to mark? Mayor Kelley: No, I called for opponents. City Attorney Shields: Okay, so there are no proponents. Mayor Kelley: No proponents. (Again, several people speak at the same time) City Attorney Shields: We'll mark that then as opponent's exhibit no. 1 and what's that dated, for the record. City Recorder Tennant: There is no date. Page 8 - Transcript of Public Hearing -, Mr. Donley: I didn't put a date on it. Do you want a date? City Attorney Shields: Okay, I'm just trying to reference it for the record for the lUBA appeal. Who is that from and..who is that from? City Recorder Tennant: Its from Jack Donley... City Attorney Shields: Okay, that'll be opponents exhibit no. 1 for the record. Thank you. Mayor Kelley: Okay, you can proceed. Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, members of the public, I'm Dan Glennon, I live in the Senior Estates, but I'm here tonight to represent lind's Market and I've also been asked to speak for the benefit of U.S. Bank and Fairway Drug. I would like to say, first off, that we are not opposed to the sandwich shop, per se, coming into that portion of area. What we are opposed to is closing off the access across the Country Club Road from Rainier. I think that when you made that decision you were considering the road and giving very little consideration to the mall area itself. I made a list here of the reasons why we feel this is not practical. No.1. I don't know if you're aware that the U.S. Bank is about to do a remodel on their building which will start in June and they're going to move the entrance to their building to the side facing Highway 214. They will add ten feet on the front of that building when they do, and the parking which is now the side of their building will be the front access to the bank. The traffic coming, at that time they're also going to incorporate another lane on their drive-up window, and for those of you who have been in that neighborhood and are acquainted with what happens out there, the traffic right now at the drive-up window backs up almost to the highway as it is, if they increase the business the way they expect to with the remodel and expansion of the building, their drive-up window is going to be backed up very, very close to Highway 214 and to the exit which you're expecting all of our businesses to use as a means to... as egress and ingress to our places of business. I don't know if you aware of it also, but the building next to lind's Market which has been empty for some time is supposed to be taken over this year by a large furniture store out of Salem, quite a large company, and they're intending to build onto the back of that building and take over the whole thing for a furniture store. This again will increase the traffic flow through that area and I'm sure most of you shop out in that area so you know the traffic that's already generated by lind's Market. What you're asking is for all of the people that do business in any of our places of business to come in that exit along side Page 9 - Transcript of Public Hearing r - the U. S. Bank and they would have to come up past the bank and past the drug store to come to our place of business and then turn around and go back if they want to go to Kentucky Fried Chicken and how that man can survive is beyond me, with the arrangement that you've set up for him to have access to his business. I understand that one of the city employees informed Jim Lind the other day that all they had to do, his customers, they just had to use the front exit in our property. Well, I park my car every morning when I go to work, right beside Kentucky Fried Chicken and in order to get there, if I come in the front driveway off of Highway 214, I have to come over in front of Lind's Market, go down through Kentucky Fried Chicken lot and back into that first parking area. And believe, in the middle of the day when our traffic is heavy and everyone else's traffic is heavy, I defy anyone to have a successful business and fight that traffic inside that mall. It could not be done. Kentucky Fried Chicken, all of their business, as it is now, the bulk of their business comes in the Rainier Road exit and entrance behind the mall and some of them, of course, go out the front exit, but the bulk of their business comes in because their drive-up window is there, comes in that back exit and goes through that driveway. I don't know how acquainted you are with our particular store, but the bulk of our customers, not the bulk of them, but quite a large percentage of our customers are in one form or another handicapped; mainly by age, but this includes not only people who are handicapped in wheelchairs, but people who are hard of hearing, as you've heard tonight, we have to speak loudly to get most of these people to hear what's going on. Alot of these people have bad eyesight and move quite slowly and believe me, I've seen times out there at 4:30 or 5:00 in the evening when it scares me to death to see these little old ladies trying to get into their car and the traffic going to U.S. Bank drive-up window as it is, if you increase that by all of the furniture and Kentucky Fried Chicken and all the others coming in by the bank, making a loop by our store and going back out the other way, there's going to be accidents. There's no way around it. 1464 The other point I'd like to make is that, as I said, we have no problem with the Sandwich Express locating where they are as far as the business is concerned. We welcome the competition. The more businesses there, the more traffic it generates and it benefits all of us. However, the Yun Wah Restaurant across the street from us has parking that is probably more limited than what you're showing on the map here for the Sandwich Express. And this time, at noon, for any special meetings that go on, the Yun Wah uses our parking lot and the area around the bank. We have no objection to that. The U.S. Bank has no objection to that. We would have no objection to the sandwich shop Page 10 - Transcript of Public Hearing T - using our lot, but we do have an objection when you take the right-of- way from businesses that are already established and providing jobs and income to the community, and block off their access and egress for an unproven business that has just coming into town. The other thing that boggles my mind is how the city could go to the point of giving away our entrance into our mall without ever notifying or consulting with the people in that mall before this was accomplished. It looks like we should have been given some consideration at the time that these plans were being made and given an alternative to speak our peace then rather than have it set to the point where it's going to go and say, well, folks, you've lost your egress and that's it. I don't think that's fair play. We do have one alternative I'd like to suggest and it probably won't mean much to you folks, but what I'd like to see you do is go straight across that old service station parking lot with Oregon Way and put a stop sign on Rainier and then let these people on Oregon Way go straight across to Rainier with a left turn without having to stop and swing onto Country Club Road. I see no reason why Country Club Road, beyond Oregon Way needs to be widened for extra traffic because it dead ends at Country Club anyway and it's not a through street. It's private property, so beyond our mall it doesn't serve anything but a few residents. So why we need to increase the traffic flow on Country Club Road? So if we went straight across that parking lot with an automatic left turn without stopping and then an automatic right onto Country Club or a left turn into our parking lot or into the sandwich shop it would slow down traffic because they would have to make the turn, but it wouldn't require cutting us out of our entrance into our parking lot. And if the sandwich shop wants to use that parking behind there, being Kentucky Fried Chicken and in front of our store, we'd be more than happy to share it with them. That's alii have to say. Thank you. Mayor Kelley: We have a question here for you. Go ahead Councilor. Councilor Jennings: Then what you're saying is that you're not opposed to realignment of the Sandwich Express, you're opposed to the design? Mr. Glennon: That's right. I'm opposed to the design in sense of cutting off our access to our parking lot. Councilor Jennings: (You're) not opposed to realignment and getting rid of that signal problem? Mr. Glennon: No, I think getting rid of the signal is an excellent approach. But I believe it could be done by going straight across that Page 11 - Transcript of Public Hearing r - parking lot and making a left turn. It would require when they came our of our parking lot or out of the sandwich shop in the back, it would require a stop before they could turn onto what would be Oregon Way, in a sense, or Country Club, or what ever you want to call it. And Rainier would have to have a stop or Stanfield, whatever that Street is there beside it. There'd have to be a stop sign there. But I see no reason at all why it would hurt the traffic flow in that point and it would still give us access to our...our mall is, at least the information they're supplying to us now is our mall should be completely full by this fall. With the plans, and heaven knows what's going to happen to our area. And I know several of you shop out there, you're aware of what it can be like at 5:00 - 5:30 in the evening in that area. Any other questions? Mayor Kelley: Any other questions? Thank you Dan. Any more opponents? 1 620 Mr . Mayor, City Council, my name is Doc Gheen, I live at 2035 Camellia Way in Senior Estates. Your plan for rerouting traffic across Oregon Way and Country Club on onto Rainier is a good idea with the except as this gentleman said of blocking all the entrances to his business. There are, however, taken into consideration since you plan to add a sandwich shop in the area. I would hope that the traffic lights from Oregon Way and Country Club will have left turn indicators on them, as well as that coming from and to up and down 214. I would hope that this 214 traffic light would have these and not be the traffic death trap that there is at 99E and 214 at this time. I would also hope that a speed bump would be put on Rainier at the golf crossing since this traffic will increase tremendously. The reason it will increase tremendously is that everybody will use this as a shortcut going through the Estates up to Boones Ferry Road and they're doing that now and it will probably double by then. Are we getting another eating place in this area that will end up like the gas station? I hope not. I hope Mr. Baker's business will be a good business and last for many, many years. However, with the competition in this area this is very possible and I think that we should take this into consideration very deeply. Also, I would like to speak about the parking in this area. I notice on your map that there is approximately 20 parking spots located for the sandwich shop. On a busy day I don't think that 20 would suffice in this area. This would probably end up putting alot of traffic on the street of Rainier or somewhere in this location, which would cause a problem there. Also, we bring golf course equipment, heavy equipment, across Oregon Way at the present time. I would hope that some kind of safety features would be added here so that this equipment could cross safely. I thin that I speak for many of the residents of Senior Estates and ask that you Page 12 - Transcript of Public Hearing r 1743 1775 1798 1803: 1848: - take into consideration before you grant permission for this sandwich shop, the safety of all of us who live in the Estates and who travel these routes. Councilor Mitchell: Mr. Mayor, I went down to Tukwila yesterday and ..... .and purposely headed down Boones Ferry and down Country Club Road. And had I not been a good boy scout when I was younger, I think I probably would have been lost. I ended up turning around and going back up Country Club. So, the thing that concerns me I guess is why everybody thinks that if we have, maybe six blocks up, we have a big old green and white sign that says "Stop, Private Property, Do Not Enter", how the traffic is going to be increased. I don't understand..... Mr. Gheen: Mr. Mitchell, I'm not talking about the traffic increasing going up Country Club. I'm talking about the traffic increasing going up Rainier. Right now if you go out there and you check, you'll find out that traffic going up Rainier is increasing every day because 214 is so crowded and with this sandwich shop in there, it's going to increase more. The golf cart crossing there, I'm not kidding you when I say there's been many, many very close occasions where people have almost got hit there. That traffic is increasing on a daily basis, going up Rainier. And with this sandwich shop I expect it to increase more. Mayor Kelley: Thank you Councilor. Any other questions from the Council? If not.... My name is Jack Tallman, 382 Columbia Drive, Senior Estates. I'm a member of the Senior Estates Country Club Board of Directors. Very briefly, all I want to say, and the reasons I appeared here at all is to support what was previously said. But to emphasize the need for giving serious consideration to approval of any kind of a commercial establishment in that limited, little piece of property that is going to become available by the realignment of these intersections we've been talking about. I think it is important before a decision is made as to what kind of facility goes in there, to give a good test of the increased traffic pattern that's going to take place for sure as a result of the realignment. And you may find that it will be a great benefit later on to learn that a limited kind of facility could go in there, but not a commercial facility that's going to attract more traffic. Thank you. Mayor Kelley: Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to speak as an opponent? Page 13 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,.. 1853: 1920 1930 - Oren Thomas, 2136 Rainier Road, right along the side of the driveways that they've been using as a highway. I am strictly against putting that traffic through there. Since they've blocked it off, the traffic down Rainier, I know I've heard people here tonight say it picked up. It hasn't. The traffic has dropped off since they blockaded that. There highways should go straight through there, down 214 not across to Rainier. I am strictly against that idea of putting that street over there. I think that all they're going to do there is build a deal that's really going to block up and foul up traffic. Actually, that's all I've got to say. I would like to see a blueprint of what they're going to do there, then I'll know for sure what to do. Because I've seen, oh, I don't know, about a half a dozen different drawings of what they were going to do. I've seen them here and I've seen them other places and I have idea yet what they're trying to do. I think there's some people planning and don't know what they're doing to traffic. That's my opinion. Thank you. Mayor Kelley: Now, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak as an opponent. Keith Woollen, retired architect, 259 W. Clackamas Circle, Woodburn, Oregon. I find the map up there a little confusing. I'm embarrassed to say so, having spent so long with maps and so forth. It is evidently entirely different than the one that was on that 8 % x 11. But anyway, it seems to me from that I..... that Kentucky Fried Chicken is to the left of that parking lot. Is that right? 1970 Community Development Director Goeckritz: Yes, Kentucky Fried Chicken is to the left. 1975 Mr. Woollen: I'm not an attorney but I've been involved mostly with residential properties and when a street is vacated I always feel that I own the street and there are public hearings to vacate that street. There might have been one, I don't know. But every time I've ever seen a street vacated, one half of that street is given to the guy on the left and one on the right. Now, their attorney's here and I don't know how the city has authority then to sell my part of the street to a sandwich shop. but anyway, what I started out to do and I think it's very important...is to take the whole thing, the whole city in consideration because I find that if we, I've heard so long that we are not using Country Club Road as a arterial, but as I said in my letter to the editor some time ago and you have copies of it, that it's rather strange that where the city has gone to the trouble of aligning Country Club Road with the road entering Tukwila and then making provisions for a traffic, doesn't that strike you rather odd, one of you say that you're not planning this as an arterial on Page 14 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,. - this end, but on the opposite end you have provided for a traffic light? You check that. My little plan that you may have.........and if there is anyone in the audience that owns property here or anyone that wants to can study this map and see the traffic situations involved in the area. It's a little better than that 3/4 inch map that you have. My scheme is very much like has been advocated here except I did provide a ......right hand turn here, one lane of traffic, simply to relieve these people. The fella in the cafe here would have to go clear out to 99, as I said, in order to make a u-turn. For ................there's no way a person coming from California can get into Denny's unless they come down here and he is so unacquainted in town, and could make a right hand turn up to Stacy, then turn right and make a left hand turn at this intersection to go into Denny's. I think that would be, frankly, kind of difficult.... .and a stranger in the community and had to go two or three blocks and make a u-turn to get to Denny's. But, I'll mention that later. As I say, I have given the Board a plan of the, of a proposed plan of the 20-year study that I have made with the hopes that it would help the city solve some of their problems. I hope to have copies available so others can get an idea of the basics involved in my planning. It provides for and east-west limited access arterial south of town, which I've advocated for 3 % years you know. Three and a half years ago I proposed connecting the project to Parr Road. After more study, it was realized that Parr Road had too many accesses for my proposal. So I moved the road south and connected it to 214 just east of Smuckers and extended it to use the Butteville overpass thus saving over 3 million dollars for a new overpass as proposed by the traffic engineer. This forms an arterial which would collect all the traffic from the southeast, the south and from the southwest and direct it equally, not only to the Capital Development, but to every business in town. Mr. Jennings objects to this because some of it is outside the city limits. Cities throughout the world have been using perimeter roads for ages, why not Woodburn. Forest Grove, Lincoln City, Seaside, Newberg. Sixty years ago I worked for the highway department while I was going to school and we were designing a highway between Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska and we came to a little town, not a little town, not a little town its twice the size of Woodburn and the highway went through town. We wanted to move it outside of the town and make a perimeter road. Well, the citizens in Ashland really hit the ceiling because they were taking their highway away from their business district. But now, I'm sure they love the fact that was done Sixty years ago and they don't have another Newberg on their hands. 2270 Traffic at the old gas station cannot be studied without looking at the whole picture. Wal-Mart has 748 car spaces and according to Page 15 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,.. - universally used figures, will generate a traffic count of about 6,000 each busy day. That doesn't mean Monday, that means around Christmas time, Mothers Day, because you design parking lots for the busy days, if you don't have enough room, they don't stay. If the 42% of Capital Development's land is zoned commercial, the space is about six time larger than Wal-Mart. Actually, I understand Capital Development will ask for more than the 42 % called in the Comprehensive Plan. Is there anyone in this room that doesn't understand that traffic will increase six times? It will be closer to ten times. Do you think for a minute that ODT does not know this or that they will settle for anything less than a median barrier or that it will be reduced in height? I suspect, after talking to them several times, that rather than ODT saying no to the project, they specified the median strip knowing it would break many of the businesses and no city council would be foolish enough to allow something that would put so many local businesses out of business. Once again, back to the gas station. We all know connecting Oregon Way to Country Club Road will form an arterial to direct all development traffic from the east down Oregon Way with a beeline down Hayes. In other words, when they get to 214 it is so crowded that one would be foolish to try and get on it, its blocked out there, it seems every time I see, clear to the Fire Station and instead of that they'll wait for the light to turn and go down Oregon Way. Then they can catch Hayes and go into Wal-Mart from Hayes Street. I think that will be the route of the traffic. Rather than build something that generates more traffic I've extended Oregon Way straight through to Rainier, as the board members here suggested, thereby speeding traffic on 214 through that intersection and slowing it down in the residential area. That is good planning. That's the essence, if you want an arterial you make a straight line, in a residential area you curve it or you put, there are all kinds of devices, islands, curves, stop and go and things of that nature. Also, a small park is provided and as a special favor to Denny's and others, I provided a free right lane so I can make a u-turn and come back and get my grand slam breakfast at Denny's without going to Dip N Donuts to make a u-turn. I wish you would look at that map and see how you would, as a stranger in town get to ....Denny's or many of the other businesses there. It's very obvious to me that Oregon Department of Transportation has transferred the responsibility to you fellas to say no. I think I probably told you, if there is anyone that has businesses down there and would like to see the map on the wall or any of the public hearings, they would be able to, I'll help them see how traffic directed in that area. I thank you Mayor Kelley and Council. 2489 Councilor Jennings: Mr. Woollen, before you leave the microphone, my name's used in here so I feel I have to reply. I do not object to your Page 16 - Transcript of Public Hearing l' - plan. At the last Transportation Task Force meeting that you sat on, it was explained to you that the Oregon Department of Transportation told us that as far as our transportation plan was concerned, we have to stay within the Urban Growth Boundary, not the city limits, Urban Growth Boundary, and anything that goes out of that Urban Growth Boundary cannot, and they will not accept it in our Woodburn Transportation Plan. Now that's direct from the Oregon Department of Transportation. So, I don't object to your plan, the State of Oregon does. Mr. Woollen: Mr. Jennings, I wish on some Sunday you would go to Forest Grove and see their nice perimeter road going to Gaston. Councilor Jennings: I'm just telling you what the State told us. Mr. Woollen: Well, I'm telling you what the State does in...person. 2535 Mayor Kelley: I would appreciate it very much if you would talk to Councilor Jennings. Mr. Woollen: Okay. Councilor Jennings: Thursday night is the Transportation Task Force meeting. Mayor Kelley: Did you hear that, Mr. Woollen 7 Mr. Woollen: No, I didn't. Mayor Kelley: Thursday.. Councilor Jennings: Thursday evening we have a Transportation Task Force meeting. Mr. Woollen: Yeah, well. 2558 City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor, again, for the record, we'd mark the 214 traffic plan submitted by Keith Woollen and dated May 19, 1994 as opponent's exhibit no. 2. And also as opponent's exhibit no. 3, the communication addressed from Mr. Woollen to Mayor Kelley, Council and neighbors with the attached diagram and enclosed letter to the ed itor. Page 17 - Transcript of Public Hearing r - Mayor Kelley: Thank you, counselor. Now is there anybody else in the audience that would like.. Would you take the podium please. This is for opponents. 2597 J. D. Mitchoff, 2333 W. Hayes. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, since I've been coming to these meetings my curiosity has come up. I started a little traffic plan of my own; three streets in particular, four actually, Cascade, Oregon Way, Evergreen and, of course, Hayes, that I live on. Proceeding south bound on Cascade from Highway 214 one sees a speed limit of 25 miles per hour and a "no trucks" sign. Proceeding south bound on Oregon Way from 214 one sees a speed limit of 25 miles per hour and "no trucks" sign. Proceeding south bound on Evergreen from 214 one sees a speed limit of 25 miles, a smaller sign that says "no thru truck traffic" and then near Stacy Allison one sees a "no truck" sign, the European one with the bid red line through a truck. Now we go over on Hayes Street and go north on the aforementioned streets, north bound on Cascade near Hayes one sees a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. North bound on Oregon Way one sees nothing. On Evergreen another nothing. Which brings up three questions, are trucks okay north bound on Cascade? Are trucks okay north bound on Oregon Way? Are trucks okay north bound on Evergreen? Now we go to W. Hayes. Start out west bound from Settlemier and near leisure Street one sees a 25 miles per hour sign and then up near the school you see the 20 mile per hour when children are present, and so on, like that. Not a thing about any trucks on W. Hayes Street. Then if you go up to Wal- Mart and go east bound on Hayes you don't see anything, clear down to Settlemier. My question to the traffic engineer of the city is why are these no trucks, speed limit sign on these various streets going one way and nothing going the other way, particularly on W. Hayes, absolutely nothing from Wal-Mart, not one sign restricting any speed. I'm wondering again, what is the procedure, possibly the traffic people can tell me, how does one petition the city to get "no truck" signs on W. Hayes, east bound/west bound, speed limits signs, Enforcement is non existent. If you don't believe it, come out on my front yard. If it's raining you can come in my living room, sit and look through the front room window. Nobody bothers to stop at the sign. There's stop sign there on Evergreen. Two-thirds of the people or more go through it, I think when we were kids we used to call it a Hollywood stop. Some of them get clear down to second gear to go through there. Why do we have all of these signs around when nothing's happening? Traffic is just going unbelievable as anybody that lives on Hayes or anywhere near it can see..attest to. Establishing another business that's going to generate traffic, realigning this road is going to just put more traffic in any area that can't handle what we have right now. Thank you. Page 18 - Transcript of Public Hearing 2877 2890 2937 3008 - Mayor Kelley: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak? Mr. Mayor and Council, for the record, my name is Mark Shipman. I am attorney at law with the law offices of Wallace W. Lien, P.C. Our street address is 1191 Capitol Street, N.E., Salem, Oregon, 97301. The first thing this evening I'd like to do is I'd like to request a continuance of this hearing under ORS 197. 763(4)(b). That provision requires that any information submitted in support of an application after the notice has gone out requires an automatic continuance and at this point I would direct Council to that provision and to the letter that Mr. ........ submitted on this matter. Mayor Kelley: Are you waiting for an answer on that? Mr. Shipman: Yeah. Yes, I would. Mayor Kelley: I'm going to refer to the city attorney. City Attorney Shields: My position on that I guess, in terms of advice to the Council would be certainly if the Council wishes to do that, they are not legally prevented or precluded from doing that. My position would be that they are not required, though, to do that. The letter, on it's face, that the planner talked about is probably as much in opposition as it is in favor. Besides, it's not submitted on behalf of the applicant. It's submitted only as testimony. It's not, it doesn't purport to be from the applicant. It doesn't purport to be from any representative of the applicant, so again, and plus there's been a prior continuance of this matter. It might be of some relevancy, at least from a policy standpoint, as to what the Council wants to do. Again, you mentioned a request. My advice to you would be that you do have legal authority if you wish to again continue the hearing. Legally though, my advice is that you are not required to, and, of course, you don't really have to act on that until you're finished taking testimony and it's time to make that decision, whether the hearing be closed or whether it remain open and whether it be continued. Mayor Kelley: Did you wish to respond to that? Mr. Shipman: No, Mr. Mayor, I'll leave that up to you and let you and the rest of the Council make that decision. At this point I'll just continue with my testimony and really it's addressing two aspects to the application. This is with respect to the site plan and really what it gets down is to alot of the issues that the folks here tonight have been Page 1 9 - Transcript of Public Hearing , ,~ 3080 Tape #2 0040 ........ bringing to your attention. In alot of ways alot of their testimony and presentations may seem disjointed and may not seem really relevant to what this proposal is all about. But when you really look at it, what these folks ultimately concerned about is the criteria in section 11 .070(d) of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance dealing with access to the public streets. And really, everyone knows that the transportation system in Woodburn is stressed at different parts, at different times, it's stressed to its capabilities and its limits. And most of the folks that have testified are living on these streets or are using these streets on a consistent basis. That is really.....they're experiencing this first hand and this is something that is very frustrating to them. It's very personal to them and that's why I think you've had so many of them come out this evening and testify as they have. With respect to that criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, essentially it states, it says that the access to the public streets shall minimize traffic impacts wherever possible. It further, the second sentence states that wherever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets and the third states that wherever possible, driveway accesses shall be shared. Now with respect to the proposal that the applicants are proposing here, as far as minimizing the traffic impacts...as I mentioned at the last hearing, nothing's been presented at that hearing or after that hearing which supports their position and their need for that egress point out onto 214. There's nothing that's been presented by, from ODOT or from the applicants themselves that really supports the need for that, the necessity for that. Secondly, I think, and more importantly, they haven't addressed at all why that should be allowed in the first place and how their proposal fits in, dovetails with that provision in 11.070 where it says that direct access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. There is a qualifier there, it says whenever possible. But they haven't presented any evidence to you throughout these proceedings which justifies their need and why the city shouldn't prohibit them from accessing onto 214. The ordinance mandates it and I think there needs to be some evidence into the record that supports their request for that. My second concern is with the site plan itself. And that gets down to 11.070(g) and what they're looking at there is they're looking at site development, landscaping that's in conformity with the site development requirements of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. And a couple of things sprung out at me today as I was reviewing their plan. The one thing, I guess it's more of a point and a question for Mr. Goeckritz and staff and really, I guess, a point of clarification is that when this application came out there were two variance requests. There was a variance request to the five foot minimum landscape strip along and Page 20 - Transcript of Public Hearing T 0102 - adjacent to a public road and the second variance request was to the variance to the 10% interior parking lot requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Now I think that everything that's been submitted this evening and that everyone's been talking about has been to the first one, to the five foot buffer. There's been no information, at least in the letter that Hill submitted, that they're withdrawing the variance to the 10% landscaping requirement for the parking lots and nothing that staff has brought forward and I'm wondering if its just kind of slipped through the cracks, or if its lost, or where is it? Because I think that's an important part because staff notes in their staff report, and I think its at page 5 of the staff report where they note that they've got the two variance approaches. One to the landscaped strip and the second to the parking lot requirements and I don't see anything presented my the applicants and I realize, I don't think Mr. Hill's here this evening, and maybe they need some time to have Mr. Hill address that. But at this point that's a big question I have in my mind. I think if they're withdrawing all of the variance applications then that means that, ultimately, they're going to be providing for all of those landscaping requirements, even the 10% landscaping requirements for those parking areas. I don't see happen and that's a big question I have at this point. The second item I have a concern with is one of the commercial policies out of the Comprehensive Plan. It's identified as commercial policy B3. I feel its directly applicable to this case. There's mandatory language in that policy which I believe the applicants should have addressed, or their agent should have addressed. It has not been addressed and I believe that at this point their application is not complete. I think it really just kind of goes back to a problem I have with the whole application in that the applicant in their burden of proof statement submit that they've met the spirit of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan, but they note that they haven't met the letter of the law. And really, I thing what this process is about is much more than spirit and intent, but it's more about the letter of the law, unfortunately. And I think in this case, when you take a hard look at the criteria, I'm not saying that the applicant can't meet it, I'm just saying that they haven't met it and I believe that the recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Council is flawed. It's faulty, and I believe that, at this point, my recommendation to you is to reverse the Planning Commission's decision and deny this request in total for both the site plan and for the variance, or, alternatively, remand it back to the Planning Commission for the planning staff and the Planning Commission to work with the applicant and Mr. Hill to come up with a design that meets the landscaping requirements and with the site design requirements that are set out in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. At this point, I don't have any further Page 21 - Transcript of Public Hearing ~ 0153 0161 0181 0192 0206 0210 0221 -- comments. If any of the members have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Kelley: Are there any comments from the Council? Any questions? If not, is there anybody else who wishes to speak from the audience? My name is Virginia Hunt, 781 Oregon Way, Woodburn, Oregon. Before you would allow a new business to build, I would like to ask the City Council to please send this site plan back to the Planning Commission. The Transportation Traffic Committee has not had a chance to study any changes at Country Club Road and Route 214. How would the realignment benefit businesses and residences while still using Country Club Road as a parking lot and an egress onto Route 214. Thank you. Mayor Kelley: Is there anyone else now? Nobody else wants to speak? I'm Betty Stuchlik, 938 Oregon Way. The only thing I have to say, I can't understand why the Transportation Committee, why hasn't the Transportation Committee looked into and approved the alignment of Highway 214 and Country Club Road before allowing any new business to go in at this intersection of Highway 214 and Country Club Road. It seems you are putting the cart before the horse. This will not make an improvement on the congestion at Highway 214 and Country Club intersection. Thank you. Mayor Kelley: Thank you. Now, is there anyone else as an opponent? If not, is there any rebuttal by the applicant? Does Council got anything they wish to say? Councilor Figley: I have a couple of questions before the hearing is closed, if I could. My first question is for anyone of the applicants or planning staff, who ever is best equipped to answer it. Do you have any information, or projections about what you expect traffic volumes to be, customers per day? Or is that submitted as part of the application? Community Development Director Goeckritz: That was reviewed by the Department of Transportation when they were looking at the application for ingress or egress onto Highway 214. To be matter of fact, I cannot recall what those numbers were, at this time, but they have a peak loading number and I just can't recall that number at this time, but they found it not to be of consequence that's why they made allowance for the access out onto Highway 214. And this was studied, we submitted Page 22 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,. 0247 0265 0282 - the site plans anytime it affects any state highway. They, in turn, have their internal staff, who, in turn, evaluate these proposals and they respond back to the city as to what conditions should be met on any access to a state highway. So it isn't something that they just throw out there, it's something that they, too, study that impact. Councilor Figley: Okay, I remember it in a totally different context, that that type of information is widely available and I wondered if it had been submitted. The other question that I had is a piece of testimony that probably concerned me more than any single one so far had to do with the blocking of access from the balance of Fairway Plaza and my question may not be directly germane to this hearing, but I do have one. At what point, if not here, do we consider the issue of access into and out of Fairway Plaza. That issue does concern me and I Community Development Director Goeckritz: I think Frank would like to speak to that issue, but it isn't a matter of blocking so much as it is moving a driveway access a little bit to the north. But I'll let Frank speak to that issue. Public Works Director Tiwari: Mr. Mayor and the Council, actually the map shows the realigned Country Club Road and Oregon Way at Highway 214. As you can see, I guess it's a little bit dim, maybe I need to focus.....(Mr. Tiwari is referring to a map} This is the area. Country Club Road will be realigned as such if the project goes ahead. While I'm at this point I should answer two more questions which were raised so that nobody goes without knowing. One was the vacation process, whether there is a hearing or not. The law requires that there be a hearing and there will be a hearing. The second question raised on vacation was whether all property ought to be going to the one side or two sides and the division will be according to law, which city attorney would have to say. To my understanding, and I'm not going to speak for the lawyer, but to my understanding, whatever parcel of the land the road has come from, that's where the road goes. And if it has come from both sides, it goes to both sides. If comes from one direction, it goes to one direction. So both the legal requirements will be met. There were Quite a bit of hearing on this talking about the problem which Senior Estaters face when they are driving and I think it should be kept in perspective because going across, and one gentleman said that there is some hearing issues and some sight problems, as much as they have alot of wisdom collected or the experience, but those are the facts. That area was actually discussed along time ago and one of the concerns which has been along, this Rainier Road going directly to the.....Rainier Road is up here and directly....Fairway Plaza in this area. Just imagine, Page 23 - Transcript of Public Hearing ~ - people coming from Fairway Plaza, having a stop sign here but alot of times going across without stopping. And, as a matter of fact, I will tell you that I was told by this Council a number of year ago that this ought to be closed because of the fact there is more likelihood of accidents when there is this crossing where people are not stopping. Now, if you close it what would have happened? They would have used the other access which is little bit further north. They would not straight across, they would not be in conflict with two traffic situations, but they would turn and get either ...or they'll go wherever, the other direction, whichever they are headed. The proposal in here, which will come later, is going to be that if it is realigned, this be closed, and with the folks who are saying their business will be hurt, that's for you to evaluate, but from the safety perspective, if you are coming from here, you turn, and if you want to turn to Rainier, you get on the refuge lane and turn to the left. You wait up here until the traffic that is going against you has gone through. If you are coming from this direction, you have a refuge lane in here, you can wait, and when this traffic gone, then you turn and get to the Fairway Plaza safely. This is rather, somewhat expensive proposal and that's why it doesn't happen every time you want something to happen. But when an improvement is being made, that's when you try to accommodate those. So the proposal is here. You are asked to go straight across here and you can see with Rainier and Country Club in the future if the realignment would be, and were many supporters in here for the realignment. Then you are not in conflict and you'd be looking at this road and you are going to come down, you will get into the refuge lane, will turn on Rainier. Same thing if you want to go to Fairway Plaza, if you came right across here, you're looking at this traffic and that traffic, both. Those are the things which proposal would be for refuge lanes. And there will be traffic in future years which will have conflicts and those who have driven they know it ought to be. Somebody has to make the decision which is going to be safer. Is it going to cost money, in the opinion of engineering people, it is better to have a refuge lane. And that's why a refuge lane is proposed here. It was, actually, passed a long time ago, by the Council that this access is not a good access because of those problems. 0448 There was another question raised, if I may point out. It does not directly relate this question but how do, it relates to trucks, how do you get a sign for having no trucks. And that is very simple, you write to us if there is no truck sign. Certain number of years ago Council passed an ordinance which designated certain routes to be the truck routes. Any time to get away from truck routes there is a sign telling no trucks. If you are on the residential area, there is no sign telling no trucks because if you are on truck route such as 214, when you turn to residential area Page 24 - Transcript of Public Hearing 1< 0485: 0495 0505: 0506: .-, that's when you have the sign telling no trucks. But if you are coming from residential area there is no need for such. So those truck routes are designated by ordinance and that's how the signs are installed and if there is some place where it is missing, you just let us know and we'll investigate and there will be a sign installed for no trucks. I hope I answered the question, I did go a little bit further, but I wanted to cover those three, four areas which were brought up. Mr. Mayor, is that sufficient? Mayor Kelley: I see the gentleman that asked the questions about the truck signs there. He's raising his hand to ask you a question, will you accept it? Public Works Director Tiwari: Mr. Mayor, if you wish, I will. He could always talk to me later on. Either way it is okay. That was a good question. It's up to you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Kelley: Did you want to ask a question now? Mr. Mitchoff: Yes, I do. Mayor Kelley: Please ask it. And make it as short as you can, would you please? Mr. Mitchoff: I appreciate you taking your time to answer my question but you went by it very, very quickly. You said that when you are in the residential area, you consider Hayes Street a residential street? Public Works Director Tiwari: It's a collector residential street, that's correct. Mr. Mitchoff: Well, when a truck goes east bound on Hayes Street from the Wal-Mart area and wants to make a left turn into Evergreen, Oregon or Cascade, is that an allowable movement? Public Works Director Tiwari: Again, Mr. Mayor, I'll quickly say that that's a good question. If Hayes Street, Hayes Street is supposed to be no truck traffic, that means that there should be a sign from any area where the trucks are allowed. So if there is a sign missing, that ought to be installed. We will check that out, Mr. Mayor, and if there is a sign missing.... Mr. Mitchoff: Now I want to make it very clear what you just said. Hayes Street should be no trucks. Page 25 - Transcript of Public Hearing ~ ........ Public Works Director Tiwari: As far as I remember, according to the ordinance, Hayes is no trucks. Mr. Mitchoff: There are no signs either east bound or west bound on Hayes Street so stating. I would like those installed according to city ordinance. Public Works Director Tiwari: I should answer, Mr. Mayor, one more quick..... Wherever there are truck allowed, that's the only area from that to no truck area, that's where the sign would be. So from Wal-Mart coming to your area there should be no trucks. And on the other side, I'll check that area. Mr. Mitchoff: I fully agree, they should be. There is not. Thank you. 0575 Mr. Glennon: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Tiwari. Number one, if what you say is true, that they have a problem with the traffic coming in and out of there and because of that you want to slow down the traffic, why are you making it a sweeping curve so its easier to move faster, number one. Number two, all of our traffic that comes out of both exits right now, I've been there seven years and I haven't seen a serious accident at either one of them, but they're both overloaded. You're proposing that we cut one out and overload the other one even worse. And my last question for you is, if the traffic can't cross to get into our parking lot, how is it that they can cross to get into the sandwich shop when you've given them an egress across there. Public Works Director Tiwari: Mr. Mayor, I don't mean to get into any kind of discussion of this sort, but I will answer all three points. One point was made that there hasn't been an accident, and that's good. Sometimes we get accused that why don't you take action before accident happens and probably that's one of the things, we're putting or trying to put a lane there so there would be no accident. That doesn't mean that we should only act after there is an accident. Second one is going to be is there a direct access from Rainier to the sandwich shop and not to Fairway Plaza. Actually, if you look, there would have to be a refuge lane again. There is no straight going across to sandwich shop either. The intent is not to just run across but always use this refuge lane and that's the intent. And the sandwich shop is going to have an access point in here. They will be coming in here, turning in this direction from the refuge lane. First they will come on this, then get in refuge lane. So it's not....if you are coming from here also you get into refuge lane, that's the purpose of refuge lane. Somehow interpretation has been made that there is a straight shot to sandwich Shop which is Page 26 - Transcript of Public Hearing r 0664 0683 0700 0730 -- more desirable, and not to Fairway Plaza. I'm saying that both are not desirable. Of course, there is alot more traffic from Fairway Plaza than from sandwich shop, so there is no comparison. But still the refuge lane is actually the one which will, hopefully, be the safety zone. Mr. Glennon: The other point I was trying to make here, Mr. Mayor, is that saying that he's going to decrease the accident rate out there on the road, he's going to increase the accident rate within out parking lot because he's forcing every bit of the traffic to go by the U.S. Bank, up around the mall and back to get into our store. Every car that comes in will have to make that loop to get in there, and to get out. That's where the people are walking and shopping and pushing shopping carts and that's where they're likely to be in an accident. I'm not talking about on the street, I'm talking about in Fairway Plaza parking lot, where you are making an absolute bottleneck by one access at U.S. Bank. Mayor Kelley: Alright, now. I just want to know if you're going to up Country Club Road and you have to make a left hand turn to go into the sandwich shop and the people coming the other way have to make a left hand turn to go to Rainier, they're going to run into each other, just like they do out here on the highway. Public Works Director Tiwari: The refuge lanes are intended that whenever you drive into refuge lane you are supposed to not just keep moving, but get to refuge lane, wait there and then turn. That's the proper. So one will have to wait. That's correct. I thought I asked a pretty important question, on 214, coming and going past that point of Oregon Way and Country Club, if you are going to put left hand turn lights there? Right now you do not have one. It has always been a problem turning in on Country Club. I want to know if you are going to install left hand turn lights there so that people can make left hand turns coming down 214 up 214 into that area. Public Works Director Tiwari: That's a good question, Mr. Mayor, and I would answer at this point the proposal is that there be a left turn lane and that there be a left turn signal. It will depend on the (warrants) and the State, again, controls it. The way our understanding is at this point there will be a left turn lane and there will be a left turn signal. The only one........which, more than likely, would not be because of less traffic is that you may not have a left turn signal, as such, going from Oregon Way because of not having enough traffic from signal point of view. For Page 27 - Transcript of Public Hearing i 0755 0772 0775 0796 0805: 0830 -- most folks here, there is alot of traffic, but that is the one which the State has question. It says that there is more than likely that left turn signal will not be there because there isn't going to be enough traffic. So the other.....214, that's a good safety question, and that is the intent. Mayor Kelley: I'm going to cut them off right here, please. The Council has got a decision to make. Does the Council wish to go ahead and give, to continue this hearing? That was the request by several people, as to whether or not the Council wishes to go ahead. Councilor Mitchell: Our attorney says that we're proceeding in a manner which we should be proceeding, that we're not breaking the law by not continuing it, correct? City Attorney Shields: That's correct. I would say that this is an area of the law where the attorney that addressed you can make an argument and the city can also make an argument. Basically, we taking the position that the additional letter you referenced is not anything submitted by the applicant in support of the application and for that reason, while it is, of course, within your power to grant the continuance, it is not legally necessary to have the hearing continued. So that's correct, it's my advice that you're not proceeding illegally. Mayor Kelley: Did that answer your question? Councilor Mitchell: Yes. Mayor Kelley: So now it's up to the Council if they wish to go ahead and take the stand of granting a continuance or not granting a continuance. And if there is.... Councilor Figley: At this point, I feel that we've seen and heard from numerous people with some very strong opinions and some very good points on a couple of successive meetings, and at this point I, frankly, don't know what we're going to accomplish by holding it open on the basis of letter where we have this person's opinion as well. I don't see what holding it open just for the purpose of having them add to what they, obviously, had no problem saying in the first place then changing their mind on, really would solve. So I, frankly, feel out of fairness to the applicant and the general public, feel that we should make a decision of some kind tonight, whether it's yes, no or maybe. Mayor Kelley: Alright, then, at this time you do not know....give me the ayes for not.. Page 28 - Transcript of Public Hearing ~ 0831 0836 0845 0853 0860 0870 0890 0914 - City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor, this is a point of order I think, that the Mayor has proceeded appropriately here and you've listened to my advice so at this point in time, if there's not a motion to continue it and the chair is asked for one, then it would be appropriate to gavel the hearing closed. Mayor Kelley: I can gavel it closed, I know. I just want the Council to have their input. City Attorney Shields: That's fine, I just saying, to protect the record, I don't think, at this point, we need to take vote on that. You've proceeded well in terms of them having the input. Mayor Kelley: Very good. Then with that in mind then I will go ahead and close this hearing. Now, the Council is up for discussion. Is there any discussion by the Council? Councilor Galvin: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I feel they have not addressed the pedestrian traffic in this area. There are alot of people who walk to that grocery store and plaza and can't see anywhere where they have protected the people who walk there. It's all....traffic. Councilor Sifuentez: What concerns me is this issue is brought up on this parking lot at lind's, and I do travel through there alot and it seems like we need some modification, that's concerning me. Councilor Figley: Also being familiar with it and I suppose as a matter of record that I should say that I am familiar with there, I shop there regularly. I'm less concerned about shutting off the straight shot to Rainier, in fact, I think shutting it off will probably prevent some accidents and I also think maybe direct some people who are tempted to use Rainier to just make the right turn and then make a left turn onto 214 where they probably belong. I think there could be some pluses but I am concerned about channelling all that traffic into one entrance. It's kind of grim even with the entrances that they have now. I am concerned about that issue. Mayor Kelley: Are there any other remarks from the Council? If not, it os time to make a decision. You have all the facts in front of you. Councilor Figley: I think to take what I've been saying a little further. On the one hand, I have no problem with the orientation of the building and the general site plan and the two suggested changes that the staff recommended, which was the reduction of a couple of parking spaces Page 29 - Transcript of Public Hearing r 0953 0977 0980 0994 - and have the landscape. I biggest concerns are probably, number one, the access onto 214, although that's comparatively minor, and my bigger one is the contribution of the ingress and egress onto Country Club to maybe contributing to a problem or aggravating a problem with Fairway Plaza. That, honestly, is my only concern and I guess my concern in coming to a decision, I guess we can, or need to, because the hearing is closed. I wonder whether it's appropriate to ask for proposed changes in the ingress and egress from Country Club Road, or ask remand it to the Planning Commission for consideration of alternative needs of ingress and egress. Bob, do you have any guidance that you could offer in that respect? City Attorney Shields: You can't change the basic nature of the application unless the application wants to do that and that would require reapplication. Anything thing that you could do in terms of the condition of approval, you could approve it with the condition, that would be one way. Second way is the way that you mentioned, another option here would be to remand it back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, you could do that. Mayor Kelley: Do you have anything more to say, Councilor Figley? Councilor Figley: No, I think what I, I guess I'm seeking for some guidance from the other members of the Council here. As I said, I basically have no problem with the plan when coupled with the recommendations. I think I am leaning toward perhaps adding an additional condition as to access but I'm groping for what I want to say and how I want to say it, so I would be interested if any of the other members of the Council here share my concern. I think Councilor Sifuentez does and Councilor Jennings: Mr. Mayor, I may be .....I'm sitting here staring at that thing. I'm sitting in the same boat you are. I would like, I don't know how, I would like to preserve the drive through portions, I don't know how this could be done, which in turn would allow a second access to remain open. But don't quite see how it could be done under that plan. I don't also want to see this process start all over again. I'm like Kathy, I'm fishing. I don't take any nods of heads from there or from there... Mayor Kelley: Take a little time and we'll move on and come back to you. Page 30 - Transcript of Public Hearing ~ - 1021 Councilor Sifuentez: I think this is a real critical issue. I would feel very comfortable to recommend to take it back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Kelley: Thank you very much. Councilor Galvin: I would second her motion to send it back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Kelley: There's been a motion? Councilor Sifuentez: Well it was recommended but I can make it into a motion. Mayor Kelley: Do you so desire? 1044 Councilor Mitchell: Would it be appropriate for me to ask a question? I believe it was Mr. Baker, I believe it was last week that you indicated to me that as you're going to have a right turn out only onto 214, Mr. Baker: Yes. Councilor Mitchell: I forget if you told me the State preferred or if you preferred this that this right actually be angled as to prevent people from going in and we all know that people are going to go through a red light, they're going to go through a stop sign, they're going to go through no matter what you do and all you can do is just make it difficult. But you did indicate that that could be. Mr. Baker: ODOT said we had to do that. Councilor Mitchell: So it's not going to be done, it is going to be done. Mr. Baker: It is going to be done. Attorney Shipman: I need to say something at this point. There's been an ex parte contact between the applicant and one of the Council members and that wasn't disclosed at the beginning of the hearing. I have a serious problem with that, Councilor. That is one of the prerequisites in Oregon land use law. There was no call for any of the Councilors to put forth any contacts they would have had with the applicant, what kind of contacts they talked to them about, what was said at those meetings, when those took place. I've got a serious problem with that and, myself, and my clients are substantially Page 31 . Transcript of Public Hearing r .- prejudiced at this point. I just want to put that into the record at this time. 1090 Councilor Mitchell: Being that I am the Councilor that was mentioned and people seem to forget people's names when they're talking about things, Mr. Saker offered information to anyone who attended the last Council meeting to view the slides. The slides which had been prepared by the city. So if somebody is taking offense to that, my apologies to them, but I don't feel that I violated anything. It wasn't like we went in the back room and Mr. Baker showed me things. He showed me things on that very projector, in this very room. So I have a problem with you, sir. 1124 City Attorney Shields: Mr. Mayor, for the record, could I ask Councilor Mitchell a question? Mayor Kelley: Yes, you may. 1128 City Attorney Shields: Councilor Mitchell, do you feel then that you can be fair and objective in deliberating and considering this decision tonight? Councilor Mitchell: Yes sir. City Attorney Shields: Okay. Does Council..also, Mr. Mayor, if Council at this point has any questions to ask Mr. Mitchell and if Mr. Mitchell is willing to answer some brief questions, perhaps that would be appropriate also. If he's not that's also.... Councilor Mitchell: I will answer any questions. City Attorney Shields: Does Council has any questions they would like to pursue, since it is Councilor Mitchell's decision that he can be fair and objective in this matter. 1145 Attorney Shipman: Councilor Mitchell and Mayor, I wasn't prepared to address that, I wasn't aware of either during the hearing or after the hearing any mention by Mr. Saker or his agent of any slides or anything of that nature. I'm not prepared to ask any questions at this point. Councilor Mitchell: So you're prepared to throw stones but not have them thrown back? Now wait a minute, this was a public meeting. There was a slide up and all were viewing the slides, and you're saying that this isn't correct and you're not prepared to address it? Page 32 - Transcript of Public Hearing 1T .- Attorney Shipman: Not at this point. 1172 Mayor Kelley: Alright, now we'll go back to, is there any other discussion from the Council? Would you care to...1 will entertain your motion, Councilor Sifuentez. 1240 Councilor Sifuentez: I would like this project to reverse back to the Planning Commission for further study and, specifically, I am very concerned on the traffic impact and the Lind's parking lot. Councilor Galvin: I second that. Mayor: There's a motion and there's a second. Is there any question from the Council. Councilor Mitchell: I would like to get our attorney's opinion again if I could, Mr. Mayor. Mayor: I regard to what? Councilor Mitchell: The question to ask.. Mayor: In regard to the.. Councilor Mitchell: I have a question to ask him, is that okay? Mayor: We have a motion on the floor.. Councilor Mitchell: I have a question before I'm going to vote. Is it appropriate for me to ask him? Mayor: If it has to do with the motion, I'd say yes. Councilor Mitchell: It has to do with the motion. Mayor: Thank you. Then go ahead. You may ask it. Councilor Mitchell: Mr. Shields, as I have stated, I feel that I can make an impartial and unbiased decision. Is it appropriate for me to vote on this? If it's not appropriate for me to vote, I will not vote on this particular issue. Page 33 - Transcript of Public Hearing v -. City Attorney Shields: I don't know enough about the contact myself to give you complete advice, as much advice as I could give you if I did. You're always in a position, I guess, where you've stated that you can proceed fair and objectively so it really, ultimately, is your decision. But, I guess, on the other side of the coin, if you were to abstain then there would be no argument that could be raised over your participation. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Councilor Mitchell? Councilor Mitchell: Yes sir, it does and I will abstain from the vote on this....because I don't want anyone getting their feathers ruffled. What I did.. Mayor: Thank you. Councilor Mitchell: Wait, you're going to let me finish. What I did, I did in an open meeting, I did it in front of dozens of people, many who are in this room, so I will not be voting on this issue, even though I can vote. Does anybody not understand that? Thank you, Mayor. Mayor: Thank you. Councilor Jennings: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be voting in opposition to the motion because I can't put some other city business in jeopardy if I don't vote in favor of it. Councilor Figley: I'm also going to vote no and my only reason for voting no is my concern. I do feel people are entitled to yes, no or maybe at some point.. when all the evidence is there. I'm still trying to play with some additional conditions that would work resolve an issue that I think we all, most of us, up here share some concern with. But I'm uncomfortable about going through the entire Planning Commission and hearing procedure again for what may be a minor modification. 1366 Mayor: Alright. Well, we have a motion on the floor and we have a second. Mary, would you take the roll call please? Councilor Mitchell: Abstain Councilor Figley: No. Councilor Jennings: No. Councilor Sifuentez: Aye. Page 34 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,. - Councilor Galvin: Aye. Mayor: You're going to force me to vote. The Mayor will vote "aye." Mayor: So that is the decision for tonight on this public hearing and now with this, I believe we should have a five-minute recess. Mayor: Reconvene the meeting now. The next bit on the agenda is "tabled business." There being none mentioned here, we'll move on. Page 35 - Transcript of Public Hearing ,.