The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - 03/14/2005CITY OF WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 14, 2005- 7:00 P.M. KATHRYN FIOLEY, MAYOR WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1 RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD JV FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VJ CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET e CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. A public hearing to consider the City's Periodic Review work program will be held on March 28, 2005. B. The Woodburn Public Library will be closed on March 27, 2005 in observance of Easter. Appointments: None. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. Presentations: A. Chamber of Commerce Youth Leadership B. Teen Scene Update C. South Front Street Reconstruction and Widening Project COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Woodburn School District C. Woodburn Downtown Association · 'Habrd in~rpretes i)isponib[es para aqua[las personas q~e no bablan Ingl~s~ previo ac,er~. Gom;miq~ese (503) 98o-~.485.'' March 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page i 6. COMMUNICATIONS e Be None. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted by one marian. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of February 28, 2005 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. Be Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes March 8, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the draft minutes. of C. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of February 24, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. De Building Activity for February 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. Planning Tracking Sheet dated March 3, 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. Fe Police Department Statistics - February 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 7 9 22 23 27 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS Aa Zone Change 04-04 located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road Recommended Action: Approve Zone Change 04-04 subject to the conditions of approval contained in the Planning Commission's Final Order, and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate its decision. 34 March 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page ii 11. GENERAL BUSINESS - Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. ke Council Bill 2561 - Ordinance amending Ordinance 2313 (the Woodburn Development ordinance); and setting an effective date Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance Be Council Bill 2562 - Resolution entering into the STF 108 Marion County Rural Agreement with the Salem Area Transit District for FY 2004-2005 and authorizing the City Administrator to sign such agreement Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. Ce Council Bill 2563 - Resolution requiring waiver of Measure 37 claims for property owners annexing property into the City of Woodburn Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. De Council Bill 2564 - Resolution granting United Disposal Service, Inc. an adjusted rate schedule for providing solid waste service within the City of Woodburn and repealing Resolution 1688 Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. Ee Council Bill 2565 - Resolution authorizing the transfer of operating contingency appropriations during fiscal year 2004- 05 Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution Bid Award for Downtown Plaza Construction Project - Phase I Recommended Action: Reject the bid of Nomarco, Inc. as not responsive; reject the bid of 2KG Contractors, Inc. as not responsive; accept the bid of $329,220 of D & A General Confractor~, Inc.: and deleclate to the City Administrator the authority to award the contract to D 8, A General Contractors, Inc. for a negotiated price not-to-exceed $329,220. Go Acceptance of Bancroft Bond Application Recommended Action: Accept the Bancroft Bond application which was filed after the initial 10-day filing period on the East Hardcastle LID. 37 63 67 71 87 91 94 March 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page iii 12. 13. 14. 15. He Emergency Clause Memo Recommended Action: Receive the report. Liquor License Change of Ownership Recommended Action: Approve a application for Woodburn Stop-N-Go. change of ownership Je Liquor License - New Outlet Recommended Action: Approve a new outlet application for Woodburn Station. Ke Appointment of Administrator Pro Tern Recommended Action: Appoint Public Works Director Frank Tiwari as Administrator Pro Tern for the period of March 18, 2005 through March 27, 2005. NEW BUSINESS PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. None. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 96 100 103 106 16. ADJOURNMENT March 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page iv 8A TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 0001 00O5 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 28, 2005. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bj ella. nd Absent Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell, Public Works Manager Rohman, Community Development Director Mulder, Park & Recreation Director West'rick, Finance Director Gillespie, Senior Planner Zwerdling, Recorder Tennant 0050 Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Bjelland was out of town for this meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Woodbum Public Library will begin their "Winter into Spring" concert series with a performance by a Gaelic musician and entertainer, Geoff Frasier, on March 13, 2005, 2:00 p.m., at City Hall. B) Public hearing to consider Zone Change 04-04, Boones Ferry Place, has been rescheduled from February 28, 2005 to March 14, 2005. 0085 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT Niki DeBuse, representing the Chamber Board, provided information on the upcoming Chamber events: 1) Greeter's Program will be held on March 4, 2005 from 7:30 am to 9:00 am at Countrywide Home Loans. 2) Greeter's Program will be held on March 11Q, 7:30 am to 9:00 am., at Billy-O Deli Pub. 3) Chamber Forum Lunch will be held on March 16, 2005, from 12:00 noon until 1:15 p.m. at the Tukwila Center for Health and Medicine. The topic of discussion at this luncheon focuses on the High School's restructuring under the Gates Foundation grant. 4) The annual Distinguished Service Awards Dinner will be held on March 18, 2005, at Country Meadows Village. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 TAPE 5) A community auction will be held on April 16~. Organizations coordinating this event are the Woodbum Chamber, Bulldog Foundation, and Woodbum FFA (Future Farmers of America). 0188. LETTER FROM WILLAMETTE BROADBAND~ Mayor Figley read a letter from Willamette Broadband (Cable TV and Internet) informing the public that there will be a change in the channel line-up and that they have launched a new internet service. Subscribers to their new internet service will being seeing a slight decrease in on their monthly statement. 0340 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the Council meeting minutes of February 14, 2005; B) accept the Special Planning Commission minutes of February 3, 2005; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of February 10, 2005; D) accept the Library Board minutes of February 9, 2005; and E) receive the 2003-04 Audit Report. Mayor Figley stated that she was impressed with the implementation of the GASB standards and, even though making the change was extremely difficult for staff since it was a different way of providing information, she found the audit report to be more readable and understandable than in the past. Finance Director C_dllespie stated that the new reporting standards did take more effort to provide thc required information and has resulted in a delay in getting a final document before the Council. In his opinion, the report does provide more meaningful information for the citizens of our community. The City continues to receive a clean audit report and staff continues to maintain good internal controls which shows that they are paying attention to financial issues that affect their departments. He also stated that copies of the report are available in the Library for public review in addition to the Finance Office. Councilor McCallum questioned if the auditor provides verbal guidance during the year to better the City's accounting practices and procedures. Director Gillespie stated that he does obtain assistance from the auditors during the course of the year as situations arise. Mayor Figley congratulated staff on their continued level of professionalism and integrity relating to financial management issues. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... accept the consent agenda as presented. Thc motion passed unanimously. 0738 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE 04-04 (2325 N. BOONES FERRY ROAD). Mayor Figley stated that this hearing had been originally scheduled for this meeting however it has been re-noticed for March 14, 2005. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2005 2 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 0764 PUBLIC HEARING: LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT 05-02 - ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:14 p.m.. Senior Planner Zwerdling presented the staff report outlining proposed revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) which was adopted in July 2002. Staff had prepared a list of proposed revisions which had been categorized as (1) minor amendments that did not require Measure 56 notice, and (2) major amendments that did require Measure 56 notice. She stated that this hearing will address the minor amendments to the WDO which were recommended by the WDO Focus Group, forwarded to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, and ultimately adopted by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2005. Councilor McCallum questioned if revision #5 relating to front yard setback would refer to buildings or ponds as a small structure. Planner Zwerdling stated that the code language within the setback open space standards of the code would allow specifically said trellis, arbor, pergola and archway. Councilor McCallum also questioned if revision #15 would reduce the number of parking spaces for new development if the width of a parking space for a compact car slot is reduced. Planner Zwerdling stated that only 20% of the parking spaces can be designated as compact parking spaces and the number of spaces in a development has not changed. This revision will change the WDO to accurately reflect the width of a compact car. No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposed revisions. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:20 p.m.. Councilor Cox stated that, as a member of the Focus Group, not all of these decisions were easy to make even though they are considered as minor amendments. The Focus Group felt that all of these revisions were reasonable adjustments to the WDO. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... adopt the draft revisions to the WDO based on the findings as presented and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate the Council's decision. The motion passed unanimously. 1388 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2555 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2317, C~tOODURN NOISE ORDINANCE) TO REDUCE CERTAIN DECIBEL LEVELS. (Second Reading} Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2555 for its second reading. Recorder Tennant read the second reading of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2555 duly passed with the emergency clause. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 TAPE READING 1458 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2558 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING RULES FOR PUBLIC CONTRACTING~ ESTABLISHING CERTAIN CLASS EXEMPTIONS~ AND PROVIDING PROCEDURE FOR PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2558. The two readings of the bill were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Mayor Figley stated that City Attorney Shields had provided a revised Council Bill with an explanatory memo for Council consideration. City Attorney Shields stated that there has been a major change in State law and staffhas prepared this document in order to put something in effect prior to March 1, 2004. In general, he followed the State's model rules except where the City could make minor modifications such as in the personal service contract area. He stated that the revised ordinance with the amendments has been given to the City Recorder prior to this meeting therefore there is no need to adopt the amendments by motion. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2558 duly passed with the emergency clause. 849 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2559 - ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A 2004 RURAl. ACCESS TO EMERGENCY DEVICES GRANT RECEIVED DURING FISCAl, 2073 YEAR 2004-05 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS. Council Bill 2559 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Police Chief Russell stated that the City had originally purchased two defibrillators with grant funds in 2003, however, those units have been found to be defective and the manufacturer has gone out of business. New grant dollars have been made available to the City to replace the two units that are inoperable. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2559 duly passed with the emergency clause. COUNCIL BiLL NO. 2560 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISIIING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR TIlE VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON A PORTION OF SIXTH STREET FROM WEST LINCOLN STREET TO ITS SOUTH TERMINUS. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2560. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Lonergan questioned the number of consenting property owners required as part of thc vacation process. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that it was his understanding it is adjacent property owners and there were some problems in getting all of the signatures. Prior to the hearing, property owners within the immediate area will receive a written notice of the hearing as required under state law. Councilor Cox stated that this hearing will only start the process and he is willing to Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2005 4 TAPE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 move forward to see what will happen. On roll call vote, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2560 duly passed. 2288 ANNEXATION POLICY AFTER PASSAGE OF BALLOT MEASURE 37. 2450 Councilor Cox expressed his opinion that the City should require a waiver but feels that the City of Forest Grove waiver goes too far in that the waiver would also waive any future claims as it pertains to that property. He agreed that property owners who want to be annexed should not be able to use the fact that they are now in the City as a basis for Measure 37 claims. City Attorney Shields agreed with Councilor's Cox comments and he will bring back a Resolution to the Council at their next regular meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS. A) Planning Commission's approval of Partition 04-06, Variance 04-26, and Variance 05-02 (1123 McKinley Street). Allows for the partitions of a lot into 2 parcels, variance approval to the street standards McKinley Street, and a variance approval to allow parcel #2 (which is a flag lot) to have the front property line oriented toward the private access strip. B) Community Development Director's approval of Partition 05-03 (Boones Crossing PUD). Approves applicant request for modifying the condition of approval by allowing them to provide an easement for access through phase 1 of Boones Crossing PUD to parcel 1 created in Partition Application Case 04-07. Councilor Cox requested clarification on the condition of approval which had been required at the time the plat was recorded and he questioned what would take the place of this condition. Director Mulder stated that the previous condition would allow for the phasing of the PUD and the condition that was put on it originally stated that before the PUD could be recorded the streets would need to be dedicated in the first phase. The applicant has chosen to grant easements for the streets instead of building all of the streets within the development at this time in order to allow the recording of a partition to create a different phased area.. The City will ultimately end up with paved public streets once the property is developed. 2661 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. 1) Sale of Police Facility Bonds - Last Wednesday, the City did sell the bonds with the low bidder UGS Financial Services being the bidder of choice and the true interest cost of their bid was 4.067%. All of the bond bids were within .1% of each other and there were 7 bidders for the bonds. This bid was about .3% lower than the figure used when the bond issue was being proposed and Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2005 TAPE READING taxpayers will see a slight reduction as a result of this sale. The City will not be receiving a premium since the bond market was strong enough last Wednesday that the underwriter took a discount on this issue. The City will receive about $6.99 million for our new facility and the closing date is scheduled for March 9, 2004. 3050 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Cox stated that he had obtained a copy of a memo from City Attorney Shields that had been prepared in February 2003 on the subject of emergency clauses on council bills. He has asked that this memo be distributed to the Council at their next meeting. He agreed with the comments made by City Attorney Shields and reiterated that the standards should be thought through and a policy decision made by motion. Councilor Nichols congratulated Executive Assistant Clay on her new design of the agenda packet. Councilor McCallum invited the Council to the Relay for Life kickoff event to be held on March 9, 2005 at Tukwila Center for Health & Medicine from 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm. Fundraising has already started and teams are being formed for this year's event. Mayor Figley stated that she had participated in the Mayor's Day at the Capitol last Wednesday. After talking to Mayors from other communities, she felt our City is very civil, forward thinking, and conscientious at not only the level of the Mayor and Council but also the entire City staff level. 3410 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 28, 2005 6 MINUTES Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board Tuesday, March 8, 2005 7:00 pm City Council Chambers DRAFT Open House for the Legion Park Design Park Board and Community Center Task Force members were invited to look over a series of conceptual options that MIG prepared that compare various activity areas that potentially could be planned for Legion Park. MIG will now take the suggested changes and narrow the concepts to present at the April Board meeting. Call to Order Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary, called the meeting to order at 7 pm Roll Call Members present: Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary; Ann Meyer, Member; Bruce Thomas, Member; Joseph Nicoletti, Member, Eric Yaillen Members absent: Herb Mittmann, Chair, Cristal Sandoval, Member Staff present: Randy Westrick, Director; Barbara Nugent, Recreation Services Manager, Paulette Zastoupil, A.A. New Board Member Rosetta Wangerin introduced and welcomed Eric Yaillen to the Board. Approval of Minutes from February 8, 2005. Motion to accept the minutes was made by Bruce Thomas and seconded by Ann Meyer. Business from the Audience: Juan Hernandez spoke to the Board about his concern with the adult soccer program. Mr. Hernandez stated that he observed several fights last season involving adults and children, and stated that alcohol was the main reason this was happening. He wanted the Recreation Department to be aware for what was happening and to be more responsible with controlling the games. Barbara Nugent, Recreation Services Manager reported that new policies have been put in place, parking .patterns and entrance/exit traffic flow at Centennial Park has been changed to help control these issues. She has met with all 2005 season soccer clubs and vendors to make sure all parties involved know the rules and consequences that will be enforced. Division Reports Recreation and Leisure Services - Barbara Nugent, The Recreation Division has received a $4000.00 youth sponsorship grant from Land O Frost. This sponsorship will focus on 40 teams in the fall of 2005 and only for non- competitive 4 - 10 year olds activities. Barbara reported that baseball registration may be extended. The community egg hunt will be held at Settlemier Park in cooperation with the Woodburn Eagles Lodge on Sunday, March 20th. Men's Adult BasKetOa~ League t~na~s were tomgn[ ana sne was on ner way to pass out trophies. Ann Meyer made the suggestion for youth basketball that changing grade level to age level would be better. Barbara reported that there will be 4 weeks of art'programs being offered at the Woodburn Art Center this summer. Teen Scene buildings will be open during Spring Break with violence-free activities being planned. Barbara stated that the funding for Teen Scene is changing and the department doesn't expect full funding this next year. The Summer Recreation Reporter is scheduled to be mailed in early April. Aquatics Division - Steve Newport Randy Westrick reported that the Fitness equipment was in place and ready to use. Rosetta stated that had been over there and liked the way the equipment was placed and the space blocked off safely. Parks and Facilities - Randy Westrick Mill Creek Greenway Master Plan Alex Stone will present a final Greenway Master Plan at our April Board meeting. Dan Hoynacki has organized a youth conservation crew through Woodburn's Success School to work in Hermanson Park III. Randy shared that the Woodburn Rotary was purchasing bike racks for Centennial Park. Randy reported that Joni Harms has been booked to perform at this year's Fourth of July event. Legion Park Master Plan Dave Walters, from MIG presented 7 general conceptual plans to the Board, and explained that this was a process to develop a new master park plan. Five out of seven plans included a community center. The next step is to take the comments made at the open house and refine the plans. The new refined conceptual plans will be presented at the April Board meeting. Future · Bruce Thomas opposed building the Community Center at Legion Park, stating that Legion Park needs to stay a large open green space park. · Dan Evers has been an opponent keeping the stadium, but suggested that a large covered area that could be used for vendor set up, portable bleachers and covered basketball court replace it. · Ann Meyer stated that basketball courts need to be added to the park master plan. · Silas Harvey stated a strong feeling opposing a community center at Legion Park, feeling that it would not be a good location for seniors. Board Business Next meeting, April 12, 2005 Mill Creek Greenway Master Final Plan Review Parks CIP 10. Board Comments - none Meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary Date Paulette Zastoupil, Recording Secretary Date 8 8C WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 24, 2005 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lima P Vice Chairperson Bandelow P Commissioner Vancll P Commissioner Grigorloff P Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jenninga P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdllng, Senior Planner Denlece Won, Assistant City Attorney Also Present: Greg Winterowd, Wintarbrook Planning Chairperson Lima provided an opening statement for Public Headng. Staff introduced the newly appointed Planning Commissioner and former City of Woodburn Mayor, Richard Jennings. The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Jennings. MINUTES A_.,. Woodbum Plannin, Commlesion Special Mesting Minutes of February 3,200n Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to accept the minutes as presented. Commissioner Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 10,2005 Commissioner Vancil made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Motion was seconded by Vice Chairperson Bandelow, which carried unanimously. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_~. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minute~ of January 24, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING A__~. Le~islatlve Amendment 05.02, City-initiated proposal to amend the Woodburn Develooment Ordinance. (continued from February 3, 2005) Chairperson Lima clarified there would only be Commission discussion tonight because the hearing was closed at the last meeting. He indicated persons with questions or concerns will have another opportunity to come before the City Council and clarified the Planning Commission are not the final decision maker body. EX-PARTE CONTACTS Page 1 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting- February 24, 2005 9 Commissioner Jenning$ reported for the record he received a letter concerning this item on the agenda, which he handed over to the City Administrator. Commissioner Vancil also indicated he had an ex-parte contact with one of the property owners since the last hearing. Staff indicated he also received a copy of the letter Commissioner Jennings referred to as well as a few other letters after the dose of the hearing. He stated he would forward those letters to the City Council when they have their hearing so that they will be able to review that testimony at that time. Staff mentioned the Commission received copies in their packets of all the testimony, a copy of the minutes of that meeting, and a copy of Staff's comments on the testimony that was received. Staff recommended the zoning in the Downtown areas of Second and Third St. be left the way it is based on the substantial amount of testimony from the neighbors. He further commented that issue can be revisited when the City updates its Downtown Plan, which is a Council goal. The anticipation is that they would be able to update the Downtown Plan by July 2006 and as part of that process it would allow you to look at the issue of what future land use should be in the Downtown area in context of the Downtown Plan. Staff further remarked it would also provide a better forum to have a greater public outreach and involvement as far as having either neighborhood meetings or open houses to allow the affected property owners to come in and review in detail what is being proposed in the Downtown area and see how they would then fit in and allow them to comment. DISCUSSION Commissioner Vancil referred to the issues of the location of industrial land in regards to I-5, the lack of land that has that kind of capability and he questioned why wasn't the land North of the outlet center on Arney Rd. considered? Greg Winterowd responded the City looked at the information provided by EcoNorthwest, searched throughout the Urban Growth Boundary for industrial land that met State requirements including some land on Highway 99 and compared the need with the supply and looked for I-5 sites. He further commented what is being referred to as too much land is simply a linking of the site requirements identified in 2001 in the Economic Opportunity Analysis with available parcels immediately outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Winterowd emphasized you need at least an adequate supply of suitable sites to meet the identified needs from the Economic Opportunity Analysis, as required by State Statute ORS 197.712. Additionally, we want to make sure agricultural land is used exclusively for industrial with very strong policies to protect it, master planning requirements to make sure it is developed efficiently and prohibitions on changes to commercial zoning. With those provisions, it would be an agricultural use in the event we do not need all that land. In closing, Mr. Winterowd reported it was his thought they followed State law and followed what the City Council determined the direction should be on economic development three years ago. Staff commented various property owners North of the Woodburn Company Stores are requesting that about 125 acres be brought in as industrial land. He further indicated the primary argument against that is that Staff does not see that as the best use of that property as industrial land and it would actually be better utilized as commercial property, especially the portions between the tributary of Senecal Creek and I-5, which would be more of an extension of the commercial type development of the Outlet Mall. The property between Senecal Creek and the residential area on Woodland would be better suited to residential type development whether that be single or multi-family. Based on that and based on the fact that they are only proposing to bring in 12 acres of commercial, they are not showing the need or justification to bring in any more than that, certainly not anything close to 125 acres. He also addressed the issue regarding bringing that in as industrial property and indicated that does not meet the land use, transportation nor the economic goals because the Economic Opportunity Analysis and the strategy adopted and accepted by the City Council, emphasized the importance of being along the freeway but also part of that plan is to try and consolidate it in the Southwest area. Additionally, the lower quality soils to the South support going that direction more than they support going to the North. From a transportation standpoint, that makes a lot more sense because we have the proposed South arterial that Page 2 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 lO would allow traffic to come around and get onto the backside of the interchange. Moreover, with the precarious funding for the upgraded interchange particularly over the short term, it will be extremely important to try to get as much traffic to feed around to the Westside of the interchange. Commissioner Jennin_~s inquired if those property owners have the option to make an application should they decide that industrial would not work but commercial will as it comes before the City Council? He indicated he would hate to see those people shut out and if there is a way in which they can accomplish their mission and we could accomplish ours all at the same time then we are all happy. Staff responded that is currently an option independent of this process. Any proposal for urban growth expansion under 50 acres can be done as a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment, which means the City Council and County would approve it and it would only be subject to appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals. Commissioner Vancil mentioned one of the issues discussed in the Transportation Plan was that we want to restrict the number of trips around that interchange and the Oregon Department of Transportation would have a fit because of the commitments that potentially have been made throughout this whole planning process to not putting more large big box type developments because we cannot handle the capacity now. He was confused how trips generated on Arney Rd. would be any different than trips generated on Butteville Rd. Secondly, he stated he was taken by surprise when the written testimony came in to find out that the owners of the land on the East side of town were interested in developing that land because that is not something that had been discussed in any of the meetings that he attended during this process since last October. Upon investigation, Commissioner Vancil discovered that the family that owns land to the East made the City aware that they were interested in developing that area nine months ago but the Commission were never told that was even on the table. He urged the Commission to consider the reduction of some of the land between Crcsby Rd. and the freeway or the reduction of some of the land that is proposed for Nodal Development and add 100 acres on the other side of town. Commissioner Vancil pointed out we have the transportation infrastructure to do some development on that side of town. In closing, he stated he supported not changing the Downtown neighborhood into a commercial area because that is a neighborhood we should be committed to preserve. Vice Chairperson Bandelow indicated it was her understanding the reason why they were not going East prior to Measure 37, at which time there was no consideration of going in that direction, is the quality of the farmland that we would have met with if we felt we had any opposition to expanding to Class 2 or Class 3 soils that are around the freeway. It was her understanding that the farmland to the East has always been prime farmland and there are some wetlands on that property and things she thought would have brought in horrendous opposition. Staff explained part of the reason they did not propose to go out that direction deals with State Statutes and the pdority for bringing land in. Firstly, that area is predominantly Class 2 soils, which is prime farmland around Woodburn. Secondly, another factor they had to look at and analyze was the cost of providing public services. He reported out of the analysis done by the Public Works Department, there were eight study areas around the UGB that were studied and that was the one area that was shown to be the most expensive area to service mainly because of the pump station requirement because it slopes away from the City toward the river. Thirdly, transportation was an important factor why they were not proposing to expand out that direction because they ara trying to minimize the additional traffic going down Highway 214 to the interchange. This traffic is the least likely to come around the backside of the interchange. Although not every larger property owner said they wanted to come in, not one has said they did not want to come in. He further stated it has only been smaller property owners that have not wanted to come in. He indicated he was surprised that Commissioner Vancil was surprised that the property owners on the East side want to come in because there are requests from property owners all the way around the UGB that said they want to come in. Greg Winterowd commented he perceived the most important thing to do was to find the best industrial Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 land and use that as a basis for doing further planning. In this situation, they knew they needed the freeway land to make the economy work as directed by the City Council. Additionally, once they allocated the industrial land and they looked where the South arterial would go, they then had to fill in the land that was between the South arterial and the existing City limits. Moreover, they had a huge area of undeveloped land already within the growth boundary that had enormous potential to be planned for higher density, which is why they went to the Southwest. He further indicated because of that, the need to increase densities and to create some sort of neighborhood around the commercial. The options began to run out at that point because they used up all of their land need and if you were to add land in you would probably have to take it out of someplace. However, that does not mean there are not places that you could look at taking land out but it is hard along the Southwest corner because if the South arterial is a difficult thing to achieve, it will be impossible to achieve unless we have development next to it to help pay for it. Commissioner Jennin~s commented 100 percent of the people he talked to living on East Lincoln, Serres Ln., Tomlin, etc. say that if they are not broke, don't fix them. He agreed with Commissioner Bandelow in that the farmland on the West side is muck. Vice Chairperson Bandelow.. agreed with Commissioner Vancil as far as the Downtown area. She further stated although the goal is to try to make everything be equal and not have the Comprehensive Plan in opposition to the zoning inside the City perhaps we were looking at it the wrong way and need to go in the other direction and change the Comprehensive Plan rather than the zone in the Downtown area. Moreover, she strongly agreed with the goals that were set for the Urban Growth Boundary because this has been a community that has had double-digit unemployment for a long time. She liked the idea that the large tracks are set aside and the 100 acre site will stay in farmland until it is going to be filled with one employer that could make a real difference to the City. Additionally, she thought it is a good goal to have those targeted industries coming in. Commissioner Bandelow further indicated she liked the way the UGB is set and had no real arguments with it. However, the property by the School District needs to be brought in either by creating an exception/exemption and show that there is a need or take out some of the residential that is being brought in and replace it with the School District property. She questioned how difficult would it be to bring the School District property under a special need case or would it be something we would be fighting for too long a period because the School District needs to prepare their plans soon. ~ stated he had a great deal of sympathy for the School District as they have a very tight budget and need to be fiscally responsible when they purchase land. It appeared to him that they chose the site on the East side for a reason (student population, crossing Hwy. 99E to get to school, etc.) yet there wasn't enough information in the record for Staff to tell the Commission it is a sure thing. There was a plea to the School District to sit down with Staff and do more advanced facilities planning so we have a better understanding of their rationale for why the school needs to be located there. It was Mr. Winterowd's recommendation to come up with a Statute of Special Need as a way to go. However, we should probably be looking at removal of approximately 20 acres of land elsewhere in the absence of the Statute. He indicated most of the lines on the UGB are pretty straight and most of the buffers from agricultural land are major roads or streams and he was somewhat reluctant of taking pac-man bites out of the UGB until the special need option was explored further. Vice Chairperson Bandelow indicated although that made sense to her, there are time constraints and the UGB is something we do not want to be dragging our feet on in any case. ~ suggested that she recommend that we include that site and that the first preference of the Commission would be to work with the School District to find a Iocational justification for including that site within the Urban Growth Boundary and failing that, to look at another area to be removed. He indicated the intervening property would also be brought in. Chairperson Lima requested clarification as to why another piece of land would need to be removed? Page 4 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 12 Greg Winterowd explained you have to project land use needs 20 years in advanced under Oregon Law. The figures for the Housing, Industrial, Parks and School Needs Analysis together come in within 8 acres of the total what they said they needed and what they currently have. It is his goal to minimize the likelihood of a remand when we go to Land Conservation Development Commission (LCDC). It would be an automotic remand If we have more land than we can justify. Therefore, we have to have the supply side and the needs side matching up. Commissioner Vanci! asked whether the testimony received from the School District indicating we were either 37 or 49 acres short is incorrect and the City's math is correct? ~ replied the School District's math is correct. He further stated we looked at their math and incorporated in to our numbers and because we made a mistake last year in the Buildable Lands Inventory mapping Sere we thought more of the land by the golf course was unbulidable was actually developed. In going back to look at the mapping mistake, the additional land that the school needed almost exactly matched our mistake. Therefore, although there was a misconception by the School District that we did not listen to them because the numbers looked the same from the work that was done, we did listen. Mr. Winterowd further commented there could be a case made that we need a school in a particular location in the growth boundary to serve the needs of that neighborhood. However, he did not have the information to know whether a good case could be made for that. He indicated he would need to work with the City Attorney's office, City Planning Staff and the School District to make sure we have a reasonable case before we put the City at risk for having the plan returned back to us. Nonetheless, the Commission should ask themselves what land should we take out of the UGB if we cannot make a case. Vice Chairoerson Bandelow expressed concerns with the freeway overlay zone although it is something that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) states we have to have and have to include to gain their support for our UGB expansion. She stated she is bothered by the idea of ODOT becoming an operative of our City planning although she is aware that the two have to interconnect because transportation is a key part of that. Vice Chairperson Bandelow further commented it will effectively constrain the development of some areas particularly if someone brings in a business that takes up a lot of trips when you have an oveday zone that spells out certain number of trips for certain numbers of properties. However, although she was not concerned so much with the area that we currently have, she was concerned with things that may occur in the future. Nonetheless, she would be in favor with the discussed exceptions of the school property and the Downtown area. Commissioner Grioorieff thanked Staff for considering the Downtown area properties. She agreed with the plan but was concerned about the school property. She questioned whether Staff had any idea of where the 20 acres would be taken out if they decided to go with that option to accommodate the School District's property and whether this gets decided tonight? Staff replied a recommendation would be made tonight and ultimately the Council would provide direction as to making whatever changes. He further explained it is not as simple as changing the map because all of the supporting justification documents are based on this proposal. Staff compared the process as a house of cards in that we are trying to satisfy all the State Statutes and rules in constructing this house of cards. However, when you start tinkering with different things, you may have to rebuild the house of cards because it is not just a matter of taking one card out and sliding another one in. Commissioner Jennin0s suggested not to demand a change be made tonight and to make a recommendation that it be changed at the Council hearing. Staff indicated it would take some time and analysis to try to figure out where to subtract land from and the impact that would have on the Transportation Systems Plan and on all the other supporting documents. Vice Chairperson Bandelow commented if we are going to forward recommendations that the Council first Page 5 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 13 proceed on looking at whether or not we can do this as a Statute of Special Needs for the school and failing that being probable, at least we should be able to have some probability as to whether or not that would work, then recommend to the City Council that they then remove some land if that does not seem plausible. She felt it would seem with what is currently going on in the State Legislature with the desperate need for money for schools, a case should be able to be made for property that is already owned by a school. Vice Chairperson Bandelow further remarked the cost would be horrendous for the School District if they had to purchase property somewhere in the residential areas. Staff interjected that is Staff's recommendation and they are not opposed to bring that property in. However, we do not have enough information to create a strong case to justify bringing the property in as a special exception area, which is why we need to obtain that information from the School District. He indicated although Staff has met with the School District, it is up to the school to be proactive in pursuing this. Greg Winter0wd interjected a lot of school districts have master facilities plans that indicate where they need schools, why, when and how much. He stated Woodburn is in the metropolitan area in terms of LCDC and the scrutiny we get from 1,000 Friends of Oregon. The worse thing we could do to the School District and the City, is to take something that is not going to fly to the State and just have it sent beck. Mr. Winterowd commented we need to come up with something that resembles a facility plan working with the district so we can be of help to them rather than throwing them a rope when we have the rope to break. Commissioner Vancil asked Mr. Winterowd whether there haven't been specific discussions with the School District about their needs during the four years he has been working on this and he just went on formulas? Greg Winterowd responded the School Distdct was contacted early and often. We kept trying to get more information from them but they did not have the information. Mr. Winterowd emphasized we are not simply number crunching and really want to find a way to make this work for the School District. The district supplied numbers of acres, which is different than a specific Iocational justification for why we have to be at this edge of the UGB. The numbers are not good enough by itself because we need to have a school site of x-number of acres. Commissioner Hutchison commented the need for growth in this community is one he felt is necessary and he was in favor of the entire process. He was pleased to see that the zoning in the Downtown area was not going to be changed due to the public outcry and testimony received. Commissioner Hutchison stated he thought it would be great to address the School District property issue through the special needs provision. He addressed the transportation overlay and remarked he felt we would exceed capacity before the year 2020. Moreover, the expectation on the one intersection is unrealistic because people are going to get tired of going the back road. He also commented the area in the area behind Smith Addition behind near the Nellie Muir School is zoned for 3,000 sq. ft. row houses in the Nodal area for affordable housing and it seemed like it would support the industrial site. However, he did not see other Nodal areas anywhere else and it seemed we would be congesting that area if the industrial does not come in but the Nodal housing does. Greg Winterowd clarified you do not want to just have high density housing with no jobs to support it or else it would be a recipe for not good planning. He further elaborated we are looking at a plan that has a lot of interconnected parts and advancing it is an act of faith to a certain extent when planning for 20 years because you can not predict the future. Mr. Winterowd stated they have tried to set up the most likely way to get good access to Butteville Rd. to the West side of the freeway and they believed the likelihood of that industrial area developing very rapidly because services are there and there have been a lot of people knocking on the door. He did not believe the industrial part is a pipe dream, although he does believe it will take a while to get around to the Southeast area on the East side of the freeway. The City has been working very hard to get Evergreen through to connect to Parr Rd. and when that happens Page 6 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 it will provide a pretty direct shot from Parr Rd. across the freeway to Butteville to the Westside and he thought people would begin to use that as an alternative. Mr. Winterowd further explained part of the Nodal concept is to have a 10-12 acre commercial area some day as the housing comes. The strong hope in Nodal development is that it would be a neighborhood where you could walk to the store and not need to get in your car and go to I-5. Additionally, there are some pretty tough design standards for this development so that it does not turn in to a slum. Commissioner Hutchison felt Wal-Mart is the dominant shopping area and people are going to go there irregardless. Therefore, we need to make sure that we can get people thera. Greq Winterowd indicated we have a Transportation System Plan but it does depend on things working out and there will be short-term periods when there is an imbalance that will occur. He believed as you get more jobs and the demand for housing will also increase because people want to have affordable housing opportunities near those jobs. Commissioner Hutchi$on thought the funding for the Transportation Plan was a little general and he did not know why he did not have a specific forecast of the amount of money needed to make that happen. Greq Winterowd said it is tough when doing a 20-year plan to have that level of specificity. Therefore, they think they have ODOT funding for the interchange improvements and we know the biggest contributor to the street system is going to be private developers. They are hopeful to have other sources that can help soften the blow to the State and to the private developers. Commissioner Jenning$ interjected he was not a stranger to transportation as he was a charter member of the Mid-Willamette Valley Commission on Transportation and was also the Chairperson of the task force that drew up the first transportation plan for the City, which took three years to accomplish. He stated there is no way in the world that you are going to be accurate in computing costs 20-years from now and what those dollars are going to really mean. Commissioner Jennings also stated it would have to be a living document where dollars, ideas and plans change and able to change that TSP to live with it. Staff also added one of the primary reasons the Urban Growth Boundary was set where they did was to try and maximize developers paying for the improvements because there would be no way the funding will be available to pay for that if the City had to somehow come up with the funds to extend the arterials. Commissioner Hutchison inquired why the property owners by the outlet center could not have submitted for commercial zoning instead of industrial? Staff clarified the property owners, separate from this process, could submit an application to the City to bring it in. However, he is not saying it would be an automatic approval because there are multiple factors that apply to whether that can come in or not under the post acknowledgement plan amendment process. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) would be concerned about the transportation impacts of bringing in more commercial land. Vice Chairperson Bandelow also added at this point our goal is to get in more industrial and bring in an industry that would provide higher paying jobs because we have a pretty fair supply of minimum wage employment. Staff indicated they thought it should be up to the property owners to carry the water to justify bringing that land in than to have that jeopardize this process. Commissioner Jenning$ stated he supports leaving the Downtown zoning the way it is to allow the Downtown Development Plan take care of it. He reported he watched the hearing from the comfort of his home and heard all of the testimony that was given. Commissioner Jennings remarked it became very apparent to him that there are farmers that live in the area that want to be incorporated in to the UGB change. He also found other people testified who are farmers not affected necessarily by the UGB Page 7 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 change and they do not want it to happen. He questioned whether outsiders are going to tell us what we are going to do with our ground and remarked that would be over his dead body. Commissioner Jennings further mentioned it is the property owner's privilege to sell their ground for development if they are included in the UGB. However, the land would remain agricultural if they are included in the UGB and they do not want to sell their property. Additionally, he made reference to open space and clarified the land is not available to us if the owner of that property chooses not to develop it. He reported he reviewed the documentation and felt qualified to vote tonight. He supported the plan with the modifications to remove the rezoning of the Downtown area; otherwise he would not support it. He also mentioned one of his goals while still in office was to square off the UGB. However, the document has been in the works for over f'we years and we have to move forward with it and he believed Staff and the public have done a good job in trying to incorporate what is best for the City of Woodburn. Chairperson Lima pointed out ali of the oral and written testimony certainly made an impact. He was pleased the proposed industrial would remain agricultural if it is not used as industrial. He voiced concerns regarding the transportation overlay and said it needs to be reviewed in great detail as we are growing in leaps and bounds and we do not make mistakes that could possibly jeopardize the transportation in Woodburn. He indicated although the plan is not perfect it is a good first step and he supported it. Additionally, he was in favor of Vice Chairperson Bandelow's possible motion to invite the School District to work with Staff. Commissioner Vancil reported he drove out to Fairwood Village and the areas East of Clackamas Town Center to take a look at the existing Nodal Development. He stated he was not certain in his mind that Woodburn is ready for Nodal Development during this development cycle; perhaps the 2020 development cycle is where that needs to be looked at. Additionally, he commented the Montebello residential area is pretty dense to him and described Nodal development as being about double that density. He indicated he is not as concerned about it becoming a slum or ghetto as he is about the density and what that means during the development cycle. Commissioner Vancil mentioned Settlemier Ave. is how you get from point A to point B in this town and expressed concerns that we decided, as a condition, to recommend that we preserve the historic homes on Settlemier Ave. when we talk about the transportation plan and so there were some adjustments to allow that. However, shoving hundreds if not thousands of people in to that and of town with no guarantees about the transportation issues is a dangerous direction to go. He also thought one of the reasons why there isn't a major grocery store in Woodburn Crossing is because it is too much of a hassle to get to that end of town. Balancing the growth so that we are not putting it all out where we do not have the roads is something that needs to be considered. Commissioner Vancil posed the question if the owner of that land does not want to develop as Nodal and we recommend tonight and the Council approves the Nodal zoning, would that mean that the owner of that property would have to develop that as Nodal development or not develop it? Greg Winterowd explained the Ordinance states you can go back to 80 percent of the density overall. The average lot size is between 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. you can go to the standard 5,500-6,000 sq. ft. in some portions. Therefore, you can have some combination of larger lots and smaller lots and you are not forced to do it according to a simple plan. Moreover, the hope is that the property owners get together and create for themselves a master plan about how they would like that area to develop. The master planning requirement is there so people will think about the impacts on their neighbors when they do the development; there is some coordination on how that occurs and there is also some phasing so it does not all occur in a haphazard fashion. Commissioner Jennings added a report coming out of the Mid-Willamette Valley Commission on Transportation (MWVC) indicates it could appear that we could be well on the road toward getting the road improvements done by the year 2008, Vice Chaircerson Bandelow stated she liked the Nodal development concept but was also not convinced that Woodburn is ready for it right now. However, she is being asked to make a recommendation on a plan that is for the next 20 years and she thought by 2025 it will be done. Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Page 8 of 13 16 Staff reminded the Commission that there would be about 200 acres of iow-density residential land where there would be a continuation of the minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lot type development. He further clarified they are not proposing all future development be all higher density type single family development. Moreover, it may be that over the next 5 to 10 years it may be that the area to the North will be the area that will develop first but it all will depend upon the market. Chairperson Lima stated there is some potential for disaster if Nodal development is not properly planned. Commissioner Vanci! said we do too many variances on the width of roads and now we are talking about a Transportation System Plan that is a multi-year plan and we have not addressed it. Moreover, the work needs to be done before we do the Transportation System Plan as part of the Periodic Review because it is waste of the taxpayer's money to continue to play this variance game with the transportation standards. vice Chairperson Bandelow clarified the issue is when developing a single or infill lot development normally you would have to put in the full street improvements even though that street is a half street or it has sidewalks only on one side. Therefore, the party then has to apply for a variance in order to do it. She thought perhaps there may be a way to address, other than in this plan, where it is no longer a requirement to do a variance where you have a street that is not developed on both sides, that the single party should not have to come before the Planning Commission and apply for a variance. It is very expensive and extremely time consuming. Staff stated there is a fundamental policy issue here as far as how to accomplish upgrading roads to the standards that the City desires, which essentially are reflected in the Transportation System Plan. They did try to accommodate that to a certain extent in the Downtown area by at least stating that the standards are more flexible in the historical Downtown area as far as what street standards are. He further stated it is a case by case basis as to whether the City should require that or not and it has to do with funding. The City is not likely to have the funds to upgrade streets on its own so we really need to put it on the back of those people that are developing but it needs to be proportional to the impact that they are creating. The variance is the process we have available to determine that, which is the discretionary land use process the City has to make such a determination. Moreover, we have typically required the boundary street improvement and again, it depends upon the magnitude of the development as to whether they actually then have to go beyond their property and also do additional improvements. The Commission has denied development on Ogle St. because of the lack of the street improvements and a variance was not granted in that situation. Staff reported making the cost of a variance for at least smaller projects, i.e., minor partition or small design review, more proportional to the scope of their development will be addressed as part of the budget process in updating the fee schedule. Commissioner Vancil commented it seemed to him some type of wording should indicate that you have to do the street improvements in new and unpaved areas because he thought it is not a good idea to just shove this along during the Periodic Review process. Staff. remarked they would have done that by now if it were that easy based on their experience of implementing the code. He said they did not have any standards or requirements for street improvements before the Council adopted the updated Development Ordinance in 2002 and it was more or less determined by the Public Works Department according to what their policy had been. The City was in a very weak position when they were challenged on that and went to court because it wasn't a standard. It was the policy direction of the City Council at the time that they wanted to put the City in the strongest position to defend itself for requiring improvements proportional to the impact of the development. Commissioner Jenninqs reported the City granted a nonremonstrance back when the apartments were constructed on Country Club Rd. However, that will not hold up in court because they do not have to do it but the City allowed that to happen. He agreed in that we should get away from granting all kinds of variances but they have to be done on a case-to-casa basis. It was further reported by Commissioner Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Jennings that it is possible that the City may have to pick up the tab for all of the improvements in front of the apartment complex on Country Club Rd. because what was granted by the City will not hold up in court. Vice Chairperson Bandelow suggested perhaps reducing the cost for a variance for street improvements when it applies to a minor partition. Commissioner Vancil thought it is the responsibility of the Commission to make sure that we do not end up having volumes of restrictions about developing a piece of property in the City of Woodburn. The Commission needs to recommend to Council that they slash granting variances on things that they are time and time again granting. Deniece Won addressed the variance and street standards issues and the Supreme Courts decision in Dolan on exactions on development approvals having to be proportional. She commented part of the court decision is that if the City is going to make an exaction, the burden is upon us to prove the proportionality and the variance vehicle that is drafted in the WDO was a mechanism to reverse the burdens and put it upon the applicants. We have a standard that you have to improve the road system but if you feel that violates your constitutional rights, then you need to tell us why it violates your rights by means of the variance, which is a way out. Although the variance may be a cost and some time for the Commission in reviewing that, it can be saving a great deal of cost in litigation. She prefaced the Transportation System Plan is a 20-year objective for street improvements and there are various ways of building those improvements to get to that long-term goal such as exactions and development charges for the new growth, the City could make a contribution or obtain grants or get people to build a part of that. It was her thought that the issue of the variance isn't an issue related to the transportation plan but an administrative issue related to the workings of the WDO and the place to address that would be potentially in the discussions that are about to occur when we get done with this project on larger subjects for the annual review of the WDO. Commissioner Vancil inquired if that issue escaped the recent annual review? Staff replied that issue was not addressed this time around. However, that can certainly be initiated the next round of updates. Greg Winterowd interjected the periodic review amendments include WDO amendments but they are to implement a new plan not to fix lingering problems that exist. Commissioner Hutchison said there is too much Nodal development in the one central area unless there is a guarantee that the permits for these developments are going to be released in proportion to the growth of the job force to support that area. Greg Winterowd mentioned that the 1,000 Friends of Oregon provided testimony regarding how supposedly we were squandering land, moving in to farmland and being very wasteful of our valuable resource. The alternative is to have lower density housing however, if we do that we run in to Marion County and their Framework Plan, the 1,000 Friends of Oregon and their claim of wastefulness and LCDC staff who will say we are using too much land for housing and population. He indicated the reason it is written that way is to focus first on the industrial and also take precautions to make sure that the higher densities we are proposing are well planned and that they do have access on to arterial and collector streets through the Transportation System Plan. We would be expanding the UGB further than we are already if we were to abandon the notion of higher density housing now. It was Mr. Winterowd's prediction that we would have this plan back in our laps fairly quickly and we would have to start all over again. Although he was not saying that no concerns exist about higher density, they have done everything they can through the planning process and design controls to let the market work. There are a lot of steps along the way to make adjustments to make it work better. However, if you do it now it makes it tougher to get the whole package through. Additionally, the Planning Commission has the ability through the master planning process to say although it is understood that the market may not be there yet Page lO of 1:3 Planning Commission Meeting- February 24, 2003 18 for this, show us where we can make up for that. Therefore, overall we are achieving the density objective for this but it does not say everybody has to plan for 3,000 sq. ft. lots. The whole intent of this is to create homeownership opportunities and to de-emphasize apartments in favor of smaller lots that have design review and front porches. He indicated there would be the same effect on the transportation system if you spread all those houses out on to farmland, it would just be more spread out. The tough question is what are we going to do instead and how are we going to get through the process if we don't do this now. Commissioner Jennings mentioned the goal of the City Council is that the mean salary in Woodbum would be between $36,000 to $40,000, which means we are going to create the jobs to support it. Moreover, the politics of the picture is that this plan will not get through DLCD if you do not include the high density housing and it would cost the City a lot more in tax dollars. Chairperson Lima asked if there is a plan to issue permits according to the number of jobs created by the industrial area? Greg Winterowd answered you cannot create a quota on housing but you can create conditions required for annexation and once you are annexed, you have design review. Through the master plan and design review process Staff tried to give the Planning Commission as much authority as they could under the law without violation housing goal #10 that gives you the authority to phase development as jobs occur. Staff commented we are not in a situation where Woodburn controls its complete destiny, not in the State of Oregon. He said it is not a given that it will be Iow-quality Iow-income type housing as it could be very nice and expensive housing. Commissioner Vancil asked Staff if we approve the plan as written, what is to stop a century farm from developing anyway in a Measure 37 atmosphere? Staff responded it should not impact or make a difference on what is currently being considered. Vice Chairperson Bandelow used the Serres property as an example and clarified their claim under Measure 37 would be with the County because they are not part of the City and are not being hurt by the City. Therefore, the City is not going to bear that burden of having to pay them off or allow the development and provide services. However, it would not be a cost that Woodburn will have to bear if they come in under Measure 37 and develop on their own. Commissioner Jenninos also added the City does not have to approve the annexation if they were included and came in if you have good reason to not approve it. Randy Rohman. Public Works Deoertment explained we are in a gravity system and 92-93 percent of the sewage ends up over in the Mill Creek lift station by the High School, which gets pumped to the treatment plant. There is a break in that area where the ground starts to flow towards the Pudding River and that ground ends up being lower. Therefore, you have no way of getting that sewer to the rest of the City by way of a gravity system and you have to install lift stations along that area. The cost of lift stations makes it disproportionally more expensive to put in that sort of development. He indicated the major point is that you do not have the opportunity to put a gravity system in that area whereas, there is a major lift station in the area to the West adjacent to Wal-Mart that has about a 39-40 ff. wet well that allows that entire area to be fed by gravity to that station. The lift stations have a life span as well as a relatively significant maintenance cost and replacement would be borne by all of the users citywide, not just the development. It is the most expensive place and naturally that would be the place you would look to last. Mr. Rohman mentioned there are business decisions made when looking at infrastructure and expansion and you try to avoid the highest cost areas. Vice Chairoerson Bandelow made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Legislative Amendment 05-01 of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Update with the exceptions that the City Page l l of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 19 Council work to achieve a Statute of Special Needs for School District property located on the Eastern boundary and as a backup plan if that proves too difficult to do, that they keep open the option of removing some residential property in order to bring in the school property; and that the zone change be removed for the Downtown area from the Development Ordinance. Commissioner Jenninas questioned if in fact we end up having to take in two pieces of property that are not listed today, would that trigger another public hearing so the property owners have a right to protest and would they be noticed? Staff responded technically they do not have to be noticed because everyone within the study area has already received notice and you could consider that the onus is on each property owner to follow the process all the way through and not assume that something might not change. However, although we are not required to send individual notice, we certain could do so if that were the case. Commissioner Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. ITEMS FOR ACTION A_~. Final Order for Parl;ition 04-06, Variance 04-26 and Variance 05-02. re~_uest to Dartitlon ~rooe~ty located at 1123 McKinley Street into two parcels, variance reeueat to the street standards on McKinley Street and variance request tO lot orientation. Greq Allen. Commissioner Jennin_~s announced he would abstain from voting on this issue and would not partake in the discussion because he was not present at that meeting and was unable to review the materials. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to approve the Final Order as written. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion. Motion carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff expressed gratitude and appreciation to the Commission for all of their hard work during the Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update process. Commissioner Jenninqs requested Mr. Terry Cole, Oregon Department of Transportation, provide an update as to where we are on the interchange upgrade. Terry Cole, Oregon Department of Transportation reported we are moving towards a public hearing on the environmental assessment document and hope to have that completed next Fall. Funding for design and some right-of-way purchase is available, however, they do not have funding for construction but are hopeful in obtaining that. He indicated although it is a $40 million project and as it stands right now $34 million shortfall in what they need to get to make that happen, it is the number one priority with the Mid- Willamette Valley Commission on Transportation. Mr. Cole further commented he thought they possibly could have the project ready to go by 2008 but they are really going to have to do a lot hard work to get the funding by that time. Having said that, he stated they have a lot of interested private parties and ODOT is certainly interested in finding any way to help get the project moving. They will be looking at very innovative and creative ways in the coming months to try to put together a coalition of funds. REPORTS None BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION None ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Jenninqs moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chairperson Bandel0w seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm. Planning Commission Meeting- February 24, 2005 2O Page 12 of 13 APPROVED A'I-I'EST Cor~ml~n'~y Development Director City ~fWoodbum, Oregon ~3 ~/o~ os~ Date Planning Commission Meeting- February 24, 2005 2! Page 13 of 13 CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development 8D MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5250 Date: To: From: Subject: March 1, 2005 Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Building Division Building Activity for February 2005 2003 2004 2005 Dollar Dollar Dollar No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount New Residence Value 7 $1,078,565 10 $1,700,119 5 $925,884 Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Residential Adds & Alts 2 $4,800 3 $14,418 6 $78,000 Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Commercial Value 4 $321,200 17 $593,976 7 $589,057 Signs, Fences, Driveways 1 $2,200 1 $2,500 4 $4,895 Manufactured Homes 0 $0 2 $45,000 I $5,000 TOTALS 13 $1,406,765 33 $2,356,013 23 $1,602,837 Fiscal Year (J u ly 1 - $14,123,675 $22,625,920 $18,078,941 June 30) to Date I:~Community Development'~ldo~uilding Acflvity~k~ct-2005'~B~dg Activity - Memos~act 8E 8F March 9, 2005 TO: FROM: Mayor and CIN Council through CIN Adminisffator / Scoff Russell, Chief of Poiic~ SUBJECT: Police Depaflment S~fl~c$ - Februa~ 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Repoff BACKGROUND: The attached report lists year to date reported offenses and arrests displayed by month. DISCUSSION: Re statistics have been gathered Management System. Re Previous comparison pu~oses. from the Police Depadments Records year's statistics are also displayed for FINANCIAL IMPACT: None Agenda Item Review: City Administrator-'~--~ CI~/Attorney ~/"~,~ Finance/~ ~u~vw PLbSbU TIME: 11:09:25 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU FEBRUARY 2005 SCOI-rRU ORI~: 0R0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB TOTAL AGGP, AVATED ASSAULT I 3 AGGRAVATED MURDER 0 0 ~ I~4AL ORDINANCES 0 2 ~RSON I 0 ASSAULT SIMPLE 20 11 Al-tEMPTED MURDER 0 0 BCR4~ THREAT 0 0 BRIBERY 0 0 BURGLARY - BUSINESS 7 3 BURGLARY - OTHER STRUCTURE 2 1 BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 14 6 CHILD ADBANDOMENT 0 0 CHILD NEGLECT 0 0 CITY ORDINANCE 2 0 ~IME DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON 34 21 CURFEW 0 0 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 0 0 CUSTODY - DETOX 1 2 CUSTODY - MATERIAL WITNESS 0 0 CUSTODY - MENTAL 0 0 CUSTODY - PROTECITVE 0 0 DISORDERLY CONDUCT 3 0 [~3CLI'IENTATION 0 0 DRINKING IN PUBLIC 0 0 DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE 4 9 DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 6 10 DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 0 0 DWS/REVOKED - FELONY 0 0 DWS/REVOKED-MISDEMEANOR I 1 ELUDE 0 1 EMBEZZLEMENT 0 0 ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 0 EXTORTION/BLACKMAIL 0 0 FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE 4 1 FAMILY-OTHER 0 0 FORCIBLE RAPE 0 2 FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 4 6 FRAUD - ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK ~ O 0 FRAUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRETENSES 0 2 FRAUD - CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE 0 0 FRAUD - IMPERSORATION i 6 FRAUD - NO ACCOUNT - CHECK 0 0 FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK 0 0 FRAUD - OF SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES I 0 FRAUD - WELFARE 0 0 FRAUD - WIRE 0 0 FRAUD-OTHER 0 0 FUGITIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY 22 28 FURNISHING I 0 GAMBLING - BOOKMAKING 0 0 GAMBLING - GAMES 0 0 GAMBLI~ - ILLEGAL DEVISES/MACHINES 0 0 4 0 2 1 31 0 0 0 10 3 20 0 0 2 55 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 16 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 10 0 2 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 60 1 0 0 0 TIME: 11:09:25 ORI~: 0R0240500 WPD MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU FEBRUARY 2005 RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES PL6860 SCOTTRU CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB TOTAL GN'.IBLING - ILLEGAL PAY OFF 0 0 GA~BLING - NUMBERS AND LO1-FERY 0 0 GA~V~LING - OTHER 0 0 GAI~BAGE LII-FERING 0 1 HIT AND RUN FELONY 1 0 HIT AND RUN-MISDEMEANOR 14 4 ILLEGAL ALIEN - INS HOLD 0 0 ILLEGAL ESTABLISHMENT 0 0 ILLEGAJ. LIQLK)P,-MA~(E.SELL.POSSESS 0 0 IMPORTING LIQUOR 0 0 INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT 2 JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE 0 0 KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE 0 0 KIDNAP - FOR RANSOM 0 0 KIDNAP - HI-JACK.TERRORIST 0 0 KIDNAP - HOSTAGE/SHIELD OR REMOVAL/DELAY WITNESS 0 0 LICENSING ORDINANCES I 0 LIQUOR LAW-OTHER 0 0 LIQUOR LICENSE VIOLATIONS 0 0 MINOR IN POSSESSION 2 3 MINOR ON PREMISES 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS 6 4 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT ~ 35 NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE - ll~AFFIC 0 0 NEGLIGENT IiANSLAUG~ER 0 0 NON CRIMINAl_ DOMESTIC DISllJRBANCE 0 0 ~N SUPPORT 0 0 OTHER 9 8 PARENTAL RESPONCIBILITI/ ORDINANCES (SVP) 0 0 PROPER~ - FOUND LOST MISLAID 23 14 PROPERLY/ RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 PROSTITUTION - COMPEL 0 0 PROSTITUTIOt4 - E~E IN 0 0 PROSTIllJTION - OTHER 0 0 PR~TIT1JTION - PROMOTE 0 0 PUBLIC HF. ALTH AND SAFELY' ORDINANCES 13 10 RECKLESS DRIVING 0 0 ROBBERY - BANK 0 0 ROBBERY o BUSINESS 2 1 ROBBERY - CAR J~KING I 0 ROBBERY - CONV.STORE 0 0 ROBBERY - HIGHWAY 0 0 ROBBERY - OTHER i 0 ROBBERY - RESIDENCE i 0 ROBBERY - SERVICE STATION 0 0 RUNAWAY 7 7 SEX CRIME - CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQIJENCY 0 0 SEX CRIME - EXPOSER 0 0 SEX CRIME - FORCIBLE SODOMY 0 0 SEX CRIME - INCEST 0 0 SEX CRIME - MOLEST (PHYSICAL) 0 0 SEX CRIME - NON FORCE SODOMY 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 18 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 10 69 0 0 0 0 17 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 O/U~I~UUO PL6860 TI~: 11:09:25 ~ONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR J~U~Y THRU FEBRU~Y 2005 SCOTFRU ORI~: 0R0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB TOTAL SEX CRI~ - NON-FORCE RAPE 0 2 SEX CRIME - OBSCENE PHONE CALL 0 1 SEX CRI~ - OTHER 0 0 SEX CRIME - PEEPING TO4 0 0 SEX CRIME - PORNOGI;ba, PHY/OBSCENE lta. TERIAL 0 0 SEX CRIME - SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT 0 0 STALKER 0 0 STOLEN PROPERLY - RECEIVING.BUYING.POSSESSING 1 5 SUICIDE 0 1 THEFT - BICYCLE 3 1 THEFT - BUILDING 2 2 THEFT - COIN OP HACHINE 0 0 THEFT - FROH I~K)TOR VEHICLE 43 35 THEFT - MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES 3 0 THEFT - OTHER 15 10 THEFT - PICKPOCKET 0 0 THEFT - PURSE SNATCH 2 0 THEFT - SHOPLIFT 14 4 ~FIC ORDINANCES 0 2 TRAFFIC VIOLATI~ 21 13 TRESPASS 4 7 UN~OWN 0 0 VANOALISM 56 43 VEHICLE RECOVEP, O FOR Oll-mER AGENCY 6 10 ~T MRREST FOR OUR AGENCY 2 1 ~.APON - CARRY CONCEALED 1 1 WF-JN:)ON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION I 1 WF_APON - O'FHER 0 0 · APON - POSSESS ILLEGAL 0 3 · ,APON - SHOOTING IN PROHIBITED AREA 0 0 WILLFUL MURDER 0 0 ZONING ORDINANCE 1 3 TOTAL: 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 4 4 0 78 3 25 0 2 18 2 34 11 0 99 16 3 2 2 0 3 0 0 4 431 348 779 2005 TOTAL: 431 348 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 779 2004 TOTAL: 541 542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1083 2003 TOTAL: 520 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 880 ;30 UAIt; J/U~/ZUUb PL6850 TI~: 11:09:04 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU FEBRUARY 2005 SCOTTRU ORI~: 0R0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB TOTAL AGGRAVATED ASSAULT I 2 3 AGGRAVATED MURDER ANIMAL ORDINANCES ARSON AS~ULT SIMPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER BOMB THREAT BURGLARY - BUSINESS BURGLARY o OTHER STRUCTURE BURGLARY - RESIDENCE CHILD ADBANDOMENT CHILD NEGLECT CITY ORDINANCE CRIME DAMAGE-NO VANDALI~ORARSON CURF~ CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE CUSTODY - DETOX CUSTODY - MENTAL CUSTODY - PROTECITVE DISORDERLY CONDUCT DOCUMENTATION DRINKING IN PUBLIC DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS DRUG PARAPHERNALIA DWS/REVOKED - FELONY DWS/REVOKED-MISDEMEANOR ELUDE EMBEZZLEMENT ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY EXTORTION/BLACKMAIL FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE FAMILY-OTHER FORCIBLE RAPE FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING FRAUD - ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK FRAUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRETENSES FRAUD - CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE FRAUD - IMPERSONATION FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK FRAUD - OF SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES FRAUD-OTHER FUGITIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY FURNISHING GAMBLING - GAMES GAMBLING - OTHER GARBAGE LITTERING HIT AND RUN FELONY HIT AND RUN-MISDEMEANOR ILLEGAL ALIEN - INS HOLD INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 i 1 15 7 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 13 5 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 i i 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 I 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 27 61 I 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 0 0 o/u~/~uuo PL6850 TIME: 11:09:04 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU FEBRUARY 2005 SCOTTRU ORI~: 0R0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB TOTAL KIDNAB - FOR RANSOM 0 0 0 KIDNAP - HI-JACK,TERRORIST KIDNAP - HOSTAGE/SHIELD OR REMOVAL/DELAY WITNESS LICENSING ORDINANCES LIQUOR LAW-OTHER MINOR IN POSSESSION MINOR ON PREMISES MISCELLANEOUS MDTOR VEHICLE THEFT NEGLIGENT HO~4ICIDE - TRAFFIC NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER NON CRIMINAL DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE NON SUPPORT OTHER PROPERTY - FOUND LOST MISLAID PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY PROSTITUTION - COMPEL PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN PROSTITUTION - PR(]MOTE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCES RECKLESS DRIVING ROBBERY - BANK ROBBERY - BUSINESS ROBBERY - CAR JACKING ROBBERY - CONV.STORE ROBBERY - HIGHWAY ROBBERY - OTHER ROBBERY - RESIDENCE ROBBERY - SERVICE STATION RUNAWAY SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME SEX CRIME STALKER - CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY - EXPOSER o FORCIBLE SODOMY - INCEST - MOLEST (PHYSICAJ.) - NON FORCE SOD(]MY - NON-FORCE RABE - OBSCENE PHONE CALL - OTHER - PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL - SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT STOLEN PROPERTY - RECEIVING,BUYING,POSSESSING SUICIDE THEFT - BICYCLE THEFT - BUILDING THEFT - COIN OP MACHINE THEFT - FRO~t MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES THEFT - OTHER THEFT - PICKPOCKET THEFT - PURSE SNATCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 13 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 i 0 1 lIME: ~:0~:04 ~RIt: 0R0240500 WPO CHARGE DESCRIPTION THEFT - SHOPLIFT TRAJ:F IC ORDINANCES TRAJ:F IC VIOLATIONS TRESPASS VANDAl. ISM VEHICLE RECOVERD FOR OTHER AGENCY WARRANT ARREST FOR OUR AGENCY WEAJ)ON - CARRY CONCEALED WF_AJ~ON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION WC,~APON - POSSESS ILLEGAL WEABON - SHOOTING IN PROHIBITED AREA WILLFUL MURDER ZONING ORDINANCE MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU FEBRUARY 2005 RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES JAN FEB 14 3 0 0 16 10 2 10 0 2 0 1 I 1 i 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2005 TOTAL: 2004 TOTAL: 2003 TOTAL: 130 208 202 130 194 148 FLbUbU SCOI')'RU TOTAL 17 0 26 12 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 260 402 350 IOA Staff Exhibit # I Case #: ~C 0 ~-0 ~ Hearing Date: March 14, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development .~ Zone Change 04-04 located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change 04-04 subject to the conditions of approval contained in the Planning Commission's Final Order. It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate its decision. BACKGROUND: At their hearing of January 13, 2005, the Planning Commission considered a request by Tony Kreitzberg, the applicant, to change the zoning map designation of the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road from "Single Family Residential" (RS) to "Medium Density Residential" (RM). At its meeting of January 27, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 04-04 with a condition that the zone change on the subject property be restricted to those uses allowed in the Single Family Residential (RS) District and assisted living facilities and nursing care facilities. DISCUSSION: In regard to this proposal, the City Council has the following options: (1) Concur with the Planning Commission's Final Order and approve Zone Change 04-04. (2) Modify the Planning Commission's Final Order. (3) Deny Zone Change 04-04. Agenda Item Review: City Administrato~~ City Attorney Finance~ Honorable Mayor and City Council March 14, 2005 Page 2 The Planning Commission's final order, staff report, and minutes are attached for the City Council's review. A letter from Allen L. Hubenthal, dated 2-21-05, to Mayor Figley is attached to this report. Also attached is a letter from the City Attorney, dated 3-7-05, to Allen L. Hubenthal in response to his letter dated 2-21-05 and a memorandum from the Assistant City Attorney, dated 3-4-05, to the Community Development Director regarding Allen L. Hubenthal's letter dated 2-21-05. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Letter from Allen L. Hubenthal, dated 1-27-05, received after the close of the 1-13-05 Planning Commission Meeting Letter from Allen L. Hubenthal, dated 2-21-05, to Mayor Figley Letter from the City Attorney, dated 3-7-05, to Allen L. Hubenthal in response to his letter dated 2-21-05 Memorandum from Assistant City Attorney, dated 3-4-05, to the Community Development Director regarding Allen L. Hubenthal's letter dated 2-21-05 Planning Commission Final Order dated 1-27-05 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1-13-05 Planning Commission Minutes of 1-13-05 The attachments for Item IOA are not included in the agenda packet. The entire document has been given to the City Council and is available for review by the public in the City Recorder's office, in the City Administrator's office, and at the reference desk of the Woodburn Public Library. AI'rACHMENT A IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON ZONE CHANGE 04-04 FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, a request was made by Tony Kreitzberg, the applicant, to change the zoning map designation of the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road from "Single Family Residential" (RS) to "Medium Density Residential" (RM), and; WHEREAS, . the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at their meeting of January 13, 2005, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the wdtten and oral testimony presented by staff, the applicant, and other interested persons, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to recommend that the City Council approve Zone Change 04-04, and instructed .staff to prepare findings and conclusions. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change 04-04, based on the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit "A", and subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit "B", which are attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein and which the Planning Commission finds reasonable. Approved: Claudio Lima, Chairperson Date ZC04-04 Page 1 rT ]1 Exhibit "D" MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney March 4, 2005 Zone Change 04-04 Mr. Hubenthal's letter dated February 21,2005, addressed to Mayor Figley raises issue about the "legality" of the existing RS zoning and argues the Zone change proceedings are "moot." The answer to both of these concerns is that Mr. Hubenthal erroneously assumes that the zoning was RM after the 2000 decision that conditionally changed the zoning on the Kreitzberg property. The 2000 condition on the zone change stated: "... the zone change granted.., shall be conditional contingent upon completion of the approved development in compliance with the application and conditions of approval..." The zone change was contingent on the approved site plan being developed. Because the condition was not satisfied, the zone designation was not changed from RS to RM. This misunderstanding is aided by a mis leading statement in the staff report. The staff report on the proposed zone change states as follows: On March 27, 2000 the Woodburn City Council adopted an ordinance annexing 3.32 acres of the subject property into the City of Woodburn... changing the comprehensive plan designation of the entire subject site from Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre to Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre .... granting a conditional zone change from City of Woodburn ("Single Family Residential" RS to Multiple Family Residential (RM)... and approving a site plan review application for 102 assisted living and Alzheimer suites. . The site plan review approval expired after one year and the zoning on the subject property reverted back to the RS zone. The staff report erroneously states that the zoning "reverted back" to RS. The 2000 zone change was contingent upon the proposed assisted living development being completed. No zone change to RM occurred because the approved site plan was not developed. Consequently, there was no reversion of the zoning back to RS. The zone designation never changed from RS. March 7, 2005 ODBURN Incorporated 1889 Exhibit "C" Allen L. Hubenthal 1223 Henry's Blvd Woodb m, Oregon 97071 RE: Zone Change 04-04 Dear Mr. Hubenthal: I am responding to your letter dated February 21, 2005 (copy attached) on behalf of Mayor Kathy Figley. Because the matter is set for a quasi-judicial hearing on March 14, 2005, it is improper for Mayor Figley to respond to you outside of the public hearing setting. However, if you attend the public hearing, you will be afforded the opportunity address the Mayor and City Council about your concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, N. Robert Shields City Attorney Enclosure: February 21, 2005 letter cc: Mayor Kathy Figley / Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Office of the City Attorney 270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Ph.503-982-5228 · Fax 503-982-5243 Bird' Exhibit "B" Febnuuy 2;. 200S In a phone conversation with Ms Won, which took place on February 17, 2005, I learned the following: Over the course of' a year or more leading up to November 5, 2005, Ms Won had three meetings with Attorn~ Gutzler (representi~ -%nwest Management).. The topic of discussion was the legality or illegality I asked Ms Won, "What was the alterativeT" 1~ Wo~ - Goin~ ~ coun.~ Wlzn I uked, "What are the chances tluu thue hearings are a moot proceedinffr' Her response was," I'm paid to give advice to the city council, not the public." If the reversion of Zone Change 99-06 was illegal then it could be argued that it did not occur. I was an imerested party and I received no notice of the reversion. If'it did not occur, thru the Zoning remains RM and yet we aro holding a heating to change it to RM. It is understanda~e if the applicant prefers approval of this proposal to going to court. But, if the applicant retains the option of pursuing whatever remedy he might have pursued ( should hb request be denied ) then these hearin~ are a waste of time. Because, the outcome will have produced no practical effect on the status quo. I believe the legal term for this is mootneas. Certain city employees may see the placement of this request on a fast track for approval as an expedient way to correct the "mistake" of not properly executing the reversal of Zone Change 99-06. Madam Mayor, I respectfully suggest that you order your attorneys to prepare an opinion on this subject and include it in the record. I believe itWould be both prudent and helpful to all concerned. Cordia~y, Pase 2 of 2 Procedural Error H WDO 4.101.13 B Personal Site Observations. Commissioner Bandelow. Failure to disclose. WDO 4.101.13 D Bias. CommissionerBandallo. Bandelow" I've thought for a long time that this facility was a good match for this property and frankly I haven't heard anythin~ that changes that." An admission of prejudice from her own mouth. Procedural Error IH Fact: 1. Site Plan Review 99-14 has expired and is irrelevant in this proceeding. 2. No new site plan proposal is in evidence. 3. W'~x~t a site plan proposal; neither Sunwest Manasement nor it's lead council Wallace Gutzler has any 4. Mr. Gutzler had a right to speak as a proponent and was properly signed in to do so. 5. Mr. Gutzler's standing as a proponent affords him no fight to rebuttal. 6. Mr. G-utzler did speak in rebuttal. 7. The commission was deceived into believing that Mr. Gutzler was one of the applicants, and entitled to speak and rebut. Evidence: Consider the following exchange transcribed from the taped proceeding: Kreitzberg "I'd like to introduce Wally Gutzler, he works for Sunwest Management. They develop assisted livin8 facilities.., a very reputable company..." Chairman "...he's part of the ..... he's the applicant too?" Kreitzberg" yes.., he's the applicant also...l represent hint" Contention: This error harmed my substantial rights in the following way. My statements were true and had they been reflected upon by the commission could have produced a different outcome. In rebuttal; Mr. Gutzler launched an attack on my credibility by denying having made certain statements which I had attributed to him; and requested that the commissioners do whatever was necessary to satisfy themselves of this. Had the commissioners honored his request I would have been not only vindicated but my credibility would have been enhanced. Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 2 January 27, 2005 Allen L Hubenthal 1223 Hemy's Blvd. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 REC'D JAN 7 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Woodbum Planning Commission 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 Re: ZONE CHANGE 04-04 Commissioners: This writing is for the purpose of objecting to procedural errors and not for the purpose of attempting to introduce new evidence after the close of the hearing. LUBA will not entertain objections on procedural grounds if the objecting paxty failed to raise the objection~ in time for the city to seek a remedy. Anythin8 labeled as evidence is presented only for the purpose of supporting the objection. Objection to the overall approach This hearing is being conducted as though it were a continuation of some past proceeding; even a formality. An inconvenience we must endure prior to getting to the real "meat of the matter"; site plan review. It is not. Zone change 04-04 is a new land use decision and must be treated as such. This decision must stand alone as a prerequisite to site plan review. WDO 4.101.11 Quasi-Judicial Hearing Process: TypellIand 1V and Appeals ofTypeH, lllandlV. Procedural Error I Community Planning Director agrees to recommend approval; prior to receiving the application thereby rend~.ning the entire staff report irrelevant. Evidence: Page 1 of applicants narrative; "Since the dty is familiar with the planned assisted living project and memory care facility at Boones Ferry Place, Jim Mulder agreed to recommend approval without a full design review and site plan approval process at this time." No reasonable person would doubt the validity of this statement. Because, Jun Mulder had ample opportunity to ask the applicant to remove it prior to anyone else having seen it. Argument; This agreement had to have been reached prior to receipt of the application; Because it appeatra in the application. To honor the agreement the staff report could not do other than support a recommendation for approval. I comend that agreeing to recommend approval prior to preparing the staff report is procedural error. This violates my substantial rights by introducing a bias sufficient to deny a fair hearing. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Zone Change 04-04 II. III. APPLICATION INFORMATION: Applicant: Tony Kreitzberg P.O. Box 749 Salem, OR 97308-0749 Property Owners: Eugene R. Gascho Trust, Judith A. Gascho Trust, Rodney Lee Byers Trust and Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to change the zoning map designation of the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road from "Single Family Residential" (RS) to "Medium Density Residential" (RM). RELEVANT FACTS: The subject property is located south of Country Club Road and west of N. Boones Ferry Road and is addressed as 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road. It can be further identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 07BA, Tax Lot 900. The subject property (approximately 4.3 acres in size) is zoned Single Family Residential (RS), designated as Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Map and is the location of dwellings, an accessory structure, two pole bams and existing trees and shrubs. According to the local wetlands inventory, there are no wetlands on the subject property. The FEMA flood map shows the subject parcel to be outside the 500-year floodplain. The properties surrounding the subject site are zoned RS and designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan. The properties located to the west of the subject site are the location of a church and single family dwellings. The properties to the south and east (across N. Boones Ferry Road) are the location of single family dwellings. The properties located to the north of the subject property are the location of a Qwest Communication facility and single family dwellings. On March 27, 2000 the Woodburn City Council adopted an ordinance annexing 3.32 acres of the subject property into the City of Woodbum (Annexation Case ZC04-04 Page 2 IV. File No. 99-02), changing the comprehensive plan designation of the entire subject site from Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre to Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre (Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Case File No. 99-02), granting a conditional zone change from City of Woodbum "Single Family Residential" RS to Multiple Family Residential (RM) (Zone Map Amendment Case File No. 99-06) and approving a site plan review application for 102 assisted living and Alzheimer suites. The applicant states that "...because of the construction of a competing assisted living facility known as Country Meadows in 2001, the Applicant decided to delay construction of the approved Boones Ferry Place development..." The site plan review approval expired after one year and the zoning on the subject property reverted back to the RS zone. The Applicant's market research indicates that the Country Meadows facility is now close to full capacity and by the time a new assisted living facility can be completed, there will be an even greater demand for new assisted living units for .housing. The Applicant wishes to proceed with the odginal proposed approved assisted living facility and memory care facility. In order to proceed according to the original approval, the Applicant needs the subject property to be zoned back from RS to RM. The applicant states "...in recognition of the City Councilors' concern that no apartment complex be constructed on the subject property, the Applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted to allow only permitted RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities..." RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated FINDINGS: Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 5.104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated: Section 5.104.04.C Criteria. Evidence proving a need for the proposed uae and the other permitted uses within the proposed zoning designation. FINDING: The applicant states the following: "...The proposed change will allow for the construction of an assisted living facility and memory care facility which will serve to provide eldedy housing for an unmet community need in Woodbum. There are six assisted living facilities within the Woodburn area, including Silvercreek Assisted Living, Colonial Gardens Assisted Living, Cascade Park Retirement, Countryside ZC04-04 Page 3 Living, Country Meadows and Pacific Living Centers (not yet open). According to demographic information for 2004, there are approximately 2,410 people within a three mile radius of the Woodburn area over the age of 75. The current open facilities provide approximately 96 units for independent living, and 174 units for assisted living, leaving 2,140 senior residents who may need assisted living suites. The .proposed project will provide approximately 102 additional senior living units. Without the additional units, there will be an inadequate supplY of assisted living housing in Woodbum, which will restrict the available choices for residents and result in higher rental rates..." As the applicant states, and as the population data shows, Woodbum's eldedy population has increased and continues to increase. As a result, the demand for elderly housing continues to increase, as does the variety of housing types for the elderly. The applicant's inventory of existing assisted living units in the City of Woodbum indicates that the demand for assisted living exceeds the existing supply of assisted living units in the City of Woodbum. This project will add to the variety of housing types for the elderly in Woodbum since it will provide additional assisted living and ^lzheimer suites in the City of Woodbum. To address previous City Council and Planning Commission concerns regarding the potential for apartments to be constructed on the property, the RM zone change should be conditioned to allow only uses allowed in the RS zone plus assisted living facilities and nursing care facilities. This condition will allow the applicant to construct an assisted living facility, but will prohibit multi-family dwelling units. This approval criterion is met. w Evidence that the subject property best meets the need relative to other properties in the existing developable land inventory already designated with the same zone considering size, location, configuration, visibility and other significant attributes of the subject property. FINDING: The applicant states the following: "...There are no other four-acre parcels which are available and suitable for the proposed development within the vicinity of the proposed site. Most of the large parcels of land zoned for multi- family residential within the Woodbum city limits have already been developed. The Applicant has located no other suitable and available site within the vicinity of the proposed site. The need for the elderly housing will be best met by the proposed site for a number of reasons. First, the proposed site is adjacent to ZC04-04 Page 4 Boones Ferry Road, which is an arterial street served by public transportation. The Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family land uses should be sited on arterial streets. Second, the proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will greatly benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The location is also convenient to churches, businesses providing commercial services and public City services. The Applicant has analyzed the available multi-family residential parcels and has determined that the proposed site best meets the City's need for elderly housing. The size and configuration of the 4.3-acre property and its proximity to a commercial building and church makes its development for single-family residential homes unattractive and economically unsuitable. The Applicant is unable to make a reasonable use of the land as it is presently zoned..." The Planning Commission concurs with the applicant's response. The most recent draft of the City of Woodbum Buildable Lands Inventory dated July 2004, identifies 10 medium-high density residential buildable lots 1-5 acres in size and 2 medium-high density residential buildable lots 6-10 acres in size inside the proposed Woodbum Urban Growth Boundary. The subject site is identified in the draft Buildable Lands Inventory as one of the vacant medium-high density residential lots 1-5 acres in size. Only two RM zoned lots within the city limits are larger than the subject property; The first RM zoned lot (7.4 acres) is located on the east side of Interstate 5, south of Stacy Allison Way. This lot currently does not have city services (water, sewer, storm and street) available to it and is almost twice the size of the subject property. The second RM zoned lot is located south of Judy Street and west of Highway 99E and is 22.3 acres in size which far exceeds the size of the subject property. There are no RM zoned lots in the city limits that are of similar size as the subject property. The subject site has city services available to it, is adjacent to an access street and minor arterial street which provide for excellent pedestrian and transit connectivity and is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The subject property abuts a church to the west, Qwest Communications Facility to the north and single family residential lots to the south. An assisted living and memory care facility would be compatible with the commercial uses that abut the north and west sides of the subject site. The proposed zone change from RS to RM is consistent with the Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre Comprehensive Plan Map designation on the subject property. The applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted on the subject site to allow only permitted ZC04-04 Page 5 VI. RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities. Single Family Residential (RS) uses and assisted living facilities and memory care facilities would be compatible with the single family residential lots that abut the south and southwest sides of the subject property. An apartment complex use on the subject site would not be compatible with the abutting single family residential uses due to traffic and use conflicts. Therefore, conditioning the zone change to only allow RS zone uses and assisted living and nursing care facilities is appropriate. This approval criterion is met. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings of fact contained herein, all relevant approval criteria, relating to approval of Zone Change 04-04 have been met. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change 04-04. ZC04-04 Page 6 EXHIBIT "B" CONDITION OF APPROVAL This zone change is conditioned to restrict uses allowed on the subject property to those uses that are allowed in the RS (Single Family Residential) District and assisted living facilities (62331) and nursing cam facilities (6231). ZC04-04 Page 7 ATTACHMENT B CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 13, 2005 Zone Change 04-04 II. III. APPLICATION INFORMATION: Applicant: Tony Kreitzberg P.O. Box 749 Salem, OR 97308-0749 Property Owners: Eugene R. Gascho Trust, Judith A. Gascho Trust, Rodney Lee Byers Trust and Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust Application Deemed Complete: 120-Day Rule Deadline: December 2, 2004 April 1, 2005 NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to change the zoning map designation of the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road from "Single Family Residential" (RS) to "Medium Density Residential" (RM). RELEVANT FACTS: The subject property is located south of Country Club Road and east of N. Boones Ferry Road and is addressed as 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road. It can be further identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 07BA, Tax Lot 900. The subject property (approximately 4.3 acres in size) is zoned Single Family Residential (RS), designated as Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map and is the location of two single family dwellings, an accessory structure, two pole barns and existing trees and shrubs. According to the local wetlands inventory, there are no wetlands on the subject property. The FEMA flood map shows the subject parcel to be outside the 500-year floodplain. The properties surrounding the subject site are zoned RS and designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The properties located to the west of the subject site are the location of a church and single family dwellings. The properties to the south and east (across N. Boones Ferry Road) are the location of single family dwellings. The properties located to the north of the subject property are the location of a Qwest Communication facility and single family dwellings. ZC04-04 Page 1 IV. On March 27, 2000 the Woodburn City Council adopted an ordinance annexing 3.32 acres of the subject property into the City of Woodbum (Annexation Case File No. 99-02), changing the comprehensive plan designation of the entire subject site from Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre to Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre (Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Case File No. 99-02), granting a conditional zone change from City of Woodburn "Single Family Residential" RS to Multiple Family Residential (RM) (Zone Map Amendment Case File No. 99-06) and approving a site plan review application for 102 assisted living and Alzheimer suites. The applicant states that "...because of the construction of a competing assisted living facility known as Country Meadows in 2001, the Applicant decided to delay construction of the approved Boones Ferry Place development..." The site plan review approval expired after one year and the zoning on the subject property reverted back to the RS zone. The Applicant's market research indicates that the Country Meadows facility is now close to full capacity and by the time a new assisted living facility can be completed, there will be an even greater demand for new assisted living units for housing. The Applicant wishes to proceed with the original proposed approved assisted living facility and memory care facility. In order to proceed according to the original approval, the Applicant needs the subject property to be zoned back from RS to RM. The applicant states "...in recognition of the City Councilors' concern that no apartment complex be constructed on the subject property, the Applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted to allow only permitted RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities..." RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated ANALYSIS: Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 5.104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated: Section 5.104.04.C Criteria. Evidence proving a need for the proposed use and the other permitted uses within the proposed zoning designation. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states the following: "...The proposed change will allow for the construction of an assisted living facility and memory care facility which will serve to provide elderly housing for an unmet community need in ZC04-04 Page 2 Woodburn. There are six assisted living facilities within the Woodburn area, including Silvemreek Assisted Living, Colonial Gardens Assisted Living, Cascade Park Retirement, Countryside Living, Country Meadows and Pacific Living Centers (not yet open). According to demographic information for 2004, there are approximately 2,410 people within a three mile radius of the Woodburn area over the age of 75. The current open facilities provide approximately 96 units for independent living, and 174 units for assisted living, leaving 2,140 senior residents who may need assisted living suites. The proposed project will provide approximately 102 additional senior living units. Without the additional units, there will be an inadequate supply of assisted living housing in Woodburn, which will restrict the available choices for residents and result in higher rental rates..." As the applicant states, and as the population data shows, Woodbum's eldedy population has increased and continues to increase. As a result, the demand for eldedy housing continues to increase, as does the vadety of housing types for the elderly. The applicant's inventory of existing assisted living units in the City of Woodbum indicates that the demand for assisted living exceeds the existing supply of assisted living units in the City of Woodbum. This project will add to the variety of housing types for the elderly in Woodburn since it will provide additional assisted living and Alzheimer suites in the City of Woodburn. To address previous City Council and Planning Commission concerns regarding the potential for apartments to be constructed on the property, the RM zone change should be conditioned to allOw only uses allowed in the RS zone plus assisted living facilities and nursing care facilities. This condition will allow the applicant to construct an assisted living facility, but will prohibit multi-family dwelling units. This approval cdtedon is met. Evidence that the subject property best meets the need relative to other properties in the existing developable land inventory already designated with the same zone considering size, location, configuration, visibility and other significant attributes of the subject property. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant states the following: "...There are no other four-acre parcels which are available and suitable for the proposed development within the vicinity of the proposed site. Most of the large parcels of land zoned for multi- family residential within the Woodbum city limits have already been developed. The Applicant has located no other suitable and available site within the vicinity of the proposed site. ZC04-04 Page 3 The need for the elderly housing will be best met by the proposed site for a number of reasons. First, the proposed site is adjacent to Boones Ferry Road, which is an arterial street served by public transPortation. The Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family land uses should be sited on artedal streets. Second, the proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will greatly benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The location is also convenient to churches, businesses providing commercial services and public City services. The Applicant has analyzed the available multi-family residential parcels and has determined that the proposed site best meets the City's need for elderly housing. The size and configuration of the 4.3-acre property and its proximity to a commercial building and church makes its development for single-family residential homes unattractive and economically unsuitable. The Applicant is unable to make a reasonable use of the land as it is presently zoned..." Staff concurs with the applicant's response. The most recent draft of the City of Woodbum Buildable Lands Inventory dated July 2004, identifies 10 medium-high density residential buildable lots 1-5 acres in size and 2 medium-high density residential buildable lots 6-10 acres in size inside the proposed Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. The subject site is identified in the draft Buildable Lands Inventory as one of the vacant medium-high density residential lots 1-5 acres in size. Only two RM zoned lots within the city limits are larger than the subject property. The first RM zoned lot (7.4 acres) is located on the east side of Interstate 5, south of Stacy Allison Way. This lot currently does not have city services (water, sewer, storm and street) available to it and is almost twice the size of the subject property. The second RM zoned lot is located south of Judy Street and west of Highway 99E and is 22.3 acres in size which far exceeds the size of the subject property. There are no RM zoned lots in the city limits that are of similar size as the subject property. The subject site has city services available to it, is adjacent to an access street and minor arterial street which provide for excellent pedestrian and transit connectivity and is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The subject property abuts a church to the west, Qwest Communications Facility to the north and single family residential lots to the south. An assisted living and memory care facility would be compatible with the commercial uses that abut the north and west sides of the subject site. The proposed zone change from RS to RM is consistent with the ZC04-04 Page 4 VI. VII. Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre Comprehensive Plan Map designation on the subject property. The applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted on the subject site to allow only permitted RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities. Single Family Residential (RS) uses and assisted living facilities and memory care facilities would be compatible with the single family residential lots that abut the south and southwest sides of the subject property. An apartment complex use on the subject site would not be compatible with the abutting single family residential uses due to traffic and use conflicts. Therefore, conditioning the zone change to only allow RS zone uses and assisted living and nursing care facilities is appropriate. This approval criterion is met. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this report, the information provided by the applicant and the applicable review criteria, findings required to approve Zone Change 04- 04 can be made, therefore, staff recommends approval of Zone Change 04-04 subject to the following condition of approval: 1. This zone change is conditioned to restrict uses allowed on the subject property to those uses that are allowed in the RS (Single Family Residential) District and assisted living facilities (62331) and nursing care facilities (6231). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Attachment "A" Attachment "B" Attachment "C" Zone Change application Letter from Joy Construction dated January 11, 2005 entered into the record at the January 13, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Letter from Allen L. Hubenthal dated January 12, 2005 entered into the record at the January 13, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Zone Map Comprehensive Plan Map Site Photos ZC04-04 Page 5 270 ~W Street: · Woodbum, Oregon 9707]. Phone: SO3-982-5246 tax: S03-cJ82-5244 o Website Addr~_~: www.ci.woodbum.or.~'-~ u General Znformation: Exhibit "A" CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development Departznent UNIFORM APPLICATION NOV '0 5 2004 Property owne~. See Exhibit 1 Ap~kmn~ See Exhibit 1 ~~: c/o Tony ~eitz~rg, p.O. Box 749 -- I A._s= See ~er info~ation Salem OR 97308-0749 I - -- ~ ~ Map ~n~on: ~ "' _ ~~~epm~l: To ;ezone the s~ject prope;ty from ~ to ~ to allow for the ~ent of ~ assistea livin~ facility ~ Alzhei~r facility. In ;eco~ltion of the ~o~cilors' concern that no a~art~nt c~plex ~ const~ctea ~ ~lic~t recants that the ~ zone ch~ge be restricted to all~ only pe~t~e uses plus assistea livin~facilities ~a Al~r fac~ ~Revlew: 1 0 ~ PE.CU~IT TO Cll'Y ~ ANNEXATION 3 O APP~M. TO CZTY COUNCIL 4 OO3NP. ~ ~~E 5 o CONDmONAL 6 o oesaGn IlL"VIer RS ~. 0URI~X ~ iNiB. Uii~ 7 o DEIGN REV/EW 80 axce],n(~ TO s.r. .--mm..----..i. 9 O EX'TENS/ON FOR A DEV. DECL~ON 10 O FEMCE & IrREE STAMOD~G WAU. I~E~ REV. 13 O FORNN. INTERPRETAtiON OF THE WIX) 14 O MDP PREI/MINARY APPROVAL 1S 0 MDP fiNAL PLAN APP~)VAL 16 O HODIFICATION OF OONDI'~ONS 17 O PARTITION PREUM~d~Y/topROVAL 18 O PARTITION fiNAL PLAT APPROVAL 19 o PHASING PLAN 20 O PUD PREI/MINARY PtAN APPROVAL 21 O PUD DESIGN PLAN fiNAL APPROVAL 25 O P, EVOC~T[ON OF PP. EVZOUg.y ~ P~IUd 26 o SWOD PERMrF 27 o SPECLAL USE AS A OJ 28 O SUB. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 29 o SUB. FINAL PLAT APPRX)VAL ~0 0 *~~ F~, ~C~ ~ A O 31 O TEH~y OUTDOOR PERM~ 32 o TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 33 o VAR/ANCE 22 o PUD F~NAL PLAN APPROVN. 34 o ZONING AO.1USI'NENT 11 O GRADING PERMIT "" O "' ------ - ~ ____ ~ ~_~ u uP. & O;)NSCX/DAT~ON OF LOTS 35 ~1~ ZONE O4ANGE 12 o ms~omco~.eu:~. SlGtm~.~Cu 24 O I~t~ --,---,,---~ -.~----"~- ' ' ~ ~ ~ See attached ~ Name: See attached '~' HI:U'U NOV 0 ~ 200¢ Signature Page to UNIFORM APPLICATION We, the undersigned, hereby certify that all the statements in the Application, attachments and exhibits transmitted herewith are true and complete, and we are the owners of record or contract purchasers of property of which the zone change is requested: Eugene R. Gascho Trust E,~ne R. Gascho, Trustee (Date) Judi~ A. O~ho, T~e ~e) Judith A. Gaseho Trust By . / Ju~lith A. Gascho, Trustee (Date) By: _~.~..~ Eugene R. Oascho, Trustee (Date) Rachel L. Byer~ ' f -- (Date) Rodney Lee Byers Trust Agreement dated November 9, 1993 Rodn~y L~'BYe~, ~ru~ee '(Date) By. ' n:\wpdocs\10255001~app signature page.do~lao 10/26/0413:37 Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust Agreement dated November 9, 1993 ~/~ria' ~thryn Byers, Tdfste~ '(Date) By:~ ,~~~~~~~~ STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. County of Marion ) On this ~ i day of ~ 2004, personally appeared before me the within named Eugene iL G~acho, Trustee of the Eugene iL Gaseho Trust, and acknowledged said insU'ument to be his volun~'y act and deed. Notary Public for Ordgbn My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. County of Marion ) On this ._o~ day of C)~)~g~. ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Judith A. Ga.:ho, Trustee of the Eugene iL Gascho Trust, and acknowledged said instrument to be her voluntary act and deed. Not~-y Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ) SS. County of Marion ) On this "~ day of ~) ~ ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Judith A. Gaseho, Trustee of the Judith A. Gaseho Trust, and acknowledged said instrument to be her voluntary act and deed. Notary Public'for Orel~otn . , My Commission Expires: (~~ 13:_3006 n:',wpdocs',1025500 Bapp signature page.doc~lao 10/26/0413:3'/ STATE OF OREGON County of Marion On this '~ day of ~~ ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Eugene R. Gascho, Truste~ of the Judith A. Gascho Trust, and acknowledged said- instrument to be his voluntary act and deed. S County of Marion ) tary Public for Oregod My Commission Expires: On this I day of ~ o. ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Willis A. Byers and acknowledged sai~ his vol~deed. I ~ scrr~aw ~u~uc. OREOO~ I -' ~ '~ -:- ~ ~ - -- Notar~/Pubhc fSr ~ I m'tx~,~g~nr~::c~ ~.~rtI My Commission Expires: I~~-o~ STATE OF OREGON County of Marion On this ~ day of VN, a~ n ged said ,2004, personally appeared before me the within instrument to be her voluntary act and deed. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON County of Marion On this ~ day of ~N~e;J. ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Rodeey Lee Byers, Trustee of the Rodney Lee Byers Trust Agreement dated November 9, 1993, and acknowledged said instru~~oT~~::~~ · OFP~I~L SEAL 1 ~'~ N ; ' ub- m orOregon I ~ ~q'~u:~ ~uauo. OREO0~ [ My Commission Expires: I -z_ - z ~ - ~ 3 I , --~J~ ~ ~ I - n:\wpdocs\lO255001~app signature pagc.doc~lao 10/26/0413:37 STATE OF OREGON County of Marion On this ~ day of "-"v',-4~. .., 2004, personally appeared before me the within named Mareia Kathryn Byers, Trustee of the Rodney Lee Byers Trust Agreement dated November 9, 1993, and acknowledged said inst~ I ~ Lwtu~v~mnr., I Nota~fPublic for Oregon I norsav unuc oa ao. I I ~ CO~Ul~~~ I My Commission Expires: [ t nsm STATE OF OREGON County of Marion On this ~ day of ~ ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Marcia Kathryn Byers, Trustee of the Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust Agreement dated November 9, 199:3, and acknowledged ~ed. ~ Not~sr~ Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: ~ ~ - ~ - ~"N STATE OF OREGON County of Marion On this ! day of '~3~,-o. ,2004, personally appeared before me the within named Rodney Lee Byers, Trustee of the Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust Agreement dated November 9, 1993, and acknowledged said instru~voluntary act and deed ~ NOTt~m' ~auc. Onl~:~ I ---lq-om'y Phblic for Oregon ~ cos~laa~nno.~ i "'" i i nEx i · ttr a:~ttaa,ql~ l~{Ina~ I~EC, ~n. mor] My ~omm ss o p res. n:\wpdocs\10255001~app signature page.doc\lao 10/26/0413:37 EXltlBIT 1 PROPERTY OWNERS EUGENE R. GASCHO and JUDITH A. GAscHo, Trustees of the Eugene R. Gascho Trust, and EUGENE R. GASCHO and fUDITH A. GASCHO, Trustees of the Judith A. Gascho Trust, as to an undivided one-third interest; and RODNEY LEE BYERS and MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS, Trustees of the Rodney Lee Byers Trust dated November 9, 1993, and MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS and RODNEY LEE BYERS, Trustees of the Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust dated November 9, 1993, as to an undivided one-third interest; and WILLIS A. BYERS and RACHEL L. BYERS, husband and wife, as to an undivided one-third interest. n:gwpdocs\ 10255001 ~app signature page.doc~lao 10/26/04 i 3:37 REC'D NARRATIVE STATEMENT LN SUPPORT OF ZONE MAP CHANGE APPLICATION BACKGROUND/REQUEST NOV 0 5 ZO0¢ WOOl)BURN CI3dMUNITY ~ DBq". The subject property is approximately 4.3 acres located at the southwest comer of the intersection of North Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road with a street address of 2325 North Boones Ferry Road. This subject property is zoned under the Comprehensive Plan as high density residential (i.e. Residential > 12 Unit~ Per Acre). On March 29, 2000, the City of Woodbum granted a conditional zone change for the subject property from "Single-Family Residential" (RS) to "Multi-Family Residential" (RM). The initial zone change was conditioned to ensure that the zone change, to RM would not allow for multiple family development other than the proposed assisted living facility and memory care facility project. Because of the construction of a competing assisted living facility known as Country Meadows in 2001, the Applicant decided to delay consmmtion of the approved Boones Ferry Place development. The initial site plan approval expired after one year, and the City of Woodbum reverted the zoning of the site back to RS. The principal reason for the conditional zoning was to prevent multiple family housing such as apartments from being built on the subject property. Thc Applicant's market research indicates that the Country Meadows facility is now close to full capacity and by the time a new assisted living facility can be completed, there will be an even greater demand for new assisted living units for housing. The Applicant wishes to proceed with the original proposed approved assisted living facility and memory care facility. In order to proceed according to the original approval, the Applicant needs the subject property to be zoned back from RS to RM. The rezoning of the subject property from RS to RM would be consistent with the existing Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map designation for the subject property of Residential > 12 Units Per Acre. In recognition of the City Councilors' concern that no apartment complex be constructed on the subject property, the Applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted to allow only permitted RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities. If the RM rezoning is restricted in this manner, it will not be necessary to have a reversion provision reverting the zoning back to RS to prevent the construction of apartments. An extensive si~e plan review process was completed prior to the February 13, 2001 decision approving the assisted living facility and memory care facility on the subject property. Since the City is familiar with the planned assisted living project and memory care facility at Boones Ferry Place, Jim Mulder agreed to recommend approval of the zone change application without another full design review and site plan approval process at this time. However, before any construction can occur or permits are issued, the Applicant will have to submit a new design review application for site plan approval. Page I n:\wlxlocs\ ! 025~00 l~app nm s=n~nl2.doc~lao 10/29/0408:50 2. ZONE MAP CHANGE CRITERIA. The proposal complies with each of the following criteria: 2.1 There is reasonable evidence proving a need for the proposed use and the other permitted uses within the proposed zoning designation. Thc proposed change will allow for the construction of an assisted living facility and memory care facility which will serve to pwvide elderly housing for an unmet community need in Woodbum. There are six assisted living facilities within thc Woodbum area, including Silvercreek Assisted Living, Colonial Gardens Assisted Living, Cascade Park Retirement, Countryside Living, Country Meadows and Pacific Living Centers (not yet open). According to demographic information for 2004, there are approximately 2,410 people within a three mile radius of the Woodbum area over the age of 75. The current open facilities provide approximately 96 units for independent living, and 174 units for assisted living, leaving 2,140 senior residents ~vho may need assisted living suites. The proposed project will provide approximately 102 additional senior living units. Without the additional units, there will be an inadequate supply of assisted living housing in Woodburn, which will restrict the available choices for residents and result in higher rental rates. 2.2 There is reasonable evidence that the subject property best meets the need relative to other properties in the existing developable land inventory already designated with the same zone considering size, location, configuration, visibility and other significant attributes of the subject property. There are no other four-acre parcels which are available and suitable for the proposed development within the vicinity of the proposed site. Most of the large parcels of land zoned for multi-family residential within the Woodburn city limits have already been developed. The Applicant has located no other suitable and available site within the vicinity of the proposed site. The need for the elderly housing will be best met by the proposed site for a number of reasons. First, the proposed site is adjacent to Boones Ferry Road, which is an arterial street served by public transportation. The Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family land uses should be sited on arterial streets. Second, the proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will greatly benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The location is also convenient to churches, businesses providing commercial services and public City services. The Applicant has analyzed the available multi-family residential parcels and has determined that the proposed site best meets the City's need for elderly housing. The size and configuration of the 4.3-acre property and its proximity to a commercial building and church makes its development for a single-family residential homes unattractive and economically unsuitable. The Applicant is unable to make a reasonable use of the land as it is presently zoned. Page 2 n:\wpdocs\102:5~00 I~app nan' stalemem2.do~lao 10129/0408::50 3. . EXHIBITS. The following attached exhibits are included as a part of this application: Exhibit Reference,. Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Description Deed to subject property. Assessor's Maps/Notification Area Notification List Location Map Aerial Photograph Page n:\wlxlOCS\lO255001~app nm stamaenl2.doc~lao 10f2910408:~0 Document: Application: Project: Owners: Deed Zone Change Boones Ferry Place Gascho's Trust / Byers Trust GRANTOR'$ NAME Bcmnee Ferry Place LLC GRANTEE'S NAME Eugene Glacho, et ii Sam) TAX STATEMENTS TO; Eugene G~3ho, et II 28600 8 Meriden Road AurMm, OR 87002 AFTIR RICQIM}IN8 ~ TO: Eugene G~m=ho, et d 28600 8 MMiclimn Road Aurora, OR 87002 Keel i)fbJ· 2396 284 REC'D NOV 0 5 2004 STA~TORY BARQ~N ~ SALE ~EED ~0NES FERRY ~CE, ~C, an Ore~n U~ Uabi~ ~m~ny, Gr~or, conv~ ~ EUG~ R. G~ ~ JUDITH A. GA~HO, T~ ~ ~o E~e R. ~o T~ ~ EUGE~ R. G~C~ ~d ~H A. G~, TmmM ~ ~e ~ A. 8~0 T~, ~ ~ m ~ 11~ ~ ~ ~D~ ~E KATH~N BYER~ ~ ~ LEE BYERS, Tmm~ M ~e MMM K~ ~m Tram dM 1-9-~ M ~ ~ ~ 1~ rd ~tm ~ ~U8 A. BYERS md ~CH~ L. BYe. ~ ~ ~e m ~ ~ ~d~ l~d SEE E~IBIT ONE A~ACHED ~O AND MADE A PART HEflEOF THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIQNIN(~ OR ACCEPTINQ THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK Wn'H THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USE~ AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FORE~I' PRACTICE8 A8 DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. THE TRUE AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CONVEYANCE IS IlO.Q0 (See ORS 93.030) DATED: October 6, 2004 BOONES FERRY PLACE, LLC., an Oregon Limited Liability Company BY: EUGENE R. ¢3ASCHO TRUST Eugene_R. Gaocho, Truttee 8¥' JUDITH A. GAUCHO TRUST Eugene R. Gooch;) ! Judith AJ4GilChO Tru~toee STATE OF OREGON. COUNTY OF _~1/[ ~ RODNEY LEE BYERS TRUST Rodnay Lea~l,jer~ ~M~rcM K~n Byers. Tr~t~s MARCIA KA~RYN BYER~ ~UST Marcla'Kathryn Byem end Rodrmy Lee Byem, Trustees Willb A. Byers, IfldivlduMIy Thi.. inetr.um®nt wa~ acknowledged_ before me on N~ ~C OaaG~ _ ~ ~ OFFICI~ -- ,,/~ ff~ ~MM,~,O, NO. 351493 FOR~ (Rev 2~6) ~ STA~T~Y ~RGA~ AND SA~ DEED EXHIBIT ONE Beginni~ ·t · ~ on the North line of Lot 1, HENRY'S FARM, a~ lald Subdivi~ion II i~attad mhd r~or~d ~ Votu~ , ~ ~ ~ 87'~' 12" W~ 5.~ f~am ~ ----~ ~1~~~",- e , - 1z ~ T~ um.-~ ~i~N~~L · eNo~02 3748 ~ * of ~ 4, I ~ ~ 14B.~ f~ m~ ........ ~ Su~fl; ~ N~ 02° ~* 12 bt I~O ~ W~ of 232.87 fe~ ~e mint No.flY ~t ~ ~t 7 of said line ~ ~ ~ of IMd ~ri~ In Red 11~, ~ 426, ~ Re~, I dbm~ ~ 119.89 f~t to ~ No~w~t c~r ~er~; ~fl~ ~h 87022,58. Emt ~ tho No~ ~ of ~ tr~, a d~CO ~ 27.48 ;e~ ~ ~ 122 · 429, ~ R~; ~eflGe No~ 02° 15'~' ~ ~d~~v~o~, ~_/7% ..... ~ ~f; ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~::-'~ o.~-- ~ ~ 101.53 ~ ~ ~ .... ~:7.~ '4'~'43" Wm 233.~ ~ ~ m~- ~ ~-~'-: _ -~ 13°24'5~" W.t ;lll~ ~ sia cream;, - 1~EL:2386 PAGE: 284 October 08, 2004, 11:29 am. CONTROL #: 125404 -~mte of Oregon County of M~on I hereby certify that the attached Instrument wa~ received and duly r~x)rded by rt~ in Marion County records: FEE: $ 31.00 PHIL MILES CHIEF DEPUTY CO. CLERK THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE. I , I I o .LS CI'dOONO0 : ~ · .~,.~ .LOII:LLYd · - II 1 Salem Office - Main Brmmh- Marion County 2S0 Li~fl7 Street S.E., Suite 100. P.O. Box 825 Salem, Oregon 9730S Phone: (503) 5gl-0555.Title FAX: (503)362-9871 REC'D Order No. 7081-471843 First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon Dallas O~e~ - l~ollt County $07 Main Strut * P.O. Box 451 Dalla~ Oregon 9/338 Phone: (503} 623-5513'Ti118 FAX: (503) 623-6926 NOV 0 $ 2004 74g ~~~ Garrett, Hemann, Robertson Et Al 1011 Commercial St NE, Ste 210, PO Box Salem, OR 97308-0749 Attn: Anthony R. Kreitzberg EXHIBIT C Document: Notification List Application: Zone Change Project: Boones Ferry Place Owners: Gascho's Trust / By,rs Trust Preparer: First American Titl~ Date: October 21, 2004 FIRST AMERICAN iNSURANCE TITLE OF OREGON does hereby certify that the attached is a complete list of names and addresses of all the owners of the properties affected within 250 feet of the following described property; and, in addition thereto, we hereby certify that the owners of said parcel described herein are: Vested in: Eugene R. Gascho and Judith A. Gascho, Trustees of the Eugene R. Gascho Trust and EUGENE R. GASCHO and JUDITH A. GASCHO, Trustees of the Judith A. Gascho Trust, as to an undivided 113~ interest; and RODNEY LEE BYERS and MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS, Trustees of the Rodney Lee Byers, Trust dated 11-9-93 and MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS and RODNEY LEE BYERS, Trustees of the Marda Kathryn Byers Trust dated 11-9- 93 as to an undivided 113"~ interest and WILLIS A. BYERS and RACHEL L. BYERS, husband and wife bs to an undivided 113"~ interest. The legal description is described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of lot 1, HENRY'S'FARM, as said Subdivision is platted and recorded in Volume 41, Page 46, Book of Town Plats for Marion County, Oregon which bears North 87°22'12- West 5.09 feet from the Northeast comer of said Lot I and being situated in the Northwest quarter of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian in said County and State; thence North 87'22'12' West along the North line of said Lot 1 and along the North line of Lot 2 of said Subdivision, a distance of 123.14 feet; thence South 02'37'48' West 12.00 feet; thence North 87'22'12' West 28.00 feet; thence North 02'37'48' East 12.00 feet to the Northeast comer of Lot 3 of said SubdNlsion; thence North 87'22'12' West along the North line of said Lot 3 and the North line of Lot 4, a distance of 148.00 feet; thence North 02'30'44' East along the East line of said Subdivision, a distance of 232.87 feet to the most Northerly comer of Lot 7 of said Subdivision; thence North 02'36'12' East along the West line of that tract of land described in Reel 1140, page 426, Deed records, a distance of 119.89 feet to the Northwest comer thereo~, thence South 87°22'58- East along the North line of said tract, a distance of 27.48 feet to the Southwest comer of that tract of land described in Reel 1122, page 429, Deed Records; thence North 02°15'05' East along the West line of said tract, a distance of 266.77 feet to the south right-of-way line of Country Club Road; thence South 87°44'58- East along said right-of-way line, a distance of 213.94 feet to the Northwest comer of that tract of land described in Volume 640, page 17, Deed Records, thence South 15'44'27' West along the Westerly line of said tract, a distance of 173.82 feet to the Southwest comer thereof; thence south 87°44'58' East along the Southerly line of said tract, a distance of 194.86 feet to a point which is 35.00 feet Westerly of the centeriine of Boones Ferry Road (when measured perpendicular thereto); thence South 15'44'27' West parallel with the said centerline, a distance of 101.53 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centeriine along the arc of a 5764.58 foot radius curve to the left ( the chord of which bears South 14'34'43' West 233.84 feet) a distance of 233.88 feet; thence South 13'24'59' West parallel with said centerline, a distance of 127.42 feet to the point of beginning. South Salem Branch 4625 Commemial Street S.E. Salem, Ore~on 9'7306 Phone: 003) 364*4480 ' FAX: (.503) 585-1887 Keib-r Branch 5605 Inland 8bores Way N., Suito 108 Keizer, Or, son 97303 l:~one: (503) 304-4001 FAX: (503) 304-4004 S~ton Branch 1161 N. First Aveaue/P.O. Box 533 StA)~)n, ~g~ ~383 ~oM: (5~) 769-343 l F~ (503) 769~94 Woodburn Brtneh 612 O¼tt Circle/P.O. Box 1090 Woodbum, Oregon 97071 Phone: (503) 981-0016 FAX: (SO3) 981-0009 The attached list which is hereby made a part of the Certificate has been prepared by First American Title of Willamette Valley, and its employees. The list of names of the. owners of the property furnished herewith, and the descriptions of the properties are accurate and correct and no name of any owner of property in the affected area, or the description of his or her property is omitted from the list furnished. The descriptions furnished are as listed on the current tax roll of Marion County, Oregon. The addresses appearing on the accompanying list am Salem, Oregon unless otherwise stated, and are those found on the current tax roll, Polk-Marion County Directory, or the current Telephone Directory for Salem and its vidnity. This report is issued as a spedal service only and is not to be construed as an issuance of title insurance. Uabllity is limited to the amount paid for this report and to the addressee. The charge for this service will not include supplemental reports, rechecks or other services. Dated this 21 day of October, 2004, in Salem, Oregon. of Oregon Laumn Sheets Customer Sewice Supervisor )ocument: Assessor's Map S, pplicafion: Zone Change Project: Boones Ferry Place Owners: Gascho's Trust / Byers Trust Preparer: Assessor Dat~: October 20, 2004 ~0] L CLUB 051W07BC Taxlot(s): '051w07 ba00900' Owner Name: BOONES FERRY PLACE I_LC Situs Address: 2325 N BOONES FERRY RD Zip Code: 97071,WOOOBURN Land Use Zone: Schools: Woodburn Fire District: WOODBURN REC'O NOV This map wes produced from data st¢xed in the M~riofl County Asesesor Geographi~ databsee. l~ie dam is maintained by the Assessor to support i~ i=tivitJe~. The Assessor is not reaponsible fM any map errom, possible misuse, o~ migntorpr~tation~ I~b Assesso, October capture radius = 250' scale 1' = 332' 2004 This is to certify that this is a true and correct copy of .the record now on file in the Assessor's Offic~ Doug Ebner, Marion County Assessor BOONESFE.lab Document: Application: Project: Owners: Preparer: Location Map Zone Change Boones Ferry Place Gascho's Trust / Byers Trust Assessor's Office Document:~ Aerial Photograpi~ Application: Zone Change ProjectlI Boones Ferry Plnce OWners~ Gascho's Trust / Byers Tr~ Sos: GlobeXplorer Date or'Imagery: December, 2002 ZONE CHANGE 04-04 ZONING MAP ATTACH M ENT A HENRY'S LOOP 2316 !NR~8 Loop 0.09 0 0.09 ~! City Lk.~ ~ Udmn Growth Boundary ~ ce ~ IL ~'-~ NONE R8 0.18 Miles N S ZONE CHANGE 04-04 Comprehensive Plan Map ATTACHMENT B ~NRY'S 0.09 0 0.09 0.18 Miles Text Street Names Railroad lines Neighborhood Conservation District r'-I city umits l--'1 Urban Gmwlh Boundary Comprehensive Plan ~ COMMERCIAL ~ ~NDUSTmAL [----I NONE ~ OPEN SPACE AND PARKS PUBLIC USE REmDEKnAL (<12 U~a~S~ACRE) ~ RES~DENTL4J. (>12 UMTS/ACRE) ['--'1 Assessor's Taxlots N ATrACHM ENT C North side of subject property. North side of subject property. East side of subject property. East side of subject property. South side of subject site. South side of subject property. West side of subject site. Exhibit "B" 10¥ CONSTRUCTION, I~)EVELOPING · CONTR,~CTING · REMODELiNG · EXCAVATION To Whom It M~.¥ Concern: January 11, 2005 We am writing this letter in response to the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road and the zone change request submitted. The argument has been made that the subject property is unsuitable for single family homes. I disagree with that. As a builder and developer in Woodbum, I know that single family residential zones are at a premium. Woodbum is growing by leaps and bounds and is in desperate nc. cd of land to develop for single family housing. The subject area would better senm the community by keeping it single family residential than to change it to medium density residential. The land on N. Boones Ferry is approximately 4 acres and would accommodate single family homes without any impact to the value of the surrounding homes. If anything, it would increase the appeal and value of the area. So in conclusion, for the betterment of the community it should be left as single family residential. jo~ n~~s~cti~ ' ~Y CONSTRUCTIOI~ LLC 1323 l^coB STREET, WOOO6URN, OREGON P.o~: ~3.~!.1~ CELL: ~33205102 F~x: ~3.~1.~!4 ~W.IOYCONfiTRLICTION.COM EMAIL: MAIL~IOYCONSTRLICTION.COM CCB* 155~3 Notes The applicant states in section 1. BACKGROUND/REQUEST TMs mmmory ~n 71~O~N LEG~~ A~E~LY - 2~1 R~r ~n M~SU~: HB 321~ B STAFF M~~ S~Y Joht CommJ~ on C~r-~: R~ue: No ~ue AeOn: Vo~ 16-0-4 Ho~- Y~: B~a, ~ Hi~ M~ p~ ~, W~ W~ - N~: - ~: ~ Jo~n S~- Y~: B~ Cl~o, ~ ~ ~ H~ Trow, Y~ - -~c: F~o~ P~ ~ Jo~ Bfi~ ~ve Fi~ O~ M~g Dam 6~2, ~T ~E B~L ~ES: A~~ $~2.4 ~ ofmb~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ S~ S~ ~fi~ f~ ~on ~j~ ~d~ ($13.7 milli~ ~m~ field ~($~.0 ~iUi~), M~d ~ ~ f~ ($1.9 ~iUi~), ~d f~ ~ ($1~.1 million). ~UES D~U~ED: * ~ ~~ m~~ ~ ~ ~~ of ~ ~ ~ r~d~ ~ ~. E~CT OF CO~EE ~~MENTS: E~~ a ~y~ mo~fi~ on f~fi~ ~d ~~ ~ f~fi~ (~ ~ ~ O~ ~3.400) ~ ~c S~or ~d ~l~ ~ ~~ ofH~ S~. ~ b~ ~~ ~ff~vo on J~y 1, 2001 ~d ~m~ J~o 30, 2~3. ~ows f~fi~ if . ~ p~ r~fi~ ~ f~ or ~ ~ ~ is 1~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ is ~o~ ~ of f~fi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d not oxp~d~ , ~ ~h~c pl~ ~ ~~ ~s for ~ ~ w~ ~~ to ~ ~sion before July 1, 2001, · The ownership of the facility is changi~ and the facility is not expandin~ · The license is bein$ rmewed and the facility is not expandin& BACKGROUND: The C~overnor's Recommended Budget proposed a new rate mucture for comm~mity tms~t longterm ca~ fac~xi~s indud~ rate r~*u~tio~ to assisted llvin$ ~illti~. ~ proposal attempted to llnk r~-imburm~ent to lone-term care provi&~ to ~lient impairment rathe~ than th~ typo of facih'ty in which the client was s~rvod. ~ lt~ Gov~-mo~'s b~ds~ was rel~d, concem~ were raised h'~ th~ p~oposed ra~ wool joopardiz~ th~ abilit~ of a numb~ of ~ livin~ fa~ilitios to mako ~ loan payments to ~reditors~in¢ludi~ th~ D~*p&~n~ of Housins snd Communit~ S~vic~. Th~ Depa,~,,,e~t had mad~ loam to 37 developers and the loan balan~ total~ $76.~ million as of 2/1/01. ('I~ Dep~hu~*nt ~ to mak~ anoth~ 11 loans tolalin8 $40.~ million.) but not as sisn~csn~ the licensins of moratmimn. '~' * Exhibit "C" January 12, 2005 Allen L. Hubenthal Lana G. Fowler 1223 Henry's Blvd. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 City of Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Zone Change 04-04 Dear Commissioners, As those of you who were on the commission five years ago may recall, we live on the southern boundary of the subject property and have stood in opposition to this project from it's inception. Our motives are as simple and as selfish as those of the subject property's owners. We believed then and still believe that the construction of a two story apartment building overlooking our back yard; will diminish the quality of our life to the point that we no longer wish to live there; and at the same time reduce our property value to the point that we may not be able to leave. NARATIVE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION OF ZONE MAP CHANGE APPLICATION !. BACKGROUND Prior to March 29, 2000 the subject property was four properties totaling 4.3 acres. They consisted of a 1acre parcel in the city and three other parcels outside the city but within the UBG designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Single Family Less Than 12 Per Acre. These were acquired by the current owners one at a time as they became available with full knowledge of their zone designation. But, with the expectation of having them rezoned for apartments. At some point in 1988 they started the application process but abandoned it when they realized that there was to much community opposition. This is a fact and was so stated by Attorney Gutzler during his presentation at the first hearing. Which took place on October 14, 2000. No one could be expected to recall that. But, I have it on video tape. Apartments were their first choice and apartments are their second choice. Except, they are attempting to disguise them as something else. From our perspective the difference is just to subtle to appreciate, u a rose by any other name" etc... However, I may have to change that position if the city fails to put a time frame on the conditional zone change that is proposed. The applicant states the following: '... If the RM rezoning is restricted in this manner, it will not be necessary to have a revision provision reverting the zoning back to RS to prevent the construction of apartments." We disagree. Already we have found that it was not possible for the Comprehensive Plan Map to. revert back. The property consolidation did not revert back. And, the change from RS less than 12 to RS greater than 12 did not revert back. Mark my wordsl In two or three more years and with perhaps a few more new faces on the commission; they will be back asking that the Conditional Use Provision be removed. Stating that the assisted living center is unfeasible after all and arguing that the difference between one apartment and another is really pretty subtle after all. Why would we suspect that? For one thing; In July of 2001 the State Legislator imposed a two year moratorium on the licensing of any new Assisted Living Centers. It was supposed to sunset June 30, 2003. But, it was extended by the 2003 legislature until June 30, 2005. I have heard rumors that it is going to be extended again. But, have not been able to substantiate them. According to the legislative coordinator at Senior and Disabled Services 'only the legislators know. There are people lobbying both for and against it.' When it was extended in 2003, it wasn't until late February. What if it is extended? The applicant could have been licensed during the moratorium. But, would have had to meet a much higher standard to prove a 'need' than the city imposed or is imposing. 2. ZONE MAP CHANGE CRITERIA. The proposal fails to comply with the criteria 2.1 Evidence proving a need for the proposed use and the other permitted uses within the proposed zoning designation. I ask that the city interpret 'need' as a public need sufficient to risk harm to the surrounding property. To be licensed today the other facilities would have to have a waiting list. They in fact have vacancies. To be licensed today and if the moratorium is extended they will have to commission a Market research by an independent third party. 2.2 Evidence that the subject property best meets the need relative to Other properties in the existing developable land inventory .......... We suggest that the longstanding commitment of the applicant to this particular property; at the very least renders moot any discussion as to the availability or un availability of other or more suitable sites. It has been stated by the applicant the subject property is unsuitable for single family residential development. In response to that I will read into the record and provide a copy of a letter from Joy construction. Thank You Allen L. Hubenthal Lana F. Fowler WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 13, 2005 ATTACHMENT C CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lima P Commissioner Vancil P Commissioner Grigorleff P Commissioner Bandelow P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner Chairperson Lima provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Bandelow moved to elect the current Chairperson Claudio Commissioner Vancil seconded the nomination, which carried unanimously. Lima for Chairperson. Commissioner Vancil moved to elect Ellen Bandelow for Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. MINUTES A. Woodburn Planning Commission Work Session Minutes of December 2 I 2004 Commissioner Vancil moved to adopt the minutes as written. Comm ssioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. B.~. Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2004 Commissioner G ri.qorieff made a motion to accept the minutes as written and was seconded by Commissioner Vancil. Motion carried unanimously. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A. Woodburn Special City Council Minutes of November 29, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING Design Review 04-06 and Conditional Use 04-03, request to establish an RV sales and service dealership and construct a 7,200 sq. ft. sales and servica building at 2450 Country Club Ct., Brandon Johnson, applicant. (Continued from the October 28, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting}. Application withdrawn by applicant. B._=. Partition 04-06 and Variance 04-26, request to partition one parcel into two lots at 1125 McKinley St., Gre.q Allen, apl~licant. (Applicant requested continuance to Februaw 10, 2005). Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to approve the continuance to February 10, 2005. Commissioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Zone Change 04-04, request to change zoning from Single Family Residential (RS) to Medium Density Residential (RM) at 2335 N. Boones Ferry Rd., Boones Ferry Place, LLC, applicant. Planning Commission Meeting - Jant~ary 13, 2005 Page l of 7 EX-PARTE CONTACTS Chairperson Lima and Commissioner Vancil both indicated they were familiar with the property. Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval of the Zone Change application based on the information in the report, the information provided by the applicant and the applicable review criteria. Commissioner Vancil commented it is alleged that there is a shortage of single family zoned land in the City considering the high demand for it and questioned Staff whether that was her perception? Staff replied the perception of a shortage on single-family land has more to do with availability of land than an actual shortage of land. He reported there is one property owner that has a large amount of land that could be developed if that owner would allow it to be, which has created a short-term scarcity of single-family land. However, there could be enough land for the short term available if that property owner allowed development on her property. Nonetheless, we still need all categories of land long term. Currently lots are more limited for smaller builders that just want to buy a few lots to build on. Commissioner Vancil commented the report talked about this being a particularly good site for the proposed use because of the lack of other similar sites. He assumed that if the periodic review progresses as expected, there would be options for this kind of thing available. Staff stated that would bring on additional opportunities. The timing of that being developed for this kind of use is more longer term. TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT Tony Krietzberq, Real Estate Attorney, 1011 Commercial St., P.O. Box 7491 Salem, OR 97308-0749 reported he was before the Commission four years ago when this initial application was created. He stated an assisted living facility is a very Iow impact on a residential area, whereas, if zoned RM, you do not want an alternative RM use to come in like an apartment complex that would have a higher level of traffic and noise. Mr. Krietzberg further stated during the initial application, the Commission did not want this use for some other RM purpose and had a reversionary clause where it would revert back to RS if it was not used as RM. It has reverted back to RS and now there is a mismatch between the underlying zone and the Comprehensive Plan. He commented they are asking that those be matched up again and they want to protect the Commission's original goal. Mr. Kfietzberg reported they have no intention of using the property for anything other than for its original approved use, an assisted living facility and a memory care facility. He explained the devetopmant was merely delayed because the Country Meadows facility beat them to the finish line in building a large facility, it was Mr. Krietzberg's understanding that facility has reached capacity and with the demographics in the area and the need for assisted living facilities, that they are at a point now that they could construct their facility and it will be financially viable and successful as well as a good addition to the community. He further mentioned the owner's of the property never received, to his knowledge, an offer for the acquisition of that property for single family use. It is not that well suited for single family as it is a relatively small parcel so it would be expensive to develop for single family; It was further reported by Mr. Krietzberg that the particular shape of the parcel plans itself well for the proposed assisted living facility because it provides access on both County Club Rd. and onto Boones Ferry Rd. which is required for this type of density development. It is close to an ambulance service, mass transit and will be very convenient for the elderly to use. He said there are no other sites of this particular size and nature suited for an assisted living facility. Vice Chairperson Bandelow inquired whether they will not be doing a design review at this point but is it their intention to use the same design they used before? Tony Krietzber.q answered No. He clarified the design criteria has actually gotten stricter in the past four years. Therefore, they will be going through a public site review process at which time there will be opportunity for the public to raise any specific site design concerns. He also mentioned there are greater setbacks than there were in the year 2000 and that the wall restrictions are greater. The project will be redesigned, if anything, even friendlier to a single family residential neighborhood. Staff said the standards are higher since the new Development Ordinance was adopted. He noted a block Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 2 of 7 wall will be required, whereas it was not required before. Additionally, the setbacks are generally greater as well as there are higher design standards. Wally Gutzler, Sun West Mana.qement, P.O, Box 3006, Salem, OR stated he also came before the Commission four years ago when the initial application was created. He said they do not plan to do anything different than what was originally approved except as required by the design review changes. The layout would be the same to the extent that they could make it the same and they will comply with any required restrictions. Mr. Gutzler explained there were two reasons why the project did not move forward before. Country Meadows had their plan ready to go a little before they did and they did not feel it was appropriate for both to be in a race to serve the public. Secondly, Governor Kitzhauber made an announcement to the Legislature four years ago that he thought that they should cut the reimbursement for Medicaid recipients who would be residents of assisted living facilities. This scared off all the lenders because they knew that quite a few of the assisted living facilities in Oregon would qualify for Medicaid residents and if those reimbursements were cut, there was a possibility it could adversely affect the ability to make payments. Mr. Gutzler stated it has only been within the last six months that they have been able to obtain construction financing in Oregon again for this type of facility. He indicated this is a project that will benefit the City in various areas and requested the Planning Commission approve the project. Chairperson Lima asked Mr. Gutzler how many other facilities of this type does he have in operation in Oregon and how many are in construction? Wally Gutzler replied he currently has 42 facilities of this type in operation, two under construction and probably about three or more by the end of this year in Oregon. He indicated they have about 125 facilities nationwide. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS None TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS Allen Hubenthal, 1223 Henry's Blvd.1Woodburn, OR 97071 provided a written statement to the Commission and read it into the record for the viewing public. He reported he lives on the southern boundary of the subject property. Additionally, he indicated it was his belief that the construction of a two-story apartment building overlooking his back yard will diminish the quality of his life to the point that he would no longer wish to live there; and at the same time reduce his property value to the point he may not be able to leave. Mr. Hubenthal also stated prior to March 29, 2000, the subject property was originally four properties totaling 4.3 acres, which consisted of one parcel already in the City and three parcels outside the City but within the UGB designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Single Family, less than 12 units per acre. These were acquired by the current owners one at a time as they became available and with full knowledge of their zoning designation but with the expectation of having them re-zoned for apartments. He further reported in 1998 the application process was started for apartments but abandoned when they realized that there was to much community opposition. Mr. Hubenthal stated apartments were the applicants first and second choice except they are attempting to disguise them as something else. From his perspective, the difference is just too subtle to appreciate. However, he may have to change that position if the city fails to put a time frame on the conditional zone change that is proposed. He disagreed with the applicants statement that if the RM re-zoning is restricted in this matter it would not be necessary to have a revision provision reverting the zoning back to RS to prevent the construction of apartments. Mr. Hubenthal said it has already been found that it is not possible for the Comprehensive Plan to revert back; the property consolidation nor the change from RS less than 12 to RS greater than 12. It was his belief that in two or three more years and with perhaps a few more new faces on the Planning Commission that the applicant will be back asking that the Conditional Use provision be removed stating that the assisted living center is feasible after all and arguing that the difference between one apartment and another is pretty subtle after all. He mentioned that in July 2002, the State Legislature imposed a two year moratorium on the licensing of any new Assisted Living Centers, which was extended to June 30, 2005. Mr. Hubenthal remarked Mr. Gutzler will not be able to build the assisted living center if this is extended again. Although he could apply for a license, he would have to meet a much higher standard with regards to proving need. He pointed out the proposal fails to comply with the zone map change criteria. Moreover, the applicant would have had to make a commitment to a much higher percentage of Medicaid patients than they do during non-moratorium times and to be licensed today other facilities would Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 3 of 7 have to have a waiting list. Additionally, if the moratorium is extended, they would have to commission a market research by an independent third party. In closing, Mr. Hubenthal stated the longstanding commitment of the applicant to this particular property renders moot. The applicant has a contractual commitment to this property and they are not interested in anything else. Mr. Hubenthal provided a copy of a letter from Joy Construction to the Commission and read it into the record. The letter stated the zoning should be left as single family residential for the betterment of the community. Commissioner Vancil asked Mr. Hubenthal if he discussed an expectation for the property behind him with the realtor at the time of his purchase? Allen Hubenthal replied he did not buy the property without checking the zoning on the property behind it. Chairperson Lima requested Mr. Hubenthal elaborate on his comment that nobody has asked for construction of nursing homes in this area. Allen Hubenthal clarified Sun West Management has been committed to this property even before they were in on the attempted apartment development prior to the year 2000 when this nursing home came up. He said there is a big difference between looking for a place to locate an assisted living center and looking to locate an assisted living center on a property you already own. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Waily Gutzler clarified Sun West is not in the business of building apartments nor do they own apartments or want apartments. Moreover, they are not in the skilled nursing facility business although they accidentally started in three or four out of ali the facilities they have but those are in connection with assisted living facilities and are not stand alone skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Gutzler further reported what they have in mind to build here is an assisted living facility with one building being devoted to memory care and the other part for regular assisted living and nothing else. He addressed the moratorium issue mentioned by Mr. Hubenthal and explained that moratorium required that by the 1'~ of July, 2001 if you had an application in with the State Health Department for an assisted nursing facility and you had access to the land and were able to show that you would have the ability to acquire the land, you would then be grand fathered during the time of this moratorium. He indicated they had that application on this site since prior to that time and reiterated this moratorium does not affect his application in any way. Mr. Gutzler also addressed Mr. Hubenthai's comment regarding a certificate of need in which they could show a certain need and obtain a license. He explained certificates of need are for skilled nursing facilities. They are currently going through the certificate of need process for skilled nursing unit that they are putting into a facility they own in Yamhill County and on a campus where they have an assisted living, memory care, independent living, cottages and skilled nursing facility building that they are just getting the license for. He clarified a certificate of need does not, in any way, apply to the proposed project. Mr. Gutzler further stated they have a number of facilities in very upscale neighborhoods and fit very well because they build buildings that do not detract from upscale neighborhoods. As far as the availability of that land for single family development, he imagined it could be adapted to single family development. However, single family use of that piece of property would have a much greater impact on the transportation system, school system, noise, etc. than the facility that they are planning because of the number of automobiles and trips involved far exceeding what they would be putting on the property. Mr. Gutzler commented he stood by his statements made four years ago and said they have been very consistent all the way through and changes made were those that were requested by the Commission. DISCUSSION Chairperson Lima closed the public hearing and opened for discussion among the Commissioners. Vice Chairperson Bandelow commented nobody ever likes to do anything that interferes with someone's right to enjoy their property. She sympathized with the residents that back up to this project and understood their concerns. However, she stated she is not certain they would be any better off with two-story homes looking down on their yard because they would be so much closer than what this project will be to their property. Vice Chairperson Bandelow indicated it was her thought for a long time that this facility was a good match to this property and frankly she had not heard anything that changed that. She also remarked there are people actively seeking places to put assisted living facilities in Woodburn at the moment and Woodburn seems to be quite the ideal location according to a lot of prospects. It was her thought that the Commission previously made the right decision on this project by the Commission and saw no reasons to change that. In closing, she said she would be in favor of the proposal. Planning Commission Meeting - Jant~ary 13, 2005 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Gri.qorieff understood Mr. Hubenthal's concerns, However, assisted living is a different type of an apartment in that it is more restrictive and probably quieter. She stated there are a lot of pros and cons on both sides but she agreed that an assisted living facility is the better way of going for this land. Commissioner Vancil commented it seemed to him that things have changed a lot since five years ago when this project was approved as an assisted living. He said the neighborhood has developed as a single family neighborhood with one apartment complex that is really fairly removed and a water treatment plant. He did not find any compelling reason why it should be changed from single family. Location to the local ambulance service is not something that is particularly relevant for the Commission to consider in tonight's decision rather what we are looking at is land use and whether or not the current land use is proper or whether we should grant a change of the land use to a different more dense land use that is being proposed. Commissioner Vancil did not think it is a good use of the land considering the local lack of developable land inventory for single family and felt the more logical use of the land is to develop it into single family. Vice Chairperson Bandelow recalled there was a conflict between the two zonings for the same land when it was brought in and the zoning changed. She stated the City had it zoned one way and the County had it zoned another. Therefore, the owner would have had the expectation that he was buying all the single family land at that time. Vice Chairperson Bandelow requested this be clarified. Commissioner Griqorieff asked Staff if that part of land can actually become a single family subdivision? Staff replied it would be difficult for him to comment because they have not seen or looked at any proposals for a single family subdivision on that property, which has not provided them with an opportunity to look at the feasibility of a subdivision. He indicated the property is not ideal for a subdivision because of the shape of the property, the fact that most of the frontage is on a minor arterial street and the fact that there is an apartment complex, treatment facility, chumh and a commercial use in that area and there is no single family on that side of Country Club Rd. even though in general, it is a residential area. Staff further stated single family can go in there but it will not be very efficient because there will be access problems because of the shape of the property; it is on a minor arterial and you will not get six units per acre as you would on a prime piece of land, which would allow for the maximum residential density. All those factors feed in to the fact that it lends itself well to this type of use. He clarified Staff is certainly not in support of any type of apartment complex, which is why they fashioned it to make it a zone that was restricted to the single family zone uses in addition to assisted living facility only. Moreover, there is no way apartments can be built unless the City Council would either remove that restriction or change the zoning. However, there are no guarantees in land use and the applicant could always come back and propose the same zone change anyway even if the Council rejects the project. In researching, Staff found that the previous zoning on the property was an Urban Transition Farm zoning, which is pretty t~pical for land within our Urban Growth Boundary near the city limits. Additionally, our Comprehensive Plan designating what that property would come in as and at the time the property was annexed in it would come in as Iow density residential. Chairperson Lima clarified the Planning Commission's role is to determine if the land use in question is what is applicable, it is not to determine if an applicant is going to make a profit or not. He referred to the comment made regarding ambulance time being important or not. Being in the medical field himself, ambulance response time is important because sometimes timing can be a matter of life and death. Chairperson Lima further clarified the City Council has the prerogative of approving or disapproving the Planning Commission's decision. 'There are many other venues that can be followed after that if somebody disagrees with the decision. He made reference to the letter from Joy Construction and commented that person may have previous interest in the area because the other houses in the area are selling quickly. In closing, he indicated he supports the application. Vice Chairperson Bandelow made a motion to approve Zone Change 04-04 and instructed Staff return with facts and findings to support that decision. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gri.qorieff. Motion carried with Commissioner Vancil voting No. Conditional Use 04-12, request to establish muffler shop at 514 N. Pacific Hwy., David Fontini, applicant. Application withdrawn by ar~r~licant. ITEMS FOR ACTION Planning Commission Meeting - Jan,ary 13, 2005 Page 5 of 7 A__=. Schedule Special Meeting on February 3, 2005 at 7 pm in the City Council Chambers to conduct Public Hearing on periodic review amendments. Staff informed the Commission he would expect there will be a lot of people attending this meeting. He indicated it could be likely that the testimony could go late and suggested the Commission think about how to handle testimony and how late they want to go. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to schedule a special meeting for February 3, 2005 to conduct public hearing on Periodic Review Amendments and that a ten minute time limit be installed for those speaking for neighborhood groups and three minutes for individuals. Commiss oner G ri.qorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS A._:. Pre_~entation by Public Works Department regarding Boones Ferry Road/Hi.qhway 214 Improvements. Randy Rohman, City of Woodburn Public Works Department read from the City Council Meeting minutes of December 13, 2004 in which Councilor Cox stated that for approximately two months the Council was assured by Staff that the reason for the delay in the traffic signal movement was that it was ODOT's fault since they had to approve the City's application. The City now has the permit and is now moving ahead with the temporary signal. However, he felt there was a miscommunication to the Council as to the status of the permit. He had received some information from Planning Commission members that the hold up was on the part of the City and not ODOT. He requested that the Council receive a full report at the earliest possible date. Mr. Rohman clarified the only comment on the Boones Ferry signal that was made to the Planning Commission was made by him at the November 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. He read his comments from that meeting. He stated his use of the word "miecommunication" probably was a little incorrect. It was probably more of something as a coordination issue between ODOT, the City's traffic consultant and the City. Mr. Rohman provided the Commission with copies of the report that was prepared for Council. He reviewed the report, which provided the sequence of events of what transpired with the permit process getting that signal completed. He indicated lane configurations needed to be finalized prior to obtaining a permit for the signal. In order to move things along, in June 2004, the traffic consultant submitted plans to ODOT that basically used ODOT's desired lane configuration with the through left and the single right. He said this was done to stay somewhat within the construction schedule of the Boones Ferry improvements and did not want to delay it any further because we wanted that work done while school was done. He said this was not the preferred Staff alternative because they felt it did not best meet the needs of the City. ODOT's position had been consistent that they did not want to change the traffic pattern. Mr. Rohman reported the City worked with ODOT's Traffic Engineering Division, Region 2 Engineering Staff and Permitting Staff with District 3. He further explained they continued to work with ODOT on the separated lane issue even though the City had applied for the permit with this configuration. They received ODOT's comments back, which required changes and were incorporated and plans resubmitted in July. On July 12th the City Council awarded the contract for the temporary signal and the contractor was ready to start soon but we still had not obtained the permit. On August 9th, ODOT's Traffic Division indicated there were more changes that had been sent out to District 3 for the permit application. However, that was lost in the inter-departmental mail but was eventually located and taken down. The City consultant obtained the redlined plans with requested changes on August 19th and the plans were modified and resubmitted on August 20~'. There were additional changes required and were again received back to the City on August 30~. Mr. Rohman further reported they had another meeting with ODOT representatives from Region 2 and Traffic Engineering Division between August 20~ and August 30r~ and during that meeting they wanted to discuss what they felt would be the preferred interim alignment. In that meeting, they agreed to the City's position that eventually there would be a three-lane section to the southbound. However, there were some conditions, which he pointed out on a drawing that illustrated what the lane configuration would be in a time period between the existing signal was in place and the temporary signal was installed. Once the temporary signal was installed and operational, ODOT agreed that the final lane configuration would be as you see it out there now with a right-turn a throughway and a left turn. Mr. Rohman indicated at this point all the plan approvals had been for the first attachment. They had to go back to get plan approval for the interim signal configuration (Attachment B) and for the final configuration before the Commission. The permit issued on August 31't did not include the modified signal and the traffic consultant modified the signal plans again. They were resubmitted to ODOT Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 6 of 7 on September 4t~ and was approved with minor changes on October 20~; approved plans with some minor changes were received by the City's consultant on October 25th; changes were incorporated into the plans and sent to ODOT District 3 for the permit and to the contractor. On November 8th District 3 staff were notified by the Traffic Engineering Division that the plans were okay as submitted and that the permit could be issued. The City was notified at the same time. Mr. Rohman indicated they had not done a permit application up to that point and completed the application and submitted on November 16th, approved on November 18~ and work began on November 29~. The final testing on the signal was done on January 6th, the poles removed and the current stripping configuration was installed. He reported the end configuration of the signal after the construction will be done next summer. He commented there is a new right turn lane westbound on Highway 214. Some of ODOT's initial concerns with not allowing that was that it did not support it at the time, they had concerns about additional delays caused by the additional time required for pedestrian movement across the widened roadway. They will be doing some work on Highway 214 to allow this to happen. There were several meetings with ODOT where they discussed options for including the right-turn lane. Although ODOT engineers did have concerns, eventually the City convinced them that in a very short time we would see traffic that would warrant that right-turn lane being installed. He felt the effort did result in a solution that is in the best interest of the C'ity. In dosing, Mr. Rohman. apologized to the Commission. for any misconceptions~ .he gave because he was probably a little too brief when he answered the question back on November 18 , which led to some misconceptions. He stated Councilor Cox's main feeling in his discussions with Planning Commission members was that Public Works staff had been less than honest in its presentations to Council on this plan. Mr. Rohman indicated he wanted to come back and make obviously clear what had happened during the process of getting the signal permit finally approved and go over in some details the reason for the delays. Vice Chairperson Bandelow was very pleased and praised Mr. Rohman for getting that through. Chairperson Lima inquired whether the right lane will encroach into the church? ~ explained the additional widening will happen on the South side and there will not be a significant change in the way the curbs are on the North side and there will not be any encroachment on the church. They will take a little bit of property and some excess right-of-way on the South side which gets rid of the island, which is one of the safety concerns. There will be a median that will block movements from Church St. and a median along the access to the school on Highway 214 to restrict some movements there. Commissioner Vancil commented the removal of the Westbound right-turn lane from an engineering standpoint perhaps made sense but obviously operationally it did not. He thanked Mr. Rohman for hearing and for fighting for that. REPORT_ S A_~. Building Activity for December 2004. B_~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 11-30-04) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON DATE ATTEST Jim M~i(Jer', - Date comn~unity Development Director '7' City ~f Woodburn, Oregon Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 7 of 7 ZONE CHANGE 04-04 WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 14, 2005 APPLICANT/PROPONENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION RECEIVED BY CITY RECORDER ZONE CHANGE 04-04 WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 14, 2005 OPPONENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT# DESCRIPTION v H s T~p ~ - RECE VED BY CITY RECORDER 7 /0 ZONE CHANGE 04-04 WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 14, 2005 OPPONENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT # // /Z DESCRIPTION ~-/~°Y RECEIVED BY CITY RECORDER /3 OPENING STATEMENT FOR LAND USE HEARINGS REQUIRED BY ORS CHAPTER 197 This is the time set for public hearing in Zone Change Case File No. 04-04 to change the zoning map designation of the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road from "Single Family Residential" (RS) to "Medium Density Residential" (RM). The applicant is Tony Kreitzberg and the property owners are Eugene R. Gascho Trust, Judith A. Gascho Trust, Rodney Lee Byers Trust and Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust. The law requires the City to list all substantive criteria relevant to each hearing. The applicable substantive criteria is listed in the notice of public hearing and is as follows: WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.'104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated The full text of all listed criteria is printed in the staff report which has been distributed prior to this headng and is also available now for inspection by any interested persons. 2. All testimony and evidence must be directed toward these criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Please relate your testimony to the listed criteria. 3. The failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the City Council and the parties, an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. 4. The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Council to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. 5. Any participant may request, before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, an opportunity to present additional evidence or testimony. The City Council shall grant the request by either: (a) continuing the public hearing to a specific date and time at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing, or (b) leaving the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence or testimony. If the hearing is continued and new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence or testimony to respond to the new written evidence. If the record is left open rather than continuing the hearing, any participant may file a written request to reopen the record to respond to new evidence submitted while the record was left open and the City Page 1 - Opening Statement for Land Use Hearings Council shall grant that request. The applicant is allowed at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties, to submit final written arguments, but not new evidence, in support of the application. 6. If additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the City Council may allow any party to the hearing a continuance of the hearing, or leave the record open, to allow the party a reasonable opportunity to respond. 7. Everyone addressing the City Council is requested to come forward, use the microphone, and begin by giving your full name and address. We wish to hear from everyone who is interested in the proposal. (For those of you who wish to testify, please be sure to fill out the "Hearing Testimony Sign-Up Sheet" located on the table in the hallway). We will now proceed with the staff report. Page 2 - Opening Statement for Land Use Heatings llA March 14, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development/~',f')/// // Ordinance Approving Legislative Amendment 0~c02; Annual Review of the Woodburn Development Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached ordinance approving Legislative Amendment 05-02. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its February 28, 2005 meeting, directed staff to prepare an ordinance to approve Legislative Amendment 05-02. That ordinance is attached. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL II, PACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Agenda Item Review: City AdministratoP<~~ 37 City Attorney ~/1~ Finance COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2313 (THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE); AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council adopted Resolution No. 1745 on December 8, 2003 initiating the annual review of the Woodburn Development Ordinance; and WHEREAS, revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance were drafted; and WHEREAS, these revisions correct grammatical and typographical errors and make sections of the Woodburn Development Ordinance clearer; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2005, the Woodburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance revisions; and WHEREAS, on February 28, 2005, the Woodburn City Council held a public hearing on the draft Woodburn Development Ordinance regulations revisions; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1.101.06 of Ordinance 2313 Development Ordinance) is repealed. Section 2. Section 1.102 of Ordinance 2313 is following definitions: (the Woodburn amended to add the "Arbor: A latticework bower intertwined with climbin.q vines and flowers. Archway: A coverin.q or enclosin,q arch,. Per.qola: An arbor formed of horizontal trelliswork supported on columns or posts over which vines or other plants are trained. Trellis: A frame or support of lattice work." Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 38 Section 3. The definition of Mobile Food Services in Section 1.102 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows "Mobile Food Services: A vehicle, trailer, wagon or temporary structure, as defined by the state building code used for the preparation and/or sale of food and/or beverages conducted in compliance with the standards of Section 2.20,1. l~Z." Section 4. Section 1.104.03 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "...A use dependent upon a nonconforming building or structure (with the exception afa single family dwellinal shall be terminated, as noted, under any one of the following circumstances..." Section 5. Section 1.104.05 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "...Any additional parking, loading,,...'-'"~.,..,~'"',,. .,...I,',,~,~cr'r,r~inr~.,...,,..,..~, ~, wall and/or refuse facility required by the WDO to accommodate a change in use, or expansion of an existing use shall be subject to the following_: A. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.103.02, shall conform to all parking, loading, and landscaping, wall and refuse facility requirements for the subject use to the standards of the WDO. B. Applications subject to Design Review, Section 5.102.02, where the change or expansion increases the required area for parking, loading, or landscaping by 25 percent or more, shall conform all parking, loading, and landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities to the standards of the WDO. Parking, loading, and landscaping, buffer walls and refuse facilities required for changes or expansions of less than 25 percent shall be limited to those necessary to conform with the increment of change or expansion..." Section &. Table 2.1.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: (See Table on next page) Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. TABLE 2.1.1 Lot Standards for Residential Uses in an RS Zone* 'FXCEPT PUD's subject to Section 3.109 Use Type and Lot Location Minimum Minimum Lot Avarag Minimum Street Lot Area Width · Lot Frontage Depth A. Single Family Dwelling, Site Built; Group Home; Family Child Day Care; Manufactured Home, on a Lot; & Residential Sales Interior Lot 6000 sq. ft. 60 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft. 1. For an interior lot. Comer Lot 8000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft. 2. For a comer lot. Flag Lot*P'* or Cul de sac Lol~ 6000 sq. ft. 60 ft. at the front 100 ft. Fla,q lot: The driveway 3. For either a flag or cul de sac setback line. access easement or lot. strip of land per Secffon 3.104.05. · *Fla~ lot dimension and area standards EXCLUDE the driveway access, per Cul de sac lot: 40 feet. Section 3.104.05 attached. · **Within a subdivision, not more than one (1) flag lot shall be located behind another lot as shown in F/gum 6.6 attached.. 10,000 sq. 100 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft. B. Duplex Dwelling on a Comer Lot ff.. 1. For a corner lot. Section 7. Section 2.102.06.C.1 .b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "...1) Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a garage (or carport in the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a wall." Section 8. Section 2.103.06.C.1 .b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "...1 } Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a garage (or carport in the case of a manufactured home} or adiacent to a wall..." Section 9. Section 2.103.07.G of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "~'"~;--..v~i~.~-'""~ .... '"* ......... ~'.v. ~ ,,~ .... ~,,,~,,~, .... .;*~'"'. _.'~ ~.. ~~_ .... -.~ Page 3- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 40 Lot covera.qe by the primary and accessory structures EXCEPT accessory structures in the rear yard area, shall be: 1. A maximum of 40 percent for lots containinR a primary building with an avera.qe hei.qht of 14 feet or less, and. 2. A maximum of 35 percent for lots with a primary buildin,q with an averaRe hei.qht of more than 14 feet." Section 10. Section 2.104.06.C.1 .b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1 ) Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a garage (or carport in the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a wall." Section 11. Section 2.104.06.C.2 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "a. Development in an RM zone, except for a sin.qle family dwellin.q and duplex dwellina, shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Toble 2.1.7." bo A sin.qle family dwellin.q or duplex dwellin.q in the RM zone shall be subiect to the setback and buffer improvement standards in Section 2. ! 02.06.6." The building setback from a private access easement shall be a minimum of 5 feet. c-d..= Off Street Parking, Maneuvering and Storage: Clear Vision Area: Fences, walls, landscaping and signs shall be subject to clear vision area standards, Section 3.103. I0. et_. Vehicular Access: Permitted in conformance with Section 3.104. Section 12. Section 2.104.06.C.2.c.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1 ) Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback or any yard abutting a street EXCEPT for parking and maneuvering within a driveway leading to a garage (or carpod in the case of a manufactured home) or adjacent to a wall." Page 4- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 41 Section 13. Section 2.105.05.C.l.a.2 of Ordinance 2313 is repealed. Section 14. Section 2.105.05.C.l.b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1) Off street parking, maneuvering and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking, maneuvering and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 15. Section 2.105.05.C.2.c.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1) Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking maneuvefin.q and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 16. Section 2.106.01 .H.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1. Finance and Insurance (52) EXCEPT pawn shops (522298) and check cashing, pay day loan and cash transfer establishments [other than banks] as a predominant, ancillary, or required supporting use ba~ks." Section 17. Section 2.106.05.C. 1 .a.2 of Ordinance 2313 is repealed. Section 18. Section 2.106.05.C.l.b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1) Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required yard or special setback EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 19. Section 2.106.05.C.2.c of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 20. Section 2.107.01 .K.2 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "2. Fitness and recreational sports (7139-t-4_)." Section 21. Section 2.109.06.C.1 .b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 22. Section 2.109.06.C.2.c of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 23. Section 2.110.06.C.1 .b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall." Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Section 24. Section 2.110.06.C.2.c of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking and storage adjacent to a wall." Section 25. Section 2.111.05.C.1 .b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parkin.q and storage adiacent to a wall." Section 26. Section 2.111.05.C.2.c of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Off street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required setback EXCEPT for parking and stora.qe adjacent to a wall." Section 27. Section 2.201.03.B is amended to read as follows: "B. Location and Height in Yards Adjacent to a Street. 1. The location and height shall comply with the clear vision area standards, Section 3.103. I0. The location and height shall not exceed a height of 42 inches above the curb elevation, when located on the front lot line abutting the street. For streets without curbs the maximum height shall be measured relative to the elevation of the center line of the improved street. 3. The location and hei.qht shall not exceed a height of 48 inches above the curb elevation, when located on the side lot line abuttin.q the street. For streets without curbs the maximum height shall be measured relative to the elevation of the center line of the improved street. ~.4. The height relative to the ground elevation under the fence may increase one foot in height for each 6 feet of setback from the lot line, not to exceed a maximum height of seven feet." Section 28. Section 2.202.03.B is amended to read as follows: "B. Location and Height in Yards Adjacent to a Street. 1. The location and height shall comply with the clear vision area standards, Section ,1.11:)3. I0. The location and height shall not exceed a height of 42 inches above the curb elevation, when located on the front lot line abutting the street. For streets without curbs the maximum height shall be measured relative to the elevation of the center line of the improved street. Page 6- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 3. The location and height shall not exceed a height of 48 inches above the curb elevation, when located on the side lot line abuttin.q the street. For streets without curbs the maximum height shall be measured relative to the elevation of the center line of the improved street. ~.4_. The height relative to the ground elevation under the fence, may increase one foot in height for each 6 feet of setback from the lot line, not to exceed a maximum height of seven feet." Section 29 Section 2.203.13.C.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1. Off street parking areas shall comply with the required setback er 20 ~-...~ fr ,,,,~..,-,,~,-,, -,,-,,-~ ,-,- ....... ~,~,-~ ..... !s greater." C. ,','~,, a '-' Section 3~) Section 2.203.15.B.9.c.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1) On-street: 8 feet x 283_ feet." Section 31 Section 2.203.15.B.10.a of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "a. All park streets and common park walks shall be illuminated with a minimum of 0.25.37 candle power of light." Section 32 Tables 2.2.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: (See Table on next page) Page 7- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. TABLE 2.2.1 In-Park Separations Matrix* Clearance From Manufactured ~cceasory Decks, Landings, Garages Dwellings & Buildings Steps, Ramps, Cabanas Awnings & Carports Property line & park street 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Park sidewalk 2 feet 2 feet 0 feet 2 feet 3 feet 0 feet 6 feet Mfrd. dwelling or cabana on same 0 feet lot (When Permitted) Mfrd. dwelling or cabana on 10 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet adjacent lot Park buildings 10 feet 6 feet 6 feet 10 feet Acce~_-ory bldg. on same lot 3 feet (~ feet 0 feet ~ feet Accessory bldg. on adjacent lot 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet Decks, landings, steps, ramps, 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet awnings & carports on same lot Decks, landings, steps, ramps, 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet awnings & carports on adjacent lot Garage on same lot 6 feet 3 feet 0 feet 60_ feet Garage on adjacent lot 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet 6 feet a) NOTE: See Section 9034_(e) of the ~2002 Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Standards for exceptions to this schedule. b) Except for clearance between manufactured dwellings on adjacent lots and between manufactured dwellings and property lines, clearance shown in this schedule may be further reduced according to the Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Specialty Code or the Oregon Structural Code with prior approval from the authority having jurisdiction. c) Set-backs to perimeter property lines may be greater than those shown in the above table. See municipalities planning and zoning ordinance (WDO Section 2.203.15.B.3). d) The set-backs and clearances required in this table shall be measured to the exterior walls of the structures and do not include eave overhangs except for awnings and carports. *SOURCE: Table 903, t996 Oregon Manufactured Dwelling Standards Section 33. Section 2.203.15.B.15.b of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "b. Extedor Siding and Roofing Materials: Each manufactured home shall have exterior siding and roofing which in color, material and appearance, is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the community or which is comparable to the predominant materials used in surrounding dwellings. For the purposes of this Section, the definition defin!t!ons..." Page 8 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 45 Section 34. Section 3.101.02 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to add a subsection that would read as follows: "K. Street Access. No more than 25 dwellin.q units, includin.q existin.q units, shall have their only means of public street access to a cul de sac, dead end street, or other street that does not provide two non-overlappin.q public street routes to a maior arterial identified on the Woodburn Transportation System Plan.." Section 35. Section 3.101.02.B of Ordinance 2313 is amended as follows: "B. No access permit shall be issued unless the internal street(s), boundary street(s) and cb'utt!.".~ ~ street(s) are constructed pursuant to Section 3.1~)1.02. C, UNLESS or until the applicant has obtained an exception as provided in this section." Section 36. Section 3.101.02.D.l.b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended as follows: 1) One, 12 foot wide travel lane in each direction, ~"'"~' "~"'" in addition to the required curbs, where the classification specifies a maximum standard of two travel lanes;" Section 37. Section 3.101.02.D.2.b.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended as follows: "1) One, 12 foot wide travel lane in each direction, ;""~' "~"'" in addition to the required curbs in each direction where the classification specifies a maximum standard of two travel lanes;" Section 38. Section 3.102.02 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "All permanent utility service to development shall be underground EXCEPT where overhead high-voltage electric facilities exist and for partitioned lots that are currently being served by overhead wires or cables." ,Section 39. Section 3.103.07 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to add a subsection that read as follows: "C. Arbor, Archway, Pergola and Trellis shall be EXEMPT from the setback requirement from a lot line adjacent to a street." Section 40. Section 3.104.01 .B.3 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "3. Administration of City access permit standards and guidelines. a. Type I Applications. Development subject to one of the following Type I applications: Design ~ Standards for Single Family and Duplex Residential Dwellings, Section 5. ! 0 !.0 !; or Page 9 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 2) IDr~-.~.-%,~r'l',~ I ;r~,~ A~i;,,~r~,~ C',~,~d.l,,~n ': ~nl n'7. ,-,r m Access to a City Street, EXCLUDING Major and Minor Arterial Streets, Section 5.101.12 shall be subject to the access standards of this Section and street improvement standards in Section 3.101 ,.EXCEPT when the subject propedy is bound by the requirements of a precedent land use decision that has not been modified by a subsequent land use decision. b. Type II and III Applications. Development subject to one of the following Type II and III applications: 1) Type II Design Review, Section 5.102.02; 2) Type III Design Review, Section 5.103.02; 3) Access to City Major or Minor Aderial Street, Section 5.102.04; 4) Preliminary Partition Approval, Section 5.102.01; 5) Preliminary PUD Plan Approval, Section 5.103.07; or 6) Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Section 5.103.09 shall be subject to the access standards and guidelines specified in this Section and street improvement standards in Section 3.101 EXCEPT when the subject property is bound by the requirements of a precedent land use decision that has not been modified by a subsequent land use decision. Section 41. Section 3.104.02.D.4 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "4. By-Pass Lane. A development providing a dfive-thraugh for passenger loading and/or unloading or for drive-up services shall include a by- pass lane to a site exist with a minimum width of 8 feet." Section 42. Section 3.104.05.B & C of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "B. Ddveway Serving One (1) orTwo (2) Dwelling Units. (See Figure 6.7) 1. Paved Driveway Width. Page 10-COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 4.1 For a distance less than 40 feet between the access street or shared access driveway and the attached or detached garage doorway: 1) 20 feet minimum and 26 feet maximum width for a garage with a doorway(s) to serve entry by not more than two vehicles at one time: and 2) 20 feet minimum and up to a 30 feet maximum width for a garage with doorway(s) to serve entry by three vehicles at one time provided the maximum width shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot frontage serving the driveway entrance. be For a distance of 40 or more feet between the access street or shared access driveway and the attached or detached garage doorway: 12 feet minimum width, flared to the required exterior parking pad in front of the garage that is 20 feet maximum width. Paved Parking Pad at a Garage Entrance (or carport for a manufactured home). There shall be an improved parking space, or pad, abutting the attached or detached garage doorway for each opposing parking space within the garage. The exterior pad area for each vehicle shall have the minimum dimensions of 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. Driveway Serving Three (3) or Four (4) Dwelling Units. (See Figure 6.7 & 6.8) 1. Paved Driveway Width. For a distance less than 40 feet between the access street or shared access driveway and the attached or detached garage doorway: 20 feet minimum and 26 feet maximum width. For a distance of 40 or more feet between the access street or shared access driveway and the attached or detached, garage doorway: 20 feet minimum width, including the required exterior parking pad in front of the garage. Page 11 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Paved Parking Pad at a Garage (or carport for a manufactured home) Entrance. There shall be an improved parking space, or pad, abutting the attached or detached garage doorway for each opposing parking space within the garage. The exterior pad area for each vehicle shall have the minimum dimensions of 10 feet wide by 20 feet long." Section 43. Table 3.1.4 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: TABLE 3.1.4 Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions (See Figure 6.10) Aisle T~)e Width Curb Length 1-Way Aisle 2-Way Aisle Stall Depth (Measured Width Width (A) (B) from the (D) (E) (E) (F) midpoint of the double stripe) (c) 0 Standard 8.0 feet 22.5 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 8.0 feet (Parallel) Compact 8.0 feet 19.5 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 8.0 feet 30° Standard 9.0 feet 18.0 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 17.0 feet Compact 7.5 feet 15.0 feet 12.0 feet 24.0 feet 14.0 feet 45° Standard 9.0 feet 14.5 feet 15.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet Compact 7.5 feet 12.5 feet 13.0 feet 24.0 feet 16.0 feet 60° Standard 9.0 feet 10.5 feet 18.0 feet 24.0 feet 20.0feet Compact 9~7.5 feet 8.5 feet 15.0 feet 24.0 feet 17.0 feet 90° Standard 9.0 feet 9.0 feet 24.0 feet 24.0 feet 19.0 feet Compact 907.,5 feet 7.5 feet 22.0 feet 24.0 feet 15.0 feet Section 44.. Section 3.104.05.E of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "E. Commercial and Industrial Use. 1. Paved T;-;c ;¥c;' Driveway Width. a. Paved One-way Driveway:. 1 ) Width: 12 feet minimum, 20 foot maximum. ("No parkin.q". restrictions shall be posted by the owner.) b. Paved Two-way Driveway W!dfh: Page 12 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 4,9 With no turn lane: Throat and travel lane width 26 feet minimum, 36 feet maximum. I"No parking" restrictions shall be posted by the owner.) With a turn lane: Throat width 36 feet minimum, 40 feet maximum. {"No parking" restrictions shall be posted by the owner.)" Section 45. Section 3.107.03.E.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1. The main pedestrian entrance of each dwelling unit, EXCLUDING manufactured dwellings in a MDP and s~te-lmo~ dwellings on flag lots, shall face the street." Section 46. Section 3.107.03.F of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "F. Windows on Facades Fronting a Street. At least 15 percent of the toro! fa~:ade wall surface of a dwelling unit facing a ~..J.r~,~.J' ~'"'nt'"'"e - -- ........... ~ a front lot line. shall be windows, excludina roofs and non-habitable wall area under the end of a roof, and excludina the clara.cie faq:ade." Section 47. Section 3.107.06.B of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "5. Buffer Wall. A solid brick or architectural wall with anti-graffiti surface... J6. Sidewalk Location and Street Trees. Sidewalks should/shall be Iocate~ at the property line along streets with street trees, Section 3.106." Section 48. Section 3.107.06.D of Ordinance 2313 is amended to add a subsection that reads as follows: "D. Building Location Guidelines. 1_. Within the prescribed setbacks, building location and orientation should compliment abutting uses and development patterns. 2. The maximum yard abuttin.q a street should be 150 feet." Section 49. Section 3.107.08.B.5.g of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "g. Altering roof lines, constructing cornices, or parapets that offset the continuous plane of large buildings and extended building lines.3.108 Section 50. Section 3.109.02 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "The design of a PUD plan may be flexible to the extent..." Page 13 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 5O Section $1. Table 4.1 of Ordinance 2313 i$ amended to read as follows: TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF DECISIONS BY TYPE Section Decisioq II III IV V Appeal 5.101.12 Access Permit to a City Street EXCLUDING a Major and Minor Arterial [] Street 5.102.04 Access Permit to a City Major or Minor Arterial Street [] 5.104.01 Annexation, Quasi-Judicial [] 5.104.01 Annexation, Legislative 4.102.01 Appeals: Type II or III Decision 4.102.02 Call-Up Review by the City Council: Type II or III Decision 5.104.02 Comprehensive Plan Change, Owner Initiated 13 4.101.10 Comprehensive Plan Change, Legislative [] 5.103.01 Conditional Use 5.101.01 Design Review of Single Family and Duplex Residential Dwellings [] 5.102.02 Design Review for All Structures LESS THAN 1000 Sq. Ft. [] 5.103.02 Design Review for All Structures 1000 Sq. FL OR MORE [] 5.103.12 Exception to Street Right of Way and Improvement Requirements g n 4.102.04 Extension for a Development Der~ion [] 5.101.02 Fence and Free Standing Wall Pra-constmction Review [] 5.101.03 Grading Permit [] 5.103.03 Historically or Architecturally Significant Site, Specific Conditional Use [] 5.104.03 Formal Interpretation of the WOO [] 5.101.04 Manufactured Dwelling Park, Final Plan Approval O 5.103.04 Manufactured Dwelling Park, Prelimina~J Approval [] 4.102.08 Modification of Conditions EXCLUDING Limits on Use D 4.102.08 Modification of Co~ditions Limiting Use [] 5.102.01 Partition, Preliminary Approval D 5.101.05 Partition, Final Plat Approval D 5.103.05 Phasing Plan, Subdivision, PUD, Manufactured Dwelling Park or any other [] Land Use Permit 5.103.06 Planned Unit Development (PUD), Design Plan Final Approval [] 5.103.07 Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary Plan Approval D 5.101.06 Planned Unit Development (PUD), Final Plan Approval [] 5.101.07 Property Une Adjustment; consolidation of Lots D 5.102.05 Residential Architectural Standards Substitution 4.102.10 Revocation of Previously Approved Pem'~it [] Section 52. Section 4.101.06.C of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "C. Type III Decisions. (Quasi-Judicial} Type III decisions involve significant discretion and evaluation of subjective approval standards, yet are not required to be heard by the City Council, except upon appeal. The process for these land use decisions is controlled by ORS 197.763. Notice of the application and the Planning Commission or Design Review Board hearing is published and mailed to Page 14 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 51 the applicant, recognized neighborhood associations and property owners within 250 feet of the subiect property. Notice must be issued at least 20 days before the initial evidentiary hearing pr~ ~r!n~, and the staff report must be available at least seven days f~e-before the hearing. At the evidenfiary hearings_ held before the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board, all issues are addressed. The decision of the Planning Commission or Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council for a de novo public hearing. The City Council decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LUB^ within 21 days after it becomes final. In the event any decision is not classified, it shall be treated as a Type III decision." Section 55. Section 4.101.07.E.2.c of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "c. The applicant's written narrative statement sfa-feme~ demonstrating that all applicable criteria stated in Sections 5.102,. 10;~ and. 104 are met." Section 54. Section 4.101.09.A.2 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "2. Type III or IV. Notice for all initial evidentiary public hearings concerning Type III and IV decisions shall conform to the requirements of this subsection. At least 20 days before a Type III initial evidentiary hearing, or at least 10 days before the first hearing of a Type IV application the C!ty_Director shall prepare and send, by first class mail, notice of the hearing to all record owners of property within 250 feet of the subiect property and to any City- recognized neighborhood association whose territory includes the subject property. If an application would change the zone of property that includes any part of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park, notice shall also be mailed to the tenants at least 2.0 days before but not more than 40 days before the initial evidentiary hearing. Notice of the application hearing shall include the following information..." Section 55. Section 4.101.09.A.3 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "3. Type V. At least 20 days before te an initial evidentiary public hearing at which a Type V decision is to be considered, the Commun!t¥ Do-;c!cp,'-n.,~nt Director shall issue a public notice that conforms to the requirements of this subsection and any applicable state statute..." Section $&. Section 4.101.09.B of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "B. Posted Notice. Type III and IV. Notice of an initial evidentiary,public hearing for a Type III or IV decision shall be posted on the subject property as follows..." Page 15-COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Section 57. Section 4.101.12.D of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "D. The City Council on appeal or call-up for review of a Planning Commission or Community Development Director decision, shall consider the Planning Commission or Community Development Director decision. In all appeal or review heatings, the applicant and other paP, ties shall have an opportunity to present testimony, arguments and evidence on all applicable criteria. The presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence shall not be limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal. If the City Council calls_ a Planning Commission decision up for review, the City Council may limit the issues that it will allow_. The rights of participants to continuances or apen record ~ applicable to initial evidentiary heatings do not apply. Section 58. Section 4.102.03.B.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1. A complete application for final approval has nat been filed and deemed complete by the Community Development Director; or..." Section 59. Section 4.102.10 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "4.102.10 Revocation or N~odiflcation of a Previously Approved Permit A. m~, ,,.m,-,~,, ,,,~,~, De,m;+ A ,-,,-, .... ,~1~, May ~ Authority to Revoke~l or Modifie~y_. The Planning Commission may initiate a proceedin.q to revoke or modify A11 a__ quasi-judicial permit~ ~ revoked ar mod!fled if the Planning Commission determines there is a substantial likelihood that any of the following slf'Jaf!ens conditions exists: An applicant, or the applicant's successor in interest, fails to fully comply with Qone or more conditions of t-he permit approval or otherwise does not comply fully with the City's approval. ~ An applicant, or the applicant's successor in interest, failed ta complete the work within the time frame or in the manner approved without obtaining an extension of time or modification of the permit from the .qrantin.q authority. Page 16 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 53 3. The activities of the use, or the use itself, are substantially different or have substantially increased in intensity from what was approved.; or The use is subject to the nonconforming use regulations, the applicant has not obtained approval, and has substantially changed the use i~ ~=~,4~ies-or substantially increased the intensity of the use :~" ,.,,.,,,r,.,,:,.,,,~ after ~ the use became nonconforming. The applicant or the applicant's representatives either intentionally or unintentionally committed a material misrepresentation of fact in the application or the evidence submitted in support of the application. a. For purposes of this section, "material misrepresentation of fact" means a misstatement of factual information that: 1. Was submitted by the applicant in support of the application; 2. Could have been corrected by the applicant at the time of application; and 3. Formed the sole basis for approval of the application pursuant to an applicable approval criterion. A "material misrepresentation of fact" does not include misstatements of fact made by City staff or caused by failure of another party to' appear or adequately testify. B. Process for Revocation or Modification. Revocation or modification shall be processed as a Type IV decision. The Community Development Director cr ~ny pd:'ate comp!a!n[ng part;' shall have the burden of proving, based on substantial evidence in the whole record, that the applicant or the applicant's successor has in some way violated the City"s approval. C. Possible Actions at the Revocation Hearing. Depending on the situation, the P!ann!ng Camm!ss!an City may take any of the actions described below. If the decision is to modify the permit., ~-the P-I~mning Ccmm~ss!on City, may not approve the ne;-; uso or a use that is more intense than originally approved unless the possibility af this change has been stated in the public notice. Uses or development which are alleged ta have not fulfilled Page 17 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. conditions, violate conditions or the use !s not to be inconsistent with the City's approval may be subject to the following actions: The m,-,,~,-,;,~,-, r-.,.,,~,,.,,;,,;,-,,-, City may find that the use or development is complying with the conditions of the approval. In this case, the ~ d .... ~ .....* it shall be "'"'-' .... ,~ *,-, -'-~*;"' '~ not be altered· ..... ~ ....... perm .................... The P!ann!ng Comm!:s!en City may modify the cppmva! permit if it finds that the use or development does not fully comply with the conditions of approval or otherwise does not comply with what was approved, that the violations are not substantial enough to warrant revocation and that the use can comply with the original approval criteria if cedain conditions are met. lin this case, the P!ann~ng Corem!sS!eh City may modify the existing conditions, add new conditions to ensure compliance with the approval criteria, or refer the case to the code compliance officer for enforcement of the existing conditions. o The P~'-*"'"';n-'* r,,-,,.~,,~,,i,-,,., City may revoke the ........ I ...~. ..... a permit if it finds there are substantial violations of conditions or failure to implement conditions of ,',,';""~...v. I'"~'~._..... '"~v.,.. ~e~'~s~''''~'- ~..~..~ a permit, such that the original approval criteria for the use or development are not being met. D. Effect of Revocation. In the event permit approval is revoked, the use or development becomes illegal. The use or development shall be terminated within thirty days of the date the ..... "'"'+;""~ ?'a~ "'~ I' '"~' ...... ~ by +he m,-,,~,~;~,,-, r-,-,,.,,,.,,~,~,-,~, that all appeals periods have been exhausted, unless the decision provides otherwise. In the event the deals!on maker's City Council's decision on a revocation request is appealed, the revocation action shall be automatically stayed until the appeal is resolved· Section 60. Section 5.101 .D of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "D. Criteria. The criteria are contained in Section 3.107.0!." Section 61, Section 5.101.06.D.2.c of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "c. The City Attorney shall C-eFJ~ review and approve the ~.~..~.~.....~.~. ~ ~....-~..*~.~ .' ....... * planned unit development documents, includin~ the and Conditions. Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) as to form ONLY for compliance with conditions of development approval." Poge 18-COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 55 Section 62. Section 5.102.02.A.1 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "1. All structures ~ LESS THAN 1000 sq. ft. of gross floor area e~ single family and duplex dwellings in the NCOD, but EXCLUDING structures sub~ect to ~YPE ~ Design Review." Section ~3. Section 5.102.03.C.2 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "2. Development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent prope~ies or to the use of the subject prope~y. Factors ~o be considered in determining whether development consistent with the adjustment is "in~u~ous" include but are not limited to:..." Section ~4. Section 5.103.02.A of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "All structures ~ 1000 sq. ff. OR MORE of gross floor area ~ ~ !0% ........... ~ .......... ~;~ ..... ~ gr~c~cr, EXCLUDING stm~ures subje~ to ~PE I Design Review; and single family and duplex dwellings in the NCO~." Section 65. Section 5.103.04.C.1 of Ordinance 2313 is ~mended to re~d ~s follows: "~. The proposed use sh~ll be ~ special permitted use within the zoning district." Section ~. Section 5.~04.0~ .D.1 .c.1 of Ordinance 23~3 is ~mended to re~d ~s follows: "~) L~nds designated for residential ~nd community uses should demonstrate substantial conformance to: ~), b), ~nd e) ~nd ~t least one of c)(i), cl iii) or d), as stated below; and ..." Section ~7. Section 5.~04.03.A of Ordinance 23~3 is ~mended fo re~d ~s follows: "A. Purpose: The purpose of ~ a formal interpretation is to provide ~ procedure for the City Council to consider ~nd to cl~ri~ through a public he~rings process ~n ~mbiguous element of the WDO." Section ~8. Rgure 6.10 of Ordinance 23~ 3 is amended to re~d ~s follows: (See Figure on the next page) Page 19 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 56 Note:. C, D, D-0, F.,-I, & B-2 re{ate to Tattle 3.1.4, Figure 6.10 Parking Space and Aisle Dimensions Section 69. The amendments and revisions made by this Ordinance are justified and explained by the Legislative Findings which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 70. This Ordinance is effective on May 1, 2005. Section 71. The sections and subsections of this Ordinance are severable. The invalidity of any section or subsection shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections and subsections. Approved as to form: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor City Attorney Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Page 20 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. $? Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder AI"I'EST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Poge 21 -COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AMENDMENT OF THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE BACKGROUND: The WDO was adopted by the City Council in July 2002. Section 1.101.08 of the WDO states that the Community Development Director shall report potential modifications of the WDO (due to new state and/or federal laws and rules, case law precedents, scrivener errors, and interpretations) to the City Council at the first meeting in the month of November so that the City Council may consider initiating appropriate measures to modify the WDO. A list of issues was provided to the City Council at their November 10, 2003 meeting. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1745 on December 8, 2003 initiating the annual review of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO). The proposed revisions have been sorted into two categories. The proposed revisions in the first category ore minor amendments to the WDO, which do not require Measure 56 notice. The proposed revisions in the second category are major amendments to the WDO that require Measure 56 notice. The proposed revisions in the first category are the subject of this decision. On September 27, 2004, the Mayor appointed a focus group to review city staff's draft revisions to the WDO. The focus group consisted of three members representing various interests composed as follows: 1. Jim Cox, City Council Member 2. Richard Knoles, Planning Commission Member 3. Dave Christoft, Business Community Representative The focus group began its review of the draft revisions of the WDO (first category) on October 29, 2004 and completed its review on December 10, 2004. The focus group by consensus made numerous revisions to city staff's draft. On January 27, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider public testimony regarding the proposed revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance. On February 10, 2005 the Planning Commission adopted a final order recommending the City Council approve the Final Focus Group Draft. A notice of public hearing to be held before the City Council on February 28, 2005 was published in the Woodburn Independent in compliance with City ordinances. WDO Update Legislative Findings 59 The final draft revisions of the WDO were made available for public review at City Hall. This proposal was processed as a Type V legislative application that requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the proposed WDO revisions to the City Council. The City Council is the final decision maker. FINDINGS,,: The Woodburn Development Ordinance was adopted by the City Council effective in July 2002. The WDO was an entirely new code from the previous City codes. It was expected that after the ordinance was implemented, minor revisions would need to be made in regard to policy changes, clarifications, and grammatical and typographical errors. Thus, a process was included in Section 1.101.08 of the WDO for an annual review of the WDO. The proposed revisions to the WDO were generated as pad of the annual review of the WDO process. Substantive revisions to the WDO are summarized as follows: 1. Add a process for the revocation or modification of a permit. 2. Allow non-conforming single family dwellings in all zones to be rebuilt if destroyed to allow for homeowners to refinance their homes. o Amend the code so that a change or expansion of an existing use triggers the wall and refuse facilities requirements in the code. Amend lot coverage in the Retirement Community Single Family Residential (RIS) Zone to allow a maximum of 40% for lots containing a primary building with an average height of 14 feet or less, and a maximum of 35% for lots with a primaw building with an average height of more than 14 feet. This proposed revision to the WDO will allow the RIS Zone to have the same lot coverage standard as the Single Family Residential (RS) Zone. 5. Allow for exceptions to the front yard setback for small structures (i.e. - trellis, arbor, pergola and archway). 6. Update Manufactured Dwelling Park standards to make them consistent with state law. o Revise the Medium Density Residential (RM) Zone so that the single family dwelling setback standards in the RS zone apply to single family dwellings in the RM zone. WDO Update Legislative Findings 2 60 8. Move the provision in the commercial zones that the maximum yard abutting a street shall be 150 feet to the architectural guidelines section of the WDO where this provision would be a "should." The above stated revision would allow staff more flexibility in applying the 150 foot maximum yard setback based on the size and shape of a commercial lot and the existing buildings on a commercial site. Allow the initial required height of a fence on the side lot line abutting a street to be increased from 3 1/2 feet to 4 feet at the side propedy line adjacent to the street to allow for more privacy and security. 10.Remove the requirement that property line adjustments be subject to the access permit requirement and link the access section to the street section of the WDO. Two decisions (Court of Appeals and LUBAJ were made where it was found that the nexus did not exist between a street improvement and a property line adjustment. Also, there is currently not a link in the access section to the street section of the WDO. 11. Reduce the required by-pass lane width for a drive-through from 12 feet to 8 feet. A 24 foot wide drive-through and by-pass lane is wider than necessary. It is difficult for an applicant to meet the 24 foot wide drive-through and by-pass lane requirement on a commercial infill site. 12. Require at least 2 public street accesses for residential subdivisions with 25 or more lots. The WDO is unclear in regard to the City's ability to condition 2 public street accesses. Several subdivision applications have been processed where the City determined that 2 public street accesses were necessary. 13. Require the paving of a driveway and parking for a detached garage. The paving of a driveway and parking for an attached garage is required in Section 3.104.05.B and C of the WDO. Requiring the paving of a driveway and parking for a detached garage is consistent with the above stated standard in the WDO. 14. Provide a 12 foot minimum and 20 foot maximum one-way commercial and industrial driveway width standard. A one-way commercial and industrial driveway width standard was not included in the WDO. Many commercial and industrial developments have wanted to provide a one-way driveway and had no standard in the code to follow. 15. Change the compact parking stall width from 9 feet to 7.5 feet to match the 7.5 foot curb length for a 90 degree aisle. The compact WDO Update Legislative Findings 3 61 parking stall width needs to be changed to accurately reflect a compact parking stall width. 16. Remove the non-habitable spaces in single family dwellings from the window calculation requirement. It is very difficult for the window calculation requirement to be met when non-habitable spaces (i.e - garage and attic) in single family dwellings are counted in the window calculation requirement. 17.Revise Section 4.102 of the WDO concerning appeals to make it consistent with state law. 18. Remove the code language that expansions adding less than 10% gross floor area trigger an administrative Type II design review request. Structures have to be less than 1,000 square feet to trigger an administrative Type II design review request. 19.Revise code to allow parking in a required setback adjacent to a wall.. Landscaping is already required in the front yard setback of the RM, CO, CG, IP, IL and P/SP zones to help screen cars on the front of sites that are parked perpendicular to a wall. Section 3.106.03.A.2.b.2 requires that all parking areas abutting a street shall provide a 42 inch radical visual screen from the abutting street grade. Acceptable design techniques to provide the screening include plant materials; harms; free standing, architectural walls with an anti-graffiti finish; and depressed grade for the parking area. All screening shall comply with the vision standards of Section 3.103.10 of the WDO. 20.Revise use of "cedify" related to review of Planned Unit Development Final Plan Approval. Need to change "cedify" to "review and approve" since "cedify" does not accurately reflect the approval process. The proposed revisions to the WDO are consistent with the goals and policies in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and no changes are proposed that require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan because the proposed revisions are relatively minor. WDO Update Legislative Findings 4 llB March 8, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Randy Rohman, Public Works Program Manager Special Transportation Fund Agreement RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into the STF108 Marion County Rural Agreement with Salem Area Transit District to receive $20,555.00 in Special Transportation Fund grant funding for elderly and disabled transportation. BACKGROUND: The Special Transportation Fund (STF) is derived from a portion of the State of Oregon cigarette tax and dedicated for use in providing transportation for the elderly and disabled. The city's Dial-A-Ride program has been awarded varying amounts of these elderly and disabled transportation grant funds on an annual basis since 1988. The state allocates these funds by formula based on population to each county. In Marion County, in accordance with state statute, the special transportation funds are administered and disbursed by the Salem Area Transit District. DISCUSSION: The city submitted an application to Salem Transit for the STF elderly and disabled transportation funding. Through the grant process the City was awarded $20,555.00 for its Dial-A-Ride Program to provide transportation for elderly and disabled residents of the community. Staff recommends that the resolution be approved authorizing the City Administrator to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. FINANCIALIMPACT: The approved 2004-2005 Transit Fund revenue budget included elderly and disabled Special Transportation Fund. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator~''/_ City Attorney ~--.[ $22,000 from the Finance,. ,/~ 63 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO THE STF 108 MARION COUNTY RURAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SALEM AREA TRANSIT DISTRICT FOR FY 2004-2005 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn applied for State of Oregon Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund (STF) grant funding for fiscal year 2004-2005 as approved for under Oregon Statute; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn has been awarded $20,555.00 in operational assistance for the Dial-A-Ride program; and WHEREAS, the Salem Area Transit District administrates the Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund for rural Marion County, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into the STF 108 Marion County Rural Agreement with the Salem Area Transit District, which is affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, to secure Elderly and Disabled Special Transportation Fund grant funding for Dial-A-Ride operating assistance. Section 2. That the City Administrator is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 64. City Attorney APPROVED: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon ATTACHMENT "A" Due to the length of the attachment, it has not been included with the Council packet. The attachment will be available for review at the Public Works office or at the council meeting. 66 llC March 10, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council N. Robed Shields, City Attorney Measure 37/Annexation Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Pass the resolution. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: At your February 28, 2005 meeting, you discussed the issue of whether the City wants to require waiver of Measure 37 claims when property is annexed (copy of pdor staff report attached). The Council unanimously agreed to implement this policy and requested that l draft the attached resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Passage of the proposed resolution could save the City the cost of defending against future Measure 37 claims. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator.~'~'/ City Attorney ~ Finance~ 67 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION REQUIRING WAIVER OF MEASURE 37 CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ANNEXING PROPERTY INTO THE CITY OF WOODBURN. WHEREAS, the Oregon voters passed Measure 37 at the November 2004 election; and WHEREAS, Measure 37 permits a property owner who owned property prior to enactment of a land use regulation restricting its use to make a claim against the governing body enforcing a land use regulation for the reduction in the value of the property; and WHEREAS, when properties are annexed into the City of Woodburn from the Urban Growth Area, new land use regulations will apply which may restrict uses and result in Measure 37 claims; and WHEREAS, whenever a property owner requests annexation, the City has determined that the property owner is choosing to be bound by the land use regulations then in effect within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City will not consider any request for annexation into the City limits unless all persons or entities with an ownership interest in the property submit a written waiver of any Measure 37 claim that may accrue for uses that could have been made of the property prior to its annexation into the City of Woodbum. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Approved: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder Kathryn Figley, Mayor ATI'EST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 1 - Council Bill No. Resolution No. 68 February 24, 2005 COPY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: N. Robert Shields, City Attorney SUBJECT: Annexation Policy After Passage of Ballot Measure 37 RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and provide policy direction on whether the City wants to require the waiver of future Measure 37 claims when property is annexed. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In the November 2004 election, the Oregon voters passed Measure 37. On November 29, 2004, the City Council passed Ordinance 2544, establishing a process for the evaluation of claims. Since the passage of the measure, I have been trying to stay informed about the processing of claims on a statewide basis. So far, counties have experienced many more claims than cities. Washington County appears to be the leader with over 65 claims filed. Approximately 20 claims have been filed against Marion County. The City of Woodburn, as you are aware, currently has only one filed claim. Several counties have already processed and granted land use waivers under the measure. I know of no city that has granted waivers, as of this date. The general consensus of government attorneys is that there may be some additional potential claimants waiting to file their claims. Some lawyers are apparently advising claimants to wait until the 2005 Oregon legislature meets and the "dust settles" before filing claims. In anticipating future claims, one step cities can take is to require a legal waiver by property owners of any Measure 37 claims whenever property is annexed. The rationale behind this policy is that if a property owner is requesting annexation, it is unfair for the property owner to receive what it is requesting and then later make a claim against the city. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney ~ Finance Honorable Mayor'and City Council February 24, 2005 Page 2 This is a policy matter that should be considered by the City Council. For your reference, I have attached a resolution addressing this subject passed by the City of Ashland and a "Covenant of Waiver of Rights and Remedies" that is currently in use by the City of Forest Grove FINANCIAL IMPACT: If the City Council decides to require waiver of Measure 37 claims when a property is annexed, this practice could save the City the costs of defending against future Measure 37 claims. 7O llD March 14, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council John C. Brown, City Administrato~ Rate Adjustment for United Disposal Service, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing an eight (8} percent rate increase for United Disposal Service, Inc., effective April 1,2005. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 1641, as amended by Ordinances 1945, 2008, and 2072, regulates the solid waste franchise with United Disposal. Section 13 addresses rates, and provides changes in rates shall be approved by City Council resolution. In defermining the appropriate rate to be charged, the Council shall consider: 1 ) The cost of performing the service provided by the Franchisee; 2) The anticipated increases in the cost of providing service; 3) The need for equipment replacement and the need for additional equipment to meet service needs; compliance with federal, state and local law, ordinances and regulations; or technological change; 4) The investment of the franchisee and the value of its business and the necessity that the franchise has a reasonable rate of return; 5) The rates in other cities for similar service; and 6) The public interest by assuring reasonable rates to enable the franchisee to provide efficient and beneficial service to' the residents and other users of the service. United Disposal's most recent rate adjustment was approved in 2002, based on increases in Marion County's tipping fees related to the yard waste program. According to City records, the Council in December 1997, effective January 1998, approved United's previous rate increase. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator~" City Attorney Finance)'/ 71 Mayor and City Council March 14, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION: United Disposal is requesting an eight (8) percent rate increase for its commercial, residential, and industrial customers, effective April 1, 2005 (Attachment 1). To give the Council an idea of the effect of this increase, United's proposal would increase: residential rates from ,$1.25 to :$2.50 per month, depending on cart size; commercial rates from ,$1.15 to `$$2.50 per month for containers and from `$5.65 to `$38.65 per week for 1 to 8 yard bins, depending on size; and industrial rates on 10 to 40 yard drop boxes from ,$8.80 to ,$$12.10 depending on size and material collected. These are a few examples; the proposed increase affects the full spectrum of United's services. Proposed rates are detailed in Attachment 2, current rates are detailed in Attachment 3. United cites increased operating expenses as justification for its request. Attachment 4 provides a summary of United's 2004 operating expenses, and a pro-forma for 2005. That summary projects a 46.6 percent decrease in the company's 2005 income, from 2004. United also compares its proposed increase of eight percent to annual changes in the CPI since its last increase. As calculated by city staff, the total change in CPI, from 19~28 through 2004, for the Portland-Salem metropolitan area, was 14.4 percent. Finally, United provided the Council with a comparison summary of the rates charged in the Wood.burn franchise to those in other area communities (Attachment 5). A representative of United Disposal will attend your March 14, 2005 meeting to answer questions you may have about the requested increase, or this information. United Disposal's request appears to satisfy most or all of the six criteria upon which the Council can base its consideration of a rate adjustment. Accordingly, your approval the requested adjustment is recommended. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The requested rate adjustment will increase residential rates by approximately $16 to $30 per year, and commercial and industrial rates in similar proportion, depending on use. Based on current revenue estimates, this will result in an overall increase in franchise fees paid to the City of approximately $7,200 per year. Under the franchise, the City receives three percent of United's gross revenue. Subject ATTACHM£NT I Page I of I - To th~ Woodb~m City Council Unitcd Disposal Scrvicc rcspcct~lly requests approval of an I~ ovcmll retc i~ for tl~ City of Woodbum. Thc new talcs would add approximatcl~ $1.00 to $2.00 per month to a residen~ d~l~ading on th~ ~ of the smvice packal~ they have,. The laat ra~ increa~ fro' Unitad Dispo~ was in 1999 ami with th~ i~ costa of exlui~ w~ f~l w~ hav~ I~ld a tight lin~ on ovexall c. xpens~ 8% ov~ 6 years exluat~ to 1.3% pm. ye~ im~ Tho CPI i~ betw~ 2 and 3% po' year. I want to fl~mk you for your consideration o~ this ra~ increa~ andl would b~ lmppy to 73 WOODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 Line of business: 30 Pick-up dat~: Mon/Tues/Wed/'rhur/Fri Inelud~ ~ ~ ~l~.Trash, Bin, 65 yard On-call pick-up:S7.50 Sharps:S13.75 Recycle only: $4.30, Bin only Extra can/bag/box: $4.30 Request to change or switch container: $15.00 (alter allowed one change ~} n/c) Outstanding invoices older than 60 days are subject to a service interrupt fee of $25.00 (4 or more ad}oining units) SIZE PRICE Return fee:S10.00 Yard debris contaminated:S8.00 Senior discount upon approval: NIA Premium drive-in service (per cart): N/A A late fee of 18% per annum with a $5.00 monthly minimum will be charged for non-payment after 45 days from invoice date. revised 2/23/05 am 74 ATTACHMENT Page _~__ of_l._._ WOODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 ~_~~ ~1 Line of business: 10 or switch container:S25.00 Container re-delivery/re-start for non-pmt:$25.00 office waste (ROW):65G, no charge: *cardboard available with weekly service NO ~ $76.40 $140.80 $205.40 $29.10 .8 ~ $101.50 $187.70 $273.25 $35.40 2)1rd $130.50 $241.30 $352.60 $42.60 )1rd $195.75 $362.35 $528.80 $58.90 yani $260.D0 $482.55 $705.10 $75.20 y~rd $326.20 $603.20 $881.40 $91.55 yard $391.40 $723.90 $1,057.50 $107.85 ~fard $52'1.35 $965.20 $1,41 0.20 $'140.45 *C;omoacted containers char~_ ~_ 2.5 :X's loose rate *cardboard available with weekly service for NO CHARGE 'EXTRA YARDAGE (~XY): $10.10 per yard revised 2/23105 am 75 WOODBU RATE SHEET-AREA 20 ATTACHMENT Page-~/- of Rent charge (*after 4 days): Day:S5.00 Month: $65.00 (infopro $152.08) *Compacted rates charged ~ 2.5 X's loose rate *All boxes C.O.D Line of business: 20 Screen box, per haul: $10.00 Relocate, per box: $25.00 Overweight, par box: $75.00 Liner, per box: $32.00 *weight limit is 10 tons/ 20,00 pounds WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL $114.80 WOOD COMPOST DIRT METAL $25.00 $130.70 WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $163.10 $163.10 $163.10 $163.10 $5.00yard $404.80 revised 2/23/05 am 76 WOODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 Line of business: 30 Pirie.up dal~: Mon/Tues/Wad/ThurlFrt ktelud~l ~ ~ ~.Trash, Bin, 65 yard REGULAR NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN REGULAR NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN REGULAR NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN REGULAR NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN ~17.15 $5.50 ATTACHMENT_ Page_..L of_ On-call pick-up:S7.00 Sharps:S12.75 Recycle only: $4.00 Extra canlbag/box: $4.00 (after allowed one change {~ n/c) Request to change or switch container:. $15.00 Container re-delivery due to non-payment: $15.00 Restart after non-payment: $10.00 Retum fee:S10.00 Yard debris contaminated: N/A Senior discount upon approval: N/A Premium drive-in service (per cart): N/A (4 or more adjoining units) 77 WOODBURN RATE 8HEET-A 20 _~_ ~='/?~__~__~ ~_7'~'.~ ATTACI'~MENT- Page ''/.- of business: 10 change or switch container:S25.00 re-delivery due to non-pmt:$15.00 for non-prat: $10.00 office waste (ROW), no charge: Tuesday *EXTRA YARDAGE (EXY): $17.70 *cardboard available with weekly service for NO CHARGE t ~ $35.50 $17.70 $17.70 1.~ ~---~d $41.30 $23.50 $17.70 2 ~jllnl $48.00 $30.20 $17.70 :~ ~ $69.05 $51.25 $17.70 4 ~tlld $81.95 $64.15 $17.70 ~ ~fard $94.95 ~/i.15 $17.70 e ~ $107.75 $89.95 $17.70 lyard $135.60 $120.80 $17.70 $17.80 cl~llv~ ~ updated 1118105 am 78 WOODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 ^TT^C M NT ,3 *All boxes C.O.D Rent charge (*after 4 days): Day:S5.00 Month: $65.00 (infopro $152.08) *Compacted rates charged ~} 2.5 X's loose rate Une of business: 20 Screen box, per haul: $10.00 Relocate, per box: $25.00 Overweight, per box: $75.00 Liner, per box: $25.00 *weight limit is 10 tons/ 20,00 pounds GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK GARBAGEr WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK $25.00 $106.00 $25.00 $25.00 $121.00 ;101.20 $580.80 $25.00 $303.40 $25.00 $136.30 $25.00 $136.00 $25.00 $136.00 $25.00 $136.00 $5.00 yard $25.00 $151.00 $25.00 $151.00 $1.00 yard $25.00 $151.00 $25.00 $151.00 79 CITY OF WOODBURN ATTACHMENT. Page ~,, I~ _ of REVENUE OPERA'nONS COST,, WAGES REPAIRS AND MAINT VEHICLE OPS COST EQUIP RENT FACILITY OPS COST SAFETY,INS,CLAIMS TIPPtNG DISPOSAL FRANCHISE FEES OTHER OPS COST $ 2,837,656 462,013 212,609 93,699 1,169 75,210 59,009 1,160,775 87,524 5,501 2,157,509 2005 Proform~ $ 2,837,~56 478,184 220,050 107,754 1,193 76,714 60,190 1,183,990 87,524 5,611 2,221,210 SG&A COSTS SALARIES RENT AND OFFICE EXP TRAVEL AND ENTERTAINMENT PROFESSIONAL FEES BAD DEBT OTHER EXP DEPRECIATION INTEREST 68,972 29,325 6,764 159,203 9,218 33,003 109,962 56,039 472,486 71,388 29,g12 6,899 162,387 9,403 33,683 133,600 58,103 505,353 2,726,563 111,093 46,215 TOTAL EXPENSE GROSS PROFIT PROVISION FOR INCOME TAX NET INCOME Net Income as a percentage of revenue 2,629,995 207,681 86,387 $ 121,274 4.27% $ 64,878 2.29% 80 ATTACHMENT PIK]e.--L- of Residential Rates Comparison 02/2005 Update ALBANY $11.76 $t8.7e ~) Conmlklglld 90-Yd Dibdl BI-WII~ 96-Yd ~ Oi-Wldy $20.00 Com,dngk ~ Sle.70 $21.56 $2e30 834.3o 8el)uMe (31M~ - Colom NoYd DMoM NoYd Debll NoYd 13eMk No Yd - ~rb'~'b Comndng~l St2.00 C~.~M.) $t8J0 (S4-G.L) $21.00 ~).mm ~- ~ 96-Yd DMMs ,BI-Wb/ m)-Yd Ddxb Bi-Wk)/ 96-Yd _ ~n-~. BI.WIdy EUGFJ~ $1~4~ $2S.40 $28.?0 Commin~i~ NOYd Dibdl No Yd __ne~l_. No yd L-'~..tl Sesmr. M M- ~ 32-Yd DriNk Wldy e0-Yd. Oebd. Wb/ a0.Yd. __neck_. Wldy $70.96 OREII4AM 818.60 326.6O $28.70 ~ 32-Yd Oeblle Wkly 32-Yd Ddxie ~ Weeldy Yd $70.g~ Commingle I:~q),er~ $17.77 06-Ga.) $2e.96 Selmn~ $16.93 $17.71 $Z4.10 .... 6S-Yd Ddxk Bi-Wldy eS-Yd DMM~ BI-WIdy 6S-Yd Debb ~ $67.45 m.WAU~ Comndn~ P.p~ $18.70 $21.1~ $2e~0 $34~0 ~ PIIM~TIn/G~ No Yd DelxM Wee~ Yd Wee~ Yd Vad~ Yd $70.96 Commingle Pep4w $17~0 (3S-GeL) $27.00 $2~20 6elmmm P'Mac(TIMGk~ No Yd CObM No Yd Debk No Yd Cb~-b $70.96 ~IIG~II~N ~AI · ~ P.pern=t..ac(T~ $21.25 (35 G.L) 28.70 $31.00 Sepem~ G4mm- CalMs Wedd~ Yd Weeb/Yd Vu~.)~/Yd PORTLAND $18.10 $1gJS $24~6 $2~56 , commingled 32-Yd Ddxk Bi~/b/ 32-Yd Dabd~ B-Wldy 32-Yd DWd~ ei.WIdy 3~-Yd _ ~n-~M. ai-Wldy $70.96 8ALF. M $1T~e $1g.84 $2S.19 (64-G.L) $26.10 Commingled 90-Yd cobi., WI~ S(~Yd 13M)M WId~ 96-Yd OM)M Wle/ 93-Yd OeMlBWIdy S87.45 mLVERTON $18.15 $1e.50 C3S-(hL) $23.40 (66-G.L) $25.10 CMS GaL) Commingled eS-Yd DeMk WIdy 6S-Yd DriNk WId,/ 93-Yd Dd~ Wkly M.-Yd DM)M WIdy $6'7.45 Sl'&¥TGN $tS.SO $18.,10 $2S.00 (e4-ML) $28.00 ~ Weel~ Yd Wedd,/Yd Weeldy Yd WMM,j Yd $6'7.45 TUALATm $~UO $'m.45 ~ Weekly Yd W~ly Yd WeMly Yd ?,70.96 ,?)al:)aralm ~m - C(M~ ,6S..Yd OdxilWIdy 6S..Y(I Debd~ W14y 66-Yd O~Mkq $70.~6 WLi4TMVlLLE $17.10 $18.4~ $2SJ0 ComndnliMd Weekl~ Yd Weeldy Yd Wee~y Yd $70.96 WOODBURii Commklgled $15.00 $1~.16 $2S.00 (e6-G,L) $31.00 ,le~ M- ~ 65.Yd Dd)rll Wldy 6S-Yd Delxil Wldy 65-Y(L Oebrb Wld~ ~5.Yd __r~e~k_. VVldy q',47.45 81 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. AN ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE FOR PROVIDING SOLID WASTE SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF WOODBURN AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1688. WHEREAS, Ordinance 1641 grants an exclusive franchise to United Disposal Services, Inc. ("United Disposal") to collect, transport, and convey solid waste in the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution 1688 which established cedain rates; and WHEREAS, United Disposal has requested an adjustment to its residential and commercial rates and has submitted satisfactory evidence to the City Council to justify the proposed rate schedule; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Council finds that the rates proposed by United Disposal are fair and appropriate under the existing franchise. In making this determination, the Council has considered the following factors pursuant to Section 13 of Ordinance 1641: (]) The cost of performing the service provided by the franchisee. The anticipated increases in the cost of providing the service. (3) The need for equipment replacement and the need for additional equipment to meet service needs; compliance with federal, state and local law, ordinances and regulations; or technological change. (4) The investment of the franchisee and the value of its business and the necessity that the franchisee have a reasonable rate of return. (5) The rates in other cities for similar service. (6) The public interest by assuring reasonable rates to enable the franchisee to provide efficient and beneficial service to the residents and other users of the service. Page 1 - Council Bill No. Resolution No. 82 Section 2. That the rate schedule affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, is approved. Section $. The rate schedule approved in Section 2 of this resolution shall be effective April 1, 2005. Section 4. Resolution 1688 is repealed effective April 1,2005. Approved as to form: ~~ ,~'-/~//-"~ o 0 ~ City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2- Council Bill No. Resolution No. WOODBUI RATE SHEET-AREA 20 ~',~ ,'~,~ J~'~' Pick-up date~: Mon/Tues/Wed/'l'hurlFri Line of business: 30 ATTACHMENT Page I of, Ineluded ~ ~ervlee ,~Md~:.Trash, Bin, 65 yard $5.95 On-call pick-up:S7.50 Sharps:S13.75 Recycle only: $4.30, Bin only Extra can/baglbox: $4.30 Request to change or switch container: $15.00 (after allowed one change ~ n/c) Outstanding invoices older than 60 days are subject to a service interrupt fee of $25.00 (4 or more adjoining units) Return fee:S10.00 Yard debris contaminatad:$8.00 Senior discount upon approval: NIA Premium drive-in service (per cart): N/A A late fee of 18% per annum with a $5.00 monthly minimum will be charged for non-payment after 45 days from invoice date. revised 2/23/05 am 84 WOODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 _CO~__ ~~ .~17E$ ATTACHMENT P~q;l®-.~._ of , of business: 10 Request to change or switch container:S25.00 re-delivery/re-start for non-prat:S25.00 ,office waste (ROW):65G, no charge: *cardboard available with weekly service X~F-EK X/WEEK X~ffiEK ~ {lam $76.40 $140.80 $205.40 $29.10 $101.50 $187.70 $273.25 $35.40 $130.50 $241.30 $352.60 $42.60 $195.75 $362.35 $528.80 $58.90 $260.90 $482.55 $705.10 $75.20 $32~.20 $~03.20 $s81.40 $91.55 $391.40 $723.90 $1,057.50 $107.85 $521.85 $965.20 $1,410.20 $140.45 *Comp~nf~d containers char_n~! ~_ 2.5 X's I~ose rate *cardboard available with weekly service for NO CHARGE *EXTRA YARDAGE (EXY): $19.10 per yard revised 2/23105 am 85 WOODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 ATTACHMENT Page ,'"2 ,, of Rent charge (*after 4 days): Day:S5.00 Month: $65.00 (infopro $152.08) *Compacted rates charged Q 2.5 X's loose rate *Ail boxes C.O.D Line of business: 20 Screen box, per haul: $10.00 Relocate, per box: $25.00 Overweight, per box: $75.00 Liner, per box: $32.00 *weight limit ia 10 tons/ 20,00 pounds GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL GARBAGE WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL SHEETROCK $358.10 $592.90 $25.00 ,101.20 $25.00 $114.80 $25.00 $202.40 $25.00 $130.70 $3.70yard $25.00 $146.90 $303.40 $25.00 $146.90 $4.00 $25.00 $146.90 $3.70 yard $25.00 $146.90 $25.00 $146.90 $5.00yard $25.00 $163.10 $404.80 $25.00 $163.10 $4.00 $25.00 $163.10 $3.70 yard $25.00 $163.10 FEE revised 2/23/05 am 86 11E March 11, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Ben Gillespie, Finance Direct~l/~ Contingency Transfers RECOMMENDATION: Council approve the attached resolution authorizing contingency transfers. BACKGROUND: The scanner the Police use to scan documents into the document imaging system (Laser Fiche) relies on an attached PC. The PC is failing. It is a Windows 98 machine, which is no longer available. This particular scanner works only on a Windows 98 PC. The replacement of the Windows 98 PC with a Windows XP machine (the City's current standard) will be a routine replacement funded by the IS Fund. However, that will necessitate the replacement of the scanner with a model that will work with XP. This is a specialized piece of equipment that is not in the IS Fund. The cost of the recommended scanner is $3,200. One of the street sweepers is currently inoperable. Repairs are needed to the vacuum fan bearings, nozzle suction hose, wandering hose and belly broom undercar-dage. The estimated cost of repair is $5,100. Earlier in the year a $25,000 grant and a $25,000 loan were secured from the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services for work on the Association Building. The expense was budgeted in the January budget revision, but the revenue was not recognized. The project has been completed, with pro)ecl costs, for the time being, assisted by the General Fund ClP fund. Additional funds totaling $33,000 are needed to complete the Plaza this year. $11,800 covers expenses in excess of budget during the design and engineering phase, including unbudgeted site plan review and plan check fees, bid printing and advertising costs, the unanticipated need for planning actions including lot line adjustments and a variance request, soils testing, and mechanical and Agenda Item Review: City Administrator~ City Attorney Finance~ 87 Mayor and City Council March 11,2005 Page 2 electrical engineering in excess of what was anticipated. $13,700 covers additional costs of the construction contract that contract having been adjusted to remove benches, trash receptacles, and some trees. Contributions for these items will be solicited from the community. $7,500 provides for additional architect's services during construction. This will provide for technical assistance to the Engineering department for site inspections and repoding, and punch list inspections at close out. Although the Plaza was scheduled at $300,000 in the Capital Improvement Plan, the amount budgeted in the line item budget was only $270,000. $30,000 should be added to the line item budget to correct the discrepancy. These changes for the Plaza total $63,000 ($33,000 additional costs plus $30,000 to adjust the line item budget). However, because the transactions involving the Association Building grant and loan can be budgeted only by a supplemental budget process requiring public notice, they must be postponed until a future meeting. What can be budgeted now is the transfer from the General Fund to the General ClP fund, which is the difference between the total requirements ($63,000) and available Contingency after the loan and grant are recognized ($50,000). The $13,000 transfer from the General Fund can be budgeted now. At a future meeting the $13,000 transfer into the General CIP Fund will be budgeted along with the grant, the loan, and the appropriation of $63,000. The purchase of the scanner will be budgeted in Capital Outlay in the Police budget, and will be funded by a reduction in General Fund Contingency. The repair to the sweeper will be budgeted in the Street Fund and will be funded by a reduction in the Street Fund Contingency. The Plaza is budgeted in the General ClP Fund and will be partially funded by a transfer from the General Fund. $270,000 of the Plaza expenditures will be reimbursed from the Urban Renewal Agency. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The net effect of these budget transactions is to reduce General Fund Contingency by $16,200, decrease Street Fund Contingency by $5,100. 88 COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2004-05. WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 allows for the transfer of operating contingency appropriations within a fund to an existing appropriations category within the same fund during the year in which appropriations are made, and WHEREAS, a transfer of General Fund operating contingency appropriations is necessary to pay for a Police Scanner and transferring additional funds to the General CIP Fund to pay for increased costs associated with the Downtown Plaza project, now, therefore, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That authorization is hereby given to transfer the following operating contingency appropriations: GENERAL FUND: Transfer From: Operating Contingency (001-901-9971-5921) Transfer To: Police Department - Capital Outlay Computing Equipment (001-121-2199-5645) Interfund Transfer - General CIP Fund (001-199-9711-358) $16,200 $ 3,200 $13,000 STREET FUND: Transfer From: Operating Contingency (140-901-9971-5921) Transfer To: Street Cleaning - Materials & Services Vehicle Repair (140-631-4261-5475) $ 5,100 $ 5,100 Approved as to Form: City Attomey - Date APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. $9 Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 9O WOODBUI N 11F March 14, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council John C. Brown, City Administrator Bid Award for Downtown Plaza Construction Project- Phase I RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council (Local Contract Review Board); by motion: Reject the bid of Nomarco, Inc. as not responsive because it contained mathematical inconsistencies between unit prices and totals and lacked the required unit price information. Reject the bid of 2KG Contractors, Inc. as not responsive because the First Tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form was not submitted as required by statute. Accept the bid of $329,220 of D & A General Contractors, Inc., as the lowest responsible bid, subject to the City's statutory right to negotiate the price to make is closer to the cost estimate. Delegate to the City Administrator the authority to award the contract to D & A General Contractors, Inc. for a negotiated price not-to-exceed $329,220. BACKGROUND: The contract is for construction of Phase I of the downtown plaza project. The project was advertised for bid on January 6 and 7, 2005, and bids were opened on January 27, 2005. Eight bids were received. The results were: BIDDER D & A General Contractors, Inc. 2KG Contractors, Inc. Nomarco, Inc. D & D Concrete Utilities Axis Curb Company Paul Brothers JP Contractors, Inc. Brock Construction Agenda Item Review: AMOUNT $329,220.00 364,815.25 390,075.74 391,876.00 416,180.35 440,618.25 540,882.00 877,970.00 City Administrato~~~''/ lowest responsible bidder not-responsive not-responsive City Attorney /Ut)~'.~ Finance __ 91 Mayor and City Council March 14, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Nomarco, Inc bid contained mathematical inconsistencies between unit pdces and totals and lacked necessary unit price information. The 2KG Contractors, Inc. bid did not contain the First Tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form as required by Oregon statute. Bidders are legally obligated to substantially comply with all prescribed bidding procedures and requirements, and a bid should be rejected when it does not comply in all material respects with the bid solicitation. These two bids should be rejected as not-responsive. Phase I of the plaza project was programmed in the 2003-04 capital improvement budget, and re-budgeted in 2004-05. Phase I includes demolition of the existing parking lot; grading; installation of plumbing and irrigation, drainage, and electrical utilities; construction of walkways, gazebo foundation, vendor pads, hardscapes, seating walls, and fountain; landscaping and lighting; and furnishings, including benches and trash receptacles. Phase II will install the gazebo structure. Plaza construction was projected, in May 2004, to cost $300,000, of which the Woodburn Urban Renewal Agency will reimburse $270,000. A reimbursement agreement will be presented for consideration at your March 28, 2005 Council meeting. The May 2004 projection was based on material costs at that time, some of which, such as concrete and rebar, have risen substantially during the past year. Moreover, the projection anticipated that, in addition to seeking contributions to construct the gazebo, contributions would be also be sought for smaller items, such as trees, benches, and trash receptacles. This assumption recognized the limited amount of urban renewal funds available to complete the project. Consequently, funding for these items was not included in City and Agency budgets for 2004-05. Because these items are needed to complete the project, they were included in the bid document, and the bid amount of $329,220 delivers those items. Due to limited urban renewal funds to complete Phase I, and lack of contributions on hand at the present time, a transfer from general fund contingencies is needed for this project. That item was presented to your Council earlier on the March 14, 2005 agenda. That transfer continues to anticipate contributions from service organizations, businesses, other agencies, and the public, and is not of an amount sufficient to fully fund the cost of Phase I construction. Since all bids received exceeded the City's cost estimate of the project, it is possible to fudher negotiate the contract pdce with the lowest responsible bidder once that bidder has been designated. Accordingly, if is recommended that the Council make the lowest responsible bidder determination and then delegate to the City Administrator the authority to negotiate the pdce and finalize the contract award in an amount not-to-exceed $329,220. Effort will be made to remove benches, trash receptacles, and some of the trees from the primary contract, and treat them as Mayor and City Council March 14, 2005 Page 3 additive alternatives that can be completed if contributions are received, or if the Council should made a subsequent determination to fund them through additional general fund resources. FINANCIAL IMPACT,: Based upon your earlier approval of a recommended contingency fund transfer, $313,700 will be available for this project. Additional funds, if needed to complete this project once solicitation efforts are completed can be requested from the Council at that time. g3 WOODBURN 116 February 24, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Mary Tennant, City Recorder SUBJECT: Acceptance of Bancroft Bond Application RECOMMENDATION: By motion, and under the authority of ORS 223.210, Council accept the attached Bancroft Bond application which was filed after the initial 10-day filing period on the East Hardcastle LID. BACKGROUND: Under ORS 223.210 (Bancroft Bonding Act), affected property owners have 10 days after the date of the first publication of the final assessment ordinance to file a Bancroft Bonding application thereby allowing them to pay for their share of the assessment costs under an installment program over a 10-year period. Applications received after the initial filing period require Council acceptance in order to participate in the installment program. DISCUSSION: On February 23, 2005, an application was received from Jorge L. Bouchain, 1051 Orchard Lane. Acceptance of this applicatian will allow the property owner to participate in the installment program established under the final assessment ordinance for this improvement project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on the City unless the property owner defaults on assessment payments. If that were to occur, the City could initiate foreclosure proceedings in order to recover the assessment balance plus interest and related costs. In this case, the property owner has made a payment sufficient to cover his first year principal and interest payments. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator-~? City Attorney.~ FinanceL~.~ APPLICATION UNDER BONDING ACT To the Recorder of the City of Woodburn, Oregon: In accordance with the provision of ORS 223.205 to 223.295 being the Bancroft Bonding Act of ! 893 and Acts amcndatory thereof and supplementary thereto, I (we), Jorge Luis Bouchain and hereby make application and agree to pay my proportion of the cost of: Improvement of East Hardcastle Avenue from Pacific Highway 99E to the east City Boundary as the same has been determined and assessed by the Council of the City of Woodbum by Ordinance No. 2352 and Docket of the City Liens of said City, in twenty (20) semi-annual installments with interest thereon at the rate of 5.44% per annum on all unpaid assessments. Said interest to be payable semi-annually, at the time each installment is paid as required by the provisions of said Act aforesaid. And I (we) Jorge Luis Bouchain and hereby expressly waive all or any irregularity or defect jurisdictional or otherwise, in the proceedings to improve said street or construct said infrastructure improvements and in the apportionment and assessment of the cost thereof on the following property, to wit: Tax Lot No. 05W08DC09000 Subdivision / Lot: Centennial Subdivision / Lot 15 Deed Reference: 20620374BS Site Address: 1051 Orchard Lane In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hand(s) and seal(s) this 20_0. (Seal) WOODBURN llH TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 9, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council N. Robert Shields, City Attorney Emergency Clause Memo RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: At your February 28, 2005 meeting, Councilor Cox requested that I provide a copy of my February 6, 2003 memo on emergency clauses so that it can be discussed at your March 14, 2005 meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator~'-~ 96 City Attorney~,/'~.~ Financ~ MEMO FROM THE WOODB URN CITYA TTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council City Administrator N. Robert Shields, City Attorney February 6, 2003 Emergency Clauses Some recent discussion has concerned the inclusion of emergency clauses in City ordinances. I thought it might be helpful to you for me to outline the legal parameters under the Woodburn Charter and state law. Effective Date Article IV, Section 28, of the Oregon Constitution sets the effective date of state legislation: Section 28. When act takes effect. No act shall take effect until 90 days from the end of the session at which the same shall have been passed, except in case of emergency; which emergency shall be declared in the preamble or in the body of the law. In the case of municipal legislation, Chapter VIII, Section 34, of the Woodbum City Charter provides: Section 34. When ordinances take effect. An ordinance enacted by the Council shall take effect on the 30th day after its enactment. When the Council deems it advisable, however, an ordinance may provide for a later time for it to take effect, and in the case of an emergency, it may take effect immediately. Legal Significance Since the turn of the century, Oregon voters have possessed the powers of initiative and referendum. The time between the enactment and the effective date of a measure is when signatures can be gathered for a referendum petition. When an emergency clause causes a measure to go into effect upon passage, the possibility of a referendum is eliminated. It should be remembered that a referendum only applies to legislation. Legally, an enactment which is administrative in nature cannot be placed on the ballot. Also, even if an enactment is legislative and contains an emergency clause, it would still be possible for a voter to file an 9'/' Emergency Clauses February 6, 2003 Page 2 initiative petition which would repeal the legislation, although the signatures required would be higher than for a referendum petition. Instances Where Emergency Clause is Not Permitted In certain instances, state law precludes the use of an emergency clause. Article IX, Section la, of the Oregon Constitution states that the legislative assembly shall not declare an emergency in any act regulating taxation. The appellate courts have held that this constitutional provision also applies to cities and counties. In an entirely different context, when a city annexes property and does not submit the annexation to the voters, ORS 222.120(6) provides that the ordinance passed is subject to a referendum. This means that an emergency clause cannot be added to this type of ordinance. Finally, there may be other infrequently encountered instances where the inclusion of an emergency clause would be legally inappropriate. Judicial Deference to Emergency Clauses Except in the instances where the Oregon Constitution or a statute prohibits their use, appellate courts defer to a legislative declaration of emergency. In a long line of appellate cases, the Oregon courts have made it clear that they will not "second guess" the legislative body's determination that an emergency exists. Generally, the judicial reasoning has been that the legislature has accountability to the voters and that the issue should be handled through the electoral process and not the courts. Even in instances where an emergency clause has been added to legislation contrary to law, the courts have been unwilling to void the legislation. Instead, the remedy is to void only the emergency clause itself and allow the legislation to take effect as if an emergency clause had never been inserted. Present City_ Council Policy Historically, when they are not precluded by law, emergency clauses have been used in Woodbum on a fairly routine basis. This policy predated my tenure as City Attorney. In instances where a certain effective date has been agreed to (i.e., the recently enacted PGE franchise), no emergency clause is included. However, in most other instances, an emergency clause is part of the ordinance. The City Council clearly has the authority to change the policy on the use of emergency clauses. As to anticipated legal problems which could occur, if this policy is changed, I have only two concerns. First, I believe it is important for the City to preserve its ability to act immediately when this is necessary. Second, I have a general concern regarding land use cases. 98 Emergency Clauses February 6, 2003 Page 3 My first concern could be addressed by the City Council continuing to consider ordinances with emergency clauses included when there is an explanation from staff as to why immediate action is needed. My second concern is about land use cases. While the City Council clearly has the legal authority to remove emergency clauses from all land use ordinances, I believe that this action could create confusion and potential future problems. As you are aware, the Oregon land use process is based upon a structured statewide system. In almost every instance a land use matter which comes before the City Council has already had a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Most of the time these actions are site specific and could not be placed on the ballot. Developers and all of the people related to a development application are usually in a hurry and believe that after the City Council votes on a matter, it has been decided. During my career as City Attorney I have argued with lawyers in specific cases about the exact point at which something was appealable to LUBA. For these reasons, I believe that insertion of emergency clauses in land use ordinances (except in the case of annexations where this is not permitted) helps avoid additional confusion and controversy. 99 111 March 9, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Russell, Chief of Police/~~'/ Scott D. ~/- Uquor Ucense Change of Ownership RECOMMENDAllON: The Woodbum City Council approve a change of ownership application for Woodburn Stop-N-Go. BACKGROUND: Applicant: O' Donnell Enterprises, Inc. DBA / Woodburn Stop-N-Go 100 Arney Rd Woodburn, OR 97071 Owner/Manager: Paul O'Donnell 461 Clay St. Monmouth, OR 97361 Dean O'Donnell 260 Santlam Ave. Detroit, OR 97342 Unda O' Donnell 260 Santiam Ave. Detroit, OR 97342 License Type: Off Premise Sales - Allows for the sale of malt beverages and wine for consumption off the licensed premises. Admlnistrator-~,~ Agendo Itern .evlew: City C,~ Attorney ,~,/'~-j Flnonc~ 100 Mayor and City Council March 9, 2005 Page 2 On February 22, 2005 the Woodburn Police Department received an application requesting approval for a change of ownership for Woodburn Stop-N-Go (formerty known as Westvlew Texaco). The above-mentioned corporation has purchased the business and is applying for a license. During the last 12 months the Police Department handled 5 incidents at Westvlew Texaco. There were no reported liquor law violations by the business. The business will continue to be 24-hour gas station and convenience store operation only selling alcohol during approved hours. The police department has received no communication from the public or surrounding businesses in support of or against the change of ownership. The police department has completed a limited background Investigation on the applicant business and found nothing of a questionable nature. An in- depth investigation was completed on the awner and no offenses that would preclude a license being Issued or Items of a questionable nature were located. The owners also operate the Woodburn AM/PM Mini Mart. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 101 OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION 'i i FEB 2 2' 2005 '~ lDO ~' ~ LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION L ..... :... PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE i . · · .. , ..... Aoolicafion is beina made for: LICENSE TYPES 13 Full On-Premises sales ($402.60/yr) [3 Commercial Establishment [3 Caterer r-t Passenger Carrier ' [3 Other Public Location [3 Private Club [3 Limited On-PremiSes Sales ($202.60/yr) ~Loff-Premises sales ($100/yr) ~ii. with Fuel Pumps I;3 Brewery Public House ($252.60) Q Winery ($2501yr) .. El Other:. Individuals O Limited ~[ Corporation Partnership ACTIONS ~i~ Change Ownership [3 New Outlet I;3 Greater Privilege [3 Additional Privilege Q Other ¥,,:. ~,EOR~TY AND ¢~)UNTY USE ONLY The city council or county commissioh: By: (name of city c~ caunty) recommends that this license be: Granted [;3 Denied [2 (signature) (date) [;3 Limited Liability Company OLCC USE ONLY Application Rec'd by:. ~/14~7 ~ Date: 4:~ ~/~?' ~'' 90-day authority: [3 Yes [3 No 1. Applicant(s): [See SECTION I of the Guide] - 2. Trade Name (dba): /,41..]OO,O~-X.J 3. Business Location: /Z)~) 4. Busi~ss Mailing Address: .~~ (PO ~x, n~r, s~ ~ ~) (d~) (s~) 5. Business Num~: ~:{' ~-O~- ~/-~O~ ~) 6. Is ~e business at ~is Io~ti~ cu~en~y li~nsed by OLCC? 7. Ifyes t° ~om: ~ ~~ ~ ~'[~ T~ of U~nse: , . 8. Foyer Business Name: q767/ (fax) Applica~t.(s) Signature(s) and Date: (ZIP code) (ZIP code) 9. Will you have a manager? f~(es CI"o Name: ~ 0 'L~7/'~,~n (manager must fill out ?n individual history form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? '~-~J O/~I~Z2/~X./. ; (name of cit~or cou~ ! (ad~) (~ num~) (~ a~ss) I undem~nd that E my answem are not ~ue and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application. Date Date Date 1-800.452-OLCC (6522) www. olcc. state, onus Date 102 W ODBUaN 11J March 9, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police ~ Uquor Ucense - New Outlet RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council approve a new outlet application for Woodbum Station. BACKC-,ROUND: Applicant: Zghoul, Inc. DBA / Woodburn Station (Exxon) 850 Lawson Ave. Woodburn, OR 97071 Owner/Manager: Ali Zghoul 28248 SW Flynn St. Wilsonville, OR 97070 Ucense Type: Off Premise Sales - Allows for the sale of malt beverages and' wine for consumption off the licensed premises. On February 25, 2005 the Woodburn Police Department received an appliCation requesting approval for a new outlet for Woodburn Station (also known as Woodburn Exxon Station). The above-mentioned corporation is applying for an Off Premise Sales License. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator _~F~ City Attorney/1,/~._~ Financ .e~_~ 103 Mayor and City Council March 9, 2005 Page 2 · During the last 12 months the Police Department handled 8 Incidents at Woodburn Exxon. There were no reported liquor law violations by the business, The business will be a 24-hour gas station and convenience store operation, only selling alcohol during approved hours. The police department has received no communication from the public or surrounding businesses in support of or against the change of ownership. DISCUSSIQN: The police department has completed a limited background Investigation on the applicant business and found nothing of a questionable nature. An in- depth Investigation was completed on the owner and no offenses that would preclude a license being Issued or items of a questionable nature were located. The owner also operates AM/PM Mini Mart stations in Salem and Gresham. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 104 oREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION' LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION i Fr- 2 LICENSE TYPES n Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) O Commercial Establishment C] Caterer [3 Passenger Carrier [3 Other Public Location O Private Club 13 Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) 13t. Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) I]:lvith Fuel Pumps O Brewery Public House ($252.60) [3 Winery ($250/yr) C! Other:. ACTIONS 13 Change Ownership Outlet reater Privilege 13 Additional Privilege Q Other Individuals O Limited '~l~.Corporation Partnership 1. Applicant(s): [See SECTION I of the Guide] Limited Liability Company 2. Trade Name (dba): I~OOgl~. ?tOO USE ONLY or county commlseion: By: (name of city ~x county) recommends that this license be: Granted r't Denied C] (signature) (date) Name: T~e: Oate:~ '~ ' 90-day authority: 13 Yes [3 No . 3. Business Location: <~O (number, street, mini ~) (~) (~n~) 4. Business Mailing Address~ (PO ~x, n~r, s~t, mini mute) 5. Business Numbem: (~ne) 6. IS ~e business at this Io~tion cu~en~y licens~ by OLCC? QYes 7. If yes {o whom: ~y~ of Li~n~: (state) (ZiP code) (city) (state) (zip code) (f~x) 8. Former Business Name: 9. Will you have a manager? les ..l[~lNo Name: (manager must fll out an individual history form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: ~ L~ '~.~. ~-~ p ~ (name) '" (phone number(s) (adclre~) (fax number) (e-mail address) I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application. Applicant(e) Signature(s) and Date: ®' __ .'. Date Date (~ Date ~ Date 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) www. olcc. state, or. us ~ [~ ' toe WOODBURN IlK March 14, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council. _..~.....,- John C. Brown, City Administrator Appointment of Administrator Pro Tem RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council appoint Public Works Director Frank Tiwari as Administrator Pro Tern for the period of March 18, 2005 through March 27, 2005. I will be on vacation from March 18, 2005 through March 27, 2005. Pursuant to Section 21(e) of the Woodburn Charter, the City Council shall appoint an administrator pro tern whenever the AdministratOr is absent from the City. The Pro Tern Administrator shall possess the powers and duties of the Administrator, but may not appoint or remove a City officer or employee except with approval of the majority of the Council. Mr. Tiwari has acted ably in this capacity in the past, and has the necessary skills and experience ta act as Administrator Pro Tern. FINANCIAL IMPACT,: None. Agenda Item Review: r ~/'"'City Attorney City Administrat~ Financ~/_ }/~ 106