Loading...
Minutes - 04/25/2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, APRIL 25, 2005. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0025 ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Figley Bjelland Cox Lonergan McCallum Nichols Sifuentez Present Present Absent Present Present Present Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Police Chief Russell, Public Works Manager Rohman, Asst. City Engineer Torgeson, Sr. CE Tech Scott, Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Cox was out of town on vacation. 0054 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Spring Concert Series - The Library will conclude this spring series with Juliet Wyers on May 8, 2005, 2:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers. 0102 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the regular and executive session Council minutes of April 11, 2005; B) accept the Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes of April 12, 2005; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of March 24, 2005; D) accept the Library Board minutes of April 13, 2005; E) receive the Library monthly report for March 2005; F) receive the Claims for March 2005. MCCALLUM/NICHOLS.... consent agenda be adopted as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 0166 PUBLIC HEARING: SIXTH STREET VACATION SOUTH OF WEST LINCOLN STREET. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7 :05 p.m.. Public Works Director reviewed the right-of-way vacation process which is outlined in state statute. In this particular case, the Council initiated the vacation process by adopting Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 v COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING a resolution at their February 28, 2005 regular meeting. Hearing notices have been posted, mailed to affected property owners, and published in the local newspaper as required under state law. He stated that the portion of Sixth Street proposed to be vacated is a gravel road going south of West Lincoln Street but does not connect to West Hayes Street. This gravel road is used by the property owners to access their property and, from the City's perspective, this roadway is more of a burden than an advantage. However, there are water, sewer and electrical lines in this area and it is necessary to maintain an easement for these utilities. He reviewed the map area of those property owners affected by the proposed vacation and, to date, no property owner has filed an objection. He stated that the street is located adjacent to property owned by Oregon Child Development Coalition (OCDC) and, in consideration for the vacation, they are willing to dedicate a 25-foot wide strip of land adjacent to their frontage along West Hayes Street and a 7 foot strip ofland adjacent to a portion of their frontage along Settlemier Avenue which can then be used in the future improvement of the West Hayes / Settlemier Avenue intersection improvement. Following is a summary of conditions that would be placed on the vacation, as agreed to by OCDC: 1) OCDC shall complete a lot consolidation but, prior to that consolidation, a temporary access easement shall be retained for parcels of land considered land locked without such easement; 2) OCDC rehabilitate the sanitary sewer main within the area to be vacated for infiltration removal for continued use as a private line or the line shall be abandoned; 3) OCDC shall relocate any utility in the vacated right-of-way and agreements and/or easements provided to all franchised utilities for service arrangements; 4) OCDC shall dedicate a 25-foot wide strip ofland along their frontage adjacent to West Hayes Street and a 7-foot wide strip along their frontage adjacent to Settlemier Street; 5) OCDC shall construct a standard curb and sidewalk section on West Lincoln Street on the unimproved portion of Sixth Street and it will include a 20-foot wide driveway approach to the residence at 722 West Lincoln; 6) public utility easement shall be retained over the existing right-of-way of Sixth Street (40 foot wide and 85 foot long); and 7) A 24-foot wide shared private access easement shall be retained from West Lincoln Street for the 85-foot length. Staff recommended, following closure of the hearing, Council approve the vacation and authorize staff to proceed with preparing an ordinance to vacate the right-of-way subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. 0900 Rod Walker, representing OCDC, stated that they were in support of the conditions that were placed on this proposed vacation by the Public Works Department. They do not see any problems in their future development of the property with those conditions some of which they had already planned to meet as part of their re-development. No one in the audience spoke in opposition of the proposed vacation. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 'I! COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:17 p.m.. BJELLAND/MCCALLUM... staff prepare an ordinance vacating that portion of Sixth Street right-of-way west of West Lincoln Street to the south terminus subject to the conditions as outlined. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 0984 PUBLIC HEARING: MEASURE 37 CLAIM M37 04-01 (Delbert Gottsacker). Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:18 p.m.. Administrator Brown stated that the Council agenda materials includes a staff report from him backed up by a more thorough staff report from the Community Development Director. He stated that the Council adopted Ordinance 2378 in December 2004 which provides for local implementation of state-wide Measure 37. The City's ordinance provides that certain information needs to be given to the City in order for there to be an active Measure 37 claim. Information submitted must include some evidence that there was an enforcement action taken, a specific land use regulation that created that enforcement, and that there had been a reduction in the valuation of the property. The City's ordinance calls for an appraisal to be part of the documentation that needs to be provided. In this particular case, these various requirements were not met by the applicant in December 2004 when information was originally submitted nor were the requirements met with supplemental information provided to the City in January 2005 based on a letter from the City asking for more information. State law allows the City 180 days to process the claim. This claim was submitted to the City about 4 ~ months ago but staff did not bring it to the Council immediately since the legislature is still looking at this measure. This claim is being brought forward to the Council since the 180-day process period is close to expiration. He stated that staff is recommending that the Council deny this claim. Councilor McCallum stated that City Attorney Shields had not initialed the staff report and questioned ifhe had read, and approved, the report for submittal to the Council. Administrator Brown stated that Attorney Shields had been assisting on the draft but when the final copy of the report was printed on agenda day he was not available to initial the report. 1249 Delbert Gottsacker, 8518 Parr Rd, Gervais, stated that he is the claimant and owner of property located at 500, 510, and 514 N. Pacific Highway. He stated that the notice sent out to the public for this public hearing was in error and incorrect in that he has asked that Ordinance 999 be applied to his property which was in affect at the time he purchased his property in 1960. In his opinion, the public hearing is illegal since the public is to be notified 10 days in advance of the hearing but he did not receive notice until 5 days ago, nor were signs posted in the vicinity of his property or a hearing notice published in the local newspaper. He requested that another public hearing be held before the Council makes any decision on his claim. He questioned if the Council will still make the Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 'IT COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING decision on the approval or denial of the claim. Mayor Figley stated that the Council will make the decision on behalf of the City. Mr. Gottsacker stated that staff has stated in their staff report as to what, why, and how to proceed with this claim. Mayor Figley stated that staff work is done in advance of the hearing and there is some type of staff recommendation that the Council is at liberty to agree with, disagree with, or modify as they see fit. The ultimate decision does lie with the Council although the staff has offered a recommendation. Mr. Gottsacker expressed his disagreement with all of the information provided by staff. He stated that everything that he has said is documented and it does include a property diary of everything staff did after he had filed a Measure 37 claim. Before the claim was filed, Mr. Bogs of Salem Tire Company was going to rent his building and he went to the City's Building Official to see what needed to be done to the building before he could utilize it. Two things were brought to his attention one of which was a conditional use approval. Mr. Bogs had requested the Community Developer Director to waive the public hearing but Mr. Mulder stated that he did not have the authority to waive the hearing. As a result, Mr. Bogs decided not to rent his building. As time went on, Mr. Fontini, Canby Muffler, also wanted to rent his building so Mr. Fontini applied for a City license but was denied because it would require a conditional use. Mr. Gottsacker stated that he filed a Measure 37 claim on the day the measure allowed the first claim to be filed and, later that day, Mr. Fontini also paid to the City the $1750 application fee for conditional use. Prior to a subsequent public meeting, Mr. Gottsacker had been in the planning office to inform staff that there would be no remodeling or changes to his building since he did not want involvement from the Building Inspector and ODOT. When he spoke to the City's planner, he was told that there should be no problem but ultimately the conditional use was denied. The Director had told him that the Building Department had submitted a list of 13 items of questions on his building which were not brought forth when Mr. Bogs had been considering the rental of his property. He stated that the City compiled a list of problems with his building after his filing of a Measure 37 claim. He reiterated that he would like the Council to hold another public hearing because if it had been posted then there would have been a lot of people in attendance at this meeting since they have had similar problems with City staff. 1848 Mayor Figley stated that she had reviewed the information provided by Mr. Gottsacker, staff responses and staff report. She questioned Mr. Gottsacker as to whether the sale price for his property as of right now has been decreased and, if so, if he had any written documentation of that offer. Mr. Gottsacker stated that he did not have documentation and he would most likely go to court, so he figured that he will now get the appraisal which Woodburn will have to pay for after the 180 days. He was not going to start anything before the 180 days and he reiterated that he was not asking for money just to get his rights back that he had when he Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 " COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING purchased the property. To date, it has cost him $36,000 because of the City's conditional use requirements and business people cannot wait this long to give the City the $1750 application fee and not have a more expedited response to the application. Councilor Lonergan questioned if the City had requested Mr. Gottsacker for an appraisal to show that the land value has decreased. Mr. Gottsacker stated that it was his understanding that an appraisal was required if you were asking for money but since it was on land use there was no reason for an appraisal. Councilor Bjelland requested clarification regarding a conditional use permit application which had been filed but withdrawn after the Building Department inspection. Mr. Gottsacker stated that the owner of Canby Muffler (Mr. Fontini) had paid the fee but withdrew his application after the Building Official put in his list of 13 improvements on the building. He stated that his building was vacant between January 2004 and April 19, 2005 and it has all been because of the City's conditional use requirements. 2365 No one in the audience spoke either in support or opposition to Mr. Gottsacker's claim. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.. 2401 Councilor Sifuentez questioned if the City did follow the guidelines for this public hearing. City Attorney Shields stated that City Ordinance 2378 stated that a public hearing is discretionary and there are no State procedures in Ballot measure 37 claims. He stated that the Council has followed the required procedure and there is no requirement for a 10- day notice, nor to publish notice, nor to post the property. A Measure 37 claim is not under the land use law, however, the City did mail notices to property owners within 500 feet of the property as required under the City Ordinance 2378. He also clarified for the Council that when compensation is paid, if paid under Ballot Measure 37, the compensation comes from the General Fund of the City. The claimant must always establish that there is a reduction in the fair market value of his property based upon a city regulation which is why the appraisal is required otherwise there is no Ballot Measure 37 claim. He stated that the Council has a fiduciary duty not to payout compensation unless there is a reason and not to waive applicable law unless there is a basis for that waiver. 2717 Mayor Figley stated that there is a lot of documentation from the applicant and staffbut the question is still whether or not the fair market value of the property been reduced. She stated that she did not have the evidence in the documentation to make her believe that the value has been reduced. In the absence of an appraisal or a path of creditable offers of different amounts, she could not make the determination that the claimant's property has been reduced in value. Councilor McCallum concurred with the Mayor's statement and stated that the Council needs to rule on facts which is whether or not there was a loss of fair market value. Councilor Bjelland stated that Measure 37 is an issue that has not been well defined and is waiting for a lot of legal interpretations as to all of the significance and meanings of the Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 'II' COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING sparse language that is included in Measure 37. This is the first time the City is addressing a Measure 37 issue and the Council needs to be extremely careful in how it is approach so that the Council does not establish precedence. He felt that the most critical aspect is to determine if there is a legitimate claim before the Council. According to his reading of the language and different reports, it must be established and proved that there is a loss of value as a result of actions taken by the City to make a valid Measure 37 claim. In this particular case, the Council does not have the formal evidence before them and, for that reason and at this point in time, he felt that it would be premature for the Council to accept the Measure 37 claim and process it further. 2980 LONERGAN/NICHOLS... deny Measure 37 Claim M37 04-01 based upon the information contained in Mr. Mulder's staffreport dated April 21, 2005. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 3073 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT 05-01: WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Mayor Figley stated that the public hearing has been closed and deliberations will begin at this meeting. Written testimony has also been closed and the Council has received additional testimony which the staff is compiling for the Council. No final decisions will be made at this meeting, however, the Council has a number of questions that staff and others associated with this project will be answering during the deliberation process. She briefly reviewed the list of questions included in the City Administrator's staff report for the benefit of the audience. Members of the panel to answer the Mayor and Council's questions were Community Development Director Mulder, Terry Cole (ODOT Representative), Greg Winterowd (Planning Consultant), and Assistant City Engineer Torgeson. 1) Interchange Management Area (IMA)- Mayor Figley questioned how this area would affect (a) the owner and would be developer of a parcel south of Capital Development newly included in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as part of this process, or (b) the expansion of any of the uses already in existence west of the freeway, or ( c) the development or redevelopment of some of the commercial areas east of the freeway, or (d) the small applicants with relatively insignificant traffic impact. Greg Winterowd stated that the IMA overlay is one of the cornerstones of the overall program since adequate access to 1-5 is necessary to have a solid industrial growth program. The west side ofl-5 has the least amount of traffic congestion. The proposed ordinance does not regulate residential land, parcels of less than 1 acre, or developed commercial and industrial parcels. In regards to the re-development of the Brice property, they would not be affected and there would be no impact. In regards to Capital Development, there could be an impact since the intention of this ordinance would be that when they come in to develop they would do a detail traffic impact study and they would Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 1r COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING look for ways to reduce the impact from commercial development on the freeway so that capacity would be retained. Traffic generation during peak hours is of great concern and alternatives that can be considered by a developer are staggering work hours or avoiding drive-thrus. The key is to work with developers to keep the numbers below the threshold. Through the conditional use process, the Planning Commission and Council can look at transportation demand management to reduce the number of trips if at all possible and, once they have done all that they can, allow that parcel to exceed the budget because it has so much value to achieve the economic developments ofthe City as expressed in the Economic Opportunities Analysis and the Economic Development Strategy. In terms of the WinCo expansion, it could be that a part of their development goes over the property line but there are still 18 or 19 acres of undeveloped property. WinCo's past history of traffic generation has been that they are not primarily peak hour generators of traffic, therefore, they would have a relatively low impact on the interchange and may very well have fewer than the allocated number of trips providing the next user with some potential benefit. This is a cumulative impact analysis and, in working with ODOT, staff feels that there is plenty of capacity for the next 20 years. The purpose of the parcel specific is to try and get the developers to work with the City in coming up with transportation demand managers to preserve capacity for the life of this plan. Terry Cole, ODOT, stated that a transportation model was used to translate the City's future population and employment projections which were then translated into future trip impact and distributed throughout this particular area. The goal is not to reduce what might otherwise occur in the area but to accommodate what is expected to occur in the area. Another issue is that they have tried to develop the interchange overlay in a way that supports the City's other economic development goals and objectives. Councilor Lonergan questioned why the City of Woodburn is the beneficiary of this overlay plan by ODOT. Mr. Cole stated that there are other interchange management plans being prepared along the 1-5 corridor. As per ODOT's Administrative Rule on access management and the 1999 & 2000 adopted Oregon Highway Plan, interchange area management plans are now required of improvement projects that the State undertakes. In Woodburn's situation, a trip budget is proposed to accommodate how the City expects to grow and what is unique about this plan is that the City has looked at its economic future to try and identify its position in this valley marketplace. The overlay zone is a way to support the Council's goal and objectives. 4718 Councilor McCallum questioned what the most severe penalties that could be imposed to organizations or business if they go beyond the trip budget. Mr. Cole stated that the trip budget is for undeveloped commercial and industrial lands in the proposed UGB and has been set at about 2,500 trips in the peak hour which is about 10% of the average daily traffic out of this area. Currently the average trips per day is 22,000 and he did not feel that they had been overly conservative in looking at the City's Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 1r COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING growth future. In a worst case scenario, an intergovernmental agreement with ODOT will include a review period every three years so that adjustments can be discussed in the event the current list of targeted industries do not materialize and other industries are interested in coming to Woodburn. Director Mulder reiterated that trip usage that exceeds the allocated amount for a parcel would require a conditional use which then makes it a discretionary approval by the Council. Mr. Winterrowd cautioned the Council to carefully monitor this program for its actual performance. In regards to the EcoNorthwest projections, staff looked at the high end of the employee projection and the Interchange Management Overlay accommodates that many employees. ODOT wants to be assured that the huge investment they would be making on the interchange improvement will be used efficiency. Terry Cole stated that ODOT does share the City's concern but they are trying to look at a new way of managing their investment and still support the growth of cities. He mentioned that the proposed ordinance also calls for a mandatory notification when the City reaches a 33% and 66% level of usage of the allocated trips so that ODOT and the City can see how they are pacing themselves over time. He reminded the Council that there are areas outside of the City that will use this interchange since it is the North Marion County interchange and there is a concern that Woodburn could use up the capacity. However, the City's history shows that Woodburn has grown in accordance with their Comprehensive Plan which is a protection to the City. Councilor Bjelland stated that the use of the Interchange Management agreement is something that is going to be required of all interchanges that will be improved or developed in the future. This is not a case of Woodburn being the only City required to have the agreement, however, with the stage that the City is currently in, the City has an opportunity to make this a positive situation since Woodburn is competing with a number of other areas for a very scarce amount of transportation dollars. The plan will give the City a step ahead of the other cities asking for their interchanges to be improved. He did not see where they would be any problems over the next 10 years or more and, if so, the City will be re-visiting this ordinance and working with ODOT as per the agreement. He reiterated that this is a very aggressive assumption on employee projections and he expressed his support of the proposed Interchange Management Area. Councilor McCallum stated that the key is to carefully monitor what is going on in the interchange area and the Council be kept informed by staff and other agencies where the City is at on this issue. Terry Cole stated that the Rickreall interchange has an interchange management area and has recently been approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) for improvements. In this case, the Polk County Commissioners committed protection of the resource lands and their ability to protect the investment and resource lands around this interchange was instrumental in gaining the OTC support and moving the project forward Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 " COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING in a timely manner. 6470 2) Public Facilities Plan Methodology and its inclusion or exclusion of property north of the outlet mall, all of the property in the study area for the Serres property, and evaluation of the Serres property versus the Fessler property as residential area- Greg Winterowd stated that the key factor that staff needed to address in expanding the UGB is ORS 197.298 priorities. Agricultural land suitably was looked at closely around the urban growth boundary and there are two concentrations of Class III soils. He agreed with comments made by 1000 Friends of Oregon in that the largest concentration is to the south and it extends beyond the study area. The second smaller but significant Class III soil concentration is located in the north study near 1-5. In a UBG proposed expansion, the exception areas are brought in first then State law requires that Class III land areas are brought in before Class II or I areas. Around Woodburn, Class IV and V soils are associated with streams and are on unbuildable land. The proposed UGB was drawn, in significant part, to go to those Class III concentrations. State Statute also states that if it is necessary to get to Class III land to provide services, you can go across Class II land to get to the area plus you also need a good buffer between the farmland the urban development. Roads are a good natural buffer and the Fessler property is bounded by Crosby Road, Boones Ferry Road, and 1-5. Also, the golf course provides a good amenity and a neighborhood that provides for a higher end housing. The primary reason for the Serres property not being recommended in the UGB is that all of the buildable land in that area is Class II soil with a small inclusion of Class III and some Class IV and V soils. This Class II soil goes all of the way to the Pudding River and there is not enough need to justify going that far south to include that large block of land. In his opinion, if the Serres property is brought in, the City would lose at LCDC because Class II soils would be brought in that are not needed to get to Class III soils and the City would not be consistent with the priorities in ORS 298. Public Works was asked to do a systematic area by area analysis at the planning level and the results were that the east was more expensive to serve than north, and the southwest is less expensive to serve. If the east was less expensive, the recommendation would still be to the north since it is Class III soils. Assistant City Engineer Torgeson provided the Council with the written summary of the methodology for calculations for infrastructure improvements within each of the study areas. A map was generated for each of the study areas and the maps contain the points of connection and the description of the capacity from within the areas as well as the areas from the current UGB towards those areas. The conclusions included both the elements of the cost of improvements within the proposed expansion areas as well as the cost of improvements that might be necessary to upgrade existing facilities. Some of the areas presented greater cost because of topography and relationship to existing systems. It was noted that there may be costs associated with increasing size of existing lines to service new development or they may be a need to install a pump station and delivery line Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 11' COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING to take sewage to the treatment plant. The purpose was to draw comparative values based on a rational approach. He also stated that LCDC had very few comments or criticism of the work done by the engineering staff on the calculation methodology. Tape 2 0800 3) School District Property - Mayor Figley stated that it was her understanding that there were differences of opinions at the Planning Commission level and she questioned if (1) it was true that bringing in the acreage would require the same amount of acreage somewhere else cannot be brought in, and (2) if it could be justified that the property be brought in. For clarification, Councilor McCallum stated that the Planning Commission did vote to bring in the property. Greg Winterowd stated that he and Director Mulder had recommended that either land currently in the UGB is traded, or come up with a special need as allowed under ORS 197.298 which would allow for the inclusion of the school property. Based on the work he has done, he did not feel that either of these options would work well. He stated that the School District does have land and facility needs, however, the property chosen has Class II soils entirely, is expensive to serve without great access, and has two boundaries abutting agricultural land without a road or anything to serve as a buffer. These are situations that put the overall proposalofthe City in jeopardy. In his opinion, the only way it could be brought in is if it came in with the Serres property, if this property was found justifiable, so that the cost of services could be spread out over a large area. The proposed UGB would go to year 2020 and exact needs over the next 15 years indicate that there is a need for higher density areas which the nodal overlay area would address. As soon as land is added that is difficult to justify from a priority standpoint, the City will set themselves up for a remand and, over time, this land may be justifiable because they may be able to come up with a more specific study that says why they need a site to serve specific populations on the east side of Highway 99E. Councilor McCallum questioned Mr. Winterowd as to his meaning of the word "jeopardy". Mr. Winterowd stated that he has seen his role in working for the City over the past three years as doing his utmost to develop a plan that meets the City's local objectives and minimizing the risk of remand from the Land Conservation Development Commission without sacrificing the core values of jobs, good neighborhoods, and transportation. When he sees that the possibility of a 20-acre site for a School District could get the City's plan sent back for remand, then his tendency is to recommend against the inclusion of the property. With an urban growth boundary expansion, there are a multitude of assumptions that need to be justified and the City needs to have a little flexibility if they want to get approval from LCDC the first time through. Councilor Bjelland stated that he and Mr. Winterowd sit on the State's Urban Growth Boundary Amendment work group advising LCDC and the DLC on how to improve the Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 1r COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING urban growth boundary amendment process to make it easier for cities to go through as opposed to the seven or eight years it has taken Woodburn to get through the periodic review process. The soils issue is a classic example of where state law dictates what cities can do in expanding their urban growth boundary. LCDC has to follow state law and any city that cannot show that it has taken every effort to use other available lands is leaving themself open to remand and successful overturn by parties interested in not seeing any expansion of urban growth boundary. Woodburn needs to be very careful in looking at where we would expand our urban growth boundary, and make sure that we are following and have done the research to justify the areas that are proposed within the expansion area. He stated that there are other alternatives available to the School if they can justify that particular location and it does not have to be part of the UGB process. Based on what he has heard today, he feels that the City would probably be better served by not including that property as part of the UGB expansion because of the issues that have been raised and the exposure it can create for the City. 1600 Councilor McCallum stated that the School District will need more than 20 acres over the next 15 years and he hoped that barriers are not established since we need to work with them to assist them with their future facility needs. Councilor Bjelland stated that he wants to make sure that the City accommodates all of the potential public, private, housing, employment needs with the UGB and the school is a significant part based on the projected student population of this planning time frame and how many acres are needed to support this student population. Greg Winterowd stated that there is a need for affordable land for school sites. In regards to the process, the School District was asked about three years ago if they had a facility plan. The reply was that there was no clear plan available nor did they provide any clear projection of land needs. Staff then looked at the existing ratio of population of developed school land and used that as a placeholder number to insure that there was enough land. This number resulted in another 55 acres and the School District wrote a letter to say that they needed more land. The proposed plan before the Council would include 108 acres of residential land within the UGB to meet school needs. The problem is that the School does not own the land so they will need to purchase it at a higher price ifit is in a UGB. He recommended that the Council follow Councilor McCallum's advice and work with the District at a later date to come up with a facilities plan which can then be examined by the Council to see ifthere are sites within the UGB that meet those siting requirements. The Council would then look at the unmet need and encourage the District to work with some of the new landowners being proposed in this inclusion and then apply the criteria to determine whether the land inside the UGB will meet the need or perhaps it may be necessary to go to the outside. Utilizing that approach, he felt that the District can be successful. Councilor Bjelland stated that it is also necessary to see where the projected population of the housing will be so that the school sites can be located. This periodic review and UGB Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 " COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING expansion process will determine where the housing population will be which will then dictate to a certain extent the location of the schools. Director Mulder stated that the City had recently received a letter from the School District which will be provided to the Council along with all of the other written testimony that came in to the City prior to the April 20, 2005 deadline by the May 9,2005 meeting. Councilor Lonergan questioned what will happen if the 20 acres is left out of the proposed UGB expansion area. Mr. Winterowd stated that the School District would then own 20 acres of agricultural land that they cannot build on unless or until the UGB is expanded or they found another site. 2188 4) Alternatives that provide flexibility in protecting large industrial parcels from subdivisions - Mayor Figley stated that the City is trying to avoid having the unbuildable or poorly usable remnants of land that exist elsewhere around the City that can accommodate the small fabrication or assembly operations. She shared the concern expressed by Marion County regarding the need for flexibility in different parcels. Mr. Winterowd stated that the Economic Opportunities Analysis calls for a variety of site sizes and some larger sites have been reserved, however, to meet the smaller site needs, there are a number of sites available along Highway 99E without any restrictions on parceling them to meet certain kinds of needs. The Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR) provides for two categories of parcels that have somewhat different functions. Category 1 are the three large parcels which would allow industrial parks with the largest parcel size required being 25 acres. Two of these parcels are located on Evergreen Road and the other parcel is located on Butteville Road. These sites also allow the breakdown to smaller parcels under the notion that there would be a master planned industrial area to show how a variety of industrial site needs could be met within the next one to three years with those three sites. Category 2 are further away and will probably be available after the 3 year period since they are not shovel ready and may be dependent upon the construction of a south arterial. The proposed plan would have Evergreen Road extending to the south, Butteville Road extending to the south, and the Butteville overpass built which is also the south arterial roadway. Those three more flexible parcels in the industrial park would pay for the road extensions to serve their neighbors. Those sites would have a restriction against land divisions. He suggested that the City consider reviewing the Economic Opportunities Analysis in five years to see how growth has occurred and then adjust the plan accordingly. Councilor Bjelland stated that Oregon has a severe shortage of larger industrial sites for locating businesses that want to locate or expand in Oregon. If Woodburn has 25 acre or larger sites available, then the City has an opportunity to attract the type of industries that the City is looking for to locate in Woodburn. Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 ... COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING 2967 5) Rationale for the proposed commercial zoning on the north side of Highway 211 east of Highway 99E - Director Mulder stated that there are two 10-acre parcels that were addressed during the public hearing and staff is not proposing any change on those properties. Both parcels are currently within the City's UGB but outside of the city limits. Currently, the parcels have a Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial and staff had not considered making a change on these properties as a part of this process. With the property owners requesting that the parcels be changed to residential, staff has taken another look at those parcels and recommends that the designation not be changed. This amendment process has already established that the City is constraining the amount of commercial land and the acreage should be retained. In regards to the location, this is the only significant area of vacant commercial land on the east side of the City and there would be some compatibility issues with the surrounding area. Councilor Lonergan stated that his concern was on the third lot where the Church will be developing and he questioned compatibility of commercial on the west and east sides of this Church along with the residential property across the street from the parcels. Director Mulder reiterated that this property has been designated as commercial for almost 30 years. As a part of this process, he did not do a review of each parcel designation but did address some of the more obvious issues where there is inconsistency with existing zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation. He also stated that the Church has turned in an application but it is not deemed complete as of this date. He did not feel that having a Church on the one parcel would have much of an affect on compatibility other than the continuity of commercial use. 3570 (6) Nodal Overlay rationale - Mr. Winterowd stated that the nodal overlay concept was an attempt to provide affordable home ownership opportunities based on the housing needs analysis. To be affordable, smaller lot sizes are necessary along with varied housing options. The nodal development would have a combination of somewhat higher density multiple family near a commercial center graduating down to the possibility of some row houses which are increasingly popular and then some small lot single family. The standards that have been developed elsewhere in the City for single family housing especially in the downtown area would be applied to insure a good design. The nodal overlay shows the State that the City is increasing density and it shows the County that there is a way to meet density guidelines that they proposed. He feels that including this overlay area will give the City a better position for acknowledgment the first time before LCDC. Councilor Lonergan expressed concern on including a higher density area when the City is already experiencing traffic problems and he sees his job as protecting the livability the residents have at this time. He felt that row housing is attractive but he is afraid of the transportation impact. Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 1r COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING Mr. Winterowd stated that his concerns have validity, however, he disagreed with one comment in that if there was a development pattern with the same number of people, then there would be more land required and people would have to drive to a commercial area since they would be further out, therefore, the affect on congestion might be worse for the same number of people in a smaller area. Councilor McCallum concurred with the point made relating to services in the area in that a resident could walk to since it could reduce the amount of driving depending upon the services within the local area. Councilor Bjelland stated that nodal development will not work in many parts of Woodburn since they do not have access to the commercial and employment opportunities. This particular area is adjacent to what could be a major employment base and would provide an opportunity for people living in that area to walk to work and be close to other commercial activities. Director Mulder stated that he had initial concerns on this proposal but agreed that this would be the location if it is going to work. It was also noted that the DLCD has not identified any flaws with this nodal overlay area. 4762 7) Commercial property on Highway 99E at the extreme north side- Director Mulder stated that staff will be proposing that the area be modified to low density residential and the designation is a mapping error. Mayor Figley stated that the proposed schedule is for staff to have an organized set of materials for their review at the May 9,2005 regular meeting and then deliberations will be resumed on May 23,2005. Administrator Brown stated that the Council does have some time flexibility in the event they would like to continue their deliberations until a Council meeting in June 2005. Director Mulder stated that he will also be including a memo with the materials that will be including revisions to the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and to the draft Development Ordinance amendments. 5335 COUNCIL BILL 2569 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2004-05. Council Bill 2569 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Lonergan stated that he was very familiar with the Attorney firm and felt that it would be to the City's benefit to have an attorney assisting with labor negotiations with the Police Association. He questioned the amount that was being set aside for labor negotiations since it seemed very low. Administrator Brown stated that the amount he is requesting in this resolution will be enough for this fiscal year and additional funds are being proposed for the next fiscal year. If the City goes to arbitration, then he will need to come back to the Council for Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 'II' COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING additional funds. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2569 duly passed. 5625 INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD. BJELLANDIMCCLALLUM.... appoint Huggins Insurance Services Inc. as the City's Insurance Agent of Record for property, liability, workers' compensation, and risk management services and authorize the City Administrator to sign a personal services agreement with Huggins Insurance Services, Inc. for a three-year term of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008. The motion passed unanimously. 5691 ACCEPTANCE OF BANCROFT BOND APPLICATIONS. BJELLAND/NICHOLS... under the authority ofORS 223.210 Council accept the Bancroft Bond applications submitted by Bartolo's (1024 Orchard Lane) and Sanchez's (1052 Orchard Lane) which were filed after the initial lO-day filing period on the East Hardcastle local improvement district. The motion passed unanimously. 5762 URBAN RENEWAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT. BJELLAND/NICHOLS... approve the attached reimbursement agreement between the City of Woodburn and the Woodburn Urban Renewal Agency for fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the attached reimbursement agreement. The motion passed unanimously. 5844 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS. A) Planning Commission approval of Partition 05-01 and Variance 05-06 (1515 West Lincoln Street): Final order approves the partition of .67 acres into 3 parcels in the single family residential zone and approves the variance to reduce the average lot depth requirement for the proposed Parcel 3 from 100 feet to 41 feet. B) Planning Commission approval of Design Review 04-22, Variance 04-30, Variance 05-01, and Variance 05-07 ((Harvard Drive I West Hayes Street): Final order approves the construction of an office building on the northeast corner of the intersection and provides for variances on driveway, setback, and boundary walls. No action was taken by the Council to bring these actions up for review. 5930 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Brown reported that between the Mayor, Council, and management staff, contributions for Relay for Life were sufficient to become a Platinum sponsor of Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 " COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING this year's event and over $1,000 was raised for this cause. He also stated that the City will be having two teams this year and he invited the Mayor and Council to participate by walking on our second team. Mayor Figley stated that the contributions were made by the individuals personally and not from City funds. 6070 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Bjelland stated that the Hanging Basket Program is underway and this year they hope to hang baskets on new poles located within the City which will provide more visibility and be an attractive addition to the City. Pledges and invoices have been placed in the mail and contributions of any size will be appreciated. Last year there were about 120 baskets throughout the City. On behalf of the Relay of Life Tri-Chairs, he thanked the Mayor, Council, and staff for their contribution and work on this event. They had established a goal of 50 teams for this year but, as of this date, they 51 teams and possibly 13 more teams signing up to participate. Councilor McCallum also thanked the Council for their support of the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast on May 14,2005. Tickets are available from either French Prairie or Woodburn Kiwanis members. He also requested that the City Administrator provide a report to the Council at the next meeting on Marion County's reversal of their decision on the road in the Renaissance Development. 6474 ADJOURNMENT. MCCALLUM/SIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:56 p.m.. APPROVE ATTEST ~~ Mary e t, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 'II'