Loading...
Ord 2240 - Annex Factory Outlet COUNCIL BILL NO. 1977 ORDINANCE NO. 2240 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ANNEXATION 98-03; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT 98-02; ZONE MAP AMENDMENT 98-04; FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASES nAND m OF A FACfORY OUTLET CENTER; ATTACHING CERTAIN CONDITIONS THERETO; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have established certain land uses within the City of Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has reviewed the record in Annexation Case 98-03, Comprehensive Plan Map 98-02, and Zone Map Amendment 98-04, and considered all public testimony previously presented; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The land use applications before the City Council are as follows: A. A request for annexation to the City of Woodburn of Tax Lot 101 consisting of 8.0 acres that is within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. B. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" on Tax Lot 101. C. A Zoning Map Amendment in conformance with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map designation from Urban Transition Farm to Commercial Retail. Section 2. The applicant and owner of the Tax Lot 101 is Craig Realty Group- Woodburn, LLC. Section 3. The property which is subject to the land use applications is Tax Lot 101, which is legally described in Attachment "A". Section 4. The property legally described in Attachment" A" is annexed to the City of Woodburn, based upon the findings and conclusions contained in Attachment "B." Section 5. That the Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" and a Zoning Map Amendment from Urban Transition Farm ("UTF") to Commercial Retail ("CR") in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Map designation on the Tax Lot 101, which is legally described in Attachment "A", is approved based Page 1 - Council Bill No. 1977 Ordinance No. 2240 "-"T""~ .. -....._"~"" .. ~~ .~,_. ,~,,,,,,,,., ........ "..---,..," ~ upon the findings and conclusions contained in Attachment "B." Section 6. That the land use approvals herein are subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment "B", which the City Council finds reasonable. Section 7. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Coun~l ~~oval by the Mayor. Approved as to formfY1 rrv<r {~ ,- <t -, 1 City Attorney Date ~ ~ APPROVED: ~ RICHARD JENNING , MAYOR Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office Of~ ATIEST: I!/~ Mary T t, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon July 26. 1999 July 27, 1999 Julv 27. 1999 July 27, 1999 Page 2 - Council Bill No. 1977 Ordinance No. 2240 ATTACHMENT 8 page....l- of ~ 4- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON In the Matter of a Request to approve an Annexation of approximately 8.0 acres within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, to Approve a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" on 8.0 acres and to Approve a Zoning Map Amendment in Conformance with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map Designation of "Commercial" on 8.0 acres from "Urban Transition Farm" to "Commercial Retail" I. APPLICA nON INFORMATION. A. Application Description. This application includes three (3) requests: ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) ) CITY OF WOODBURN FILE NOS. ) ANNEXA nON 98-03, ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP ) AMENDMENT 98-02 AND ZONING ) MAP AMENDMENT 98-04 ) (1) An annexation of Tax Lot 10 1 consisting of 8.0 acres that is within the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary ('UGB"). (2) A request for an amendment to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan map from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial" on Tax Lot 101 (3) A zoning map amendment in conformance with the requested Woodburn Comprehensive Plan map designation from "Urban Transition Farm" to "Commercial Retail" B. Site Description. This site is located northwest of the intersection of State Highway 214/219 and Interstate Highway 5. The application affects one lot of record, Tax Lot 101. This site is flat with relatively little elevation change. Vegetation on the site consists of native grass. Two drainage swales exist on the property. Adjacent to the site on the south and east is the area of Woodburn Company Stores Phase I approved in 1998. Tax Lot 101 will accommodate Woodburn Company Stores, Phases II and III. Page 1 - Findings and Conclusions ".-.. ATTACHMENT ~ Page~ of ~ C. Adiacent and On-Site Land Use. Comurehensive Plan Map and Zonine Map Desienations and Utilities. (1) Adjacent Comprehensive Plan Map Desi~nations. Woodburn Company Stores Phase I to the south and east is designated "Commercial" on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan ("Plan") map. To the north of this site is the Urban Growth Boundary which is designated Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") on the Marion County Comprehensive Plan map. Land directly to the west of Tax Lot 101 is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary and is designated "High Density Residential" on the City's Plan map. (2) Adjacent Zonine Map Desi~nations. Adjacent property inside the City is zoned CR. Adjacent property outside of the City but within the UGB is zoned UTF. Adjacent property outside of the UGB is zoned EFU. (3) Land Use on Adjacent Properties. The property to the north in Marion County is in farm use. The property to the east within the Urban Growth Boundary contains a single-family residence. The property to the south and east within the City limits is under development as Phase I of Woodburn Company Stores. (4) On-Site Land Use. Tax Lot 101 is vacant. (5) Utilities. Public utilities (water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage) are available to the site's boundaries. There will be no difficulty in connecting these existing public utilities and providing public utilities to the site. The applicant is responsible for all on-site public facility improvements. The City of Woodburn ("City") found in 1992 and 1998 that it had sufficient water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage capacity to serve the Phase I retail development. ll. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. The Applicant submitted this application on September 18, 1998. After timely notice of a public hearing as required by the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, the Woodburn Planning Commission heard the application at a public hearing on February 11, 1999. No party requested that the hearing be continued or that the record remain open. The Planning Page 2 - Findings and Conclusions __,_~~,_ _ ._'~"~,""_~'_......,,~'_....,.'~.. ,,_,~"__~"no..,I_ ,."-",__,~_,~_,-,,,_,~.__.__,,_.",~..~....,_'____ .... ~ ATTACHMENTB page~ of ,..;J.'"f Commission tentatively approved the application at the conclusion of the public hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a final order recommending that the Woodburn City Council approve the application on February 25, 1999. The City of Woodburn provided timely notice of the City Council's hearing on May 10, 1999. The City had previously provided the required 45-day written notice to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for this post-acknowledgment amendment. The Mayor opened the public hearing and read the announcements required by ORS 197.763(5). No party objected to the City Council's jurisdiction. The City Council heard testimony from the applicant and the Oregon Department of Transportation. ODOT requested that the record remain open. However, the City Council chose not to keep the record open pursuant to ORS 197.763(4)(b). This section provides Ifif additional documents or evidence are provided by any party, the local government may allow a continuance or leave the record open to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. If The City Council finds that this statute provides it with the discretion as to whether to keep the record open. In this case, the application has not changed since the February 11, 1999 Planning Commission hearing and ODOT had the opportunity to place a letter into the record concerning the application. Moreover, ODOT did not object to the City Council's denial of its request that the record remain open. The City Council also notes that ODOT did not request an opportunity to rebut any additional evidence presented at the hearing but had a full and fair opportunity to make its case during its testimony. The City Council placed no time limits on ODOT's testimony. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Council tentatively approved the application with a motion by Councilor Figley seconded by Councilor Pugh on a vote of 5-1 (Councilor Bjelland opposed). The City Council directed the applicant's attorney to prepare findings for review by city staff and adoption by the City Council at its meeting on June 14, 1999. The City Council decided not to impose a condition, which was recommended by the Planning Commission, that traffic impact be determined based upon an additional Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be paid for and obtained by the applicant. However, the City Council added a condition that the City address the issue of required traffic impact mitigation at the time of site plan review. The applicant's attorney proposed fmdings and submitted them to the City Attorney. After the findings were reviewed by city staff, certain revisions were made and condition IV-6 was added, as follows: "That any additional traffic impact mitigation would be required at the site plan stage, if necessary. " Page 3 - Findings and Conclusions ,.._..~" .___"o ..''" ........__.....,'.O..__H..____..__...... I" ATTACHMENT ~ Page -!:L of ~ A disagreement arose between city staff and the applicant's attorney as to whether the City Council intended to include condition IV -6 as part of the findings. At its meeting on July 12, 1999, the City Council was presented the proposed findings and discussed the inclusion of Condition IV -6. . The City Council then clarified its intent through a motion by Councilor Figley. Councilor Figley's motion, seconded by Councilor Pugh, was a follows: I would move that item IV, sub 6 be amended to say that no additional traffic impact study be required of applicant~ that the issue of traffic impact mitigation be required at the site plan stage, and no "if necessary." ...I made that motion... someone would second it so we could discuss ..... The motion passed 5-0. A second motion was then made at the July 12, 1999 meeti~g to direct city staff to revise the Findings and Conclusions to be consistent with the inclusion of Condition IV -6, as amended, and to present the revised Council Bill for approval at the following City Council meeting. This motion passed 5-0. ID. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA. The City Council herein adopts these fmdings approving this application. The City Council expressly incorporates by reference the findings as to the applicable approval criteria contained in the applicant's submittal dated September 18, 1998. Where there is a conflict between these findings and that submittal, these findings shall control. A. Annexation. (1) Relevant Ap>>roval Criteria. a. Statewide Plannine Goals ("Goals"). (i) Goal 1. "Citizen Involvement. " "To develop a citizen involvement program and insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. " FINDING: The City of Woodburn has established a land use notification and hearings procedures to assure citizen involvement. Page 4 - Findings and Conclusions '-.., Tll'1IlI ATTACHMENT i3 Page...s:.. of 44- (ii) Goal 2. "Land Use Planning. II "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. II FINDING: This Goal requires that the City coordinate Plan amendments, including annexations, with affected governmental units. The City has coordinated this application with Marion County, the Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT"), and the Department Land Conservation and Development ("DLCD"). (iii) Goal 5. "Natural Resources. Scenic and Historic Areas. and Open Spaces. II liTo protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces. II FINDING: No Goal 5 resource exists on Tax Lot 101. (iv) Goal 6. II Air. Water and Land Resources Ouality. II liTo maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. II FINDING: State agencies play a key role in achieving this goal. At the time of development, the Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") is responsible for administering permits for drainage and for air Quality ("DEQ") with respect to large parking facilities. The Division of State Lands ("DSL") is responsible for administering wetlands. (v) Goal 7. "Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. II liTo protect life and property from natural disasters. II Page 5 - Findings and Conclusions "_,,.0 '.'~--."'_~___'____." _ ..~...,'_ ._".._____..______,___ ATTACHMENT 8lf Page:..la- of OJ FINDING: There are no hazards associated with the subject property. (vi) Goal 8. "Recreational Needs. I' "To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. 'I FINDING: The Subject property has not been identified by the City as a potential park site for any type of recreational facility. (vii) Goal 9. "Economic Develo.pment.'1 "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. " FINDING: The subject property provides the opportunity to reinforce the activity of the existing factory outlet center. There is no other site in the Urban Growth Area with the same locational characteristics. The opportunity for expansion of the factory outlet center to an abutting parcel will better serve the existing market area and expand the market area, thereby creating more jobs and local payrolls. (viii) Goal 10. "Housing." "To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. " FINDING: The City of W oodbum has provided for a variety of housing types and densities in its Plan and implementing ordinances, consistent with the Guidelines for implementing Goal 9. The available inventory of residential land within the UGB exceeds the amount needed to serve future population needs. Page 6 - Findings and Conclusions ".'_~"''''''''''''''"'_ ,_~_~"'",',,<'.____,_.., ........~"_..,".O"__ .. .~___'~._~,_._> ,,,_"." .,,_,,"_,'"~~, .._.-,__,,'.' ,,,.,_.............,,'~.__ ATTACHMENT ~ Page -..:L- of .~ ' As documented on page 39 of the Plan, there is sufficient land designated for residential use in the Plan to accommodate a population of 28,000, plus a surplus that includes approximately 100 acres of both the Low Density and High Density Plan designations. This analysis is based on the carrying capacity of the two (2) residential categories in the plan in relation to the densities permitted in the underlying zoning. The capacity of the Low Density Residential designation is six (6) dwelling units per gross acre. The capacity of the High Density designation is conservatively indexed at a density of twelve (12) dwelling units per gross acre, where the corresponding zoning allows densities ranging up to twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre. (ix) Goal 11. "Public Facilities and Services. " "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. II FINDING: The subject property is well positioned for the further extension of public facilities constructed to serve Phase I development of the factory outlet center. (x) Goal 12. "Tran$POrtation. II "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. II FINDING: This Goal is implemented by the Transportation Planning Rule ("TPR"). The City of Woodburn has implemented the Goal 12 and the TPR through the adoption of an acknowledged Transportation System Plan ("TSP") in 1996, Ordinance 2170. The TSP accounts for the development of all the land within the Urban Growth Boundary as provided for the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The TSP fulfills the Goal 12 through facility plans for streets, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit; implementation priorities and a financing program. The City has established a TSP that reflects the annexation and urbanization of the subject property. Additional findings demonstrating compliance with the TPR are found below. (xi) Goal 13. "Energy Conservation. II liTo conserve energy. " Page 7 - Findings and Conclusions ,. --w- "' r ..., ATTAC1ENT~ ~~ ~ Page of - <-- FINDING: The development of the subject property will assist in conserving the energy used for shopping by encouraging one stop shopping due to the aggregation of a wide range of goods at a single location. The buildings in the center will all conform with required energy conservation codes. (xii) Goal 14. "Urbanization. " "To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. " FINDING: Goal 14 provides for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Tax Lot 101 is "urbanizable" and not "rural" since it is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Urbanizable lands are defined as lands with the UGB which are determined to be necessary and suitable for future urban uses, can be served by urban services and facilities and are needed for the expansion of an urban area. The 8.0 acre annexation is an appropriate parcel to be included within the City. Since the property abuts the existing factory outlet center, it is a logica11ocation for expansion of the center. The public need for this particular land use at this particular location was documented in the City's 1992 and 1998 annexation land use approvals of the factory outlet center. As a facility with a regional market area, the annexation provides the opportunity for the factory outlet center to increase its market penetration by expanding in a location that has previously been selected and improved for the purpose. The annexation fulfills the City's need to grow incrementally and to provide for mutually supporting uses. (xiii) Goals 3. 4.15 and 16 throu~h 19. FINDING: The following goals are inapplicable to this proposal: Goal 3, Agricultural Lands; Goa14, Forest Lands; Goal 15, Willamette River Greenway; and Goals 16 through 19, the Coastal Goals. b. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. (i) Commercial Development Policies . Plan Policy B-1. The City should at all times have sufficient land to accommodate the retail needs of the City and the surrounding market area. The Page 8 - Findings and Conclusions '---'y--'-' -, ,"',-- .-- '--' 1'" ATTACHMENT 6 page..:L.... of 6- ~ City presently has four major commercial areas: 99E, 1-5 Interchange, the downtown area and the 2l4/2l9/99E four corners intersection area. No new areas should be established. FINDING: Plan page 14 identifies the special market area considerations for commercial uses at this location: "This area serves as an interstate service center. It is a freeway oriented service center. This area also has a more regional retail orientation than the rest of Woodburn. " Consequently, the need for commercial land in this area is independent of other commercial sites in the City. There are no comparable sites in the area available for commercial use. The proposed (a factory outlet center) use can only be served at the proposed location. A factory outlet center is appropriately located at this location because of its location relative to transportation facilities . Plan Policy B-2. Lands for high traffic generating uses (shopping centers, malls, restaurants, etc) should be located on well improved arterials. The use should provide the necessary traffic control devices needed to ameliorate their impact on the arterial streets. FINDING: The subject property is located on Arney Road, which is classified as a "Service Collector." Arney Road has been improved to essentially the same standards as a "Minor Arterial," except that the turn refuge lane is two (2) feet narrower. Arney Road has direct access to Highway 214, which is classified as a "Major Arterial." The appropriate traffic control requirements along Arney Road have been identified as part of the traffic impact analysis. (ii) Annexation Policies . Plan Policy D-l. While it is important that enough land is available for the necessary development anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also essential to prevent too much land from being included in the city limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling development. The City should ensure that there is a five (5) year supply of vacant land within the City. Services should be provided to the land during the five (5) year period. Page 9 - Findings and Conclusions ....-."T.. ,..,.."....~- ........... FINDING: ATTACHMENT 6 page.1S2-.. of <~'-f As found in Commercial Development Policy (V.D.1.a. above), the 1-5 Interchange location of the subject property has special, regional market characteristics and therefore is not directly competitive with other commercial sites within Woodburn. In addition there is virtually no other vacant commercial land available at the interchange at present. Therefore the subject property satisfies this policy. . Plan Policy D-2. Prior to the approval of Site Plan, Subdivision or Planned Unit Developments for land annexed to the city west of Interstate 5, a detailed Transportation Impact Study with the Department of Transportation involvement will be required. FINDING: This process allows the City to condition development with transportation improvement requirements that are "roughly proportional" to the traffic impacts that are generated by the development. A Traffic Impact (fIS) Study was completed by the applicant and is contained in the record. The City finds that this policy is satisfied for the purposes of this application and will not require the applicant to prepare an additional traffic impact study for Woodburn Company Stores, Phases IT and IT!. However, the City reserves its right to address any future traffic mitigation issues when a Site Plan review application is submitted on the subject property. . Plan Policy M-4. The County shall retain responsibility for regulating land use on lands within the urban growth area until such lands are annexed by the City. The urban growth area has been identified by the City as urbanizable and is considered to be available, over time, for urban development. FINDING: Based on the on-going needs of the community to accommodate growth and the specific commitment to construct Phase I of the factory outlet center, it is timely to allow urbanization of the subject property. . Plan Policy M-6. Upon receipt of an annexation request or the initiation of annexation proceedings by the City, the City shall forward information regarding the request (including any proposed zone change) to the County for comments and recommendations. The County shall have twenty days to respond unless they request and the City allows additional time to submit comments before the City makes a decision on the annexation proposal. Page 10 - Findings and Conclusions "-'-T<- < _",___H." ,,' ,-,<,,-, ,.. FINDING: ATTACHMENT f3 Page...L.L- of a. 4 The City notified Marion County of the proposed annexation by letter in November 1998. The County Public Works Department responded December 13, 1998 for the Land Use and Transportation Divisions. The comments indicated the need for a copy of the Transportation Impact Analysis for Woodburn Company Stores Phases II & III, dated December 1998 which was subsequently provided. In addition the County requested a site plan addressing access, including the abutting property to the west of the subject property. . Plan Policy M-7. All land use actions within the urban growth boundary and outside the city limits shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and County's land use regulations. FINDING: The proposed annexation is consistent with the Plan because it is a proposal to permit the urbanization of the subject property, subject to a concurrent Plan map amendment. There are no County regulations that preclude the proposed annexation. . Plan Policy M -11. Conversion of land within the boundary to urban uses be based on consideration of [the following five (5) factors]: a. Orderly, economic provision of public facilities and services; FINDING: All the public facilities necessary to develop the abutting property for the same use have been provided. Access to these public facilities therefore only requires minor extensions. b. Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to ensure choices in the marketplace; FINDING: The proposed annexation is required to provide the opportunity for future expansion of a specific regional commercial use in the only site within the City that is appropriate. c. LCDC Goals; FINDING: The LCDC Statewide Goals are addressed above. Page 11 - Findings and Conclusions '.--r" '-'''~''''''''~'''''' - ....~... ...' _.. -...,.. ". ATTACtJ,MENT 13 Page d- of ~..;. d. Encouragement of in-filling development within developed areas before conversion of urbanizable areas; and FINDING: As a site to expand a specific existing use there are no in-fill locations that are suitable for this purpose. e. Applicable provision of the Marion County and City comprehensive plans. FINDING: The proposed annexation is found to be consistent with the applicable portions of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan as indicated in section V.D. The proposal is consistent with the Marion County Comprehensive Plan in that the County Plan establishes the Urban Growth Boundary as the area specifically set aside for urbanization after annexation to the City. d. Transportation System Plan FINDING: . Functional Classification of Streets. FINDING: The proposed Plan amendment does not warrant any change in the functional classification of streets as shown on TSP Figure 29. TSP Figure 29 indicates a potential street connection along the north boundary of the subject property. Marion County has also indicated this need (Attachment A). The appropriate facility to fulfill this need will be addressed at the time of site plan review for Phases II and m. . Improvement Projects. FINDING: Development of a commercial use will cause the need for transportation facility improvements as described in the TIA. These improvements are consistent with those described in the TSP. B. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Page 12 - Findings and Conclusions ~".,"--,.. "~.._-'_.__.~---'_._- ATTACHMENT t3 Page -L3-. of .& Lf (1) Pro,posal. The proposal is to change the Plan map designation for this site from "High Density Residential" to "Commercial." (2) Relevant Approval Criteria. a. Plan Amendment Criteria, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.050: "a. Compliance with Statewide Goals. "b. Compliance with Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies" , "c. Demonstrated Public Need for the Plan Map Amendment. "d. Proposal Best Satisfies the Need. b. Burden of Proof, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.080(b) . Comoliance with Statewide Planninf Goals. The findings regarding compliance with applicable statewide planning goals are found above and are expressly incorporated herein by reference. . Comoliance with Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The findings regarding compliance with applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies are found above and are expressly incorporated herein by reference. . Demonstrated Public Need for the Plan Map Amendment. The proposed change in the Plan map from "High Density Residential" fulfills a demonstrated public need. It represents a change from the way the Plan was originally mapped but was accounted for in the goals and policies of Plan. Consistency with the intent of the Plan demonstrates that the public need is served by the change. As time passes, there is a public need to weigh issues and opportunities and recognize that incremental changes to the Plan map benefit the community. In this instance, there is demonstrated public need to accommodate an opportunity to Page 13 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACr~ENT 8 Page' of .:J";" strengthen the economy, consistent with Goal 9. Goal 9 states that the Plan shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, location and service levels for a variety of commercial uses consistent with plan policies. Currently the Plan is lacking a adequate supply of suitably located property that can be used to bolster the regional shopping function at the Woodburn Interchange. The subject change is needed to achieve the full potential of the interchange, particularly the existing factory outlet center. The public need is served by expanded employment opportunities and desirable mix of land uses for a freestanding community. The Statewide Guidelines for Economic Development address the public's need to accommodate expansion of commercial use. The Statewide Guidelines state that: "Plans should strongly emphasize the expansion of and increased productivity from existing firms as a means to strengthen local and regional economic development" . The subject change in the Plan designation is needed to be consistent with this guideline. The Plan change augments the supply of suitable sites. The proposal is the only available site that not only accounts for market forces, market location, and key public facilities, but that is readily adaptable to expansion of the existing mall layout. The, proposal maximizes the use of the existing facilities and the location advantages provided by freeway visibility and access and complementary commercial uses. The proposal is consistent with the Woodburn commercial land use policies. Part of the public need is to exercise the Plan in away that recognizes change and positive growth opportunities that build a strong, liveable community. The proposal is consistent with the Plan. This consistency is demonstrated in section V.D. above. Key considerations in reviewing the need for the change include the fact that it concentrates commercial activity in a priority commercial area. Concentrating commercial provides the benefit of cumulative attraction which in turn enhances market share and reduces overall shopping trips. And significantly, the map change takes advantage of existing public and private investment. . Proposal Best Satisfies the Need. The need for additional commercial land to support the expansion of the existing factory outlet center is best served by this property. This reinforces the policy of concentrating commercial development. It strengthens the shopping pattern for existing commercial uses and avoids the proliferation of commercial uses in a dispersed pattern that lacks the mutual support of like uses. In this specific instance a commitment has already been made in this location to Page 14 - Findings and Conclusions e,.---y-., "...._.._ ,'~~'''".__..._____. ATTAC7MENT J3 Page '~of cHI establish a special shopping area that serves a regional market area. This is the only location in Woodburn that has the visibility, the access and an existing commercial use of this type. The subject property is the only site within the community that can accommodate the expansion of the existing factory outlet center. The previous actions by the City in 1992 and 1998 clearly have set the stage that there is a community need for this type of commercial use. Based on the public and private commitments and investments, the location characteristics and the conformance with commercial land use policy the subject property best satisfies the need for the expansion of the factory outlet center. . Burden of Proof. (I) first criterion is to prove that the original Plan was in error. FINDING: Conditions have changed since the Comprehensive Plan was originally drafted and first adopted in 1978. In that context there are errors in the forecasts as well as the assumptions about the composition of uses in land use categories. Such errors reflect changes in circumstance that warrant amending the Plan map. (ii) The second criterion requires showing how the community has changed since the original Plan was adopted FINDING: The 1992 and 1998 decisions to approve the site for the retail center found that the actual population growth in Woodburn substantially exceeded the population forecast used to formulate the original Plan. This increased rate of population is found to demonstrate a change for the predicted patterns of growth since those apparent when the Plan was adopted. The fmdings of the previous decision also describe how multi-family land needs were over estimated in the original plan and that the interchange location is a less than optimum location for a large concentration of multi-family residential use. Present circumstances confirm that finding. In addition, the exposure and access provided by the interchange location has resulted in the development of the factory outlet retail center, a use which has a regional market. Commercial development with a regional market was not anticipated or accounted for in the original plan. The commercial activity with this broad market does not supplant local commercial uses but rather adds to the commercial land needs of the City. Page 15 - Findings and Conclusions '"'._.........-.b-,""""________"~.....""'""__,...._"'.__."'._,'~_.."~,.._.'_~.__.....,_. ATTACHMeNt 6 Page...1k of ~ t./- (iii) The ordinance provides the alternative to address either the second or third criterion. Haying addressed the second criterion, above there is no requirement,to address the third criterion. C. Zonine Map Amendment. (1) Relevant Approval Criteria. . Initiation of a Zone Change by Petition, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 15.030 . Burden of Proof, Woodburn Zoning Ordinance, Section 16.080(b) . Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (2) W oodbum Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Findings on these criteria are addressed in above, and are incorporation herein by reference. The City Council finds that the Commercial Plan map designations implemented by the CR zoning district. D. Response to Issues Raised by the Oree:on Department of Transportation. The Oregon Department of Transportation ("ODOT") submitted two letters into the record dated February 4, 1999 and May 5, 1999. The May 5, 1999 letter states that it is intended to update comments contained in the February 4, 1999 letter. This portion of the decision responds to issues raised by ODOT. As noted with respect to Goal 2, the City is required to give notice of this application to ODOT, to allow ODOT an opportunity to comment on the application and to consider the comments as much as possible. The City is not required, however, to agree with all of ODOT's comments or to adopt them. (1) The City Council finds that the I-5/Highway 214/219 Interchange will be improved with sufficient capacity consistent with the adopted City of Woodburn Transportation System Plan ("TSP"). ODOT argues that the applicant's transportation impact study ("TIS ") is flawed because it is: "Based on the assumption that a major improvement to the 1-5 Interchange will be completed. Such an improvement is not, however, included in the City's TSP or the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the TSP contains Goal 2, Policy 2, which states: "Develop a strategy for providing improved access to 1-5 Page 16 - Findings and Conclusions -- '--~..,-'--'---'---'-' ATTACHMENT ;3 Page...tJ,... of ~ c..J. from the Woodburn area, through either improvements of the existing Highway 214 Interchange and/or a new interchange in the Woodburn vicinity (with supporting local roadway improvements). This strategy will be developed following a refinement study as outlined in the Transportation Planning Rule." The City Council finds that the applicant has satisfied OAR 660-12-060(1) because the application has no present "significant affect" on a transportation facility. Further, the administrative rule provides that the City may approve the application subject to conditions of approval which mitigate a significant affect. The City Council finds that Condition IV -6, requiring that the traffic mitigation issues by addressed by the City at the time of site plan review, serves to mitigate any potential significant affect. The City Council finds that the applicant's TIS demonstrates that the application will not have a significant affect on the transportation facility identified as the 1- 5/Highway 214/219 Interchange. Table 4 of the TIS prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. ("KAI") shows that in the year 2001, 1-5 will operate during a Friday p.m. peak hour at level of service ("LOS") "C" or better, with minor improvements. TIS at pages 24-25. TIS Table 5 shows that in the year 2003, the interchange will operate at LOS "DI' or better. The City Council finds nothing in the TPR requires it to look at the year 2015. In order to determine whether the application has a present significant affect on the application, the City Council fmds that Tables 4 and 5 demonstrate that the application will cause the interchange to operate at acceptable LOS through at least the next four (4) years. In the whereas clauses adopted by the City Council for the TSP, a number of fmdings demonstrate that the TSP, with its required refinement study, will satisfy the capacity requirements of the TPR at this interchange. The City Council notes that neither ODOT nor the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development ("DLCDI') appealed the City Council's adoption of its TSP. One whereas clause adopted by the City Council for the TSP found: "The City Council finds that the transportation system plan adopted herein complies with OAR 660-12-06O(1)(b) for the affected transportation facilities, including but not limited to the Highway 214/1-5 Interchange/Parr Road area." Further, incorporated in the staff report for the TSP were several fmdings relevant to the TPR. The City Council adopted findings regarding OAR 660-12-025(1). This section of the TPR provides "except as provided in Section (3) in this rule, adoption of a TSP shall constitute the land use decision regarding the need for transportation facilities, services and Page 17 - Findings and Conclusions --...........--..".-""...--..---..""-'--- ATTACHMENT P; Page.!!2- of d <+ major improvements in their function, mode and general location. " Section (3) of the administrative rule provides that a local government may defer decisions regarding function, general location and mode of a refinement plan if the necessary findings are adopted. Pursuant to the administrative rule, the city did defer, certain significant decisions. The City decided to defer the decision regarding the mode of improvements to the existing 1-5 interchange and make this decision after completion of a refinement plan. Three options were evaluated in the TSP but there are other potential alternatives. The information as to mode of interchange improvement could not be arrived at because Marion County had not completed its plan and further evaluation of the area was needed. However, the city's deferral did not invalidate any of the TSP assumptions because the need for an interchange improvement will still be addressed and local improvements to aid traffic flow will still be addressed. Delay of this decision did not, and should not, preclude implementation of the remainder of the TSP and consideration of the present application. The result of the refinement study, which will include a detailed, technical evaluation of the three current alternatives, plus others, will be an interchange alternative which is precisely defmed. Additionally, the City Council found that the TSP satisfied OAR 660-12-030. The City Council found: "The TSP identifies the City's transportation needs including those of the transportation disadvantaged, and support of industrial and commercial development. These needs were based on a 20-year forecast in population and employment within the acknowledged comprehensive plan. .. Further, the City Council adopted findings regarding OAR 660-12-060(1). The City Council found: "That the transportation system plan adopted here complies with OAR 660-12-060(1)(b) for the affected transportation facility, including but not limited to the Highway 214/1-5 Interchange/Parr Road area." The TSP adopted by the City Council adopted three (3) 1-5 access alternatives U= TSP at page 1). The TSP states: "An element of the TSP is an improvement to existing 1-5/214 Interchange" and "a reconfiguration of the interchanges proposed." (TSP at page 89.) The City Council also notes that Table 6 (TSP at page 41) shows that at least one of the options (the two interchange options) would result in LOS "0" or better in the year 2015. The TSP contains a section entitled "Required Street Upgrades." The portion of this section dealing with freeways states: "In the longer-term, reconfiguration of the interchange is proposed. A specific improvement (improve existing interchange, split diamond interchange or second interchange at Butteville Road) will be identified through a follow-up interchange Page 18 - Findings and Conclusions .."--" '--~-"''''~'''-'-'-~''''.,.~,~,-..,---,,''-'' "I' 'P l ATTAC~MENT 6 Page of de./.- refinement study of the TSP." (TSP at page 89.) The City Council fmds that while it has not completed the refmement study, it is unnecessary to do so in order for it to determine that OAR 660-12-060(1)(b) is satisfied for the purposes of granting this application. With the TSP and required refmement study, a solution to the long-term capacity needs of the interchange will be provided. In fact, the TSP transportation fmancing plan contains a proposed roadway system capacity improvement for the 1-5 interchange. <.s.= TSP at page 115; Table 17.) Thus, not only has the City Council determined to improve the interchange, it has provided some estimated costs for the improvement in the TSP long-term financing plan. The City Council finds that it need not complete the refinement study prior to this application. Because the TSP is part of the City's acknowledged plan and because the TSP states that a solution will be identified, the TSP has determined that the interchange will be upgraded. The City Council finds that under Goal 2, Policy 2 of the TSP a strategy will be developed following a refinement study as outlined in the TPR. OAR 660-12-025(3)(c) says that deferral of a solution to a refmement plan is allowed if it does not invalidate the TSP. In this case, the refinement plan carries out the TSP's acknowledged strategies without invalidating them. For these reasons, the City Council fmds that the lack of refinement study is not an impediment to a conclusion that the 1-5 has sufficient capacity in the short term, as required by the TPR, and in the long term sufficient capacity will be provided through a solution identified in a refmement study. The City Council declined to impose a condition, which was recommended by the Planning Commission, that traffic impact be determined based upon an additional Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to be paid for and obtained by the applicant. Instead, The City Council imposed a condition that the City address the issue of required traffic impact mitigation at the time of site plan review. (2) The City Council finds that KAI's TIS correctly analyzes the level of service at the time of this a.Rplication. ODOT argued that the TIS does not adequately analyze the plan amendment impacts. ODOT requested that the TIS be revised to reflect a "worst case analysis, II meaning an analysis of the highest traffic generating land use permitted in the commercial retail ("CR") zoning district. The City Council finds that this issue is not required to be reached because a condition Page 19 - Findings and Conclusions '-'~. '" -""~,,, ..',,_. , ATTACHMENT S Page.i!!:2.... of c9 of approval requires that the site be limited to a factory outlet center. This is consistent with the City Council's 1992 and 1998 decisions regarding Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores. Thus, a worst case scenario for the highest traffic generator in the CR zoning district is unnecessary since, in the event the Woodburn Company Stores Phase IT and III is not constructed, the property owner will be required to amend this condition of approval which will require an amendment to this decision. (3) OAR 660-12-045 is or can be satisfied. ODOT argues that because the City of Woodburn has not implemented the requirements of OAR 660-12-055(2), that it must address the applicable provisions of OAR 660-12-045(3),(4)(a)-(e) and (5)(d). The City Council agrees with ODOT. . OAR 660-12-045(3)(a). This section requires bicycle parking facilities as part of new retail developments. The City Council finds that it is feasible, at the site development review stage, for the application to provide bicycle parking given the size of the facility (8.0 acres). The finding of feasibility is based on the similar Phase I development. . OAR 660-12-045(3)(b). This criterion requires on-site facilities accommodating safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access within new shopping centers to adjacent residential areas and transit stops. It also requires that pedestrian circulation through parking lots generally be provided in the form of access ways. The City Council finds that it is feasible to satisfy this requirement. As with bicycle parking facilities, Phase I of the Woodburn Company Stores has demonstrated that it is feasible to meet both of these requirements. Therefore, the City Council finds that this criterion can be satisfied. . OAR 660-12-045(3)(c). The City Council finds that it is feasible to require off-site road improvements that would include facilities accommodating convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel. The City Council has required the applicant, in the approval of Phase I of Woodburn Company Stores, to provide a bicycle lane and sidewalks along Arney Road. . OAR 660-12-045(3)(e). This criterion requires that internal pedestrian circulation within commercial developments be provided through the location of buildings, construction of accessways, Page 20 - Findings and Conclusions -- -~-- --""- ~~'---'-_._....-.,-- ~--_..~..~,--_.. ... ATTACHMENT i3 Page ~ of 01. <-j. walkways and similar techniques. The City Council finds that because the applicant satisfied this requirement in Phase I, it is feasible to satisfy this requirement in Phases II and III. . OAR 660-12-045(4)(a). The City Council finds that it is feasible to require this applicant to provide transit facilities designed to support transit use through the provision of bus stops, pullouts and shelters, optimum road geometrics, on-road parking restrictions and similar facilities as appropriate. . OAR 660-12-045(4)(b). This criterion requires that retail development at or near major transit stops provide for convenient pedestrian access to the transit stop. The City Council finds that there is no major transit stop as that term is defined near this. site. . OAR 660-12-045(4)(c). The City Council finds that this criterion is inapplicable since a pedestrian district has not been established in this area. . OAR 660-12-045(4)(d). The City Council finds that it is feasible to require employee parking in Phases II and III to provide for preferential car pool and van pool parking. The City Council makes this finding based on its approval of Phase I. . OAR 660-12-045(4)(e). This criterion is inapplicable since it applies to existing development. . OAR 660-12-045(5)(d). The City Council fmds that it is feasible to satisfy this criterion by providing a transit stop along Arney Road or providing a corniection to a transit stop if the transit operator requires such an improvement. The City Council makes this finding based on its approval of Phase I of Woodburn Company Stores. For these reasons, the City Council finds that the issues raised by ODOT have been satisfied and are not a basis for denial of this application. E. Response to issues raised by Department of Land Conservation and Development in March 22. 1999 Letter. Page 21 - Findings and Conclusions ATTACHMENT 13 Page~ of Qi<./. (1) Statewide Plannine Goal 10. "Housine". Is Satisfied. DLCD argues that the City must adopt an updated buildable lands needs analysis to satisfy Goal 10. Only at that point, DLCD suggests, is it possible for the City to assess whether conversion of 8.0 acres from a multi-family designation to a commercial designation satisfies Goal 10. The City Council rejects this argument. This application is subject to compliance with the Goals and the acknowledged Plan. ORS 197.175(2). Goal 10 simply requires the City to provide for housing needs. The City has done this. The findings at the outset of this decision state the housing needs of the City of Woodburn have been satisfied through the year 2014. The acknowledged Plan states that there are 688 acres of high density residential designation. Of this, 57 acres are undeveloped and 188 acres are underdeveloped. (plan at pages 15 and 16.) The Plan further notes that the City has 238 surplus acres designated for multi-family land uses. (plan at page 38.) This allows, at 12 dwelling units per acre, an additional 2,353 dwelling units. (klJ Table 9 of the Plan at page 39 shows that the City has a surplus of 1,305 multi-family dwelling units through the year 2014. The Council notes that the Plan has recently been amended in March 1996 and in August 1997. Moreover, assuming that this eight (8.0) acres can accommodate twice the 12 dwelling units per acre figure, this area would accommodate 192 dwelling units. Removal of this site from the High Density Residential designation would still leave 1,013 surplus multi-family dwelling units by the year 2014. The City Council finds that the acknowledged Plan's determination of a surplus of multi-family housing units is a sufficient basis for it to determine that this application will allow the City to continue to meet the housing needs of its citizens. There is no legal requirement that the City defer this determination until the periodic review is completed as suggested by DLCD. DLCD's assertion that the City's acknowledged Plan contains an "out- of-date buildable lands inventory" does not mean that the City cannot rely on its acknowledged Plan. (2) Statewide Planning Goal 9 Is Satisfied. DLCD argues that the City must satisfy the administrative rule implementing Statewide Planning Goal 9; OAR Chapter 660, Division 9. The City Council finds that this administrative rule applies only at periodic review. OAR 660-09-10(2). However, assuming that the administrative rule applies to non-periodic review decisions, the City Council finds, as it did in 1992 and in 1998 that this application satisfies the administrative rule for the following reasons. Page 22 - Findings and Conclusions '_""_'_~"""_____"'M_""~_"____",_c._'_"c.'''_'_c._.. ATTACHMENT B Page ~ of -S}t../ First, this application results in eight (8.0) acres of commercial development which will increase the amount of the City's property taxes. Increased property taxes provide additional revenue to the City. Secondly, an eight (8.0) acre commercial development provides additional jobs for city and area residents. Finally, consistent with the Plan, approval of this application further encourages the development of the 1-5 commercial area. The acknowledged plan has long anticipated that this area will be developed for commercial uses. (3) The City Has Coordinated with ODOT. DLCD and Marion County. DLCD argues that ORS 197.015 provides that a Plan is coordinated when the needs of all levels of government have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. DLCD argues that ODOT's needs have not been satisfied since that agency requested a refinement study. For the reasons described above, the City Councii finds that a refinement study is not necessary now. Moreover, the City Council has considered ODOT's request that a refmement study be prepared before this application is approved but has rejected this request as explained above. Nothing requires the City Council to agree with ODOT in order to satisfy its coordination requirement under state law. Finally, DLCD suggests that the City ought to defer this decision until the City's periodic review has been completed. However, nothing in state law requires deferral of an annexation, plan map amendment or zoning map amendment for completion of a periodic review work task. 1 (4) The Application does not Conflict With Periodic Review. The City Council rejects DLCD' s argument that the Plan amendment must be deferred until the City has completed its periodic review work tasks. DLCD cites no legal basis for requiring deferral until the periodic review work tasks are satisfied. (5) The City Has Satisfied the 4S-Day Post Acknowledgment Amendments. The City caused notice of the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission hearing to be timely mailed prior to that hearing. However, the "final hearing on adoption" of these amendments was the May 10, 1999 City Council hearing. Thus, both OOOT and OLCO had 1 ODOT and DLCD's comments are directed at the comprehensive plan map amendment and not at the annexation or zoning map amendment. Because ODOT and DLCD have not raised an issue with the respect to the annexation, there would be no basis for the Land Use Board of Appeals to remand or reverse the annexation decision. The City Council finds that ODOT and DLCD raised issues related only to the Plan map amendment and not to the annexation amendment. Consistent with ORS 197.763(1), these agencies did not raise issues with sufficient specificity as to the annexation and the zoning map amendment. Page 23 - Findings and Conclusions .-... '..'---r...."'..----......~....- ..".._,,~,..,---~ ATTAC~ENT fJ Page d of cA Lj more than 45 days notice of the City's fmal hearing on adoption which is required by OAR Chapter 660, Division 18. Moreover, to the extent DLCD's comment raises a procedural error, the City Council finds that the agency's substantial right to a full and fair hearing and an opportunity to make its case have not been prejudiced. ODOT and DLCD placed letters into the record and ODOT's representative appeared at the May 10, 1999 City Council hearing. Thus, both agencies had a full and fair opportunity to make their case. 2 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS. The City Council finds for the reasons contained herein to approve this application subject to the following conditions of approval. (1) The access improvements required along the north line of the property shall be determined at the time of Site Plan Review. (2) The delineation of the wetlands and the required mitigation measures approved by the Division of State Lands shall be required at the time of Site Plan Review. (3) This approval is limited to a factory outlet center. (4) That there be no development of Phase IT until construction of improvements which were required for Phase I as conditions of approval for Phase I are completed satisfactorily. (5) That the site plan review application shall satisfy OAR 660-12-045. (6) That the applicant shall not be required to submit an additional traffic impact study but that traffic mitigation shall be addressed at the time of site plan review. 2 ODOT requested that the City Council record remain open at the May 10, 1999 hearing. ORS 197.763(4)(b) provides that a City Council may continue a hearing when it is not the initial evidentiary hearing. The initial evidentiary hearing in these applications was the February 22, 1999 Planning Commission hearing. The City Council notes that ODOT's representative did not object to the City Council's denial of his request that the record remain open. Page 24 - Findings and Conclusions "'--~--~'~--~