Ord 2081 - Amend Urban Grow Boun
-..,
COUNCIL BILL NO. 1383
ORDINANCE NO. 2081
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF
WOODBURN TO INCLUDE 10.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF
BUTTEVILLE ROAD; ANNEXING SAID PROPERTY INTO THE CITY OF WOODBURN;
AMENDING THE CITY OF WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM MARION
COUNTY "RURAL RESIDENTIAL" TO CITY OF WOODBURN "LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL"; AMENDING THE CITY OF WOODBURN ZONING MAP FROM MARION
COUNTY "ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL" TO CITY OF WOODBURN "SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL"; APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT OF SAID
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AND VARIANCES IMPOSED BY THE
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Dale Baker owns 10.27 acres of property located east of Butteville
Road and described more specifically in Exhibit "A" which is attached and
incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, Dale Baker has filed applications to amend the City of Woodburn's
Urban Growth Boundary to include said property, to annex said property into the City
of Woodburn, to amend the City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map from Marion
County "Rural Residential" to City of Woodburn "Low Density Residential", to amend
the City of Woodburn Zoning Map from Marion County" Acreage Residential" to City
of Woodburn "Single Family Residential," and to approve a preliminary subdivision plat
of said property subject to certain imposed conditions and variances; and
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
February 13, 1992 and granted said application; and
WHEREAS, the Council conducted a public hearing on March 9, 1992 and
directed staff to present findings of fact and conclusionary findings in support of the
approval of said application; and
WHEREAS, findings of fact and conclusionary findings in support of the
approval of said applications have been prepared and are attached and incorporated
as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, in order to approve these applications, an exception must be taken
to Statewide Planning Goal 3 and based upon the findings for an exception to Goal
3 included in Exhibit "B", the Council finds it is appropriate to take such an exception;
and
Page 1 -
COUNCIL BILL NO. 1383
ORDINANCE NO. 2081
- ,-- ------'-<r-
-
WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal 14 requires that the procedure and
requirements of Goal 2 for goal exceptions and Chapter 660 of the Oregon
Administrative Rules be followed when an Urban Growth Soundary is amended to
include rural land, and the findings set forth in Exhibit "S" demonstrate compliance
with Goal 14; and
WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn's long-range population growth projections
are being met, at this time, more rapidly than previously anticipated in the
Comprehensive Plan, short-term building projections anticipate a similar growth
pattern over the next few years, and a public need exists to accommodate new
housing, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODSURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The subject property is owned by Dale Saker and is described
specifically in Exhibit" A", which is attached and incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. That based upon the findings of fact and conclusionary findings
set forth in Exhibit "S" and by this reference incorporated herein, an exception is
hereby taken to Statewide Planning Goal 3 to allow inclusion of the subject property
into the City of Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary.
SECTION 3. That based upon the findings contained in Exhibit "S", the Urban
Growth Boundary of the City of Woodburn is hereby amended to include the subject
property.
SECTION 4. That based upon the findings contained in Exhibit "S", the subject
property is hereby annexed into the City of Woodburn.
SECTION 5. That the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended
as to the property described in Exhibit "A" from Marion County "Rural Residential" to
City of Woodburn "Low Density Residential", based upon the findings contained in
Exhibit "B".
SECTION 6. That the Woodburn Zoning Map is hereby amended as to the
property described in Exhibit "A" from Marion County "Acreage Residential" to City
of Woodburn "Single Family Residential", based upon the findings contained in Exhibit
"B",
SECTION 7. That the Preliminary Subdivision Plat of said property is approved
subject to the conditions and variances approved by the Woodburn Planning
Commission and based upon the findings contained in Exhibit "S", and based as well
on the condition that no development be allowed prior to the completion of the
Page 2 -
COUNCIL BILL NO. 1383
ORDINANCE NO. 2081
__ '__~._~..4._.__'~_ ...
-
waterline loop over the southern portion of the property as indicated on the proposed
plat.
SECTION 8. This ordinance is effective upon formal approval of the above-
described Urban Growth Boundary amendment by the Marion County Board of
Commissioners pursuant to the terms of the Urban Growth Boundary Agreement
signed by the City and adopted by Ordinance 2021.
Approved as to formc;oJ~ W)
City Attorney ate
APPROVED, ~--,cl W ~
FRED W. KYSER, MAY
Passed by the Council April 13, 1992
Submitted to the Mayor April 15, 1992
Approved by the Mayor April 15, 1992
Filed in the Office of the Recorder Ap ril 15, 1992
ATTEST: ~ ----z;:;.. ~ ~J-
Mary T~t, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 3 -
COUNCIL BILL NO. 1383
ORDINANCE NO. 2081
-- .,-,".-._~"_.., '.-..---r--
......
Exhibit "A"
Page 1 of 4
The legal description is described as follows:
PARCEL A
Lots 1-3, Block 1, SEVEN OAKS SUBDIVISION, in Marion County, Oregon.
PARCEL B
Lots 4-6, Block 1, SEVEN OAKS SUBDIVISION, in Marion County, Oregon.
PARCEL C
Lot 7, Block 1, SEVEN OAKS SUBDIVISION , in Marion County, Oregon.
_. -'-"-'-"~-'-""--'~-'-----or--"'--------~"~"'--~
if
1>
,
if
({
~'{)
.' 0
~O
#
~,
' /lie
}'o!);
u
t5?
'IJ
<:-
I-A"
Exhibit 4
Page 2 of
,
s:-
Q)
'"
'"
~
~,
~8
/0
"
&J
::;
if
1>
t5?
'IJ
<:-
~
s:-
A
o
o
o
o 0
~""
~o
~o
&
~
'"
"
w
'"
w
~
o
'"
o
~
w
~
.w
~
~'IJ
~o
,lo
OIZ
r"'m
nXin
<no
"'0:0
N~
-i
:0
o
-<
See M
"-4p
"
o
:0
189'65_
"
,," >-
" 0"
~<::- ,"
,,~ ,
~ ~
," "
~ q,Oj
,C) \.
~
-$-
Os
21,; Ie
S<11541
390.0<~
~""
1-,j' '( ~,J',;>_
/ "'~ '7--)>
~~0 -
'~-\S
\
.
.~,
,j'0
00
<S
OJ
OJ
3S.
03:::::
~rr
0-<
~~z
>=
0-'"
o ~-nl
r--
"',.
o w~ ~
o
n
--------r-
~.. }"
-----:---- ""
.,<. s" 0"...
,
...- ,
"
T
':::;
~:~
j'
,,'- ,.2.'5
~
g
t.l~ ~~~"
"'c" !;r-,
0: ,...,.. :-__--'
..... '-
-~~~
o
o
:42.!.
~
o.
"'
~"\
,/ '.
:.c.2.":i
~
~
.~ ~
,
-,
Q
o
G
;;
c ;:: S.(,.:9
....
1a~--
Ii .-
1.
;; ~(i)
. ...
. ~
o V
~
1\
,-.. '-
/ :...
~
~ :'(>')
~ t~.
1\
-~
62, '
60;.00
-
"6'; BiJ!:::~",-LF. ;";J.
'c.
N29"C..- ~/":C :;';9..'.:
--
.~~..;.:.-
~
...., "'" ':"
I 1'1'l.1 '"
, ~-..j ~~
r- - tn,', $>",&
L~~:..i~J ":'.
;.:
,.
~~
1
~
I
,
I
I
i <<.
~ '-:<;. -;.:, ~
1:- - -~~'l\--;;." -
:.
;29.0~
;!
~
~
~
".
<.
:<1'
Z
13'il.<I1
.;..,- ~
r~
z?;
I'
I
I
I:
q~
Ij~1
(i;;
I'a
11r
I~
-~-
~
=. ....t>"O
~ Q -
r ~,/
- - - - ':"'.r-oc; --
1O'5r 59 0
o
, 0
-,:------
~.~ .
oX ~
o ....,.4'
o 0
'-/
..._~-
109.39
~
c
~
'"
~~
-.
"c
;~
".2--;"
"..
..K/;;-;:.s
o
o
..
o
o
~
.. C:
ii a:
;:
o
o
139.....,
o
DE.:::;
-;.,
~-~
o
o
~
~
o
o
109.3':1
~
o
o
o
~0
~ ... .
~.... '" I' ~ .
g ~;; s:
~ .4>1, I:
59:.17 ::." I.
n_. '.. .)1
.~'.:. ." " ~-~
.-8 ss--L--~_' --"=-:~-O:l:O>
_ -f--- n...... :;1:'"
. ~ I
'.
.
o
..............~ g-~
,
,
60.3:'
..
~<P
'l\
_:":'-e-'Jr~'
'l'o
-.-..,
~-
;
~
,...
~
".
.
d"
c....~.
..,'
~
X
1(lg.39
6Z_CS'
"'0' "
.......~ t'~r?6'5'(-C: -426_64
-f '-)-- - '''.
n \' f)\k~'." '~_ -
\\)~z:.\
~, rilL, .'----
r' 'J' p' ........
IT P ---
~ z. r'-______
b~~
o ..,j;J
1Jd~
~~\
L.r .0
"" . "~
~
\'~
t~
:to.
"
~\
Exhibit "A"
Page 3 of 4
---
-
-
90."""
0 (;
~ c ~
i
,
-)'
9:".35
~
:-~ '" E:
.,
0 <-
:.
10"'.39
~~
~ \" ~(J."\
><=+-0 t
- : D ..
~""i -A ~
1'.;,I.'t!9
i" y
~ .
,
co
o.
~
<-
~
"
"
x
U'"
::. ....
,
,
~
10'l.:;'9
'. l'
........ ~~
<~..
"\.
~
~ ........
~Cl m -=
~
... 0
0
:.
I '"""c !
LOr n I
- I I
--
~
~
H
en
H
>
H
~~
"-
~~
~O
~~
-
~
IIA"
Exhibit 4
Page 4 of
.~-
-"'--_.
~~~~m~~~
~\ ~
~ "'-..\ ~ ---
- _lu"'J .
~ '---~~'-:~1~~
,... QflQ{j
.... ,',. ~
L::;,:/ r' ~
. ..~
I
€
.
o
i
. I Ii
I "
.d.~
UJ",
I I I
~
"
<
a.
z
o
~
"
<
u
j
51
~~
---+-- i ~~ ~
'"
w
'"
-<
OJ "
W co
--' "
I c5 M
OJ
~,.
0: <<
l'..J lri M:!
z .... u
~ ~ ,'J
......_.~-._-
-,
Exhibit "8"
Page 1 of 10
Baker Application
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
1. The applicant is requesting annexation, a change in the UGB, a
change in the comprehensive plan, a zone change to RS, permission
to develop his 10.27 acre parcel into a 37 lot single family residential
subdivision, and a variance. Marion County has designated the
applicant's property as "rural residential" on its comprehensive plan
map and as acreage residential' on its zoning map.
2. The subject property borders Senecal Estate II Subdivision which is
entirely inside the City of Woodburn. In Senecal Estates II, there are
twenty six (26) homes either built or under construction and eleven
(11) additional lots sold.
3. Since the time that the comprehensive plan was adopted, including
the UGB, and since the time this property was zoned, Senecal Estates
II, a sub-division on adjacent land, has been approved. The inclusion
of the subject property in the City of Woodburn and the roadway
access provided thereby is necessary so that Senecal Estates II
Subdivision can be more adequately served with Fire and Police
protection..
4. The inclusion of the subject property in the City of Woodburn and the
roadway access made possible thereby is necessary so that Senecal
Estates II can be more adequately served with roadway access. This
subdivision will complete the transportation element of Senecal
Estates II. Likewise, this development protects the residents of
Senecal Estates Subdivision by allowing an alternate access to the
subdivision in case of road blockage, e.g., at the intersection of Willow
and Woodland Avenues. This subdivision will allow traffic from itself
and Senecal Estates and Senecal Estates II subdivisions to gain access
to Butteville Road without the necessity of using Woodland Avenue
or Willow Avenue and Newberg Road.
Page 1 - BAKER APPLICATION
--.---or-
Exhibit "8"
Page 2 of 10
5. The inclusion of the subject property within the UGB and the
development of the roadways called for in the proposed subdivision
will provide an option for traffic leaving Senecal Estates subdivision
and Senecal Estates II.
6. The Division of State Lands has already approved the crossing of the
wetlands in Senecal Estates II.
7. City of Woodburn water, sewer and storm drain services and facilities
are sized to include the subject property. The developers of Senecal
Estates II Subdivision are required to, and the city has planned to,
develop city water and sewer lines to the boundary of the subject
property in sufficient size to serve the subject property. The City can
provide adequate public services to this property and the proposed
subdivision. The development of Senecal Estates, Senecal Estates II
and this subdivision provide for an efficient design of city facilities.
8. The Applicant has previously secured approval from Marion County
to rezone his lO-acre parcel from exclusive farm use to rural
residential. In 1988, when Marion County approved Seven Oaks
Subdivision, it required a redevelopment plan because it was necessary
to deal with the possibility of annexation. Said redevelopment plan
was submitted to the City of Woodburn in 1988.
9. The subject property is committed to urban development because of
the availability of urban facilities and services, the planning of the
urban facilities, the prior approval of Seven Oaks subdivision allowing
a density of approximately 1.46 acres per unit, including roadways, and
the need to extend the dead end road leaving Senecal Estates II
Subdivision.
10. All land designated for single family use west of Interstate 5 within
the city's urban growth boundary and respective city limits has been
approved for residential development. This area no longer has any
single family designated acreage.
Page 2 - BAKER APPLICATION
- - .. - -- --,----.-----
..'"
Exhibit uB"
Page 3 of 10
11. The property abuts a residential subdivision to the east. The
applicant's property also fronts Butteville Road and provides a street
access from Butteville Road through the development and ties into
the road network with this abutting subdivision.
12. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses which are
comprised of City of Woodburn single family residential designations
and Marion County Acreage residential zoning districts.
13. The long-term impacts at the proposed site would be less adverse than
would typically result from the same proposal being located in other
areas requiring a goal exception.
14. The population of the city, as of the last census, was 13,500.
15. The present population of the city is growing at an annual rate of
between 3% and 4%. The present population of the city is
approximately 14,500.
16. At the growth rate of 3% per annum, the population of the city in the
year 2008 (the end of the planning period) will be 23,943 based on a
population of 14,500 and 22,982 based on a population of 13,500.
Both results exceed the comprehensive plan estimate population of
the city for the year 2008. (Comprehensive Plan - Growth &
Urbanization, page 55, Volume 1)
17. The City of Woodburn's long-range population growth projections are
being met, at this time, more rapidly than previously anticipated in
our comprehensive plan.
18. In the last year alone, the city realized over $20,000,000 in new
construction. Short term building projections anticipate a similar
growth pattern over the next few years.
19. By allowing the applicant to annex to the city, he will be able to
maximize the use of the property. Presently, due to the lack of water
and sewer service, he is allowed only to develop a lO-acre subdivision
consisting of 7 lots. With city services readily available, 37 lots could
be realized.
Page 3 - BAKER APPLICATION
- - .> ----r----..--.--..---.--
....,
Exhi bit "B"
Page 4 of 10
20. This property would be better served by providing the city water and
sewer system. This service eliminates the septic tank and drain fields
which would add to ground water pollution under the present
situation.
21. With growth and the development of the subject property comes the
burden of providing additional social services, schools and police
protection.
22. The subject property contains soils of Class I through IV. The
property is not irrigated and retains an overall soil classification of III
and primarily consists of WUD = Woodburn silt loam /12-20% slopes
Class III, DA=Dayton silt loam poorly drained Class IV,
WVA=Woodburn silt loam = 0-3% slopes Class II and
WVC=Woodburn silt loam = 3-12% slopes Class II (Exhibit "A").
23. The City of Woodburn's urban growth boundary and city limits about
the applicant's property. This property that abuts the applicant's land
has been approved for residential development. The livability of the
area would be changed from its more rural character to an urban
character. The impact on properties adjacent to the north and south
of the subject property may be minimally impacted because they
retain a rural residential character.
24. There are currently 4 houses either built or under construction on the
subject property.
25. The applicant is the only owner of the subject property and he is
requesting annexation.
26. The annexation would reflect a land use designation identified as
single family residential.
27. The annexation is not required to be subject to a vote of the
registered voters of the City but is required to be reviewed and
approved through the hearing process by the City.
Page 4 - BAKER APPLICATION
,..,.----.,-.-,..'"T~"~. -"..--~-._-,.
"'
Exhibit "8"
Page 5 of 10
28. By far the largest single user of land within the city limits of
Woodburn is single family residential development. There are over
1,100 acres presently in use for low density residential development.
In 1987, 74% of the housing stock in Woodburn was detached single
family housing. Approximately 56% of the land in use was under this
classification. It also is the zoning classification which most vacant
land is given. In 1988, over 235 acres were vacant and available for
development as zoned single family residential, approximately 60 acres
were vacant and unavailable for reasons of either flooding, being
landlocked or unavailability of public services.
29. Tukwila Golf Course, which is planned for an area both inside and
outside of the north end of the city, will use about 120 acres of land
which is planned and zoned for single family residential use for
nonresidential golf course uses.
30. A demonstrated need can be shown in the fact that no single family
residential land is available in West Woodburn.
31. The inclusion of this land within the city limits and UGB will provide
additional land for more diversified housing needs. (It should be
noted that the long term housing need projections, as outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan, reflect rather a general, quantative need, but do
not provide for specific qualitive - subjective to specific, individual
demands).
32. It is a housing policy objective of the City to insure adequate land is
available to accommodate growth for all sectors and areas of our
community.
33. The proposed development allows an orderly and economic extension
of public services and facilities.
34. The applicant plans to erect a brick wall along Butteville Road and to
develop the property in houses similar to those already built on the
property, but with a minimum square footage of 1600 square feet per
house exclusive of the garage.
Page 5 - BAKER APPLICATION
----. ------ ----r-------
-
Exhibit "8"
Page 6 of 10
35. The development will be in 2 phases as shown on the plat.
36. The subject property is within easy walking distance of a city park.
37. This subdivision utilizes lots which are larger than the minimum lot
size for single family residences in Woodburn. Proposed lot sizes
range from 6,656 sq ft to over 16,000 sq ft. This variety of lot sizes
will provide for individual creativity and housing style preferences.
The minimum lot size in an RS zone is 6,000 sq ft. This type of
design creates a feeling of openness and spaciousness in this area.
38. The wetlands and the city park also add to the tremendous feeling of
openness and spaciousness in this area.
39. Although this is a small subdivision, the use of a loop style road
pattern within the subdivision and the connection to the roads in
Senecal Estates II just after those roads make a curve, will encourage
slow moving traffic in this residential area.
40. No non-residential uses are planned for this neighborhood.
41. There are no high traffic generating or non-residential uses planned
for this development.
42. There are no high density residential areas in a position to negatively
effect this development.
43. The city can adequately provide public services (sewer, water and
storm drainage) to this development with little or no long range cost
to the city.
44. The transportation system allowed by the continuance of the roads in
Senecal Estates II out to Butteville Road will interconnect these
residential areas and the subject property with employment centers,
commercial areas, schools, parks, churches and regional transportation
networks.
Page 6 - BAKER APPLICATION
-
Exhi bit "B"
Page 7 of 10
45. The streets in the subdivision will be of sufficient width to
accommodate the traffic flows.
46. There is no other property that can adequately provide for the
transportation requirements of Senecal Estates II Sub-division as
easily and economically as the subject property.
47. Since Senecal Estates II borders the city boundary and UGB, the only
property which can provide for the traffic continuation needs of this
area are outside of the city and would have to be re-zoned in order to
be developed.
48. The applicant cannot afford to extend the public services required
without bringing this property into the City of Woodburn and re-
zoning it for urban density development.
49. Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 32 do not comply with the Woodburn
Subdivision Standards. The proposed lots, as identified above do not
show sufficient road frontage. Lot 13 also does not have sufficient
frontage (less than 80 feet of corner lot frontage is not allowed). Lot
13 will be reconfigured to comply with the frontage standard. Lots 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 32 will require a variance.
50. The subject property is adjacent to Senecal Estates II Subdivision
which has been previously platted. The plat of Senecal Estates II
Subdivision shows a public road entering the border of the subject
property near the northeast corner. Given the location of that
existing road, and the desirability of a looped road within Seven Oaks
Subdivision, which loop terminates into separate accesses to Butteville
Road, it is not possible to plat Seven oaks Subdivision so that each of
the 37 lots has road frontage on a public road. To plat Seven oaks
Subdivision so that all lots have access to a public street would result
in lots far larger than those called for in the Subdivision Standard.
The developer estimates that it would result in a loss of at least five
(5) lots.
Page 7 - BAKER APPLICATION
"...__ "__~'e_"_'_"_""_"+"_~__""_""'___"".__~_+_~__'-'.-.....-..-..-...-..-.-.
--
Exhibit "8"
Page 8 of 10
51. Meeting the literal requirements of the subdivision standards would
result in overly large lots with no increase in safety to the inhabitants,
liveability or aesthetics. It would result in an unnecessarily large
amount of land being used up in flag lot accesses as well as the loss of
building lots. There would be no benefit to the property or the
community by the creation of such flag lots.
52. The applicant intends to pave each of the 30 foot wide access
easements and to place curbs along both sides. In addition, the
applicant will mark one side of each driveway "no parking". All
buildings will be visible from the right of way and all addresses will be
shown at the right of way line.
53. The proposed accesses to the lots with no street frontage provide
adequate room for emergency vehicle turnaround.
54. As proposed, access ways meet the Fire Code Requirements.
55. The fire chief states that under the fire code, each of these building
sites could be served from the public right of way, even if the access
driveways were not paved. He did state, however, that the best way
was to pave the driveway, to have no parking on one side and the
addresses at the right of way line.
56. If flag lots were developed, with thirty (30) feet of road access for
each, the developer would not be required to pave each of the
driveways resulting in a situation which is less desirable for emergency
vehicle access. Creating flag lots would unnecessarily use acreage
without making the homes any closer to the right of way or any safer.
57. The Comprehensive Plan frowns on dead end streets. There are no
dead end streets in this subdivision. This proposal eliminates the
dead end street in Senecal Estates II.
58. The City of Woodburn/Recreation and Parks Department
requirements as they pertain to this development project are $268.10
per lot. These fees are based on the city's adopted System
Page 8 - BAKER APPLICATION
..,......
Exhi bit "B"
Page 9 of 10
Development Charges. These rates remain intact until December 31,
1992, at which time a phased increase will occur. Based on the
$268.10 per lot rate, the Seven Oaks Subdivision total Parks fee due is
$9,920.00. These fees may be paid at the rate of $268.10 per lot as
the individual permits are issued, or in the full amount of $9,920.00.
59. The minimum fire flow water requirement for this subdivision is 1000
gpm.
60. Adequate fire hydrants are provided.
Page 9 - BAKER APPLICATION
, . ~ ~:!
..__,_,_. ..,_~_...~~...__.~.,,__"._. .,....,___M__..._.~
-~'--r-'-"-- -