Ord 2201 - Site Plan App 95-10
COUNCIL BILL NO. 1831
ORDINANCE NO. 2201
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION 95-10 (LUBA NO. 97-
06B) ON SECOND REMAND; MAKING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Gary LaPoint, originally applied for Site Plan Review
approval in case 95-10; and
WHEREAS, the City Council granted the application in Site Plan Review Case
95-10 and this decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in
LUBA No. 95-195; and
WHEREAS, after its review, LUBA remanded the case to the City Council to
address two assignments of error: Woodburn Zoning Ordinance 11.020(d) (Exterior
Surfaces) and Woodburn Zoning Ordinance 11.020(e) (Sign Plan); and
WHEREAS. the City Council conducted a first remand hearing on March 10,
1997, and heard testimony relevant to the assignments of error; and
WHEREAS, the City Council again granted the application in Site Plan Review
Case 95-10 and this decision was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals, (LU8A)
in LUBA No. 97-068; and
WHEREAS. after its review, LUBA again remanded the case to the City Council
to address the site plan review criteria contained in Chapter 11 of the Woodburn
Zoning Ordinance on the modified application, and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a second remand hearing on September
22, 1997, and heard and considered relevant testimony; NOW, THEREFORE.
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council, after considering the testimony at the second
remand hearing, grants Site Plan Review Application 95-10 (LUBA No. 97-068) as
being in conformance with Chapter 11 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. This site plan review application is approved based upon the Staff
Report affixed as Exhibit "A" and the Findings and Conclusions affixed as Exhibit "B"
which are attached hereto and by this reference is incorporated herein.
Page 1 -
COUNCIL BILL NO. 1831
ORDINANCE NO. 2201
'........-..-..c-..-..--..
Section 3. The granting of this site plan review application is subject to all of
the conditions contained in the Staff Report (Exhibit "A") which the City Council finds
reasonable.
Section 4. 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 Council and approval by
the Mayor.
Approved as to formm ryv?;~
City Attorney
/0 - CJ - C; 7-
Date
APPROVED:
Nancy A. Kir
Passed by the Council
October 13, 1997
Submitted to the Mayor
October 14, 1997
Approved by the Mayor
October 14, 1997
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
October 14, 1997
ATTEST: t11a..u.L~~
. M~~nnant, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1831
ORDINANCE NO. 2201
-.' ._-,...._-,_._._.._.~"_. ._.",-~,-,-_.,.__.
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT .-1l
Page --L- of + p,
\
.
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THROUGH CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
STEVE GOECKRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
RE:
REMAND HEARING ON SITE PLAN REVIEW 95-10
TEXACO/EXXON GAS STATION AND. CAR WASH
DATE:
SEPTEMBER 11, 1997
APPLICANT: Gary LaPoint
10618 Crosby Road N.E.
Woodburn OR 97071
II NATURE OF THE APPLICATION:
The applicant is requesting site plan approval of a gas station with car wash. This is an
evidentiary hearing based on a remand from the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). The
applicant is entitled to a remand hearing on the original Texaco/Exxon application. LUBA's
final opinion and Order No. 97-068 with the City Attorney's procedure for remand is
incorporated as Attachment I.
III THE ISSUE:
Applicant 'requested SPR approval of a Texaco gas station (SPR 95-101. The Applicant
however, is now requesting approval of an Exxon gas station and car wash and has made
modifications to what was originally approved. The applicant must now address the
approval criteria (SPR) 11.070 and how It aplies to the new site plan. The original
application (SPR 95-10) sought approval of a Texaco gas station and car wash. The
applicant, however, is now requesting approval of an Exxon gas station and car wash with
modifications of the original site plan. This is an entirely new site plan and staff report.
IV RELEVANT FACTS:
The applicant is requesting site plan review approval of a gas station with car wash. The
total building area is approximately 6,948 square feet.
The site is located on Lawson Street, south of McDonald's. They have started
construction. The property is surrounded by commercially zoned property to the north,
south east and west. The subject property is part of a larger parcel that was recently
approved for a partition (MP 95-01). The parcells identified on Marion County Assessors
Map 5S,2W, Section 12C, tax lot number 501. The site Is zoned Commercial General.
(See site plans I thru VII.)
. . ~.
Page 1 -Staff Report (c\ST AFFR\stfrpt9. 11)
-........ r'" ..............
,
.
v
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS:
EXHIBIT A
page.-:2..- of t/-f\
Mr. LaPoint originally made application for the construction of a Texaco service station.
The Woodburn City Council and Planning Commission approved Mr. LaPoint's request for
SPR 96-10. Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan appealed the approval to the Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA) on two separate occasions.
After review, LUBA remanded the approved site plan back to the City Council, and ordered
it to address signage and exterior surface color issues.
Staff has outlined the major events that have taken place over this period since the
applicant first submitted an application.
March 17, 1995 - Gary laPoint submitted an application to develop a Texaco gas
station with car wash.
April 5, 1995 - A preliminary meeting was held regarding site plan review between
city staff and the applicant.
May 25, 1995 - A public hearing was held by the Woodburn Planning Commission
who aporoved the applicant's request with conditions.
June 5, 1995 - Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan, through attorney Vance M. Croney,
appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council.
The City Council was informed of the appeal and .established July 24, 1995, as the
council hearing date.
The City Council continued the evidentiary hearing of July 24, 1995, to August 14,
1995. This was to give additional time for the council to review additional written
testimony that was submitted at the July 24, 1995, hearing.
The City Council heard additional evidence on August 14, 1995, by the applicant,
closed the hearing, and directed staff to submit a proposed ordinance granting
approval of the application.
August 28, 1995 - The City Council approved Ordinance No. 2156, granting the
original application for a Texaco service station.
September 18, 1995 - Vance M. Croney, representing Dale Baker and Barry
Sullivan, appealed the City Council's decision.
May 24, 1996 - After 8 months, LUBA remanded the case back to the City Council
to address Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 11, Section 11.020(d)
(Exterior Surfaces) and WZO 11.020(e) (Sign Plan) under the original application.
June 18, .1996 - Planning staff received a Memorandum Opinion No. 96-03 from the
City Attorney clarifying the LUBA remand.
,. ~
Page 2 -Staff Report (c\STAFFRlstfrptS.l11
-... .oO"T .
A
EXHIBIT '" fl
,'de~ of -
July 3, 1996 - A memorandum from the planning staff to the City Administrator and
City Attorney conveying that staff was not going to pursue this matter.
October 21,1996 - Mr. LaPoint made an additional submittal for the development
of an Exxon gas station rather than a Texaco gas station.
Correspondence ensued from December 1996 through January 1997 between the
applicant's attorney and Planning staff over the matter as to whether the "new"
Exxon submittal was in substantial conformance with the original Texaco site plan.
This correspondence was followed up with a meeting between city staff and the
applicant and his attorney on January 9, 1997.
Staff contacted the applicant's attorney and informed him that after he provided
copies of the applicant's submittal, a second hearing would be held on the LUBA
remand from May 24,1996, on March 10,1997, before the City Council.
At the March 10, 1997, hearing before the City Council decided the applicant's
revised Exxon site plan was. in substantial conformance with the previous Texaco
site plan.
On March 24, 1997, the City Council passed Council Bill No. 1784, an ordinance
granting site plan review application 95-10 (LUBA No. 95-195) on remand.
April 14, 1997 - Vance M. Croney, representing Dale Baker and Barry Sullivan
appealed the City Council's decision again.
July 1, 1997 - Oral argumentswere held before LUBA.
July 3, 1997 - After 2 days, LUBA remanded the site plan back to the City Council
for further review.
July 15, 1997 - A Memorandum of Opinion No. 97-02 issued by the city attorney
instructing planning staff as to how to proceed with the remanded site plan (See
Attachment I.)
VI RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Commercial Land Development Policies
Administration and Enforcement Policies
Public Services Goals and Policies
Transportation Goals and Policies
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 5 Permits and Enforcement
Chapter 6 Planning Commission
Chapter 7 Public Hearings
Chapter 8 General Standards
Page 3 -Staff Report (C\STAFFRlstfrpt9.11)
-'.--r--"--'
EXHIBIT A
Page -!L of 1- 6
Chapter 10 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveways Private Street Standards
Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Chapter 29 Commercial Retail
Chapter 30 Commercial General
C. Sign Ordinance
O. Landscaping Standards
Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Staff: The subject of property is within one of the four major commercial areas
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Adequate public services are available and
can be extended to the property at the owners expense. A traffic study has been
prepared by Lancaster Engineering. This has been reviewed by staff and Oregon
Department of Transportation. The City concurs with the conclusions reached in
the traffic impact study. The gas station will not generate a large number of peak
hour trips which tend to more adversely affect roadway capacities. As pointed out
in the study, trips to the gas station will be primarily composed of vehicles currently
on the roadway system which re called "pass-by" trips. As found in the study and
concurred with by ODOT, the proposed project will not adversely impact the
existing road network and mitigation measures, therefore, are not required.
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
The following sections of the zoning ordinance were found t.o be relevant to the
approval o(this application. .
Chapter 8 General Standards
"Section 8.140. No Parlcing in Front YArd or landSCAped ArRas. No parking
shall be allowed exclusive of driveways within the required front yard area.
The side yard and rear yard areas may be used for parking of vehicles unless
otherwise prohibited by this Ordinance. The yard areas and driveways
adjacent to a street shall not be used for the permanent storage of utility . .
trailers, boats or other similar vehicles. .
Finding: The applicant has not proposed any parking within the required setback,
therefore, this standard has been met. (See site plan I and II.)
.Section 8.190. Vision CIl!8rance. A triangular area at the street or highway
corner of a corner lot, or the corner at any alley street Intersection of a lot,
the space being defined by a diagonal fine across the corner between the
points of the streets rights-of-way lines or street-alley rights-of-way lines
measured from the corner. The vision clearance area for corner lots at
intersections in said districts the vision clearance area shall have legs of a
minimum of ten feet structures, or temporary or permanent obstructions to
vision exceeding 30 inches in height above the curb level, or street shoulder
where there is not curb, except a supporting pillar or post not greater than
Page 4 -Staff Report (CIST AFFR\stfrptS.111
"..~.._~,.""
EXHIBIT -1.1
Page...:i:... of J-ffol,
12 inches in diameter or 12 inches on the diagonal of a rectangular pillar or
post; and further, excepting those posts or supporting members of street
signs, street lights, and traffic control signs installed as directed by the
Building Inspector, or any other sign erected for public safety."
, ~,.
Finding: The landscaping materials proposed by the applicant are low growth
plantings and can be maintained as to not obstruct vision clearance. (See site plan
11.)
Chapter 1 0 Off Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards
"Section 10.050. Off-Street Automobile ParkinQ Requirements. Off-street
automobile parking shall be provided as required by Section 10.070 and
approved by the Planning Director..."
Finding: The applicant is providing 4 parking spaces and one ADA parking stall. An
additional 2 parking spaces are provided for the vacuum station. (No specific
standards exist for gas stations.)
"Section 10.060. Off-Street LoadinQ Requirements. Off-street loading space
shall be provided in the amounts listed below except that in appropriate
cases the Planning Commission may waive the requirements for loading
space, after proceedings are had as for a Conditional Use as provided for in
Sections 10.010 to 10.070, and when the Planning Commission has
determined that the use to which the building is to be put is of a kind not
requiring the loading or unloading or delivery of merchandise or other
property by commercial trucks or delivery vehicles; provided, r :;wever;:"
whenever the use of such building is changed to another use then such
loading space as is required by this Ordinance shall be provided:
(a) A minimum loading space size of 12 feet wide, 20 feet long..."
Staff Comments:
Under LUBA No. 95-195 Final Opinion and order Pg. 9 under the "Third Assignment
of Error" LUBA made the following determination in regards to the interpretation of
Section 10.060 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance and reads as follows:
"Third Assignment of Error
Petitioners contend the challenged decision is unlawful because the city did
not require intervenor to "go through a conditional use procedure as required by its
ordinance." Petition for Review 18. Petitioner's' contention is based on
intervenor's request for a waiver of the off-street loading facilities requirement in
WZO 10.010 under the procedure set forth in WZO 10.060, which provides:
"Off-street loading space shall be provided in the amounts listed below,
except that in appropriate cases the Planning Commission may waive the
requirements for loading space after proceedings are had as for a conditional
Page 5 -Staff Report (C\STAFFR\stfrpt9.11I
- -...,.-.......----- .,.-. ....-.., ,.,.~.._.".
eXHIBIT A
page.....k.. of lj 6
use. as provided for in Sections 10.010 (14.010) to 10.070 (14.070)* * *"
(Emphasis added.)
WZO 14.030 requires a hearing before the city planning commission on
conditional use applications. We interpret the emphasized phrase to mean
only that such a hearing is required to address a request for a waiver of the
WZO 10.010 off-street loading facilities requirement. Because intervenor's
proposed gas station is a permitted use, we reject.petitioners' argument that
WZO 10.060 requires an application for a conditional use be filed to obtain
a waiver of the off-street loading space requirement. Since the planning
commission held a public hearing on the site plan review application,
including the request for a waiver, WZO 10.060 is satisfied."
The third assignment of error is denied.
Finding: The applicant through the City's public hearing process is requesting a
waiver to the off-street loading requirements.
Chapter 11 Site Plan Review
Section 11.030 Approval of Site Plan Required
(a) No building permit for construction of structures governed by this
chapter shall be issued until the Site Plan for that structure has
received approval under the proviSions of this Chapter.
(b) Any conditions attached to the approval ( , the Site Plan shall be
conditions on the issuance of the building permit. A violation of the
conditions shall be considered a violation of this Ordinance.
Section 11.070 Criteria for Evaluatino a Site Plan
Staff: The applicant's has addressed the site plan review criteria, see
attached narrative from applicant. (Attachment II)
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse
impact on adjacent uses.
Finding: The applicant has complied with City standards regarding setbacks for the
placement of all proposed structures. See Site Plan I
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize Impact on adjacent uses.
Finding: The entire site perimeter is landscaped to .soften" the facility.
(c) Landscaping shall be located as to maximize its aesthetic value.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan. It shows that
16%, or 5,844 square feet, of the entire site is landscaped. This exceeds the 15%
Page 6 -Staff Report (GIST AFFRlstfrpt9.11 )
EXHIBIT A
Page -2. of <-/. '3
minimum standard. Landscaping will also be provided at the front of the parking
stalls and the drive through washing facility.
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic
patterns. Wherever possible, direct driveway access shall not be
allowed to arterial streets. Wherever possible, access shall be shared
with adjacent uses of similar nature.
Finding: The applicant's proposal shows a shared driveway access to Lawson Street
and the private access road between McDonald's and the subject property at the
north access, therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. (See Site Plan I.)
(e) The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on
the City's or other public agencies drainage facilities.
Finding: Storm drainage is subject to public works review. Analysis shows this
requirement can be met.
(f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on
the lot and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Finding: The applicant has stated that this building will not cast shadows on any
adjacent properties. Since it is a proposed gas station and car wash, it is not
oriented to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic, although sidewalks adjacent
to Lawson Avenue .and the private drive the length of the property will be required.
(9) The proposed site dev~lopment, including the architectUJ\;.
landscaping and graphic design, is in conformity with the site
development requirements of this Ordinance and with the standards
of this and other ordinances insofar as the location and appearance of
the proposed development are involved.
Finding: This staff report has discussed the approval criteria s it relates to site plan
review. The applicants' site plan proposai is in conformance with the standards as
discussed in this staff report.
(h) The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all
structures and signs are compatible with the proposed development
and appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood.
Finding: The applicant has provided a color board (C-1 of 1, elevation) Site Plan V
and Attachment II pg 7 & 8, that identifies the materials or the color of the building.
Section 11.085 Time Limitation
At the time of final approval the applicant has six months to initiate
construction. IF construction has not begun within this time frame, the
applicant can request, in writing, a six-month extension. The site plan
': ~
Page 7 -Staff Report IClSTAFFRIstfrpt9.11)
EXHIBIT --.d
Page -L of 'I H
becomes void one year after final approval, therefore, the applicant would
have to reapply after that time period.
Chapter 30 Commercial General
Section 30.010 - Within any CG Commercial General District, No Building.
structure or premises shall be used, enlarged or designed to be used,
erected, structural altered or enlarged except for one or more of the following
uses:
Any use permitted in the Commercial Retail District:
Section 29.030 (bl (3) (4) automobile service station and washing automobile
laundries.
Finding: the proposed use is permitted in the Commercial General District.
Sign Ordinance Standards
Section 4 Definitions
(J) (8) Free StandinQ Signs. A sign supported by one or more uprights or
braces in the ground and detached from any building structure.
Section II. Zoning District Regulations
(cl Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones
(5) Free standing signs are limited to a maximum of 35 feet
(6) Free standing signs are limited to a maximum of 75 square feet in
area.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to erect a 30 foot high free standing sign. (See
Site Plan IV.) The sign height meets standard. The applicant also proposes the size .
of the sign be 75 square feet. This also meets standard.
Section II. Zoning District Regulations
(c) Signs in Commercial and Industrial Zones
(1) A total of 2 signs per each business, which may be wall signs or
roof signs, the total combined area of which shall not exceed 50
square feet or 1 square foot per foot of frontage, which ever is
greater.
(4) If a building has two or more frontages, each secondary frontage
shall be allowed one additional wall sign attached to the building. The
area shall be limited to one half square foot of area for each lineal feet
Page 8 -Staff Report (C\STAFFRIstfrpt9.11)
of building frontage.
business.
EXHIBIT A
Page -3- of 41',
Only one principal frontage is allowed per
Finding: The applicant has proposed two Exxon wall signs. Each is 17.6 square feet
in size. The signs meet the standard. (See Site Plan V.l
Landscaping Standards
Finding: The applicant submitted a preliminary landscaped plan. The applicant has
provided substantial evidence that landscaping standards have been met.
VI CONCLUSION:
The applicant is requesting site plan review approval of a gas station and car wash.
VII RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Based on staff's findings in this report, the following conditions of approval are
suggested:
1. The City Council waive the loading stall requirement.
2. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with the
preliminary site plan.
3. Submit a final landscape plan to the planning department following SPR
approval. Plantings shall be' watered regularly and ii, "dnll' I appropriate
for the specific plant species through the first gtowinl:l sel.l~v", and dead and
dying plants shall be replaced by the applicant during the next planting
season. No bUildings, structures, storage of materials, or parking shall be
permitted within the required landscape and buffer areas. All landscape and
buffer areas shall be maintained and kept free of all debris, weeds and tall
grass. This maintenance shall also be required for the those areas that are in
the public right-of-way adjacent to the property.
4. Provide wheel stops in parking stalls to preserve the landscaping that is in
front of the stalls.
5. Comply with vision clearance standards per section 8.190. These triangles
shall be drawn on the final landscape plan.
6. Comply with parking area development requirements of Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 10.
7. All improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department and all non-remonstrance consents forms signed, right-of-way
permits, and system development charges paid prior to occupancy
Page 9 -Staff Report (C\ST AFFRlstfrpt9 .11 )
- _. -~. .~_...._..."--_..__.__.__._._-~._.,-_._.._.._.-
EXHIBIT A
Page..J.J2.. of "' PI
8. Upon completion of all improvements to be maintained by the City. the
applicant shall provide the City a maintenance bond good for one year; in the
amount of 10% of the of the improvement.
9. Prior to occupancy permit issuance. the applicant shall submit one set of
reprodUCible as-builts.
10. Conditions of Approval also include the following attachments as submitted
by:
Engineering Department I .; - I-;
Building Department ',nr -'- .
Fire Department """"c,.:\c. -::
Wastewater I-.\~ '-.,- -
Water i:~i.;.
::). ~.. f- '-r-' :=.
11 . Prior to building permit issuance, pay appropriate Systems Development
Charges in effect at that time.
. ,
Page 10 -Staff Report (c\ST AFFR\stfrpt9. 11)
--- -- ..---T------..---.-..-. .------...------
..'-',
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT A
Page -1L of 48
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
1 . final plan shall conform to the Construction Plan Review Procedures and
Standards.
2. Construction shall conform to DEQ and EPA rules and regulations.
3. Partition and access agreements shall be completed and recorded prior to
building permit issuance.
4. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn standards and specifications
and all state building codes.
B. STREET AND DRAINAGE
1 . Driveway approach onto public street shall be constructed of concrete and
shall conform to the City of Woodburn commercial standards.
2. Shared access to vacant lot shall be curbed or barricaded to prevent vehicle
traffic entering undeveloped area.
3. On-site storm runoff detention shall be required. Calculate on a 10-year
storm, 2-year release.
4. On-site catch basins shall be the pollution control type.
5. Storm runoff discharge: The existing catch basin to be utilized as the
discharge point shown on plan may not have sufficient depth for gravity flow
from site or capacity even with the detention as specified. This shall be
analyzed and verified.
6. No open street cuts will be allowed on Evergreen, Stacy Allison, or Lawson.
C. WATER
1. Water meters shall be placed within Lawson Avenue right-of-way.
2. Domestic service can be provided from Lawson Avenue.
3. Backflow prevention device for domestic and/or irrigation service shall be
placed at property line.
4. Fire protection shall be as per the Woodburn Fire District's Condition of
Approval.
Page 11 -Staff Report (CISTAFFAIstfrpt9.11)
,...-:-r,"c\-:; i\
1\ \ ,f\ \'
D.
SANITARY SEWER
EXHIBit _4
Page ~ of 48
1 . Sanitary sewer service as shown on the plan is acceptable providing this is
a private line within private easements and maintenance agreements.
2. Car wash shall discharge into sanitary sewer system, not storm sewer.
-~"'~:',r ~
t. (.~.
/--
Page 1 2 -Staff Report (c\ST AFFR\stfrpt9.11)
.- 'T" ...... .....
EXHIBIT A
Page.J3...... of "fb
:'T A 1 .--11_~_
-. V V~OUlJurn
~
Memo To: Teresa Engeldinger, Planner
City of Woodburn
From: Bob Bene!<, Fire Marshal
Woodburn Fire District
Re: Super 8 Motel & Texaco Station
----r- c \:-<
\ .~ \ '-
,
,
I
Date: March 28, 1995
SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
WOODBURN RRE DISTRICT
A. ACCESS : Minimum access appears to be provided.
f
B. FIRE FLOW : The minimum requirement for Super 8 motel will be
2000 gpm based on Type V 1hr. construction and sprinkled to NFPA 13R
'requirements. The Texaco station will require the minimum 1500 gpm.
C. HYDRANTS: A minimum of three additional hydrants \Viii be required,
one hydrant will be dedicated to support the sprinkler system and located
near the Fire Department Connection. The two additional hydrants will be
located near access points at the north and south entrances to the
property.
D. SPRINKLERS I FDC : An NFPA 13 R system will be required for the
motel with a 21/2 inch stand pipe in each stairwell. Each standpipe will
have a 21/2 inch . outlet on each floor.
I
The FDC for the sprinkler system must be located off of the building
and within 25 feet of a tire hydrant at a location approved by the Fire
District. The Stand pipe FOG's may be attached to the building at a
location approved by the Fire District.
E. ALARM SYSTEM : As required by UFC for R 1 occupancies.
.,
':1
f~
1776 Newberg Highway
Woodburn, OregoR 97071
Attachment B
'-"'~--""'-"''''T' '
EXHIBIT A...!
page...1!J... of off~
\
- 1reJ
lStrid
F. PREMISE IDENTIACATION: Street address numbers must be of
contrasting material with its background, and visible from the public way.
G. CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION : Approved building penn its and
approved plans must be on site. At least two additional hydrants must be
inservice, approved by the city and operational prior to the beginning of
combustible construction.
H. BUILDING PLANS : All construction must comply with Building Codes
as adopted by the City of Woodburn. Unifonn Fire Code compliance as
adopted by Woodburn Fire District and the State of Oregon.
A Fire and Ufe Safety Review must perfonned by Marion County
Building Department and be completed prior to the beginning of
construction.
A final inspection for Unifonn Fire Code ~ompliance by the Fire
District is required prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy.
!~
Ii
E:
1776 Newberg Highway
Woodburn, Oregqn 97071
h n :~r_ ~''':''' f
..- T---"-'.""-- ....-..
doodburn Fire District
EXHIBIT -A
Page..t5:- of <IF,
1776~Hwy.
Woodburn. Or. 97071
(503) 982-2360
F.,,, '(503) 981-5004
August 28. 1997
Steve Goeclaitz
Director Planning
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery St.
Woodburn, Or. fJ707J
Dear Steve:
I have reviewed the re\ised plans for the Exxon gas SlaIion on Lawson Ave. and the original
comments for the proposed pn:;cct are still applicable. Aocess and water supply are adequate for
the proposed structure. Special requirements for fuel -dispensing stations will be addressed under
separate letter to the occupant
Sincerely,
t~ ,/JiJ
Robert Benck
Fire Marshal
f\ \\!\UA 6
..-.~_..~"-_.---^---_._..,.. "--'-'._'-_._'-'.~-""-'_.""'-"'--~---
EXHIBIT /I
page...,LU.. of oj p,
MemOX'H""'-
To : Teresa RngAldinger (PJllnnln~)
From. : Lany Arendt UndusLrial Waste Coordmator}
Date; 4-14-95
Subject : Woodburn Texl.l.CO, Lawson Rd.
'I'he Wast..nutoa' ~ will require Woodburn Texaoo to mtdJ two Oil &: Ssnd
Separaton. Beq";'~. -folIDllinOngodc U,tl; ...ad ~ Code See 108
and 110. '1114 &at OlIO will be fir the Car wash GIl the &mft<<r.y Sewer liDe.. The
Sceond will bo for tho Storm Drain off tho Pump Tcfomtf or the closest Stonn OrRin
from where they wash down 8ZOIUld the gas ptmlpS.
--",' <(
----.J \ "
l'o<st-lt.bnlndtu:~_ill71 '.-.1
TOTFL F.ell
I\-v\Kt\ L
'~,..
",.,". _..~_..~_.._._.,.._._-_...._. .
I
.
i
EXHIBIT ----.d
REQu.~ - DATE: 1. \ fJ\1\~c.\-\ '\ S Page..l.L of 'If'. OEPARTMENT:WA-b\E.VJAT~r..
.
CONTJ....~ r PERSON: Teresa Engeldinger; Planning Dept, 982-5246
A.PPUCANT: (,I\R'l L.l\rO\tJ\(T\bV\c.o) Ol\.\J\GHlJffMl\t-.I('<>\lf>ER~\V\otE.~ r.-:C,~ \<
)
rYPE OF PROJECT: 'SlJW-R B ~m~L /TE-"f.,.f\Ca <;:)E-R.V\L~ STI\\\()I\J
'RO.JECT lOCATION: ~t-,\)J\L"--\\1 U~\1JSCl~ f\~t:..I\~() ~:'\l~(,RUN RC\f\b
XlNFERENCE
'lACE: Conference Room
Woodburn City Hall
\
-..-' ,
. DATE:~f\\'~ 199~5
TIME: \:30
GENERAlINFORMAnON TO APPUCANT .
have read the Infonnatlon sheet ptoVlded me and understand that which Is pertinent to my
1te Plan RevlewlPre-Appllcatfon request. All matetfals are to be collated and folded.
Signature - Owner/Agent
1
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
d. ~4<)....A ",;LI ..'}.-'[O<"+
:or-I41M'1 flll;c.#'~ {;v t~()I-L M^ I~ I t
-:'lA-~ ,~-fA--/''o~~. C G/I' 11~1. t~~M\ '1;..., ~ In,",~
kk
7I.
( JJ,p~~___
-..
l-
...
. .
FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED AFTER PRE-APPucAnoN CON~CE:
1) Sght (8) copies of RnaI Plan n1ust be brought Into Public WOt1cs
2) -As Bullts- must be provided prior to Issuance of the buDdIng pennlt
flU
, . ~
Attaclunent 0
-.... .....1'.. ..-...-..--.-~-..
1
" REGI , -T DATE: J. \ f..\I\RC. \-\ q S
'OEPARTMENT: B\.)\LO\NC"
CC)N"l. .~T PERSON: Teresa Engeldinger; Planning Dept, 982-5246 EXHIBIT A
r ", A.D ( \ page.1..l:L of
APPUCANT: '='n.R'f l. ,O\'S, \~C.O) OI\\J\(J H\JffMf\~ (<a\l~ER8 'rv\OtE.~
J
lYPE OF PROJECT: ~\)\>(.R B\V\m~L/\E...'1'.I\Ca ~1::.R.\J\Uc.. Stl\\\MJ
PROJECT LOCATION: ~~\\)J\L\l...1\I LI\\A.lSOl\j I\\lt. I\t--)O ~\1tR~R.UN RCl ~b
CONFERENCE
PLACE: ConferenceRoom 'DATE:S~ 199~5 TIME: \:30
Woodburn City Hall
48
........J < ',--
GSf8W.INFORMATION TO APPUCANT
I have read the Information sheet provided me and undecstand that which Is pertinent to my
SIte Plan RevlewlPre-AppRcadon request. All materials are to be coRated and folded,
Signature - Owner/Agent
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
iLl ?~/r1/VS _C;/;-'J.L.L b~ "'<;U-khfl-r;~..--r:/'
:;; .t?-, 7- . 1!: Wg-lJ~ ~~ F.,; ,0-
. 11+6 / S4ETy /:PL./(lA'/ ,fFt/;c--u/
LL. .p 1F~.s ~ h;4L.L. Iv Ir P A:d PI,;' r 10 (0.6 A1 S 1,- vc--r~
I I I~
~
i
~ IYIn -riE"J?'Al- ShALL h L.'::- ~ 1OrL:-d O/\{ t'.1)' K.'JI, r t:Jj'
fi (' ~ -r;.E€ ~ ~h4t..L Ok k.L:Ff'7 eL€/1'(/ /ll'{d +r~~
:f mini.. UN JA;~ h/lS'S -
: FOUOWlNa IS REQUIRED I ~ PRE-APPUCATION CONFBIENce:
1) 8ght (8) copIes of Anal Plan niust be brought Into Public Works
2) · As Bullts- must be provided prior to Issuance of the building pennit
E.fH1
. . ~
Attachment E
,_., ""j' . .,..
HEUUE$"-'- DATE: L \ ~Pi\<'C \\ q S
OEPARlMENT: 'S\(\\~ \-\\JJ'l
CElNTA PERSON: Teresa Engeldinger; Planning Dept, 982-5246 EXHIBIT ....lI
APPUCANT: Gf\'(Z'f L,/\PO\tJ\ (TE:f.,Ac.ol OI\\Jln H\JffMl\"t ("'\l{>ER8 N\O\"-Qage..L:L of
I
TYPE OF PROJECT: 'S\)W"g 8 ~mEL /II:.-'i'"'' Co 'Sc.~\J \CfL S \1\\\0\\1
PROJECT LOCATION: \)'t\\)J'L\~.)'J LI\\1JSCi~ f\\lt..I\t-JO ~\JtR(,R.~ RCll\b .
CONFERENCE
PLACE: Conference Room - DATE:~f\I'\:f. 199$S TIME: \:30
Woodburn City Hall
GENERAL INFORMATION TO APPUCANT
I have read the Infonnation sheet provided me and understand that whJch Is pertinent to my
SIte Plan Revlew/Pre-Applicatfon request. All matedals ere to be collated and folded.
Signature - Owner/Agent
DEPARTMeNT COMMENTS
w~'r--I-(.r.) JUuI ~ ~/e.1e '"/nufsfIYfzrG9H 1~4.d- S~ ~
Wi tAAr tJUJ ~lJM!o/d "l c,'f; ~ ~IJ(J{ ,I!Mk i1> ac~ . ~
.;(/ ~- ~ "U'<<II~AoU~ ~ l~rqiOJ ~
~.~~ rf' ~drlJvd. We Ivwe. di<;w~r.pJ c.-huy <:'ro
.~ ~~;/'-...f<.1' -fyJ,("r. .p~J,f'.er .
. ~Ih'ck.-! /!-"~fl.w1lH-.
FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED AFTER PRE-APPUCAnON CONFBlENCE:
1) 8ght (8J copies of Anal Plan n1.ust be brought into PubIlc Works ---r ~ \~
2J wAs Bullts- must be provided prior to Issuance of the building permit \.~ \~.
.F1U
. . ,
Attachment F \
..,~~" ".-_..."...,.....~~.- .~.^_.~_... --.---
48
I
~.
r
,
':~
~i
'JI..,
~
;..
_ ..1 3.1995
EXHIBIT .4
Page ';;0 of <I EJ
~n
Mr. Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director
City ofWoodbwn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
District 3
SUBJECr: Transportation Impact Study for Super 8 MotelfI'euco
ALE CODE,
Dear Steve:
Oregon Depadmeot of Transportation (0001) staff have reviewed the subject transportation
irnpact study (TIS) to detconine poteotiaI irnp"cts to the state highways in the area. The scope of
the study was dc:tenDined in coasuItation between die pceparec (Tom J ...ncaster) and appropriate
ODOTstafL We have concluded that, although the analysis was not prepared using methodology
acceptable to ODOT (Le., SIGCAP), the fintli"8" of the study would not be materially altered if
revisions wece required. We, therefore, find that the study adequately describes the existing and
future traffic conditions in the area the potential i"'P"rU of the proposed project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this TIS. Please feel free to contact me at 986-2663 or
Willard Bradshaw, Region 2 Traffic Engineer, at 986-2656 if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincecely,
d
.....
Daniel L. Fricke
Region Planner
DLF:
c: Ri~ McSwain
Willard BradShaw
Tom Lancastei:
.
:1-94)
885 Allport Road
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 986-2874
FAX .(503)986-2881
Attachment F li
.,.., __...."M_....
EXHIBIT A
Page.lOlL of 4 P,
MEMORANDUM OPINION NO. 97-02
TO:
STEVE GOECKRITZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
N. ROBERT SHIELDS, CITY ATTORNEY~(\;~
PROCEDURE ON REMAND OF LUBA 97-068
(APPLICANT GARRY LaPOINT)
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
JULY 15,1997
BACKGROUND:
Your memorandum'dated July 9, 1997 (attached) asks questions about the proper
procedures to use after the recent remand in LUBA 97-068 (also attached). The
purpose of this opinion is to address aU of the issues you have raised so that the
resolution of the remaining land use issues may proceed.
DECISION MAKER:
You are correct in your assumption that the City Council (as opposed to the Planning
Commission) considers the case on remand. After a LUBA remand, cities are normally
able to address the remanded issues at the highest decision making level without
having to start the process over again.
REOUlRED NOTICE PROCEDURE:
Absent local code provisions to the contrary, cities are normally not required to repeat
all of the elaborate notice provisions initially applicable to local land use proceedings.
In this case, I would advise you to give specific notice to the parties - both petitioners
(Baker and Sullivan) and the intervenor-respondent (laPoint). It would be appropriate
to employ the usual public hearing notice. This notice should reference the scope of
issues on remand (see below). Finally, there is no legal requirement that a 20-day
f\\\~ c \-\. 1.
'. <
--...
EXHIBIT A 11.. .
page.22- of >If?
notification period be used. However, you should allow the parties and staff
adequate time to prepare for the hearing.
SCOPE OF ISSUES ON REMAND:
Normally, LUBA identifies certain specific issues that are the basis for the remand.
These issues must again be addressed by the city.
In this case, LUBA sustained all three of petitioners' assignments of error. LUBA held
that the modified site plan was not in substantial compliance with the original site
plan and, consequently, no determination was ever made as to whether the modified
site plan satisfied the site plan criteria contained in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance
(WZO 11.020).
On remand, the City Council should address whether the modified site plan meets all
of the site plan criteria. The staff report also needs to address this so that the City
Council can make an informed determination.
THE NEED FOR A NEW APPLICATION:
At LUBA, petitioners specifically argued that the new site plan required a new
application. LUBA rejected this argument. and stated:
MThe city may, in the absence of a code prohibitjon or some other
o/;Jstacle Id~ntlfied by petitioner, fine the mod/fled proposal to be a
continuation of the original application. M LUBA 97-068 at p.5.
Therefore, based on LUBA's determination, I would advise you that no new site plan
application is required.
CONCLUSION:
I hope that this opinion answers the questions that you raised and is of some
assistance. I am available to discuss it at your convenience.
cc: Chris Childs, City Administrator
1\\\ f\C \-\ l
''''',
Community
Development
EXHIBIT A
Palla..z3.. of 'f-f5
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 9, 1997
To: Bob Shields, City Attorney ....LC.
From: Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director
Subject: LUBA No. 97-068
Final Opinion and Order
After reviewing the remand order I have some questions as to how to proceed.
It is my understanding the City Council will be required to again review through the public
hearing process the remand order. My questions are as follows:
(1) Does the notice of hearing go only to the petitioner?
(2) Is the application subject to the twenty day notification period prior to a council
hearing?
. (3) Does the composition of the staff report address just the assignments of err:or, or
(4) Should the staff report cover all site plan criteria addressed in Chapter 11 of the zoning
ordinance?
(5) Is it required the applicant submit a new site plan application?
SGlnjm
0:.\ \~(J-\ I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
ige 1
EXHIBIT A
Page...2.L of tie
03JUl '9.' ftt1 ~:J.l I Uf.'!.
'flEC~i"--
1.AW OFF';;;: ,,), :( i,.,_" .
1
BEFORE THE LA!l,1) USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGoN
BARRy SULLIVAN and DALE BAKER, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. )
)
CITY OF WOODBURN, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
)
GARRy LaPOINT, )
)
Intervenor-Respondent. )
o
{UUL t.: 7 1997
LUBA No. 97-068
FINAL OPINION
AND ORDER
Appeal from City of Woodburn.
Vance M. Croney, Salem, filed the petition for review and
argued on behalf of petitioners.
No appearance by respondent.
Dale L. Crandall, Salem, filed .the response briet and
argued on behalf of intervenor-respondent.
LIVINGSTON, Referee; HANNA, Chief Referee, participated in
the decision.
REMANDED
07/03/97
You are entitled to jUdicial review of this Order.
Judicial review is governed by the provisions of ORS 197.850,
A\ \F\C \-\ 1-
1 Opcnion by Livingston.
EXHIBIT A
Jlilgt ~ of L/8
2 NATURE OF THE DECISION
4 council approving a site plan for a gas station.
3 Petitioners appeal a limited land use decision of the city
5 MOTION TO INTERVENE
6
Gary LaPoint (intervenor), the applicant below, moves to
7 intervene on the side of the respondent. There is no oPposition
8 to the motion, and it is allowed.
9 FACTS
10 Intervenor wishes to construct a gas station with a car
12
11 wash on a vacant lot within the city's General Commercial (GCl
zone.
In Sullivan v. City of Woodburn, 31 Or LUBA 192 (1996)
13 (Sullivan I), we remanded intervenor's site plan for additional
15
14 findings on two site plan review criteria, Woodburn Zoning
Ordinance (WZO) 11. 020 (d) and (e}.1
Five months after our
lWZO 11.020 provides,
.Site Plan Composition. The fOllOWing shall be required for
any application for Site Plan Review,
. (a) A site pJ.an, drawn to scale, showing the proposed layout
of all structures and other impro._ts including, where
appropriate, driveways, pedestrian walks, landscaped
areas, fences, walls, off-street parldng and loading
areas, and railroad tracks. The site plan shall indicate
the 1ocation of entrances and exits and the direction of
traffic f10w into and out of off-street parking and
loading areas, the location of each parking space and
each loading berth and areas of turning and maneuvering
vehicles. The site plan shall indicate how utility
service and drainage are to be provided.
. (b) A landscape plan, drawn to scale, showing the location of
existing trees proposed to be removed and to be retained
on the site and the location and design of landscaped
areas I and other pertinent landscape features.
'age 2
f\ \\~C \-\ I
..____.,..m.__ ."....,
EXHIBIT A
Page~ of t/ 9
1 decision in Sullivan I, il,.:ervenor subtnitted a "modified" site
2 plan for city council review during remand proceedings.2
3 The plaQDing director concluded the modified site plan was
4 not in substantial conformance. with the ~riginal site plan and
5 recommended the. city council refuse to consider the modified
6 site plan. The staff report explains:
7
8
"The following differences [between the original and
modified site plans] should be noted:
9
n.
The original site plan consisted of 828 square
feet for offices and 908.16 Square feet for the
car wash for a total of 1,736.16 square feet.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
no
The new submittal has a reconfigured and
combined car wash and office complex. The total
square footage is 2,900 square feet, this is
1,163.84 square feet larger than the original
structures.
17
18
19
no
The original site plan shows the office to the
easterly property line and the car-wash on the
southerly POrtion of the site.
20
no
The new submittal shows the entire facility on
"(c) Architectural drawings or sketches, drawn to scale, in
sufficient detail to permit computation of yard
requirements and shOWing all elevations of the proposed
structures and other improvements as they will appear on
completion of construction. ...
o (d) Specifications as to type, . color and texture of exterior
surfaces of proposed structures.
o (e) A sign plan, drawn to sca1e, Showing the location, size,
design, material, color and methods of illumination of
all exterior signs.
o (f) Shadow patterns of proposed structures (showing shadow
during the Solar Access Standard period) . .
2As explained in the staff report, Record 26. intervenor originally
sought approval of a Texaco gas station and car wash. During the
proceedings on remand, intervenor sought approval of an Exxon gas stat;ion
and car wash_
'ige 3
A"I\CJ\ I
".._....,."'.._"..,..,..-..,.,._.~..__.-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
".
20
the southerly portion of the site.
EXHIBIT A
pag e:.2.1- of If 8>
.. .
The original site plan had two buildings; the
new submittal consists of one building.
" .
The canopy for the gas pumps on the new
submittal is 4,048 Square feet while the canopy
on the original site plan is 4,508 square .feet.
" .
The trash enclosure has been repositioned and a
vacuum station added on the eastern portion of
the property in the new submittal.
" .
The parking configuration has changed in the new
submittal.
".
The planter-strip on the eastern portion of the
property has been reconfigured in the new
submittal to reflect the removal of the office
complex on that portion of the site.
The LUBA remand requires the City Council to
address the Texaco sign and color scheme and
site plane,] not the new submittal of the Exxon
service station." Record 31-32.
The city council conducted a remand hearing and approved
21 the modified site plan. This appeal followed.
22 FIRS'!' ASSIGNHlmT OF ERROR
23
A.
New Site Plan
24 Petitioner contends the city's approval of the modified
25 site plan violates the WZO, because the modified site plan is
26 not in substantial compliance with the original site pl-an.
27 Petitioner argues that intervenor "has submitted a new site plan
29
28 on the coattails of the original." Petition for Review 5.
The challenged decision contains only three findings. The
30 first two findings address WZo l1.020(d) and (e) separately.
31 The third finding states:
32 "Applicant submitted a modified site layout diagram,
33 identified as the 'Proposed Submittal', and at
Page 4
f\ \\ l-\ CJ-\ .L
, , ~
_.. '...r.'........
1 hearing, through counsel. explained the modifications.
2 The 'Proposed Submittal' is in substantial compliance
3 with the standards for review of a site plan, and is
4 sUbstantially similar to the site layout diagram
5 submitted with the application originally, such that
6 it does not substantially change the application nor
7 sUbstantially alter the consequences, Upon other
8 landowners or the public, of this proposed use of the
9 subject property." Record 4.
10 A review of the two site plans. Record 104-06, confinns the
EXHIBIT A
Page'~ of 'I- R
11 assessment of the planning director and petitioner that very
12 little beyond the location of the gas pumps is carried forward
13
from the original site plan to the modified site plan.
A
15 are substantially similar. The finding that the consequences of
14 reasonable person simply could not conclude that the two plans
16 adopting the modified plan and the original plan are
19 mo 11.020.
18 modified plan satisfies the site plan review criteria stated in
17 sUbstantially similar does not answer whether or why the
20
B. 'New Application
21
Petitioner contends the modified site plan is a new site
22 plan that requires a new application, notice and hearing.
25
.
24 new application when modifications to an application are made:
23 Petitioner does not identify any WZo provision that requires a
26 (1992), we explained that when an application is modified on
In Wentland v. Citv of Portland, 23 Or LUBA 321, 326
27 remand in small ways that do not cause it to significantly
28 differ from the original application, the local government does
29 not err in failing to require that a new application be filed.
10 In Bonner v. City of Portland, 11 Or LUBA 40, 60 (1984), we
'age 5
f\T\~(\-\ 1.
-- ..-r-----.
3 appeal process, require treatment as a new application.
2 revisions to an application, made during the local hearing and
1 allowed the city "substantial latitude" in determining whether
EXHIBIT A
Page d.1.. of if Il
4 In this case, the same applicant seeks site plan review of
5 a gas station development on the same property. Petitioner was
6 allowed to participate in the process leading to approval of the
7 modified site plan. Although intervenor's modified site plan
8 differs from the original site plan in many significant
10 prejudiced by the city's election to treat the Submission of the
9 respects, petitioner's substantive rights have not been
12
11 modified site plan as a continuation of the original
application.
~ Billinaton v. Polk Countv, 13 Or LUBA 125,
13
135-36 (1985).
The city may, in the absence of a code
14 prOhibition or some other obstacle identified by petitioner,
15 find the modified prOposal tp be a continuation of the original
16 application. 3
18 plan is not substantially similar to or (to use petitioner'S
17 Because we agree with petitioner that the modified site
20 . we sustain the first assignment of error.
19 words) "in substantial compliance with" the original site plan,
21 SBCOND ASSJ:~ OF ERROR
22
Petitioner contends the challenged decision is not
3petitioner does not contend the applicable WZO criteria have changed
since the application for site plan review was filed in 1995. We do not
reach the issue of whether a new application should be required when the
applicable code standards are amended between the city's consideration of
an original site plan and a later, significantly altered site plan.
'age 6
A nl\c 'M. I
"'~.'-"'-T""~-- ~- _..,,--..
1
supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.
EXHIBIT A
Page.32... of "fJ
3 are cited overwhelmingly contradicts the city's conclusion that
2 stated above. we agree the evidence 1n the record to which we
As
5 site plan.
4 the modified site plan is sUbstantially similar to the original
6 The second assiQnment of error is sustained.
7 THIRD ASSIGNMEN'l' OF ERROR
8
Peti tioner contends the challenged decision does not
10 plan.
9 contain adequate findings with respect to the modified site
12 (2) set out the facts which are believed and relied upon, and
11 Findings must (1) identify the relevant approval standards,
14 wi th the approval standards.
13 (3) explain how those facts lead to the decision on compliance
15 ClaCkamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 20-21, 569 P2d 1063 (1977);
16 HeiHer v. Jo'senhine Countv, 23 Or LUBA 551 556 (1992). The
Sunnyside Neiahborhood v.
17 city's finding, quoted above, that the modified site plan is
18 Substantially similar to the original site plan is unacceptably
19 conclusory. Because the two plans are Substantially different,
20 the ci ty must apply WZO 11. 020 to the modified site plan and
21 make appropriate findings.
22 The third assiQnment of error is sustained.
B The ci ty' s decision is remanded.
age 7
!\\\f\~~ \
. .
1 CERTIFICATE OF MAILIN~
2
3
4 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion
5 and Order for LUBA No. 97-068, on July 3, 1997, by mailing to
6 said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof contained in
7 a sealed envelope with'postage prepaid addressed to said parties
8 or their attorney as follows:
9
10 Vance M. Croney
11 Wallace W. Lien, P.e.
12 PO Box 5668
13 Salem, OR 97304-0668
14
15 N. Robert Shields
16 Woodburn City Attorney
17 Suite 102
18 10250 S.W. Greenburg Road
19 Portland, OR 97223
20
21 Dale L. Crandall
22 Attorney at Law
23 280 Court Street, Suite 14
24 Salem, OR 97301
25
26 Dated this 3rd day of July, 1997.
27
28
29 ~
H ~linger~Y^
33 Administrative Specialist
EXHIBIT A
Page.!iL of L/.R
f\\ \f\lt\ i
-~."'-_.' .h.......-r._'"
SITE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NARRATIVE
WOODBURN EXXON
LAWSON STREET
WOODBURN, OREGON
EXHIBlT_- A
p.ge~ of 'f ['
.
STATEMENT OF INTENT - ATTACHMEN r
Owner: Garry LaPoint
Submitted by: Garry LaPoInt
1 061 8 Crosby NE
Woodburn. OR 97071
(503) 981-8648
Date: September 4, 1997
NARRATIVE
Prolf!ct oblectlves'
Garry LaPoint proposes to COnstruct a Exxon Gas Station with Car Wash in the
Woodburn community. The Gas Station Is a permitted uSe within the CG General
Commercial zone. The applicant seeks approval of the proposed site development
plan for constructIon this summer.
The deSign will be based upon the archItectural Style developed in recent projects and
as required by franchise standards.
The applicant has gone to great lengths to develop a project that Is compatible with
existIng Zoning regulatIons and Compatible with adjacent uses. Access roads and
slgnage are being CoordInated With two adjacent Uses, the eXIsting McDonald's and
the adjacent Super 8 Motel, which Is currently under construction.
The final design documents submItted for approval prior to COnstruction of the
project will Include the folloWing: .
a. A detailed landscape and Irrigation plan conforming to City of Woodburn
standards.
b. A detailed utilitIes plan IndIcating modlflcatlons to eXistIng sanitary SeWer,
storm sewer, draInage, water service. electrIcal service, and gas ServIce.
c. A detailed outdoor lighting plan desIgned to avoId glare on all adjacent
properties and streets.
d. A detailed slgnage plan indicating slgnage.
e. COnstructIon draWIngs and speclflcatlons indicating full compliance With
City of Woodburn Development Department and State construction and
energy conservatfon standards. The bUilding and sIte deSIgn shall meet
handIcapped acceSSibility standards.
2203.spr.doc Page 1
AT\f\C\-\ 11
. ."
.
Nnershio nattern:
WOODBURN EXXON
EXHIBIT A
Page ~ of 48
The project wIll be privately owned and Operated by Garry LaPoInt.
Pn:>ject statistics'
SITE DATA:
Tax Lot;
Map Number:
DimenSions:
Site Area.:
SOO 4< 602
S-W12C
177' x 200'
35,520 S.F. (0:82 acre) Includes drIve area
PROJECT DATA: (ReviSed data provided by Kirtley Cole Associates, Inc. _ 9/4/97)
Office 4< Carwash Building Area: 2,900 S.F.
Pump Canopy BUilding Area: 4,048 S.F.
Total BUilding Footprint Area: 6,948 S.F. (19 "l
ParkIng 8< Drive Area: 20,824 S.F. (59 "l
Parking, Drive 4< Building Area: 27,772 S.F. (78 "l (Includes easement area)
Parking Landscape Area: NA _ See Total Landscape Area
Total Landscape Area: 5,844 s.f. (16 "l _ 1 S " Required
BUILDING DATA:
Total Building Area:
HeIght:
SETBACKS:
Front Yard
BUilding Setback:
Landscape Setback:
Side Yard
Parking Setback:
Rear Yard:
Parking;
Loading Zones:
Code:
Proposed;
Code;
Proposed:
Code;
Proposed: .
Code:
ProPosed:
Code:
ProPosed:
Code:
Proposed:
ProJect tlmetabre and Oev"loruar~
6,948 $.f.
CI Story) 18' - O. Maximum
S'
45.5'
S'
5' MInimum
5'
S'
5'
5' MInImum
Service use - 3 stalls
4 stalls (1 acceSSible)
1 Space
none (not applicable to use)
COnstruction Is projected to begln'ln the summer of 1997. The General Contractor
will be KirtleY-Cole AsSOCIates, Inc.
_.. .~.
.. ........... ......r.. ....-
Page 2
AT\f\CH 11
.
EXHIBIT A
WooD8URN EXXON . Page .~ of rJ. 8
.hat Lot Deve/oom..,,, Potions N"'ians;esl ar.. oroDosed for the oro;ect~_
None.
Will eXistlnq ohysical Systems be adVNSely affeqed bv the develooment of this.
QLQject?
No, the project will be bUilt to conform With City and State code requirements and will
add minimal loading to eXistIng utilitIes. Utflltles adequate to accommodate this
project are available at site. A Joint Traffic Study Is has been prepared by Tom
Lancaster of Lancaster Engineering as requIred by OooT to analyze the InterSectIon of
Highway 214 and Evergreen Road.
Will the architectural featur:~ ~~:~soroposed arolect be comoatlble to the des/on
charact..r of the exIst/no d~_ <!.....___t.?_
The deSIgn of the project shall be compatfble In design and scale wIth the existing
and proposed adjacent bUildings.
APPLICABLE ZONING AND ORDINANCE SECTIONS.
Chapter 10, Off-street Parking, lOading, and Driveway Requirements: This application
Is being submitted to meet or exceed the criteria outlined In Chapter 10 of the
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance.
SectIon 10.0S0 Off-street Automobile Parking ReqUirements: Off-street automobile
parking shall be provIded as required by Section 10.070 and approved by the Planning
Director, In amounts not less than those listed below:
AQQ!lcant ResDonse:
4 spaces wIth 1 ADA barrier-free space provIded.
Section 10.060 Off-street loading ~equlrements: Off-street loading space shall be
prOVided in the amounts'IIsted belOW except that In appropriate ""ases the Planning
CommISSIon may waive the. requirements for loading space: .
(b) A minimum loading space size of 12 feet Wide, 20 feet long. and 14 feet high
when covered shall be required as follows: (1) For all buildings except
residential and those used entirely for office use; up to 2,000 square feet of
gross floor area - one space; (2) For each additional 40,000 square feet of gross
floor area or any POrtIon thereof _ one space.
Applicant ReSDonse:
The applicant requests that the CIty Council waive the loading dock
requirements for this project as the operatlon will not receive or ship any Items
requiring loading operations other than fuel which will take place at the tank
location. Office supplies, operating supplies and fund transfers shall be hand
carried through the main entry doors to a van-sized vehicle at Infrequent
Intervals.
Page 3
An f\O-\ ]]
~.
..__, ""~~~__"_M"_
.>ection 10.070 Parking and LOll,dfl1g Area Development Requirements: All parking
and loading areas except those for single family dwelflngs shall be developed and
maintained as follows:
WOODBURN EXXON
EXHIBIT ,
Page~ of tJF,
(a) Location on Site: '.. (I) Plans and Permits:
Applicant ResDonse:
The on-site parking has been posItioned and detailed to conform with
requirements of the Woodburn Development Code. All driveways and parking
have been designed to provide adequate drainage, and will be paved with
asphalt. The perimeter of all paving areas will have extruded' concrete curbIng,
and all parking stalls will be prOVided with wheel bumpers (In most locations, the
curb will be positioned to act as wheel bumper). The driveways and parking
spaces will be dimensIoned as follows:
(1) The shared street approache shall be 36 feet In Width with rolled
transition Section at each side of approach.
(2) TypIcal parking stalls shall be 9 feet by 19 feet, with the Van.
accessible stall having an adjacent unloading zone 8 feet wide by 19
feet long.
(3) Pavement markings and directional signs will be provided to comrol
on-site vehICUlar traffic.
(4) All parking areas have been provided with adequate back'out and
turn-around space as applicable_
(5) All site lighting will be designed to avoid direct glare or reflection
upon residential areas or pUblic rlght-of-ways.
(6) All parking areas will be landscaped to meet or exceed the City of
Woodburn standards.
Section 10.080 Driveway ~tandard.;
(d) Commercial and Industrial driveway Widths, number, and 'Iocation shall be'
evaluated at the time of the Site ptan or bullcllng Permit submittal, and revIewed
against exIsting City Engineering Standards and land use polICies.
ADnll~ant RE'!SDonse:
The proposed design provides a shared access on the north side with the
eXisting. MCDonald's and Woodburn Super 8 Motel, proViding access from Lawson
Street and Evergreen Road. On the west side of the site, a shared access Is
prOVided With acijacent parcel to lawson Street.
~to:r 11 Site Plan Revl@w:.
This apPlication Is being submitted to meet or exceed all the criteria outlined in
Chapter 11 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance.
Section 11.070 Criteria for evaluation of the Site Plan. The fOllowing criteria shall be
used In evaluation of the Slt@ Plan:
Page 4
A 11 1\( t-\ Jl
..,..._,.,.
WOODBURN EXXON
EXHIBIT A
page..3e of 4 8
(a) The placement of structures On a property shaH mininlj2E: impRct on
adjacent USes.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize Impacts on adjacent uses.
(e) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its aesthetic value.
(d) Access to public streets shall minimize the effect of traffic Impacts.
Whenever Possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar
nature.
(e) The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the Impact on the City's
or other public agency drainage facilities.
(f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in the position on the
lot, and it's accommodation of pedestrian bicycle traffic.
(g) The proposed site development, Including the architecture, landscaping,
and graphic design, Is In conformity with the site development
requirements of this Ordinance and the standards of this and other
Ordinances insofar as the locatIon and appearance of the proposed
development are Involved.
(h) The location, design, color, and materials of the exterior of the structures
and signs are compatIble wIth the proposed development, and appropriate
to the Immediate neighborhood.
AOD'lcant R~~oonse:
(a) The proposed structure will be placed within the setback boundaries of the
CG district.
(b) Project landscaping has been designed to enhance the proposed buildings.
and to minimize the appearance of the parking areas.
ec) Landscape materials have been selected to compliment the building design
and material colors, and to provide seasonal variations in flowers and leaf
colors to present an attractive enhancement to the Woodburn community.
(d) The buildings have been sited so that it does not cast shadows on any
adjacent properties solar access.
(e) See attached exterior building colors - component checklist for Exxon Paint
Colors.
ChaDter 30, General Standards:
This application Is being submitted to meet Or exceed the Criteria outlined in Chapter
30 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance.
Section 30.010 Use: A Cas St<ltion is a permitted use under provisions CG
District.
Page 5
f\T\F\CH ]I
..,...--
.~.._._.---- "
WOODBURN EXXON
EXHIBIT II
f tl8
page.3.L 0 _ _
. Section 30.040 Height: At one story and 18 feet In heigh" the proposed
structure Is Within the allowed six stories and 70 feet In height.
Section 30.050 Side and Rear Yards: The proposed project provides setbacks
meeting or exceeding CG DIstrict requir~ments. see project statistics.
Section 30.060 Front Yards: The proposed project provides setbacks meeting or
exceeding CG District reqUirements. see project statistics
Ordinance No. 1827, Sign Ordinance:
Applicant Respons..!:.:.
A sign plan has been submitted.
Landscaping Policies and Standards: This application Is being submitted to conform
to the landscape design criteria outlined In the Woodburn Standards Document for
SIte Plan Review.
11. General Planting SpeCifiCations;
6QpIlcant Resoonse: The proposed design conforms to City standards for tree
sIZing and spacIng.
Ill. Buffering Specifications and Guidelines:
Aoollcant Respo.llR:, The proposed design screens trash collection and
mechanical equIpment with masonry landscape walls as augmented with planting
materials to provIde year-round screening of these functions.
VII. Landscape Design Elements:
ADPllcant Resoonse: The proposed design conforms to C;:lty standards for
number, size, type, and locatfon of landscapIng material. buffers, and screens
(site lighting has been Indicated on the architectural site plan), The submitted
documents Include a permanently installed Irrlgatlon plan. .
VIII: Landscaping and Buffering Requirements for Zoning Districts; B. General
Commercial Zone - CG
~ppllcant Resoons..: The proposed design conforms to City standards for the
CG District. The proposed plan provides landScaping area In excess of the 1 5%
landscape coverage required. Landscape strips ac(Jacent to the street frontages
exceeds the 5-foot minimum width. PlU'Idng lot-landscaping area In excess of
the 1 0" required by CG standards Is Provided. Street frontage and parking lot
landscaping conform to DIstrict reqUirements for size and number. Please see
landscape drawings for speclflc proposed plant materials and sIzes.
END OF NARRATIVE
Page 6
ATIf\CM 11
. .
EXHrlj1 r- A -._
Page~ of ~
-)
, ~IO' I I
Tea;tur. P"n'.h Conu._ftl8
Pmecenlum Arch PI Tan Smooth Matte
Ins.t waUa P2 a..Y Smooth Man" Ill1cI< textur. Is an
acceptabl. al1emate
otherwaUs PI Tan Smoolh Mane Elrick tel<lUte Is an
acceptable alternate
8Ulld....g aaftlts PI Tan Smooth Semigfon
SUI/ding base P3 8/8Ck Smoolh Glen
8Ulldlng sld.walks P2Gtayor Smooth Matta NaturaJ concrete
(top) I1alUr.lI cona..t. preferred
eUlldlna aldewalk P3 8/ack Smooth Gloss
curbs
Fescla sign pe Recllicld Non-glare Mett.
P4 WhIt. border Non-g\are Matt.
P3 8Iack /ram. Slandanl Extru$ion Anodized
FUela clan coHIt P3 81ack Smooth Semlg/oa
Solid doors P2 Gray Smooth s.m!glou Non-Pllbllcdoors
(public) malch wa/I color
Door ,........ P3 Black Slandard Extnnlon Anodized Non1'Ublic door frames
(PUblIc) match wa/I color
Door Hard...... SIver Smooth Salin ,
Servft:a bay doc,. P2 Gray or' natural SmoOth Semigloss
P3 BlaCk ltamastgrt/ls
WInd..... Clear Glazing
WIndow fram.. P3 Black St.ndarcI Extrusion AnodIzed
Ancillary buildings PI Tan Smooth M_
lCIoUa P1Tan Smooth Matta
MechanI.... ICe.... Malch Wall COlor Smooth Matt. A.,.,.SSOty &qU/jlmenl
or eqUlp....nt U$8ct by CUSlOtners
'00Cl0Id _ or In P3 black
'mnt of bulldlng
WIng walla1fencec PI Tan Smooth Matt" P2 Oray 'S an
aooeptable -male
Wc><=> ~"fR.'" ~ 0"':::"
l1etan o."sn Pl'OtIrarn Color*
8uildlna Component Color Spec/flcation.
~ <-I-I...~ J - cf'~ /
)
FIeww 0-1. btertor ~'dIng ColoN -~PD...ftt ~
1I0l OIU FITAIIlIt .IIIE
,"'- "
~<1l
AT\ !\ C H'TI.
. .
R_tall Des'sn
Paint Man...
EXHIBIT A-
Page~ of 'l-e
WDC>J"RUR~ ~~
The foUowlng manufacturers ha;ve Approved calor matches:
~4M.~ / - PJ Z.
)
Colorl High Gloss Semkllon HIgh Gloss Semi G'oss SemI-Gloss
Manufacturer Urethane U_ne Alkyd Alkyd !.alex
P-l Exxon Tan
Oupont 22Z11P 22Z3IP
Glidden"
Int.mational PHG070H WCG070H
Jones"Blalr .5527 04716 30426
Pitlsburgh 78-811
P-2 Exxon Gray
Dupont 21Z11 P 21Z31P
Glddan-
International PHPl23H WCP123H
Jonea-8lair 04S527 04716 3426
Pittsburgh 78~ll
P-3 Black
Oupont 326-Y-678040 2OZ30P
GUdden' EJCxon Black 6200 4551
Intemallonal PCYGll9 OWY9s9
Jonas-Blair 45542
Pitlsburgh H31~ 6-253
P-4 White
Oupont 326.Y-67632 32MI1P 9&oY-67632 53C or 310-5101
Glidden" Exxon Whlte 6200 4550 3SOO 0( 530
Intemalional PCeooo PH8000 DWBOOO DCBOOO
Jones.alalr 45053 45051 1900 1109
Pll1sburgh 9NI18 &02704 78-811
RecoPlmencMd Polin. Apptloatlon
u..lhen.. (High Pel1onne_)
81111111111 and Canopy. Extel10r & Interior
Fencing
Coots (Padesltlan)
O.H. Doors
Island and Building Curb Faces (Slreel)
1l"ash Enclosures
/. O. Sign Polas
HIgh RIM Sign Poles
SIan Flame (Can)
"IWl:l UgI1t Poles
Vent PIpes
Alkyd
Dumpsters
Waste RtlC8ptacles
Curbing Previously Painted
SentIc8 Bay Fumlture Eqipmenr
lat&x
CurbIng
BUIl.OINQ EXnIIIORS 01/11
P<j 8
A 1lAC \--\ 1L
........
--~
Appea.
EXHIB~..-L1 .
Page . : of,j 9
Sectiod 1.060.
(a) Any action by the SecretaIy of the Commi"Sion is appealable to the Commi~on if
written notice is filed within 10 days of the effective date of such action. A hearing shall be
held in accordance with Section 11.040(a)(3).
(b) Any action by the Commi<<ion may be appealed to the Council if written notice if filed
witbin 10 days of the effective date of such action. A h_nng shall be held in accordance with
Section 11.050.
Section 11.070. Criteria for Evaluating a Site Plan. The following criteria shall be used in
evaluating a Site Plan:
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimi7.(' adverse impact on adjacent
uses.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimi7.e impact on adjacent uses.
..
(c) Landscaping shall be so located as to m"Yimi7,e its aesthetic value.
(d) A=s to the public streets shall m;n;mi7.e the ;mpact of tr.rlfic patterns. Wherever
possible, direct driveway access'shall not be allowed to arterial streetli. Wherever
possible, access shall be shared. with adjacent uses of a ";nn1;,,.. nature.
(e) The design of the dPm"ge facilities shall m;nimi7,e the impact on the City's or other
puclic agencies drainage facilities. "i
(f) The design encourages enetgy conservation, both in its Siting on the lor. and its
accommodation of pedesttian and bicycle tr.rlfic. (Note: specific solar access provisions
are descnDed in Section 8.200.)
(g) The proposed. site deve1.opmeDt. including the arrhrrecture, l"nn~ and graphic
d-ign, is in confuuuitt with.~ site developmeDt requirements of this OJiHn",,~ 3nd
with the smndards of this and od1er orr'Iin- j......6u as theloca.tion and appearance
of the proposed deve1.opmPnt are involved. "
(h) The location, d~ color and m.-.;..I.. of the ("'#..nnr- of all structures and signs are
OOllll18tible with the ploposed development and 8I'propOate to the ch..u...cteI: of the
inmvod;JI1;e "MgJ1~.
<.
Sedion 11.080. Sf'smiI"'* noc:,mvont The pIAnn;tlg ('nmmi...,;on shall adopt a standards
d()t'l1ml"nf'to provide grdd_ to dewlopers in l"-n-igthe above ..nflori... and ~wi1h
other City ordm"".-: and po1iri~ 'DIe Cnmm;...,;nn shall adopt the sblDdai:ds cJnMnn-t by
resolution, and may ..",.."d the document by resolu1ion. The d,otonnvont' and any .....~nments
CHAPTER 11 SITE PLAN REVIEW
4
. ,
-
.
.
;;
-
.
.
-
.
.
.
-----
----
,
1-
i
,
I
,
I,
. i
I.
" ! I
II' \1
il~ \1 I
~I I
\
-(
-"
\
'--------
----
I
j
!
!
I
~
I
j
!
I
!
!
!
I
j s:
! ~
! z
!
i m
!
I ,
1----_.' -!- ---.;- -l
r 'I '~ I
j ,. .
j ! I {I !
I I JI
. I "
I "I'
" ,
! I I
I : f
ir-
I. I
!! '\ /
II
ii I
Ii I
!j \
!i \
,.
i!
i!
!I
II
if
--- ...
EXHI IT
. .Page..,4L of
e
---
,
I
J
--
/
/
/"
/.
/
./
/"
.-
/
/.
/
.
I
,
I
,
I
.
I
i
,
I
; ~
" ~
;/0
~t
\?
\.
,j.--
I
.
I
.
I
,
I
.
I
.
I
,
'"
'f
,
I
,
I
i
.
rzJ
I
I
,
,
--
,
,
,
,
.
J
--
,---
a
.
.
.
.
fl I
I' I
i i I
81~..f~.........p
!,'I,IIIII'IIII,'II,'
I '1" 1',111 "
, I '!
'l/Il' :
I, " f I
1i,'1l i
Ii" I
111!1I11
I.. I
ill
.
.
.
.
I
I
:
>- II"
. .... l!
CO ~
. """-.-.
U~I
LaPOINT BUSINESS GROUP
"EXXON OF WOODBURN
u__
IU __
.--".-..,..-...........<--.'"'-.-...
.
\
,
.
,
,
s
~
~
.
<
o
p
\
,
.
v
j r
SITE
t'LAN
I
,
f
r
\\ \ \\\\\\\\
1=-=-'-.::..:-::.:.-=--::.:.:--=-=-=-.=-_.'1- _ I
I
I
I
I
'L _
C
.
I
I
>:
~
'"
ii
e
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
------------------~
~EI
ED- ~ kl
""-
, ,~.._._.~ .. _, "K...~._.......~..-..~._--.....-~-
'1,.
Irl
i
HU
""
~ ;1 jI jI
"'
I'
.t
II
'"
II
ij
PlANTING PlAN
EXXON SERVICE STATION, WOODBURN OREGON
Page.:l::l- f
I'. "lulU"
. I
rrli;JIJ!,I~!I;f;
i I i 111.~i II :,. ~
fI ! I I':rp I II If
IE!
; ; ;I~~; ; ; i ; ; . ; . I
.. ......" .... .. ,
~ H~~ ~. . I
Gl8I.......~ .~
_a........
....... -"
-- .
-...........--
"r
h"'",
JA
SIlT
pl!\N
II
r--
,
I
\\ \ \\\\\\\\
\.
~
--- --------------------- -------~
EXHIBIT
page:ll of
t I' .,."
I I I .
i. I .
I f I .'
I I I f
\. t . I i
I .! ___.
f 'I
I.
. I
I Ii
I "
. ,
. I j
f Ii
I . j
. ,
I i
I !
. i
i
I
;;;f! ~ Eli!~!ij ~~ Iii
~ II blfl!~1n :Ii In g
, III! !'~i.111
~---- ~I r.,U=i"ill m
E II~I ~i~ I ~ III
I' ~. m
H\
IE .
I
i
',.,
,
;
'I'
t. :....~.... I!:
ili ;-~:: "
g.l.._
,
~
~ /1
j .
I
.....
51
.i!
'..
:~
~
.~
m-EI
ED-
=3
IRRIGATION PlAN
EXXON SERVICE STAllON. WOODBURN OREGON
"~__ . __ . _"..__ ".,. ._____..,...._____"._~~'__."___._""_._.. ._u..____". "',<<" __~_._~_
i I
."
~I
-,
Ix
e
<lV, i
:'111111'
~ I UH! ~
'I U; f
!,I~I~lf
~ I hi /
I I I
Gl.Dltu<<...~
_u._..... . 'dl
............
--
....-- ..........
.6
SITE
PLAN
ill
. \?,
T
.~.
1
,
-:r-
<:,
'"
; .
'T I:' .,.
I "g"qi. I
, I tpfl> I
Vl I, I
1 " t
I I. . ',,{y'
1--4'(," . 17
EXHIBIT A
page:.i:i.. of .j'V
SITE
PU\N
'rr
.
I
I
48
~~
~
!i
~
~
~
2
~
~
~
~
2
I
}
~
I
;;
,
~
zaJla~1
:
I i I f
~ !11M
I
i
Sill
PlF\N
Y
~ · ~ ~;rm:1 J~I
La POINTE BUISNESS GROUP
EXXON of WOODBURN
J
f
"'--
"'II.
.
.,.--- --- ._-~
~~---
IiXHIBlJc A
Pagll ~ of
4'0.
-- - - - - - - - -
~,. JI!::i
lu n u _
......-- 6" gOO
.I EJkON.{
10";'5"0-1(, (P\N~P'(
.
.
r--- I I I I
~l<f" . I I I I
S'\lANNn 1:,QXE5
L___ ( l
..
,
11~.
'S\\E-
- . Pl~W
~
.J
.
. .
. .,,"."
. .". ~.,: ~ ,~ ,
, '.
~:.:~:\~:"j~}::;~~~i~f~~1;,5i"j;":::~:'<', .-
"
.~.
,--_.~.- ..-....-.......---....---.
--
,
I
I
I
~ <:>
~.... l'
)-
~
\l'
I!] )<
[j
l
!
-'
.
I
"
".--.
"- ~~---"~--1-+~
~~~~
It!~~
.~+
-"f
<
. -=i
t
,
~
(0 i
II..,., :
7;j ~.
It ,
i
r\l
r
[\I
~
-; ----
;
C)
Z
.~
.1'1
..
.-
'-2'
-".
)-'
:! r
. Ql ~
I ~ :
'- .~
ill
-
;
'.
~
l'
l
'"L
---
I
L....__
T:~~~..:::-:
-.'-:_..,...
"---:
...::~
~1H.
O[~;:j ~
,."~,>
fl !
~1
I
. "- '"
\
{"11
<
~
o
z
l\O\\'"E.
, ...~ 2
[~h
~ltL
, I
i I
, ,
i....,_,-
>---....
L:L ~
"
y
pag
T A
of
~
'""'" I I .
. " , !
l', i:
,.'
:-?~'LJ U .':-..'~~_
i.
. I ._1
~:........
'-""1"14>.1...
z~
.l,"-
"\11\\
- f
j"-
\Il~
~
I h
i Il'~
' Z
, . ~z...
~'--l-~--
ro--:
I ,
I
!
-_I
-.--,
i
,
-1;
L'i
. 1
J-jE
-
'l'
"
,-
~
SIlT
PLf\N
VI
.
;J
6J
2J
~
~'
~'"
-!>
:23.,
~ : : ': ~
.~
"-:'i
~
,
!l:~~~1
W~t:"
~i ~~ 5
tl I
, I
I
: [~
. ~
I 1
~,,~-~--"1'"
.Ii , "
'1
, -
lL ,
~tj~
~%..l!
Il
T
~ ~::
~ ~ $>
,,;r
'L is
f..,.
F ' ~
III
~.
I, .
i I ~;"
'~. ~
"-, '-)
"~
, -.. 1
-- 1
:.......... 1
: I! ! !
l I,
"oJ! I ~
7'f" L: l,f.i' ..'
, ,1
:::!..1-.....__._*
'TYI"lG,/l,l..
fl1
,~ :t>-
" \J)
~ -i
~\11
\
[lI
<
~
o
z
~~\l'
, "
c. z
~!
I
,
,
,
:
-:---...
~~_.. -
r1
I i
1 !
:z~ : I
."'- ,
"'(I . '-; I
'~~"---'l I
~... !:
,,~ J i
i~ !
I (\ !
II;; I
i Il',
, Zj>
, ---..,;2. .,
=-,_..}~--
,
I
I
i
VI
\l.C)
,,=
--;
'=
~
\I'
\
R
~
~
I
r~~1
A
EXHIBIT., '.M '
page.df2.. of . "
_.'~
'.:...
I
I
Ii
E';~-i~ ~{
, I _ {
I
" .
..........
, ---
"
. ~'?-t;:_.
"'f.-' ~..~.
.- - r.
~
$
~\\L
Pl A. N
'lIL .
EXHIBIT /)
~.",e ..L of ,2
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SPR 95-10
WZO 11.070 Criteria for Evaluatina a Site Plan
(a) The placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse impact on
adjacent uses.
FINDING: The applicant has complied with City standards regarding setbacks for
the placement of all proposed structures. Sea Site Plan I.
(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize impact on adjacent uses.
FINDING: The entire site perimeter is landscaped to "soften" the facility.
(c) Landscaping shall be located as to maximize its aesthetic value.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan. It shows
that 16 %, or 5,844 square fee, of the entire site is landscaped. This exceeds the
15% minimum standard. Landscaping will also be provided at the front of the
parking stalls and the drive through washing facility.
(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Wherever
possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Wherever
possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of similar nature.
FINDING: The applicant's proposal shows a shared driveway access to Lawson
Street and the private access road between McDonald's and the subject property
at the north access, therefore, this criteria has been satisfied. (See Site Plan I.)
(e) The design of the drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on the City's or other
public agencies drainage facilities.
FINDING: Storm drainage is subject to public works review. Analysis shows this
requirement can be met.
(f) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on the lot and its
accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
FINDING: The applicant has stated that this building will not cast shadows on any
adjacent properties. Since it is a proposed gas station and car wash, it is not
oriented to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic although sidewalks
adjacent to Lawson Avenue and the private drive the length of the property will be
EXHIBIT t3
Page A- of ..2
required.
(g) The proposed site development, including the architecture, landscaping and
graphic design, is in conformity with the site development requirements of this
Ordinance and with the standards of this and other ordinances insofar as the
location and appearance of the proposed development are involved.
FINDING: This staff report has discussed the approval criteria as it relates to site
plan review. The applicants' site plan proposal is in conformance with the
standards as discussed in this staff report.
(h) The loccltion, dosign, cnlor and materials of the exterior of all structures and signs
are compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character
of the immediate neighborhood.
FINDING: The applicant has provided a color board (C-1 of 1, elevation) Site Plan
V and Attachment II pg 7 & 8, that identifies the materials or the color of the
building.
CONCLUSION
1 . The applicant is requesting site plan review approval of a gas station and car
wash.
2. SPR 95-10 is a permitted use.
3. The applicant has submitted evidence satisfying the remaining issues remanded
from LUBA, fulfilling the site plan review approval.
4. Based upon the above findings as to each of the criteria for site plan review, the
site plan, with the submitted evidence complies with all applicable standards, and
should be approved.
The applicant has submitted data adequately satisfying the governing Woodburn Zoning
Ordinances, and satisfying the issues remanded from LUBA.
-r'
DALE 1. CRANDALL
Attorney At Law
'* AEC'D '*
OCT 6 1997
WOODBURN
CITY A TIORNEY
280 Court Street NE . Suite 14 . Salem, Oregon 97301
Phone (503) 363-4971
FAX 503-371-1587
October 3, 1997
City of Woodburn
Planning Department
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Re' S"" 95 ' n (' ~no;n' <)
.... J. J.~ -..LV JJQ.L II.
Our file no.: L8298-1
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed are the proposed findings and conclusions for attachment as Exhibit B to the
ordinance approving Site Plan 95-10.
Please feel free to call if you would like to discuss this further.
Very truly yours,
rJ~ c.. C.#t_J/__~/
Dale L. Crandall
cc: Garry L. LaPoint
~1