Loading...
Res 1051 - Appr Case 91-01 Cond COUNCIL BILL NO. 1297 RESOLUTION NO. 1051 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN CASE 91-01 AND REMOVING A CONDITION PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED BY THE WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 14, 1991 in Site Plan Review Case 91-01 (Stonehedge Apartment complex), and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission granted approval of this application and imposed certain conditions, and WHEREAS, the applicant in Case 91-01 appealed the matter to the Woodburn City Council, and WHEREAS, the City Council noticed and held another public hearing on the site plan review request, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The site plan review application in Case 91-01 (Stonehedge Apartments) is hereby granted. Section 2. Approval of this application is subject to all of the conditions previously imposed by the Woodburn Planning Commission with the exception of the following condition which is hereby removed: A. This development shall dedicate and fully improve a public street adjacent to the south property line, subject to the following conditions: (1) Dedicate a 60 foot right-of-way to the city, free of all encumbrances and encroachments. (2) The improved width from curb to curb shall be 34 feet. (3) The intersection with Front Street shall be aligned between 600 and 900. (4) Provide 20 foot property line radius at Front Street on north right-of- way. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1297 RESOLUTION NO. :1051 ~~. -T~--- (5) Install permanent barricades at west end. (6) Staff will require a sidewalk on north side, but not south side unless the Planning Commission so desires. Section 3. This decision is based upon evidence in the record before the Woodburn City Council and is justified by the findings contained in the staff report which is attached hereto and by this reference is incorporated herein. APprovedastoform:7J.~ ~ 5 - {-7 / City Attorney Date APPROVED: :f~ W ~ FRED W. KYSER, YOR Passed by the Council May 13, 1991 Submitted to the Mayor May 14. 1991 Approved by the Mayor May 14, 1991 Filed in the Office of the Recorder May 14, 1991 ATTEST: ~~ ~/ ~ Mary Tenn t, Deputy Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1297 RESOLUTION NO. )051 ~ "1-1" .:-:;:.xl-lrf3i7 v MEMO TO: City Council through City Administrator FROM: Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal a Planning Commission Condition relating to the Stonehedge Apartment Complex DATE: April 18, 1991 At their hearing of March 14, 1991 the planning commission approved the building plans for the 192-unit Stonehedge Apartment complex. This development is to be located adjacent to Front Street just south of St. Luke's cemetery. The commission, in rendering their approval, required the developer to build an east/west street along the sou1h property boundary. An additional meeting was held on March 21, 1991 to further discuss this matter. The decision was the same, however, the time frame for completing the street construction of the east/west road was modified from being built at the time of construction of the complex to dedicating the right-of- way and building the street at a time as established by the city council. After the commission rendered this decision, the applicant filed a decision to appeal the condition regarding the east/west street improvement. It should be noted the applicant is not appealing any of the other conditions of approval, only the street dedication and its improvement. Therefore, the council has only to determine one of the following: 1) Confirm the planning commission's decision to require street dedication and improvement based on the existing evidence and testimony from this hearing 2) Modify the planning commission's decision 3) Reverse the commission's condition that an east/west street be built based on the evidence provided in this report and any public testimony. .._--~_.---' .~,~.-._."-~" --,~-~~ , . r "'q" ~ X.1-fli3, -r r STONEHEDGE APARTMENT COMPLEX :z Appeal from Mike Kelly Staff Report Staff Report Attachments Addendum Alternative Site Design City Administrator Memo Evens and Zeeb Letter Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 1991 March 21, 1991 INDEX E.}(I-f //3/ T fO,3 Paae lA 1 - 7 Al - A7 1 - 11 12 - 14 15 - 19 1 - 10 1 - 5 ". ,..._.~w._....+-,,~__'.__-----~''''-"~''---'-''''"--'-- "'.,"-...,--...-.-.---.-. Ex IJ 1 /31 r "A ..;. . u YJOA ) '\Y\ \. \(V\~, Q \J \ '(\'1\ G;~ r:f l0oOS)b0<Y\ * REC'O * lIAR 22 1911 WOODBuRN ClTYAITOflNEY ~ '{Y\ik.. ~ CJJI-.JL "('G~~0d 6.Jj\ ~~ 01 ~ ~\['c;~ 00YV\(V\iWc:>r-3 ~ 0f 3/~\jq\ ~wz.>>-~"1\ ~ 'D)~ h:, ~ ck&.,u&lL rNi\d- \YV\~\\Joc-R 0<\. ~ ~~ ~~--t'\ \;Y\~. uR ~ --,b:, \r.,CNv-<Z.....- ~i~ ~<-..00.'b~~ 0- ~ '--V;j.(JA1 ~--t',~ & ~ G:-t'--\ ~V'AG:~ . \j ~CUAK ~ \fcx- '\rv-{'""" UOY\"D\62Rx-oA~OJ\' Va ~x. '0<0 \" \.X'f"\e.., ()'("'<.\f" l\ I.~d- 1 '-\20 1--\00 - \ f\- ..,-' , ..".-. E ,,), /1/--" i3 IT/"1 )5 STAFF REPORT SITE PLAN REVIEW # 91-01 STONEHEDGE APARTMENTS APPLICANT: STONEHEDGE PARTNERS PROPERTY LOCATION: FRONT STREET (SEE MAP -- ATTACHMENT "Al") ZONE: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant wants to develop a 192 unit apartment complex on 11.34 acres located at Front Street. (SEE ATTACHMENT "A2") APPLICANT'S INTENT: "... Stonehedge Partners is proposing to develop a piece of property (approximately 11.5 ac ) bordering Highway 214 and Front Street. After extensive research, it has been determined that Woodburn has a shortage of quality apartment complexes. To meet this housing shortage, we are proposing to build 192 units in two separate phases. The first phase will consist of 108 units and the second will be 84 units. We will be managing the construction, rental and maintenance of the project when it is complete...". APPLICABLE ORDINANCE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRITERIA: 1. Woodburn Zonina Ordinance Chapter 10. Off-Street Parking, Loading & Driveway Standards Chapter 11. Site Plan Review Chapter 26. Multiple Family residential District 2. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX. Goals and Policies A.Residential Land Development Policies G.Housing Goals and Policies H.Public Services Goals and Policies I. Transportation Goals and Policies -- \ - '~'--~'""-"".'----'~"'--~+'-'--''''--"---'-----" E...JI-f 181 T "11" (., J' - /- " r--~--.-- MA"lai LlHE I I I I r~i - - -~. - . I tN " ~ --.......- -- - SUBJECT PROPERTY / ~ 0" --- .,., '-- -"uQWl"~-- - " W " " " " , , ~~ . . ATTACHMENT A1 I',}II 7 /7 , ' E)(/-I//3/T .- ~ -'-~ . j :J?f - , -- . 1~" 'c ~. " -. ,- ~ I' ! ",", ':7-- ___ 1f! , 'C.' c~ - It~~__ H , < "" @ , . @... . . s ATTACHMENT A2 ........ .. EXN 113/ T "/} 'I f v Chapter X. The Land Use Plan C. High Density Residential Lands F. Access Control 3. Woodburn Transportation Plan II. Goals And Objectives EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT: A.GENERALFEATURES 1. The applicant wants to develop a 192 unit apartment complex on an 11 ac site located at the corner of Hwy 214 and Front Street. 2. The property is zoned RM and apartments are uses permitted outright in this zone. 3. The applicant intends to develop only 2 bedroom apartment units. 4. The property borders Hwy 214 to the North and Front Street to the East; the area located to the South of the parcel is zoned SR ( Single Family Residential) and is developed; the area located to the West of the parcel is zoned RM ( Multi-Family) and is not developed. 5. The site plan submitted to the City shows the following design features: -- two picnic areas located in the west and east parts of the parcel; -- two play areas located in the west and east parts of the parcel; -- landscaped strips surrounding the complex; 6. The northwest corner of the property ( bordering Hwy 214 ) is steep and not suitable for any residential development. The developer did not present any specific plans to utilize this area. 7. The site plan submitted to the City shows two driveways accessing the apartment complex from Front Street. It should be noted that this driveway configuration stays in conflict with the recommendations and requirements of approval prepared be the Public Works Department [see CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.- ENGINEERING, page 1, staff report] 2 L.x HI/3' T ''1-/ '( , r:f' q In short, the recommendations from the Public Works require the developer to provide one driveway access from Front Street and a public residential road running along the south edge of the property. This alternative site plan proposal including a public road is also attached to the staff report as ADDENDUM. ADDENDUM consists of the alternative site plan with the public residential road along the south edge of the property and a slightly different set of recommendations generated to reflect the design difference caused by the road. It shoul be noted that the Transportation Map adopted as an element of the Woodburn Transportation Plan does not include locations of any residential roads within the Woodburn area -- it shows only arterial and collector streets. Therefore, city staff applied the following policy statements to evaluate the apartment complex: Transportation Plan .- Goals and Objectives: (page 2) * Goal II, Objective D : Encourage the design and development of transportation facilities than can be readily modified to accomadate future demands. * Goal III, Objective B: Provide a level of transportation services to the urban area that are compatible with the environmental, economic and social objectives of the community.' B. EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Use. Within any RM District apartment houses are uses permitted outright. Every development of four or more units in a RM zone is required to submit a site plan the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. The site plan shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 of the Ordinance. 2. Side and Rear Yards According to Section 26.050 of the Zoning Ordinance the requested apartment has to have at a minimum a 14 ft side and rear yards. The applicant provides for 16 ft side and rear yards and meets the required standards. 3 .. ..-.....,-., , - ',/-q" ~..-rI-lII3IT (' g. /() 3. Front Yard In an RM District there shall be a minimum front yard of 20 feet. In addition, any development proposal located at Front Street shall meet the 40 ft special setback requirement [special setback distance is measured at right angles to the center line of the street] All structures located at Front Street shall setback from the center line at a minimum -- 60 ft. Also, no parking shall be allowed within the required front yard. The applicant provides for a 60 ft setback and meets the required front yard criteria, including the special setback requirements. 4. Landscaped Yards. In an RM District the following landscaped yards shall be provided for apartment complexes -- 400 sq ft for each two bedroom apartment unit. Applicant proposes 192 two bedroom units -- Required landscaped area = 76,800 sq ft (192 x 400 sq ft ) The applicant provides 77,500 sq ft of landscape area and meets the required standard. 5. Lot Area and Building Coverage Area. In an RM District no main building or group of main buildings shall occupy more than 30 percent of the lot area. In the proposed development the ratio of the main building area to the site area equals 17% and meets the required standard. 6. Parking Standards. Off-street automobile parking shall be provided to meet the following standard: -- two spaces per dwelling unit having two or more bedrooms The applicant provides 424 parking spaces which exceeds the required minimum of parking spaces for this development ( required number -- 192 x 2 = 384 ) 4 ~ '-~'-"T'-- I::: " /? II ;::::,XN/8/7 fJ PB' 1/ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: PLANNING: 1. The ornamental fence or wall shall be maintained at a height of at least four feet nor more than seven feet. 2. Provide basic information regarding the type of management / safety measure for the northwest corner of the property prior to occupancy permits. 3. Provide basic information to identify more specifically type and location of recreational facilities ( play grounds, picnic areas, walkways) prior to occupancy permits. ENGINEERING: 1. GENERAL A. Final plan shall conform to the construction plan review procedures and standards. B. All work shall conform to the City of Woodburn's standards and specifications and all state building codes. C. Public utilities on private property will require 16 foot easements. D. All work within Hwy 314 will require a permit and approval from the Oregon State Highway Department E. Developer is responsible for any permits required from state and federal agencies within drainage basin or wetlands F. If the project is to be phased in, some modifications may be required. 2. STREET AND DRAINAGE A. This development shall dedicate and fully improve a public street adjacent to the south property line, subject to the following conditions: * Dedicate a 60 foot right-of-way to the city, free of all encumbrances and encroachments 5 ~ . ,... ,. c- " ...1 I. t-:-.A1i1817 n pCJ,IL * The improved width from curb to curb shall be 34 feet * The intersection with Front Street shall be aligned between 600 and 900 * Provide 20 foot property line radius at Front St. on north right-of- way * Install permanent barricades at west end * Staff will require a sidewalk on north side, but not south side unless the Planning Commission so desires; B. Front Street: * Dedicate to the City ten feet of property along Front St. adjacent to this development * A full street improvement shall be required on Front St. adjacent to this development. The street shall be improved with two 12 foot and one 13 foot traffic lanes, complete with the required tapers. Cost of east half of improvement to be paid by City, this includes asphalt and curb. ' * The west side shall be constructed with a 12 foot sidewalk and bike path. C. * A public storm sewer will need to be constructed for the proposed street storm water runoff. This could be constructed also to accommodate the proposed development ( see Attachment A3 ) * Provide City storm runoff calculations 3. WATER * An 8" diameter water main shall be required to be installed from the existing main on Front St. ( approximately 500 ft south of this development) northerly along front to the connection point of the fire line proposed for this development * An 8" diameter water main shall be required to be installed from Front ST. to the west end of the proposed street and shall be looped to the existing water main on 2nd Street ( see Attachment A4 ) 6 --.. +" . " , ) .. - ') n 0 -4 - - > +- - ::l C - - J:J - - :') '" j XJ ~ 'J) 11 ~ m %I ~ t. < r---~ . ~]j ~(\l ~~ ~ d ~ II. IU II I>' ,f" l ,l~:::! r1 leZ I. .,.g I <,;=> II i~s ~C> "- II " ~~ }~ , ~ "-----'-_..~,._- [::j( h' , i3 I T "If 'J ..-f S: f, 6 rJo' /.J.. ~ <. " ~ ! ~ .r. ~ It~ i; i;:'; :=;::; ..~,.., .0 , . . ~lln In _30 i;iij~i .... I ~ z~ u,. : <5 I;; t:a i;:~ - ~ " ~ ~ ~ " ~ , , \ ) .~ '----... ~.!f. ~ ~) 0 0 e ~~ ~ < I ~ \~ 0 I ~ g ~ '-. ~ I; '-. , i ~ '-- ~ C ~ ~ ~ '-. i l' '-- u "i ~ ll- e E ~ 0 I AlTACHMENT A3 "J (') 0 z (J) ~ :0 c: (') -4 1 ()) ~ '-... .. "1f: ~ - :IJ ~ m :0 ~: >::1 - z " (') " :"-. 0 '-.. Z '-.. (J) "'" ~ -. :IJ t. < c: r---i (') ~ ~ ()) "9:0 . :II ~f\l ~ ~~ ~ , " ~ ! ~ ~ d 0 .' z ~ ~ If In:; . " m i~~ i; i g l! ,!,;::;" 1'" :IJ "0 , ,,~;Tl . . ~ n . . 0 3C ji ~." i ij ~i ~€Z .{ 1~fi . > I ." > ~~:J>o - I ~ - II ~>b I:: Z ~~}> ~ ;; II .0 , z j. ~ '0 , p , . . \ 1 ~~ '--- :.i.~ ~ ~, (. 0 . --... \~ u i s ~ r t J , g ~ ..... ~ ..... t ...... ~ ~ " , r ~ ~ ~ ..... i "1 -..... u ... ~ ll- e. t ~ AlTACHMENT A4 (70.1+ - "fl" EXffrl3/1 FtJ.15 * Fire protection and hydrant locations shall be as per Fire Department's recommendations. Depending on the hydrant locations, the fire line may be required to be loped from Front to the proposed street. This fire line will also be a public line, not private ( see Attachment A5 ) * Water meters will need to be located within the right-of-way or easements. Units can be metered individually or grouped, whichever is most cost effective. * If a lawn sprinkler system is installed, backflow prevention devices shall be required. 4. SANITARY * Service to this development can be provided from the existing sanitary main located on the south side of Hwy 214. * Depth of sanitary main will need to be verified in field. To confirm, sanitary service can be constructed under drainage way. * The following backflow devices will be required: -- irrigation system - a double check or pressure vacume breaker device -- fire system (if any) - a DCDC device -- laundry room/ domestic line or DC may be required. -- a RP FIRE DEPARTMENT SEE ATTACHMENT A5 POLICE DEPARTMENT SEE ATTACHMENT A6 RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT SEE AlTACHMENT A7 BUILDING: 1. All permits and fees shall be paid for prior to construction 2. All plans shall be submitted for plan review. 7 .. ....._....1f---- ..~- ~x /-11 fj /7 ''fill 71 ,/G ru WoodbUJ11 'firu District MEMO TO: Ba.-ba.-a Sochacka Planni ng Depal-tment FRor1: Bob Bend F i I-e Mat-sha 1 RE: Stonehedge COUl-t Apat-tments - ,-evised DATE: Feb.-ua,-y 26, 1991 Site Plan Review Comments Woodburn Fire District A. ACCESS: Access is acceptable as presented on the Februa.-y 19, 1991 plot plan. B. FIRE FLOW: The twelve unit buildings require a minimum of 2,750 gpm and the eight unit buildings a minimum of 2,250 gpm. The fire flows for the 12 unit complexes will require three fire hydrants within 250 feet of any particular unit and two hydrants within 250 feet of the eight unit buildings. Each hydrant must have a minimum water flow of 2,000 gpm. If a NFPA approved residential sprinkler is used~ then a two-thirds reduction of hydrants would be granted. (UFC Appendix III - A, B) C. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: A system for addressing the project and identifying individual units must be developed and approved by the city and fire district. The numbers on the individual units must be of contrasting background and visible from the drive area. D. CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION: As required by the !Jniform Fire Code 10.301 Cel and 87.103, on site water supply must be in place~ acceptable to the city. and operational before any combustible consh-uction can begin. DUI-ing cansb-uction these buildings pl-esent an exceptional high fil-e hazal-d dnd no exception wi 11 be gl-anted fOI- th i:: needed VJatel- ';::upp l'f. I-'If, '\.('\\'\1('1).,; Il',~.;h\\;:\ \ \, " hilI! i! II \. -" 1"\ ';~' )! 1 ',I:-I)~ I l\TTl\r.HMI=NT A"_ n.1 . <'""_._..'-------- 1:=- ~ \11/" h)(/i11311 j_~ ' / 7 Page 2 E. BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: All buildings must meet Uniform Building Code Requirements, Fire and Life Safety Standards as reviewed by the City of Woodburn and Marion County Building Department. F. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Alarm System - A supervised heat detention system designed to provide early fire detection in each dwelling unit will be required. The system must be monitored at a twenty-four hour central station and provide an on site panel to indicate which dwelling is in alarm. The Fire District must approve the proposed system prior to installation. WFC 10.301) B. Trash dumpster - These units must be stored in compliance with UFC I J .201 (d). An accept.able locat.ion should toe provided. C. Combustible Landscaping - Low fire risk landscaping should be provided with adequate separation of combustible vegetation away from buildings. BBIl ks ^"TTl\r~M"'NT A"\. 0.2 ~. -.-.-.----1t"" "L "A I( ~X/-i/BIT F'g' It r------------------.--.---------- ., I rr-~=~~~!l ' , IE Ll] J l' i~.1 i ! 1, 2:=-~~~=~r! I r"~------==:::.~, I J[~~--~= II L_{~i~!~_.. INTER-OFFICE MEMO FROM THE DESK OF LIEUTENANT PAUL E. NULL SERVICES DIVISION WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT ElIT. 352 January 30, 1991 TO: PUBLIC WORY-.5 RE: SITE PLAN REVIEW STONEHEDGE APARTMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. POLE LIGHTING, HIGH SODIUM VAPOR LIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH DRIVEWAY LEADING INTO COMPLEX. LIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH PARKING AREA INTERSECTION. ADEQUATE LIGHTING fU\S SHOWN TO REmfCE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, INSURE SlIFER PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, AND REDUCES THEFT FROM MOTOR VEHICLES. 2. ENTRY DOORS TO BE SOLID CORE, EQUIPPED WITH I" DEAD BOLT LOCKS, WITH REINFORCED STRIKER PLATES. 3. SLIDING GLASS DOORS-SLIDER PORTION OF DOOR TO BE MOUNTED ON INSIDE. DOOR. TO BE EQUIPPED WITH HARDWARE TO PREVENT PRYING OPEN OR LIFTING OUT OF DOOR CASING. BY TARGET HARDENING POTENTIAL POINTS OF BURGLARY ENTRY, \olE CREATE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR TENANTS. 4. ALL APARTMENTS BE PLAINLY MARKED WITH APARTMENT NUMBERS, MINIMUM 4" HIGH, AND VISIBLE FROM THE PARKING AREA. QUICK RESPONSE BY EITHER POLICE OR FIRE. ON LIFE THREATENING CALLS, IS BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO LOCATE A SPECIFIC APJL~TMENT IN LARGE COMPLEXES 5. STOP SIGNS-TO BE PL.lICED AT THE COMPLEX EXITS ENTERING PUBLIC ROADS. 6. TURNING LANE-TURNING LANE TO BE CREATED ON FRONT STREET, TO ALLOW TRAFFIC TO TllRN LEFT ONTO VILLAGE DRIVE AND INTO APARTMENT COMPLEX OFF FRO/IT ST. 7. STOP SIGN TO BE ERECTED ON VILLAGE DRIVE AT FRONT ST. 8. STREET LIGfiT TO BE ERECTED AT FRONT 31'. AND V!LL.~GE DRIVE. ATTACHMENT A6 ~ ...---....-" /_ "/I n ;':::"'XNI13IT 11 51, / 9 'u January 30,1991 WOODBURN RECREATION AND PARKS Staff Report: Stone Hedge Court Apartments In reviewing the proposed development which includes 192 two bedroom apartments. The attached Calculation Table indicates monies owed the City of Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department as required by the Woodburn Land Dedication Ordinance. According to the designated formula, 1.68 acres of land is the development requirement. The Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department and Board currently have a policy of accepting the cash-in-lieu of land. Your cash requirement for the project is $16,800.00. These funds should be paid in full at the time a building permit is issued. You may pay these fees in full, or if the project is phased, you may pay the appropriate level at $87.50 per lot. In reviewing the project plat I can find no definitive leisure space areas identified. A complex of this size should include recreational amenities to meet the in. house needs of its tenants. This particular project will include young children. It is the Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department's assessment that this complex should include as a minimum standard: One: .25 acre Tot Lot. The Tot Lot should include at minimum: a 3 seat swing, a sand box area and a low climbing apparatus. One: .50 acre play area which should include at minimum: a 3 seat swing, a 6 to 8 foot slide and one other intermediate climbing apparatus. Both of these areas should include a minimum of 2 six feet park benches. The play area should include a drinking fountain. These play areas should be clearly identified as play area and must have access entries which accommodate a handicap entry. The Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department wishes to review your play area plans and will assist you in playground equipment selection and recommendations if you desire. NH:swp Department of Rccrc.alion and Parks/City of Woodburn - 491 North Third Strcet, Woodburn, OR 97071- (S03) 981~5264 N('vin Holly, Director Recreation .1nd Parks )"h1'\ I'il"t.- Su!"""r;..tcnll..n( of r.uk.. ~"d l'~..jli,i.." _ T.....,-y W,lli"",,_ SUI""v;"" l..,;~u",' s....,~.i~-..., - Ii,;.." Si,~hu", ",-"-,,,,..,j,,,, CO<ln:!i"""<H 'hi,,,"\, 1',1\, ""~1'.~ .1" ATTACHMENT A7, p.1 ~.. '.--_. -.' r "IJ'I J;:::..)(Hil31 r f~ (J dO 'ARK DEDICATION CALCOLATION TABLE >EPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS :ITY OF WOODBURN 'evelopment: Stone Hedqe Court Apartments 'repared by: Nevin Holly, Director Recreation & Parks DATE: -1/29/91 'his form is provided to developers ~n the calculation of parkland ledications or cash-in-lieu of fees as determined by City of Woodburn ;oning Ordinance. Section 39. Please refer to that Ordinance for letai1ed information about the background and administration of the ,arkland requirements. 'OPULATION GENERATION TABLE :ousinq Type I NO. of units X people per unit ; population generated letached Sinqle Family 2 bedroom homes X 2.5 ; Persons 3 bedroom homes X 3.5 ; Persons 4 bedroom homes X 4.0 ; Persons .ttached Single Family 1 bedroom units X 1.5 ; Persons 2 bedroom units X 2.5 ; Persons 3 bedroom units X 3.5 ; Persons ,ow Density Apartments Efficiency units X 1.0 ; Persons 1 bedroom units X 1.5 ; Persons 2 bedroom units X 2.5 ; Persons 3 bedroom units X 3.5 ; Persons iqh Density Apartments Efficiency units X 1.0 ; Persons 1 bedroom units X 1.25 ; Persons 2 bedroom units 192 X 1.75 ; 336 Persons 3 bedroom units X 2.75 ; Persons TOTAL POPULATION GENERATED; 336 Persons AND DEDICATION opulation generated X 5 acre/1000 persons ; PARKLAND ACRE REQUIRED 336 persons X .005 acre/person ; 1.68 acres. ASH-IN-LIEU OF FEES arkland acres required X $10,OOO/acre land value standard - 1.68 cres X $10,OOO/acre ; $16,800.00 fee. AlTACHMENT A7, p.2 ~ C 11/)/1 ;=.../fI-fI-6'T n ADDENDUM STONEHEDGE COURT APARTMENTS ALTERNATIVE SITE DESIGN RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF PART I. SITE PLAN MAP (including road) PART II" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN ~ Po N 1,/1 II t::-XN 1/3/ T n tv 0/<2 ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN MAP ",i.. - 'r. .'","e, ,. ~~ P".,. , ') ~-- ( ..... -..-..-...~ \ " ..... ...... , J / .,/ '.U::""-, .I " / / """" V _t':: l'.~' " I<\Z """'" ~,'_/ " .. / - \ - L ",1/1 I-'- .x If I 13 II /-J I J ,d~ . S10NEI-JEDGE COURT .tI.~A.RTMENTS . . . .' ' . . . ." , . cbNDITlbNS'OFAPPROVAL.FOR THEALTERNAilVE OESlGN RECOMMENDED'BY, . . ,. ",'".,.clTY ~TAFF .', .;' ." . .. ,c'., A. PLANNING 1. Side yards adjacent to the proposed public street (Village Drive) shall be at a minimum 20 feet. 2. Side yardS adjacent to Front Street shall meet the special setback requirements (40 feet from the center line of Front Street plus 20 feet of the zone setback) 3. The landscaped areas shall be at a minimum 76,800 sq ft. 4. The ornamental fence or wall shall be maintained at a height of at least four feet but nor more than seven feet. 5. Provide basic information to identify more specifically type, location and time of completion of recreational facilities ( play grounds, picnic areas, walkways ) prior to construction. ' 6. Provide basic information on safety measure I management plan to utilize the northwest corner of the property prior to construction. B. BUILDING 1. All permits and fees shall be paid for prior to construction. 2. All plans shall be submitted for plan review. c. SEWER The following backflow devices will be required: 1. Irrigation system - a double check or pressure vacuum breaker device. 2. Fire system ( if any ) a DCDC device 3. Laundry room! domestic line - a RP or DC may be required. - {- D. ENGINEERING GENERAL E "/1" XII/BIT II /-'O.,d4 . . 1. · Final plan shall conform ~othe COhstructior planteview procedures and standards. ", .~_'.fJl )N,O.r;k.Sh.all~C8d(1tQ~.to the 'Gity.8f.~99dl:)~rp's....,S~~ll,f~.,.,~P.9., SPEl~qati9r~.,~e,,~.!. "'. :': .' 'statebuildingcoes. '. ..... ........,'...... ..... '....,,' '" ." .'" ....... 3. Public utilities On private property Will require 16 foot easementS. 4. All work within Oregon State Hwy 214 will require a permit and approval from the Oregon State Highway Department. 5. The developer is responsible for any permits required from state and federal agencies within drainage basin or wetlands. 6. If project is to be phased in, some modification to these conditions may be required. STREET & DRAINAGE 1. PROPOSED STREET (Village Drive) A The improved width from curb to curb shall be 34 feet, not 30 as shown. B. FIVe-foot sidewalks will be required on both sides, not just the north side as shown. C. Street shall be barricaded with permanent barricades at west end. D. The in~ersection with Front Street shall be realigned, the intersecting angle shall hot be less than 600 and should be between 750 and 900. E. The right-of-way shall be deeded ~o the City free of all encumbrances and encroachments. F. . Provide 2O-foot property line radius on north right-of-way. 2. FRONT STREET A. Dedicate to the City an additional ten feet of property along Front St. adjacent to this development. B. A full street improvement shall be required on Front St. adjacent to this development. The street shall be improved with two 12-foot and one 13-foot traffic lanes, complete with the required tapers. C. The west side shall be constructed with a 12-foot sidewalk and bike path. - :, .. ~. """'-T" j- "11 It ~H/I:3/J n .,j.d<; /- U 3. A public storm sewer will need to be constructed for the proposed street storm water . runoff. This could be col1structedalso to accommodate the proposed development. See Attachment"N' . . .. . . .' . . . . . . 4.:".:Provide, Gity,storm.fl,:lJ'iOJ'f-Ca!culations.,... ,..;:, ..... >: :". .-'" ,:. ." ".~ . WATER 1. An 8" diameter water main shall be required to be installed from the existing main on Front St. (approximately 500 ft south of this development) northerly along Front Street to the north line of this development See Attachment "B" 2. All 8" diameter water mains shall be required to be installed from Front Street to the west end of the proposed street; the City will complete the loop to the existing main on the Grace Village property. See Attachment "B" 3. Fire protection and hydrant locations shall be as per the Fire Department's recommendation. Depending on the hydrant locations, the fire line may be required to be looped from Front to the proposed street. This fire line will also be a public line, not private. See Attachment "B" 4. Water meters will need to be located within the right-of-way or easements. Units can be metered indMdually or grouped, whichever Is most cost effective. 5. If a lawn sprinkler system is installed, backflow prevention devices shall be required. SANITARY 1. Service to this development can be provided from the existing sanitary main located on the south side of Oregon State Hwy 214. 2. Depth of sanitary main will need to be verified in field. To confirm, sanitary service can be constructed under drainage way. - 4- ,_ ""~'" ,'44"'_" ._,...._.. ...._...._~._._..-- -. . -_.---.._,"~....._...' ._.~,... ,- ..,-"-..,,. ---'"~,._. " ... . ,;-,..:.-' . -. .. ~ .~ . ~ ~. "t~! ,i t!1 ~ ~ ::1' ~~ l!!i' .1::1 :: oh"5- ! uli.. I ~ wi~ !i g_! ii ~:. 1:'" ~ i I;; ii " " ..,-". . . III ~!:,- ?J('" ... 0 I ~ ! ~ I i ~ " i ~ i\ '------. l -It !- "- '-. "- "- '-. d 5 ~ I ~I ~ {t.~ '--------- "- "- \ \~, . \7' t. ~ ~ " (i ~ ~.~ "- "- ~, "- '-.../~ , '\ \ \ \ .. <( . I- Z w ::E o e :cc ~ -s- E.XH 1/311 ''111/ , - .., . El'< .~! . ,. II ct~~ ~ :g~r it <"t"I.f z:5,., ,,~. I' ..ii1~. 11 . u:r 1\ ~~! . H ~ .. .,'. g N 5/i ~a !1:g " 1Jc ,dk .. - .,. ..... ..,~ . .' .....-_..;....': a:: w ~ UJ ::E a:: ~ UJ Q .... m ::) a. E + .... <I: ::) t: w (,) z 8 ~ ~ -+ ~ "/111 j.:::.,,X"HIf3'1 .., ;..J !J d 1 ~ i n ! t ~ iL " I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ - 0 ti (; ~ t.i..'r" w." '" " ~" , '-./~ ''\ \ \ \ J 3 ., ~ i ~ ~ I i \ I '- &/ ~ ~ t t.~ l '---------" "- \ \~,...d" ". . " (':T 1- "- , "- " " 'VI :;; ;"''''~~'I' .,.,~ :..,:. . til ~~ ~ <:,. ~E. a........ to: '5.~! .01 ...~6h~ui ! U,,;: I.. .. ~!; ii 0" !EO- ~:. ~ i " . In ~ .: , . cz:::! . ~. ~I ,.J! ..""if'I' ,:.. . 9~1' . . ;2~! '. Ifl . ,~ii' I ''=",1'' .!.. ~~. II ~i!'1I ~ .,z ~~.--" <I: ::e. . a: w ti == . . ~: ~- '-.' .' '- '..~. . :-'~..'-. . In . . \\ ~ \ \ \ W ::e / :c ~ z z ~ - <I: - <I: I:~ ::e a: a: w ~ w ~ ~ ~ . .. eo CO b <l' ::;) Z - I a: I- ~--I- UJ UJ - X Iii Z W 0 ~O - 1_- " -~ 'Or _ ",1 '1 0 I=.XHI/3IT n /:J(j.dtJ JlinU;;lrY 30,1'991" '. ..' . . . . ". ~ . '.: '. .. . . . ~.'. ... ,.;..~' ...... "., ~ ~:<~ "l;:'." ..<". . '. ..: ,'. ~. . : ~ '.. ". '. "":.: ...:..':-;....., ". . "', :' :..... .."" ~'. . -.." .. ~.., .....-. . .' WOODBURN RECREATION AND PARKS Staff Report: Stone Hedge Court Apartments In reviewing the proposed development which includes 192 two bedroom apartments. The attached Calculation Table indicates monies owed the City of Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department as required by the Woodburn Land Dedication Ordinance. .... ;-1": According to the designated fonnula, 1.68 acres of land is the development requirement. The Woodbum Recreation and Parks Department and Board curre.ntly have a policy of accepting the cash-in-lieu of land. Your cash requirement (or the project is $16,800.00. These funds should be paid in full at the time a buirding permit is issued. You may pay these fees in full, or if the project is phased, you may pay the appropriate level at $87.50 per lot. In reviewing the project plat I can find no definitive leisure space areas identified. A complex of this size should include recreational amenities to meet the in house needs of its tenants. This particular project will include young children. It is the Woodbum Recreation and Parks Department's assessment that this complex should include as a minimum standard: One: "25 acre Tot Lot. The Tot Lot should include at minimum: a 3 seat swing, a sand box area and a low climbing apparatus. One: .50 acre play area which should Include at minimum: a 3 seat swing, a 6 to 8 foot slide and one other Intermediate climbing apparatus. Both of lhese areas should include a minimum of 2 six feet park benches. The play area should include a drinking fountain. These play areas should be clearty identified as play area and must have access entries which accommodate a handicap entry. The Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department wishes to review your play area plans and will assist you in playground equipment selection and recommendations if you desire. NH:swp D(':putmwt of R~<eation 2nd Parks/City of Woodburn - 491 North Thicd Stred;.. Woodburn, OR 97071- (503) 962-52.64 Nevin Holly, Oi..rector Recreation and P.a.cks John Pitt. s...p<'ri..h~n<l-tnl of r~.and F..dli(;"" _ Terry Willi.ams, SupcMso~LcUUK ~ - Bri.>.n Sjo\hu... R~lion Coordin..do~ S"irt<:)'I';tl.~-c~0 -1- ,._......d. "_~ ___'''..... ~.,.~,....._..,....______ j;::/f HIBFT '11 rB 'cY/ ~K DEDICATION CALCOLATION TABLE (PARTMENT OF RECREATION AND pARKS :TY OF~OODBO'RN.. '..... ,. .. ,velOpment:. stone HedcieC()urt APart"u1ents' ;~-Pilied'bY:' . ':~e;i.ri'i~ii ~';' "f>~;~ft6i':~i;~r~<iti(jri &' parks"':k:rid~:'iJig /91 :,' lis formis'pi6vided to developers in . the' calculation'of parkland ,dications or cash-in-lieu of fees as determined by City of Woodburn ,ning Ordinance. Section 39. please refer to that ordinance for ,tailed information about the background and administration of the ,rkland requirements. IPULATION GENERATION TABLE >using Type I No. of units X people per unit = population generated ,tached Single Family 2 bedroom homes X 2.5 = Persons 3 bedroom homes X 3.5 = Persons 4 bedroom homes X 4.0 = Persons : tached Single Family 1 bedroom units X 1.5 = Persons 2 bedroom units X 2.5 = Persons 3 bedroom units X 3"5 = Persons >W Density Apartments Efficiency units X 1.0 = Persons 1 bedroom units X 1.5 = Persons 2 bedroom units X 2.5 = Persons 3 bedroom units X 3.5 = Persons gh Density Apartments Efficiency units X 1.0 = Persons 1 bedroom units X 1.25 = Persons 2 bedroom units 192 X 1.75 = 336 Persons 3 bedroom units X 2.75 = Persons TOTAL POPULATION GENERATED = 336 Persons lID DEDICATION pUlation generated X 5 acre/lOOO persons = PARKLAND ACRE REQUIRED 36 persons X .005 acre/person = 1.68 acres. SH-IN-LIEU OF FEES rkland acres required X $10,OOO/acre land value standard - 1.68 res X $10,OOO/acre = $16,800.00 fee. -8- n' ..,.e.... _ .,._...."._~_.~~ ..._,__--....---...--.~~..-.--<--'--" C "11" c::-- X!-I I 1317 ,..., PlJ 30 ME110'+O: "B~~ba:i:~' so~ru.:cli.8.:" 'PlaMingDepartment 'FR6i1 i ".. . ,. . -~ob: B-e'rt~k'" .~. Fire Marshal . ,", " -,.'. . ",".." ........... RE: Stonehedge Cour~ Apa~~ents DATE: Janua~y 30. 1991 Si1:e Plan Review COalll\eIlte: Woodburn Fire Disttic1: A. ACCESS: 1. Mo~e than one access point will be requi~ed for emergency services. If Village Drive is not provided then alternative accesS roadways will be requi~ed per UFC 10,207. 2. Turning radius within the project must be modified to allow Fire District appa~atu6 the ability to maneuve~ a~ound corne~s without having to stop and change di~ection. The present' plans do not provide for a minimum ~adiu6 that will allow our aerial unit. to maneuver within the project, Minimum inside turning radius of 46 feet and outside radius of 60 feet when the driveable width is twelve feet. The radius may be reduced when width is increased proportionally, 3. No dead end strips will be allowed over 150 feet in length without ~urnaround capabilities approved by the Fire District. tl. FIRE FLOW I The twelve unit buildings require a minimum 2750 gprn end the eight unit buildings a minimum of 2250 gpm. The fire flows for the 12 unit complexes will require 3 fire hydrants within 250 feet of any particular unit. We would recommend a minimum of 12 hydrants fo~ the project. Each hydrant must have a minimurn wate~ flow of 2.000 gpm. If a NFPA approved residential sprinkler is used, then Q reduction of hydrants would be iranted. c. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: A system for addressing the project and identifying individual uni~e must be developed and approved by the city and fire district. The numbers on the individual units must be of con~rasting background and viBible from the drive ereo. - 9 - C "A'l c-/<I-I'B'J PB.3{ ," .". ..' 'p~a~ 2 Plan Review'CoImtenU ":sr.ori$.~.Court:~t~"" ;' ;".'- ..... .......,:.... D. CONI>ITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION I As required by the Uniform Fire code 10.301 (c) aod 87.103. on si~e 1ot8ter supply must be in place acceptable to the city and opera~ional before any combustible construction ce.n begin. During construc~ion these buildinas present an excepdonal hish fire hau-rd and no excep~ion will be ~an~ed for this needed water supply. E. .BUILDING CONSTaUCTIONl All buildings must meet Uniform Building Code Requirements. Fire and Life Safety Standards as reviewed by the City of woodburn and Marion County Building Department, F. SPECIAL REQtJI:REMENTS: A. Alarm system - A supervised heat detection system designed to provide earlY fire detection in each dwelling unit will be required. The system must be monitored at a twenty-four hour central station and provide an on site panel to indicate which dwelling is in alarm. The Fire District must approve the proposed system prior to installation. (UFC 10.301) B. Trash D~~ster - These units must be stored in compliance with UFO 11,201 (d). An acceptable location should be provided. c. combustible Landscaping - Low fire risk landscaping should be provided with adequate separation of combustible vegetation away from buildings. BB/lke - \ 0- , .,".~~._.,._--------~._..~--_.--._-~--_._~ , r "Ii Ii ~.x1f181/ P23;L INTER-OFFICE MEMO FROM THE DESK OF I I I j ~ LIEUTENANT PAUL E. NULL SERVICES DIVISION WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT EXT. 352 January 30. 1991 TO: PUBLIC WORKS RE: SITE PLAN REVIEW STONEHEDGE APARTMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. POLE LIGHTING, HIGH SODIUM VAPOR LIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH DRIVEWAY LEADING INTO COMPLEX. LIGHTS TO BE INSTALLED AT EACH PARKING AREA INTERSECTION. ADEQUATE LIGHTING HAS SHOWN TO REDUCE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS. INSURE SAFER PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC, AND REDUCES THEFT FROM MOTOR VEHICLES. 2. ENTRY DOORS TO BE SOLID CORE. EQUIPPED WITH 1" DEAD BOLT LOCKS. WITH REINFORCED STRIKER PLATES. 3. SLIDING GLASS DOORS-SLIDER PORTION OF DOOR TO BE MOUNTED ON INSIDE. DOOR. TO BE EQUIPPED WITH HARDWARE TO PREVENT PRYING OPEN OR LIFTING OUT OF DOOR CASING. BY TARGET HARDENING POTENTIAL POINTS OF BURGLARY ENTRY. WE CREATE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR TENANTS. ,.. ALL APARTMENTS BE PLAINLY MARKED WITH APARTMENT NUMBERS, MINIMUM 4" HIGH, AND VISIBLE FROM THE PARKING AREA. QUICK RESPONSE BY EITHER POLICE OR FIRE. ON LIFE THREATENING CALLS. IS BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO LOCATE A SPECIFIC APARTMENT IN LARGE COMPLEXES 5. STOP SIGNS-TO BE PLACED AT THE COMPLEX EXITS ENTERING PUBLIC ROADS. 6. TURNING LANE-TURNING LANE TO BE CREATED ON FRONT STREET, TO ALLO'il TRAFFIC TO TURN LEFT ONTO VILLAGE DRIVE AND INTO APARTMENT COMPLEX OFF FRONT ST. 7. STOP SIGN TO BE ERECTED ON VILLAGE DRIVE AT FRONT ST. 8. STREET LICJJ"T TO BE ERECTED AT FRONT 31'. .l\lID VILLAGE DRIVE. -\ \- , . --- C ",111 I-- X/-//8// n Po .-,3 MEMO '~."".' '.' . TO: FROM: PLANNING COMMISSIONS MICHAEL QUINN,' CIT'{ADMINI$TRATOR':;U1~ DATE: March 14, 1991 SITE PLAN REVIEW 391-01, STONEHEDGE APARTM~NTS SUBJECT: I am submitting this memo as an alternative opinion as part of your process for public hearing on the above project. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend your meeting due to prior commitments invoMng the City's Budget Committee review. I recognize this memo as very unorthodox and do not want it to be interpreted as being anything more than an alternate opinion related to a specific site plan recommendation. Generally, I am only involved in complex development projects; b':JI: like the rest of the staff, I can offer my professional advice as do the Public Works or Community Development Directors. I ask the Planning Commission to accept this · letter as it would testimony from any concerned citizen at a public hearing. I am supportive of staff's site plan report in this case with the exception of Public Works requirement of a "public residential road running along the south edge of the property" and likewise identified in the addendum plan. My reasons for this difference of opinion are as follows: 1. The adopted Woodburn Transportation Plan does not include local residential streets and, therefore, does not give any substantive support for this particular street placement. a The stated transportation goals are very general and do not give much support in defining the need for this road connection. This transportation element needs to be updated and coordinated through our CIP process. b. The adopted transportation plan never contemplated this roadway as a collector or arterial street need; and while Public Works has termed it a residential road, I believe there is some room in the definition that it's function is a collector street disguised as a "residential road." The purpose of a local residential street is primarily to provide access and is not generally designed for carrying through traffic. The primary purpose of a collector street is to drain traffic from local streets and lead them to an arterial street or a local generator of traffic like public buildings. In looking at the function - \1.- ._..__.__..~_._--_.. -~.__."-----~--,..,. ._~_.__..". ~ : <. Planning Commission 'MarCh14,1991'; .. Page 2 of this roadway, it appears to be oriented more toward a collector function between Front Street and Highway 214 with potential connections to Fifth, Third and Second Streets. ....'. .;. ......:.'-. c. If we were to assume this street to be residential and not covered in the plan, I believe there is reasonable doubt to its functionality being a residential street If we were to assume this street to be a collector street, then it was never igentified in current plans and should rightfully be so included before developers are impacted by these requirements. In any case, if the roadway is determined to be a necessity, it certainly raises the issue of benefi1 impact and whether the community receives and should be responsible for its share of the cost. 2. The inclusion of this required roadway may serve some basic interests in establishing a street grid, but it may be detrimental in other concerns affecting the planning quality and integrity of this residential development. a. Recent planning theory has emphasized maintaining neighborhood integrity and stability beyond the basic infrastructure needs of the development The goal of a multi-family residential project is to create a living environment where the increased densities can be tolerated and controlled; therefore, not being detrimental to the surrounding area. This roadway will encourage more through usage of traffic. b. This roadway will separate the access points to the project, thereby reducing the project's control and security of internal traffic circulation. Separate access points may encourage cut-through traffic to avoid controlled intersections, and may impact overall tenant security and safety through external exposure to non-tenants access to the project. 3. One of the major tasks of planning is to ensure that the community's resources are used effectively and economically. New facilities must be balanced between the benefits derived and the magnitude of resources divested including future maintenance costs. I offer consideration that this roadway is not the wisest use of such resources and would not be a high priority of the City to build with its own resources. a This particular project has access to a major street and does not need this secondary roadway access, although the applicant could propose it if interested. b. The property south of the proposed roadway is single-family residentially developed and has long opposed any connection to a collector street They enjoy the integrity of their local residential neighborhood and tolerate any inconvenience beyond having only southerly-directed access in favor of having less traffic. - \~- ~ 111 II F Y H I 8 II h Pg .01- Planning Commission March ~4, 1991 ' . Page 3 c. The Grace Village site is proposed for sale and has access via 5th Street to Highway 214. d. By orienting this parcel to Front Street for access, and the Grace Village parcel to Highway 214 for access, we can separate these traffic generators and not combine them onto one street which could collectively increase the traffic fri<;ion points at either Highway 214 or Front Street. e. Through-traffic access between Highway 214 and Front Street is not significantly improved since access already exists at an intersection of these two roads less than a quarter-mile north of the proposed roadway and involves higher speed traffic patterns in those areas in an improved fashion. It simply serves a very small traffic pattern between Front Street and Highway 214 because it does not continue beyond those points through the Office Park or Legion Part at the other end. I recognize that to be effective we must be equally loose-tight in our management approach to community development. We must be flexible in responding to specific needs, and also have standards relating to general needs. I believe this project is technically sound without the addition of this roadway. If, however, in the Planning Commission's judgment, you feel it is necessary then I ask that you consider an option to have the City's Public Works Department participate in this construction based upon perceived benefit in some degree. In this case some benefit could be derived from just having the right-of-way donated by the developer and construction done in the Mure as part of the City's CIP. I personally consider the requirement for this roadway based more upon an opportunity for this development rather than a need for this development. I appreciate the Planning Commission's patience in reviewing my opinion statement and wish you the best in your difficult task as Planning Commission members to decide such land use judgments. - 1 Lt- . .. "T EVANS & ZEEB - ,,()" C ..x 1-1 (/311 '1 Po ATrORNEYS AT LAW MEMORANDUM RE: SITE PlAN REVIEW # 91-01 LEGAL MEMORANDUM REGARDING V AUDITY OF PROPOSED EXACTIONs,. TO: VVOODBURNP~NG FROM: RODNEY C. ZEEB, ATI"ORNEY FOR HORIZON CONSTRUCTION DATE: MARCH 14, 1991 I. ISSUES PRESENTED A Are the Exactions Proposed by the City of VVoodburn Authorized by Woodburn City Ordinance? B. Are the Exactions Proposed by the City of Woodburn Constitutionally Permissible Exactions? IT. FACIUAL INIRODUcnON Horizon Construction (Horizon), an Oregon corporation, is seeking site plan approval from the City of VVoodburn (the City) to develop and build Stone Hedge Court Apartments (Stone Hedge). Stone Hedge would contain 192 apartment units located on approximately 11 acres. This properly is zoned MR Multi-Family Residential. The City has proposed a number of conditions that Horizon must satisfy before the City will approve the site plan. Those of concern in the memorandum are: 1. Horizon must dedicate and fully improve a new public street -- the proposed name is Village Drive. This street will run along the South property line and connect with Front Street. To satisfy this condition, Horizon must: A Dedicate a 60 foot right-of-way to the City; B. Make the improved width of the street from curb to curb 34 feet; C. Install permanent barricades at the VVest end of the street; PAGE 1 - MEMORANDUM OF LAw -I"" "-----~.- D. P(J c3r= Provide a 20-foot property line radius at Front Street on the North right-of-way; and t=:.. Q ,,/_11, -:J" -/ E. Connect the street with Front Street at a 60-90 degree angle. 2. Horizon must make several improvements on and around Front Street (Front Street runs along the Southeast side of the property): A Dedicate to the City ten feet of property along the West side of Front Street; B. Undertake a full improvement on the portion of Front Street adjacent to the property, with two 12- foot and one 13-foot traffic lanes complete with the required tapers; and . C. Construct a 12-foot sidewalk and bike path on the West side of Front Street. II. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE ONE Are the Exactions Proposed by the City of Woodburn Authorized by Woodburn City Ordinance? In its Site Plan Review Information Sheet the City points to several city ordinances that may apply to a new development. Site Plan Review Information Sheet 3-4. Several of these ordinances are pertinent to this discussion: Ord. No. 1180 -- Relating to Driveways Ord. No. 1842 -- Relating to Connecting Property to Public Street and Drainage Ord. No. 1917 -- Relating to the Construction and Alteration of Sidewalks A Woodburn's City Ordinances Do Not Authorize the Proposed Exactions. None of the above mentioned ordinances authorize the City to require the exactions and conditions it seeks to impose on Horizon. Without authority from a City Ordinance, the City has no ability to require these exactions. Ordinance No. 1180 regulates the construction of driveways. Current plans call for driveways to connect Stone Hedge to Front Street. The ordinance requires a permit before a driveway may be constructed. The ordinance provides technical specifications on width and surface height of the driveway, It does not, expressly or impliedly, authorize the exactions the City seeks in this case. Ordinance No. 1842 regulates the connection of private property to city streets and storm drains. It requires an application for permission to connect to the city streets and PAGE 2 - MEMORANDUM OF LAw - \ "'- ""~-"--""--'--~~'''''''~ T ........-----..-~.-" - I:::: "1 /I ;.::: )< 1-1 I 13 I r V, , ~jII1ent of an application fee. In Horizon's case, the fee would be $150 per dwelling unit. No where in this ordinance is the City given the ability to require more than the authorized pennit fee. It certainly can not be construed to allow the City to require improvements to existing public streets, dedication of land for public street, and construction of new public streets. 7 Ordinance No. 1917 regulates the construction, repair, and alteration of sidewalks. It imposes a duty on real property owners to maintain all sidewalks adjacent to the property in good repair. No where in the ordinance is the City authorized to condition approval of a cite plan on dedicating land to be used for sidewalks or public streets. The ordinance does not mention or authorize bike paths. Although this ordinance may enable the City to require sidewalks to be built on streets adjacent to the property, it certainly does not authorize the City to condition approval on repairing or building sidewalks on the opposite side of a street. · likewise, review of other ordinances reveals no authorization for the City's actions in this case. Since the City is acting without authority, the requirements and conditions it seeks to impose on Horizon are invalid. IV. DISCUSSION OF ISSUE 1WO Are the Exactions Proposed by the City of Woodburn Constitutionally Permissible Exactions? Even if authorization for imposing exactions and conditions on a developer is found, the City must operate within the limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution (the Constitution). Any exaction that violates the Constitution is invalid and may not be enforced against the developer. . A The Proposed Exactions Violate the Due Process Gause of the United States Constitution. Courts consistently hold that exactions may run afoul of the Constitution's Due Process Clause. This clause provides that neither the federal government nor any state government may deprive a person of property without due process of law. Courts have developed several methods for applying due process requirements to exactions. They include: the "reasonable relation" standard, see Hayes v. City of Albany. 7 Or. App. 277, 285, 490 P.2d 1018 (1971); the "specifically and uniquely attributable" standard, ~ M!;.Kain v. Toledo City Plan Commission, 270 N.E.2d 370,374 (Ohio Ct. App. 1971); and the "rational nexus" standard, ~ Jordan v. Village of Menomonee. 137 N.W2d 442 (Wis. 1965); Wald COll>. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 338 So.2d 863, 866-68 (Fla. App. 1976). Prior to the United States Supreme Court decision in Nollan v. California Costal Com'n, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987), Oregon appeared to have adopted the "reasonable relation" standard. See Hayes. 7 Or. App. at 285 (sewer connection charge was "reasonably commensurate" with burdens caused by development); O'Keefe v. City of West linn and PAGE 3 - MEMORANDUM OF lAw - \1- ~ .,- 'r'. . ':(HiBIT "A" PJ.35 ,nd Investmenls. Ine. v. Cilv or West Unn, 14 Or. LUBA 284, 293 (1986) ("reasonable relation" standard adopted by LUBA). This standard is highly deferential and merely requires that the exactions be reasonably related to the needs and burdens imposed by the new development. However, in NoIlan the U.S. Supreme Court held that to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, any exaction must have a causal connection with the public purpose sought to by met by the exaction. NoIlan's holding casts serious doubt on Oregon's "reasonable relation" standard. Beery & Ramis, Exactions: The Providing of Public Improvements, 2 Land Use !i 22.4, at 22-2 (OR CLE Supp. 1988). B. The Proposed Exactions Do Not Bear A "Rational Nexus' To The Development of Stone Hedge. ~ After Nollan it appears that the Constitution requires a court to review all exactions using at least the "rational nexus" standard. Under this standard, Horizon can only be "compelled. . . to bear that portion of the cost which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by, and benefits conferred upon, the [development]." Longridge Builders. Inc. v. Planning Board, 245 A2d 336, 337 (NJ. 1968). This standard compels a court to specifically inquire into who wiIl enjoy the benefits of any exaction. In Langridge. the court found the connection between a proposed development and the city's requirement that the developer pave a roadway 361 feet away too attenuated under the rational nexus test. In State ex rei Noland v. St. Louis County, 478 S.W.2d 363 (Mo. 1972), the court applied the rational nexus standard to invalidate a requirement that the developer relocate one road and widen and pave another. Under this standard of review, the exactions proposed by City can not stand. The City would require Horizon to grant it a 60-foot right-of-way and on it construct a 34-foot wide road with sidewalks on each side. No roadway currently exists here and all the land is privately owned. Clearly this would fail the rational nexus test. Rational nexus searches for a need created by the development. That need is not present here. Horizon has proposed a plan which eliminates this road and routes traffic into the development through driveways connecting with Front Street. Instead of meeting a need created by the development, the City hopes to acquire a road which will later benefit it. The City owns property on the South side of the development and a'roadway constructed at Horizon's expense would greatly benefit the City's future development of that parcel but would provide Horizon little, if any, benefit. Here, Horizon neither creates the need nor would it enjoy the benefit. The City's second exaction concerns Front Street. The City wishes Horizon to completely improve the portion of Front Street adjacent to the development. Again this requirement bears no rational nexus to the development. Although the development may increase the use of Front Street adjacent to the development, the "Rational Nexus" requirement prevents the City from imposing the entire cost of the Front Street improvements on Horizon. The need for this improvement is not solely attributable to Horizon's proposed development and therefore the cost of the improvement should not be born solely by Horizon. Rather, Woodburn may impose only that cost that bears a "rational nexus" to the needs created by the development. Clearly requiring improvement of a three lane street used by the public does not bear this required relationship. PAGE 4 - MEMORANDUM OF L\w -Vo- =- ,,~I, I-AHI f.3 IT If P(j' ' , IV. CONG.USION The exactions proposed by the City are not authorized by Woodburn City Ordinances. Although the ordinances may give the City some discretion, they do not allow the City to require exactions of the magnitude proposed in this case. Additionally, even if the City was authorized by ordinance to seek these exactions, the exactions in this case violate the Due Process Oause of the United States Constitution. Under the Due Process Clause, the City may impose only those exactions that bear a "rational nexus" to the new development. In this case, the City seeks too much. Much of the proposed exactions do not bear this required relationship. . Respectfully Submitted, Rodney C. Zeeb, OSB #86322 Of Attorneys for Applicant 3.H.9II4.:):5 jay-..sa..mcm PAGE 5 - MEMORANDUM OF LAw - \~- -.-.....---.--------.- . ..""'--'-'T" EA'H 113 J/ "fF' I d . () MINUTES . . WOODBURNPLA~!NrNG' COMMISSION .. MARCH 14, 1991 '. . .1). ROLL: .. . '" ., r' . ~" .-..-,:- . .,"., President Mr. Johnson Present I . Vice President Mr. Vallieres Present Commissioner Mrs. Warzynski Presept \ Commissioner Mrs. Sprauer Present Commissioner Mr. Park Present :Ccilnmissioner Mr. Shillig Present Commissioner Mr. Rappleyea Present Commissioner Mr. Scott Absen~ Commissioner Mr. Guerra Present Staff: Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director Barbara SochRcka, City Planner 2) MINUTES: The Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of Feoruary 28, 1991 were a~pted as written. The Woodburn City Council minutes of February 25, 1991 were accepted received. The Woodburn Downtown Association minutes of February 26, and March 5, were accepted as received. 3) BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None 4) COMMUNICATIONS: None 1 r7 "1,1 " ;"::::;XI-III5 I / -r Po' -'/-( "5) PUBL.iC HE~FlINGS: . '" .-. ....... '. ". Site t'lan'Review#9t-Ol .Stonehedge Partners . .. -.-. . ~ -'-: Planning-staff. read the neceSsary.PublicNotice statement to< begin the,., public hearing. X Planning staff reported that the proposal was 192 unit apartmeAt.'!:omplex, 11.3 acres located on Front Street. Staff then went over the,.two.alternative . site designs as presented in the staff report. Of which a portion of the , report focused on the need for a street between Front and Fifth.. Streets. _j Staff then went over the conditions and recommendations of appt.bval of the - site plan. Frank Tiwari, Public Works Director, stated that he would be talking about the water, sewer and street. The street area has been raised whether it should be required as to be provided by the developer and built by the developer. He talked about how in the near future the school would be growing from 600 students to 1200 students, there will be more traffic on Front Street. There is a need for an east/west road to help accommodate the 192 unit complex along with all other traffic.. He went over the prior improvement of Front Street and told the Commission that it was an assessment project, not an up front cost. It was recommended the street be constructed by the developer and dedicated by the developer except for the sidewalk on the southside. He stated that the intent of the proposed street would be to connect Front Street to Fifth Street. A turn lane on Front would be necessary to make the turn into the complex and on to the street safer. . By providing two different ways to arrive at this location would be safer for the school children. He stated that it has been a policy of the city to have the water, sewer and street go from one end of the property to the other. He stated that the 192 units to be built would need the street to get to Hwy 214. He felt that the city was not being unfair by requiring the street to be built. From the traffic point of view it was necessary to have this street built. He stated he was open for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Vallieres asked when Mr. Tiwari would expect the south part of Front Street to be 37' like the north part of Front Street. Mr. TIWari stated that it is expected to be done in the Mure. He couldn't put an exact date to the improvements. Commissioner Vallieres asked the difference in the cost of a 34' street to a 37' street. 2 . ~..,~"____,_,,"._.,, ">__,,,,~,,__,',,"'m__~'_'___~'____'~"'_~ ,-_.~--_.._.,_.,..._,_.., 1rA'I Ex I-f I t3 I r p~ ' ~I ~ Mr. Tiwari stated that new street cost is not cheap, but less than the modificationotthinixisting road. . .." .;,."...... . . - Commissioner Vallieres. askedthatiUheproperty Qwners. to t1Je soutIJ of t\1e ,'. .' apartment complex would have to help pay for the road: . .. Mr: TlWcMi Stated that one decision that needed to 'be' made was that if the street was needed or not. Cleveland street could not be built if it was to be constructed by the assessment of the properties which are already there. A single family house may not want access to the street, th~y may want a fence there. He stated he was talking from traffic point of view. ........ Commissioner Vallieres asked if this project could go ahead and give permission for that road later on. Mr. Tiwari stated that it was one option. They could dedicate it and it be constructed later. Their fair share could be paid when the city constructs the street. The fair share would be decided by the City Council. Commissioner Vallieres asked what the street would cost. Mr. TIWari stated that he was not sure of the cost.per foot, maybe $125.00, that woold make it at 650 ft. or so around $81,000. Commissioner Vallieres asked if that would make a difference in this project being successful or not. Mr. TIWari stated that he could not answer that He stated that it is a good project. It does not have any water problems, wastewater problems but it does have certain traffic impacts. . Commissioner Park asked Mr. Tiwari if when the rest of the properties were developed wouldn't their access be from Fifth Street. It seemed reasonable to limit access from Hwy 214. . Mr. TIWari answered that Fifth was not connected at this time. It was poor planning to have so many streets in Woodburn with no cross streets. 'Whether the street is needed or not, that is the first judgmental decision based on where we are, the second one is that somebody has to make a decision as to whether a development is being penalized unduly or not." He had to go by policy, saying from one end to the other of the property. President Johnson asked if the large open area south of the road would that property have to share some Mure development costs. 3 .,.....0-_..,,,...,,.-..,....-.'-.... ~ XHI BJ f "fl'l (7315 .; -~. ." . Jlilr. TIWari answered that Woodqurn TnJGkipg.a1r.eadytjad that property. ,_, . "'. : .-. .. '." .- ...... "." -, -- .' ..: '. . .. .... .::': ".1. . . ":", ." '.: . .. ':.'" .' ': ..... .....-.".. . ':~:;'. ":-;"". ". Commissioner Shillig.asked Mr. TIwari if the proposed road was good for .... WoodbufIl. '. .,. '..... " ...... . , ,." '.' . Mr. TIWari ..answered that in his. opinion -from technical engineering,.there should be a road. Commissioner Warzynski stated that the difference of opinion was due to calling it a residential road and the way it is being explaine9 wouldn't it be a collector if it extends over to Second or Fifth. Mr. TIWari answered that it all depends, it is relatively a small road from Front to Fifth. These are assessed by the property owners. There is a middle portion which is not included due to property owners not wanting to pay their fair share. Maybe in another ten years it will be improved. You mayor may not require that there be a dedicated road and some later date they will be accessed. He didn't recommend it that way. Commissioner Warzynski stated that she felt that the road was needed. Riding to the perimeters of this town there were dead ends everywhere. Commissioner Guerra asked if Mure development in the Glatt Circle area and assuming expansion of the high school and the residents of the proposed apartment complex, if Mr. TIWari thought that the ramp to Front Street off of Hwy 214 will become an obsolete unused ramp. Mr. TIwari stated that turning left to get to the area would not be practical. Commissioner Guerra stated that it would require a well developed street that would divert towards the downtown area and access to the proposed apartments to handle the traffic. Mr. TIwari answered yes. Commissioner Vallieres stated that access to the area would increase the value of the surrounding property. Mr. TIWari stated that he not in favor of a lot of streets to be accepted by the City. The city can not waste city resourceS on internal streets. From the maintenance point of view he was not in favor of having a lot of public streets. But when he looks at the traffic situation public streets are needed. 4 ,--~~_.-.~...~-~~-",,"' e )(H /131 / Ill) 1/ Po' ,(- There was some discussion between Mr. TIwari and CommissionerVallieres. .". .". _._ . ".... ,,". . ~..' ." . .i.." .' _." . _" . .~. ". . i.... . , aboUt fair share cost of the"property owners. '. -:- .... '. . -/ _ PresidenrJbhnson -asked Ifthestreefwasput in. would loosing the '40 or 50 parking stalls be a problem for the developer? ',. . ~.~ ~".'... . - -". ~." ., ... . Staff answered that if the street is put in the proposal still meets the parking criteria. Presiden1 Johnson asked if the applicant wished to speak. > Mike Kelly, 4004 NE Royal Ct, Portland, stated that he represented the applicants. He stated that he wanted to talk about the project overall. He stated that currently the applicants owned and manage 600 units in Marion County. He stated that they have extensive experience in developing and managing small and large units. This project has been in the working for the past few months. He stated that in the first phase there would be 108 units and the second would have 84 units. He feels he could fill 192 units. He talked about how they surveyed the area and felt that Woodburn needed the apartments. He talked about the intended proposal they presented the city. He presented legal draft to the staff and copies to the Commission. He stated that the public road was something they felt that wasn't necessary for this project. It would cause management problems. He went over the legal draft from his attorney concerning the public road. He commented on the cost of water and sewer hookup fees. He stated that they didn't need the street for the project and if they were responsible for the cost of the construction of the public street, the project could very well not happen due to this condition. He did state that they were willing to give the City the 10 feet necessary to improve Front Street, it would enhance their property. He commented on the request from the fire department about the alarm system. He felt that the proposed fire alarm plan was sufficient, it met State requirements. Commissioner Vallieres asked if the proposed plan would be maintained by the developer. Mr. Kelly answered yes, it would be a private drive for the units and all the main1enance would be done by them. Commissioner Warzynski asked if the driveway to the south was just extended into the parking area. Mr. Kelly answered yes. It would allow the fire department continuous access through the project without turning around or having to back up. 5 . . '..~"_ .....__,__.'._M___"....,,_,,__.,_~~_~~~__.. EYHI!3IT "lflt ro,-I-5 QOlTlmi~s.ion~rSpr;au~r asked to be eJ;Ccused. ...' . ..... .... . ";," .'. -. ': .~. .:::. ".' ': :. .': ;. .. :. . .... ...... .~. '. .:" ." "..~.' .... .... -, Commissioner Guerra 'asked what would be developed on the slope by Hwy 214.: .' .'. - . . .' . " '.. Mr. Kelly answered .thaUhere~was no current plans due ,to this baing. the.. State of Oregon right-of-way for their drainage easement. They plan to landscape up to the fence which would be located 15 feet away from the units. . ',.." .~ Staff asked that in regards to the staff report there were two conditions that you have any objections to which are the 1) the road to the south, and 2) the fire control system. He asked if there was anything else in the report that Mr. Kelly objected to. Mr. Kelly stated that other than those two, no. Staff felt that in regards to the Fire Department request, he thought that this should be left up to the county and state safety code people. Staff told the Commission that he felt they should not act upon this condition but let that be handled by the Fire Dept. Mr. Kelly stated that he would like it to go on record that the City of Woodburn Planning staff have been very cooperative with them. Commissioner Warzynski asked about the north end of the property by the cemetery. She stated that the fence along this area was very poor. Mr. Kelly stated that a six foot fence would be built there. President Johnson asked staff that in the Mure on Hwy 214 if it were curbed would this developer be responsible for any of that. Staff stated that they didn't even want to guess at this time. President Johnson asked if this needed to be made one of the conditions of approval. Mr. TIWari answered that as far as Hwy 214 improvements are concerned. If there were a curb and sidewalk required it is usually accessed against the property. Widening is usually State funded. It will probably be curbed and sidewalk in the Mure. 6 _._..,~._"-~,...","---,,,..,~- ""_._.._--_._-_.~.. .. j- "f!" F-.-rH 181 T P rJ'/ '= ..,.:...--... " President Johnson stated that in the past Vle Commission has asked for tot . ..... .,J015..'o;- play ~r~as to b'$ fenbed:.)-\easked. jf,.th~rewEiUldbe.somethii:lg'Jike' .:. .'. ,.:-.". that. ."Mr. Kelly stated that the only problem theYhadwith that.isthe'play t~ys that they are Ii~ble for. He would be happy to work out with the Parks . -' . ,.- . ".. .'. ...... . ..- ".. . ,"' ,... ......... -....-.... .... . . .". . Department a safe play area. ., .' .. .- Staff asked if the developer had a chance to looked at what the Parks and Recreation Department was recommending. ~ Mr. Kelly stated that yes, those kind of things were not a problem. President Johnson stated that what he was getting at was specific separation of the age group areas as far as the play park areas. Mr. Kelly stated that they have basically put in picnic tables for the tenants, benches, barbecues and play areas, he didn't want to get into cutting up those areas to the point where kids aren't able to play in the grass and run back and forth. This way parents will come out sit on the bench and watch their children play. He did not want to fence off an area where a parent could put their child into shut the gate and go back to their apartment. He preferred it be a parent supervised play area. President Johnson stated to staff that he didn't' read the Park and Recreation memo thoroughly. He asked staff if they addressed two different play areas. Staff replied that the Parks and Recreation Department had asked for two tot lot play area. Staff felt there was enough play area. President Johnson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak for this proposal. There were none. He asked for anyone who wished to speak against this proposal. Lavon Shaffner, 1455 N. Front St., stated that he agreed with the need for housing in Woodburn. He felt that two bedroom complexes would not do the job. Three and four bedroom complexes are needed. He was concerned about the traffic the complex would bring to Front Street. He felt that the extra traffic would be dangerous for the school children who walk down Front Street to and from school. The property owners, who abut this proposed street, would be assessed for this one and assessed for Front Street improvements. He felt that a double assessment wouldn't work. He stated that their properties were along the south side of the proposed street. 7 _,,,,",",,~._,_<_,,___,____"""_"O""_" ... ""k_. _.."'t-~ E-X HI .i3 IT "H II Po 17 . Mr.TlWarJ statfildthat if. it is. determinEl~:Uhatthe property benefits from th!3.. . ; street and thecotiriCirwishes'to' ~ ~n'beaS'ses-sed~~ Staff is recommending- that it will be a public street and should be built by the developer. .' '. - - .... .-. . ,., . , . . President Johnson asked if Mr. Tiwari meant that it was possible that the property owner's could be assessed on both sides. - '.' .. . ,,' ." ...., Mr. Tiwari answered yes, unless a decision was made not to assess. Mr. Shaffner asked Mr. Kelly how close to the south bordflr the parking area was. Mr. Kelly stated that had been surveyed. He stated that he would have to look at the plans. President Johnson stated that it was 12 feet. Rosa Martinez, 1495 Front Street stated that she lived at the corner, in a small triangle, the proposed plans showed the property line as straight line. She asked what this was going to do to her property. Staff answered that the developer would not be allowed to encroach upon her property. Mrs. Martinez stated she was also concerned about the traffic. President Johnson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak for or against this proposal. There were none. He asked if the applicant had anything further. Mr. Kelly stated that they do have surveyors to survey the property and they wanted to keep the integrity of their neighbors. He stated that they were aware of the problems that exist with properties that have sit vacant for years. He felt that this was the best way to develop his property. He said that if the City of Woodburn wanted to build the street, he and his partners would only buy a portion of the property and the city could purchase the other part and build the street The street doesn't help his development. He did not want the accesses to the proposed street. Commissioner Vallieres stated that he agreed with the developer that from a safety point only the two entrances were necessary not the proposed street. 8 ^'.-". .'" I/LJII E Y H / /3 I I '" p';j '{ v . .. . ,.0. ..:_: ':,."" ~:~' .~....;. President Johnson stated that he had Q(lncerns with the street.. There is .. nothit1t;J'to:guarante'ethat the:other'ptojjertiesc6i.ildn't-deVelop off.o1 HWY 214 and not want the street back of their properties unless it is forced across, He stated that he would Jike staff toloo.k at. the .e.ast/'h'eststreet ;',' ..' ,., and see if it is really necessary for the Mure. He felt that this had riot been' . fully thoughtol,rt. He.wQuld like ~Qsee more,inpl,rt. ar.:tdwn~ the jmpa.ct.of. , .. the Hwy 214/Front Street intersection might be if this were completed. He felt that the Commission would be asking the developer to spend too much money that potentially the city would not gain anything from. '-" . Commissioner Rappleyea stated that he felt that the road was needed. He did feel that the developer was being asked to do a lot. He felt that a workable solu1ion would be to dedicate the road so that the developers property could be assessed at a later date if Grace Village should be developed and the road be built. Commissioner Vallieres stated that he felt that to get the street developed on Front Street was more important than getting the proposed street built. Commissioner Shillig stated that if the City does Front Street, the developer should buuild the street to the sou1h. He felt that the alternative site plan was good for Woodburn. Commissioner Warzynski stated that she felt Front Street was more important at this time. She did agree with the dedication of the road instead of development at this time. Commissioner Park stated that he felt that a street being built in there was absolu1ely essential. He did feel that dedication of the street at this time was the correct way to go. Commissioner Guerra stated that there was much to be gained by building the road on the sou1h side and connecting to Hwy 214. President Johnson asked if the Commission was assuming that the homes to the sou1h would take half of the responsibility and the developer pu1 in his fair share. Staff stated that the Council would have to make a decision as to which way this would be handled. President Johnson asked what if the developer didn't want access to the road then why should he have to pay for the development of the street. 9 .._......._...,.-._n..' k:x /-II Ii:! 1/ "I} II PJ.4? ..... -. .' . Staff stated that might be t~e casE? and they mi~m.state that the ,d.e~ica~ion. . ..' 'ofthe larid'. itselflSadequi:lte' an'd'eq'uitable ahd noW It is' up 'to. the"citY to pay for the improvements. . . President Johnson closed the public hearing, asking for final discussion . from the Gommission or any motions. He statecl. thlithe was in .favor. oUne . project, he felt that the security aspect should be considered. He would like more input on the street. If it is found that the street is necessary that the developer build the street but not have to until after Phase II is built. Commissioner Shillig made the motion to accept Site Plan'#91-01 and to include the alternative map which includes the street to the south with the developer paying the full expense of the road. ~ ".." Commissioner Park seconded the motion. A vote was taken and there was four yes, three no. Staff asked for a clarification. He understood that the motion was for the street to the south and the developer paying for it. The Commission answered yes. Staff stated that the developer could now start developing their proposal or if they disagreed appeal to the City Council in the next ten days. 6) REPORTS: A. The Planning Fees Resolution was approved by Council. B. Staff asked the Commission if they had any questions about the Code Enforcement or Building Reports. There were none. 7) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION: None 8) ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Planning Commission meeting adjourned. 10 ~ . ...... .,...- 7:- '=' "II ., ~AHI8IT PJ.50 MINUTES WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 21, 1991 1) ROLL: President Vice President Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Mr. Johnson Mr. Vallieres Mrs. Warzynski Mrs. Sprauer Mr. Park Mr. Shillig Mr. Rappleyea Mr. Scott Mr. Guerra " Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present - Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director 2) MINUTES: The Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of March 14, 1991 were approved as written. 3) MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Staff read the statement from the City Attorney on the motion to reconsider. Staff then read the three alternatives that were brought up at the meeting of March 14, 1991. Staff made clear that no testimony could be heard from anyone in the audience arid staff could only discuss with the Commission what was already on record. Commissioner Warzynski made the motion to reconsider Site Plan #91-01. Commissioner seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed five yes, one no. Commissioner Shillig abstained. President Johnson asked if there was any discussion on the motion made at the March 14, 1991 hearing. 1 .,...... --. ..:).... E.. II H I f3 I T till II Pfj'~/ Commissioner Guerra had a question about the financing of the road. He understood that the developer and the City would work out a compromise in lieu of the building of the road. He felt that the entire burden should not be put on the developer. The previous vote implied that the developer would be burdened with the entire improvement of the road. Commissioner Park stated that all decisions that have been made in the past required the developers build the roads. He felt that the Commission should not change its policy. Commissioner Warzynski stated that the way she undetstood it was the developer who was going to pay for Front Street and she felt they would be getting the double whammy if they would be required to pay also for the east/west road. President Johnson asked staff if the developer was going to pay part of Front Street Staff answered that Mr. TIWari stated at the earlier hearing the City would pay for the east side of Front Street and the developer would be responsible for the west side. The widening of Front Street would be from the south property line to the north property Iille. President Johnson asked what the rational was for requesting this road. Staff answered that in the statement in the minutes from Mr. TIWari, . from an engineering point.. the street makes good sense". Mike Quinn, City Administrator, questioned the utility of the east/west street He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. He did remind the Commission that the public hearing had been closed and that he could only answer questions on the information received at the hearing. Commissioner Guerra stated that if the Commission decided that the project frontage was on the south side of the property when discussing the public road, he felt that there was no question that the developer as well as the city were obligated. If we are defining the frontage as on Front Street then the developer wouldn't be obligated to any cost except to the cost on Front Street Staff stated that he wanted to make one additional point In talking about cost, the City Council will determine who pays what cost, the Commission can only recommend there be a street there. 2 ~ JZ.YH /13/ r "fl" PJ' S-;L. Commissioner Warzynski asked for the motion to be read that was to be voted on, presented at the last meeting. Staff read the motion from the minutes of March 14, 1991 which called for the developer to build the road at the time of the building construction. Commissioner Warzynski asked if a vote could be called for and then go on with more discussion. A motion was made by Commissioner Warzynski and seconded by Commissioner to overturn March 14, 1991's condition to require the developer to build the street at the time of building construction. The condition was overturned 5 to 3. Commissioner Rappleyea felt that with no access out to Hwy 214, it is very important that an east/west road be built He made the motion to approve Site Plan #91-01 with the condition that the developer improve Front Street and dedicate the east/west road and this road be built when Grace Village property is developed. The two people who would be assessed in the building of the road would be Stonehedge Apartments and Grace Village property because these two properties will benefit Commissioner Warzynski seconded the motion. Staff asked for c1arification,if this motion was similar to the motion that was voted on March 14, 1991, just a different time frame. Commissioner Guerra stated that yes, they would be assessed in the future,no up front cost. He believed that this road should be built Commissioner Sprauer stated that her understanding is that the road is simply dedicated for the Mure and not stipulated who will pay. Commissioner Park stated that a roadway would enhance this development because it would make it easier for the residents to get in and out without the traffic on Front Street He felt that this was a good compromise. President Johnson asked staff to clarify Commissioner Sprauer's understanding. Staff stated the City Council would decides who pays for the road. Commissioner Scott asked what was the LID process for Woodburn. 3 - ~ . j'*-""'or".', ....-.- ~? .E- A /-I /13/ T "All PZ1.S3 Staff answered it was similar to any other community in which those people that benefit are those who participate. Commissioner Scott asked what if they dedicate the road, the Commission couldn't put a stipulation on it of who is to pay. If there is access to Hwy 214 they will be increasing traffic in their development. President Johnson asked since the State is restricting access to Highway 214, does this shift any responsibility of subsequent roads to the city or State. , Staff answered, in this case you would either access one property from 5th Street or the other from Front Street therefore the state does not have any jurisdiction. President Johnson stated that he was not comfortable with the fact of dedication of the road. The development would have multi-accesses round the property, the developer has some legitimate concerns regarding the security. Commissioner Park asked for clarification, if the Commission ask the developer to dedicate the road, when it comes time to build the property owners to the south will have to share in this cost. He asked if the City Council would make that decision. Staff answered that if they benefit from the road they could be assessed as part of the improvement under a local improvement district. Commissioner Warzynski asked if the Woodburn Trucking Company is commercial, is that a commercial zone by it's self and do they have direct access on to Front Street. Staff answered yes to both questions. Commissioner Guerra clarified the motion. If this motion passes the road will not necessarily be built, but the developer will be dedicating the property for Mure use. Commissioner Warzynski asked for Commissioner Rappleyea repeat the motion. Commissioner Rappleyea did. 4 ..~_....,.___,__.,~_,.v<-_..~.,,_,~,.,'_..~,._"".._..... ----,-" .sf EA'H '/3 /} "d" P..5I'":)-~ Mike Quinn stated that Commissioner Rappleyea has made a motion as Iti requirement to the developer to dedicate the land but not have to do the up front development cost. He also included an additional section on his motion, "the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council that in the Mure it shall be developed as required by the city. Mr. Quinn wanted to clarify that if this was the motion, it should be understood the developer has no control over the section that says that Grace Village and Stonehedge has to pay for the roadway. That can still be the Commissions recommendation to the Council. He wanted the distinction in his mind that this was not a requirement of the developer, his requirement is to dedicate the land and in the Mure he will participate in what ever the city plans in the Mure, whether it is an UD or participation or whatever. He wanted the Commission to know that is how he understood the motion. Commissioner Rappleyea stated that what he meant in the motion. President Johnson asked if there was any further discussion. He asked if every one was clear on what the motion was. He asked if there was any further questions on that. There were none. A vote was taken by Roll Call: 4 yes, 3 no, 1 abstention President Johnson clarified it with staff that the developer could still appeal to the City Council. Staff said yes. 4) ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Woodburn Planning Commission meeting adjourned. 5