Loading...
Agenda - 02/14/2005 WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 14, 2005 - 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. City Hall and the Woodburn Public Library will be closed Monday, February 21, 2005, in observance of the Presidents' Day holiday. The Aquatic Center will be open regular hours. Bo A Teen Scene dance and swim will be held on February 26, 2005 from 7:00 fo 10:00 p.m. af the Aquatic Center. There is a $1 entrance fee. C. A public hearing to consider Zone Change 04-04, Boones Ferry Place, will be held on February 28, 2005. D. A public hearing to consider Legislative Amendment 05-02, Annual WDO Update, will be held on February 28, 2005. Appointments: E. Recreation and Park Commission - Position 7 Board- Position ] and Planning 4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. *'Habrd Jnterpretes bJsponib[es para atlu~[[as personas ~ue no bah[an ItlO[~s; previo acuerbo, comut~ctuese a[ (503) 980-0-485.*' February 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page i Presentations: A. Police Facility- Group Mackenzie B. 2004 Crime Statistics Review - Scott Russett C. Pdice Response Districts-Scott Russell COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce 2 10 B: Woodburn Downtown Association 6. COMMUNICATIONS None. 7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not a/ready scheduled on the agenda. 8. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of January 24, 2005 13 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Wooclburn Planning Commission minutes of January 13, 2005 23 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. C. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of January 27, 2005 30 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. D. INoodburn Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes of 35 February 8, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the draft minutes. E. Woodbum Memorial Aquatic Center Revenue Comparison 37 Recommended Action: Receive the report. F. Woodburn Public Library Monthly Report for January 2005 38 Recommended Action: Receive the report. G. Building Activity for January 2005 39 Recommended Action: Receive the report. February 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page H. Planning Project Tracking Sheet dated February 2, 2005 40 Recommended Action: Receive the report. I. Claims for January 2005 44 Recommended Action: Receive the report. J. Public Contracting Executive Memo 49 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 11. GENERAL BUSINESS-Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. Ae Council Bill 2555 - Ordinance amending Ordinance 2312 (the Woodburn Noise Ordinance) to reduce certain decibel levels and declaring an emergency Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance. 51 Be Council Bill 2556 - Resolution entering into Walkway/Bikeway Project Agreement No. 22253 with the State of Oregon and authorizing the City Administrator to sign such agreement Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. 55 Council Bill 2557 - Resolution entering into an intergovernmental agreement with Marion County and the cities of Mount Angel, Stayton, and Silverton providing for participation on the Marion County Interagency Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team and authorizing the City Administrator to sign said agreement Recomrnended Action: Adopt the resolution. 68 Lawson/Highway 214 Intersection Recommended Action: Direct staff to begin process leading to a traffic revision at intersection of Lawson Way and Highway 214 based on the option selected. 77 February '14, 2005 Council Agenda Page iii South Front Street Improvements (undergrounding and lighting phase) Recommended Action: Reject the bids of Kerr Contractors, Inc. and Westech Construction, Inc. as not responsive, and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Canby Excavation, Inc. for the undergrounding of utilities on South Front Street in the amount of $395,502.20. 86 Bid Award for Municipal Well 14 Well House 89 Recommended Action: Reject the bid of Nomarco Inc. as not responsive, and award bid for Municipal Well 14 Well House to the lowest responsible bidder, TransAmerican Contractors, Inc. for $304,360.00. 2005 OLCC Renewal Recommended Action: Recommend to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission renewal of liquor licenses for the listed businesses for the year 2005. 91 He Authorization for Request for Proposals (RFP) for Personal Services Contracts Recommended Action: Authorize a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the City to enter into one or more Personal Services Contracts for plan review and inspection services for the Building Division. 94 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that may be called up by the City Council. A. Planning Commission's Approval of Planned Unit Development 04-05 and Variance 04-31 (Links at Tukwila) 95 B. Planning Commission's Approval of Planned Unit Development 97 04-06 and Variance 04-32 (Links at Tukwila) 14. CiTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 16. ADJOURNMENT February 14, 2005 Council Agenda Page iv W.OODBURN ln orl~orated 1889 3E January 10, 2005 TO: City Council FROM: Kathy Figley, Mayor SUBJECT: Board/Commission Appointments The following appointments are made, subject to the approval of the Council. Please forward any adverse comments to me prior to the Council meeting on Monday, February 14, 2005. No reply is required if you approve of my decision. RECREATION AND PARK BOARD Position 1 - Eric Yaillen - term ends 12/31/07 PLANNING COMMISSION Position 7 - Richard Jennings - term ends 12/31/06 l#corgorated ~859 February 9, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police SUBJECT: 2004 Crime Statistics Review RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report BACKGROUND: In January 2003 a new Police Records Management System (RMS) came into service with the Woodburn Police Department. This system allows for the capture of incident based crime data which, unlike previously captured UCR data, can easily be combined to generate Index Crime data which is comparable both to local cities of our size and on a regional and national basis. This 2004 crime data represents the second complete year of RMS operation and provides comparative data for 2002 and 2003. This allows for statistical comparison with both historical local data and data from other Oregon cities, the West Coast, and the entire United States. This year's Crime Analysis Report combines local, state, regional, and national data to provide a snapshot of crime here in Woodburn. DISCUSSION: In calendar year 2004 the City of Woodburn observed a slight increase in overall crime reports, but a reduction in index crimes per capita. The modified Total Index Crimes (the sum of Violent Index Crimes and Property Index Crimes) rose by 0.55%. However, when adjusted for population growth index crimes fell by 1.04%. Index property crime reports fell by 0.81% while Violent Index Crimes rose by 44.74%. While a rise in violent crime is always concerning, the total number of violent index crimes was small by comparison to the total number of property crimes, and the numbers were fairly consistent with the three-year average for Violent Index Crimes. One key area of increase in Violent Index Crime is the crime of Robbery, which increased in 2004. Most Robberies,~E~z~ev), Agenda item Review: __ City Attorney __ Finance~,~/~ 2 Mayor and City Council January 13, 2005 Page 2 e crimes of opportunity and we have seen a direct relation between many of our local robberies and the Methamphetamine epidemic. Crime statistics are sometimes used to judge police effectiveness. However, as the causes of crime are complex and not always directly dependent on police action, they are better used to judge a community's overall success in the fight against crime. Still, there are imany other ways to measure police effectiveness, some more important than others. Rather than count citations or miles patrolled we have chosen to focus on two key measures. First is the quality of service delivery that we provide to the citizens of Woodburn. While a linear measurement of this dimension is difficult at best, I continue to be impressed with the number of citizens who take the time to contact me to thank us for the quality of our service delivery, verses the amount who contact me to complain about it. Despite the nature of our business, which is largely reacting to negative circumstances, I receive a greater ratio of thanks to complaints by about a three to one margin. I believe this speaks well of our staff's commitment to quality service. It is also an area that I feel very strongly about and in which we seek continuous improvement, making adjustments on a daily basis. The second benchmark, that of crime clearance rate, is much more measurable. This year due to the large number of property crimes sparked by Meth use we sought to improve our rate of clearance on property crimes, while still doing our best to maintain a high clearance rate on violent crimes. We did succeed in increasing the clearance rate on property crimes, but not quite to the target level. Staff was able to clear several very large fencing operations and returned several hundred pieces of stolen property to their rightful owners. Increased staffing, which was authorized in this years budget and some of which is currently in training, should improve our ability to clear more offenses next year. Violent crime clearance rates held fairly consistent with the exception of several assaults in which victims could not, or would not, provide necessary suspect information. Attached to this Staff Report you will find a Synopsis of Index Crime Report for Woodburn in 2004, which provides more detail on definitions, statistics, and analysis of our local crime picture. If you have any questions or need additional information after reviewing this data Police Department Staff is ready to assist you. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None associated with the recommended action. 0 sluep!oul jo JequJnN .< 0 c~ February 8, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police ?~?/"/ SUBJECT: Police Response Districts RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and make recommendations to staff on adjustments of grids and districts for police response. BACKGROUND: Dividing police patrol areas into grids or districts allows police to analyze crime data more effectively and to deploy police resources in an effective and efficient manner to address these crime issues. Currently, the Woodburn Police Department utilizes a grid system to divide the city into statistical reporting blocks. This grid system was developed in the middle 80's and was based on zoning and council wards. It includes 32 different grids throughout the City of Woodburn. The grid system has been periodically updated, but does not currently exactly match council wards or current zoning. One of the Police Department's goals for this fiscal year was to analyze the current grid system, research alternative systems, select a model system and report to Council on it's findings. DISCUSSION: The current grid method is problematic for several reasons: as stated above, it is not current with wards or zoning; there are too many grids to allow meaningful geographic crime analysis or officer assignment; statistical grid information cannot be directly correlated to patrol assignments or community policing enterprises; and they provide no real method for patrc~l beat assignment, so calls are currently assigned to officers on a rotating basis. By contrast, creation of patrol beats or districts will allow: creation of districts taking into consideration current council wards and geography, deployment of patrol officers by district, direct correlation of statistical data to patrol assignments, improved knowledge of district by officers, improved relations with district officer by citizens, better coordinated response to neighborhood problems, and assignment of calls by district to the officer assigned to that district. Agenda Item Review: City Administrato City Attorney~4''~ Financd~ 10 Mayor and City Council February 8, 2005 Page 2 We feel that the benefits of creating response districts clearly outweigh the current grid system. However, for response districts to be useful, they must be flexible (so that they can be collapsed or expanded depending on available staffing), have a fairly equal workload (so that officers can work in their own district and not always be called out of it to cover calls in another district that has too many calls to be handled), and be part of an overall community policing effort (such as our Monthly Crime Analysis Action Plan). In order to create a response district model for the City of Woodburn Police Department, staff analyzed other agencies' methods of districting and identified the main elements that they had considered in creating districts. These elements included, natural and man-made geographic boundaries, call load "hot spots," political boundaries, and other logical divisions. Using this information, staff analyzed call load through all 32 grids, all 6 wards, and each neighborhood of the city. We found that the downtown core area and the area including Stonehedge apartments each generated more than 10% of the total department calls for service, only seven other grid sections generated more than 5% of total calls, and the remaining 23 grid sections generated less than 5% each. The proposed model creates a districting system that divides the city into six distinct districts. Each district contains on the order of 15%-20% of the total calls for service for the entire city. District 6 carries the highest at around 20% of the total call toad. The districts closely follow ward boundaries and take into account natural dividers as well (see attached maps). In this model each officer would be assigned a primary district for a period of time. This would allow them to get fo know their district and its citizens and would allow the citizens fo get to know the officer as well. The district officer could participate in community meetings and events and be a resource for the district. Crime analysis could be done on a district-by-district basis and directed patrol would be implemented fo address problems within a given district. Officers would be assigned fo their district, as staffing was available. Until six officers are consistently available, districts could be easily combined. Proposed divisions include: three districts, District A (1,2,3) District B (4,5) District C (6); and four districts, District A (1,2) District B (3) District C (4,5) District D While development of policy to implement such a model is not yet complete, we do believe that the concept is sound, that it will benefit the citizens, and it is worthy of our further efforts. As the ultimate goal is to continuously improve police service to the public, we welcome your feedback and input on this matter. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. Ill 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 24, 2005. CONVENEI). The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0130 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bj elland Absent Councilor Cox Absent Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attomey Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Police Chief Russell, Community Development Director Mulder, Finance Director Gillespie, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Public Works Manager Rohman, Management Analyst Smith, Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Bjelland was ill and Councilor Cox was out of town. 0066 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Aquatic Center will be closed to the public on Januapy 29 and 30, 2005 since the Woodburn Barracuda Swim Team will be holding a swim meet on those days. B) Budget Committee Work Session will be held on February 1, 2005, 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Council Chambers. C) Vacancies exist on the Budget Committee, Library Board, Planning Commission, and Recreation & Parks Board. Citizens interested in serving in any one of these positions are asked to call the Mayor's office for an application. APPOINTMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION. Mayor Figley appointed Brad Hutchison to the Planning Commission with a term expiration date of December 31, 2008. She stated that she had recently appointed Mr. Hutchison to the Recreation & Parks Board, however, he had expressed an interest in the Planning Commission and she has now decided to appoint him to the Commission. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... approve the appointment of Brad Hutchison to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. 0171 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PdgPORT. Nick Harville, Chamber Executive Director, stated that legislative House Bill 2267 created Travel Oregon which is a state-wide 1% transient room tax and eliminated the Tourism Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 13 TAPE Pd~ADING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 Division within Oregon Community and Economic Development. He stated that he has met with a representative of Travel Oregon to discuss the Chamber's Regional Tourism Strategy. The Governor has put emphasis on a Willamette Valley Bicycle By-Way which stretches from Champoeg Park down to Eugene following the Willamette River as much as possible. The Chamber will be working towards identifying some bike routes between St, Paul, Woodbum, and other local communities the Chamber represents which will then be attached to the information that will be publicized as part of this Bicycle By-Way. It was noted that the bicycle mute will utilize existing roadways. 0375 Jack Lenhardt, 1055 Tukwila, stated that he was at the previous Council meeting expressing his concern with the bike paths taking up so much of the street width on certain city streets that there was no room for parking in those areas. He distributed copies of an ODOT publication on State and Federal laws relating to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Within this publication, and in discussing these rules and/or laws with an ODOT representative, he stated that the ODOT publication states that the 1% expenditure of highway funds on bicycle and pedestrian facilities is a guideline rather than a requirement. Additionally, the state law requires inclusion of bikeways and pedestrian facilities unless there is no need or probable use, where safety would be jeopardized, or where cost is excessively disproportionate to the need or use. He suggested that ODOT re-evaluate the need for the bikeway at the freeway based on the exemptions in their rule interpretation. Another area he brought up for discussion related to bikeways being required along arterials and major collector streets. He reviewed fhe definition of"major" and, in his opinion, the City has the ability to define what is considered a "major collector" within the City. Within Tukwila development, Hazelnut Avenue serves Tukwi!a and it appears to him that it serves an immediate neighborhood rather than servicing significantly more than the immediate neighborhood. He reiterated that the bikelanes on Hazelnut has added 14 feet of asphalt which is rarely used by bicyclists. He requested that the Council remove the "No Parking" signs especially on Tukwila Avenue and this could be accomplished at minimal cost since there are no bike lanes painted on the asphalt. He also felt that the bike lanes were not needed on Hazelnut Avenue all of the way to North Front Street. Councilor McCallum expressed his concern that Hazelnut Avenue is a feeder street for Woodbum High School and there are various times students do ride bicycles to school. The back entrance to the school off of Hazelnut Avenue is closed during the day but the entrance is open for all other times and it is used by younger children to attend events at the high school. Additionally, he has found that there are a lot of bicyclists using that roadway area that do not live in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Lenhardt stated that it has only been in the last few years that bikelanes have been constructed and maintained that bike lanes are not necessary in the Tukwila residential development. Mayor Figley stated that it was her understanding that the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) requires the bike lane due to the classification of the street in the City's Plan. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 14 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READING Mr. Lenhardt reiterated that the local policy can be changed on which classifications would require the placement of bike lanes. Mayor Figley stated that the City would have to either change the overall policy for a whole category of streets or define a reason as to why this particular street has a unique set of circumstances that would not require the bike lanes: Public Works Manager Rohman stated that the TSP outlines the functional class of streets and it does call for bike lanes on Tukwila. At the time the development was approved by the Planning Commission and Council, bike lanes were included as a condition of approval for the subdivision. Administrator Brown stated that the TSP took about 3 years to develop and included public input reflecting the community values at that time. The Council could make a change in the TSP but by doing so would change the values originally expressed by community members. No action was taken by the Council to pursue an amendment to the TSP at this time. 1293 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the regular Council meeting minutes of January 10, 2005; B) approve the Council work session minutes of January 8, 2005; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of December 2, 2004; D) accept the Planning Commission minutes of December 9, 2004; E) accept the Library Board minutes of January 12, 2005; F) accept the Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes of January 11, 2005; G) accept the Mill Creek Greenway Task Force meeting notes of January 11, 2005; H) accept the Livability Task Force draft minutes of October 26, 2004; I) accept the Livability Task Force draft minutes of December 2, 2004; J) accept the Police Department Statistical report for January through December 2004; and K) accept the Claims for December 2004. MCCALLUM/NICHOLS... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 1364 PUBLIC HEARING: 2004-05 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET HEARING. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:25 p.m.. Finance Director Gillespie presented the staff report which outlines proposed budget changes to the 2004-05 City budget. He stated that the City' s Beginning Fund Balance for all City funds is approximately $957,000 more than what was budgeted and, of that amount, $256,000 is within the General Fund. Another major item in this proposed budget is the establishment of a Police Construction Fund for the accounting of transactions relating to the construction of a new police facility. It was noted that the cost of issuing the general obligation bonds is estimated at $152,000 and $6,909,000 for design and construction. This fund also includes the repayment of a loan fi'om the Traffic Impact Fee Fund which allowed the City to begin design work before the bonds were sold so that construction on the facility would begin during the upcoming construction season. A third major item included in this Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 15 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 budget is the restoration of $211,000 in the Sewer Fund which had been understated during the regular budget process. Director Gillespie stated that franchise revenues for Qwest and Willamette Broadband are below the initial estimates and future budgets will most likely reflect the lower revenue estimates due to customers utilizing cell phones rather than a telephone service and satellite dishes rather than cable TV service: Traffic fines have not materialized in the amount projected since the City still has not had a fully staffed motorcycle traffic enforcement team (4 officers) and collection of fines through the court system can take up to a year for imposition and collection. To date, the City has 3 motorcycle officers and it is anticipated that the fine revenues will meet the level that was discussed previously but it will be in the next fiscal year. In regards to Street construction and maintenance contracts, the supplemental budget provides for a $200,000 appropriation since some of the contracts awarded last spring were not completed until after July 1, 2004 and a portion of the beginning fund balance is being used as the revenue source for this appropriation. Staff will change the budgeting practice beginning in fiscal year 2005-06 in that the budget will reflect estimated costs for the year in which they will be paid. Councilor McCallum questioned if the Barracuda Swim Team rents the Aquatic Center similar to the rental agreements that are in place with the School District. Director Westrick stated that the Barracuda Swim Team does rent lane space and revenues have increased from this program since they have been adding members. He also stated that more lesson times have been made available now that Sitverton and Molalla now have their own indoor pools and their high schools are no longer using our Aquatic Center for their practice site. 2047 Administrator Brown stated that normally the supplemental budget is brought before the Council in order to make adjustments rather than new policy items. However, this year the proposed budget does include the following four (4) policy items for Council discussion: 1) Half-time Municipal Court Clerk - Judge Zyryanoff has requested an additional V2 time position to process citations issued by the Police Department. 2) Police Facility construction has expedited the need to move more quickly on a supplemental budget since the architect fees will soon need to be paid and appropriations need to be established in this new budgetary fund in order to pay for the design services and bond issuance costs. 3) City has received a grant from City County Insurance Service to pay one-half of the cost for a consulting service, Lexipol, to assist the Police Department in updating the department's policy manual. The supplemental budget appropriates $2,975 in this year's budget for this project. 4) Legion Park Master Plan and Community Center Planning - Staff recommends that work begin in these two areas, however, he recommended that the funding source for the Legion Park Master Plan be changed from Parks SDC Fund to the General Fund since the Park SCD list did not include this plan and he was hesitant to spend SDC funds on projects other than what has been identified on the list. No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposed supplemental budget. Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 16 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READING Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:41 p.m.. Councilor McCallum agreed that a half-time clerk in Municipal Court is needed to keep on top of the workflow. Administrator Brown stated that this would be a permanent position provided that the traffic enforcement program continues as planned. MCCALLUM/SIFUENTEZ...direct staff to prepare an ordinance on the supplemental budget with the recommended change on the Legion Park Master Plan funding. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Figley called for a recess at 7:44 p.m. in order to allow staff time to make the change to the supplemental budget ordinance. She reconvened the meeting at 8:01 p.m.. 2721 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2553 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05. Copies of the amended Council Bill were distributed to the Council for review. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2553. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2553 duly passed with the emergency clause. 28O7 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2554 - PdgSOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE, SALE, EXECUTION, AND DELIVERY OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $7,066,000; AUTHORIZING SPECIAL AD VALOREM TAX LEVY; DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED P~P~SENTATIVE; AND DELEGATING APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION TO DISTRIBUTE THE P~LIMINARY AND 2897 Page FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENTS. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2554. The bill ;vas read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2554 duly passed. LAWSON AVENUE / HIGHWAY 214 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT. Public Works Manager Rohman reviewed the following options available to improve the traffic flow in this area: 1) Maintain two-way pattern on Lawson Avenue: He stated that this option would involve the acquisition of additional right-of-way on the west side corner to add paved surface so that trucks to make necessary turning movements. 2) Lawson Avenue become a one-way street southbound: He stated that this option would provide sufficient paved surface for trucks to make the necessary turning movement. This option will involve significant involvement with property and business owners before any final decision is made. To date, this option has been covered through the Environmental Assessment process for the interchange involving the 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 17 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 Environmental Assessment Local Access Committee and with the Stakeholders Working Group. The business owners felt that a portion of the street should be two-way so that motorists on Stacy Allison Way have access to their businesses. It was also noted that these groups did feel that there should be some two-way access on a portion of Lawson Avenue because the interchange options presented by ODOT show that Lawson Avenue wilt be a right-turn in only off of Highway 214. ODOT is willing to work with the property owners for the purpose of keeping some two-way access on Lawson Avenue. The Highway 214 improvement plans do call for a median strip which would prevent any left-turn movement off of Highway 214. The plans also call for a eastbound drop lane onto Lawson Avenue which thereby allowing motorists to move over to that lane to make a right turn without impacting the flow of traffic in the thru travel lanes. 3) No changes be made at this time, however, City would work with ODOT to incorporate changes to this intersection as a part of roadway improvements relating to the future interchange modernization improvement project. Councilor Nichols expressed his opinion that the drop lane was not necessary since the travel speed on Highway 214 eastbound is not fast enough to create a traffic problem. He did not see the need or the expense involved in creating the drop lane. Public Works Manager Robanan stated that it may seem like the drop lane would make a small difference but traffic studies have shown that drop lanes do improve the traffic flow and efficiency of the intersections. Additionally, if ODOT funding is allocated for the modernization project, it could be 2007-08 before construction would begin. Councilor Nichols also expressed his opinion that allowing a one-way traffic flow for the full length of the street would not impact the businesses along that street. Councilor McCallum suggested that the City do something within the near fi:tture rather than waiting for the ODOT modernization project, however, the City should be looking at an option that ,would involve minimal expense. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that ODOT is planning to upgrade the Evergreen Road intersection in the latter part of 2006~ By that time, ODOT would have completed the interchange modernization project design and the traffic light masts will be positioned so that they will not have to be relocated at a later date. This project will increase vehicle turning radius from Highway 214 onto Evergreen Road. Councilor Nichols suggested that the City review the truck traffic route on Evergreen Road so that large trucks are not driving through residential areas in order to get to Wal-Mart. Councilor Lonergan agreed that public input should be obtained fi'om the property and business owners before any final action is taken. Councilor Sifuentez expressed her concerns over the confusion a one-way street would create for motorists along with increased traffic congestion on Evergreen Road. 4445 Willis Graff, 1328 Dogwood Dr., stated that Public Works Manager Rohman did a good job in explaining the viewpoints brought out in the Stakeholder's and Access Committee meetings. ODOT does plan on allowing a right-turn in only on the interchange plan. He suggested that the southbound one-way only traffic on Lawson Avenue to the Taco Bell Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 18 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READFNG driveway is the best solution since there would be no change in the curb location at this time and it would give trucks ample room to make a safe turn. Preston Tack, 2197 Camellia Way, supported the concept of a one-way south on Lawson Avenue but it may have to be modified to provide for access to Taco Bell. He hoped that this option would result in making more turning space for trucks without having a large expense to the City. 4825 Councilor Lonergan reiterated that he would like to hear input from the property owners, businesses owners and the general public before any final action is taken. Administrator Brown stated that the original report from Public Works did include an option which provided for some directional one-way with a turn-around. His problem with that proposal was that it would cost over $100,000 to construct and he did want to spend that amount of money knowing that ODOT would be making some improvement along Highway 214 within the next few years. He suggested that staff bring back a proposal to the Council that would address the traffic flow issue using signage or something similm' at minimal cost to the City and, once the Council has a proposed plan, then staff could proceed to obtain public input on the proposal. 5231 LIVABILITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED NOISE ORDINANCE REVISIONS. Councilor Lol~ergan expressed concern with the reduction in maximum sound levels by 5 decibels in that solid waste trucks with an automated side loader can vary from 80 to 100 decibels which exceeds the ordinance levels allowed for within the specified time frames since work commences in this business at 6:00 a.m.. Another concern is the amount of time the Police Department will need to dedicate to enforce these lower decibels levels since many businesses work beyond the specified time periods and the work they perform results in higher decibel levels than what is allowed for under the proposed ordinance. Councilor McCallum stated that he is the Co-Chair of the Livability Task Force and the concerns about the noise level were focused on those noises that are consistent and constant. He has heard concerns about early morning garbage pick-up and, to United Disposal's credit, they have worked with the neighborhood to handle the situation. In regards to enforcement, the decibel level was arrived at based on the discussions with the Police Department. Chief Russell stated that the Livability Task Force received minimal public input in the process. He did discuss xvith his supervisors enforcement issues relating to the current ordinance and the biggest problem they have encountered is that the department has responded to many parties after the designated time periods which were within a 3 to 5 decibel range less than the current maximum level. In these cases, the neighbors were very upset since no enforcement action could be taken. He also stated that the proposed ordinance adds a new Section (Section 7(L)) allowing for noise resulting from activities of a temporary duration ;vhich is otherwise permitted by law. Business operations would most likely fall into this category since it is a temporary event operating under a normally operated business. However, an on-going continuous noise could present a problem for a business. In regards to Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 19 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READING the construction activities, most contractors know the rules on the time periods and they have abided by those rules. Councilor McCallum stated that a developer in his neighborhood worked with the local residents and they had established set hours in which construction would occur. Additionally, Homeowner's Associations also work with developers to establish acceptable work hours for construction projects. 6508 Councilor Sifuentez questioned if a barking dog complaint would result in the Police Department taking the dog away from the owner in order to cease the noise. Chief Russell stated that the Police Department would respond to the call and they have the ability to cite the owner for the noise. It may not stop the dog from barking but it will get the owner's attention so that they will take some action to stop the noise. This type of complaint, along with a number of other complaints outlined in the proposed ordinance, does not have a maximum noise level and citations could be issued at anytime. Tape 2 Councilor Lonergan agreed with the proposed changes to the ordinance, however, he would like to see the time changed from 9:00 pm to 8:00 pm for certain noise levels. Councilors Sifuentez, Nichols, and McCallum did not want to make any change to the time in the draft ordinance. O086 SPECIAL EVENT POLICIES REVISIONS. Mayor Figley stated that the staff report provided a detailed explanation of the changes and why they were recommended by the Recreation and Parks Board. Councilor Lonergan expressed concern with the recommendation to allow amplified music at Warzynski Plaza on Sunday nights until 9:00 p.m.. Councilor McCallum suggested that the time for concluding music on Sundays be changed to 7:00 p.m.. Administrator Brown stated that there are numerous events on Sundays at Warzynski Plaza and he suggested that 8:00 p.m. be allowed. The Special Events permit would speci~ the time in which amplified music could be played but he would like to have the flexibility of allowing the music on Sunday until 8:00 p.m.. Councilor Lonergan stated that his issue is the length of time for the amplified sound and the event itself could last later into the evening. It was the consensus of the Council to change the Sunday time at Warzsmski Plaza to 8:00 p.m.. Councilor McCallum complimented those individuals who worked with staff and the Recreation and Parks Board to address the concerns and in developing policy revisions. Brief discussion ,2cas held regarding the language in the policy requiring a break in the music so that it is not continuous amplified music and in providing the neighborhood with advance notice of upcoming events. It was also noted that the ordinance provides for an upper limit on the noise level, however, staff can issue a permit authorizing lower decibel limits. Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 20 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READING NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... adopt the revised Special Event policies with the change in the time for Sunday at Warzynski Plaza. The motion passed unanimously. 0800 CITY COUNTY INSURANCE SERVICES "LEXIPOL" LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY GRANT. Police Chief Russell stated that the City's police policies need to be updated as part of the police accreditation process. The benefits of accreditation include standardization of policies and practices across taw enforcement agencies and potential reduction in liability. CIS has offered the City a grant in the amount of $2,975.00 which is one-half of the initiation fee. The City's cost for this service is $2,975 for the initiation fee to be paid in fiscal year 2004- 05 and $5,240 in fiscal year 2005-06 for a one-year purchase of annual policy updates and the Lexipol annual training plan. Currently the Police department has a general order book and a policy manual. This grant will provide for the combining of these two books into one modem document which is updated by legal counsel on a regular basis. Once the document is completed, the Police Department will then need to be able to move forward with the proofs that our department is complying with the policies and procedures and then receive accreditation. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... attthorize the City Administrator to accept a grant from City County Insurance Services and execute an agreement with Lexipol for police policy manual services. The motion passed unanimously. 1043 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Community Development Director Mulder stated that a Measure 56 notice had been mailed to every property owner in the City discussing Periodic Review activities. This notice is dictated by state statute as to the message on the front of the notice, however, very few properties will be affected in a way that could potentially restrict the actual uses of their property or could potentially adversely affect the value of their property. The proposed amendments have derived out of the City completing its periodic review work program for the purpose of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. As a result of those tasks, staff is bringing forward for public review and Planning Commission and Council consideration amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Development Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan map, Zoning map, and a proposal to expand the City's urban growth boundary. The City's website contains all of the proposed amendments and map amendments. Additionally, all of this material is available at the Library and City Hall. Councilor McCallum questioned if the notice is a standard form used state-wide. Director Mulder stated that the City tailors our own form but there is certain language that has to be included in the form letter in certain locations on the letter Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 21 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 24, 2005 TAPE READING 1420 MAYORAND COUNCIL PdgPORTS.. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she has received complaints that motorists are speeding down E. Hardcastle Avenue and individuals are skateboarding and roller skating in the middle lane of that roadway. Councilor Nichols thm~ked the Mayor for her excellent presentation of the "State of the City" address which showed that Woodburn continues to be a City on the move. Councilor McCallum agreed with Councilor Nichols' comments. He also congratulated the Woodbum Independent on their being named as the Chamber's "Member of Year". Mayor Figley stated that she enjoyed giving the "State of the City" address and she reiterated that the City is a progressive and well-managed organization that thinks ahead rather than behind. Mayor Figley stated that there will not be an executive session. 1589 ADJOURNMENT. MCCALLUM/SIFUENTEZ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRY-N FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 24, 2005 WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 13, 2005 8B CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lima P Commissioner Vancil P Commissioner Grigorieff P Commissioner Bandelow P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner Chairperson Lima provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Bandelow moved to elect the current Chairperson Claudio Commissioner Vancil seconded the nomination, which carried unanimously. Lima for Chairperson. Commissioner Vancil moved to elect Ellen Bandelow for Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Griqorieff seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. MINUTES A_.~. Woodburn Planning Commission Work Session Minutes of December 2,2004 Commissioner Vancil moved to adopt the minutes as written. Commissioner Griqorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. B._=. Woodburn Planninq Commission Minutes of December 9, 2004 Commissioner G ri.qorieff made a motion to accept the minutes as written and was seconded by Commissioner Vancil. Motion carried unanimously. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_~. Woodburn Special City Council Minutes of November 29, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING Design. Review 04-06 and Conditional Use 04-03, request to establish an RV sales and service dealership and construct a 7,200 sq. ft. sales and service buildinq at 2450 Country Club Ct., Brandon Johnson, applicant. (Continued from the October 28, 2004 Planninq Commission Meeting). Application withdrawn by applicant. B.~. Partition 04-06 and Variance 04-26, request to partition one parcel into two lots at 1125 McKinley St., Greg Allen, applicant. (Applicant requested continuance to February 10, 2005). Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to approve the continuance to February 10, 2005. Commissioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. Zone Change 04-04, request to change zoning from Single Family Residential (RS) to Medium Density Residential (RM) at 2335 N. Boones Ferry Rd., Boones Ferry Place, LLC, applicant. Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 1 of 7 23 EX-PARTE CONTACTS Chairperson Lima and Commissioner Vancil both indicated they were familiar with the property. Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval of the Zone Change application based on the information in the report, the information provided by the applicant and the applicable review criteria. Commissioner Vancil commented it is alleged that there is a shortage of single family zoned land in the City considering the high demand for it and questioned Staff whether that was her perception? Staff replied the perception of a shortage on single-family land has more to do with availability of land than an actual shortage of land. He reported there is one property owner that has a large amount of land that could be developed if that owner would allow it to be, which has created a short-term scarcity of single-family land. However, there could be enough land for the short term available if that property owner allowed development on her property. Nonetheless, we sti!! need al! categories of land long term. Currently lots are more limited for smaller builders that just want to buy a few lots to build on. Commissioner Vancil commented the report talked about this being a particularly good site for the proposed use because of the lack of other similar sites. He assumed that if the periodic review progresses as expected, there would be options for this kind of thing available. Staff stated that would bring on additional opportunities. The timing of that being developed for this kind of use is more longer term. TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT Tony Krietzberq, Real Estate Attorney, 1011 Commercial St., P.O. Box 749, Salem, OR 97308-0749 reported he was before the Commission four years ago when this initial application was created. He stated an assisted living facility is a very Iow impact on a residential area, whereas, if zoned RM, you do not want an alternative RM use to come in like an apartment complex that would have a higher level of traffic and noise. Mr. Krietzberg further stated during the initial application, the Commission did not want this use for some other RM purpose and had a reversionary clause where it would revert back to RS if it was not used as RM. It has reverted back to RS and now there is a mismatch between the underlying zone and the Comprehensive Plan. He commented they are asking that those be matched up again and they want to protect the Commission's original goal. Mr. Krietzberg reported they have no intention of using the property for anything other than for its original approved use, an assisted living facility and a memory care facility. He explained the development was merely delayed because the Country Meadows facility beat them to the finish line in building a large facility. It was Mr. Krietzberg's understanding that facility has reached capacity and with the demographics in the area and the need for assisted living facilities, that they are at a point now that they could construct their facility and it will be financially viable and successful as well as a good addition to the community. He further mentioned the owner's of the property never received, to his knowledge, an offer for the acquisition of that property for single family use. It is not that well suited for single family as it is a relatively small parcel so it would be expensive to develop for single family. It was further reported by Mr. Krietzberg that the particular shape of the parcel plans itself well for the proposed assisted living facility because it provides access on both County Club Rd. and onto Boones Ferry Rd. which is required for this type of density development. It is close to an ambulance service, mass transit and will be very convenient for the elderly to use. He said there are no other sites of this particular size and nature suited for an assisted living facility. Vice Chairperson Bandelow inquired whether they will not be doing a design review at this point but is it their intention to use the same design they used before? Tony Krietzberg answered No. He clarified the design criteria has actually gotten stricter in the past four years. Therefore, they will be going through a public site review process at which time there will be opportunity for the public to raise any specific site design concerns. He also mentioned there are greater setbacks than there were in the year 2000 and that the wall restrictions are greater. The project will be redesigned, if anything, even friendlier to a single family residential neighborhood. Staff said the standards are higher since the new Development Ordinance was adopted. He noted a block Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 2 of 7 24- wall will be required, whereas it was not required before. Additionally, the setbacks are generally greater as well as there are higher design standards. Wally Gutzler, Sun West Manaqement, P.O. Box 3006, Salem, OR stated he also came before the Commission four years ago when the initial application was created. He said they do not plan to do anything different than what was originally approved except as required by the design review changes. The layout would be the same to the extent that they could make it the same and they will comply with any required restrictions. Mr. Gutzler explained there were two reasons why the project did not move forward before. Country Meadows had their plan ready to go a little before they did and they did not feel it was appropriate for both to be in a race to serve the public. Secondly, Governor Kitzhauber made an announcement to the Legislature four years ago that he thought that they should cut the reimbursement for Medicaid recipients who would be residents of assisted living facilities. This scared off all the lenders because they knew that quite a few of the assisted living facilities in Oregon would qualify for Medicaid residents and if those reimbursements were cut, there was a possibility it could adversely affect the ability to make payments. Mr. Gutzler stated it has only been within the last six months that they have been able to obtain construction financing in Oregon again for this type of facility, He indicated this is a project that will benefit the City in various areas and requested the Planning Commission approve the project. Chairperson Lima asked Mr. Gutzler how many other facilities of this type does he have in operation in Oregon and how many are in construction? Wally Gutzler replied he currently has 42 facilities of this type in operation, two under construction and probably about three or more by the end of this year in Oregon. He indicated they have about 125 facilities nationwide. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS None TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS Allen Hubenthal, 1223 Henry's Blvd., Woodburn, OR 97071 provided a written statement to the Commission and read it into the record for the viewing public. He reported he lives on the southern boundary of the subject property. Additionally, he indicated it was his belief that the construction of a two-story apartment building overlooking his back yard will diminish the quality of his life to the point that he would no longer wish to live there; and at the same time reduce his property value to the point he may not be able to leave. Mr. Hubenthal also stated prior to March 29, 2000, the subject property was originally four properties totaling 4.3 acres, which consisted of one parcel already in the City and three parcels outside the City but within the UGB designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map as Single Family, less than 12 units per acre. These were acquired by the current owners one at a time as they became available and with full knowledge of their zoning designation but with the expectation of having them re-zoned for apartments. He further reported in 1998 the application process was started for apartments but abandoned when they realized that there was to much community opposition. Mr. Hubenthal stated apartments were the applicants first and second choice except they are attempting to disguise them as something else. From his perspective, the difference is just too subtle to appreciate. However, he may have to change that position if the city fails to put a time frame on the conditional zone change that is proposed. He disagreed with the applicants statement that if the RM re-zoning is restricted in this matter it would not be necessary to have a revision provision reverting the zoning back to RS to prevent the construction of apartments. Mr. Hubenthal said it has already been found that it is not possible for the Comprehensive Plan to revert back; the property consolidation nor the change from RS less than 12 to RS greater than 12. It was his belief that in two or three more years and with perhaps a few more new faces on the Planning Commission that the applicant will be back asking that the Conditional Use provision be removed stating that the assisted living center is feasible after all and arguing that the difference between one apartment and another is pretty subtle after all. He mentioned that in July 2002, the State Assisted Living ,.,enters, which was Legislature imposed a two year moratorium on the licensing of any new extended to June 30, 2005. Mr. Hubenthal remarked Mr. Gutzler will not be able to build the assisted living center if this is extended again. Although he could apply for a license, he would have to meet a much higher standard with regards to proving need. He pointed out the proposal fails to comply with the zone map change criteria. Moreover, the applicant would have had to make a commitment to a much higher percentage of Medicaid patients than they do during non-moratorium times and to be licensed today other facilities would Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 3 of 7 have to have a waiting list. Additionally, if the moratorium is extended, they would have to commission a market research by an independent third party. In closing, Mr. Hubenthal stated the longstanding commitment of the applicant to this particular property renders moot. The applicant has a contractual commitment to this property and they are not interested in anything else. Mr. Hubenthal provided a copy of a letter from Joy Construction to the Commission and read it into the record. The letter stated the zoning should be left as single family residential for the betterment of the community. Commissioner Vancil asked Mr. Hubenthal if he discussed an expectation for the property behind him with the realtor at the time of his purchase? Allen Hubenthal replied he did not buy the property without checking the zoning on the property behind it. Chairperson Lima requested Mr. Hubenthal elaborate on his comment that nobody has asked for construction of nursing homes in this area. Allen Hubenthal clarified Sun West Management has been committed to this prope~ even before they were in on the attempted apartment development prior to the year 2000 when this nursing home came up. He said there is a big difference between looking for a place to locate an assisted living center and looking to locate an assisted living center on a property you already own. APPLICANT REBUTTAL Wall¥ Gutzler clarified Sun West is not in the business of building apartments nor do they own apartments or want apartments. Moreover, they are not in the skilled nursing facility business although they accidentally started in three or four out of all the facilities they have but those are in connection with assisted living facilities and are not stand alone skilled nursing facilities. Mr. Gutzler further reported what they have in mind to build here is an assisted living facility with one building being devoted to memory care and the other part for regular assisted living and nothing else. He addressed the moratorium issue mentioned by Mr. Hubenthal and explained that moratorium required that by the 1st of July, 2001 if you had an application in with the State Health Department for an assisted nursing facility and you had access to the land and were able to show that you would have the ability to acquire the land, you would then be grand fathered during the time of this moratorium. He indicated they had that application on this site since prior to that time and reiterated this moratorium does not affect his application in any way. Mr. Gutzler also addressed Mr. Hubenthal's comment regarding a certificate of need in which they could show a certain need and obtain a license. He explained certificates of need are for skilled nursing facilities. They are currently going through the certificate of need process for skilled nursing unit that they are putting into a facility they own in Yamhill County and on a campus where they have an assisted living, memory care, independent living, cottages and skilled nursing facility building that they are just getting the license for. He clarified a certificate of need does not, in any way, apply to the proposed project. Mr. Gutzler further stated they have a number of facilities in very upscale neighborhoods and fit very well because they build buildings that do not detract from upscale neighborhoods. As far as the availability of that land for single family development, he imagined it could be adapted to single family development. However, single family use of that piece of property would have a much greater impact on the transportation system, school system, noise, etc. than the facility that they are planning because of the number of automobiles and trips involved far exceeding what they would be putting on the property. Mr. Gutzler commented he stood by his statements made four years ago and said they have been very consistent all the way through and changes made were those that were requested by the Commission. DISCUSSION Chairperson Lima closed the public hearing and opened for discussion among the Commissioners. Vice Chairperson Bandelow commented nobody ever likes to do anything that interferes with someone's right to enjoy their property. She sympathized with the residents that back up to this project and understood their concerns. However, she stated she is not certain they would be any better off with two-story homes looking down on their yard because they would be so much closer than what this project will be to their property. Vice Chairperson Bandelow indicated it was her thought for a long time that this facility was a good match to this property and frankly she had not heard anything that changed that. She also remarked there are people actively seeking places to put assisted living facilities in Woodburn at the moment and Woodburn seems to be quite the ideal location according to a lot of prospects. It was her thought that the Commission previously made the right decision on this project by the Commission and saw no reasons to change that. In closing, she said she would be in favor of the proposal. Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 4 of 7 26 Commissioner Griqorieff understood Mr. Hubenthal's concerns. However, assisted living is a different type of an apartment in that it is more restrictive and probably quieter. She stated there are a lot of pros and cons on both sides but she agreed that an assisted living facility is the better way of going for this land. Commissioner Vancit commented it seemed to him that things have changed a lot since five years ago when this project was approved as an assisted living. He said the neighborhood has developed as a single family neighborhood with one apartment complex that is really fairly removed and a water treatment plant. He did not find any compelling reason why it should be changed from single family. Location to the local ambulance service is not something that is particularly relevant for the Commission to consider in tonight's decision rather what we are looking at is land use and whether or not the current land use is proper or whether we should grant a change of the land use to a different more dense land use that is being proposed. Commissioner Vancil did not think it is a good use of the land considering the local lack of developable land inventor,.,, for single family and felt the more logical use of the land is to develop it into single family. Vice Chairperson Bandelow recalled there was a conflict between the two zonings for the same land when it was brought in and the zoning changed. She stated the City had it zoned one way and the County had it zoned another. Therefore, the owner would have had the expectation that he was buying all the single family land at that time. Vice Chairperson Bandelow requested this be clarified. Commissioner Griqorieff asked Staff if that part of land can actually become a single family subdivision? Staff replied it would be difficult for him to comment because they have not seen or looked at any proposals for a single family subdivision on that property, which has not provided them with an opportunity to look at the feasibility of a subdivision. He indicated the property is not ideal for a subdivision because of the shape of the property, the fact that most of the frontage is on a minor arterial street and the fact that there is an apartment complex, treatment facility, church and a commercial use in that area and there is no single family on that side of Country Club Rd. even though in general, it is a residentia~ area. Staff further stated single family can go in there but it will not be very efficient because there will be access problems because of the shape of the property; it is on a minor arterial and you will not get six units per acre as you would on a prime piece of land, which would allow for the maximum residential density. All those factors feed in to the fact that it lends itself well to this type of use. He clarified Staff is certainly not in support of any type of apartment complex, which is why they fashioned it to make it a zone that was restricted to the single family zone uses in addition to assisted living facility only. Moreover, there is no way apartments can be built unless the City Council would either remove that restriction or change the zoning. However, there are no guarantees in land use and the applicant could always come back and propose the same zone change anyway even if the Council rejects the project. In researching, Staff found that the previous zoning on the property was an Urban Transition Farm zoning, which is pretty typical for land within our Urban Growth Boundary near the city. limits. Additionally, our Comprehensive Plan designating what that property would come in as and at the time the property was annexed in it would come in as Iow density residential. Chairperson Lima clarified the Planning Commission's role is to determine if the land use in question is what is applicable, it is not to determine if an applicant is going to make a profit or not. He referred to the comment made regarding ambulance time being important or not. Being in the medical field himself, ambulance response time is important because sometimes timing can be a matter of life and death. Chairperson Lima further clarified the City Council has the prerogative of approving or disapproving the Planning Commission's decision. There are many other venues that can be followed after that if somebody disagrees with the decision. He made reference to the letter from Joy Construction and commented that person may have previous interest in the area because the other houses in the area are selling quickly. In closing, he indicated he supports the application. Vice Chairperson Bandelow made a motion to approve Zone Change 04-04 and instructed Staff return with facts and findings to support that decision. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Griqorieff. Motion carried with Commissioner Vancil voting No. Conditional Use 04-12, request to establish muffler shop at 514 N. Pacific Hwy., David Fontini,. applicant. Application withdrawn by applicant. ITEMS FOR ACTION Planning Commission Meeting ~ January 13, 2005 Page 5 of 7 2"/ A_~. Schedule Special Meeting on Februaw 3, 2005 at 7 pm in the City Council Chambers to conduct Public Hearing on periodic review amendments. star.f, informed the Commission he would expect there will be a lot of people attending this meeting. He indicated it could be likely that the testimony could go late and suggested the Commission think about how to handle testimony and how late they want to go. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to schedule a special meeting for February 3, 2005 to conduct public hearing on Periodic Review Amendments and that a ten minute time limit be installed for those speaking for neighborhood groups and three minutes for individuals. Commissioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS A_:. Presentation by Public Works Del)artment re_qardin_q Boones Ferry Road/Hi.qhwa¥ 214 Improvements. Randy Rohman, Ci~ of Woodburn Public Works Department read from the City Council Meeting minutes of December 13, 2004 in which Councilor Cox stated that for approximately two months the Council was assured by Staff that the reason for the delay in the traffic signal movement was that it was ODOT's fault since they had to approve the City's application. The City now has the permit and is now moving ahead with the temporary signal. However, he felt there was a miscommunication to the Council as to the status of the permit. He had received some information from Planning Commission members that the hold up was on the part of the City and not ODOT. He requested that the Council receive a full report at the earliest possible date. Mr. Rohman clarified the only comment on the Boones Ferry signal that was made to the Planning Commission was made by him at the November 18, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. He read his comments from that meeting. He stated his use of the word "miscommunication" probably was a little incorrect. It was probably more of something as a coordination issue between ODOT, the City's traffic consultant and the City. Mr. Rohman provided the Commission with copies of the report that was prepared for Council. He reviewed the report, which provided the sequence of events of what transpired with the permit process getting that signal completed. He indicated lane configurations needed to be finalized prior to obtaining a permit for the signal. In order to move things along, in June 2004, the traffic consultant submitted plans to ODOT that basically used ODOT's desired lane configuration with the through left and the single right. He said this was done to stay somewhat within the construction schedule of the Boones Ferry improvements and did not want to delay it any further because we wanted that work done while school was done. He said this was not the preferred Staff alternative because they felt it did not best meet the needs of the City. ODOT's position had been consistent that they did not want to change the traffic pattern. Mr. Rohman reported the City worked with ODOT's Traffic Engineering Division, Region 2 Engineering Staff and Permitting Staff with District 3. He further explained they continued to work with ODOT on the separated lane issue even though the City had applied for the permit with this configuration. They received ODOT's comments back, which required changes and were incorporated and plans resubmitted in July. On July 12th the City Council awarded the contract for the temporary signal and the contractor was ready to start soon but we still had not obtained the permit. On August 9th, ODOT's Traffic Division indicated there were more changes that had been sent out to District 3 for the permit application. However, that was lost in the inter-departmental mail but was eventually located and taken down. The City consultant obtained the redlined plans with requested changes on August 19th and the plans were modified and resubmitted on August 20th. There were additional changes required and were again received back to the City on August 30th. Mr. Rohman further reported they had another meeting with ODOT representatives from Region 2 and Traffic Engineering Division between August 20th and August 30th and during that meeting they wanted to discuss what they felt would be the preferred interim alignment. In that meeting, they agreed to the City's position that eventually there would be a three-lane section to the southbound. However, there were some conditions, which he pointed out on a drawing that illustrated what the lane configuration would be in a time period between the existing signal was in place and the temporary signal was installed. Once the temporary signal was installed and operational, ODOT agreed that the final lane configuration would be as you see it out there now with a right-turn a throughway and a left turn. Mr. Rohman indicated at this point all the plan approvals had been for the first attachment. They had to go back to get plan approval for the interim signal configuration (Attachment B) and for the final configuration before the Commission. The permit issued on August 31s~ did not include the modified signal and the traffic consultant modified the signal plans again. They were resubmitted to ODOT Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 Page 6 of 7 28 on September 4th and was approved with minor changes on October 20th; approved plans with some minor changes were received by the City's consultant on October 25t~; changes were inCOrporated into the plans and sent to ODOT District 3 for the permit and to the contractor. On November 8~ District 3 staff were notified by the Traffic Engineering Division that the plans were okay as submitted and that the permit could be issued. The City was notified at the same time. Mr. Rohman indicated they had not done a permit application up to that point and completed the application and submitted on November 16% approved on November 18t~ and work began on November 29% The final testing on the signal was done on January 6% the poles removed and the current stripping configuration was installed. He reported the end configuration of the signal after the construction will be done next summer. He commented there is a new right turn lane westbound on Highway 214. Some of ODOT's initial concerns with not allowing that was that it did not support it at the time, they had concerns about additional delays caused by the additional time required for pedestrian movement across the widened roadway. They will be doing some work on Highway 214 to allow this to happen. There were several meetings with ODOT where they discussed options for including the right-turn lane. Although ODOT engineers did have concerns, eventually the City convinced them that in a very short time we would see traffic that would warrant that right-turn lane being installed. He felt the effort did result in a solution that is in the best interest of the City. In closing, Mr. Rohman apologized to the Commission for any misconceptions he gave because he was probably a little too brief when he answered the question back on November 18% which led to some misconceptions. He stated Councilor Cox's main feeling in his discussions with Planning Commission members was that Public Works staff had been less than honest in its presentations to Council on this plan. Mr. Rohman indicated he wanted to come back and make obviously clear what had happened during the process of getting the signal permit finally approved and go over in some details the reason for the delays. Vice Chairperson Bandelow was very pleased and praised Mr. Rohman for getting that through. Chairperson Lima inquired whether the right lane will encroach into the church? Randy Rohman explained the additional widening will happen on the South side and there will not be a significant change in the way the curbs are on the North side and there will not be any encroachment on the church. They will take a little bit of property and some excess right-of-way on the South side which gets rid of the island, which is one of the safety concerns. There will be a median that will block movements from Church St. and a median along the access to the school on Highway 214 to restrict some movements there. Commissioner Vancil commented the removal of the Westbound right-turn lane from an engineering standpoint perhaps made sense but obviously operationally it did not. He thanked Mr. Rohman for hearing and for fighting for that. REPORTS A_~. Building Activity for December 2004 B__~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 11-30-04) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Gri.qorieff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm. ATTEST APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, Jim M~der, ComMunity Development Director City ~'f Woodburn, Oregon DATE Date Planning Commission Meeting - January 13, 2005 29 Page 7 of 7 8C WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 27, 2005 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lima P Commissioner Vancil A Commissioner Grigorieff P Vice Chairperson Bandelow P Commissioner Hutchison P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Chairperson Lima provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. Staff introduced the new Planning Commissioner Brad Hutchison. Commissioner Hutchison stated he has lived in Woodburn for 5 years and was in the construction industry for 12 years. He then went back to school and obtained a degree and now works in Portland. He indicated he migrated out of Portland back in to a small area and enjoys his time in Woodburn. The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Hutchison. MINUTES A. Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of January 13,2005 Vice Chairperson Bandelow pointed out Commissioner Knoles is listed as making a motion when he was not present at that meeting. Chairperson Bandelow moved to accept the minutes with the noted correction. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A__. Woodburn City Council Work Session Minutes of December 6, _2004 B_~. Woodburn City Council Minutes of December 13, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING A_~. Planned Unit Development 04-05 and Variance 0_4-3_~1 re~luest to modify Links at Tukwila PUD Phase iii to allow 15 ft. rear yard setback, Renaissance Deveiqpment, applicant. EXPARTE CONTACTS Vice Chairperson Bandelow reported she is familiar with the development and has sold property there in the past. Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval of the variance and the modification to the PUD. Planning Commission Meeting - January 27, 2005 Page 1 of 5 30 TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT Michael Robinson, 1120 NW Couch St. 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128 stated he is a land use attorney representing Renaissance Development. He indicated he agreed with the Staff Report and findings. Mr. Robinson made reference to a map and pointed out Phases 3, 4 and 5 and mentioned all of them abut the golf course fairways just like the variances they received in Phases 1 and 2 as well as for the Phases in Ironwood at Tukwila. There are no adjacent neighbors and the lots are fairly shallow at 100 feet or less with the exception of the larger lots. He commented the problem with the larger lots is that they are oddly shaped because of the need to place the street at a particular location relative to the fairway. Mr. Robinson said they are only asking for variances for 20 percent of the lots, which are a total of 9 out of 16 in Phases 3, 10 out of 76 in Phases 4 and 5 for a total of 19 lots out of 92. This is to accommodate the same type of dwellings, footprints and size they have been developing in Phases 1 and 2. Mr. Robinson further commented they agreed with Staff's analysis of the application that they submitted as it addresses the criteria and they have asked for the minimum variance necessary to achieve their goals to have the same kind of product consistent with the prior development. Randy Sebastian, Renaissance Development, 16771 Boones Ferry_Rd., Lake Oswego, 97035 he reported back in 1996-1999 when they were going through the approval for Phases I and 2, the road and fairway configuration required .95 ft. deep lots. He explained you can only build functional houses so small until they become unfunctionai and pointed out there is really no way in 40 ft. wide to make them 55 ft. deep. Mr. Sebastian said people are not maintaining huge yards in the 15 ft. and the owners have been fine with that. Furthermore, that was on virtually all the lots on Phases I and 2 and again they are only 20 percent on Phases 4 and 5. In closing, Mr. Sebastian indicated he appreciated the Commission's flexibility and attention. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENT Chuck Gregory, W & H Pacific, 9755 SW Barnes Rd. Suite 300, Portland,_OR 97225 added the Ironwood subdivision adjacent and across the golf course was granted a variance for a reduction in the rear yard setback and that reduction was down to 10 ft. and on the limited lots they are only asking for a reduction to 15ft. TESTIMONY BY OPPONENT None DISCUSSION Chairperson Lima closed the public hearing and opened up for discussion among the Commission. Vice Chairperson Bandelow provided a brief history of the various variances granted in the past for Renaissance development for the benefit of Commissioner Hutchison. She further commented as far as she was concerned she saw no reason not to grant the variances at this point. Commissioner Hutchison stated he was aware of the previous variances obtained in the prior two phases. Commissioner Grigorieff saw no problems with the request. Chairperson Lima thought this was a straight forward application and he had no issues with it. Vice Chairperson Bande!ow moved to approved Planned Unit Development 04-05 and Variance 04-31 and instructed Staff return with a Final Order with facts and findings. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. B_~. Planned Unit Development 04-06 and Variance 04-32, request to modify Links at Tukwila PUD Phases IV and V to allow 15 ft. rear yard setbacki Renaissance Development, applicant. EXPARTE CONTACTS None Page 2 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 27, 2005 31 The applicable ORS Statement was read and a presentation was provided by Staff as reflected in the Staff Report. He reported this is essentially the same request as the previous application that the Commission just acted upon although this applies to Phases 4 and 5 of the Links at Tukwila. Approval was recommended by Staff of the reduction of the rear yard setback on the named lots. TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT Michael Robinson, 1120 NW Couch St. 10th Floor,?ortland, OR 97209-4128 incorporated testimony by reference from the prior matter and asked the Commission approve the application consistent with the Staff recommendation. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENT None TESTIMONY BY OPPONENT None DISCUSSION The public hearing was closed by Chairperson Lima and opened to Commission discussion. Vice Chairperson Bandelow made a motion to approved Planned Unit Development 04-06 and Variance 04-32 for Phases 4 and 5 of the Links at Tukwila and instructed Staff return with a final order and facts and findings to support that order. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Grigorieff, which carried unanimously. C. Legislative Amendment 05-02~_City-initiated proposal to amend the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Staff indicated there was no need to read the ORS Statement because this is a Type 5 Legislative action and not a quasi-judicial land use action and is therefore not subject to the same rules. He reported this is a proposal initiated by City Council to revise the text of the Woodburn Development Ordinance. As with anything that is new, it had not been tried and exercised in a way to work out all the bugs. It was anticipated in the Development Ordinance that the Council should consider amending it on an annual basis based on any new legislation, scrivner errors that are discovered, any changes in policies or just through the application of the code where situations would arise where it just seemed like the code did not really apply correctly in certain situations. He further reported based on that each year Staff goes forward to the Council and recommends certain changes that should be made and the Council would then be able to supplement that as they desire. As of November of 2004, the Council did initiate a list of issues to be addressed by Staff in potentially updating the code. He further stated the list has been broken down in to two different sections, those with issues that require Measure 56 Notice and those that would not require Measure 56 Notice. Staff indicated the items before the Commission tonight are not items that affect someone's permissible uses of their property directly. Staff reported the Mayor appointed a focus group that consisted of former Planning Commissioner Knoles, Councilor Cox and a representative of the community at large, Dave Christoff. Moreover, what is before the Commission tonight is what came out of the focus group as far as what they agreed to as to what should go forward. He further indicated the Commission would be making a recommendation on the proposed changes to the City Council and the Council would provide final approval and adopt an ordinance implementing them. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare a Final Order to recommend that the City Council adopt the draft revisions. He explained the focus group draft would go forward to the Council as well as the Planning Commission Final Order, which would contain any proposed changes that the Commission recommends that the Council consider to the focus group draft. Vice Chairperson Bandelow questioned whether trellises, arbors and other garden type items were addressed in the original ordinance? Staff responded they were not addressed in the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) but they were Page 3 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 27, 2005 32 not addressed either in the old Zoning Ordinance. He stated both Ordinances stated that you could not have any structures in the front yard unless they were specifically exempted. None of those items were exempt but yet they are structures and therefore, technically they were not allowed. Staff further explained picket fences or arbors were not allowed if they were taller than the allowable fence height. He clarified if was not that we had any practical difficulty with this and we have never been presented with a situation where Staff had to go out and enforce the code. However, it is something that was not clear in the code and therefore, we are trying to clarify it now. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS None TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS None DISCUSSION Chairperson Lima closed the public hearing and opened for discussion among the Commissioners. yice Chairperson Bandelow asked Staff if we have been calculating non-habitable spaces in the window calculation in the past? Staff replied that was one of the first glitches found in the Ordinance. He indicated architectural standards for single family were not included in the previous code. Staff explained the code provisions stated the fa§ade of the house, which would mean any wall area whether that be a wall area as part of the garage or under the peak of the roof of the garage. That penalized you for having a higher pitched roof because that gave you more surface area, which meant you would have to have more window and would force you in to a variance. He further reported they tried to remove that from the definition of the fa(;;ade taking out the garage and any area that is underneath the peak under a gable roof, essentially looking at habitable wall areas. Chairperson Lima requested clarification regarding Item #18 and questioned if the 1,000 sq. ft. is the size of the addition or the original structure? Staff clarified the original intent was to say you could go through administrative design review if you were less than 1,000 ft. or if you were doing a building addition that was less than ten percent of your existing area. He said the application would be Type ii if under 1,000 ft. and Type 3 if over 1,000 ft. Vice Chairperson Bandelow made a motion to direct Staff to prepare a Final Order recommending that the City Council adopt the draft revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. ITEMS FOR ACTION A_~. Final Order for Zone Change 04-04~_ request to change z_o_ning from Single Family Residential (RS) to Medium Density Residential (RM) at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Roa__ d, Tony Krietzberg, _applicant. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adopt the Final Order. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff reminded the Commission of the Special Planning Commission Meeting on February 3rd on the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update - Periodic Review and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. Staff informed the Commission there were two pages missing (Section 2.1) from the Proposed Revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (copies were provided). REPORTS None Page 4 of 5 Planning Commission Meeting - JanuaO, 27, 2005 33 BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION None ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON oAr- DATE ATTEST Jim MLdder, Co .mmunity Development Director Cityof Woodburn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - January 2Z 2005 34 Page 5 of 5 8]) MINUTES Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board Tuesday, February 8, 2005 7:00 pm City Council Chambers DRAFT 1. Herb Mittmann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7 pm 2. Roll Call Members present: Herb Mittmann, Chair; Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary; Ann Meyer, Member; Bruce Thomas, Member; Joseph Nicoletti, Member, Cristal Sandoval, Member Staff present: Randy Westrick, Director; Barbara Nugent, Recreation Services Manager, Paulette Zastoupil, A.A. m Board Resignation Herb Mittmann announced that resignation. Brad was appointed Commission Board. Brad Hutchison had submitted his to the City of Woodburn's Planning Approval of Minutes from January 11, 2005. Motion to accept the minutes was made by Herb Mittmann and seconded by Bruce Thomas. Business from the Audience: None. Division Reports Recreation and Leisure Services - Barbara Nugent Barbara reported that Men's Basketball was coming to an end, and the season went well. The Teen Scene computers are being placed at Legion, after the security system is in place. The Woodburn Teens have had fun at the Pool Parties and the Middle School Dances. Youth Basketball has been extended one week to end on March 12th because of the icy weather. Baseball registration started February 7th and will run through March 11th. Day of The Child is a big event for the City of Woodburn in which our division will be involved in on Saturday, April 30th. Barbara reported that the play equipment at Legion Park has been pulled due to safety concerns. Bruce Thomas asked about the safety of the equipment at Settlemier. Barbara explained that she checks the equipment on a regular basis, due to the parks play equipment being used during sports events and she feels responsible. Joseph Nicoletti asked if there were inspection schedules, and Barbara explained that the City is required to do monthly inspections of all playground equipment. 35 Aquatics Division -Steve Newport The Aquatic Center report was in written form. Randy announced that the Aquatic Center would be open on President's Day. Ann Meyer's reported that the last movie night a PG-13 movie was played and felt that it was not appropriate for families and young children. She asked that on movie night only PG movies be played. Parks and Facilities - Randy Westrick Mill Creek Greenway Master Plan Randy shared that the City of Woodbum's Community Development and the Public Works Departments are currently reviewing the draft plan. A draft in final form will be presented to the Task Force and Board in March, Community Center Task Force - Status Report Randy reported that the City Council approved a budget to retain MIG to complete the legion Park Master Plan. Dave Walters of MIG plans to attend the March Board meeting and share 3-5 schematics for Legion Park with the Community Center included. The schematics will show a series of options for review and final selection to recommend a final scheme to the City Council. Herb Mittmann explained to the Board that a decision would not be made until the board reviewed the schemes several times and revisions were made and all possible questions answered. Herb explained to the Board that they have to make sure that Legion Park is the right choice for the Community Cultural Center. The Board requested that MIG provide a copy of the schematics by March 2® so they would have time to review them before the March Board meeting. Also, the Board requested MIG to present the schematics at an Open House on March 8th at 6:00 pm where the public would have an opportunity to provide their input. Presentation - Woodburn Art Center Barbara Nugent reported that the Woodburn Art Center could not make the meeting. She shared that she is in contractual agreement for art classes for summer. Future Board Business · Next meeting, March 8, 2005 · Mill Creek Greenway Master Plan Review Open House 6:00 PM · Board Comments None. Meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary Date Paulette Zastoupil, Recording Secretary Date 36 8F WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY 2005 I. CIRCULATION: Previous: 2004 13,587 Current: 12,676 2003 12,972 Adult: 10,406 2002 13,660 Children: 2,270 In-House Use: II. INTERLIBRARY LOAN Books Loaned: 2,469 CCRLS: In-state special: Ail other in-state: Out-of-state: Books Borrowed: CCRLS: In-state special: III. REFERENCE All other in-state: Out-of-state: Woodburn Re~rrals Other Total 2005 623 1 532 1,156 2004 959 39 1,121 2,119 2003 978 40 1,206 2,224 2002 1,083 78 1,369 2,530 Database Usage: (Not all databases included) Dec. 2005 Dec. 2004 Dec. 2003 714 458 IV. COMPUTER USAGE 2005 2004 2003 2005 2004 2003 Adults 2,417 2,255 Avg/open hrs 11.14 9.44 Children: 1,083 956 1,046 Avg/open hrs 4.45 4.41 4.38 V. LIBRARY SPONSORED PROGRAMS Adults: 0 No. Attending: 0 Children: 26 No. Attending: 508 VI. VOLUNTEER HOURS WORKED: 161.25 VII. FINANCE 13,550.53 JANUARY 2005 38 CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development 8G MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5250 Date: February 1,2005 To: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director From: Building Division Subject: Building Activity for January 2005 2003 2004 2005 Dollar Dollar Dollar No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount New Residence Value 12 $1,752,128 5 $903,783 4 $740,422 Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Assisted Living Facilities0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Residential Adds & Alts 2 $22,653 1 $10,692 2 $78,996 Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Commercial Value 8 $1,341,826 6 $52,392 4 $80,782 Signs, Fences, Driveways 0 $0 2 $300 3 $9,985 Manufactured Homes 0 $0 1 $40,000 0 $0 TOTALS 22 $3,116,607 15 $1,007,167 13 $910,185 Fiscal Year (July 1 - $12,716,910 $20,269,907 $16,476,095 June 30) to Date h\Community Devetopment\Btdg\Buitding Activity\BldgAct*2005\Btdg Activity - Memos~activ~anuary 2005,wpd 8H 81 888°°°°8888888888°°°°°88888~8°oo ~ ~o~ ~8888888888888°°°°°~o~88 ©ooooo oo©o~ ooooooo oo ooo o oooo ooooooo o ooooooooooo~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc~oooo ~ oooo oooooooooo oooooooooooooooooo oooooooo 0 © ~ ~ ~ ~x ~o~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~°°°~× ~ ~ooo~ ......... oo8 ..... oo8 ....... o8 ...... 8oooo~oo~ooo°8 0 E~ o2~oo,2 .... oo o8 °o o 8 .... oo ....... ~8 ........ o oo oooooo© oo oo ooo ooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo ,:!-6 © cD 0 February 9, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: N. Robert Shields, City Attorney/~/'~ ~ SUBJECT: Public Contracting Status Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report. BACKGROUND: The 2003 Oregon Legislature adopted the Oregon Public Contracting Code. This is a comprehensive revision of public contracting law, consisting of hundreds pages of text contained in three additional ORS chapters. The new law also required that the Oregon Attorney General adopt "Model Rules" implementing its provisions. The Model Rules are also voluminous. Both the new code and the Model Rules are effective March 1,2005. While the new code and rules will benefit the City in certain respects, City staff will undoubtedly be challenged by their initial implementation. To help meet this challenge, there are many training sessions conducted by a variety of groups. City staff attended one session last year that generally addressed the revisions. The League of Oregon Cities is conducting another session on February 16, 2005, that will deal specifically with changes in procedures. I will be attending this session and am encouraging all department heads and mid- managers who work with public contracting to also attend. DISCUSSION: At your February 28, 2005 meeting, I intend to present for your consideration a basic ordinance designed to allow City staff to function under the new law. As a more long-term solution, the City should consider adoption of its own local public contracting rules, to the degree that this is permitted under state law. Many jurisdictions are in the process of drafting new local public contracting rules, although few have completed this task. The adoption of new local public Agenda Item Review: City Administrator~ City Attorney P~-~ Finance Honorable Mayor and City Council February 9, 2005 Page 2 contracting rules in Woodburn would be a substantial undertaking, requiring the support of Council and City Administrator and significant staff time. However, it could result in rules that are more suited to the local environment and are easier to enforce and administer. The find draft of the basic ordinance is still being discussed with the City Administrator and will not be presented until the next Council meeting. It is anticipated that the ordinance will: Re-designate the City Council as the "Contract Review Board" under the new code. · Designate the City Administrator [and delegated staff) as the "Contracting Agency" under the new code. Establish basic 'class exemptions" for certain types of public contracts. (This will probably require that a public hearing be conducted on the proposed exemptions. If necessary, I intend to have this hearing noticed so that the Council can conduct it immediately prior to consideration of the ordinance.) Delegate certain authority to the City Administrator for contracts not to exceed certain threshold amounts. The City Administrator will still be required to comply with the ordinance and other applicable law when these contracts are executed. Establish basic procedures for entering into personal services contracts. Contracts for architectural and engineering services are already subject to the requirements of the Model Rules. However, it is important that the City have procedures in place for other personal services contracts at the time the new code becomes effective. Take effect on March 1,2005. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. 50 llA February 14, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Matt Smith, Management Analyst ii Ordinance Amending the Noise Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Ordinance 2312 (The Woodburn Noise Ordinance) to reduce certain decibel levels. BACKGROUND: At its September 13, 2004 meeting, the City Council considered citizen concerns regarding noise levels at events held at City facilities. The Council referred the matter to the Livability Task Force to conduct a public discussion on the City's Noise Ordinance. The Task Force sent a meeting notice to concerned citizens and published the notice in the paper, conducted a meeting and received oral and written testimony from the public, consulted with City staff, and prepared recommendations that were presented to Council on January 24, 2005 At that meeting, Council expressed agreement with the Task Force recommendations, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting the recommendations. DISCUSSION: The attached revisions are expected to address many of the problems identified by members of the public, and better reflects the borderline between acceptable and unacceptable noise levels in the community, it is recommended that your Council adopt the attached ordinance, and revisit the issue in one year or less, if necessary, to evaluate the effectiveness and enforceability of the change based on actual enforcement experience. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~ City Attorney __ Financ~ 51 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The costs of enforcing ordinance revisions and amounts of offsetting fine revenues are unknown. This information will be tracked, and presented to Council for its consideration as part of the annual evaluation of this activity. COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2312 (THE WOODBURN NOISE ORDINANCE} TO REDUCE CERTAIN DECIBEL LEVELS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, on September 13, 2004, the Council received public comment from citizens concerned about noise issues; and WHEREAS, the Council referred the matter to the Woodburn Livability Task Force to conduct a public discussion on the City's Noise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Livability Task Force sent a meeting notice to concerned citizens and published the notice in the paper, conducted a meeting and received oral and written testimony from the public, consulted with City staff, and prepared recommendations that were presented to Council on January 24, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amending the Noise Ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the Woodburn Livability Task Force; and WHEREAS, the revisions to the Noise Ordinance are expected to improve enforcement issues, and are believed to better reflect the border line between acceptable and unacceptable noise levels in the community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 6A of Ordinance 2312 is amended to read as follows: A. It shall be unlaWful for any person to produce or permit to be produced, with any sound producing device which when measured at or ,within the boundary of the property on which a noise sensitive unit is located which is not the source of the sound, which sound exceeds the following levels: ~,~ ,.,~,¢¢ dBA at any time between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.,m. of the following day where the property receiving the noise has a residential zoning designation. (2) same day where designation. 65 dBA at any time between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. of the the property receiving the noise has a residential zoning Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 53 (3) 60 dBA at any time between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day where the property receiving the noise has a zoning designation 'which is not residential. (4) 75 dBA at any time between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. of the same day where the property receiving the noise has zoning designation which is not residential. Section 2. Emer.qency Clause. 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 form: ~"~,~'~"-//~~ City Attorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 54. 11B February 9, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator VIA: Director of Public Works FROM: David Torgeson, P.E.- Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement for Highway 214 Sidewalk - Phase 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, and authorize the City Administrator to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT to construct Phase 2 of the Highway 214 sidewalk project. BACKGROUND: City Council approved application for Bicycle Pedestrian Grant at the regular meeting on June 28, 2004. Staff submitted an application on July 1, 2004, requesting $480,500 in grant funds to complete pedestrian walks on the north side of Highway 214, west of (and including) the Front Street Ramp. The project is also intended to include a pedestrian refuge island situated in the throat of the Front Street Ramp, just before its intersection with Highway 214. The current conditions require pedestrians to cross the ramp, unprotected, a distance of about 140 feet. The new sidewalk will be on the east side of the ramp, where greatest safety for pedestrians, at least construction cost occurs. The ramp is intended to reduce the exposure of pedestrians, and is necessary for reasons of safety, On October 29, 2004, ODOT informed staff that the application for grant monies had been approved. ODOT has sent an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that establishes the grant requirements. A copy of the IGA is attached. Agenda Item Review: City Attorney ~,.~ Finance 55 Mayor and City Council February 9, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The IGA must receive approval by elected officials before it will be considered by ODOT, and funds from the grant released. ODOT indicated in their December 29, 2004 letter (copy attached) that signed documents must be received at ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian office by February 18, 2005. ODOT has made assurances that: "Should the Iow bid come in substantially higher than the $505,000 estimate: 1. Collectively, we will try to secure extra funding 2. Collectively, we will look at elements of the project that can be reduced or eliminated to reduce the overall cost. 3. We can encourage you to re-advertise, just in case the bids were high because of poor timing. 4. Should none of the above get us a project we can both suppod, we may terrninate the agreement by mutual written consent." FINANCIAL IMPACT: A grant of $480,500 will be made available for engineering and construction of sidewalks in Highway 214, as shown in the Application dated July 22, 2004. According to estimates prepared in connection with the Application, the city will be responsible for local matching funds of $25,000. The work will be completed by October 31,2008. ATTACHMENTS: IGA Number 22253 Letter from Michael Ronkin (ODOT) dated December 29, 2004 Resolution COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO WALKWAY/BIKEWAY PROJECT AGREEMENT NO. 22253 WITH THE STATE OF OREGON AND AUTHORIZING THE CI~ ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the State of Oregon acting through the Oregon Transportation Commission is authorized to enter into agreements and disburse funds for the purpose of performing work on certain types of improvement projects pursuant to ORS 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, and WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn has applied for Walkway/Bikeway grant funding to design and construct sidewalks on OR 214 from Milepost 38.40 to Milepost 38.54, sidewalks on the Front Street ramp from OR 214 to Front Street and a pedestrian crossing island at the intersection of the OR214/Front Street ramp, and WHEREAS, the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, has been designated to evaluate and select recipients of Walkway/Bikeway grant funding , to coordinate grant applications and to administer the disbursement, by authority granted in ORS 366.514, of funds received from the State Highway Trust Fund for establishment of footpaths, and WHEREAS, the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, has approved $480,500 in walkway/bikeway grant funding for the City of Woodburn to be used to design and construct sidewalks on OR 214 from Milepost 38.40 to Milepost 38.54, sidewalks on the Front Street ramp from OR 214 to Front Street and a pedestrian crossing island at the intersection of the OR214/Front Street ramp, NOW THEREFORE; THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section !. That the City of Woodburn enter into Walkway/Bikeway Grant Agreement No. 22253, which is affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, with the State of Oregon acting by and through the Oregon Department of Transportation. Pursuant to the agreement, the City will design and Page 1- COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION construct sidewalks on OR 214 from Milepost 38.40 to Milepost 38.54, sidewalks on the Front Street ramp from OR 214 to Front Street and a pedestrian crossing island at the intersection of the OR214/Front Street ramp. Section 2. That the City Administrator of the City of Woodburn is authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City. city Attorney Date APPROVED: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Theodore R. Kulongosk& Governor December 29, 2004 Department of Transp°nation Bicycl~e and Pedestrian Program Roadway Engineering Section 355 Capitol St. NE, Rm. 222 Salem, OR, 97301 Telephone (503) 986-3555 FAX (503) 986-3749 michaeLp.ronkin@odot.state.or.us David TorgeSon Assistant City Engineer 190 Garfield Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Subject: Pedestrian project grant agreement #22253 Project: Sidewalks/Pedestrian Crossing Island Street: Hwy 214 Cost: $505,550 State share: $480,500 Your share: $25,000 Enclosed are four copies of the agreement for this project. Please note the following: The first half of the grant ($240,250) will be available July 1, 2005; you must submit a written request for the first half. A set of plans must be submitted to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Office for approval before any construction work begins (and local ODOT office for projects on state highways). The standards of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan should be met. · Construction should begin by July 1, 2006 and should be completed by October 31, 2008; however, we encourage you to complete the project by June 30, 2007 to stay within the awarded biennium. Additionally, this project must be complete before you may apply for subsequent grants. Final payment will be released upon completion of the project and inspection by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program office or an ODOT representative. Please obtain signatures on all four copies and return them to our office at your earliest convenience, but no later than February 18, 2005. Failure to execute the agreement by this date may result in loss of state funding for this project. Please call me if you have any quest~ions. Sincerely, Michael Ronkin Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager 59 Apal~aeAC.~IM£NT~isc. Contracts and Agreements age ~.. of.___.~ No.22253' WALKWAY/BIKEWAY PROJECT AGREEMENT OR214 Sidewalks and Pedestrian Crossing Island THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State"; and the City of Woodbum, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency." RECITALS 1. Hillsboro-Silverton Highway (OR214), is a part of the state highway system under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission. Front Street ramp is a part of the city street system under the jurisdiction and control of city. By the authority granted in ORS 366.514, funds received from the State Highway Trust Fund are to be expended by the State and the various counties and cities for the establishment of footpaths and bicycle trails. For purposes of Article IX, Section 3(a), of the Oregon Constitution, the establishment and maintenance of such footpaths and bicycle trails are for highway, road, and street purposes when constructed within the dght of way. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110,366.572 and 366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing recitals, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT Under such authority, State and Agency agree to design and construct sidewalks on OR 214 from Milepost 38.40 to Milepost 38.54 and on Front Street ramp from OR 214 to Front Street, and a pedestrian crossing island at the intersection of OR 214/Front Street ramp, hereinafter referred to as "Project." The location of the Project is approximately as shown on'the sketch map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," and by this reference made a part hereof. Agency has determined that the actual total cost of the Project is estimated to be $505,550. State shall fund the Project in an amount not to exceed $480,500. Agency shall provide a match in the amount of $25,000 and shall be responsible for any portion of the Project which is not covered by State funding. 60 ATTAC;I'iMI:N I City of Woodbum/ODOT Page _'~- of Agreement No. 22253 3. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date all required signatures are obtained. Construction shall be completed no later than October 31, 2008. Agreement shall terminate upon completion of construction and final payment, or five calendar years, whichever is sooner, unless extended by a fully executed amendment. Maintenance responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement. AGENCY OBLIGATIONS Agency shall conduct the documents; advertise for construction of the Project. necessary field surveys, prepare plans and contract bid proposals, award alt contracts, and supervise 2. Agency shall obtain a miscellaneous permit to occupy State right-of-way through the State Distdct 3 Office pdor to the commencement of construction. Agency shall submit a copy of the plans and specifications to State through the State Distdct 3 Office and the State's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager for review and concurrence pdor to advertising for a construction contract or pdor to construction, if Agency forces will perform the construction work. Concurrence must be received from both State offices prior to proceeding with the Project. The Project design, signing, and marking shall be in conformance with the current Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 4. Agency shall not award a construction contract until State's District 3 representative has reviewed and approved the Iow bidder's proposal and costs. 5. Agency shall, upon completion of Project, submit to State Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager an itemized statement of the final actual total cost of the Project. 6. Agency represents that this Agreement is signed by personnel duly authorized to do so by the City Council. 7. Agency shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work scheduled under this Agreement without obtaining prior written approval. Agency agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320, and 279.555, which hereby are incorporated by reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Agency expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Riqhts Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 2 61 City of WoOdburn/ODOT Agreement No. 22253 ATTACI~IMENT~ Page..(~.~ of 9. Agency shall require its contractor to indemnify State and name State as a third party beneficiary of the resulting contract and shall carry at a minimum personal injury and property damage insurance with a single limit of $1,000,000 for all claims arising out of a single accident or occurrence. Agency shall also inure that the contractor also provide an additional $1,000,000 excess insurance coverage over the basic $1,000,000 coverage. Each annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000 when applicable. The contractor shall include Agency and State as named insured on policies issued for this Project, or shall furnish an additional insured endorsement naming the same as additional insured to the contractor's existing public liability and property damage insurance, The certificate of insurance shall include the State of Oregon, Transportation Commission and its members, Department of Transportation, officers and employees as additional insured. Agency shall provide a copy of the certificate to State prior to construction of the Project. The insurance coverage shall not be amended, altered, modified or cancelled insofar as the coverage contemplated herein is concerned without at least 30 days prior written notice. 10.Agency shall indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the State of Oregon, the Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, the Oregon Department of Transportation, their officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, losses, damages, costs, expenses, and liabilities of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of, or relating to the activities of Agency or its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents under this Agreement. 11 .Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under paragraph 10 above, neither party nor any attorney engaged by either party shall defend any claim in the name of the other party or any agency/department/division of such other party, nor purport to act as legal representative of the other party or any of its agencies/departments/divisions, without the prior written consent of the legal counsel of such other party. Each party may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that the other party is prohibited from defending it, or that other party is not adequately defending it's interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the party to do so. Each party reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against the other if it elects to assume its own defense. 12. Agency shall be responsible for all costs not covered by State funding. State funding is limited to $480,500. !3.,Agency shall be responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement, including but not limited to, retirement system contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal withholdings. City of Woodburn/ODOT Agreement No. 22253 14. AII employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Agency shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements. 15. Agency shall, upon completion of Project, maintain the Project at its own cost and expense, and in a manner satisfactory to State. STATE OBLIGATIONS 1. State grants authority to Agency to enter upon State right-of-way for the construction of this Project as provided for in miscellaneous permit to be issued by State District 3 Office. State's local Distdct Office and Bicycle and Pedestrian Program shall review and must concur in the plans prepared by Agency before the Project is advertised for a construction contract or before construction begins if Agency forces shall perform the work. State's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program office shall process all billings submitted by Agency. Upon receipt of notification that the Agency is prepared to proceed with the development of Project, State shall deposit with Agency the sum of $240,250, such amount being equal to 50 percent of the State's share of the estimated Project costs. Upon completion of Project, inspection and approval by State staff, and receipt from Agency of an itemized statement of the actual total cost of the Project, State shall deposit with Agency a final payment, the sum of $240,250, such amount being equal to 50 percent of the State's share of the estimated Project costs. When added to the initial deposit, the final deposit will equal the State's share of the originally estimated costs ($505,550). Should final Project costs exceed the original estimate, extra costs shall be borne by Agency; the maximum amount of State reimbursement is $480,500. If final Project costs are less than odginal estimate, State shall deposit with Agency a final payment in an amount which, when added to the initial deposit, would equal the State's proportionate share of the originally estimated costs, based on a percentage calculated using State share and local match. State certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within State's current appropriation or limitation of current biennial budget. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both parties. 4 63 City of Woodburn/ODOT Agreement No. 22253 Page of State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If Agency fails to perform_ any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as State may authorize. Co If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. If any funds are remaining from the advance deposit, they shall be refunded to State. State, the Secretary of State's Office of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of Agency which are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of three years after final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by State. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary State approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of a party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by a party of that or any other provision. 5 64 City of )DOT Agreement N6 22253 Page IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have set their hands as of the day and year hereinafter written. The Oregon Transportation Commission approved this Project on November 17, 2003 as part of the Fiscal Year 2004-2007 Local Assistance Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. The funds are included in the Statewide Programs Section of the 2004-2007 Statewide Transportation Improvement Pro.qram (STIP.), _ The Oregon.Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Order NO, 3, paragraph 12, WhiCh authorizes the Director and Deputy Director, Highways to approve and execute all agreements pertaining to OTC approved local grant program agreements for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Signature Page to Follow 6 65 City of Wo°dburn/ODOT Agreement No. 22253 ATTAC~IMENT?~ Paae ~.~ .~.~,.. On October 8, 2004, the Director and Deputy DirectSr, 'H~ghways approved Subdelegation Order No. 4, Paragraph 10, in which the Director and Deputy Director, Highways delegates authority to the Technical Services Manager/Chief Engineer to approve and execute all agreements pertaining to OTC approved local grant program agreements for bicycle and pedestrian projects. City' of Woodbur~., by and through its elected officials STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation By BY Technical Services ManagedChief Title Engineer Date Date By APPROVAL RECOMMENDED Title By Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager Date By Region Manager City Counsel Date Date By District 3 Manager Agency Contact: City of Woodburn Attn: David Torgeson, Assistant City Engineer 190 Garfield Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By Assistant Attorney General Date: 7 66 City of Woodburn/ODOT Agreement No. 22253 EXHIBIT A Pag E30 Zr'r' LJJEL 810 z OLd oj ('4(.3 Z -J t~ / 70 3212 co 03C.) 0 o-r- 2:0 .tO ~-z O~ 8 11C · February 11,2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement for Special Weapons and Tactics Team RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Administrator to sign an agreement with the Marion County Sheriff's Office for joint participation in a Special Weapons and Tactics Team. BACKGROUND: Since 1998, the Woodburn Police Department has participated as a partner with the Marion County Sheriff's Office as part of the multi-agency Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT). The Woodburn Police Department has maintained two (2) police officers as members of the SWAT team and one police officer as a member of the Hostage Negotiation Team, which is attached to the SWAT Team. SWAT's mission is to support the involved agencies by preparing to respond to critical incidents with a highly trained and skilled tactical team. Since its inception, the Marion County Interagency Swat Team has served the citizens of Woodburn on numerous occasions. They have assisted the Woodburn Police Department in the service of high-risk search warrants, in resolving barricaded suspect and potential hostage calls, and in training our department members in tactical operations. Members assigned to the SWAT team have '~'~' ~lned invaluable training and experience in planning and carrying out difficult and often dangerous tactical situations. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~ City Attorney Finance& Mayor and City Council February 11,2005 Page 2 n order to formalize the relationship between the various police agencies involved in the Marion County Interagency SWAT Team, the attached Intergovernmental Agreement has been drafted and reviewed by the involved agencies, legal counsel, and the insurance carrier. DISCUSSION: If approved, the agreement would be effective immediately and perpetually. It would continue to provide SWAT Team services and maintain our partnership with the Marion County Sheriff's Office and the other member agencies including; Stayton Police, Mt. Angel Police, Silverton Police, and Marion County Fire District 1. The broad spectrum of capabilities, resources, expertise, and duties conducted by the SWAT Team provide great benefits to both the police departments and the public alike. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funding for SWAT positions, training, and equipment are identified within the Woodburn Police Department budget for fiscal year 2004-2005. COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARION COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF MOUNT ANGEL, STAYTON, AND SILVERTON PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION ON THE MARION COUNTY INTERAGENCY SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS {SWAT) TEAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Marion County has developed, trained, and equipped a police special weapons and tactics team ("SWAT" team) to respond to certain law enforcement situations; and WHEREAS, the cities of Woodburn, Mount Angel, Stayton, and Silverton are already parties to an intergovernmental agreement under which Marion County will provide its SWAT team to handle situations within its expertise; and WHEREAS, since 1998, the Woodburn Police Department has maintained two police officers as members of the SWAT team and one police officer as a member of the hostage negotiation team which is attached to the SWAT team; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to formalize the relationship between these various police agencies and Marion County with an intergovernmental agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, That the City of Woodburn enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Marion County, Mount Angel, Stayton, and Silverton for participation in the Marion County interagency special weapons and tactics (SWAT) team. Section 2. That a copy of said Agreement is affixed to this Resolution as Attachment "A" and is by this reference incorporated herein. Section 3. That the City Administrator of the City of Woodburn is hereby authorized to sign said Agreement on behalf of the City. Approved as to form: City Attorney Da Page 1 - Council Bill No. Resolution No. 70 Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Council Bill No. Resolution No. Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Approved: / Joh,~. Brown, City Administrator Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Council Bill No. Resolution No. ATTACHMENT P~ge- i o~ INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Between Marion County, Oregon A political subdivision of the State of Oregon ("Marion County") And The City of Woodburn, An Oregon municipal corporation (',Woodbum") And The City of Mt. Angel, An Oregon municipal corporation ("Mt. Angel") And The City of Stayton, An Oregon municipal corporation ("Stayton") And The City of Silverton, An Oregon municipal corporation ("Silverton") For the purpose of Providing for Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton participation on the Madon County !nteragency Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT). This agreement is entered into under ORS 190.010, and does not create a separate governmental entity. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits and obligations resulting from this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: DEFINITIONS: As used herein, the term "Party" or "Parties" means one or more of the parties that are signatory to this agreement. 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 1.1 Marion County has developed, trained and equipped a police Special Weapons and Tactics Team ("SWAT" team) to respond to law enforcement situations where special tactical operations and equipment are needed. ATTACHMENT Page ~_ of ~ 1.2 Under this Agreement, Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton will each provide swom and certified law enforcement officers to train with and act on call as members of the Madon County Interagency SWAT Team. Except as specially limited or particularly provided in this Agreement, such officers shall be regarded as full members of the SWAT Team without regard to their employer agency. 1.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton shall remain the respective employers of the officers they provide under this Agreement although they shall have no authority to direct, control, or supervise such officers while they are engaged in SWAT training or SWAT activation under the direction and control of Madon Coun.ty. 2. WOODBURN, MT. ANGEL, STAYTON AND SILVERTON OBLIGATIONS 2.5 2.1 Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton shall initially nominate one sworn law enforcement office certified by the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. Such candidates shall meet the same physical, experience, and psychological qualifications as required by Marion County lnteragency SWAT team candidates from the Marion County Shedff's Office. If acceptable to Mad0n County the candidate shall become a SWAT team member, 2.2 Each agency shall compensate its officers whO. are SWAT team members engaged in training and SWAT activations according to applicable pay plans and collective bargaining agreements. Marion County shall not be responsible for directly or indirectly compensating Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton or Silverton employees. 2.3 Each agency shall be solely responsible for providing Workers Compensation insurance or self-insurance as required under Oregon Law, and for providing such personal insurance benefits as are required by applicable laws, collective bargaining agreements, and intemal agency administrative policies for their respective employees. Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton shall not be eligible for any benefits accorded Madon County employees' (such as, but not limited to, paid leave, health insurance, retirement, etc.). 2.4 Each agency will furnish ammunition, personal gear and equipment~ for use of that agency's officers and as specified by Marion County, including, but not limited to: Uniforms; Weapons and ammunition; Ballistic vests. Officers may use additional personal equipment such as canteens, flashlights, belt pouches, etc. subject to approval of Marion County's SWAT Commander. 2.6 Each agency shall make it's officer(s) assigned to SWAT duty available for training as scheduled by Marion County for the SWAT team; provided, 73 however, that an agency may withdraw an officer from the assigned SWAT training for any reason. If an officer is absent from three training days in succession that officer will not be included in any SWAT activation without completing a re-qualification training exercise. 3. MARION COUNTY'S OBLIGATIONS 3.1 Madon County shall be fully responsible for providing specialized in- county SWAT training to all Marion County lnteragency SWAT team members including officers from Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton accepted for participation in the Marion County Interagency SWAT team. 3.2 Marion County shall be fully responsible for directing and supervising all SWA'r team members including officers from Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton accepted for participation in the Madon County lnteragency SWAT team while such officers are acting in the course and scope of their duties as such, including training. · 3.3 Madon County shall examine, test and screen candidates nominated by Woodburn, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton under the same standards as it applies to candidates from the Madon County Shedff's Office. Madon County shall have sole authority and responsibility to decline any candidate offered by Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton and may remove any Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton officer from the Madon County Interagency SWAT team for any or no cause in it's sole discretion. 3.4 The Parties agree that when the Madon County SWAT Team is activated and responds, the jurisdiction in which the SWAT activities take place will assume responsibility for the overall management of law enforcement activities, and shall do so under the Incident Command System. However, all tactical decisions of the SWAT Team shall remain at the SWAT Team commander level, and not with the Incident Commander. 3.5 if a jurisdiction that is a Party to this agreement initiates a SWAT Team response within that Party's jurisdiction, that Party agrees, to the extent permitted ~Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other parties to this agreement, their agents, officers and employees, from any claims or action for injuries, civil rights violations, losses, damages, attorney fees, and other legal defense costs adsing or resulting from the SWAT Team activities that take place under this Agreement in response to that call. Excluded from this obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless are any claims or actions which adse from any decision made by the SWAT Team tactical commander in a SWAT Team response within the jurisdiction of a Party to this agreement, after consultation with thetncident Commander~ with~which the Incident Commander disagreed and communicated that disagreement to the SWAT Team tactical commander prior to implementation of the decision by the SWAT Team tactical commander. In the event the SWAT Team ?'4 = Page tactical commander, acting in the course and scope of his employment and duties, does implement such a decision notwithstanding the communicated disagreement with that decision by the Incident Commander, Marion County agrees, to the extent permitted under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Party in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred. Further, if the SWAT Team, responds to an incident in a jurisdiction that is not a party to this agreement, Madon County agrees, to the extent Permitted by the' Oregon Tort Claims Act, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the'officers assigned to the SWAT Team, while acting in the course and scope of their employment as such, and the Party employing such officers STATUS OF EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORITY CONCERNING PERSONNEL MATTERS 4.1 4.2 Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton and Silverton officers assigned to' the Madon County Interagency SWAT team shall ~be subject to the intemal policies and procedures of their own respective departments with respect to personnel administration, payroll reporting, overtime eligibility, off-duty conduct, discipline, internal affairs reporting, and other like administrative matters. Madon County shall have no power or authority to impose discipline on any Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton or Silverton officer; however, Madon County's SWAT commander shall have authority to summarily remove any Woodbum, Mt. Angel, Stayton or Silverton officer from active participation in Marion County interagency SWAT team activity in his or her sole discretion. In such an event, Madon County shall promptly notify the chief administrative officer of the agency employing such officer. TERM AND TERMINATION 5.1 5.2 The term of this Agreement shall be indefinite provided that any party may withdraw from this Agreement at any time by giving all other parties 30 days pdor written notice of its intention to do so. The name and address of the contact person within each path! agency are as follows: CITY OF WOODBURN: Chief Scott Russell 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 CI'Pf OF MT. ANGEL: Chief Brent Earhart 5 N. Garfield Mt. Angel, Oregon 97362 CITY OF STAYTON: Chief Don Eubank 75 A I rACHMENT_ ~ 386 N. 3rd Avenue Stayton, Oregon 97383 CITY OF'SILVERTON: Chief Rick Lewis 306 S. Water Street Silverton, Oregon 97381 MARION COUNTY: Shedff Raui Ramirez P.O. Box 14500 100 High Street Salem, Oregon 97309 In witness thereof, the parties have executed this agreement as of the date stated below. MARION COUNTY, OREGON Marion County Sheriff CITY OF WOODBURN By: Title: Date: Board of Commissioners CITY OF MT. ANGEL By: Chair Title: Commissioner Commissioner Date: CITY OF STAYTON By: Title: Date: CITY OF SILVERTON By: Title: Date: Date Approved as to form: Legal Counsel Date Contracts Coordinator Date G:~agreements~watagreem ent,doc '76 J~cotporated ',889 11D February 10, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council t~hrouGh City Administrator FROM: Public Works Program Manager SUBJECT: Lawson/Highway 214 Intersection RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to begin process leading to a traffic revision at intersection of Lawson Way and Highway 214, by choosing one of the options outlined below: Option 1 - Maintain two-way pattern on Lawson. Buy additional property to resolve current problems. Option 2 - Make Lawson one-way, southbound. Resolve current problems without purchasing additional property. Option 3 - Make Lawson one-way, southbound. Maintain two-way traffic in a portion, by constructing new turn-around. (new option) Option 4 - Make Lawson one-way, southbound. private drive north of McDonalds to improve option) Make modifications to business access, (new Option 5 - make no changes at present time. Advocate for changes during interchange improvement project. BACKGROUND: The improvement is needed to reduce the possibility of accidents and improve the flow of truck traffic from Highway 2!4. Sidewalks and curb are broken, because semi-trailer trucks turning right from Highway 214 to Lawson Drive have damaged them. The same trucks frequently swing wide, occupying the northbound lane of Lawson, creating potential conflicts for other motorists. The project is listed in the CIP for fiscal year 2004-05, with a budget of $29,000. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~ City Attorney Financ 77 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 10, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Future Conditions: In the proposed I-5 interchange improvement project environmental assessment Lawson Avenue will become a right turn in only intersection. There would be an approximately 150-foot long drop lane on Highway 214 that will carry vehicles into the right turn movement. (The drop lane will occupy much of the current frontage of the Chevron gas station. Because of changes in vertical grade along this frontage, no access will be provided from Highway 214 to the Chevron parcel.) There would be no exit onto Highway 214 from Lawson Avenue. That is, turns from Lawson to Highway 214 (in either direction) will not be possible. Business access on Lawson Avenue was an important consideration for members of the environmental assessment Local Access Committee and Stakeholders Working Group. To provide access to the businesses along Lawson it is proposed that Lawson Avenue remain open for two-way traffic from Stacy Allison Way to at least the private access that is located south of the existing McDonalds restaurant. There has been discussion of another business access for land between Lawson Avenue and the interstate and there is an access option in the current environmental assessment for an additional access south of the existing Chevron gas station. This proposed access option would allow for two- way traffic on Lawson up to this access. The environmental assessment will be completed by summer 2005. Present Options: The options discussed herein are interim solutions, which deal with modifications that will have a limited lifetime - only until the interchange project is completed, some five or six years from now. Option 1 Maintain two-way pattern on Lawson: This option will require acquisition of about 0.03 acres of property at the southwest corner of the intersection. Construction would include about 200 feet of new curb, guh~er and sidewalk. Two handicapped ramps would be installed at the same time. Construction of this alternative will enable large trucks to negotiate the intersection without leaving their allocated lane in either Highway 214 or Lawson Drive. This alternative, less red estate, is estimated to cost $t3,200. The cost of property acquisition will depend on actual appraised value and calculated Honorable Mayor and City Council February 10, 2005 Page 3 area. For budget purposes, a comparison can be made with cost of nearby property recently acquired by ODOT on the north side of the highway. This cost was $17.50 per square foot. If an area of 0.03 acres costs, say, $20 per square foot, the cost of land for Option 1 will be about $28,600. Appraisal fees, design, survey, and construction staking can be expected to cost an additional $3,500. Option 2 - Make Lawson one-way~ southbound: Changes required will consist mainly of changes in roadway signing and striping. No property will be needed to accomplish this option. Repairs to the existing curb would be made. Lawson Drive would be designated "one-way" south of the 214 intersection to Stacey Allison Way. If no additional property is acquired, and the current geometry at the curb line is not changed, large trucks will continue to need to "swing wide" in Highway 2t4 (into the center left turn lane) as they approach Lawson. This condition can be seen on the sketch for Option 2. One way traffic on Lawson would make access to business sites along Lawson difficult. There is a private drive south of McDonaids but there is no direct access from the drive to McDonalds except to drive through the truck and RV parking spaces that separate the private drive from the McDonalds parking lot. There would be no access to the Taco Bell unless the customer made their way through the McDonalds parking area and then entered Lawson southbound. The Exxon station would have to be accessed through the private drive. The Subway and Burger King have access points on Stacy Allison. The front of the Subway faces Lawson and from the parking configuration is intended to be the primary access to the restaurant and drive through lane. There is a significant amount of northbound traffic on Lawson Avenue that would have to be diverted onto alternate streets. The most recent data indicates that this is an average of approximately 1,000 vehicles per day. Evergreen Avenue, the most likely alternative, had traffic counts of approximately 3,400 vehicles per day northbound and 2,800 vehicles per day southbound. The traffic diverted from Lawson would tend to add to the congestion on Evergreen. Option 3 - Make Lawson one-way, southbound,, two-way traffic in a portion: if two-way traffic is maintained in any reach of Lawson, the design will need to include provisions for a turn-around. The turn-around can be accomplished by a "cul-de-sac" or traffic circle. Additional property will be needed to accommodate the turn-around - about 0.13 acre. Sketches showing this alternative are attached. Honorable Mayor and City Council February 10, 2005 Page 4 A traffic circle type configuration near the Taco Bell entrance would allow one way southbound traffic to that point and would allow two way traffic on Lawson south of that point. The traffic southbound on Lawson would have the right of way and there would be a yield on the traffic circle to allow northbound traffic to turn around and proceed southbound. This option would be the most costly and would require some right of way or easement to obtain a proper turn radius on the turn around for all vehicles. There will probably be objections from the McDonalds to closure of their first driveway as shown on the attached sketch and it may be left open if this option is developed. Option 4 - Make Lawson one-way, southbound, modifications to private drive: If Lawson were one way southbound there will be some confusion for drivers not familiar with the area on how to get to the businesses on Lawson from Stacey Allison and Evergreen. It not really clear that the private drive south of McDonalds provides access to Lawson. There would have to be additional signage added at this location if Lawson were to be made one way to Stacey Allison. There is also no direct access from the drive to McDonalds except to drive through the truck and RV parking spaces that separate the private drive from the McDonalds parking lot. The private drive behind McDonalds could provide an alternative access but there would have to be modification of the parking at the McDonalds. There would have to be some easement agreement with McDonalds to use this private drive. An easement with a sunset clause for a specific number of years would probably be the best solution. Modifications to the McDonalds Parking tot would be required to allow traffic to access the Taco Bell. Staff will attempt to contact McDonalds, that has maximum property control on this issue, and Taco Bell, that is impacted the most on access restrictions, prior to the council meeting. Option 5 - make no changes at present time: /~y changes to be accomplished will be outlined in the I-5 Interchange Environmental Assessment and will be accomplished during the interchange modernization project PROCESS FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS: Option 1 - Maintain two-way pattern on Lawson: 1. Option determination by Council. 2. Design, plan approval and permits o Preparation of construction plans (1 month) 80 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 10, 2005 Page 5 4~ · ODOT plan and permit approval (2 months) · Award of construction contract (1 month) Right of way acquisition (concurrent with step 2) · Appraisal (1 month) · Negotiation to purchase (2 months) 4. Construction of improvement (1 month with favorable weather) Option 2 - Make Lawson one-way southbound Option; 3 - Make Lawson one- way, southbound, two-way traffic in a portion Option; 4 - Make Lawson one- way, southbound, modifications to private drive: 1. Public input. · Public meeting with adjoining property owners, business owners and interested parties · Coordination with ODOT 2. Final option determination by Council. · May require a comment period during a council meeting to allow further input from property and business owners 3. Upon Council approval of option, develop sign plan and procure and install required signs (1 month) FINANCIAL IMPACT: Costs listed below consider fee-simple ownership of affected property. Further exploration of Public Easement, rather than title will likely reveal costs that are less for ail alternatives that involve improvements outside existing rights-of-way. The project can be paid from State Revolving Fund. Option 1 will cost approximately $48,000, with contingency. Option 2 can be expected to cost $4,800. The cost for Option 3 may exceed $150,000 if full cul-de-sac turnaround is constructed to accommodate two-way traffic in a portion of Lawson. The cost in Option 4 for the signage, purchase of easement and parking lot modifications is difficult to estimate without a preliminary design. An approximate estimate at a conceptual stage would be from $20,0EO to $30,000. City maintenance forces can perform most of the sign revisions, needed for all options, whose cost may be on the order of $2,500. AI'EACHMENTS: Sketches showing Options 1, 2, 4 and 5 are attached. (4 pages.) 8! BACK s/w PROPt~TY TAKE± H/C RNdP CrYP) W8-5~ O,eelgn S, emltrelI,M' 2.5' SHY O~ST CH~:CK, SURFACE OR,NN,AG~ NEW CUR8 RETURN. <~] NORI}~8OUNO [~ SOUTHBOUNO /~..-EXIST VaOTH 17' TO FACE: OF CUR~ ) INTERSECTION DETAIL OPTION 1 Scole 1'-20' 82 X~u T1JRN ONLY TURN ONLY WAY EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH OPTION ONE-WAY S~,~THBOUN~ Scale 8:3 CHEVI~ON ENTRANCE LANDSCAPE UCDONALDS PARKING FACE OF CURB PARKINO TACO BELL C8 18;L! 2 x 2,856 SF_ (WP) 5,712 SF 0 $20 = $114,240.00 cfi I I ,',U EXISTINO CONDITIONS WITH OPTION CUL-I~E-SAC Scote 1 ",,= 50' 84 6u r_i~ OOT- / // / CXISTINC;wiTH 0PT!0N'CONDI"TION~' ONE-WAY ,SgVTt~gUND. ~vvO 0 D B U i [ttcor?vrated ~1889 llE February 11,2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Randy Scott, Senior Engineering Technician through the Public Works Director ~ SUBJECT: South Front Street Improvements (undergrounding and lighting phase) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council (Local Contract Review Board) by motion take the following actions: Action 1' Reject the bids of Kerr Contractors, Inc. and Westech Construction, Inc. as not responsive because neither bid included and acknowledged all necessary bid addendums. Action 2: Award the construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Canby Excavation, Inc. for the undergrounding of utilities on South Front Street in the amount of $395,502.20 BACKGROUND: The contract is for the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities on South Front Street from Cleveland Street to Parr Road. The undergrounding project is in conjunction with the upcoming street improvements to South Front. The undergrounding project consists of installation of approximately 24,000 lineal feet of various sized conduits, vaults, electrical conversions and street lighting. Bids for South Front Street Improvements, Undergrounding Utilities and Street Lighting were opened on February 1,2005. Eight bids were received. 2. 3. 4. 5. Kerr Contractors, Inc. Canby Excavating, Inc. Westech Construction, Inc. Lay Clark Pipeline Co. C & M Construction, Inc. $383,493.75 4 not responsive $395,502.20 Iow responsible bidder $437,574.44 ~ not responsive $454,405.69 $458,485.75 6. Eagle-Eisner, Inc. $~.~524,149.80 Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney]~ Finance/_~/~ 86 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 11,2005 Page 2 7. North Santiam Paving Co. $599,779.95 8. Henkles & McCoy, Inc. $636,772.38 Engineers Estimate $352,675 The recommended award is within 12% of the Engineers estimate. DISCUSSION: ACTION I Two addendums were issued on the project. The Contract Documents, Instruction to Bidders require that each addendum be part of the bid submittal and that the receipt of each addendum be acknowledged in the proposal by the signature of the responsible party. Neither addendum was included or acknowledged in Kerr Contractors bid proposal, Westech Excavation included only one addendum and did not acknowledge or include the other in its proposal. Bidders have the legal obligation to substantially comply with all prescribed bidding procedures and requirements, and a bid should be rejected as not responsive where it does not comply in all material respects with the bid solicitation. Since meeting the City's addendum requirements is material to this bid solicitation, both bids submitted in this case should be rejected as not responsive. ACTION 2 The undergrounding project, South Front Street, is identified and funded in the adopted 2004/2005 fiscal year budget of major street upgrades. The project was expanded to include undergrounding of utilities at the intersection of Setttemier/Parr/South Front and Cherry Avenue. The street lighting cost in the undergrounding project (approximately $50,000) is budgeted in the Street Improvement portion of the project cost identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The street lighting is, however, being installed at this time due to the removal of all the overhead facilities providing existing illumination. Honorable Mayor and City Council February 11,2005 Page 3 The above construction contract amount does not include engineering, administration, contingency or permits costs as identified in the estimated project cost within the Ordinance. The contract award is in conformance with public contracting laws of the State of Oregon as outlined in ORS Chapter 279 and the laws, regulations of the City of Woodburn, therefore staff is recommended the contract be awarded. It should be brought to Council's attention that the undergrounding project will require the removal of approximately nine flowering plum trees along South Front Street (two trees adjacent to property located at 711 South Front and seven trees along South Front adjacent to the Settlemier Park property). The trench alignment for the undergrounding conduit will follow the alignment of the future street widening. The four remaining flowering plum trees along the park property will need to be removed ,with the street widening project. The street improvement portion of the project will include the planting of street trees. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project cost of $395,502.20 is included within the 2004-2005 budgeted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds; Budget line Item 363-631-9531-5631. A portion of the ClP funds used will be reimbursed by Urban Renewal and Economic Development funds. 88 l~cor?orated ~8~9 11F February 11, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Randy Rohman; Public Works Program Manager SUBJECT: Bid Award for Municipal Well 14 Well House RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council (Local Contract Review Board) by motion take the following actions: Action 1: Reject the bid of Nomarco lnc. as not responsive because it did not include the Bid Breakdown page. Action2: Award bid for Municipal Well 14 Well House to the lowest responsible bidder, TransAmerican Contractors, Inc. for $304,360.00. BACKGROUND: The City requested bids for construction of Municipal Well 14 Well House that were opened at 2:00 p.m. on February 8, 2005. The results were: Bidder TransAmerican Contractors, Inc, HPS Construction, Inc. Geo Tech Explorations Stellar J Corporation Stettler Supply Company Nomarco, inc Amount $304,360.00 $353,510.00 $362,012.00 $373,694.00 $414,600.00 not provided DISCUSSION: Action 1' The bid from Nomarco Inc. did not include the Bid Breakdown page that included the bid amount from the bid form. The instructions to bidders required submission of the entire bid form. Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Afforney __ Finance 89 Mayor and City Council February 11, 2005 Page 2 Action 2: Bidders have the legal obligation to substantially comply with all prescribed bidding procedures and requirements, and a bid should be rejected as not responsive where it does not comply in all material respects with the bid solicitation. Since including the Bid Breakdown page is material to this bid solicitation, the bid submitted in this case should be rejected as not responsive. Well 14, located on property to the north of Patrick Way, will supply raw water that will be treated at the National Way Treatment Plant currently under construction. The project will construct the well house and install the motor and pump that will convey the raw water from Well 14 to the National Way Treatment Plant for treatment prior to being pumped into the distribution system. The lowest responsible bid is approximately 25% lower than the engineer's estimate, $380,000, for the well house project. The lowest responsible bidder, TransAmerican Contractors, has been in business for 30+ years, has approximately $6 million of bonding capacity and has done extensive municipal water and wastewater construction work. Staff recommends that award be made to the lowest responsible bidder, TransAmerican Contractors, Inc. for $304,360.00. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost of the well construction is budgeted in the 2004-2005 Water Treatment Construction Fund budget. 11G February 9, 2005 TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator / FROM: Scott Russell, Chief of Police~ SUBJECT: 2005 OLCC Renewal RECOMMENDATION: City Council recommend to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission renewal of liquor licenses for the listed businesses for the year 2005. BACKGROUND: Annually, the police department reviews activities occurring at or in the vicinity of all licensed liquor establishments in Woodburn. All reviews were completed in accordance with Council Resolution 1613, dated January 23, 2001, establishing guidelines and procedures for liquor license recommendations. Through established guidelines and procedures, the City Council ensures equitable and consistent treatment of liquor license applications. The adoption of policy protects the interest of the general public providing consistent direction to staff in the processing of liquor license. The following liquor license applications were reviewed in accordance with the established standards for police department recommendations, as described in Resolution 1613. The standards and criteria are as follows: Council Resolution 1613, Sec. F, Standards for Police Department Recommendations Fights and assaults · Liquor law violations by licensee or their employees · Excessive or obtrusive noise · Illegal drug use or sales on the premises · Trespass on private property · Public drunkenness Failure of licensee to take appropriate action to prevent or control problems caused by patrons on the premises or within the local vicinity. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator__ City Attorney ~:~. ~ FinanceL 91 Mayor and City Council February 9, 2005 Page 2 Council Resolution 1613, Sec. G, Guidelines and Criteria A recommendation to deny the renewal application will be made when there are persistent problems involving the types of police calls listed above related to the sales of alcohol. o The police department will automatically recommend denial of a renewal application when there is a record of ten arrests, in the prior twelve months, of employees or patrons of the licensed business for unlawful activities related to the sale or service of alcohol under the license either on the premise or in the vicinity. Actions by the licensee, which might tend to mitigate the problems, should be considered by the City Council. Examples of mitigating actions are seeking and following recommendations by the OLCC, or police, and increased security measures. In addition to the criteria previously outlined, a recommendation for denial of a license renewal may be made when there are persistent problems involving police calls related to sales or service of alcohol not stemming from calls for assistance from the establishment, within the preceding twelve months, concerning unlawful activities by employees and patrons of the licensed business, either on the licensed premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof. The recommendation by the police department is only one component of the liquor license recommendation process. Community input is a significant factor in a review of applications by the Council. With ali licensing activities, it must be remembered that the City recommends and OLCC grants or denies. DISCUSSION: All liquor license establishments met the guidelines and policies established by Resolution 1613 in the year 2003. Those establishments denoted by an * have a compliance plan. Compliance plans are developed to bring establishments into compliance due to a history of serious and persistent problems or because of frequency of problems within the immediate area. Mayor and City Council February 9, 2005 Page 3 The following liquor license applications are recommended for approval by the police department: Off-Premise Sales: 7-11 Store #2353-17416B OLCC Store #60 Bi-Mart #643 Su Casa Imports Safeway Store # 1976 Crossroads Grocery & Deli Salvador's Bakery I E-Z Stop Market Grocery & Deli Senior Estates Restaurant Gary's Market #1 Woodburn Shop N Kart The Raven Inn O' Donnell Enterprises (AM-PM Mini Mart) Westview Texaco 1 Piper's Jewelry Woodburn Fast Serve (Woodburn Chevron) Roth's IGA Foodliner Young Street Market Walmart Supercenter # 1793 US Market # 109 Your Northwest Full On-Premise Sales: *Chu's Eatery *Los Cabos Mexican Restaurant Lupita's Eagle's Lodge #3284 OGA Members Course Elmer's Restaurant La Sierra Restaurant The End Zone Sports Bar Elk's Lodge #2637 Rumors Bar & Gril & Bowers Steakhouse Yun Wah Chinese Restaurant *Salvador's Bakery Iii/El Corralejo Denny's at Woodburn Limited On-Premise Sale: Abby's Pi77a Inn Billy O Deli & Pub Pizza Hut Senior Estates Restaurant Taqueria Guadalajara D&D Restaurant The Raven Inn La Unica Shari's of Woodburn La Palapa Woodburn Lanes Cactus Grill Fonzie's Deli *El Amadiilo Loco FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 93 11H February 11,2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Steve Krieg, Building Official SUBJECT: Authorization for Request for Proposals (RFP) for Personal Services Contracts RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council (Local Contract Review Board) by motion authorize a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the City to enter into one or more Personal Services Contracts for plan review and inspection services for the Building Division. BACKGROUND: The Building Division has been experiencing a heavy workload that includes seasonal fluctuations that increase the already heavy workload. Often, staff has worked extra hours on a daily basis including weekends to meet the Building Division's customer's needs and State mandated turn around times for plan review. DISCUSSION: The availability of professional plan review and inspection services will lessen the amount of extra hours currently being worked by building division staff while providing improved customer service. The Personal Services Contracts will provide added flexibility for the Building Division during times of heavy workload or when customers needs mandate a shorter turn around time than existing staff can manage during a normal workweek. State law authorizes the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, to designate particular contracts as Personal Services Contracts and to create a competitive procurement process through an RFP. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Building Division currently has $10,250 budgeted in their Professional Services line item. Approval to implement professional services contract(s) would allow the Building Division to spend the monies already approved through the budget process. Agenda Item Review: City Administratar<~ '" City Attorney~I/' ~'~' .I Finance :~ 94 13A February 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Approval of Planned Uni~ Development 04- 05 and Varionce 04-31 RECOMMENDATION: No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving Planned Unit Development 04-05 and Variance 04-31 for the modification of Planned Unit Development Case File No. 03-02 and variance approval to allow for the reduction of the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for lots 87-93, 95 and 98 of Phase Ill of the Links at Tukwila. The subject property (3.15 acres) is located at the eastern terminus of Tukwila Drive, south of the Urban Growth Boundary. It can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map T5S, 1W, Section 7AA, Tax lot# 7400. No 'wetlands are located on the subject site. The subject property is located outside of the 500 year floodplain. The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS) and designated on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map as Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre. The properties to the north, south, west and east are zoned RS, designated on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map as Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre, and are the location of vacant land, single family dwellings and the OGA golf course. DISCUSSION: None. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney Financ~ 95 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. 13B February 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Approval of Planned Unii~ Development 04- 06 and Variance 04-32 RECOMMENDATION' No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving Planned Unit Development 04-06 and Variance 04-32 for the modification of Planned Unit Development Case File No. 04-03 and variance approval to allow for the reduction of the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet for lots 1,64-71, and 74 of Phases IV and V of the Links at Tukwila. The subject property (15.53 acres) is located at the eastern terminus of Tukwila Drive, south of the Urban Growth Boundary. It can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map T5S, lW, Section 06D, Tax lot: #1500. The subject site is located outside of the 500-year floodplain. The Local Wetlands Inventory Map shows a wetland located to the west of the northern portion of the subject site. The applicant submitted a letter from a wetland scientist stating that the above mentioned wetland is a small pond in the golf course fairway. A wetland land use notification form has been sent to the Division of State Lands (DSL) Wetland Program. The applicant will be required to obtain the appropriate removal-fill permits from DSL for any work done in the ,-~,,,..,, ,,..., area. The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS) and designated on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map as Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre. The properties to the west, east and south are zoned RS, designated on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map as Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Agenda Item Review: City Administrato City Attorney~//~-,~ FinanceU~/~/ 97 Honorable Mayor and City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 Acre, and are the location of single family dwellings and the OGA golf course. The property to the north is located outside of the city limits and urban growth boundary. The property to the north is zoned Marion County "Exclusive Farm Use" and is the location of vacant land and the OGA golf course. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.