Loading...
Agenda - 03/28/2005CITY OF WOODBURN CiTY COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 28, 2005 - 7:00 P.M. KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1 R~CHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V EDDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VJ CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET e CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. The Woodburn Public Library continues the spring concert series with Ricardo Cardenas, a Chilean guitarist ,who will perform traditional Latin American and classical guitar music on April 10, 2005 at 2 p.m. at City Hall. Appointments: None. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: A. Woodburn's Tulip Festival - March 19 thru April 20, 2005 Presentations: None. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. · 'Ha~rit inr~rpretes bisponi~[es para aq~t~[[as personas q~te no ~a~tan In~[6s/previo ac~terbo. Com~niquese al (5o3) 98o-:485." March 28, 2005 Council Agenda Page i e CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and ma)/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 March 14, 2005 Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. 2 Woodburn Public Library Board minutes of March 9, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. 20 C. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of March 10, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. 24 D. Claims for February 2005 Recommended Action: Receive the report. 28 Ee Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center Revenue Comparison Recommended Action: Receive the report. 33 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS ke Legislative Amendment 05-01; Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update Recommended Action: Receive public testimony pertaining to Legislative Amendment 05-01, leave the record open until April 4, 2005 to accept additional written testimony, and continue deliberation on this matter to April 25, 2005. 34 Be Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Budget Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing, receive public comment, and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate its decision. 43 March 28, 2005 Council Agenda Page 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 2566 - Ordinance granting a zone change from RS (Single Family Zone to RM (Medium Density Residential) zone on property located at 2325 North Boones Ferry Road; and declaring an emergency Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance. 45 Be Council Bill 2567 - Ordinance adopting a supplemental budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 and declaring an emergency Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance. 54 Ce Sewer Pump Station Upgrades at Industrial Avenue and Greenview Drive Recommended Action: Award contract for Industrial Avenue and Greenview Drive Sewage Pump Station Rehabilitation Projects, Bid No. 2003-018-47, to lowest responsible bidder, Triad Mechanical, in the amount of $603,900.80. 57 De Liquor License - Change of Ownership Recommended Action: Recommend that the Oregon Liquor Control Commission approve a liquor license application for Rincon Nayarita. 60 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. Ae Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review 04-15, Variance 05-03 and Variance 05-04 (Kingdom Hall, 1557 June Way) 63 14. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 16. ADJOURNMENT March 28, 2005 Council Agenda Page iii 4A PROCLAMATION WOODBURM'S TULIP FESTIVAL March 19 thru April 20, 2005 WHEREAS, the Woodburn Tulip Festival welcomes the world to view the vast acres of brilliantly colored tulips, and WHEREAS, the Woodbum Tulip Festival spotlights a unique, growing horticultural industry that was enjoyed last year by more than 120,000 visitors, and WHEREAS, the Woodbum Tulip Festival instills a spirit of unification and cooperation among the diverse groups of the people of the community, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Tulip Festival provides fun filled activities for young and old, to "tip-toe" through the tulips and enjoy the majestic view of Mt. Hood and the quality of life we Oregonians cherish. THEREFORE, I, Kathryn Figley, Mayor of the City of Woodburn, proclaim March 19 thru April 20, 2005, the official Woodburn Tulip Festival Month I hereby ask my fellow Oregonians to join me in encouraging participation and support of this beautiful event that promotes Woodburn throughout the country. IN WITNES~S WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and caused t~he se~"the City of V~c)odburn to be affixed this 19th day of March, 2005. 1 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE READR-,IG 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OP~GON, MARCH 14, 2005. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0030 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bj elland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present (7:08 p.m.) Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell, Public Works Director Tiwari, Public Works Manager Rohman, Community Development Director Mulder, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Finance Director Gillespie, Senior Planner Zwerdling, Senior Engineering Technician Scott, Recorder Tennant 0071 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Public hearing to consider the City's Periodic Review work program will be held before the City Council on March 28, 2005, 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Council Chambers. B) Woodbum Public Library will be closed on March 27, 2005 in observance of Easter. 0091 P~SENTATION: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE YOUTH LEADERSHIP. 8A Cristal Sandoval and Yesnia Chavez provided a brief report on the activities the Chamber's Youth Leadership group are currently involved in which help students develop skills to become leaders. At the last meeting, the program focused on community service which included a site visit to Silverton Hospital to show students what volunteer programs are available during the summer months. Other speakers at their meeting included an ODOT representative on responsible driving, AmeriCorps program presentation, and a representative from Cascade Retirement on volunteering. Yesnia Chavez stated that she is currently on the Library Board which has given her an opportunity to become more involved in the community. Cristal Sandoval stated that she is currently on the Parks & Recreation Board and the most recent Leadership group meeting reminded her of how much she needs to give back to the cornmunity. Mayor Figley thanked the girls for their participation on the respective Boards. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 2 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE READING 0236 PRESENTATION: TEEN SCENE UPDATE. Dusky Steyeart, Teen Scene Coordinator, stated that students are participating in art programs on Tuesday and Thursday, a multi-fitness program will begin in April, a Hip- Hop 101 program is nearing completion with a performance scheduled at the High School's May Day program, computer labs will be located at each center, teen scene swims continue to be successful and are held throughout the school year, and monthly teen dances are held. During spring break, she has been planning a multitude of activities in order to keep teens busy. She stated that they have been averaging about 35 middle school students daily at the middle school center whereas they have abont 25 high school students daily at the high school center. During April and May, they will be working on a Career program at the high school center in an effort to help students in ho',,,, to write a resume and interview for a job. She stated that staff is working on the grant application for the next funding cycle and is looking for other funding sources to expand programs for our teens. In regards to the ages of teens attending the centers, she stated that the middle school center has mostly sixth and seventh graders while the high school center has mainly ninth and tenth graders. 0700 PRESENTATION: SOUTH FRONT STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING PROJECT. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that South Front Street is a narrow street in a deteriorated condition. The City did install drain tile about 7-10 years ago but it has not been fully connected therefore surface drainage is not good as it should be. This project is one of the urban renewal capital projects and improving this street will fulfill one of the Council goals. It was also noted that this roadway is a designated truck route and an improvement to this street will fulfill future Settlemier Park traffic flow needs. The proposed improvement will extend from Parr Road to Cleveland Street and, after it is fully improved, it will include a turn lane and a 10-foot combined sidewalk/bikelane which will be separated by a landscape strip or a parking space. There will be some on- street parking on the west side of the street, however, the proposed plan will allow for 20 spaces whereas there are 23 lots along the street. He stated that parking may be a problem in the event a resident is having a large gathering at their home. The Council could consider the purchase of a lot with a home currently on it and then convert it into a parking lot for approximately $150,000. The estimated cost for the street improvement, excluding a parking lot, is $611,000 which is the amount budgeted within the Urban Renewal budget. If it is decided to purchase a lot for a parking lot, then some additional funding source will be needed to complete this portion of the project such as a local improvement district. He suggested that the additional parking lot not be pursued since it does not appear to be cost effective to the property owmers. He stated that once South Front Street is improved, it is anticipated that Settlemier Avenue will have a lesser amount of truck traffic. Page 2 ~ Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 3 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 1964 2531 Councilor McCallum requested clarification on the number of phases and length of time to complete the street improvement project from Parr Road to Highway 214. Director Tiwari stated that the South Front Street project will be completed this summer, the next phase (Cleveland Street to Harrison Street or Hardcastle Avenue) will be the following year, and the third phase (Harrison or Hardcastle to Highway 214) will be done in 2007. When the project is in progress, homeowners will have access to their homes but all other traffic will be detoured. Staff will give homeowners advance notice when access will be limited. Councilor McCallum questioned if there were plans in place to keep North Front Street passable until such time as the street is improved in 2007. Director Tiwari stated that some surface improvements will be necessary during the interim but it will be kept to the minimum degree. Councilor Cox questioned if the $150,000 for the parking lot included the land cost. Director Tiwari stated that it did include the land cost. In regards to the sidewalk / bikelane, the 10-foot width will meet the state recommendation as long as it is separated from the roadway and, in this case, a landscape strip will separate the road from the sidewalk / bikelane. Brief discussion was also held regarding the number of homes that will have a driveway that will be shorter in length whereby they will be unable to park their vehicle in their driveway. Director Tiwari stated that many of the garages are sitting on the back of the property but there are 3 or 4 homes that will have some difficulty to park their vehicles like they are at this time. Councilor Cox questioned if the City would need to acquire any right-of-way on the west side of the street. Director Tiwari stated that there will only be one area in which there is a need to acquire an easement for the sidewalk and if the easement cannot be obtained, then there will be a minor adjustment made to the design in that area. Councilor Bjelland questioned the financing sources for this improvement. Director Tiwari stated that the project, excluding the off-street parking option, would be financed by the urban renewal district. If it is decided to pursue the off-street parking lot concept, then he would propose that the cost for this improvement be paid for through a local improvement district. However, he did not recommend that the parking lot option be pursued due to the high cost that would be assessed to the property owners along this street. Administrator Brown provided additional information to the Council on the financing of this project. In the past, property owners have shared in the cost of the improvements since City funding sources were limited. In this case, Front Street is part of the urban renewal district and improvement of this street is listed as a capital improvement to the downtown area. Staff did not pursue an local improvernent district on this project since there were dedicated fiands in the urban renewal budget for this improvement. On an on- going basis, staff would like the Council to take that same approach with other projects Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE READING whereas if dedicated funding sources are found then property owners do not need to participate in an local improvement district. He stated that urban renewal does not cover the entire cost of this project from Parr Road to Highway 214~ There will be about $1 million difference between the funding sources and staff feels that they do have funding sources to fill the gap but it may be necessary to talk to the Council about some cost sharing arrangement as it gets closer to finishing this project in 2007. In regards to the loss parking, another option that may be available involves a lot line adjustment on property adjacent to Settlemier Park that was recently acquired by the City. A strip of parking could be constructed on the southeast section of Settlemier Park property at a cost of $30,000 to $40,000 rather than $150,000. Councilor Lonergan questioned if the project included undergrounding of utilities. Administrator Brown stated that the Council had let the contract for the undergrounding at the last Council meeting and the project cost included the undergrounding. Councilor Cox concurred with the idea of not forming a local improvement district since the property owners will most likely feel that the project will not be of benefit to them especially since they are losing parking area in front of their homes. As the project moves to the north especially in the commercial area, then the Council may want to consider a local improvement district since business property benefits more tangibly then a residence. Following discussion on this issue, it was agreed that there is a need to establish a Council position that can be followed in the future on financing projects. For this particular project, it was the consensus of the Council to move ahead with the South Front Street improvement project and no local improvement district be formed. Staff will review the existing policy and prepare a report that will formalize the need that has been discussed at this meeting to protect the Council in the future. 3636 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Ruby Wolfer, representing the Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber is actively moving forward to become the tourist gateway in the northern Marion County region. A tourism committee has been formed that is representative of the entire French Prairie Region which includes Hubbard, St. Paul, Aurora, Woodbum, Mt. Angel, and Silverton. This cornmittee is -working on a 5-year tourism development strategic plan and marketing plan. The Chamber's Visitor Center will soon be located in the Woodburn Company Stores and having the Center more accessible to the public will mean that they will be able to influence the travel itinerary and travel destination of visitors. The Chamber is gearing up for the additional responsibility that will be necessary when the Visitor Center is opened at the Woodbum Company Stores and they will be taking a pro-active position in tourism on a state-wide basis. She also reported on the following upcoming Chamber events: 1) Distinguished Service Awards Banquet - March 18, 2005 2) Tulip Booth at Woodburn Company Stores - March 19, 2005 Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 ~5 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE READYNG 3) French Prairie Region, in cooperation with the Chamber, will host a tent at the Wooden Shoe on April 9 and 10, 2005 4) Woodburn Comrmanity Auction will be held on April 16, 2005 5) Chamber Forum will held on March 16, 2005 and their guest speaker will talk on the Woodburn School Initiative Programs. 3975 WOODBUR2~I SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT. Jeanne Hahn, School District Communications Specialist, invited the Mayor and Council to attend a community meeting at the high school on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, 6:30 p.m., to receive information from the various teams that have researched the break from one large high school complex into 4 smaller high schools. The teams have visited several sites throughout the United States and they will be sharing the successes these schools have had with this concept utilizing first a panel discussion process followed by a question and answer session. The next step of the process will be to submit letters of intent to write a small school proposal. She also mentioned that Key Communicator's meetings will be held on March 29, 2005, 6:30 p.m., at Lincoln Elementary School, and on March 30, 2005, 7:00 a.m., at Lincoln Elementary School. 4239 WOODBURN DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION (WDA) REPORT. Martin Ochoa, WDA President, stated that WDA meetings will be changed to the 1st and 3rd Wednesday's of each month from 7:30 am to 8:30 am. The WDA is also working on a progressive dinner as a fundraiser and is tentatively scheduled for August. Additionally, a WDA sub-committee is working on downtown events. Bruce Thomas stated that the Farmer's Market will be opened on Saturdays from May 14, 2005 until October 15, 2005. Jose Falcon is this year's organizer for this event and he has been actively recruiting vendors. For our area, the Farmer's Market provides fresh vegetables and fruit grown in Oregon whereby individuals with WIC coupons designated specifically for these products can use their coupons at this market. 4506 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve Council meeting minutes of February 28, 2005; B) accept the draft Recreation and Parks Board minutes of March 8, 2005; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of February 24, 2005; D) receive the Building Activity report for February 2005; E) receive the Planning Tracking Sheet dated March 3, 2005; and F) receive the Police Department Statistical report for February 2005. Councilor McCallun~ stated that the Recreation and Parks Board minutes outlined some basic concerns Mr. Hemandez had expressed regarding fights and alcohol use during last year's adult soccer program. He requested background information from Director Westrick on this situation along with inforrnation on how his department will be working to correct this problem. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 6 TAPE READDqG COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAlt. CH 14, 2005 Director Westrick stated that the concerns were centered mainly around Centennial Park and most his concerns have been addressed with the Leagues and with the Recreation Department's operational practices. This summer there will be a one-way traffic loop in Centennial Park utilizing the Water Division property which will then allow the Recreation Department an oppor0anity to inspect cars as they come in to make sure that alcohol is not being brought into the park. Additionally, persons or organizations renting park facilities will be required to hire security to check coolers for alcohol since most of the problems that have occurred are related to alcohol use while in the park. Another issue they will be working on this year is monitoring soccer fields being used by one organizer so that other soccer league teams do not come in and use those fields unless they have rented the soccer facilities. MCCALLUM/COX... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5053 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE 04-04 - ProperW Located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road. May~r Figley referred to a Section of the Woodburn Development Ordinance which allows for the decision maker (Mayor and Council) to reasonably limit oral presentations in length or content depending upon time constraints and to be sure content is relevant. She stated that she will be imposing a limit of 10 minutes on all applicants, proponents, and opponents. Even though this is a de novo hearing, the Mayor and Council have access to the minutes of the Planning Commission and a large amount of material submitted by different people with different opinions on this topic. She encouraged speakers at this hearing to address issues that they feel have not been adequately addressed in previous decision making. She will give some additional time to presenters if members of the Council have any questions in order to clarify information. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 8:16 p.m.. For the record, Mayor Figley stated that she had received correspondence from Mr. Allen Hubenthal and when she read the letter and realized it was on an item that would be coming up for a quasi judicial hearing, he gave it to the City Attorney since it was not appropriate for her to respond. She has made this statement for the record to state that having received this letter will not influence any decision she may make tonight. Additionally, the City Recorder has copies of the original letter and the response if any other parties are interested at this material. Councilor Cox stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this same general project was heard and approved a few years ago and stated that it will not affect his decision tonight. Councilor Lonergan stated that he was also on the Planning Commission when this project was heard and it will not affect his decision. Councilor McCallum stated that he is familiar with the location of the property, he has known property owners Mr. & Mrs. Gascho for some years, he has personally known Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 7 TAPE P~ADING 5941 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 Attorney Wally Gutzler for many years, and, before his retirement, he had done a lot of business with the law firm Mr. Gutzler is associated with. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197. Senior Planner Zwerdling reviewed the staff memo dated March 14, 2005 outlining the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve Zone Change 04-04 subject to conditions contained in the Commission's Final Order dated January 27, 2005. She stated that the Final Order recommended that the zone change from Single Family Residential (RS) to Medium Density Residential (RM) be allowed with the condition that the property be restricted to those uses allowed in the Single Family Residential District and assisted living facilities and nursing care facilities. On March 27, 2000, the City Council adopted an ordinance which annexed a majority of the property, changed the comprehensive plan designation from low density residential to high density residential, changed the zone from single family residential to medium family residential, and a site plan review for a 122 Alzheimer's Assisted Living Units. The applicant did not go through with the site plan review request based on a competing facility to be located on the south side of Woodbum. As a result, the site plan review expired and the zoning remained single family residential. The applicant has submitted another request to change the zoning on the property from single family residential to medium density residential basing their application on a demand for additional elderly units. A concern in the previous decisions as well as in this case relate to the uses allowed on that property regarding multi-family residential units. The applicant has brought forth the condition that the zone change just to allow for all uses allowed for in a single family residential zone plus assisted living and nursing care facilities. She stated that the applicant did meet all of the applicable review criteria. (Staff Exhibit # 1) 6339 Tony Kreitzberg, applicant, stated that the project had been delayed since Country Meadows had been developed first and was creating too much capacity in the marketplace. The Council's main concern at that time was they did not want a regular apartment complex at that location since they felt it would too much of an impact in that area, therefore, the zone reverted back to single family residential. The purpose of this application is to go back to the medium density residential zone (RM) which is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. A site plan will come before the Planning Commission at a later date and undergo a public review process. One of the things that has changed over the years is that development standards are more strict than when the first site plan was presented to the City which lessen even further any potential impact on the neighbors in the area. One of the criteria is to establish a need for this type of facility and the applicant did a demographic analysis in 2004 and it determined that 2,410 people over the age of 75 lived within a 3-mile radius of Woodbum. Currently in the Woodburn area there are 6 facilities of which 96 units are available for independent living and 174 units for assisted living. Based on market research, the existing facilities in the City are close to capacity. By the time this facility is built, there will be a substantial need for this Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 8 TAPE P£ADING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 Tape 2 0207 kind of facility. The second criteria relates to the property being the best suited for this type of use compared to other properties already zoned P2vl. This site is 4.83 acres and an:y~hing smaller would be too small for the facility being planned. Within the City, there are only two properties that are larger than the subject property one of which is 7.84 acres with no city services available to it and the other parcel is 22 acres. This particular site has distinct advantages in that it is located on an arterial street, in close proximity to ambulance and medical services, close to public transportation, it is convenient to churches, dental offices, and other commercial offices, and it has city services available for this type of development. Another advantage to this type of development is that it adds property tax revenues to the community, it does not impact the school system, and has traffic generation is less than a single family development especially during peak travel time. He expressed his opinion that the facility will fit in well at that location and be of great benefit to the City. Councilor Lonergan questioned as to why the number of proposed has been changed from 120 units to 102 units. Mr. Kreitzberg stated that number of units were reduced in order to lessen the impact on the neighbors. In regards to potential construction, no schedule has been established but the developers would like to move forward with this project because of the demand for this type of facility. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the population in the project is basically market rate tenants or will there be some state subsidized tenants. Mr. Kreitzberg requested that Mr. Gutzler answer that particular question since he will be the developer on this project and will be better able to answer the question. Wally Gutzler, General Counsel and Executive Vice President of Sun West Management, stated that Sun West Management has an agreement with the property owners to acquire the property for this development. His company did not develop the property five years ago because 1) Country Meadows was financed and ready to begin developing a facility, and 2) the recession affected the economy and their ability to get financing. His company has built in other states over the years but, until 6 months ago, they were unable to get financing to build in Oregon. It is his understanding that Country Meadows has just announced the deVelopment of a new addition but, to his understanding, it is independent living rather than his company's proposed assisted living with sorne memory care facility. He corrected comments made by Mr. Kreitzberg in that (1) small pets will be allowed as long as they can be kept inside and (2) no decision has been made yet as to whether or not any of the tenants will be state subsidized but, if they are, the tenants will be treated no differently since the accommodations are all the same. He also stated for the record that Mr. Hubenthal had called him to task because he had publicly said earlier this year that Sun West had never planned to build apartments on this land and Mr. Hubenthal felt that this was an end run by which Sun West Management would get this property re-zoned in order to get apartments on this property. He stated that his company has never had any plans to build apartments on the property, however, since he has mentioned that, he was Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 9 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE reminded that he did come here before the Plarming Commission or Council about 11 or 12 years ago when he was working for another company that was interested in building apartments on this land. 2X~other developer was proposing an apartment complex in the area which was not being well received by neighbors and his company decided not to pursue an apartment proposal for this parcel of land. Subsequently, Sun West became involved and they have always planned on an assisted living facility since that is the business they are in. The number of units is still unknown since there have been changes in the City's Development Ordinance and his company is re-figuring the design. They are also keeping in mind Mr. Hubenthal's objections as to the facility height and they are still looking at the whole project to make it as compatible with everyone as possible. For the record, he submitted the following letters as Exhibits: Applicant~roponent Exhibit #1: Letter from Rosemary Hammack dated March 10, 2005 Applicant~roponent Exhibit #2: Letter from Don Lindstrom dated March 9, 2005 Applicant~roponent Exhibit #3: Letter from Ed and Pam Laramore dated March 10, 2005 Councilor Lonergan questioned as to how many different planned unit developments Sun West has been involved with for assisted living. Mr. Gutzler stated that Sun West Management has built about 35-40 facilities and they presently manage 127 facilities located within 22 states and have about 8,000 residents. The proposed development would have approximately 45 employees. 0758 Allen Hubenthal, 1223 Henry's Blvd, submitted into the record VHS video tapes (Opponent Exhibit #1 - Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2005, and Exhibit #2 - Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1999) in which Mr. Gutzler is starting to recall things he said at the first Planning Commission hearing. He stated that the video tapes are ones that he made off of his television and, even though there was some technical difficulty by the cable TV at that time, the portion of the meeting pertaining to this issue is on the tape. He also provided audio tapes of those same meetings (Opponent Exhibit #3 - cassette tape of Planning Commission meeting dated September 23, 1999, and Exhibit #4 - cassette tape of Planning Commission meeting dated January 13, 2005). Mr. Hubenthal disagreed with Mr. Gutzler's statement that he could not obtain financing for this project until 6 months ago since he had pulled off of the intemet information that Sun West had received financing from Red Mortgage Capital Inc for a trio of assisted living projects in Oregon in July 2002. He stated that the Council now has an opportunity to correct an erroneous decision that was made in 1999. If the Council approves the application, it would be a permanent zone change and since there is no site plan, any new buyer would be able to develop the property under the new zoning. He also made reference to WDO 4.101.02, Consolidated Applications, relating to comprehensive review of the entire development and its cumulative impacts. He reminded the Council that application does not mention any commitment to this project and, in his opinion, Mr. Gutzler avoided introducing himself as representing Sun West Management. Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 10 TA_PE Pd~ADING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 He referred back to Sun West's original application five years ago when they had received the original approval but over the next year failed to follow through with the development. He disagreed with the applicant's reason for not building the facility in_ 2000 since Country. Meadows did not receive site plan approval from the City until May 2001 which was after the site plan approval on the Sun West property had already expired. Another criteria in the application addresses need and he has obtained a letter from Country Meadows stating that they have a 70% occupancy rate. Additionally he stated that it is his understanding that Countryside Living Alzheimer facility is no longer in operation and currently for sale. Councilor Cox questioned if there was an appeal to LUBA or some courts following the Council's original decision in 2000. Mr. Hubenthal stated that there was an appeal. Councilor Cox questioned what would be in the tapes that would be relevant to the points he is making tonight. Mr. Hubenthal wanted to show inconsistency in statements made by Mr. Gutzler and that the property owner Mr. Gascho has always wanted to have apartments on that property even if it is five years later. He stated that there is no way that anyone can construe that there is any possible need for assisted living. The State of Oregon has a licensing moratorium in place. Councilor Cox agreed that Mr. Gutzler could have made inconsistent statements but if that is all that he would learn from watching or listening to the tapes then he did not feel that he needed to view the tapes. Mr. Hubenthal agreed with Councilor Cox's statement. Councilor Bjelland questioned Mr. Hubenthal about the moratorium on licensing assisted living facilities. Mr. Hubenthal stated that there has been a moratorium for four years because nationwide there are too many assisted living facilities. According to Jim Carlson, President of Oregon Health Care Association, it will about 10 years before demand catches up with supply in Woodbum. Additionally, the average length of stay in assisted living is between 2.5 - 3 years. For the record, the following additional exhibits were submitted by Mr. Hubenthal: Opponent Exhibit #5- Opponent Exhibit #6- Opponent Exhibit Opponent Exhibit Opponent Exhibit Opponent Exhibit Opponent Exhibit Opponent Exhibit Opponent Exhibit Letter from Kimberly Spinetta, Country Meadows Village Columbus Business First dated 7/18/02 on Red Finances Oregon Projects #% Letter from Allen Hubenthal to City Council dated 3/14/05 #8- Letter from Allen Hubenthal to Planning Commission dated 01/27/05 #9- Letter from Dr. Alan Bates, State Senate District 3, dated 3/9/2005 #10- AA~.P Research Assisted Living dated 2/7/2005 gl 1-The Business Journal of Portland dated 11/2/2004 #12-The Business Journal of Portland dated 10/25/2004 #13-The Business Journal of Portland dated 3/1/2004 Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 11 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE READFNG Opponent Exhibit #14-The Business Journal of Portland dated 3/8/2004 Opponent Exhibit #15- Letter from Woodburn City Attorney N. Robert Shields dated 3/7/2005 Opponent Exhibit #16~ OAR_ 411-056-0007 Licensing Moratorium Opponent Exhibit #17- Senate Bill 510 1845 Wally Gutzler stated that the Red Capital Mortgage loans referred to by Mr. Hubenthal were made to Sun West Management but they were refinancing of existing properties and new construction financing has been difficult to obtain until more recently. In regards to building before Country Meadows, the original Council approval was appealed to LL~A and, pending appeal, Sun West did not have the right to move forward with the development. Sun West did get a building permit but they did not build and the permit expired. In regards to Country Meadows occupancy, he has not checked recently but it had previously been at 85% occupancy and his experience has shown that the rate tends to continue upward to about 95% occupancy. Mr. Hubenthal mentioned the Countryside Living Alzheimer facility on the east side of town, however, this facility does not fit what his company considers to be an appropriate operation for their style and the only way they would operate that size of facility is in conjunction with adjoining building where they have assisted living. He reiterated that if he had misconstrued or misstated or has been inconsistent, it has been unintentional and he had tried to explain earlier on how that might have happened. He requested that the Council approve the zone change since they intend to build a development similar to what they had previously proposed. In regards to the moratorium, he agreed that there is a moratorium in place on constructing new assisted living facilities in Oregon which has been in effect since July 2001 and he expects the legislature to extend it for another two years. However, Sun West Management already has their license application and it is still good for this proposed development. Councilor Bjelland stated that the opponent had referred to a conjoined application of a site plan and zone change and inquired if staff had any response to his point that is what is required under the Woodbum Development Ordinance. City Attorney Shields stated that there is no requirement in the code that when you have a zone change that a specific site plan on that site be proposed. Sometimes applicants do have a site plan or conceptual site plan for consideration but this is not legally required. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 9:05 p.m.. Councilor Cox stated that many points raised by Mr. Hubenthal has been issues of personality in that there seems to be some conflict between Mr. Hubenthal and Mr. Gutzler. He realizes that Mr. Hubenthal opposes the project as a whole but a lot of the points he was making were issues that were not issues the Council needs to consider in order to make a decision. The two criteria before the Council are 1) need and 2) if the site best meets the needs relative to other available properties. In his opinion, those two tests have been met by the applicant. Additionally, the zone change being requested is very limited to a particular purpose and did not feel that the Council should think about what Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 12 TAPE READYNG COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 2849 other uses could be made of the property since there would be no other use other than assisted living facilities and nursing care facilities. He felt that if the zone change is approved as proposed, the property either be developed as proposed or it will stay as it currently is or it will be developed as single family. Mayor Figley agreed with Councilor Cox's comments and stated that the condition adequately addresses the concern that property will be developed as proposed or remain as single family residential. Councilor Bjelland stated that his only reservation is from the standpoint of need and felt that the financing market will dictate whether or not a facility is built. However, with this being a conditional zone change, it will protect the property from being a backdoor play for apartments. COX/MCCALLUM... approve Zone Change 04-04 as requested and direct staff to prepare an appropriate ordinance with findings to support the approval. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 2900 Mayor Figley called for a recess at 9:16 pm and reconvened at 9:21 pm. 2920 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2561 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2313 3016 (WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2562. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no obi ections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2561 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2562 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO THE STF 108 MA~ON COUNTY RURAL AGREEMENT WITH SALEM AREA TRANSIT 3089 DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05. Council Bill 2562 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was 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 2562 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL 2563 - RESOLUTION R~QUIRING WAIVER OF MEASUP~ 37 CLAIMS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ANNEXING PROPERTY INTO THE CITY. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2563. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Cox stated that this waiver was approved in principle at the last meeting and the actual resolution meets his concerns. City Attorney Shields stated that this resolution would only affect future annexation applications. Councilor Bjelland questioned if this waiver would require the property owner to waive Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 13 TAPE Pd~ADING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 any future decisions that affect their property once they have been armexed. City Attorney Shields stated that the waiver would apply to any future Council decisions. Councilor Bjelland questioned as to where does this exernpt and they waive future land use actions taken by the City. Attorney Shields stated that the resolution sets policy and that it would require all listed property owners to sign a waiver when submitting their application for annexation. The intent for bringing this resolution before the Council was to protect the City from having a property owner applying for annexation and, once annexed, turn around with a Ballot Measure 37 claim. The waiver itself states that by asking to be annexed the property owner is giving up a Ballot Measure 37 claim up until that point of tirne. On roll call vote, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2563 duly passed. 3872 COUNCIL BII,I, 2564 - P~SOLUTION GR~kNTING UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC., AN ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE FOR PROVIDING SOLID WASTE SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 1688. Mayor Figley stated that the City Administrator had distributed a revised copy of Council Bill 2564 to the Council just prior to this meeting. Councilor Lonergan declared a conflict of interest since he works for Allied Waste which owns United Disposal and he has business dealings with United Disposal. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2564. Recorder Tennant read the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Bob Sigloh, representing United Disposal Service, requested an 8% overall increase in rates which is approximately $1.00 - $2.00 per month to Woodburn residents depending upon the size of the service package. The last rate increase was in 1997 and, with the increased cost in equipment and general operational costs, they feel that they have held a tight line in overall expenses. In 2002, there was a pass-through rate adjustment to customers since Marion County had subsidized the yard debris disposal program up until 2002 and after that date, customers would have to pay the full cost of disposal. Councilor McCallum stated that there has been no rate adjustment over the past 8 years and requesting an 8% increase at this time seems to be a reasonable request. He also expressed his appreciation to United Disposal for being an excellent member of the community. Councilor Nichols questioned if United Disposal was considering the large blue containers. Mr. Sigloh stated that he had been discussing that program with the City Administrator and if the City is interested, it would be up to the City Council as to whether or not that program would go into effect. Of the cities that have implemented the program, they initially hear complaints from customers about the size of the containers but once they get use to it, they have a harder time pulling that program out of the community than they had putting the program in place. The yard debris program was the same with a lot of up front Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 14 TAPE R.EAD1NG COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 concerns but now the customers seern to like the carts. Councilor Cox stated that this was a modest increase and the rates being charged are competitive with other surrounding areas. On roll call vote for final passage, the motion passed unanimously (Councilor Lonergan did not vote on this bill). Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2564 duly passed. 4766 COUNCIL BILL 2565 - RESOLUTION AUTHOI~AZING TRANSFER OF OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 4844 2004-05. Council Bill 2565 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read 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 2565 duly passed. BID AWARD FOR DOWNTOWN PLAZA CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. Bids were received from the following contractors: D & A General Contractors, Inc., $329,220.00; 2KG Contractors, Inc., $364,815.25; Nomarco, Inc., $390,075.74; D & D Concrete Utilities, $391,876.00; Axis Curb Company, $416,180.35; Paul Brothers, $440,618.25; JP Contractors, Inc., $540,882.00; and Brock Construction, $877,970.00. COX/NICHOLS ... award the bid for the Downtown Plaza construction project Phase I to D & A General Contractors, Inc., for $329,220.00 and delegate to the City Administrator the authority to award the contract for a negotiated price not to exceed $329,220.00. City Attorney Shields stated that staff had made a recommendation to reject the other two bids as not responsive. BJELLAND/MCCALLUM... amend the motion to reject the bid ofNomarco, Inc as not responsive since it contained mathematical inconsistencies between unit prices and totals and lacked the required unit price information; and further reject the bid from of 2KG Contractors Inc as not responsive because the First Tier Subcontractor Disclosure Form was not submitted as required by statute. Councilor Cox questioned why the motion to reject is necessary since those bids were higher than the lowest responsible bidder. City Attomey agreed that the not responsive bids were higher but staff had included this just to cover all of its bases since staff does not have the authority to reject bids. The motion to amend the motion passed unanimously. Administrator Brown briefly reviewed how he intends to negotiate this contract so that the price will be locked as if all of the work will be completed and yet the City has the right to instruct the contractor not to perform certain landscaping and/or furnishing items in the event the City cannot obtain all of the funding to complete the project. The motion to award the contract passed unanimously. Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 15 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE R_EADFNG 5284 ACCEPTANCE OF BANCROIZT BOND APPLICATION. BJELLAND/LONERGA-i'4,.. under the authority of ORS 223.210, the Council accept the Bancroft Bond application submitted by Jorge Bouchain, 1051 Orchard Lane, which was filed after the 1 O-day filing period on the E. Hardcastle Local Improvement District. The motion passed unanimously. 5341 EMERGENCY CLAUSE MEMO. COJ~JELLAND... direct staff to use as a guideline for what ordinances should or should not have emergency clause the standards outlined in City Attorney Shield's memo. Councilor Cox stated that the memo clearly sets forth the idea that certain actions definitely need to have an emergency clause. He feels that this is important since not everything the Council does is an emergency and the voters of the City have the right to call up the Council's actions by initiative petition to challenge an ordinance unless it has an emergency on it. In his opinion, there should be some thought given to the applicability of an emergency clause. Councilor McCallum stated that he did not have a problem with laying out the guidelines but he did not want to hamper staff or the Council in making the decision to include an emergency clause. Administrator Brown stated that future staff reports will include a reason as to why the emergency clause has been added to the proposed ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. 5724 LIQUOR LICENSE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP - O'DONNELL ENTERPRISES DBA: WOODBURN STOP-N-GO (100 Arnev Road). BJELLAND/LONERGAN .... approve a change of ownership application for Woodburn Stop-N-Go. Councilor McCallum expressed his concern about gasoline convenience stores providing alcoholic beverages and, in this case, it is a change of ownership and change in personnel. A key issue is proper training of staff and he asked Chief Russell to provide some background information on the OLCC Vendor Program. Chief Russell stated that the Responsible Vendor Program entails the training of staff, some agreements by the licensee that they will train staff within 3 days of hire, agreements that they will conduct themselves in a certain fashion, and it allows the vendor to escape some sanction in the event they participate and yet they are found to have sold alcohol to a minor. This is a voluntary program, however, some cities make a suggestion to the applicant that they participate in this program. Councilor McCallum stated that he would like to look at strengthening the training programs since he feels that there are a number of businesses that are lacking in this area. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 16 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE READYNG 6344 LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION - ZGHOUL, INC. DBA: WOODBURN STATION (formerly known as Exxon at 850 Lawson Avenue). A new Off Premise Sales liquor license application was submitted by Ali Zghoul who will be operating a 24-hour gas station and convenience store with alcohol sales during approved hours. Councilor Cox questioned if this business recently opened a convenience store. Chief Russell stated that it is the intent of the owner to begin having a full-service convenience store at that location. Councilor McCallum questioned if the granting of this license prior to having a store would be allowed. Chief Russell stated that the applicant would have to follow OLCC rules. Under Oregon Administrative Rules, the City has to complete our process within 30 days whereas OLCC can hold off on making a final determination until such time as the applicant has completed their construction before an actual license is granted. LONERGAN/COX... approve the new outlet application for Woodburn Station. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. ~645 APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR PRO-TEM. City Administrator Brown recommended the appointment of Public Works Director Tiwari as Administrator Pro-Tem while he is on vacation March 18, 2005 through March 27, 2005. BJELLANDFNICHOLS... appoint Public Works Director Tiwari as City Administrator Pro-Tern for the period of March 18, 2005 through March 27, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. Tape 3 0001 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Lonergan expressed his appreciation of City Attorney Shields efforts to keep the Council up to date on Measure 37 issues citing the example of the waiver which was adopted by the Council at this meeting. Councilor McCallum stated that Relay for Life had their kickoff event last Wednesday at Tukwila Center for Health and Medicine. The Relay will be held on June 24 and 25, 2005 and he thanked the Mayor for attending this event. Councilor McCallum also stated that there has been a lot of news on drought conditions for this year and he questioned if the City has a plan that can be utilized to get residents to conserve water. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that staff is prepared better than in the past but the City has not had as much of a water problem than some communities since our water is drawn from wells. The underground water strata is not expected to drop too much in a year. However, the City still promotes water conservation and more information will be made available to the residents in May or June. Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 17 TAPE i~EADFNG COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 Councilor Bjelland thanked City Administrator Brown for his efforts in submitting the request to Representative Darlene Hooley which resulted in the allocation of $1 M in earmarked federal funds for the Woodburn interchange project. This was a surprise to a lot of people but it was the Administrator's diligence to put forth the effort and Woodburn will benefit from this action. It will also help him in his role as Chair for MWACT in keeping the interchange project alive for future funding. He also stated that the first meeting of the Area Managers of the different Area Commissions on Transportation (ACT) was held recently for the purpose of discussing issues that are common to the different areas. In the meeting, he suggested that the ACT's to be more proactive in promoting a financing mechanism that will better address Oregon's transportation needs because the existing situation is such that the State is falling behind with their funding and not being able to keep pace with the cost of inflation nor with the cost of doing the various projects. Councilor Cox questioned the status of the funds that were earmarked. Councilor Bjelland stated that it was a house bill and the next step is conference committee and hopefully it will survive that next level. He also suggested that an alternate be named for his position in case he is unable to attend an MWACT meeting. Councilor Cox agreed to go as an alternate when needed. Mayor Figley stated that she and Administrator Brown had spent some time in discussions with Senator Courtney and Representative Komp with particular reference to some issues involving land use, the fallout from Measure 37, and funding for medium-sized transportation projects. She also stated that she suggested that right-of-way be purchased now because land prices continue to escalate making the total project cost even higher if the State waited to acquire right-of-way close to the time in which our interchange project is nearing construction phase. Mayor Figley stated that she did go to the bond closing today for the Police Facility bonds. This closing was delayed since it was originally scheduled for the same day in which the PERS decision was announced and the bond underwriters and bond counsel wanted to review the decision before the transaction was finalized. The City now has $6.8 M in the bank to build a new police facility. Administrator Brown stated that the Council had approved an additional phase of the Renaissance Home project and in that project there was a condition that there would be a second access into the development. The City did not have the ability to demand a paved access since the access point went out across County property and onto Boones Ferry Road. The conditions stated that the applicant would make a good faith effort to seek a goal exception from Marion County and, if it that was not possible, then it would be required to pave the access at the time the project area would be included in the urban growth boundary. The applicant made the good faith effort and the Marion County Heatings Officer did not feel that there was enough information to recommend approval of the goal exception. A heating was held before the County Commissioners last week and Page 17 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 18 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 14, 2005 TAPE RE~ING they made a decision to approve the goal exception. The next step is for the Commissioners to adopt a final order. The roadway will be completed as a fully cor~structed road improvement rather than an emergency access. 0790 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 18 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 14, 2005 19 8B MINUTES MONTHLY MEETING OF WOODBU~q PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD DATE: ROLL CALL: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: CALL TO ORDER: SECRETARY'S REPORT: March 9, 2005 Mary Chadwick - Present Yesenia Chavez - Present Neat Hawes - Present Ardis Knauf- Absent Kay Kuka - Present Patricia Will - Present Catherine Holland - Present Linda Sprauer, Library Director Vicki Musser, Recording Secretary None. President Catherine Holland called the meeting to order at 7 pm. The minutes of February 9, 2005 were approved and seconded. CORRESPONDENCE: None. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Monthly Statistics: There are still some gaps in the statistics. Millennium capabilities are evolving, and in a matter of months, full statistical capability is expected. The People Count for February was 16,383, which is a respectable number, given that the Library was closed for Martin Luther King Day on February 18. Activities: The regular Library Activities continue as usual. Kids Book Club, Infant-Toddler Time, Spanish Storytime, Library Storytime and Third Thursday Teens are all being held on a regular basis. Storyteller Rick Huddle will be coming to the Children's Room on Saturday, March 19, at 1:30 pm. Adult Programming presents Geoff Frasier, Celtic musician, who will offer Gaelic and Celtic selections at City Hall on March 13 at 2 pm. On April 10, Adult Programming offers Ricardo Cardenas, classical guitarist, who can be heard at 2 pm at City Hall. "Tax Night at the Library"' will be held on April 7, in the Carnegie Room, from 4-7 pm. 20 Volunteers of the Month: The Volunteer of the Month is Alfreda Fackd:ell. She became a Library volumeer in May, 2003. She currently processes the holds on Saturday. Her energy, cheerfulness and efficiency have made her a favorite at the Library. CCRLS Update: Daniel Peterson came to the Library Board meeting, and using the overhead projector, showed the Board how to access the Millennium system used at the Library. The Millennium system can be accessed on the Library's web page online at www.ccrls.or~'woodburn/. Mernbers of the Board were shown how to access the Library's new web page, including how to choose or modify an existing PFr-,I number, place books on hold, view any books they may already have checked out, and how to renew books online. One new Millennium feature is that many of the materials searched for will show pictures of the item, along with the title, author, publication information, which library the item belongs to, the call number, an icon depicting the sort of Library material being looked at, and its current status. Daniel instructed the Board in the basics of online navigation, showing them the navigation tabs, and how to return to the previous page. Daniel also pointed out several features of the new Library website, including a Spanish page, where Spanish- speaking patrons can access everything in their native language; a children's page, with child-friendly graphics and signs, a teen page, describing Third Thursday Teen programs and new books for teens; an upcoming events section, and research databases, which patrons can access to read magazine, encyclopedia, auto-repair, college information and newspaper articles, as well as atlases. Daniel and Sandy Kinney will be designing a Library web page in the near future that features the upcoming Music in the Park concert series. It was noted that patrons could receive Library notices via e-mail, if desired. Holiday Closures: The Library will be closed on Sunday, March 27th, which is Easter Sunday. Friends of the Library: Neal Hawes, Library Board Member and Treasurer for the Friends of the Library, reported that preparation for Music in the Park is progressing. Sandy Kinney has contacted bands and set up most of the Music in the Park's summer concert dates. Only two bands frorn last year, J.T. and the Tourists and Koral Jam, will be playing again this summer, 21 since Sandy is dedicated to continually providing new and different entertainment for the Woodburn community. A copy of the Music in the Park sumrner concert schedule is attached to these Library Board minutes. The Friends are negotiating with All Tech Sound to provide equipment and sound assistance at the concerts, as some bands may need a certain amount of technical support. They will also be setting up an aluminum truss scaffolding that will raise speakers to help project sound to the back of the concert crowd. John Brown, City Administrator, is arranging for electricity to be installed onstage in the Library Park. He has assured the Friends that the electric work will be completed before July 5, the date of the first Music in the Park concert. T-shirts may be made and sold at Music in the Park this year. Neal Hawes will do research on t-shirt costs before a decision is made. Thirty sponsors are needed to support Music in the Park. Mid-Valley Bank has cornmitted to sponsoring three groups. Renaissance Homes will sponsor ten groups, which constitutes one third of the needed budget. PGE is a new sponsor this year, and has promised a $1,000 sponsorship. The Friends of the Library are sponsoring Joni Harms, and possibly Bill Coleman, at the July 4th Centennial Park celebration. There will be a Friends of the Library Book Sale on the 23rd and 24th of April. This is slightly later than usual, due to AARP Tax Aid needing the Carnegie Room until the tax deadline of April 15th. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS None. Library Budget: The Library is operating under a "hold-the line" budget, which means keeping costs within the same dollar amount as the previous year. Inevitably, less can be purchased as prices rise. The Budget Committee met last week, and are going over next year's budget in a workshop situation. These workshops are open to the public, and input is welcome. Two of the goals Linda Sprauer, Library Director, has outlined for the Library for the 2005- 06 budget year are: writing grant applications towards the cost of the future Library expansion and remodel, and part of the planning for a Woodbum Community Foundation, a 501 (C) (3) non-profit organization to accept donations and endowments to support community projects. The Community Foundation will be separate from the City of Woodburn, with a separate governing board. The Foundation's Board will be responsible for making decisions 22 on how to allocate monies so as to best benefit the Woodbum community. BUSINESS TO/FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND/OR MAYOR: ADJOURxNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Musser 23 4 8C WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 10, 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 Vice Chairperson Bandelow P Commissioner Vancil P Commissioner Grigorieff P Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jennings P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Jason Richling, Associate Planner Chairperson Lima provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. MINUTES A_~. Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 24 Commissioner Jennings referred to his comment found on page 4 of the minutes and clarified it should read "100 percent of the people I talked to living on East Lincoln, Serres Ln., Tomlin, etc .... " Commissioner Hutchison made reference to page 6 and indicated his comment regarding "...congestion of the roads if the Nodal housing is developed before the Industrial area, which is needed to develop the South arterial" was excluded and he would like that reflected in the minutes. Commissioner Vancil moved to accept the minutes as amended. Commissioner Jennings seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_~. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of February 14, 200'~ PUBLIC HEARING A_~. Design Review 04-15, Variance 05-03 and Variance 05-04, request by the Woodburn Congreqation of Jehovah's Witnesses for Design Review approval to construct a 4,947 sq. ft. Kingdom Hall (house of worship) at 1557 June Way and Variance approval to reduce th= required 24 ft. rear yard setback to 10 ft. and to allow off-street I~arkin~ in a yard abutting a street (Hwy_. 211). EXPARTE CONTACTS Commissioner Vancil, Vice Chairperson Bandelow and Chairperson Lima reported they drove by the site. Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval of the requests based on the information in the report, the information provided by the applicant and the applicable review criteria subject to conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report. Page 1 of 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 10, 2005 24- Commissioner Jennings indicated he had no problems with the project. He made reference to page 21 Item # 5 of the conditions of approval regarding directional marking and commented the condition should spell out exactly what kind of markings that are to be done. It is all so general that it would seem to him it would depend upon who goes out that particular day on what markings have to go on the ground. Staff replied the code is written that way and normally we go by the standards used by the Public Works Department. The code does not specify any specific requirements. The Director determines whether the site plan satisfies the condition. Commissioner Jennings said back when he was on the elected body, the City had all kinds of unwritten rules, which at times were changed depending upon who submitted an application. Although he thought that was no longer the case, he would hate to see us back in that condition again. Staff stated this would be one of the few items where that would be the case. He reiterated that is how the code is written, which was recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by City Council. Commissioner Jennings~ further commented there needs to be something in writing that provides the applicant some guidance. Otherwise the applicant would not have any idea of the type of plan Staff requires and therefore, the plan could be resubmitted various times. Staff stated the determination of what type of marking is needed is dependant upon the site and is mostly common sense. Commissioner Vancil commented it sounded like this is one of those areas that need to be placed on the list to take a closer look at as we do an annual review of the WDO. TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT Guy Boulais, 10726 SW 49th Ave., Portland 97219 represented the Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses. He expressed appreciation of City Planning Staff for all of their work and for been very accommodating. Mr. Boulais further stated they agreed with Staff recommendations and would work with them. He mentioned the exterior building materials would be fairly earth tone colors and described the building itself as aesthetically pleasing from the street. Moreover, it is a plan type that has been built all over the Oregon area and is a tried and true plan for them. Mr. Boulais informed the Commission all of the work done on the building will be based on volunteers and the building would be well planned, organized and neatly run. In the end, it will be a very nice project that will enhance the street and the appearance of that area. Vice Chairperson Bandelow asked Mr. Boulais whether this is to replace a building the church is currently using in Woodburn or is it a new congregation? Guy Boulais explained there was a Kingdom Hall located in front of the Assembly Hall right next to Safeway that housed three congregations. That building is now being used for different meetings and the three different congregations are traveling to different areas to various Kingdom Halls until the new Hall is completed. He mentioned services would take place three nights a week and three different time periods during the day on Sunday. Vice Chairperson Bandelow also inquired whether the projected parking spaces are adequate for each separate meeting? Guy Boulais responded affirmatively and indicated the number of service attendees include families and people that ride together and should not pose a problem with that amount of parking. Chairperson Lima asked when would building commence? Guy Boulais replied they look forward to get started right away as soon as the building permit issuance is Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 10, 2005 25 done. TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS None TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS None DISCUSSION Chairperson Lima closed the public hearing and opened for Commission discussion. Commissioner Vancil remarked it looked like a great project, a nice addition to the neighborhood and he would support the project. Commissioner Jennings admired the Kingdom Hall's current landscaping maintenance along Highway 99 and thought it is a good project. He clarified his questions were merely on procedural and not on anything else. Commissioner Hutchison viewed the project as an enhancement to the current structures. Vice Chairperson Bandelow agreed with her fellow Commissioners and stated she would support the project. She made a motion to approve Design Review 04-15, Variance 05-03 and Variance 05-04 and instructed Staff return with facts and findings to support that decision. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. ITEMS FOR ACTION A__~. Final Order for Legislative Amendment 05-02 "Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Vancil remarked it was his understanding from reading the minutes that the recommendation regarding the Downtown area was that we bring the Comprehensive Plan in to compliance with neighborhood zoning instead of bringing the zoning in to compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out the Final Order did not reflect that recommendation. Commissioner Jennings interjected his conception of that was that we do absolutely nothing at this time and allow the Downtown Development Plan handle it. Staff clarified that was what Staff recommended with the understanding that was what the Planning Commission agreed with. He further stated although that was the Commission's recommendation, ultimately the City Council has to make the decision to actually confirm that. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to approve the Final Order as written. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion. Motion carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS None REPORTS A_~. Building Activity for February 2005 B_~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 3-3-05) BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Jennings mentioned Country Meadows has been advertising in the newspaper a new Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Meeting - 3/larch 10, 2005 26 project Southwest of Wal-Mart and he was unaware that an application has even been submitted. Staff indicated he first heard about that in the newspaper and had not heard from Country Meadows as of yet. However, he did speak with the owner of the property that Country Meadows plans to develop and he confirmed they are in negotiation on the property. On a different note, Staff informed the Commission that the Marion County Board of Commissioners agreed with City Staff and not with their Hearings Officer that there should be a public road and not an emergency access road in the Renaissance Development. He further stated the Board directed their staff to prepare findings to support that decision. Chairperson Lima requested the Commission be provided with water, particularly when there are long meetings. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Jennings moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chairperson Bandelow seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPE[ DATE ATTEST Comr~unity Development Director City (~f Woodburn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - March 10, 2005 Page 4 of 4 27 O0000000OO000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ooo ooooooooo oooo o oooo oo ooo© oooooooo ~ ...... ~ ..... ~o~ .... ~ooo~o~ ........ ~o~oo~ .... Q ~ o ooooo o oo©©oo o 0 9.9 0 o ~ © rD 000000 O0 0000 0000 000000 3O © OH~ ~ ~ 8i 39. 33 IOA March 28, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development Legislative Amendment 05-01; Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive public testimony pertaining to Legislative Amendment 05-01, leave the record open until April 4, 2005 to accept additional written testimony, and continue deliberation on this mah"er to April 25, 2005, BACKGROUND: This is a proposal initiated by the Woodburn City Council to amend the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance, and Woodburn zoning map, These amendments, in part, are proposed to complete the City's Periodic Review Work Program, The City of Woodburn is currently in state mandated periodic review of its comprehensive plan (Land Conservation and Development Commission Work Order # 00784). Under this review, the City is required to complete 11 work tasks. These work tasks are outlined as follows: · Task 1.a · Task 1,b · Task 2 · Task 3.a · Task 3,b · Task 4 · Task 5 · Task 6 · Task 7 Buildabte Land Inventory Prepare Growth Management Ordinance Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory Update Public Facilities Plan Revise Transportation System Plan (TSP) Wetlands Inventory and Natural Resources Study Recreation, Parks and Open Spaces Plan Historic District and Downtown Plan Changes in Goal/Objective, Unanticipated Events Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney ~f~ Fine 34 Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 2 Task 8 Task Task Task Update Plan and Zoning Ordinances Planning Coordination Citizen Involvement C oilating / Prin ting / Mapping Ordinance, Other Related Work Tasks # 5 (Recreation, Parks and Open Spaces Plan) and 6# (Historic District and Downtown Plan) have already been completed and acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). All remaining tasks have been completed, except for Tasks 9, 10, and 11. Work Task 9 is currently in process with the city coordinating a new urban growth boundary management agreement with Marion County. It is anticipated a new agreement will be approved by the City Council when it adopts the proposed amendments. Work Task 10 is currently in process and will be completed by submitting a citizen involvement report to LCDC after the City Council adopts the proposed amendments. Work Task 11 will be satisfied when the City Council adopts the ordinance approving the proposed amendments. Completion of the periodic review work program requires the City to revise the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance, and Woodburn zoning map. In addition, to comply with state statutes mandating the city provide a 20-year buildable land supply, the urban growth boundary (UGB) is proposed to be expanded. Extensive public involvement has occurred throughout the periodic review process that began in 1997. Most recently, four work sessions with the Planning Commission to review the proposed amendments and three work sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission to review the draft Transportation System Plan Update were completed. Notice of public hearings (pursuant to Measure 56 requirements) regarding the proposed amendments before the Planning Commission on February 3, 2005 and the City Council on March 28, 2005 were mailed to all property owners within the current UGB and the study area for proposed UGB expansion. As required by the Woodburn Development Ordinance, the City Council initiated this legislative land use amendment by resolution on January 10, 2005. The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at a public hearing on February 3, 2005. The Commission received oral and written testimony at the hearing and left the record open until February 10, 2005 to receive additional written testimony. After considering all testimony received, the Commission deliberated on the proposed amendments on February 24, Honorable Mayor and Cil",/Council March 28, 2005 Page 3 2005, and directed staff to prepare a final order recommending the City Council approve the proposed amendments. On March 10, 2005, the Commission approved its final order recommending the City Council approve the proposed amendments with ~wo modifications. First, the Commission found that the Woodburn School District's site east of Highway 99E should be included within the amended UGB. This 19-acre site meets an immediate need for the rapidly growing student population, is adjacent to the UGB and has adequate urban services. The Commission directed staff to justify inclusion of the District's 19-acre site under one of two scenarios: (a) work with the District to provide evidence of a special need that cannot be met on land within the existing or proposed UGB; or (b) if such justification cannot be reasonably provided, identify and remove residential land from another UGB expansion area, as required by state law. Second, the Commission received considerable testimony in opposition to changing the zoning on properties generally bounded by Second and Fourth Streets and Oak and West Lincoln Streets. Many of the affected properties are currently zoned RS or RM. This area is currently designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map and has been thus designated since about 1980. The City staff proposal was to change the RS and RM zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial designation but to apply to most restrictive commercial zone, which is CO (Commercial Office). However, because of the significant amount of testimony in opposition to the proposed zone changes to CO and because the City Council has established a goal to update the Downtown Development Plan in the near future, the Commission recommends no change of zoning of properties to CO in the downtown area. DISCUSSION: When the proposed amendments are adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by LCDC, the City will have completed its periodic review work program. The proposed amendments, maps, and supporting documents are compiled in a document called the City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (Exhibit "A'). In addition, the Planning Commission's Final Order contains findings of fact that demonstrate compliance with the below referenced approval criteria. A summary of the proposed amendments is provided as follows: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments 36 Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 4 The Comprehensive Plan text is generally reorganized and updated. Significant new and amended goals and policies are proposed as follows: · Residential Land Use and Housing goals and policies are amended to provide for a Nodal Development Overlay District. Industrial Development goals and policies are amended to incorporate recommendations of the 2002 Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy and to create a Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay District. Marion County Economic Coordination goals and policies are added to provide for coordination with the Marion County Growth Management Framework Plan. Commercial Lands goals and policies are amended to encourage infill and redevelopment and to create a Nodal Neighborhood Commercial District. Transportation goals and policies are amended to be consistent with the updated Transportation Systems Plan and to create an interchange Management Area Overlay District. Public Facilities goals and policies are added to consolidate and coordinate the water, wastewater, storm water, and transportation plans. · Natural and Cultural Resources goals and policies are amended to create a Riparian Corridor and Wetland Overlay District. Woodburn Development Ordinance Amendments The Woodburn Development Ordinance is amended to implement goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Significant new and amended regulations are proposed as follows: Six new overlay districts are created. These are the Nodal Single Family Residential (RSN), Nodal Multi-Family Residential (RMN), Nodal Neighborhood Commercial (NNC), Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay (RCW), Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay (SWIR), and Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 5 Interchange Management Area Overlay OMA). The regulations of these proposed overlay districts are summarized as follows: o The RCW will generally restrict development within 50 feet of designated creeks and watercourses. o The SWIR will require master planning of the district to provide for minimum lot sizes for targeted types of industries. o The RSN and RMN will allow for higher densities and smaller lot sizes. o The NNC will be restricted to neighborhood commercial uses and will require provision of public space. o The IMA will restrict development based on vehicle trip generation based on proposed development. Minimum density standards are established in the Single Family Residential District (RS), Retirement Single Family Residential District (R1S), and the Medium Density Residential District (RM). · Street improvement cross-sectional standards are generally reduced. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments The Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to apply land use designations to areas proposed to be added to the City's UGB, to apply proposed overlay districts to areas within the current UGB, and to change land use designations within the current UGB to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate land use designations considering surrounding land use and future development potential. Proposed changes will affect many properties in the proposed UGB and within the existing City limits. Woodburn Zoning Map Amendments The Zoning Map is amended to apply the Nodal Single Family Residential (RSN) and Nodal Multi-Family Residential (RMN) overlay districts to existing RS and RM zoned properties south of the southerly extension of Evergreen Road. The Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay (SWIR) is applied to the southerly portion of the Winco Distribution Center property. The Interchange Management Area Overlay (IMA) is applied to commercial and industrial zoned property Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 6 around the freeway interchange and to undeveloped residential zoned property south of the southerly extension of Evergreen Road. In addition, zone changes are proposed to many properties within the existing City limits to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate zoning considering existing comprehensive plan designation, surrounding land use and future development potential. Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Based on the results of the City's periodic review, the City proposes to expand the UGB to provide a 20-year buildable land supply and provide for 20-year projected economic growth. The City proposes to expand the UGB primarily to the west and southwest of the existing UGB and to the north of the existing UGB on either side of Boones Fern/ Road. Smaller UGB expansions are proposed along Highway 99E at the north and south ends of the existing UGB. The following criteria apply to review of the proposed amendments: 1. City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Chapter Policies 2. Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.1 3. Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 197 and 227 4. Statewide Planning Goals 1 through 14 IX, Goals and Staff recommends that the City Council receive public testimony pertaining to Legislative Amendment 05-01, leave the record open until April 4, 2005 to accept additional written testimony, and continue deliberation on this matter to April 25, 2005. This should provide staff and the City's planning consultant sufficient time to prepare responses to public testimony and comments received for Council consideration. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed amendments, if adopted by the City Council, are anticipated to have a significant positive financial effect on the City. The proposed amendments include addition of approximately 430 acres of industrial land that, when developed, is expected to result in a significant increase in tax revenue received by the City. In addition, the proposed amendments include the creation of a nodal overlay in the southwest portion of the City that wilt result in higher residential densities and more efficient use of land than presently found in 39 Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 7 Woodburn. Higher residential densities generally have a lower per dwelling unit cost of providing public services as compared to lower residential densities. In addition to direct positive impacts to City finances, the proposed amendments are expected to increase the economic prosperity of the communil¥. The proposed amendments are intended to attract industries that are expected to provide family wage jobs ($35,000 a year or more) that will provide the opportunity for Woodburn residents to raise their income levels. Typically, along with rising income levels come other positive effects to a community such as increased home ownership, improved business and economic climate, lower crime rates, greater community involvement, and a greater ability of the City to provide public services and facilities to its citizens. Attachments: Exhibit "A' Exhibit "B' Attachment A City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (provided to Council under separate cover) Written Testimony and Comments Received After Close of Planning Commission Record on 2/10/05 and Before Distribution of Staff Report on 3/25/05: B-62: Craig Robinson, received 2/22/05 B-63: Darlene Mahan, received 2/22/05 B-64: Klm Ashland, received 2/24/05 B-65: Martin Rohrer, received 3/3/05 B-66: Serres Family, received 3/8/05 B~67: Keith Woollen, received 3/14/05 B-68: DLCD, received 3/18/05 B~69: Marion County, received 3/21/05 B-70: Richard Edmonds, received 3/22/05 B-71: Klm Ashland, received 3/23/05 B-72: Mark Unger, received 3/23/05 B-73: Rebecca Jordan, received 3/23/05 B~74: Les Schwab Tires, received 3/23/05 B-75: Shucks Auto Parts, received 3/23/05 B-76: Bert Jones, received 3/23/05 B-77: Serres Family, received 3/23/05 B-78: Charles Piper, received 3/24/05 B-79: Fins & Feathers Pet Shop, received 3/24/05 B-80: Mark Unger, received 3/24/05 B-81: Mark Unger, received 3/24/05 B-82: Bert Gottsacker, received 3/24/05 Planning Commission Final Order dated 3/10/05 4t) Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 8 Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Staff Men-lo to Planning Commission dated 2/24/05 Planning Commission Minutes of 2/24/05 Planning Commission Staff Report dated 2/3/05 Planning Commission Minutes of 2/3/05 The attachments for Item IOA are not included in the agenda packet. The entire document has been given to the City Council and is available for review by the public in the City Recorder's office, in the City Administrator's office, and at the reference desk of the Woodburn Public Library. P-N 10B March 21,2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through~ City Administrator Ben Gillespie, Finance Director~! ~_~ ~ H! Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Budget RECOMMENDATION: Council direct staff to return an ordinance reflecting the Council's decision following the hearing. BACKGROUND: At its March 14 meeting the Council approved contingency transfers relating to several projects including the Downtown Plaza. Supplemental appropriations necessary to complete the budget for that project could not be presented to the Council until they had been noticed. The appropriate notice has been published, and the Council is now presented with an ordinance that completes the budget action begun at the March 14 meeting. Without complications this action would have been addressed at one meeting. However, staff wanted to apprise the Council of the budget changes needed before awarding a contract for construction of the Plaza, and to stay on schedule the contract had to be awarded at the March 14 meeting. In August 2003 the Council approved a $370,000 loan from the TIF Fund to the General CIP Fund for the purchase of land at 1060 Mt Hood Avenue. In November 2004 the voters approved the sale of bonds to build a Police Facility on that site. The bond proceeds were placed in a fund dedicated to construction of the new facility. To repay the loan, the principal should be transferred from the Police Construction Fund to the General CIP Fund and from there to the TIF Fund. Interest of $11,111 should likewise be transferred from the Police Construction Fund to the General CIP Fund and then to the TIF Fund. Repayment of the loan from Oregon Housing and Community Services for renovation of the Association Building begins in 2004-05. To provide for the debt Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney Finance 43 Mayor and City Council March 21,2005 Page 2 service, $5,000 of principal and $250 of interest should be appropriated in the Housing Rehab Fund. Electricity needs to be provided to the outdoor stage at the Library for the Music in the Park Program. The cost of this work is estimated to be $3,500. DISCUSSION: This action is deemed to be an emergency in order to minimize the interest expense on the Police Facility Loan. That loan bears interest at the rate of $23.52 per day. Any savings from avoided interest expense can be used on the project. This ordinance recognizes a loan ($25,000) and a grant ($25,000) for the Associ- ation Building. It completes the transfer of $13,000 from the General Fund to the General CIP Fund for the Plaza, and it appropriates funds for the completion of the Plaza project ($63,000). This completes the budget action begun at the March 14 Council meeting. To allow the repayment of the Police Facility loan, General CIP Fund revenue (Transfer from Police Construction Fund) and expenses (Debt Service) should be increased by $381,111. In the TIF Fund revenue (Loan Repayment) and Contingency should be increased by the same amount. The repayment has already been budgeted in the Police Construction Fund. In the Housing Rehab Fund Debt Service is increased by $5,250 and Contingency is decreased by a like amount. To provide for the electrical work at the Library the General Fund should be adjusted as follows: Transfers to General CIP Fund should be increased by $3,500 and Contingency should be decreased by $3,500. In the General CIP Fund, Transfer from General Fund should be increased and expenditures increased by $3,500 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The net effect is to decrease the General Fund Contingency by $3,500, decrease the Housing Rehab Fund Contingency by $5,250, increase the TIF Fund Contingency by $381,111, and leave Contingency in the General CIP Fund unchanged. 4.4. llA March 28, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Ad,ministrator Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development Ordinance Approving Zone Change 04-04 at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached ordinance approving Zone Change 04-04. BACKGROUND: The City Council, at its March 14, 2005 meeting, directed staff to prepare an ordinance to approve Zone Change 04-04. That ordinance is attached. It contains an emergency clause because it is a site specific land use action not subject to a referendum petition, DISCUSSION: None, FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Agenda item Review: City Administrator City Attorney ~?~J'~ Finance__ 45 COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM RS (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2325 NORTH BOONES FERRY ROAD; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the applicant, Tony Kreitzberg, submitted the following application: Zone Change Application Case File No. 04-04; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map have established certain land uses within the City of Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission and the Woodburn City Council have reviewed the record pertaining to said application and heard ali public testimony presented on said application; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the subject property is owned by Eugene R. Gascho Trust, Judith A. Gascho Trust, Rodney Lee Byers Trust, Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust, Willis A. Byers and Rachel L. Byers and is legally described in Exhibit "A" which is affixed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. That Zone Change Application No. 04-04 is granted and the Woodburn Zoning Map is hereby amended as to the property described in Exhibit "A' to this Ordinance from RS (Single Family Residential) Zone to RM (Medium Density Residential) Zone with the restriction to allow only those uses allowed in the RS (Single Family Residential) District and assisted living facilities (62331) and nursing care facilities (6231) based upon the Findings in Support which are affixed hereto as Exhibit "B,' Section 3. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, because this is a site specific land use decision that is not subject to a referendum petition, 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: Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. City Attorney Date Passed by the Council Submiffed to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder Approved: Kathy Figley, Mayor A'Fi'EST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Exhibit "A" Np. 03-30402A*-OY -22 Title Order No. 00304024 EXHIBIT ONE Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 1, HENRY'S FARM, as said Subdivision is platted and recorded in Volume 41, page 46, Book of Town Plats for Marion County, Oregon which bears North 87 o 22'12" West 5.09 feet from the Northeast corner of said Lot I and being situated in the Northwest qua~er of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian in said County and State; thence North /37022, 12' West along the North line of said Lot I and along the North line of Lot 2 of said Subdivision, a distance of 123.14 feet; thence South 02037,48" West 12.O0 feet; thence North S7°22't2" West 28.O0 feet; thence North 02037,48" East 12.00 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 3 of said Subdivision; thence North 87 ~ 22' 12" West along the No~ tine of said Lot 3 and ~ne North line of Lot 4, a distance of ~ 48.00 feet; thence North 02°30'44" East along the East line of said Subdivision, a distance of 232.87 feet to the most Northerly corner of Lot 7 of said Subdivision; thence North 02° 36' 12 East along the West ~ine of that tract of land described in Reel 1 t40, page 4;[6, need Reco[dS, a distance of 119~B9 feet to the NorthweSt corner thereof; thence South B7°22'58" East along tho Nortl~ line of said tract, a distance of 27.48 feet to the Southwest corner of that tract of land described in Reel 11 ?_2, page 429, Dead Records; thence North 02° 15'05" East along the West line of said tract, a distance of 266,77 feet to the South right-of-way line of Country Club Road; thence South 87044'F)8" East along said right-of-way line, a distance of 2.13.04 feet to the Northwest corner of that tract of land described in Volume 640, page 17, Deed Records; thence South 15°44'27" West along the Westerly line of said tract, a distance of 173.8;Z feet to the Southwest comer thereof; thence South 87 °44' SS" East along the Southerly line of said tract, a distance of 194.86 feet to a point which is 3~).00 feet Westerly of the centerlina of Boones Ferry Road (when measured perpendicular thereto); th.~nce South.1.5.°44 27 West parallel wit said cente.r, hne a distance of 101.53 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centarllne along the arc of a 6764 t58 foot radius curve to the left { the chord of which bears South 14~'34'43" West 233.84 feet) a distance of 233.86 feet; thence South 1 3°24'59" West parallel with said centerline, a distance of 127.42 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS IN SUPPORT Zone Change 04-04 II. III. APPLICATION INFORMATION: Applicant: Tony Kreitzberg P.O. Box 749 Salem, OR 97308-0749 Property Owners: Eugene R. Gascho Trust, Judith A. Gascho Trust, Rodney Lee Byers Trust and Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant proposes to change the zoning map designation of the property located at 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road from "Single Family Residential" (RS) to "Medium Density Residential" (RM). RELEVANT FACTS: The subject property is located south of Country Club Road and west of N. Boones Ferry Road and is addressed as 2325 N. Boones Ferry Road. It can be further identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 07BA, Tax Lot 900. The subject property (approximately 4.3 acres in size) is zoned Single Family Residential (RS), designated as Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map and is the location of two single family dwellings, an accessory structure, two pole barns and existing trees and shrubs. According to the local wetlands inventory, there are no wetlands on the subject property. The FEMA flood map shows the subject parcel to be outside the 500-year floodplain. The properties surrounding the subject site are zoned RS and designated Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The properties located to the west of the subject site are the location of a church and single family dwellings. The properties to the south and east (across N. Boones Ferry Road) are the location of single family dwellings. The properties located to the north of the subject property are the location of a Qwest Communication facility and single family dwellings. On March 27, 2000 the Woodburn City Council adopted an ordinance annexing 3.32 acres of the subject property into the City of Woodburn (Annexation Case File No. 99-02), changing the comprehensive plan designation of the entire subject site from Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre to Residential Greater ZC04-04 49 Page 1 IV. Than 12 Units Per Acre (Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Case File No. 99-02), granting a conditional zone change from City of Woodburn "Single Family Residential" (RS) to Multiple Family Residential (RM) (Zone Map Amendment Case File No. 99-06) and approving a site plan review application for 102 assisted living and Alzheimer suites. The applicant states that "...because of the construction of a competing assisted living facility known as Country Meadows in 2001, the Applicant decided to delay construction of the approved Boones Ferry Place development..." The site plan review approval expired after one year and the zoning on the subject property remained the RS zone. The Applicant's market research indicates that the Country Meadows facility is now close to full capacity and by the time a new assisted living facility can be completed, there wilt be an even greater demand for new assisted living units for housing. The Applicant wishes to proceed with the original proposed approved assisted living facility and memory care facility. In order to proceed according to the original approval, the Applicant needs the subject property to be zoned back from RS to RM. The applicant states "...in recognition of the City Councilors' concern that no apartment complex be constructed on the subject property, the Applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted to allow only permitted RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities..." RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Section 5.104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated FINDINGS: Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 5.104.04 Zoning Map Change; Owner Initiated: Section 5.104.04.C Criteria. Evidence proving a need for the proposed use and the other permitted uses within the proposed zoning designation. FINDING: The applicant states the following: "...The proposed change will allow for the construction of an assisted living facility and memory care facility which will serve to provide elderly housing for an unmet community need in Woodburn. There are six assisted living facilities within the Woodburn area, including Silvercreek Assisted Living, Colonial Gardens Assisted Living, Cascade Park Retirement, Countryside Living, Country Meadows and Pacific Living Centers (not yet open). According to demographic information for 2004, there are ZC04-04 50 Page 2 approximately 2,410 people within a three mile radius of the Woodburn area over the age of 75. The current open facilities provide approximately 96 units for independent living, and 174 units for assisted living, leaving 2,140 senior residents who may need assisted living suites. The proposed project will provide approximately 102 additional senior living units. Without the additional units, there will be an inadequate supply of assisted living housing in Woodburn, which will restrict the available choices for residents and result in higher rental rates..." As the applicant states, and as the population data shows, Woodburn's elderly population has increased and continues to increase. As a result, the demand for elderly housing continues to increase, as does the variety of housing types for the elderly. The applicant's inventory of existing assisted living units in the City of Woodburn indicates that the demand for assisted living exceeds the existing supply of assisted living units in the City of Woodburn. This project will add to the variety of housing types for the elderly in Woodburn since it will provide additional assisted living and Alzheimer suites in the City of Woodburn. To address previous City Council and Planning Commission concerns regarding the potential for apartments to be constructed on the property, the RM zone change should be conditioned to allow only uses allowed in the RS zone plus assisted living facilities and nursing care facilities. This condition will allow the applicant to construct an assisted living facility, but will prohibit multi-family dwelling units. This approval criterion is met. Evidence that the subject property best meets the need relative to other properties in the existing developable land inventory already designated with the same zone considering size, location, configuration, visibility and other significant attributes of the subject property. FINDING: The applicant states the following: "...There are no other four-acre parcels which are available and suitable for the proposed development within the vicinity of the proposed site. Most of the large parcels of land zoned for multi- family residential within the Woodburn city limits have already been developed. The Applicant has located no other suitable and available site within the vicinity of the proposed site. The need for the elderly housing will be best met by the proposed site for a number of reasons. First, the proposed site is adjacent to Boones Ferry Road, which is an arterial street served by public transportation. The Comprehensive Plan states that multi-family ZC04-04 51 Page 3 land uses should be sited on arterial streets. Second, the proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will greatly benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The location is also convenient to churches, businesses providing commercial services and public City services. The Applicant has analyzed the available multi-family residential parcels and has determined that the proposed site best meets the City's need for elderly housing. The size and configuration of the 4.3-acre property and its proximity to a commercial building and church makes its development for single-family residential homes unattractive and economically unsuitable. The Applicant is unable to make a reasonable use of the land as it is presently zoned..." The City Council concurs with the applicant's response. The most recent draft of the City of Woodburn Buildable Lands Inventory dated July 2004, identifies 10 medium-high density residential buildable lots 1-5 acres in size and 2 medium-high density residential buildable lots 6-10 acres in size inside the proposed Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. The subject site is identified in the draft Buildable Lands Inventory as one of the vacant medium-high density residential lots 1-5 acres in size. Only two RM zoned lots within the city limits are larger than the subject property. The first RM zoned lot (7.4 acres) is located on the east side of Interstate 5, south of Stacy Allison Way. This lot currently does not have city services (water, sewer, storm and street) available to it and is almost twice the size of the subject property. The second RM zoned lot is located south of Judy Street and west of Highway 99E and is 22.3 acres in size which far exceeds the size of the subject property. There are no RM zoned lots in the city limits that are of similar size as the subject property. The subject site has city services available to it, is adjacent to an access street and minor arterial street which provide for excellent pedestrian and transit connectivity and is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention. The subject property abuts a church to the west, Qwest Communications Facility to the north and single family residential lots to the south. An assisted living and memory care facility would be compatible with the commercial uses that abut the north and west sides of the subject site. The proposed zone change from RS to RM is consistent with the Residential Greater Than 12 Units Per Acre Comprehensive Plan Map designation on the subject property. The applicant recommends that the RM zone change be restricted on the subject site to allow only permitted RS uses plus assisted living facilities and memory care facilities. Single Family Residential (RS) uses and assisted living facilities and memory ZC04-04 Page 4 VI. care facilities would be compatible with the single family residential lots that abut the south and southwest sides of the subject property. An apartment complex use on the subject site would not be compatible with the abutting single family residential uses due to traffic and use conflicts. Therefore, conditioning the zone change to only allow RS zone uses and assisted living and nursing care facilities is appropriate. This approval criterion is met. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings contained herein, all relevant approval criteria relating to approval of the zone change application have been satisfied. ZC04-04 Page 5 e 11B March 21,2005 TO: Mayor and City Council throu ;ity Administrator FROM: Ben Gillespie, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2004-05 Supplemental Budget RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the attached ordinance for a supplemental budget BACKGROUND: Earlier this evening the Council conducted a hearing to consider budget amendments. The attached ordinance, as amended, reflects the Council's direction to staff at the conclusion of the hearing. The emergency clause has been utilized in this ordinance to minimize the interest expense of the Police Facility loan. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed revision increases revenue in all funds by $828,722. Appropriations are increased by $456,361. Contingencies are increased $372,361. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney Financ~ COUNCIL BILL NO. OI~A)INANCE NO. AN OP~INANCE ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004- 2005 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, Oregon State Statute 294.480 allows for the adoption of a supplemental budget during a fiscal year to meet changes in financial planning, and WHER£AS, the Notice of Supplemental Budget Hearing and Financial Summary was published in the Woodbum Independent on March 19, 2005 as required under State budget law; and WHEPdgAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 28, 2005 to give citizens an opportunity to comment on the proposed 2004-2005 supplemental budget, now, therefore, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the supplemental budget for fiscal year 2004-2005 is hereby adopted as set forth below. follows: Section 2. That fiscal year 2004-2005 revenues and appropriations are adjusted as Revenues Appropriations GENERAL FUND: Appropriations Adjustment: Transfer to General CIP Fund Operating Contingency Net General Fund Appropriation Adjustment 3,500 3,500) -0 - GENERAL CIP FUND Revenue Adjustments: Transfer from General Fund OHCS Loan (Association Building) State Grant (Association Building ) Loan Repayment Received Interest Income Total Revenue Adjustments 16,500 25,000 25,000 370,000 11,111 447,611 Appropriation Adjustments: Capital Outlay - Plaza Project Capital Outlay ~ Library Project Debt Service - Principal Debt Service - Interest Total General Fund Appropriation Adjustments 63,000 3,500 370,000 11,111 447,611 Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORX)INANCE NO. 155 Revenues Appropriations HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND: Appropriation Adjustment: Debt Service - Principal Debt Service - Interest Operating Contingency Net Housing Rehabilitation Fund Adjustment 5,000 250 (5,250) - 0 - TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND: Revenue Adjustments: Loan Repayment Received Interest Income Total Traffic Impact Fee Fund Revenue Adjustments Appropriations Adjustment: Operating Contingency Total Traffic Impact Fee Fund Appropriations Adjustments 370,000 11,111 381,111 381,111 381,111 Section 3. That the City Recorder shall file a true copy of the supplemental budget as finally adopted in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 294.555. Section 4. That if any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance for any reason shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment is rendered. Section 5. This ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist in that appropriation adjustments are necessary to meet estimated expenditures that will need to be paid within the next 30 days and payment cannot be made until such time as appropriations are adopted by the Council and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor. Approved as to Fo O ~ ~ City Attorney 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 Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. OI~3)ff-,IAN CE NO. llC March 24, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: SUBJECT: David Torgeson~t_Lg~t City Engineer through Director of Public Works Sewer Pump Station Upgrades at Industrial Avenue and Greenview Drive RECOMMENDATION: Award Contract for Industrial Avenue and Greenview Drive Sewage Pump Station Rehabilitation Projects, Bid No. 2003-018-47, to lowest responsible bidder, Triad Mechanical, in the amount of $603,900.80 BACKGROUND: Industrial Way and Greenview pump stations were installed more than twenty-six years ago, using technology that is now obsolete. The existing stations are not dependable, and have required extraordinary maintenance, industrial Avenue station is currently operating with a temporary pumping system. The planned replacement of these pump stations includes new concrete wetwells, submersible pumps, and level controls. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has approved the design for the new facilities. In April 2004, the Council approved a sole source specification and procurement for the two pump stations. Accordingly, equipment provided by Romtec, Inc. of Roseburg, Oregon was specified in the call for bids that was publicly advertised on February 23, 2005. The Bid Schedule identified Industrial Avenue project as Schedule A, Greenview as Schedule B. Three alternates were requested for work at Industrial. Alternate I pertained to a substitution of manual electrical switch (used when portable generator will supply power. Alternate 2 and Alternate 3 solicited prices for two methods of force main replacement, only one of which will be awarded. Bids were opened on March 17, 2005. Two bidders submitted proposals. Both bids were responsive. The Apparent low bid is described below: Agenda Item Review: Ci~f Administrator(~ City Attorney __ Finance Honorable Mayor and City Council March 24, 2005 Page 2 Triad Mechanical- Lowest Responsible Bidder: Sched. A Deduct Alt. 1 Add Alt. 2 Add Alt. 3 Sched. B Subtotal $298,300.10 $500.00 $38,400.00 $20,OOO.OO $313,000.70 $631,300.80 (Schedules A and B, Add Alt. 3) (Not Recommended) (Not Recommended) Less Item 11 Schedule A <$27,400.00> (Permanent Generator Set) Total Contract Amount $603,900.80 The bid submitted by Emery & Sons totals $629,205, when evaluated using the same items contained in the recommended award. DISCUSSION: City technical staff and DEQ agree that these pump stations need to be replaced this summer. The funding for the combined project is shown in the two-year CIP budget. Carry over funds for summer 2005 construction will be available. The two sewer pump station upgrade projects appear in the FY 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The budget for the combined projects was set at $490,000 in the ClP. The response to review and approval by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) included previously unforeseen changes in valve vaults. Additional costs here are about $20,000. Since preparation of estimates in spring 2004, costs for other equipment and materials have risen significantly. Romtec notified staff of current prices in January 2005 when design was undergoing final review. Staff engaged Romtec in discussion. Romtec agreed to keep the quoted price increase to a minimum. Otherwise, the bid price may have been $46,000 higher. Analysis of bids indicated that these quoted costs were passed through the bidders without exceptional further markup. Staff concluded that bid prices, though greater than budgeted, were fair. No advantage appears to be gained from rejecting the bids and proceeding to re-bid the projects. The project bid is approximately nine percent above the engineer's estimate of $554,000. Honorable Mayor and City Council March 24, 2005 Page 3 The city owns two trailer-mounted portable emergency generators with capability of serving Industrial Avenue pump station. If approved by DEQ, only one permanent generator, rather than two, will be procured with this project. Permanent generation at Greenview will remain. The recommended contract amount, shown above, reflects the substitution of portable equipment for the permanent generator included in the contractor's Bid Proposal. The sewer force main at Industrial is composed of asbestos cement pipe. Breaks in the pipe have caused minor sewage spills, the most recent just last year. This project 'will be the best time to replace the pipe with modern, reliable materials. Staff recommends award of Schedules A (Industrial Avenue) and B (Greenview), together with Additive Alternate 3. The recommended Alternate provides for replacement of the sewer force main connecting Industrial to the gravity system at Progress Way. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Work on this project will occur in spring and summer 2005. Final progress payments will be made in FY 2005~2006. Funds needed to accomplish this project are available from budgeted sources and from unspent 2004-2005 dollars that will be carried forward. The combined project is programmed in the two-year allotment of Sewer CIP and Equipment Replacement funds in the amount of $603,900.80. W.OODBUI .N llD March 22, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Thomas P. Tennant, Captain x Liquor License - Change of Ownership RECOMMENDATION: The Woodburn City Council recommend that the Oregon Liquor Commission approve a liquor license application for Rincon Nayarita. Control BACKGROUND: Applicant: Rincon Nayarita 561 N. Pacific Hwy Woodburn, Or 97071 Owners: Fernandez, Juan 18936 Butteville Road Woodburn, OR 97071 Damas, Obdulio 800 North Main Street Mt. Angel, Or 97362 License Type: Limited On-Premises Sales - Allows for the sale and service of malt beverages, and wine for consumption on the licensed premises. On March 8, 2005, the Woodburn Police Department received an application requesting approval for a limited on-premise sales license for Rincon Nayarita located at 561 N. Pacific Hwy formally La Unica. Juan Fernandez and Obdulio Damas are applying for a liquor license. Mr. Fernandez and Mr. Damas purchased La Unica and took possession on March 1, 2005. The owners are changing the name to Rincon Nayarita and applying for a liquor license under Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney Finance ~2/ 60 Mayor and City Council March 22, 2005 Page 2 this name. Rincon Nayarita does not have a temporary liquor license at this time, Mr. Damas advised they 'will not be selling or serving alcohol until they receive a liquor license form OLCC. The Woodburn Police Department responded to six (6) calls for service at La Unica over the last 12 months. One of the calls involved an undercover sting in which the business was cited for selling alcohol to a minor, OLCC later cited the business for the violation. As a result, La Unica's liquor license was suspended for twelve (12) days. Rincon Nayarita will operate seven (7) days per week, between the hours of 10:00 am and 10:00 pm. The establishment will have family dining in the front (west) portion of the business and the adults only portion of the establishment ,will be in the rear (east) portion of the business. The police department has received no communication from the public or surrounding businesses in support of or against the change of ownership. At present, the OLCC has not completed their investigation into the issuance of a license for this establishment. DISCUSSION: The police department has completed a limited background investigation on the applicant business and found nothing of a questionable nature. An in- depth investigation was completed on the owners and no offenses that would preclude a license being issued or items of a questionable nature were located. Under the criteria identified by the OLCC and adopted by the City Council I find no reason not to recommend that council recommend to OLCC approval of the application. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None 6! OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE Application is being made for: LICENSE TYPES B Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) El Commercial Establishment El Caterer El Passenger Carder El Other Public Location ACTIONS ~ange Ownership I;3 New Outlet El Greater Privilege El Additional Privilege El Other El Private Club . ~mited On-Premises Sales" R E C E IV E D ($202.6~1~1(~N UQUOR CONTROL COMMISI( El Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) El with Fuel Pumps El Brewery Public House ($252.60) E! Winery ($250/yr) Q Qther: Applying as: ~l~lndividuals Q Limited Q Corporation Partnership MAR'O 8 2005 SALEM REGIONAL OFFlC El Limited Liability Company 1. Applicant(s): [See SEC~TION I of the Guide] ~ 2. Trade Name 3. Business Location: ,..~.~Z /~' (number, street, rural mute) 4. Business Mailing Address: , ~ ~/~7'L~.~ _.(PO box, number, street, rural rou_~.te) (phone) FOR CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY The city council or county commission1: (name of city or county) recommends that this license be: Granted [~ Denied I~ By: (signature) (date) Name: Title: OLCC USE ONLY Application Rec'd ~ ~,t~ Date: / 90-day authority: Q Yes El No (city) ,JXCounty) (state) (city) (state) (ZIP code) (fax) Date Date Date _~ - Date~X,//oJ'-- ! 1-800452-O!..CC (6522) www. olcc. state, or. us 6. ls the business at this location currently licensed ,~y OLCC? ~s ElNo 7. If yes t° whom:,,~~>/~& ~~~-t~e of License: ~-~)h 8. Former Business Name: w~ 9. Will ,o, have,~'~anager?~es QNo Name;_ Ob~~/~. ~~~' __ ~/-- (manager must ~11 out an individual histow f~) ~0.Wh~t is th, ~oc~ god, ming body wh~r~ your bu~es~ ~ ~oc~t~d? (~¢~~¢~*L. ~'¢~ 11. Contact person foc,~is application: :_ /~~ (name of or ~un~) (address) (fax numbed' / (e-mail address)' I und~ answers are not true and complete, the OLCO may deny my license application. Applic; and Date: 13A March 28, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Counci! through City Administrator FROM: SUBJECT: Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development Planning Commission's Approval of Design Revi~w 04-15, Variance 05-03 and Variance 05-04 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 March 24, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving Design Review 04-15, Variance 05-03 and Variance 05-04 to construct a 4,947 square foot Kingdom Hall (house of worship) at ]557 June Way, variance approval to reduce the required 24-foot western interior yard setback to 10 feet and variance approval to allow parking in a yard abutting a street (Hwy. 21 ]) in an RM zone. The subject property is currently vacant and can be identified specifically on Marion County Assessor Map Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 08DA, Tax Lot# 6800. The property is ].64-acres in area and was created as a result Property Line Adjustment Case File No. 04-01 (approved on January 23, 2004) which consolidated 5 lots of the Woodburn Crest Estates into one 1.64 acre parcel in the RM zone. No wetlands are located on the subject site and it is located outside of the 500-year floodplain. The property is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and designated Residential >]2 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. The neighboring properties to the east (across June Way) are zoned RM, designated Residential >12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map and are developed as the Woodburn Crest Estates. The property to the south is zoned RM, designated Residential >12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map and contains one single-family dwelling. The property Agenda Item Review: City Administrator City Attorney 63 Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2005 Page 2 to the west is zoned Commercial Office (CO), designated Commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map and is currently vacant. The property to the north (across Highway 211) is outside the City limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary. This property is zoned Marion County Urban Transition Farm (UTF), designated Commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map and contains one single-family dwelling. The Applicant is James Henry The Property Owner is the Woodburn Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses DISCUSSION' None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. i' Exhibit "B".. ~2. Exhibit "B"-G3 ~ REC'D ~ ~' REC'D ~- WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION METTING FEBURARY 2~ 2005 ~B ~ ~ 2005 IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ) OBJECTION~~ INDUSTRIAL RESERVE DISTRICT ) PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENT (SWIR) IN THE WOODBURN GROWTH ~ ~?EMPLOYEE ~REQUIREMENT BOUNDRY EXTENSION. ) MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENT TRANSPORTATION PLAN IN SWIE RECITALS: 1. We the undersigned are owners of-100 % of the land, by deed, and owned since the 60s, in the proposed Southwest Industrial Reserve District (SWIR). 2. We the undersigned are --100% of the owners of the land in the proposed Southwest Industrial Reserve District. 3. The undersigned are desirous of making this Petition a part of the record of the meeting of Feburary 2~,2005, deliberating on what was said at the Public Hearing Feburary 3, 2005. 4. We the undersigned were not approached on any of the planning of the Southwest Industrial Reserve District and therefore feel it is the City of Woodburns responsibility to do their own master planning on any parcels. 5. We the undersigned are oppsed to being told how we will divide our farm land in the Southwest Industrial Reserve District. 6. We the undersigned are opposed to being told Wh~ we will sell our land to, in the Southwest Industrial Reserve District, as to the amount of employees that must be employeed. 7. We the undersigned feel we are quite capable of deciding, to who and how we will dispose of our land. 8. We the undersigned are opposed to the Transportation Plan in the Southwest Industrial Reserve District. If the land need is greater that the proposed street width and if it follows a property line and does not~ake ½ off each side of the proposed street NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby: 1. Affix their signature to this document for the purpose of objecting to the above recitals. 2. Certify that they are the owners, either in fee or under contract purchase, of one or more parcels in the proposed Southwest Industrial Reserve District. RE~D WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 28, ~0~ MAR ~, ~ 2005 WOODBURN CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFRCE IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTHWEST ) INDUSTRIAL RESERVE DISTRICT ) (SWIR) IN THE WOODBURN GROWTH ) BOUNDRY EXTENSION. ) OBJECTION TO: PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENT EMPLOYEE REQUIREMENT MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENT TRANSPORATION PLAN IN SWIR RECITALS: 1. We the undersigned are owners of 100 % of the land, by deed, and owned since the 60s, in the proposed Sourhwest Industrial Reserve District(SWIR). 2. We the undersigned are 100% of the owners of the land in the proposed Southwest Industrial Reserve District. 3. The undersigned are desirous of making this Petition a part of the record of the Public Hearing on March 28, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. 4. We the undersigned were not approached on any of the planning of the Southwest Industrial Reserve District and therefore feel it is the City of Woodburns responsibility to do their own master planning on any parcels. 5. We the undersigned are opposed to being told how we will devide our farm land in the Southwest Industrial Reserve District. 6. We the undersigned are opposed to being told who we will sell our land to in the Southwest Industrial Reserve District, as to the amount of employees that must be employeed. 7. We the undersigned feel we are quite capable o~ deciding, to who and how we will dispose of our land. 8. We the undersigned are opposed to the Transportation Plan in the Southwest Industrial Reserve District. If the land need is greater than the proposed street width and if it follows a property line and does not take ½ off each side of the proposed street. NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby: 1. Affix their signature to this document for the purpose of objecting to the above recitals. 2. Certify that they are the owners, either in fee or under contract purchase, of one or more parcels in the proposed Southwest Industrial Reserv%District. NAME ADDRESS ~ CITY 0/9'0o Exhibit "B"-~/ February 24, 2CO5 FEt 2 4 2005 City of Woodburn Planning Chairman, Commissioners & Woodburn Planning Commission WOODBuRN COMMUNITY D~/ELOPUENT DEpt. It has come to our attention that the Woodburn Comprehensive plan is in the process of being amended or changed. The current comprehensive plan has our properties, 2055 & 2425 MolalIa Avenue (approximately 18 acres) slated to go to a commercial type zoning. Due to the recent developments, we do not think that this is the ideal zoning for this property. We propose that single family residential housing makes more sense at this time due to the following reasons: These 18 acres are isolated on the edge of the new expanded urban growth boundary, far from the 99E traffic streams. The new nine acre Mormon church facility at 2045 Molalla Avenue, our direct neighbor to the West (we share the entire length of the lot), would blend much nicer into a friendly residential setting. The property directly South and across Motalla Highway from our property and parallel to Cooley Road is currently planned to be changed to single family residential. This property lines up directly across from ours. The highest and best use for our properties would be single family residential also. In conclusion, the direction of the master plan should be modified since the approval of the Mormon church creates more of a community area. Single family residential would better serve the area and create more of a balance. Sin~er~y, ~ Klm Ashland, Property Owner- Contact Person (503) 390-0308 Kevin Ashland, Property Owner Dan Blem, Property Owner Ivan Smerkoff, Property Owner January 13, 2005 Proposed Zoning Plain for the C~ty of Woodburn FEB 2, 4 2005 ~OODSURN OOMMUNffy DEVELOPMENT D~PT, _.j /' / / / / / / / .... . PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ~or the city o~ WOODBURN January 13, 2005 ~ REC'D ~ FEB~ 4 2005 / / ~ / / / / REC'D -A' MAR 0 3 ?.005 WOOOBURN COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"-~o5" 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 March 1, 2005 Woodbum City Council c/o Jim Mulder Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Dear Mayor Figley and Councilors: This letter and its enclosures are submitted for your consideration relative to your March 28, 2005, hearing on the UGB expansion (and other matters.) I will be testifying at the hearing on behalf of myself and three of my neighbors (Castor, Adney, and Coleman) who also own properties along Amey Roa& The enclosures are: 1. Aerial photograph looking down on Amey Road. The area outlined in red is approximately 125 acres and our four properties comprise about 110 acres of the total of 125 acres. 2. Aerial photograph looking down on the Woodbum 1-5 Interchange. Both the approximately 125-acre area and the proposed South By-Pass are shown in red. 3. My map showing the northwest quadrant of staff's proposed UGB adjustments to the Comprehensive Plan. I have added to the map the approximately 125-acre area, the roads, and the identification of the properties owned by their owners. 4. Letter to the Woodbum Planning Commission dated February 7, 2005. 5. Letter to Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder dated April 29, 2004. 6. Letter to John Brown dated April 26, 1999, with enclosures (which include the July 23, 1996, letter of Robert L. Engle sent on my behalf to Steve Goeckritz.) As you can see, we have been consistent and persistent in our efforts to be included within the UGB since 1996. I last testified before the Woodbum Planning Commission on February 3, 2005. At their deliberations on February 24, 2005, Jim Mulder was asked by the Planning Commission why he recommended that our area not be included in the currently proposed UGB expansion. He said that his view is that the west part of our area should be developed for multi-family residential use and the rest of our area (that which is north of Woodbum Company Stores) should be developed for commercial use. He said there is already enough proposed to be designated for multi-family residential and commercial uses, and that what we should do is find a developer who will come in after the approval (by Marion County and the State of Oregon) of the UGB expansion and ask for a separate and specific plan amendment (Post-Acknowledg-ment Plan Amendment). He suggested that one appropriate use for the part of our area along Amey Road would be as the site for a "big box" retailer. (That would be like Home Depot, Costco, Winco, etc.) Three Planning Commissioners said that they agree with Mr. Mulder regarding the appropriateness of a Commercial designation. Woodbum City Council March 1, 2005 Page 2 We think that the best way to attract a developer who would look at the big picture and who would be willing to make any necessary and appropriate improvements to the roadways and traffic situation and to protect the other neighbors who remain in our area would be for our area to be included within the UGB. What we have had in mind is developing the area for uses that are something between Commercial and Industrial. An example of the kinds of businesses that would fit well into such a development would be distributors or manufacturers who produce a product and show and market a substantial part of their inventory from the site of manufacture. That would be compatible with Woodbum Company Stores, and both would benefit from being in the same visible, successful location. If we are brought into the UGB at this time, we would look for one developer who specializes in that kind of development for all 110 of the 125 acres. A Post-Acknowledgment Plan Amendment is available only for up to 50 acres. We will, of course, go that route if you so prefer. That process, because it is more limited in terms of the acreage being developed, makes it more difficult for us to find a developer who will be able to look at the big picture, be able to finance all necessary and appropriate improvements, and be able to most properly protect the remaining neighbors. The South By-Pass concept has been discussed for a long time. Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder no doubt were influenced by the South By-Pass history and its proponents. Whether the South By-Pass ever gets approved, funded, and built remains to be seen. Even if that all happens, will a freeway exit to accommodate it ever be built? If it is built, will it be within any of our lifetimes? Even if it is built, does it make sense to now develop around it, so that it's more difficult and costly to build the exit? Please look carefully at enclosure #2. Notice the extensive amount of farmland proposed to be brought into the UGB to make the South By-Pass work. Do you wonder if 1,000 Friends of Oregon can find a way to let that picture tell 1,000 words? Now look at the 125 acres we propose to bring into the UGB. It is surrounded on three sides by development, as well as adjoining one of the largest and one of the most successful retail areas in the Pacific Northwest. (Ex-Mayor and new Planning Commissioner Dick Jennings said, during the hearing of the Planning Commission, that it looks like a drunken sailor drew the proposed UGB line around our area and it should be squared off. But then he voted with the others against doing it.) Do you really think it is more likely that Woodbum will develop all the way to the South By-Pass within the next twenty years or that the area next to Woodburn Company Stores (with streets, power, water, and sewer running right up to it) will likely develop within that twenty-year period? Remember, the whole concept of this part of the planning process is to determine, not only what is a good plan from other than an economic standpoint, but also what will be economically viable within the next twenty years. In other words, good ideas that won't happen (or at least won't happen for a long time) are Woodbum City Council March 1, 2005 Page 3 not what you are being asked to come up with or to approve, as such ideas will not improve the near-term economy or livability of Woodbum. For the past year, the public has been invited to analyze and commem on the proposed UGB expansion. A number of people have done so. I noticed at the Planning Commission hearings that only one minor change to the UGB proposal was suggested by the Planning Commission. Perhaps the proposal is the best we can come up with and, therefore, no changes are appropriate. I would like to think that there is still a reasonable oppommity for some changes or additions to the UGB expansion recommendations. The recommendations are somewhat different than earlier proposals that were formulated by citizen groups .after (rather than before) public input. We presented testimony to the Buildable Lands Citizens Advisory Committee (aka Growth Policy Task Force) back in 1999. Dave Christoff chaired that committee. Following the 1999 hearings and that committee's review, that corranittee's recommendation was that a majority of the 110 acres should be brought into the UGB. We are not exactly sure what has changed since 1999, other than (1) the successful development and expansion of Woodbum Company Stores, (2) the reversing of the chronological order in which the public hearings were scheduled and the UGB expansion proposal was presented, and (3) changes of the consultant, the Woodburn Planning Department staff, the Woodbum Planning Commission, the Woodbum Mayor, and most of the Woodbum City Council who make the recommendations and decisions. We apparently haven't done a very good job of continually presenting our case, and for that we apologize and ask you for your understanding. We will appreciate your consideration of our request. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 February 7, 2005 Woodburn Planning Commission c/o Jim Mulder Woodburn City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Dear Planning Commissioners: This is a follow-up to my testimony presented at your hearing on Thursday, February 3, 2005. Please consider this letter in your decision regarding the UGB and include it in the record. My testimony was presented, and this letter is written, on behalf of myself and three families (Castor, Adney, and Coleman) who own about 110 out of the 125 acres in the area along Amey Road and Arney Lane adjoining and immediately north of Woodbum Company Stores. We have consistently represented to the City of Woodbum, since the UGB study began in 1996, that we would all like to be included in any UGB expansion, have all of our properties zoned for Light Industrial development, and cooperate with each other to try to develop our properties as one entire tract of 110 acres. We presented testimony to the Buildable Lands Citizen Advisory Committee (aka Growth Policy Task Force) in 1999 and at the hearings before the Woodbum City Council shortly thereafter. In fact, a majority of our area was then recommended, as a result of the study, for inclusion within an expanded UGB. We were delighted with that recommendation and were ready for the inclusion. We haven't changed our minds. All three of my neighbors were at your February 3 hearing, although I was the only one who spoke. They indicate they will be sending letters for inclusion in the record that support my testimony and written materials. Two maps and an aerial photograph are enclosed and should be helpful in your understanding of our request. They include: 1. Proposed Comprehensive Plan with staff's recommended UGB adjustments added. 2. My map of the northwest quadrant of Map # 1, with the area, roads, and property owners indicated. 3. Aerial photograph of the area we propose for inclusion, with the area outlined and with the double lines showing the current UGB line. There are three main reasons we feel we should be included in the UGB expansion. They are: 1. Our area is, and has been for about three decades, the area most surrounded by the UGB. That surrounding is even more noticeable if the UGB is now extended both north along Butteville Road and all the way to Crosby Road on the east side of I-5. Maps #1 and #2 show that very clearly. Although rounding offUGB borders may not be required, it would seem to have merit and should be less objectionable to those bureaucrats and groups that are concerned about expansion into agricultural areas. With Woodbum Company Stores on one side and housing (or freeway) on the other two sides, we are already much more impacted by urbanization than several other area~s that are outside of the current UGB, but which are proposed for inclusion. Our area adjoins one of the largest retail centers in the Pacific Northwest. It is hard to believe that it would be appropriate for such an area to not be included in the supply of land that is listed as being made available for development within the next 20 years. More than any other area proposed for inclusion in the UGB expansion, except perhaps the area in the southwest quadrant that is beP, veen Butteville Road and the interchange, our area is ready for development. The roads, water, sewer, and power are right at our doorstep. There is no need for a new interchange (although the current one clearly needs improvement) and no need to wait for a south bypass to start development. Our area has been proven to be an area that is viable for development with the success of Woodburn Company Stores, the auto dealers, and the other retail establishments along Arney Road. We believe empirical evidence of superior freeway visibility and traffic flow is demonstrated by that success. We would like to develop our area as a Light industrial development that takes advantage of the fairly easy access from and to I-5 on the west side of the interchange, freeway visibility, and the traffic already generated by the retail establishments along Amey Road. We think there is a substantial demand for Light Industrial land where manufacturing and similar enterprises are able to market and sell a portion of their goods from the location at which they are manufactured or packaged. (Such sales offices were allowed in recent Woodburn zoning codes. I believe those codes were amended, but it would be beneficial to the City and the businesses to reestablish such permitted uses.) Our area would be ideal to satisfy the particular demand for property where marketing and sales offices are permitted. Examples of those kinds of businesses are manufacturers of clothing, cookware, microbrews, computer hardware, golf clubs, and wine, as well as those who package products such as flower bulbs and high value agricultural products for shipment. It was noted at your hearing that the City needs to provide a variety of industrial options to satisfy different needs. The manufacturers who would be interested in our area might be quite different thalgthose who are interested in areas along Parr Road. You can make land available; but, if it doesn't meet the needs of the buyers/manufacturers, they will go elsewhere to buy and develop. If what the City of Woodbum wants is to create new, good jobs as soon as possible, it needs to offer land that is what manufacturers want, and land that can most readily and quickly be developed. We feel that our area along Amey Road has those characteristics. We feel it would be compatible with Woodbum Company Stores and other retailers along Amey Road and, in fact, all would benefit from a symbiotic relationship. We appreciate your consideration of our arguments and our request for inclusion. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 April 29, 2004 Greg Winterowd Winterbrook Planning 310 SW Fourth Ave---Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 Jim Mulder Woodburn Community Development Director Woodburn City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Gentlemen: This is a follow-up to the open house you held at Woodbum City Hall on April 16, 2004, for the property owners most directly affected by the proposed UGB changes. I told Greg that I would provide both of you with this letter and its enclosures to explain what I and several other landowners on Arney Road have in mind. Enclosed are the following: 1. My letter to John Brown dated April 26, 1999, and its enclosures. 2. A (rough) map showing the current location of Arney Road, the landowners involved, the current UGB (in blue), and our proposal (in red) for expansion of the UGB and industrial zoning along Arney Road. As you can see from the enclosures (which include the letter to Steve Goeckritz dated July 23, 1996) and the record you will find from the various hearings we have attended, the four main property owners in this area have consistently requested this expansion of the UGB since the very start of the current UGB expansion process in 1996. We thought we had previously made our case, and have been trying to avoid making pests of ourselves. In fact, most of this Amey Road area was recommended for inclusion in the UGB, with an IL designation, in prior studies commissioned by the City of Woodburn. With Woodburn Company Stores nearing completion, the other improvements to and developments along Arney Road, and the increased need for industrial properties since 1996, we feel the requested expansion is even more needed and reasonable than it was in 1996 and that the same arguments x%r that requested expansion apply more than ever. The four owners (Coleman, Adney, Castor, and myself) have three residences on our four properties. Within the area of the requested expansion are five other residences and the concrete plant. The four owners own about 90% of the entire area and, depending on how you calculate industrial acreages, there should be between 110 and 120 acres that could be developed for industrial uses from the four properties. We have had meetings and have somewhat stayed in contact during the planning process. We are all ready to develop our properties when an opportunity presents itself and we have discussed that we Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder April 29, 2004 Page 2 would like to collectively market our properties, to find one buyer/developer for all four of the properties, if possible. The reality seems to be that both developers and manufacturers want to work with larger tracts, and the 110 to120 acres would likely be most attractive. If you review the aerial photo in the enclosures, you can see that the requested UGB expansion area along Arney Road is somewhat outlined as a natural break for the UGB by the trees and Senecal Creek in the back of the area. My "vision" for the area is something different than the typical industrial development. With its great visibility from and access to 1-5 and with its proximity to and the traffic flow associated with Woodburn Company Stores, it would be a great place to have manufacturing facilities for manufacturers that desire an aesthetically pleasing site that their suppliers, shippers, and other visitors can easily locate and access from 1-5. The site would have places nearby for the workers to eat and to shop. It would also probably be a plus to these manufacturers if an associated showroom and salesroom for the manufactured goods being produced were allowed, although it appears to me that the development ordinance has been changed to make that more difficult. (I welcome any alternative zoning suggestions you may have in this regard.) Just a few ideas of the products that fit these criteria would be the manufacturing of clothing, shoes, knives, cooking ware, computer hardware, or golf clubs, and flower bulb or nursery plant packaging and shipping. This type of an industrial area would supplement and be compatible with Woodbum Company Stores and the other commercial businesses along Arney Road. The proximity of the commercial and these types of industries that I envision along A_rney Road should help to increase business for everyone along the road. I assume that such increased economic activity is one of the main goals that Woodburn wants to accomplish with the UGB expansion. Industrial areas on Parr Road and on the west side of Butteville Road will not be as attractive (at least for the types of industries to which I refer) as the areas on Amey Road. Developers and manufacturers may face a shortage of adequate sites, but they still won't go where their needs and expectations are not met. Waiting for a south by-pass to be constructed and being expected to travel to and from Woodburn via Highway 99E would not be very attractive to the industries that I have in mind. They will simply continue to look in other cities for development and business location. (Admittedly, a south by-pass may work for certain other types of industrial and residential development, so I'm not suggesting it is a bad idea. It is just not likely to attract the industries that I would like to see along Amey Road.) One concern that has apparently been expressed by ODOT is the traffic created by the new businesses that are already along Amey Road. I have made frequent trips on Amey Road over the past few years and have visited with the neighbors. The general consensus is that there is no particular problem on Amey Road itself. The main problem is on the east side of the freeway exit, with some problem on the west side of the exit. It won't solve the traffic problem to route vehicles around to Buttevitle Road (either north or Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder April 29, 2004 Page 3 soufn of Highway 214). Most of that traffic would still take Highway 214 going east and wind up at the exit. The solution is for ODOT to stop passing the buck and to finally put in an adequate interchange cloverleaf. (Consider what a great improvement the new cloverleaf at 1-5 and Highway 217 is a_nd how it seems to have solved what formerly was an almost impossible interchange situation.) Please take a look at your proposed UGB expansion map and note the gap that your latest proposal would create between the residential areas on Butteville Road and the proposed housing area in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 1-5 and Crosby Road. If you were to draw a straight line between the northeast comer of the former and the northwest comer of the latter, it would entirely encompass the entire area that we propose to bring into the UGB on Amey Road. While it may not be a stated goal or absolutely required to round off the UGB, it seems generally desirable. In fact, that objective was at least a stated desire of the Woodbum City Council in prior hearings on this UGB expansion. Bringing within the UGB an area that is bordered on three sides by the City of Woodbum seems even more logical and desirable where the area also adjoins one of the largest retail malls in the State of Oregon and has a completely improved major road and all the necessary utilities right up to its entrance. My understanding is that you held the open house to encourage input. Amd I assume that the reason for the input is so that you have the opportunity to make adjustments to your proposal before you present it to the Planning Commission. This is a sincere request that you consider doing so. If you would like us to provide any further information for your consideration, please let me know, and I will be glad to try to obtain it for you. I can generally be reached at my office (503-499-4675) or home (503-635-8768). Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer Enclosures cc: Mr. John Brown 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 April 26, 1999 Mr. John Brown City Administrator City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Woodburn, OR 97071 Dear Mr. Brown: The Buildable Lands Citizen Advisory Committee (aka Growth Policy Task Force) held a meeting for public input on March 30, 1999. The consultants reported their conclusion that, between now and 2020, the City of Woodbum will need about 600 additional acres of land suitable for industrial uses within its Urban Growth Boundary. The comments of Committee members and the testimony of the public seemed to both support that conclusion and indicate a preference for encouraging that type of development. Reference was made to job creation, increasing the tax base, and taking advantage of Woodbum's location and freeway access. I spoke at the heating with respect to the efforts that Bob Engle (my attorney), my neighbors and I have made over the past three years to position approximately 125 acres owned by my neighbors and myself for inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary with a Light Industrial designation. This letter and the attachments are what I indicated to the Committee I would forward to them, through you, for their consideration. Please provide each of the members of the Committee and any other officials or staffwho you think should receive a copy with one of the enclosed copies. I am also sending copies directly to Mayor Jennings, Chairman Christoff and Steve Goeckritz. The attachments include: 1. Axial photograph looking south along 1-5. The 125 acres is the area I have marked by the enclosed lines. The double lines indicate the current Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The consultants' map showing current Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Zones. I have marked the 125 acres with the blue diagonal lines. 3. Bob Engle's letter of July 23, 1996. It presents our arguments for inclusion of the area within the Urban Growth Boundary and its designation as Light Industrial. The reasoning and conclusions are, I believe, even more valid today than they were in 1996. Since then the outlet mall on the adjoining property has nearly been completed, the demand for freeway industrial properties within Oregon has continued to increase, and the City's own consultants have concluded that 600 more acres of property so designated will be needed by 2020. The 125 acres we ask to have included is probably, of all the alternatives the City has, the best located and most suitable for inclusion and designation as Light Industrial. At the March 30 meeting, I was asked if we had discussed our desires with, and received any comments from, the Marion County Commissioners. I responded in the affirmative and that the only concern that had been expressed, by one Commissioner, is with respect to the extending of Woodbum's Urban Growth Boundary closer to Marion County's landfill. My response was and continues to be that, if the concern is that some citizens living north of the current Woodburn City Limits will complain that pollution is adversely impacting their water supply, the best resolution of Mr. John Brown April 26, 1999 Page 2 that potential problem is to have as many of the current rural residents and any new residents added in the future in that area have the benefit of Woodbum's ,mater and storm drainage systems. The fact is that it may be the controlling of rural development, rather than of proximity to the landfill, that mig-ht be appropriate. With respect to the 125 acres, two additional points for Marion County to consider are that (1)the industr~ad uses we contemplate wi!! probably decrease, rather than increase, the number of residents that would be li,Ang on the 125 acres and (2) it is about a full mile between the closest points of both the 125 acres and the landfill (which would mean that any Marion County policy preventing any new development wififin that distance, i.e., one mile, of any part of the landfill would effectively condemn to var,ting degrees about 10 square miles on the north border of Woodburn.) From the City of Woodbum's standpoint, we suggest that the issue needs clearly and soon to be addressed with the Marion County Commissioners, because the landfill is just about as close to the most northwestem parts of Senior Estates as it is to the 125 acres and most of any future development north of the current ca)' limits on the east side of the freeway between Crosby Road and Boones Ferry Road would actually be as close or closer to the landfill than the 125 acres is. Pollution concerns respect no freeway boundaries, and new developments in that area east of the freeway would most likely be residential. What the policy of Marion County ought to be is (1)to do more to reduce/eliminate the pollution concerns through good management of the landfill and (2)to encourage expansion of the UGB to the north and require that any new development in the area of concern be connected to Woodbum's water and storm drainage systems. A final comment that I would like to make is that I personally support the concept of having a pretty firm Urban Growth Boundary and requiring development to occur within it, so long as the supply of the various types of zoned acreages within that UGB are adequate to provide for the reasonable demands for development. It is also appropriate to shitt zoning from one type where there is an oversupply to another type where there is an undersuppba,. The current discussion includes one proposal that would essentially result in meeting the 600 acre industrial land shortfall by changing the designation on single family residential land to a designation of industrial land. That would work where, both economically and politically, in the area under consideration the two designations are interchangeable. However, I submit that almost all of the land within the current UGB that is zoned for single family residential development would be unsuitable for industrial uses of the type we have in mind. For those uses, the land needs to be close to and easily served by a major transportation system and would be best located where the industrial uses would be the most con~atible with its neighbors and current uses. We think that, from an economic and political standpoint, the 125 acres and a few other small tracts outside of and on the comers of the current UGB are the appropriate answer to the need for designating 600 rnore acres as being for Woodbum's future industrial needs. ,am additional justification for the inclusion of these specific 125 acres within the UGB is that the current UGB is already on three sides of the 125 acres and its inclusion would actually somewhat help to straighten out the UGB lines. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer ENGLE & SCHMW~TMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW NORTHWOOO OFFICE PARK - 610 GLATT CIRCLE WOODBURN, OR 97071 TELEPt.'~E: (50,3) 981-0155 F,~ (,5O3) ~81-0158 July 23, 1996 Mr. Steve Goeckritz Planning Director City of Woodburn City Hall Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review - Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Dear Steve: I recently discussed with you the fact that Woodburn will soon be~n the process of considering the extent to which Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary should be expanded. I have asked you to allow me to offer input in that process at this time rather than after the proposal has been developed since it has been my experience that public hearings requesting public comments upon an existing proposal seldom result in any significant change or modification to~ that proposal. I am currently representing Martin W. Rohrer, a former partner of this office, who owns 45 acres of real property adjoining the present Urban Growth Boundary west of the freeway and north of the 214 interchange. We ask that the City, in preparing its proposal to Marion County and LCDC, consider expanding the City's Urban Growth Boundary to include all of the approximately 125 acres indicated by the coloring on the attached map. Ivtarty's property is the portion of that 125 acres further indicated by the diagonal lines. We believe that many reasons exist for the inclusion of this 125 acres within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. I -Mil use this letter as an oppommity to list a few of those reasons which we feel are most compelling. Mr. Steve Goeckritz July 23, 19':,6 Page 2 The City of Woodburn will need, within the next planning period, an additional inventory of light industrial and high density residential property. The 125 acres could substantially contribute to meet that need in several ways: 1. The 125 acres could currently be brought within the Urban Growth Boundary and all or most of it zoned for light industrial .use with minimal opposition or disruption of current owners and acti-,4ties. This acreage contains only eight residences. The entire acreage is owned by only eleven separate or joint owners, three of whom are currently operating businesses which might be characterized as light industrial, namely, a cement plant, a wood chip processing plant and a sales yard for heavy equipment. Over 90% of the 125 acres is owned by four of the o~mers..All are engaged in farming to some degree; but Marty has polled the four owners (Coleman, Adney, Castor and himself) and all would welcome inclusion and light industrial designation. That designation would also be consistent with the business activities of the other owners who are operating the three businesses. 2. Much of the property south of the current Urban Growth Boundary line (previously owned by the Stampleys) has recently been sold and is targeted for commercial use, thus removing that property from the City's inventory of property previously identified as high density residential. A portion of the 125 acres could be zoned high density residential to replace the Stampley property lost for such uses. Particularly appropriate for such zoning would be the Coleman 30-acre farm on the westerly portion of the 125 acres, since it adjoins residential property in the Nazarene Subdivision to the west and the undeveloped property zoned for high density residential to the south' of that 30-acre farm. 3. When the Stampley property develops for commercial use, Arney Road will be improved and in all probability straightened to front the northwest side of 1-5 providing very favorable access to the subject property from 1-5. If that occurs, access to the 125 acres will likely be the best of all similar properties in any of the four quadrants of the interchange. 4. The City would have much greater difficulty handling additional traffic flows east of the 214--1-5 interchange. The development of the subject land, northwest of the 214-1-5 interchange would not detrimentally affect the flow of traffic into Woodburn east on 214. Much of the traffic would access to and from 1-5 and only on the west side. Additionally, with proper planning, Mr. Steve Goeckritz July 23, 1996 Page 3 traffic moving from the subject area into Woodburn could easily be routed north to Crosby Road, over the Crosby overpass, and east to Boones Ferry or Front Street, entirely avoiding the congestion of 214. 5. Much discussion has occurred on the subject of a new interchange on I-5. It appears likely that a new interchange would be built at Parr Road and not at Crosby Road. Therefore, the development of land in the northwest quadrant of 214 and I-5 would not interfere with the planning and acquisition process of a new interchange and, as noted above, would still permit I-5 access at 214 without substantially increasing traffic east of I-5 on 214 and would encourage destination travel to downtown Woodburn from Crosby Road and not from 214. It is particularly important to note that the interchange planning, funding and construction could tie up further meaningful development of both the southwest and southeast quadrants for over a decade. Only the northwest quadrant can have such development during that period without directly impacting or being impacted by the interchange improvements. A decade could be a very long time for Woodburn to wait for the economic development that could 'result from such business and housing activity. 6. The subject property, if zoned mostly light industrial, would provide a good transition and buffer between the commercial uses to the south and the agricultural uses to the north. Additionally, if the '~plit zoning mentioned above (with a high density residential designation placed on the westerly 30 acres) is approved, the subject property would also provide a good transition and buffer between the existing single family residential development in the Nazarene Subdivision to the west and the freeway and already existing (and hopefully, expanded) industrial uses in the easterly portion of the 125 acres. 7. Good planning envisions the uniform growth of City boundaries. Currently, the north boundary of the Nazarene Subdivision extends well beyond the north Urban Growth Boundary line of the remaining property west of the freeway. Further, it is likely that the north Urban Growth Boundary of the City east of 1-5 will also extend to or near Crosby Road. The extension of the Urban Growth Boundary as here proposed would provide a more uniform north boundary to the City in future planning. 8. The existence of the Marion County Landfill located north of Crosby Road should not discourage the development of this acreage. Once annexed, all development will utilize urban services. Therefore, after inclusion of the subject property within the City of Woodburn and development as proposed, Mr. Steve Goeckritz July 23, 1996 Page 4 any concerns increased. related to the landfffi should be decreased, rather than 9. Woodburn has just recently been recognized by the developing public. We are in the initial stages of development that we have sought and encouraged for many years. One of the greatest features that makes Woodburn desirable to residents and development is our access to 1-5. We need to take advantage of our location and plan for development around the freeway interchange. Substantial development has occurred as planned in the southwest quadrant. Development has and will occur in the southeast quadrant and somewhat in the northeast quadrant. There is no reason why the northwest qnadrant should not also be available to this freeway access. In addition to it being desirable to have the properties along the freeway be available for development because of their access, the City also would be benefited in a more general way by the indications that would make them visible from the freeway that Woodburn '~velcomes business activity" as would be demonstrated by the kind of development we are suggesting. In summary, we recommend that the City seriously consider and then propose inclusion of the approximately 125 acres within Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary during the planning and review process. Although this is not the time to consider the ultimate zoning of the property, we recommend that the City consider designating the property in Woodburn's comprehensive plan for light industrial and high density residential uses as discussed above. Part of the planning and review process should include completing an inventory of the currently undeveloped, but zoned, land within the Urban Growth Boundary. My sense is that Woodburn has substantially exceeded the growth expectations that were incorporated into the boundary and zoning that were last modified in any significant way almost two decades ago. My sens6 is also that the inventory of light industrial and high density residential zoned land is the most depleted. Inclusion of this siLmificantly large block of 125 acres, at this time when it is not only available for such use but also arguably the best candidate for such use, especially in the next several years, is an opportunity of which we would like to see Woodburn avail itself. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in any manner in the initial review process. If further statistical information or citizen input would be deemed by those staff members participating in the review to be beneficial to the process, please advise. Mr. Steve Goeckritz July 23, 1996 Page 5 We appreciate very much the opportunity to offer input at this preliminary stage. Yours truly, ROBERT L ENGI.E RI .l~:hez cc: Martin W. Rohrer ~' l_lI Z"~.. //1 1F Exhibit "B"- (06 REC"D Letter to the Woodburn City Council, March 1, 2005 MAR 0'8 2005 WOODBURN CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFRCE We, the Serres family, would like to address the omission of our farm from the proposed urban growth boundary. Over the past three years we have attempted to illustrate the benefits our farm has to increase the city of Woodbum's livability and quality of life. We learned that our potential participation in Woodburn's vision for the future fell upon deaf ears. Our message ,,,,,as not conveyed to other "players at large". Withholding information regarding this interest of inclusion by the planning department has led us to wonder if our participation in the open forums and hearings was a waste of our time and effort. Was there truly an interest in public input and fair balance of equality of inclusion? Or was the plan already determined privately and public hearings were merely a formality? Perhaps the Woodbum Planning Comrrdssion was simply trying to come up with a plan that would satisfy County and State mandated planning requirements. Jim Mulder, Woodbum City Planner, told Serres family members that expanding Woodbum to the East did not fit into his plan. 'Ne did not realize that the decision making process would be closed, leaving Woodbum's future solely in one person's hands. At the Feb. 24, 2005 Woodburn Planning Commission meeting, commission members and the public were lead to believe that our farm would be the most expensive property to include. We would like to clarify this misconception about our farm. As Mr. Mulder stated, sewage doesn't gravity flow uphill. According to the USGS Woodburn 7.5 minute quadrangle map, our farm is located ½ mile South of the Woodbum Sewage Treatment Plant on the same upland bench above the Pudding River. The City of Woodburn has a gravity flow sewer main running along the North boundary of our farm (Hardcastle Street). We are open to discussion regarding the cost of any pump station and sewer mains required to service our farm's area. Jim Mulder also mentioned that Eastward expansion onto our farm would incorporate prime farmland and wetlands. Yes, our farm consists of Class II soils, as does the land surrounding Woodbum in ALL directions. The only Class I soils are to the West and North. The sarne can be said of the wetlands. Our farm is 92% flat land. 8% is rolling forest and Pudding River wetland. Consideration for inclusion should not be solely based upon the sewage issue. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. A tour of our farm would demonstrate the relief of traffic pressure from future growth due to the accessibility of our property. The Woodbum School district's property, which borders our property on two sides, could have improved road access, as well as room for future growth. Our farm also has proven, large capacity wells, expansive views, natural drainage, and forested parkland, all features that can enhance the City of Woodburn. East side growth would benefit the business community along 99E. Homeowners could enjoy their homes without the noise and air pollution of I-5. T'ne North South Cooley Road extension suggested by the Woodburn Economic OpportunJties Analysis and Development Strategy Final Report would bisect our farm. It is not reasonable that new development in Woodburn meet the current density standard when the Economic Development Study shows that Wocxiburn already has an unusually high ratio of people to household. Is our planning commission afraid of pointing this out9. We recogrfize the long hours and carefal review tlmt you have put into this process. We would like for you to remember that it is not our fault that our active interest in this plan was not heard or recognized. We want to be included in this UGB. It is not too late to make a better plan for Woodbum's future. We invite you to tour our farm so that you can see for yourselves how we can contribute to this vision. Please contact any or all of us at: Ruth Thompson Paul Serres Rebecca Kirsch Mary Grant Susan Duncan 981-1931 981-6098 981-0717 845-2635 981-3275 Sincerely, The Serres Family. Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy Final Report Page numbers refer to the page numbers of the .pdf version available on the City of Woodburn web site. "Public infrastructure and ser-lices are the cornerstone of any economic developmem strategy. If roads, water, sewer, and other public facilities are unavailable or inadequate, industries will have little incentive to locate in a community. For the purpose of this section, we define infrastructure and services to include transportation, water, sewer, storm water, and parks facilities." --page 100 "11.2. Determine new transportation facilities needed to implement economic vision and amend TSP as appropriate. What and why? Good access is essential to the City's economic development strategy. The TSP identifies several new transportation facilities. The key facilities proposed in the TSP include: · Development of a south side arterial. · Cooley Road extension to create a new north-south road east of Highway 99." --page 101 600 ......... 700 · 'on ~_1 ........... O 3 ~i n~lt-v (!1nv -' 3 : .' ~: .... ~ ~,r -- WATER .L.,-vm~ D,,*owend, m*,,_-mSlfnemf,ved~ff ofw, m0~z, Xgo Xg~0 well wm eon~rueted un&st n~ direct supervision. I~ [ m'_,.,-- w,,- cmtnet.r) milo Back To TerraServ~ ~ange to 8.5x~! Print Size Show Grid Unes United ~ O1 ~ulv 19~S ¸:mm , ! Change to Lard, cape 1 of 2 3/7/2005 9:5 REC'D } AR i ZOO5 March 14, 2005 £xhibit "B"-. WOODBURN COMMUN~T'f D~LOPMENT DEPT. Dear Mayor, It appears Woodburn~s traffic is beginning to move again and various agencies have deterrnined the overall route. I have concentrated on the traffic between 1-5 and 99E. Also 214 to Parr Road extending east from the Butteville overpass. Other people have considered the northern portion of Parr Road as the cities southern arterial and the zoning maps have indicated by arrow the location of the southern arterial. The map shows in dark color the arterial best suited for Woodburn's use as starting at the Buttevilte overpass on the west and extending to an exchange at Boones Ferry Road. It may be well for those not familiar with Woodburn's to have a map and the location of various business. ODOT has indicated that they will provide a cloverleaf off of 214 going north on I-5. A similar cloverleaf on the west side to serve traffic going east on 2 t 4. This construction may be included in the federal grant. It seems econonfically sound to do so. 1 received a map from Woodburn's Engineering Department showing a ramp off of I-5 containing a two lanes of traffic merging into access traffic on 214, another to traffic on Lawson Way. I was recently traveling to anewly revised highway in the Tigard area. From it, it seems Woodburn might be able to construct a one way single traffic lane from Taco Bell and Lawson Way to a road servicing Cottage Cafe, Trailer World, and other businesses that may want to be established in this area provided businesses having a great deal of in and out traffic cannot be located here. Traffic serving the Chevron Station at the SE area would receive the various services offered and exit one way to a road serving traffic from the area of the Cottage Cafd, Trailer World etc. If it were possible to route traffic in this rnanner it would greatly enhance the value of the property the city has proposed to purchase for future development. The fact that Garden World located a few rrdles north of I-5 sold one tree to a New York client for $5,000.00 and Wal-Mart was able to almost double the size of their store in 6/7 years, indicates the city may have a sound investment. There is no assurance the Chevron will agree to this traffic pattern and if so traffic on 214 wilt then continue down Lawson, turn right on Stacey AJlison, access Harvard, and north entrance of Wal-Mart and continue south past government housing and entrances to Mrs. Srrdth's property and others and past what would be the north portions of Parr Road if it were extended to Stacey Allison Way. Such a road is shown in black in the enclosed zoning map #1 and is proposed for development at this time as ODOT has informed us that there will be no exit off of i-5 until Exchange 271 can no longer carry the traffic load. Therefbre it will be years befbre the southern arterial could be finished. We are ipformed the owners of the land between the continuation of Pm~r and of the southern portions of Parr Road coming off of Butteville is not desired at this time, If so the traffic coming down Stacey _Allison could be routed along the north extension of Parr Road onto the north/south section of Parr Road and then east over the railroad and to a very important interchange as it crosses Boones Ferry. In order to cover Woodburn's traffic pattern more carefully it is requested you go back to the map #2 and see where Evergreen accesses off of 214. The engineers show drawings it can be three lanes for a short distance and I suggest the three lanes be carried south to the intersection with Stacey Allison Way'. Traffic on Settlemier ,;could absorb that from Hayes, continue south and it is very important that it develop into four lane arterial map #3 with the following exchanges over k. Since designing this arterial it is noted that the Country Meadows addition is proposed in tt2s area, it should be served by a special access and without numerous in and out. The arterial would continue south and absorb the cul-de-sac traffic from government housing and carried across the shopping mall that would be fo~xned by business area between Stacey Allison and Evergreen. The arterial would continue south to a location where Smith drive would continue west and cross arterial, mall, and comaect to Stacey Allison Way. I do not deal with zoning but Mrs. Smith requested that she meet with me and i showed her a rnap #4 sim2tar to the one enclosed w?dch shows her farm as low density residential, matching a portion of her present development. This seemed to please her and I rnentioned that a portion of her property' shown on the map might be used for a school assembly. Since then city has decided the assembly would be better associated with the Aquatic Center. I did not have thne to explain to Mrs. Smith that the developers west of her would be able to zone their property as high density and prevent her from ever developing her proPerty in a proper manner. I should ha¥_e mentioned she could l~ire a developer to do this in accordance to -Mth her specifications. I~ so doing would divide her land into two parcels instead of one. It is possible to have Ben Brown lane e?~ended through her property at a later time without too much interruption of traffic from east to west. It was pointed out in previous correspondence that 214 as four lanes and Parr Road as four lanes east of exit off of Butteville, that we would have 16 travel passages between I- 5 and 99E instead of 6 we have now. (14 if Ben Brown lane was not developed at this time.) This should help in solving Woodburn's traffic. Mr. Husby and Nk. Cole have indicated that the city would accept the extension of Parr Road east until it crosses Boones Ferry Road and highway 99E and continues to the intersection of the Hillsboro Beaverton Highway shown dotted on Map #3. They would join the city in making sure that the proper right of way was acquired. I think we were all pleased to find that the people living east of 99E are pleased to be included in the city limits. Such a road is shown dotted on map #3 as extending north crossing 99E, continuing east till it crosses the railroad, goes south on Front Street till it meets Highway 214. Crosby Road to the north enclosing a residential area continues west to form a loop around the city. A loop that all cities have been trying to create since George Washington was asked to provide for the relocation of the U.S. He hired a New York architect, he created the District of Columbia. This procedure is recorded in a History Channel Tape entitled, Mr. Dreyfuss goes to Washington, available at the Woodburn Library for viewing. With my Par~nson's, I have not been able to do this in satisfactory form. It may be desirable to have others do this. Sincerely, Keith Woollen Retired Architect CC: 0DOT, Mr Husby, Mr. Cole County Commissioners City Public Work. ATT: Randy Rhoman Hazel Srrdth Woodbum Independent The solution to Woodburn's traffic problem is to have the mass of traffic coming over the I-5 exchange; as much as possible, go to highway 214 and the remaining collection down Stacy Allison Way and a four lane expansion of Evergreen till it reaches the east/west southern portion of Parr Road as k reaches the most efficient exchange possible with Boones Ferry Road, it would proceed east to 99E and beyond. r~w~on ¥ Old Countr~ Cub Rd TM OFe-gon Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor ff~t of Land Conservati 635 ( March 16, 2005 Exhibit "B"-.G ~ Jim Mulder, Community Planning Director City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97074 Salem, Oregon 97301-2524 Phone: (503) 373-0050 First Floor/Coastal Fax: (503) 378-6033 Second Floor/Director's Office: (503) 378-5518 'Web Address: http://www, oregon.gov/LCD R~: Woodbum Periodic Review Amendment Package Dear Jim: The following comments are in response to the city's periodic review work program draft araendment package, received by the department on January 21, 2005, and Findings of Fact, received on February 7, 2005. The city requested that the department review the draft submittal for perceived deficiencies as they relate to compliance with specific statewide goals and administrative rules. The work tasks submitted have been reviewed as requested- and these comments reiterate those provided at our March 10, 2005 meeting in Woodburn. The City of Woodburn's periodic review work program was approved on July 31, 1997. Since that time, the Commission has acknowledged work tasks 5 and 6 (March 2000). This submittal, when completed, will address the remainder of the city's outstanding work program. The departrnent would like to commend the city for investing considerable time, effort and resources towards completion of its work program. This is a large and complex periodic review package, and the city has prepared a sweeping set of plan, policy, code, and map amendments to meet local housing, transportation, employment, and other needs. Thc package responds to statewide planning goals and statutory mandates and puts forth plan and policy proposals that ,sill set the context for Woodburn's fiature development. The department has not found significant issues with the proposed UGB expansion, but believes that responses to certain requirements and review criteria need to be modified or enhanced to insure the proposal complies with the state planning goals and adrninistrative rules. We request the following comments be included in the official record of this proposed UGB and plan amendment. Our comments have been provided in order of the applicable statewide planning goals, and conclude with recommendations on the plan's draft policy and code amendments. Jim Mulder City of Woodburn March 16, 2005 Goal 1~ Public Involvement Citizen Involvernent Plan The department has received a draft Citizen Involvement Plan, with the understanding that a final version will be completed and submitted to the department upon adoption and submittal of the final plan amendment package. This item is work task 10 of the city's work program. Goal 2- Land Use Planning Urban Growth Management Agreement The department understands the city is currently working with the county on revisions to the city's UGMA and that this product will be subrnitted after the local adoption process. Submittal and review of these materials are required prior to department approval of the city's work program. This is work task 9 of the city's work program. Goal 5- Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources Riparian Corridors and Wetlands OAR 660-023-0090-100 The department commends the city's formation of a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District (RCW). The city should provide definitions in its code for the terms "undeveloped floodplains," mad "100-year floodplain outside of developed areas." Although the "general location" of the RCW district is mapped, without clear definitions for these terms there may be instances where the intent or application of the overlay district is ambiguous. Groundwater Resources- OAR 660-23-0140 In the water plan of the city's public facilities plan (PFP), it is noted that a Source Water Protection Plan for state certification has been developed to protect the city's drinking water supplies.1 However, in its response to Goal 11 and the PFP work task, the city has noted in its findings: "Woodburn has not opted to delineate a wellhead protection area for wells or well fields.''2 If a source water protection plan has been prepared, the department will need a copy as part of this periodic review submittal. If the city has no intention to have a certified source water protection plan, the PFP needs to be amended to be consistent. While the department encourages the city to prepare a source water protection plan, the Troutdale aquifer is not a critical or restrictively classified groundwater area and so is not subject to mandatory Goal 5 protections as a significant resource. Draft 2005 Public Facilities Plan, page 7. Findings of Fact, page 28. Jim Mulder -3- March 16, 2005 City of Woodburn Goal 9- Economic Development Cornmitrnent to provide adequate sites and facilities (OAR. 660-009-0020(2)(b)) Woodburn needs to provide a rationale for approximately 65 net buildable acres of land "unretained" within the Southwest Industrial Reserve overlay (SWlR).3 Although subject to the non-industrial conversion restrictions of the SWIR overlay, this land could potentially be subdivided into smaller lots (<10 acres) of which the city's BLI and EOA have identified there is not a need. The SWlR site requirements table should also account for tax lot 52 W14-1200 (adjacent to Butteville Road and I-5), as it is within the overlay district. Industrial site serviceability (OA~', 660-009-0025(3)) The Goal 9 rule requires that the city's public facilities plan demonstrate how a short- term supply of new industrial and commercial sites will be serviceable.4 The PFP needs to map and identify needed facilities over the 20-year planning period to serve new employment lands, and specifically demonstrate that a three-year supply of serviceable sites are scheduled for each year, including the final year, of the short-term element of the plan.5 The Goal 9 rule requires that this demonstration of short-term serviceable industrial sites is to occur at the time of periodic review.6 Although the rule makes clear that implementation of or amendments to the comprehensive plan or public facility plan which change the supply of serviceable industrial land are not subject to these rule requirements, the rule does not make a distinction between initial and subsequent periodic reviews that would exempt the city from meeting this requirement. Such a distinction has been relied on, in error, in the city's findings of fact.7 Therefore, to comply with the rule the city's plan needs to provide specific information regarding a three-year supply of serviceable sites over the short-term (5-years). This information should be incorporated into the city's PFP (work program subtask 3a). Corrections: SWIR Tables identifying required minimum site sizes for specific parcels are inconsistent as found in the Findings of Fact (pages 16, 118, and 204), goal and policy amendments (page 22), and proposed WDO (page 2.1-91). Discrepancies found include ~arrong tax lot numbers, inconsistent numeric values for buildable 3 Based on proposed standards table Required Minimum Site Size for Specific Parcels, tax tot 52W 11-300, and tax lot 52W 14- 800. 4 A site is serviceable if public facilities have adequate capacity to serve development planned in the service area where the site is located or can be upgraded to have adequate capacity within one year; and public facilities are either currently extended to the site or can be provided within one year of application for building pem~t or request for service extension (OAR 660-009-0005). 5 OAR 660-009-0025(3)(c). 6 Pursuant to OAR 660-009-0025 "Requ/rements of this role apply only to local government decisions made at the time of periodic review." 7 Draft City of Woodburn Findh~gs of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Periodic Review and UGB Amendment, Page 165. Jim Mulder -4- March 16, 2005 City of Woodburn site acres, and incomplete and/or inconsistent data for retention of various site sizes. In the text of the Goal 9 section of the Findings of Fact (page 88), the following correction needs to be made: The table identifies a need fo~five ;ch sites of 25 acres or larger and at least one site larger than 100 acres. The figure for the "High" industrial employment projection is missing from the "Total employment growth by land use type" table on Findings of Fact, page 104. · The following correction in the UGB Justification Report needs to be made: reference to ORS 197.212 on pages 5 and 6 should read ORS 197.712. A description of Targeted Industry No. 36 was not included in the findings of fact (page 86). The department recommends this be included to be complete and consistent with the city's EOA and other supporting documentation. Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services Required elements of Public Facilities Plan- OAR 660-011-0010 The city's public facilities plan (PFP) identifies that service capacity needs can be met through year 2020. However, while many of the required elements of the PFP are included in the draft, or its supplement, UGB Study Area Public Services Analysis, this information is not well organized or is incomplete. General · The PFP needs to be updated to reflect current information on facility construction and planned facilities within the existing UGB, as well as for proposed expansion areas included in the city's plan amendment. Unlike for wastewater facilities, the PFP does not provide the timing, cost and location for significant water and storm water facilities necessary to serve future development in proposed UGB expansion areas. · The PFP does not provide an adequate inventory and assessment of existing facilities. · The UGB expansion area reports indicate that the regions were analyzed independent of other proposed regions, and that the analysis is based on all C~ projects in the master plan being completed. This approach does not address the cumulative effects of development over time and sequencing (timing) of needed facilities. · Policy statements designating the provider of each public facility system or the city's urban growth management agreement with Marion County must be submitted concurrent with the PFP pursuant to OAR 660-11-0045. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, page 88. Jim Mulder -5- March 16, 2005 City of Woodburn Waste Water plan · Projects in the table "Wastewater Long-range Facility Projects (5-20 years)" assume no service extensions will occur in UGB expansion areas until 2010.9 However, the city's findings indicate all expansion areas are "readily serviceable" (alt_hough no definition of this term is provided)? The estimated timing and location for constructing long-term -,,caste water t~acilities should be reassessed due to the Goal 9 requirement for a short-term supply of serviceable industrial sites (OAR 660-009-0025(3)). Water plan ,, PFP text indicates four new wells are needed to increase capacity, yet table 12-lA shows six wells proposed (PFP, page 7). This discrepancy should be corrected or explained. PFP text indicates storage facilities to be constructed at each of the three new treatment plants, yet table 12-lB shows two storage projects to be built in 2004 (PFP, page 13). Is this information current? ,, PFP Table 12-2, "Proposed Distribution System Projects," shows 10 projects, only two of which are future projects. This table should be updated to show planned projects, particularly those identified for future planned growth in proposed expansion areas (PFP, page 15). · The text indicates that the plan does not include project costs for projects in areas to be developed into the future, and notes that the plans included in "Chapter 10" show possible pipe sizes and locations. This information is necessary to include in the PFP (PFP, page 16). ,, The water plan (PFP, page 16), states that expansion areas to be developed in the future are essentially "unknowns" and, therefore, capital improvements for these areas will be planned for later. This is counter to the purpose and intent of Goal 11. Case law has also determined it is not sufficient to simply demonstrate that current services and facilities are adequate to service expansion areas; plans must show that they can provide services into the future?1 It is not the intent of Division 11 (OAR 660-011) to cause duplication or to supplant existing applicable plans or programs. For instance, there could be appendices, etc. from the city's current master plans that would provide sorne of the additional level of information requested here. The city could also make arnendments to its supplemental UGB expansion analysis to comply with the rule and incorporate them into the PFP by reference. 9 Draft 2005 Public Facilities Plan, page 22. ~o Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, page 196. tI Ci_ty of LaGrande v. Union County, 25 OR LUBA (1993); I000 Friends v. Ci_ty of North Plains,. 27 OR LUBA 372 (1994). Jim Mulder -6- March 16, 2005 City of Woodburn Corrections- Project descriptions and/or costs do not consistently match information found in the UGB expansion analysis (Findings of Fact, page 195). Facility and cost information is not provided for Area 1 in the analysis of UGB expansion areas (Findings of Fact, page195). The findings indicate that the "City shall adopt a growth control ordinance" to insure that the city's growth does not exceed its ability to provide public ser¥ices (Findings of Fact, page 162). What is the status of this ordinance? Schools: There are discrepancies in the record concerning land needs for future schools that need to be corrected and clarified. The Residential Land Needs Analysis shows a need of 175 acres by 2020 with an un_met need of 60 acres for schools.12 The Revised UGB Justification Report indicates there is a need for 223 acres by 2023, with an unmet need of 108 acres.~3 A similar inconsistency is located in the Findings of Fact under "Schools" (page 185) and in the year 2020 Public and Semi Public Land Needs table (page 186). Goal 12- Transportation System Plan The department provided comments on the city's TSP in March 2004 and in January of this year. By working with the city's consultant we have narrowed our comments to the following. Street Standards The city's local street standards are described in the ordinance (page 9-5) and in the TSP (Figure 7-2). The city has adopted three local street standards as follows: · Local Residential with parking both sides: pavement width of 34 ', ROW of 60 '; Local Residential with parking one side: pavement width of 29 ', ROW of 50'; Local Residential with no parking: pavement width of 24 ', ROF/ofSO. There is no description or criteria to decide when one of these street sections will be used or required. It appears it will be up to the developer to decide which street section they will use. The department has found that these types of standards do not meet the intent of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR 660-012). That is because there is no basis for local governments to require 34 feet of paved width for all local streets that have parking on both sides. It is acceptable for a local government to have a 34 foot street in their ordinance for important and/or heavily-traveled local streets. These are usually defined by a maximum average daily traffic (AX)T), such as all local streets expected to carry more than 500 ADT should be 34 feet wide. Technical Report 2~ Residential Land Needs Analysis, page 32. Revised Woodburn UGB Justification Report, page 11. Jim Mulder -7- City of Woodburn March 16, 2005 However, local governments should also allow a narrower street with parking on both sides for local streets that carry lower volurnes of traffic. Alternatively, the department has approved (or is in the process of approving) some local government standards for 32- foot wide local streets that provide curb extensions (bulbouts) that narrow the width of the street to 20 feet (or 22 feet) at intersections and midblock along long blocks (greater than 500 feet). Block Lengths It does not appear the city has modified its block length standard. The standard is described on page 2-20 as follows: "Block length shall not be less than 200feet and not more than 600feet, EXCEPT where the dimensions and alignment of existing blocks and streets adjacent to or in the vicinity of a proposed subdivision, topography, adequate lot size, or need for traJ)'~c flow warrant other dimensions. The maximum block length shall not exceed 1,200feet." The city's latest response to our TSP comments state that the city acknowledges this language is ambiguous, but that they have faced situations where block lengths of 600 feet cannot reasonably be accommodated? The letter also claims the city has found the existing language effective. This language is clearly ambiguous and appears to open the door to almost any block length less than 1,200 feet for a variety of reasons that may not be completely legitimate. For example, topography in Woodbum should simply not be an issue in terms of determining grades and connections for streets. Also, "adequate lot size" should not be a significant factor to determine whether a block is 600 feet or 1,200 feet long. Similarly, instead of "traffic flow," the language would be improved to read "access management on arterials." The city should also modify the code to require a pedestrian accessway every 600 feet where it is found that a local street connection is irnpracticable. The department welcomes more information from the city about its existing code language and its effectiveness upon implementation. Goal 14: Urbanization Goal 14 provides "seven factors" to evaluate a proposed change in the urban growth boundary. The city needs to demonstrate it has fully considered each factor in its response to the goal requirements. The department wants to emphasize the importance of this step and providing detailed responses in its justification for the UGB amendment. Factors 1 & 2 - Demonstrated need to accommodate long range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability: Tables in the Findings of Fact (page 89 and 107) show different numbers of vacant industrial parcels available within the existing UGB. This information pulled into the Draft TSP Comments: Response from City of Woodburn, dated January 4, 2005 Jim Mulder -8- City of Woodburn March 16, 2005 Findings of Fact from the Buildable Lands Inventory is not consistent and could justify less industrial land being retained as part of the proposed UGB expansion based on site requirements for targeted industries. Factor 4- Maximum ej~ciency of land uses with and on the fringe of the existing urban area. Factor 4 requires Woodburn to consider and encourage the efficient development of lands within the existing UGB, prior to expanding the UGB. This means the city must consider changing plan designations within the existing UGB to increase densities and attempt to assemble vacant parcels within the existing UGB to produce larger buildabte areas to accommodate proposed uses, including site requirements for targeted industries, is The city has alluded to these necessary considerations in its findings, but has not provided a full explanation to satisfy them? Correction · Findings of Fact, page 197- ORS 197.232 is an incorrect statutory citation. The department assumes the intended citation is ORS 197.732 regarding Goal Exceptions. Factor 6- Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority and Class VI the lowest priority; and ORS 197.298. Goal 14, Factor 6 and ORS 197.298 are not one and the same, so the city should be careful when addressing them together under the same heading. The department believes it is more appropriate to use the format from the UGB Justification Report, where each statutory requirement, and factor 6, has a corresponding response. Study areas 2 and 7 are proposed for partial expansion. Study Area 2 contains additional areas of lower priority soils that have not been included and has been found to be optimal for expansion based on service efficiency. The city's reliance on the "factor 4-maximize efficiency" finding is on its face, and without further explanation, insufficient to satisfy this criterion. For Study Area 7, findings also need to specifically indicate why additional class III and IV soils in this area were not brought in for expansion instead of other areas containing lower priority soils. Large parcel sizes in this southernmost portion of Study area 7 could also satisfy industrial site requirements. Study area 7 was found to be optimal for expansion based on service efficiency. In reference to these study areas, the city should elaborate on how the expansion avoids the highest value farmland possible while including the lowest soil classes in a feasible UGB configuration in compliance with factor 6. Concerned Citizens of the Rogue Valley and Don Carroll v. the City of Shady Cove, LUBA 95-173 (!997). Findings of Fact, page 198. Jim Mulder -9- City of Woodburn March 16, 2005 Correction · Correction on Findings of Fact, page 211. The referenced "Table 13" is missing, and should be labeled as Table 10, as found in the Revised UGB Justification Report. Factor 7- Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with agricultural activities. Based on Winterbrook's response to the department's April 2004 comment letter, and as discussed in our March 10, 2005 meeting, the city needs to document its intent and approach to establish "right to farm" covenants that would deed-restrict residential "edge" properties proposed in expansion areas to the north of the city (Study Area 2). Such an approach would also be appropriate for residential edge properties plan_ned for in the southwest part of the city (Study Area 7). In its response letter to the city, Winterbrook wrote: "As indicated under Goal 14, factor 5 discussion we agreed that additional information related to these Goal 2 standards will be provided in the Goal 14 analysis and in findings. We will consider requiring the property owner to sign a "right to farm" covenant as a condition of annexation of residential land that is adjacent to the UGB. ,,~7 This action would be a response to Goal 14, Factor 7, but also to Goal 2 (standard 4), to demonstrate "measures have been taken to reduce adverse impacts" from residential development on adjacent agricultural practices. The department believes this approach would effectively address agricultural compatibility issues in these areas. Corrections · Findings of Fact, page 197- ORS 197.232 is a wrong statutory citation and does not exist. The department assumes the intended citation is ORS 197.732 regarding Goal Exceptions. Table t3 is missing from the Findings of Fact, (page 211) under the Goal 14 analysis, Agricultural Soils and Classifications Summary, and should be relabeled "Table 10." · Findings of Fact, page 193, correct heading to "Factor 3~ Orderly and economic provision ofpubtic facilities and services" Proposed Goal and Policy Amendments Policy Table 1, p 7: Some of the stated density ranges don't appear to be consistent with the stated rninimum lot sizes. For example, The Nodal Residential Overlay Zone (I~,MN) shows a density range of 10-22 dwelling un/ts (du)/acre, but the smallest minimum lot size, 3,000 square feet, yields 14.52 du/gross acre (per net acre would be even less). Another example: The RS 1 zone shows a range ~? WLnterbrook Memo to Jim Mulder, April 26, 2004, (page 17), re: April 21, 2004 letter from Kevin Cronin, DLCD to Jim Mulder. Jim Mulder q0- March 16, 2005 City of Woodburn of 9-12 du/acre but there is only one minimum lot size, and no stated maximum lot size. Zoning section, p 8 - last sentence, and Review, Revision and Update section, p 11, 2nd and 4th sentences: It appears that "Comprehensive Plan" should replace "Land Use Plan." 3. Transportation Plan section, p 9:2nd sentence is missing a word. Should read: "The 2004 TSP includes goals and objectives ..." Proposed Land Use Zoning Draft Amendments Some of the following comments are advisory, and intended to help the city establish standards that will achieve successful developrnents and a livable community. Section 2. ! 02.07 F. !. Landscaping and Sidewalks (RS Zone): These regulations allow an option of either curb-tight sidewalks or sidewalks with street trees. In residential zones, a planter strip with street trees between the curb and sidewalk should be required, and needs to be consistent with the proposed street standards in the city's final draft Transportation System Plan. Section 2.105.05 C. 1. a. 2 (CO Zone) and Section 2.106.05 C. 2. a. 2) (CG Zone): Setting a maximum front setback is good, but 150 feet is a very large standard. No parking is allowed in the front setback, which is appropriate, so it seems counter-productive and land intensive to allow buildings to be sited so far back from the street. Section 2.108.06 A. 3. (NNC Zone): Setting a building size limit is a good idea, however 60,000 square feet is too large for a single business in the NNC. This means that you could have a building with 3-5 businesses totaling 180,000- 300,000 square feet, which is excessive for achieving the benefits of successful neighborhood nodal development. The single business size limit could be reduced to 5,000-10,000 square feet, or change the 60,000 square foot standard to maximum building size (to allow a supermarket).38 4. Section 2.108.06 A. 1. (N2',[C Zone)~ Similar to the previous comment, 15 acres is too l~e a maximum site size for the NNC zone. NC zone sites are typically 3-5 acres. t8 The TGM Model Development Code for Small Cities reconmaends a maximum Neighborhood Commercial building floor area of 5,000-10,000 square feet, and a maximum single use size of 2,000-5,000 square feet. Source: TGM Model Development Code for Small Cities Jim Mulder -11- March 16, 2005 City of Woodburn Chapter 2.110 (IL Zone): Woodbum has no Heavy or General Industrial Zone, just the IP Zone and IL Zones. The IL allows heavy industrial uses and so should be renamed to General Industrial. 6. Section 2.114.03 (A))(P/SP Zone):. Missing word: "Targeted industries and serv'ices identified in Table 2. t.21 are allowed in the SWIR .... " 7. Section 2.115.03 A. (RSN Overlay): Missing word: "... are allowed in the RSN Overlay District ..." Section 2.115.03 D. 3. a. 2), 2.115.04 E. 2, 2.116.05 D.. 4. a. 2) (rear setbacks): There is only one rear setback standard for all lots. Twenty feet is appropriate for street-access lots but excessive for rear alley-accessed lots. The departrnent recommends 6-8 feet? Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this package of updates to Woodbum's plan and ordinances. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at (503) 373-0050 extension 289 or geoff, crook~state.or.us. Sincerely, Geoff Crook Willamette Valley Regional Representative CC: Greg Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning Les Sasaki, Marion County Planning Rob Hallyburton, DLCD 20 Source: TGM Mode! Development Code for Small Cities Marion Co, unty OREGO PUBLIC WORKS Exhibit - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Sam Brentano Janet Carlson Patti Milne DIRECTOR James V. Sears, P.E. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING INSPECTION DOG CONTROL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PARKS PLANNING OPERATIONS SURVEYOR March 21,2005 Jim Mulder, CD Director City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Re: City Council Public Hearing - Woodburn Periodic Review Amendments Dear Jim: Marion County Planning has reviewed the Woodburn Periodic Review amendment package that was provided to staff along with the Draft Findings of Fact and Citizen Involvement Report. County staff appreciate the City's coordination effort to involve the County in both the development and review of the various periodic review tasks undertaken by the City to update its comprehensive plan. The amendment package is reflective of the extensive work and time invested by the City in formulating a planning strategy to address growth issues facing the City along with implementing a community vision. The County encourages and supports local decision-making control in accomplishing these planning tasks. As you are aware, the County has a statutory coordination role to work with cities with regard to planning activities affecting land use. The City and County have coordinated on the review and update of the City's 2020 population projection which is being utilized in the current plan amendment package. Additionally, the City and County have worked together and are involved in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) update, the I-5/Woodburn Interchange Area Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, and the development of an updated intergovernmental agreement on urban growth boundary coordination. It was back in March and April of 2004, that the County along with other agencies and interested persons provided the City with preliminary advisory comments and suggestions regarding the City's draft Periodic Review task amendment proposals. The intent of those staff level discussions/meetings were to provide city staff and the consultant team with preliminary feedback on the proposed amendments and raise concerns or issues prior to development of the final amendment review package. The County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments and realizes that urban growth boundary changes are a cooperative process between the City and County. The following comments are intended to assist the 555 Court Street NE" P.O. Box 14500" Salem, OR 97309 "www.co.marion.or.us Printed on recycled paper" Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover City in its review of the proposed amendment package with some of the comments similar to those provided to the City during the County's preliminary review of the draft amendment package in 2004. Overall, the proposed amendment package contains many good and often innovative measures to increase the efficient use of land, address specific needs, manage existing and future growth issues, and preserve/protect local natural resources. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Amendments inclusion of new Marion County Coordination Goals and Policies, Marion County Economic Coordination Goals and Policies, and the incorporation of applicable Marion County Growth Management Framework coordination language, guidelines and policies regarding housing, transportation and the environment into the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The County is supportive of these amendments to improve coordination between the City and County and recognize the individual planning interests of both jurisdictions. New plan and zone designations for the proposed nodal development, industrial reserve, and riparian conservation and wetland overlay areas to provide for specific types of development to meet housing, economic development, and resource protection needs. Also the creation of an Interchange Management Area overlay to monitor and manage the transportation capacity, safety and functionality of the system around and at the interchange through trip generation estimates and numerical ceilings based on land use. These overlay designations and the respective implementation measures contained in the Woodburn Development Ordinance are positive approaches to efficiently plan for land use and Iocational needs, and the County is supportive of these amendments. o Residential Land Use and Housing goals and policies that provide for adoption of a housing code to improve the existing housing stock, encourage and provide for a variety of housing types for single-family and multi-family uses, requirements for application of clear and objective design standards, allow for affordable home ownership opportunities through reduced lot sizes and increased housing types, and for efficiency of residential lands by allowing provisions for increased densities. These amendments provide the framework for the City to address housing needs and issues and the County is supportive of these plan amendments. Commercial Land Use goals and policies that encourage the infill and redevelopment of existing commercial areas of the City rather than increasing the commercial land supply or advocating for additional commercial around the interchange area. Also, inclusion of policies encouraging establishment of neighborhood commercial to serve designated nodal development areas and provisions for vertical mixed uses. These amendments recognize the interrelationship of commercial land uses and impacts on the transportation system through increased congestion which can affect the ability of the City to attract other types of desired land uses. The County is supportive of these plan amendments that discourage the establishment of new commercial corridors/areas in the city and place emphasis on redevelopment of the existing commercial areas, including the downtown. Incorporation of the City's May 2001 Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic Development Strategy as part of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. The economic development strategy commits the City to provide the infrastructure and land base to attract higher paying jobs, provide for the employment needs of the Woodburn area, utilize any comparative advantages the city enjoys such as its location, target specific industries desirable 2 555 Court Street NE ' P.O. Box 14500" Salem, OR 97309 · www.co.marion.or.us Printed on recycled paper" Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover to the city, educate and train the local labor force, improve the quality of life for residents, assist local business development, prevent the redesignation and parcelization of industrial lands, utilize master planning as a tool to efficiently use designated industrial lands, rehabilitate the downtown area, provide financing for marketing and creating economic development programs, and various other measures. The County is supportive of the City's efforts to provide for the employment needs of its residents and the north county region and to work cooperatively with the county in addressing economic growth issues and providing employment opportunities. Woodburn Development Ordinance New nodal residential zone designations to implement the new plan designations. New land efficiency measures that provide for infill, redevelopment, vertical mixed uses, smaller lots, a variety of housing types, and increased densities. Providing for an increase in the multifamily percentage (35%) of the total new housing mix, the provision of minimum and maximum allowable densities, requirements for development to occur at 80 percent of allowable density, and master planning of designated nodal areas allow for more efficient use of land while meeting the City's expected housing needs. The County is supportive of these implementation measures and of the City's goal to improve its overall residential land efficiency for new single- family and multi-family uses from 5.7 dwelling units/acre over the past 15 years (1988-2002) and 6.7 dwelling units per acre over the past five years (1998-2002) to 7.7 dwelling units/acre consistent with the efficiency guidelines in the County's Growth Management Framework. New industrial overlay zone for the proposed southwest industrial reserve area. The zone provides for the retention of specific parcel sizes, prevents the redesignation and use of industrial lands for non-industrial uses, and requires that master planning of the entire industrial overlay area occur prior to annexation, parcelization and any development of these lands. It is also implied that the parcels within the industrial reserve area will be retained in agricultural use until developed for industrial uses consistent with the zone. The County is generally supportive of the concepts of the overlay zone but would recommend that specific language be added stipulating the continued use of these lands/parcels for agricultural use and retention of existing County EFU zoning until developed for industrial purposes. In addition, the master planning requirements and process as specified in the zone are not clear as to whether the review and approval of the master plan is simply for a public facility plan, a conceptual or detailed lot layout plan, an actual development plan or something else. The zone requires that a master plan for the entire overlay zone area is required though it is conceivable development could occur on an individual parcel basis or in phases. It is also not clear if the City Council approval of the master plan could be considered a land use decision or whether such approval is binding as to lot layouts and configurations. The County believes that further considerations of the master planning process being utilized in the overlay zones need to be addressed by the City. Economic Development Policy E 2.2 in the amended Comprehensive Plan states that the proposed master plan shall be referred to Marion County for comment prior to consideration by the the City Council. It is unclear as to what the County would be commenting on under the current proposed master plan requirements contained in the proposed overlay zone. A discussion of the parcel sizes and retention of large industrial parcels is contained in the section below on the proposed urban growth boundary amendments. 3 555 Court Street NE ~' P.O. Box 14500 ~' Salem, OR 97309 ~' ~N.co.marion.or.us Printed on recycled paper ~' Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover The Riparian Corridor and Wetland Overlay Zone provides protection standards for undeveloped floodplain, wetland and riparian areas within the city. The zone utilizes the safe harbor provisions under Statewide Planning Goal 5 for riparian resources in providing protection of designated riparian and significant wetland resources. The County is supportive of the City's amendments to protect these resources consistent with the Environmental guidelines of the County's Growth Management Framework and safe harbor provisions of Administrative Rules. Woodburn Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update County Public Works (Mike McCarthy) was involved throughout the TSP update process and provided input on the plan. All major County issues raised during the TSP process have been adequately addressed and there are no further objections or concerns to the proposed TSP. The County is supportive of the TSP for the progress it would make towards maintaining and improving the transportation system within the Woodburn area. The County does have an interest in making sure that regional traffic utilizing the county road system can get to and from destinations in Woodburn, and to and from the I-5 interchange efficiently, and the County wants to make sure that this efficiency is protected or improved which the updated TSP seems to work towards meeting this end. The TSP identifies a south arterial connecting Highway 99E with the proposed nodal development and industrial reserve area along Parr Road and with Butteville Road. The County will continue to coordinate with the City on transportation issues and projects within the Woodburn area. Public Facilities Plan County Public Works and Planning staff reviewed the Public Facilities Plan and the Public Services Analysis of the eight Study Areas considered for possible expansion of the existing urban growth boundary. The County recognizes that the City shall be the provider of public water, sanitary sewer, stormwater, and transportation facilities within the urban growth boundary unless otherwise agreed to by the City, County and any other applicable party. The City is also responsible for preparing the public facilities plan for all lands withing the growth boundary. The County is supportive of the City's Public Facilities Plan and the City's efforts to cost-effectively size and provide the necessary facilities to serve lands within the urban growth boundary. The County also supports City efforts to coordinate its facilities planning with the County with regards to stormwater management and transportation. Marion County Urban Growth Manaqement Framework Marion County adopted an Urban Growth Management Framework in 2002 as part of the Urbanization Element of its Comprehensive Plan. The Framework is a coordination planning strategy that provides guidelines a city may choose to follow when coordinating urban growth boundary needs with the county. Decisions on how to use any applicable coordination guidelines of the Framework is up to each city and there can be several approaches taken by the city to coordinate planning efforts with the County consistent with the Framework. To facilitate coordination between the City and County, the City has amended the updated Woodburn Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable policies and guidelines found in the County Framework Plan. In addition, the City will consider these applicable Woodburn Comprehensive Plan policies and guidelines when making land use decisions within the urban growth area of the growth boundary. The County is supportive of the City's approach toward coordinating planning with the County. 4 555 Court Street NE" P.O. Box 14500" Salem, OR 97309 "www.co.marion.or.us Printed on recycled paper" Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover Additionally, the Coordination Agreement between the City and the County is required to be updated as part of Periodic Review to be consistent with the Growth Management Framework. City and County staff have been working together to update the current intergovernmental agreement. Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment Proposal Reviewing the various background studies and documents supporting the City's proposed plan amendments, the existing Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary contains approximately 4,050 acres. The UGB amendment proposal that is part of the City's Periodic Review amendment package is for an expansion of the existing UGB by approximately 1,050 acres. This additional land need to meet projected population, housing, employment and other uses is in addition to the 746 acres of buildable lands within the existing UGB identified in the City's 2002 Buildable Lands Inventory. The Plan proposal is based on a 2020 projected population of 34,919 utilizing a 2.8 percent annual average growth rate during the 20-year planning horizon of the Plan. The Plan proposal would accommodate an increase in population of 14,059 people over the 2002 city population of 20,860 requiring an additional 4,753 dwelling units, assuming a household size of 2.9 persons per dwelling. The Woodburn area is projected to add 7,153 jobs/employment during the planning period using a medium range employment growth forecast. The 746 acre supply of buildable land in the current UGB consists of 403 acres of Iow density residential land, 108 acres of medium density residential land, 6 acres of public/semi-public lands, 108 acres of commercial land and 127 acres of industrial land. In summary, 517 acres of residential land and 235 acres of employment land currently exist within the UGB. The proposed approximately 1,050 gross acres expansion would add roughly 590 acres of residential land (520 acres of Iow density residential, 70 acres of medium density), 25 acres of commercial land, and 430 acres of industrial land. Of the 1050 acres, 188 acres are residential exception lands and 13 acres are commercial exception lands. In rough land totals, approximately 1100 acres of residential land (this number would be reduced when constrained lands, right-of-way needs and some of the residential exception lands are subtracted) and 690 acres of employment lands would be available for development to meet future housing and employment needs. Identified land needs from the UGB expansion needs analysis indicate a need for approximately 555 acres of buildable residential land (259 acres of Iow density residential, 178 acres of nodal Iow density residential, 66 acres of medium density, 51 acres of nodal medium density) and an additional 210 acres of public/semi-public lands which are accommodated on residential lands. Employment land needs are estimated at 627 acres (141 acres of commercial land and 486 acres of industrial land) with industrial land needs based on the provision of specific site sizes instead of an employee/acre ratio. The EcoNorthwest analysis of projected land need based on forecast employment increase of 7,139 employees was for approximately 369 acres with industrial land needs being 224 acres of the total. Industrial Land Needs Statewide Planning Goal 9 (Economic Development) and corresponding Administrative Rule allow for employment land needs to be based on the need to provide for various sites (specified site sizes) to meet likely or expected employment uses that would locate in the area. The City has targeted certain industries that it desires to locate within the community and has specified a range of industrial sites to accommodate these uses. Analysis by the City indicates a need for large parcel sites, generally 20 acres in size or more with specific target industries requiring sites greater than 50 acres. Overall, the 5 555 Court Street NE · P.O. Box 14500 · Salem, OR 97309 · www.co.marion.or, us Printed on recycled paper · Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover majority of target industries identified by the City require sites in the 5 to 40 acre range, with several large manufacturing and high tech industries requiring sites over 40 acres. The City industrial land expansion proposal to the southwest (both west and east of I-5) capitalizes on the I-5 corridor location and proposes a range of sites comprising an approximate 440 acre industrial area. The industrial overlay zone requires the provision and retention of 11 sites that are 10 acres in size or greater, with the largest being one 100 acre site and a 70 acre site. The remaining nine sites are between 10 and 25 acres, with provisions for various sites under 10 acres in size. Target industries that employ large numbers of people and have large site requirements (40 acres or more) are highly desirable with a very competitive market to locate such industries within a community. Setting aside two very large sites (100 acres and 70 acres) for such industries may commit a large part of the proposed industrial reserve area and limit the ability of the City to achieve its employment goals through requirements that specific sizes of sites be retained which cannot be reduced in size and may not be flexible to meet the needs of targeted industries once certain sized sites have been utilized. The County would suggest that the upper size limit threshold be reduced to 40 or 50 acres with the number of sites in this range increased to four or five that can not be reduced below the threshold, along with the provision of additional sites in the 10 to 20 acre range. This would allow the City some flexibility in both the layout of sites, the ability to put sites together should larger sites be needed by a target industry, and to configure and allow for smaller sites to meet the majority of the site needs of the targeted industries. By allowing some flexibility in arranging sites to meet targeted industry needs, it would be possible to provide more available sites or increased choices in the size of sites, while also requiring less land to meet the employment needs and economic goals and strategy the City wishes to pursue. Existing industrial lands within the current UGB can also be utilized to meet the industrial land needs of targeted industries that require sites under 10 acres in size. Residential Land Needs The residential land need to accommodate an additional 4,753 dwelling units and approximately 14,000 additional people also includes land for public/semi-public uses (schools, parks, institutional uses, churches, governmental uses) which are typically accommodated on residential lands. Analysis indicates a need for 210 acres of land to meet public/semi-public land needs during the planning period. Through the provision of various land efficiency measures, creation of nodal development areas, increased density allowances for single-family and multi-family, infill and redevelopment of existing residential lands and residential exception areas, the projected housing demand can be accommodated by utilizing existing buildable lands within the current growth boundary and the expansion of the boundary to include additional residential lands, primarily for the nodal development area which allows for increased densities to occur over current standards. The residential land need is for approximately 764 acres to meet both the housing demand (555 acres) and public/semi-public land needs (210 acres) for its projected 2020 population. Currently, there are approximately 520 acres within the current boundary for such uses and the proposed UGB expansion is to add nearly 600 acres of residential lands (200 of which is residential exception lands which have limited capacities for additional housing). The County realizes that the additional residential acreage is not all buildable land due to constraints, allowances for right-of-way/streets (20 percent of gross acreage) and that the net buildable acres within the residential expansion areas would be less. The housing demand over the planning period can reasonably be met by the supply of existing residential land within the current UGB, the addition of residential lands in the nodal overlay area and inclusion of residential areas around the golf course to the north. The multi-use nature of public lands may be somewhat more difficult to account for due to Iocational factors and the neighborhoods that they are intended to serve. 6 555 Court Street NE · P,O. Box 14500 · Salem, OR 97309 · w*ww.co.marion.or.us Printed on recycled paper · Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover In determining dwelling units needed to accommodate the projected increase in population during the planning period, a critical assumption or factor is household size. The needs analysis utilizes a 2.9 persons per household which is less than the 2000 Census household size of 3.1 for the City. The assumption that household size decreases over time due to a variety of factors tied to urbanization, employment, housing and so forth and as borne out in other studies and areas is reasonable, though the trend in Woodburn has been an increase in household size due to demographic characteristics of its population. The City's demographics vary greatly from the state, the region, the county and other cities in the area which make comparisons difficult or to follow the trends of these areas when it comes to specific assumptions regarding demographics. The County would just like to mention that an assumption of a higher household size utilized in the analysis for determining dwelling unit needed would result in a lower demand for units within the planning period. Woodburn Periodic Review Preferred Growth Scenario (UGB amendments) The Marion County Urban Growth Management Plan preferred growth scenario is for the majority of projected county growth to be directed to the larger urban areas within the county, such as Woodburn. The City of Woodburn preferred growth scenario as proposed by their UGB amendment package is: 1. Expansion of the UGB to include all adjacent rural exception areas. The County is supportive of the City's proposal to include all adjacent rural exception areas within the amended UGB. These include the 155 acre residential exception area to the northwest, the 13 acre residential exception area to the northeast (east of Highway 99E) though additional capacity or redevelopment is limited, and the 34 acre (13 acres of commercial, 21 acres of residential) exception area to the south along Highway 99E (west side of the highway). Inclusion of these exception areas will allow these areas to transition to urban uses and provided with urban services. Expansion of the UGB to the north and southwest to accommodate residential land needs and the Parr Road Nodal area. The County is supportive of the City's proposal to expand the UGB to the north to include the 100 acres north of the golf course property within the current UGB. This would allow the portion of the golf course currently outside the UGB and adjoining lands to be developed for upper end residential as future phases of the Tukwila development and utilized as open space and natural resource protection. The City proposal for the area also includes a 2 acre nodal neighborhood commercial area. The County is supportive of the City's proposal to expand the UGB to the southwest to include approximately 140 acres of residential lands to meet housing needs. This area is part of the proposed Parr Road area Nodal Development Overlay that includes nodal commercial (10 acres), medium density and Iow density nodal residential areas which are a key component of the City's housing strategy to meet residential needs during the planning period. The County is not supportive of the City's proposal to include the 160 acres of land to the north, west of Boones Ferry Road, south of Crosby Road, and east of I-5 within the UGB for residential purposes. The residential land needs are being met through the existing residential land supply within the current UGB and the other residential lands being proposed for addition to the UGB. Expansion of the UGB to the west and southwest to accommodate employment/industrial land needs. 7 555 Court Street NE · P.O. Box 14500 · Salem, OR 97309 · www.co.marion.or.us Printed on recycled paper · Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover The County is supportive of the City's need to expand the UGB to include industrial lands to meet the employment needs of the Woodburn area. The County supports an expansion to the west and southwest but sees the inclusion of approximately 430 acres of existing farmland in these areas as being more than is needed to meet the economic development objectives of the city and provide for the site needs of targeted industries. As discussed in the section above on Industrial Land Needs, an expansion for industrial lands in this area to include between 300-325 acres would be adequate to meet employment needs and targeted industry site needs in conjunction with the approximately 130 acres of industrial land currently within the existing UGB along with 130 acres of commercial lands being provided. The County has questions about the inclusion of the 56-70 acre parcel west of Butteville Road as part of the proposed industrial reserve area as being an intrusion into the surrounding farmlands without any physical separation from such resource lands or being physically connected to the other lands within the proposed industrial reserve area. Additionally, the City may want to consider lands to the south of Hwy 211 and west of Butteville Road adjacent to the rail line both from an industrial use transportation standpoint, and the possible eventuality of commuter rail service coming to the Willamette Valley. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City's Periodic Review amendment package. Hopefully the comments and suggestions provided in this letter will be useful to the City as it reviews and makes a decision on this matter. Please include this as part of the record before the City Council at their public hearing on these amendments on March 28. Staff appreciates the City's efforts to coordinate with the County on its periodic review tasks and other planning issues of mutual interest. Please let me know if I or County staff can be of further assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Les Sasaki Principal Planner Marion County PW/Planning CC: Board of Commissioners John Lattimer Sterling Anderson Mike McCarthy Bill Worcester Geoff Crook, DLCD Greg Winterowd 8 555 Court Street NE · P.O. Box 14500 · Salem, OR 97309 · www.co.marion.or, us Printed on recycled paper · Reduce - Reuse - Recycle - Recover Exhibit "B"-.7(~ WOO~,URN CiTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE WOODBUP~I EASTSIDE RESIDENTLAL GROW~TI 1. Residential growth on the East side of W~burn de Bring more dollars and people to your business. Revitalize Hwy. 99E. Alleviate some of the traffic congestion at Woodburn 1-5 Interchange Provide homes away from the noise and pollution of the freeway Provide a better balance for our city Makes economic sense because: ae Sewage treatment plant is on the East Side PGE Sub station is on the East Side Existing city streets abut or intersect available property Good water sources available on the East Side Natural drainage available on the East Side Well rounded growth is good for aH We understand that many hours have gone into this 20 year plan. That isn't a good enough reason to walk into a 20 year bad plan. We need to consider the overall best interest of Woodburn. Bottom line, more homes on the East Side mean more $$$ for your business, and a more well rounded community. Exhibit "B". '~! March 21,2005 City of Woodbum City Council 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 9707] MAR ~ 3 2. OO5 WOOD'URN CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE RE: Approximately 18 acres Commercial General Property 2145 & 2155 Molalla Road Attn: Kathy Figle'y, Wait Nichols, Richard Bjelland, Peter McCailum Jim Cox, Frank Lonergan & Elida Sifuentez The properh! owners listed below feel that this site should be allowed to be zoned single family residential for the following reasons: The proposed LDS church will isolate the 18 acres from the CG zone. The property is too deep fc~~ Commercial development. Woodburn does not have any other Commercial site, including malls that have this depth because it is not practical. Prope~,/across the street is already Residential. As residential the site embraces the Cities concept of "pocket communities" within walking distance to stores. Residential is a much better use adiacent to the proposed church. Since the city must meet the LCDC commercial land inventory, we suggest that a better place for commercial would be the proposed UGB expansion on the 120 acres on Crosby Road and I-5. This site is proposed residential. It would be better if the West 20+ acres nearest I-5 ,Nas zoned CG. it does not seem logical that the City would want to grow the commercial activity East on Molatla Road (H~ry 211) to overtax the last of the two East-West traffic arterioles. We believe the above items demonstrate the highest and best use for the property as residential than commercial. We have provided an alternative that would balance the inventory requirements for LCDC. We feel the community is better served with these recommendations. Respectfully, Klm Ashland, Property Owner Kevin Ashland, Prope~/Owner Dan Blem, Property Owner ivan Semerikov, Property Owner (503) 390-0308 (503) 704-9742 i Exhibit "B"_TZ From: To: Date: "MARK UNGER" <marklunger@ msn.com> <jim.mulder @ ci.woodburn.or, us> 3/23/2005 4:07:19 PM Dear James P. Mulder, I am writing to you in regards of my property, 2265 E Hardcastle, Woodburn, OR 97071. I have recieved a proposed UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) map, I see that my property map (enclosed with my letter mailed to you) is partially inside of the UGB and partially outside of it. I feel strongly that it should all be included in the UGB. Also there is a large three to four foot culvert with the city's storm run off that goes through my property to the Pudding River, this would be needed for future development. Will you please consider extending the UGB to encumber the whole property. Sincerely, Mark L. Unger Exhibit Woowburn City Council Woodburn City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 V/OODBu~N C~l'Y AD~INISI'RATOR,S OFROE March 21~ 2005 Dear Woodburn City Council: In October 2004 the citizens of Oregon passed a new land use law, known as Measure 37. Is the regulations you are holding a Public Hearing on tonight, March 28,2005,compatibie with Measure 37~? If it is no~ you should send it back to your consultants, as I would think their ~bb~.is to make recommendations that abide by all State laws. You should expect from your consultants, what we expect from you, our Commissioners. Please don't make us, the citizens of Woodburn liable for Measure 37 claims, that shouldn't be. Thank You, Exhibit "B"- 7~ MAR 2 3 2005 Attn: Honorable Mayor & Members of The Woodburn City Council W00DI~URN CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S 0FRCE As a business manager, when I was informed that the Urban Grov,~da Boundary did not include expansion on the east side of town, I was very confused. I don't understand why fine expansion would not include the east side of town. My business is located on the east side of highway 99E. If all the growth in business is directed to the south west side of Woodbum, how could I count on an increase in customer flow? The city of Woodbum is expanding very rapidly, which is a good asset to all retail business. If we limit the expansion to certain areas we are limiting our ability to growl Thank you for taking your time to listen to my input. THE NORTHWEST'S LARGEST INDEPENDENT TIRE DEALER WiTH OVER 300 LOCATIONS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON, IDAHO, MONTANA, CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA March 19, 2005 Dear Woodburn Eastside Business Owners, Exhibit "B"- 7~- MAR ~ 3 2005 WOOD,URN CITY ADMINISTRATOR,S OFFICE Are you aware of the Woodburn Comprehensive Land Use Plan (20 year)? Do you know that it includes expanding the Urban Growth Boundary North, South, and West? WHAT HA_PPENED TO THE EAST ???? AS AN EAST SIDE BUSWqESS OWN~R YOU SHOULD W_NOW THAT ~S WII,L AFFECT YOUR FUTU-RE ! We, the Serres family on East Lincoln Road, have approached Jim Muider, your city planner, on multiple occasions about including part of, or our entire 400 acre parcel. Jim Mulder however, failed to mention this to the Woodburn City Planning commi~ioners. You need to write to your Mayor and City Council and ask that they reconsider the effect on our side of town. Business needs to grow in all directions. TII~ IS OF THE ESSENCE. Write now, but in addition, plan to attend the public hearing on this matter on March 28m at 7:00pm at the Woodburn City HaH. You will need to sign up in advance if you care to speak at that hearing, a signup sheet will be provided that night. On the following page we have listed a few details that you may want to consider as you write your letters. Thank you, The Serres Family Exhibit "B"- 7G March 21, 2005 Honorable Mayor & Members of the Woodbum City Council Woodbu_m City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Re: Urban Growth Boundary I ovm a business on Hwy 99 in Woodbum and it has come to my attention that there are proposals to expand the Urban Growth Boundary for Woodbum to the West and North of Woodbum, but very little East of Hwy 99. It would sure be nice to get some additional growth east of Hwy 99, which I believe would really help stimulate business along Hwy 99 and make it a more vibrant and viable area. I ask you to consider the area east of Hwy 99 for expansion as I think it would be a very positive thing for Woodbum and the business on Hwy 99. I believe services to that area are in pretty good shape and would appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, The End Zone Sports Bar & Grill 980 N Pacific Hwy Woodbum, OR 97071 503-981-3663 jjones437~wbcable.net REC'D MAR 005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY '17o: DE~'~LOPMENT DEPT. Her Honor, Kathy Figley, Mayor, City of Woodbum 1V~ff. John Brown, Woodburn City Administrator City Councilor--Ward 1 City Councilor--Ward 2 City Councilor--Ward 3 City Councilor--Ward 4 City Councilor--Ward 5 City Coumcilor--Ward 6 Walt Nichols Richard Bjeiiand Pete McCallum Jim Cox Frartk Lonergan Elida Sifuentez Exhibit "B"- 77 IV[arch 23, 2005 We, the Serres family, would like to address the omission of our farm from the proposed urban growt_h bomqdar~'. Over the past three years we have called attention to the attributes of our farm that could improve the City of Woodbum's livability and quality of life. However, we feel that our participation through normal channels--the open forums and hearings, our various communications, both written and oral--has failed to convey our message to the parties making UGB decisions. Since we believe that communication through normal channels has failed, we feel we must write to you directly. We trust that you will carefully consider what we have to say. We would much rather be a part of Woodbum's future than not. Oregon State Planning Goal #1 provides for citizen involvement. This goal is incorporated in the Woodbum Comprehensive Plan as "Citizen and Agency Involvement Policies", page 12 of Proposed Woodburn Comprehensive Plan--Volume I--Goal and Policy Amendments. We had an expectation of an open and transparent planning process responsive to our input. However, despite Serres Family attendance of public meetings, private discussions with the city planner, and written and telephone commentary to Woodbum City Planning, we have not found the process to be either open or transparent. Woodbum City Planning presented its draft UGB expansion proposal at a public meeting held April 16, 2004. No explanation of the evaluation criteria and methodology utilized in deciding which properties were excluded from or incorporated into the UGB was provided at this meeting. It was only at the February 24, 2005 Woodbum Planning Commission meeting, when Planp~g Director Jim Mulder responded to a question by Planning Commissioner David Vancil, that the Serres Family learned that UGB Region 4 had been excluded because it was identified as having the highest infrastructure development costs of any UGB study region. We have concerns about a decision process based solely upon infrastructure costs. Property value is never solely determined by' infrastructure investrnent. We feel that our property brings value to the City that other UGB study regions do not and that this value was not considered in the Planning Department's decision-making methodology. In the quest to determine Planning's decision making process, we obtained a copy of "City of Woodbum UGB Study Area Public Services Analysis, 2004", which does lay out the costs of Sanitary Sewer Service, Storm Sewer Service and Water Service to each of the 8 UGB study Regions. We strongly feel, upon examining this document that the infrastructure cost estimates applicable to tbe Serres Family property, located in the Southerly 60% of UGB Region 4, are questionable. Let us examine these cost estimates in mm. First, consider the Woodbum Public Works estimate for Sewer Service. Simple inspection of the USGS Woodbum 7.5 minute topographic map and City of Woodbum Sewer Main Map dated 10/08/02 snows the follovAng to be mae of UGB Region 4: · UGB Region 4 is the second closest to the Woodbum Sewage Treatment Plant. UGB Region 4 sits on the same topographic feature as the Woodburn Sewage Treatment Plant--a bench above the Pudding River. Most other study areas are in the Mill Creek or Senecal Creek drainages, requiring sewage to be pumped across the washboard topography created by the parallel drainages of Mill and Senecal Creeks and the Pudding River. UGB Region 4 sits at the same elevation as the Woodbum Sewage Treatment Plant. The sewer main on Hardcastle Street runs along our North property border. The Woodbum Public Work's sewer main map does not accurately show the terminus of the sewer main, which, as evidenced by manhole risers, ends some distance East of the Hardcastle/Cooley Road intersection. Despite these facts, the Woodbum Public Works estimate for providing Sanitary Sewer i_nfrastmcture to UGB Region 4 is $15,160.00/acre. In comparison Region 6 is the next most expensive at $13,895.00/acre. The remaining areas vary from $10,167.00/acre down to $7,035.94/acre. What is it that makes sewer service so expensive on our parcel when the USGS map and our familiarity with our property and Woodbum suggests otherwise? Without a public vetting of the models and methodologies used to develop the Sanitary Sewer Infr~tructure costs, we can't evaluate the validity of Public Work's numbers, and we don't think members of the Planning Commission and the City Council can do so, either, if all they have is the same thablic Works document we have. Based on the information available to us--the maps cited, our knowledge of ot~ property, and our knowledge of the City of Woodbum and its topography--we do not have confidence in Public Work's cost estimate of sanitary sewer infrastructure because it does not make sense that the study area close to the treatment plant, at the same elevation as the treatment plant, with no intervep, ing ridges between it and the treatment plant ,mould have the absolute highest cost. Second, let us look at Storm Sewer infrastructure costs. Again, Region 4 has the highest per acre cost at $14,577.00. The next most expensive is Region 6 at $7,737.00/acre with Region 8 the lowest at $6,173.00/acre. This is a tremendous disparity, with the only hint of an explanation being that Public Works states that a 78- inch diameter storm sewer to the Pudding River would be required to service UGB Region 4. Simple inspection of the USGS Woodbum 7.5 minute topographic map shows that the entirety of the Serres Family property, about 60% of UGB Region 4, slopes at 0 to 3% to the Pudding River. On the Serres property, each and every future East/West street could contain a small storm sewer appropriate for the area that it serves. And no right-of-way problems will be encountered in connecting these small storm sewers to the Pudding River or the Serres Reservoir because the Serres Family owns all of these lands. Again, Public Work's methodology for developing Storm Sewer costs is not disclosed. However, Public Work's cost estimate for providing UGB Region 4 Storm Sewer service is too high. The stipulation of a 78-inch diameter main drain is completely unnecessary on the Serres tract. Storm drainage can be accomplished through a distributed network of parallel East/West mains. And how does the Landau/Laurel storm drain capital improvement project fit into this cost picture? This $750,000.00 project, which calls for drainage to the Pudding River, is item 4 on the City's "List of Short Term Projects", found on page 34 of Draft 2005 Woodburn Public Facilities Plan. Referring again to the Woodbum 7.5 minute topographic map, the shortest path from Landau Lane to the Pudding River would be straight East th_rough the Serres tract to the Serres reservoir in UGB Region 4. Third, let us consider water service. Public Work's estimate for Water Services to UGB Region 4 is $9,446.00 per acre, ranking it the second most expensive Region to service. The Serres portion of UGB Region 4 has a 700 gallon-per-minute well located on it. A buried mahaJine distribution system comes within 150 feet of the City Limits at Tomlin Street. A second, 900 gallon-per-minute well, located just outside the UGB Region 4 boundary is tied in through the mainline system, for a combined capacity of 1,600 gallons per minute. This is 28.5% of the entire City of Woodbum's well capacity of 5,850 gallons per minute (Page 5, Draft 2005 Woodbum Public Facilities Plan). At one time, during the 1986-1988 drought, the City contacted the Serres family regarding connection of the Serres wells through the Serres distribution system to the City of Woodbum system. The City ,mas aware of the Serres water resource at this time. So was the value of the existing Serres water infrastructure considered in Public Work's water system cost estimate? How can UGB Region 4 have the second highest water system infrastructure cost when the Serres portion already has a developed water resource more than ample to meet the needs of UGB Region 4? Again, there was no public disclosure or vetting of the methodologies used. Further, there was no pro-active contact by city staff to ascertain or verify pertinent information and features, like the Serres wells, even though city staff should have been aware of them. In the case of the Water Services cost estimate, this lack of transparency made it impossible for the Serres family to correct this error of omission. Following t-he February 24, 2005 David Vancil/Jim Mulder exchange Serres family members have informally sought information about the cost analyses prepared by Woodbum Public Works. Ba~sed on these informal conversations, our best assessment is that city staff prepared these estimates by applying standardized cost estimating rules to an assumed set of conditions without verifying that the assumed conditions corresponded to the tree lay of the land, or to identify site specific mitigating factors such as the Serres wells, or Serres' ability to grant multiple storm drain outlets to the Pudding River. To conclude our review of Woodbum Public Works cost analyses, we feel that ail three systems costs, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water supply, are suspect and overstate the costs of providing these services to UGB Region 4. Moving on, lets look at some positive values that the Serres tract can bring to Woodbum. Parks and Recreation. Lets start with the fourth major component of Woodbum City public services and Woodburn City system development charges--Parks and Recreation. The City of Woodburn UGB Study Area Public Services Analysis, 2004 does not provide an estimated cost per acre for Parks and Recreation. However, the importance of Parks and Recreation is noted in Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy Final Report (page 100 of the .pdf version). At the December 9, 2004 Woodbum Planning Commission meeting, Planning Director Jim Mulder stated that Woodbum needed a major park. At the same meeting, consultant Greg Winterowd stated that Woodbum lacked funding for major park acquisition. The Serres tract includes significant acreage, which, due to its location in the Pudding River floodplain or, if not in the Pudding River Floodplain, its classification as wetlands, is suitable primarily for recreational use. This contiguous area includes open fields, hardwood forest, wetlands, mature Douglas Fir timber, a two-acre pond, a half- mile of side streams, and a half-mile of Pudding River frontage, which includes a sandy beach. This site offers recreational and nature study amenities unequaled in the Woodbum area based on the metrics of size, variety of bio types, variety of landforms, presence of year round water flow (Pudding River) and ease of public access (from Hi 214). Ifa walking Wail were constructed inside the perimeter of this area, it would be more than two miles in length. 4 The Serres Family would rather be included within the UGB and have potential parkland benefit all the citizens of Woodbum. The alternative uses of the potential parkland ha a Measure 37 process would be either to divide it up among a number of lots, or having a number of private lots share it. In both of these cases, citizens of Woodbu_m would not benefit. Transportation Considerations External to the Serres Tract. The Serres tract fronts State Highway 214 for a mile on its South and Southwest sides. The Serres tract communicates to State Highway 211 via Cooley Road on the North. It communicates with US 99E through Hardcastle, Lincoln, Tomlin, Laurel, Landau, and possibly Aztec to the West. Contrary to opinion stated by Woodbum Planning, East Woodbum residents do not access I-5 at the 1-5/214 interchange. North bound travelers take 99E and the Aurora 1-5 cut off to I-5 at Aurora/Charbomaeau. Southbom'~d travelers take 99E south and access 1-5 at either the Brooklake Road/I-5 interchange or the 99E/I-5 interchange. Contrary to Woodbum Planrdng, we believe that siting residential areas close to the freeway intensifies I-5/214 congestion. For example, consider the future residents of the now approved Montebello Phases II and m. Because of their close proximity to the freeway, these residents will choose to access the freeway at the I-5/214 interchange. In contrast, residents of any future development in UGB Region 4 will access 1-5 through the Aurora tnt offand Brooks, just as those of us who live in the area do now. Residential development in UGB Regions 1 and 7, and the west sides of Regions 2 and 6 will exacerbate 1-5/214 congestion to a far greater extent than will residential development in UGB Region 4. Transportation Considerations Internal to the Serres Tract. The entire tract, from the Woodbum City Limits to the Pudding River, Hi. 214 to Hardcastle, is owned by the Serres family. Intemal impediments to road/utility design and layout are limited to two public rights of way, East Lincoln Road and Serres Lane, three tax lots owned by one Serres family member, and two residential lots fronting on 214. Implementation of a North/South parallel road East of 99E, as specified by Final Draft, Woodburn Transportation System Plan, Policy K-l-10, (Cooley Road to 214) will be easy to accomplish. In contrast, all the other UGB study Regions are more parcelized, posing rights-of-way issues and other barriers to efficient road and utility lay out. Electric Utility Infrastructure. The Woodbum PGE substation is located 200 yards 'West of the Serres tract on 214. Because of this proxhnity, it will be easy to route any required feeder circuits to service UGB Region 4. Suitability for High-End Housing. Our assessment is that the Serres Parcel is best suited for high-end housing. assessment is at variance with Winterbrook Planning's evaluation. The following comments refer to pages 25 through 28 of Woodburn Year 2020 UGB Justification Re_port. This The Winterbrook study states ti-mt UGB Region 4 should not be included h~ the UGB for the following reasons: high cost of providing city infrastructure, more intensive residential use adjacent to EFU land, and negative consequences for the farming cormmunity. We believe the infrastxucture cost studies are flawed, as previously detailed. As regards EFU ground bordering low density residential--what's new? Woodbum City neighborhoods and their streets have dead-ended at our farm's property line for the past 30 years. Could someone at Winterbrook explain how converting our land's use classification from EFU to Residential is a negative consequence? 'We can't think of any. We have previously expressed concern that Woodbum public works failed to verify its design assumptions with site inspections. We have similar concems about Winterbrook's assessment of Region 4's suitability for inclusion in the UGB for several reasons. In 2003 both Paul Serres and Susan Duncan participated in Marion County's "Urban Growth Management Framework" workshops held in Woodbum. Both Paul and Susan made written recommendations that the entire Serres tract be included in the UGB. Evidently no land ownership review was performed to identify the EFU landowners to be affected if UGB Region 4 was included in t-he UGB. If such a study had been performed, it would have shown that the largest affected EFU landowner is the Serres family, which supports Region 4 inclusion in the UGB. Numerous Serres Family members submitted written comments in favor of Region 4 UGB inclusion at the April 16, 2004 meeting. Yet these written comments are not taken into account in Winterbrook's Region 4 assessment. The Winterbrook study supports inclusion of UGB Region 2 for high-end housing. We do not feel that UGB Region 2's site attributes compare favorably to those of the Serres tract for high-end residential development, except for the semi-private golf course. We recognize that this is a subjective matter, so we strongly urge you to tour both areas to see for yourselves. As we've noted previously, locating more residential development adjacent to the freeway (Region 2's Western boundap?) increases loading of the I-5/214 interchange until a second Woodbum freeway interchange is installed. Since upgrading the Crosby Road overpass to a freeway interchange would be the cheapest and easiest way to provide additional freeway access, shouldn't the planning for this area anticipate this as a possibility, which would mean Crosby Road would become a connector to I-5 with and dramatic traffic load increases on Boones Ferry Road and Front Street, adversely affecting suitability for high end housing? This concludes our letter. We sincerely a_nd earnestly hope that we have raised concerns that merit further discussion and consideration, even if that means delaying your approval of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update Periodic Review and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. We call these concerns to your attention, not only out of our own interests, but also out of an interest in the Woodbum community at large. From our perspective the process so far has not been transparent. Without access to the process, we can't ascertain, but can only suspect, that errors and omissions have been made in the cost estimates and land use studies. We do understand that it is difficult for you as city councilors to render good public policy decisions with out accurate information. Please enter this letter, and its attachments, into the record of public testimony submitted regarding the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update Periodic Review and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. Sincerely, Ruth Thompson Paul Serres Rebecca Kirsch Mary Grant Susan Duncan Cc: Claudio Lima, Woodbum Planning Commission Chairman Patty Grigorieff, Woodbum Planning Commission Richard/moles, Woodbum Planning Commission David Vancil, Woodbum Planning Commission Ellen Bandelow, Woodbum Planning Commission Richard Jennings, Woodbum Planning Commission V -IY ? Why we want to become ur~oarfized, whether it be as a part of the City of Woodbum or throug~h a go-it-alone Measure 37 process. The purpose of this letter is to let you know why we have made this choice. No doubt this may seem confusing. A great deal of testimony has been submitted to the Woodbum Planning Commission by various individuals and the 1000 Friends of Oregon advocacy group that extols the virtues and values of farming. Why would a farming farrdly abandon its stake in farming enterprise if farming is the hottest enterprise around? The argument these folks advance is an economic argument, but if you notice, they do not provide farm enterprise statistics to support their argument only aggregate crop values. The Serres family farm experience does not support the positive economic scenario the~, portray. The loss of Agripac, Agrifrozen, and Smuckers in Woodbum is a good indicator that our experience is general to area agriculture, not specific to our enterprise. During the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's the Serres family farm was diversified in many crops, including walnuts, horseradish, strawberries, all types of row crops, and hops. Through prudent management and adoption of new technology, such as the stationary hop-picker, the farm enterprise grew. The capital generated by the operation was reinvested by purchasing smaller, neighboring farms, which at the time were valued in the real estate market at their farming enterprise value. Through out this time period, the Serres farm was a major seasonal employer in the immediate Woodburn are~ Tovmspeople were employed stringing and picking pole beans, picking strawberries, cultivating various crops, hand training and picking hops. Farm management, over time, increased its acreage base in those crops providing the greatest financial return. Technological improvements in both equipment and plant breeding marginalized many crops, like pole beans. One consequence was the loss of diversification across crops, with the farm concentrating on hops. Another consequence was the erosion of profit margin across all crops, including hops. With a decreasing rate of internal return, the family operation was less able to invest in expansion and new teclmaology. The last land acquisition was the Hermle farm, in 1972. You will notice that this year there are no more hop fields to the East of town. For the first year in over 70 years the Serres family will not produce a hop crop. Why? We cma't grow a labor-intensive crop like hops in a global economy at an acceptable rate of return given the financial risks and high overhead of insurance, worV~nan's comp, etc. So now the entire farm is in grass see& grad grass seed is the default crop the low cost, low man-hour/acre crop that you grow when all the other crops you used to grow no longer pay their way. Also, please understand that at 350 planted acres the farm is too small to be a viable stand-alone grass seed enterprise. So the farm takes on custom swathing, combining, and hauling for other grass seed growers and specialty hop equipment manufacturing for the hop industry. Looking at Serres family enterprise another way, lets consider the number of rial time equivalent (rte) jobs the Serres Farm has provided to the Woodbum community over time. During the 1940's, and 50's, the number of fte's increased. Beginning in the 1950's, with improvements in equipment, crops, and cropping systems, t_he number of fte's began to decline. This decline accelerated dramatically as the family enterprise shifted acreage out of hops in the late 1990's. At the present time, with no hops, the farm employs only four people year round. If the employee hours spent on hop parts manufacturing and custom farming are backed out, the number of ftc jobs, including the farm operator, is between 2 and 3. Looking at the Serres family enterprise from the perspective of remm on assets, we see a similar scenario. Return on assets has steadily declined over the past 50 years. Simultaneously, valuation of farmland, particularly farmland adjacent to Urban Growth Boundaries, has increased dramatically above its farm enterprise value. If a market rate of remm on land (market value of farm as farmland adjacent to town, not developable land) is penciled into the grass seed enterprise budget, the budget does not have a black bottom line. As pragmatic business, people, we recognize that continued farming on our parcel, which can't be expanded.,, is a marginal enterprise. Further, at our age, with no successors interested in farming, and little free capital, we do not feel that establishing a new farming enterprise, like specialty nursery stock, a prudent investment. We would rather convert our farmland to urban use as a means to provide for our own and our heirs' fuU~e. Sincerely, The Serres Family Proposed / / Expansion Areas outside of Current Urban Growth Boundary for the City of Woodburn Map Not to Scale $ Legend ............ Streams L ..... ; Urban Growth Boundary ...... Raitroad Assessor's Taxlots ,, Proposed Urban Growth UGB Expansion Areas Boundary '.mper's -' fine jewelry since ~923 Exhibit "B"- ?~ MAR ,~ '~ ZOO5 WOODBURN CITY AD~NISTRATOR'S OFFICE Third Generation 'Woodburn 503-952-1321 Wilsonville 503-652-8500 March 22, 2005 Mayor Figley and Woodburn City Council 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Mayor Figley and Councilors, The purpose of my letter is to show support for the inclusion of the "Serres Property" within the urban growth boundary for the City of Woodbum. I am both a resident of the area (2625 Meadow Lane) and a 99E business owner (Mid Valley Plaza). The inclusion appears to be a logical evolution of the growth of our city. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 626, Hubbard, OR 97032 Exhibit "B"- 7c~ March 22, 2005 MAR 2 4 2.005 WOODBURN CiTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE Honorable Mayor and Members of The Wo,~burn City Council 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Re: Expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As business owners in the City of Woodburn, potential growth within the city and an expansion of the urban growth boundary, along with the population increases surely to follow are always welcome news. With Woodburn being at the hub of the northern Willamette Valley community, this growth is inevitable. My business partner and I are very interested in the proposed areas whiCh the city has chosen for expansion and question both the population balance and economic impact of those choices. Highway 99E is a major commerce thoroughfare for Woodburn, with many well established businesses bringing in money from Portland to Salem. Highway 99E is the road of choice for locals who do not wish to contend with the congested interchange at Mt. Hood Ave. and 1-5. To invest in the existing infrastructure and make use of the services already available on 99E by adding housing east of the highway makes more sense than building to the west of I-5 and having those new residents commute to the core area of Woodburn to conduct their business. We would like to see the city reevaluate this situation and expand the city limits in a way that would invigorate the existing asset of Highway 99E and make use of this thoroughfare to the ease of 1-5. Very~ruly Yours, Scott Henkel and Karen Boulegon, Fins & Feathers Pet Shop REC'D ex Exhibit "B"- ~'0 cvlarcn Z& 2UO5 To James P. Mulder COMMUNI~ ~MENT DEPT. ! am writing to you in regards of my property, 2265 E Ha~dcastle, Woodbum, OR 9707 !. ! have received a proposed Urban Growth Boundary map, I see that my property map (enclosed) is partially inside of the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) and partially out of it. I feel strongly that it should all be included in the UGB. Also there is a large three to four foot culvert with the city's storm run offthat goes through my property to the Pudding River, dfis would be needed for future development. Will you please consider extending the UGB to encumber the whole property. Sincerely, Mark L. Unger N Comp P~ot D~: Jn~aa~y 13. Map Not ~o REC'D MAR 3 4 2005 Exhibit "B"- ~' [ WOODBURN CITf ADMINISTRATOR'S OFRCE To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the Woodburn City Council, March 23, 2005 I am writing to you in regards of my property, 2265 E Hardcastle, Woodburn, OR 97071. I have received a proposed Urban Growth Boundary map, I see that my property map (enclosed) is partially inside of the UGB (Urban Growth Boundary) and partially out of it. I feel strongly that it should all be included in the UGB. Also there is a large three to four foot culvert with the city's storm run off that goes through my property to the Pudding gfiver, this would be needed for future development. Will you please consider extending the UGB to encumber the whole property. I also see. that the Serres property (North of mine) is not in the new proposed UGB. I feel that with the natural'growth of Woodburn should grow this way because of the natural drainage, and the sewer plant is close, the PGE substation is close, and the traffic is not as congested as West Woodburn. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mark L. Unger l~ot D~: Msp No~ ~o Sc~l~ Woodbum City Council Public Heating on Comprehensive Plan and Growth Boundry March 28, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. Exhibit "B';~2. MAR 2 ~ Z005 WOODBUFIN CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE March 24, 2005 Mayor and Council Members: When the city started their land use planning in earnest, they Adopted Policies to be followed then and in the future. The policy that is not being followed is that all different zone uses and growth boundries are to go to streets or property lines. I am including a copy of a letter sent to the Planning Commission in 1978, sent by Attomey, Bob Engle in regards to following the property lines. Reviewing properties within the Southwest Growth Boundry, I find many violations, on the different uses and Growth Boundries. It is very costley to approve somthing knowingly wrong and then have to go back and change it at a latter date, to make it correct, this is taxpayers money. There are other violations, but I only picked 3- areas, that I am most familiar with, because I live in these areas. I vail refer to the areas as #1, #2, and #3. Area #1 is located on the north side of Parr Rd. Between Stubb Rd. and west to the comer where the proposed Evergreen Street will come to. This area has a number of ownerships, approx. 13, in sizes from 1 acre and larger. On the map that shows this area it shows a 10 acre tract of Commercial and the balance Medium Density Residental. I do not believe you can do it this way when you have to follow property boundry lines. All these property owners are entitled to know what their property is zoned before the Final Public Hearing. The way it is now some woundn't know for sure what they had. Area #2 is on the South side of Parr Rd. And it goes from the comer, East to the point of Stubb Rd. ,which is across Parr Rd. On the north side. This is a 41.75 acre tract under a single ova-tership. And here again they split through the middle of his property with two different zones, here again they violated the policy. In the past the property was always one zone and if later they wanted a different zone they would come in for a zone change. I would say this should all be Low Denisity Residential and put the Medium Denisity Residential, north and adjacent to Area #1 Medium Density Residential. , which should be adjacent to the Commercial Developrnent. Sometimes parking is available in cormmercial developments at night, which can be used by people who live in the area. Area # 3 is on the west side of I-5 Freeway and also on t-he West side of Butteville Rd. And is adjacent to LeBum rd on the South side. This is a 226.19 acre tract under one ownership. This property is in two school districts Gervais and Woodburn. Here again they were through the property about 25% from the from of the property. The planning commission documents shows that it is a 56 acre tract, which is in error. In the past when an error existed it was corrected by moving the line to the boundry line, which in this case it would be moved to the West property line. Council Members it is my suggestion that you refer all this back to the Planning Commission for corrections of errors and any other corrections that have to be made and then back to the City Council for a new Public Hearing. Sincerely, Bert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd. NE Gervais, OR 97026 Enclosures: Copy of Robert L. Engles letter, to plarming commission in 1978. 6 pages of different maps. 3 pages of property profile information. 2 sets of information for public heating. HAROLD A EICHSTEADT MARVIN O BOLLANO ~OBERT L ENGLE EICHSTEADT. BOLLAND & ENGLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 345 NORTH SECOND STREET P. O. BOX 355 WOODBURN. ORE. 97071 February 20, 1978 981-0155 AREA 503 President and Members of Planning Commission City Hall Woodburn, OR 97071 Gentlemen: Re: Woodburn Industrial Park Woodburn Development Corp. has the potential ability to sell approximately 53 acres of land to an industry which*we believe would be highly bene- ficial to the city of Woodburn. The proposed parcel which we have offered to sell is outlined in red on the diagram which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The diagram also shows existing city limits line designated. by a solid black line and the existing urban growth boundary designated by a dotted black line. The purpose of this letter is to request that the Woodburn Planning Com- mission initiate a public hearing held between the Marion County Board of Commissioners and the city of Woodburn necessary to extend the urban growth boundary from the present location north to the line designated in yellow. The change in the urban growth boundary is necessary to commence annexa- tion and zone change procedures so that the entire parcel will ultimately be within the city limits of the city of Woodburn and will be zoned Indus- trial. The prospective purchaser has not at this time chosen to divulge to Woodburn Development Corp. its name. We are, however, informed by highly reliable sources that the prospective Purchaser is a very well known, large and highly competitive industry which will build upon the site a multi-million dollar plant. Its process will be environmentally clean, and the number of employees will have minimum a. ffect upon the school dis- trict and community housing needs. The valuation of the entire plant when completed will be suc~ to be of enormous benefit economically to the city of Woodburn and the surrounding area. We ask that the city of Woodburn and the commissioners of Marion County consider the northerly extension of the urban growth boundary line for the following reasons: l) Annexation and zone change are a condition precedent to the closure of the sale. 2) The community benefit to the city of Woodburn and the surrounding area is~extremeiy high while the detriments are for all practical purposes non-existent. 3) The original plat map prepared for the city of Woodburn dated Febru- ary 4, 1974, designates this entire area as Industrial Park Phase II. Page 2. President and Members of Planning Commission Woodburn, OR 97071 February 20, 1978 4)! The urban growth boundary as presently drawn does not follow existing property lines as required by pOlicy and, therefore, a mistake occurred in the drawing of the original urban growth boundary line in this location. 5) There is insufficient land within the existing urban growth boundary to permit this sale to occur. RLE:mem Respectfully submitted, WOODBURN/DE~yE~b~ CORP. R~t ~L.- Engl'e, S~cre~y~ Proposed Comprehensive P~an for the City of Woodburn / / / ? // Legend Comprehe~iw Plan Land U~e Designation RS BURN 300 500 700 1~X:14 = 700 ~URATE 'MENT 'ON 517 /0oo BURN ~E ~COR. 517 COR. 707 /o0o · , Karl Kalugin 41.75 Acres I o o o o o o 0 o 0 Prepared For · Company By' Company 735 Glatt Circle, Woodbmn, OR 97071 Phone: 1-503-981-0623 Fax: 1-503-981-0925 Visit us on the Web at: wv,~.fntic.com/ops/or/salem/kndex.html E-mail Customer Service at: customersepdcesalem~fnEcom Marion (OR) PROPERTY PROFI£E INFOR]qA TION Parcel # : R14794 Owner : Weisz Family Llc CoOwner : Site Mail Land Use Legal Zoning ASSESSMENT & TAX INFOILMATION : 14905 Butteville Rd NE Ger~¢ais 97026 : 14905 Butteville Rd NE Gervais Or 97026 : 551 Agr,Farm : EFU EXCLUSIVE FARM USE Market Total · $445,380 Mkt Land · $145,360 Mkt Improvmt ' $300,020 Exemption ' 03-04 Taxes · $6,014.41 Levy Code - 10300030 Millage Rate · 13.5040 M50 AssdTotal: $445,379 SALE & LOAN INFORMATION Sale Date : Sale Amount : $Cost/SqFt: $0.00 Document # : 1666-0370 Deed Type : Brgn,Cjrant&Sale Loan Amount : Lender : Loan Type : Interest Type : Vesting : Title Co ' Loan Type ' School District Information School District - Woodburn School Ovmer Phone ' Tenant Phone ' Ref Parcel # ' 052W14 01300 · 103.03 2 I - :z 7,-?/. ..... PROPERTY C!-IARA CTE RIS TICS Year Built :1900 Yr Remodel : Bedrooms : 2 Bathrooms : 2.00 Total SF : 1,932 (Does Not Include GarageSF) Main Floor : 1,932 Second Floor : Basement SF : Basement Fin: LotSizeAc : 151.92 Lot Size SF : Roof Type : Roof Material: Foundation : Ext. Material : Exterior : Patio Type : Yes Patio SF : 3,000 Att Gar SF : Garage Type : Grg-detached Driveway SF : 4,500 Dri'way Mat'l :Asphalt Heat Source : Fire_place : Fireplace # : B ldgCondition : Neighborhood: 04C Impr Type : Prepared For: Company : Parcel # : R14793 Owner : Weisz Family Lie CoOwner : Site : 14905 Buttevffie Rd NE Ger~'ais 97026 Fidelity National Title Company 735 Glatt Circle, Woodbum, OR 97071 Phone: 1-503-981-0623 Fax: 1-503-981-0925 Visit us on the Web at: w,a~v.fi~tic.com/ops/or/salem/index.html E-mail Customer Service at: customerservicesalem~fnf, com PR OPER TY PR OFILE INFORMA Mail - 14905 Butteville Rd NE Gervais Or 97026 Land Use ' 551 Agr,Fan~a Legal ' Owner Phone Tenant Phone Ref Parcel # .052W14 01300 Census - 103.03 2 ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORM~A TION Market Total : $65,340 Mkt Land : $65,340 Mkt Improvmt : Exemption : 03-04 Taxes :$763.53 Levy Code : 00100030 Millage Rate : 11.6856 M50 AssdTotal: $65,339 SALE & LOAN INFORMATION Sale Date : Sale Amount : $Cost/SqFt: $0.00 Document # : 1666-0370 Deed Type : Brgn,C~ant&Sale Loan Amount : Lender : Loan Type : Interest Type : Vesting : Title Co ' Loan Type ' School District Information School District ' Gervais School PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Year Built : Yr Remodel : Bedrooms : Bathrooms : Total SF : Main Floor : Second Floor : Basement SF : Basement Fin : Lot Size Ac : 74.27 Lot Size SF : Roof T~vpe : Roof Material: Foundation : Ext. ~[aterial : Exterior : Patio Type : Patio SF : Att Gar SF : Garage Type : Driveway SF : Dri'way Mat'l : Heat Source : Fireplace : PSre_place # : BldgCondition: Neighborhood: 04C Itnpr Type : (Does Not Include GarageSF) INSURANCE ,3 CONSUMER INFORMATION REPORT Prepared for Property Address 14905 Buttevitle Rd. NE Gervais 97026 Enclosed please find the following information per your request: TAX INFORMATION 44161-000 Tax Account Number Description 2 2 6.19 acres - S14, 15 &23, T5 R2W 84/5 TCV-95,450 84/5 TCV-51,300 Assessed Value-Land Assessed Value-Improvements 1~ 3 / 4 Tax Amounts Assessed Owner 2,720.17 WEISZ, John Jr. et al, Map I~Copy Deed [] Contract [] Other Document of Record 14 05 2W 1231-5310/V314 P0124 RD This title information has been furnished, without charge, in conformance with the guidelines approved by the State of Oregon Insurance Commissioner. The Insurance Division cautions intermediaries that this service is designed to benefit the ultimate insureds; indiscriminate use only benefiting intermediaries will not be permitted. Said services may be discontinued. No liability is assumed for any errors in this report. CITY OF WOODBURN Community Development ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM 270 Montgomery Street Date: To: From: Subject: Woodbum, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-5246 February 24, 2005 Planning Commission Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development Legislative Amendment 05-01, 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update At its meeting of February 3, 2005, the Planning Commission received oral and written testimony regarding proposed periodic review amendments and proposed urban growth boundary expansion. The Commission closed the hearing for oral testimony and left the record open until 5:00 p.m. on February 10, 2005 for additional written testimony. Attached to this memorandum is a copy of all written testimony received by February 10, 2005. To address substantive issues raised in oral and written testimony received in conjunction with the public hearing on this matter, staff provides the following responses for Commission consideration. Oral Testimony: ~erry Cole, ODOT: Comment noted. Dave Christoff.(representing Woodburn School District): See response in Exhibit C. Nick Harville: Comment noted. Robert Walter Stack: Comment noted. Jose Castillo: Comment noted. Alfonso: Comment noted. Will Denecke: Comment noted. Erin Donnelly: See response for Exhibit B-9. Martin Rohrer: See response for Exhibit B-44. Diane Mikkleson: Comment noted. Bob Lindsey: See response for Exhibit B-55. Kathleen Carl: Comment noted. Lolita Carl: See response for Exhibit B-60. Randy Sebastian: Comment noted. Vasily Mokanukoff: Comment noted. Pat Doyle: See response for Exhibit B-40. Toni Spencer: See response for Exhibit B-54. Kay Peterson: See response for Exhibit B-57. Tom Fessler: Comment noted. Mike Celmer: See response for Exhibit B-9. Roger Alfred: Comment noted. Sid Friedman: See response for Exhibit B-53. Theodora Tarbet: See response for Exhibit B-61. Amanda Deyerle: Comment noted. Jim Gri.qorieff: See response for Exhibit B-3. Crai.q Robinson: See response for Exhibit B-3. Tom Brawley: Comment noted. Written Testimony: Exhibit B-1 (Metro): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-2 (Keith Woollen): City's proposed Transportation System Plan is similar except for completing ring road on east side. Completing the ring road to the east may make sense in the very long term, but it would not likely occur within the 20-year planning horizon and does not need to be shown at this time. 2 Exhibit B-3 (Jim Grigorieff): Zoning on this property and two adjacent properties to the east is RS (Single-Family Residential) and all three are developed with single-family residences. Comprehensive Plan designation is MDR (Medium Density Residential) for all three properties. The City proposal is to change the comprehensive plan to be consistent with zoning and existing use of properties as single-family dwellings. Also, three properties across the street to the south are already zoned RS and designated MDR. The City proposal will make the zoning and designation more consistent. Testimony was received from both of the other properties (Esparanza AIvarez and Craig Robinson) in support of the City proposal. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-4 (Esparanza Alvarez): See response for Exhibit B-3. Exhibit B-5 (John Catterson): Commercial designation does not extend past Belle Passi Road to discourage extension of strip commercial development along Highway 99E and to provide a transition between urban commercial uses and rural farm uses. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-6 (George Haight): Comment noted. Exhibit B-7 (Judy and Russell Ficek): This property is part of the Butteville Road exception area that must be included in the proposed UGB expansion before agricultural lands may be brought in. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-8 (Richard Warnick): This property is the only property in the area on the west side of Front Street that is developed with a non-residential use (excluding the City park). An undeveloped 2.74-acre parcel adjoins this property to the west. This property, along with the 2.74-acre parcel and the residential properties to the north are best designated for multi-family residential uses similar to the apartment uses to the north. Access to the 2.74-acre parcel for a single-family subdivision is very difficult and is better suited for multi-family uses. Commercial use is inconsistent and incompatible with adjacent residential uses. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibits B-9 through B-32: All of this testimony pertains to opposition to changing the zoning on properties generally bounded by Second and Fourth Streets and Oak and West Lincoln Streets. Many of the affected properties are currently zoned RS or RM. This area is currently designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map and has been thus designated since about 1980. The City proposal is to change the RS and RM zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial designation but to apply to most restrictive commercial zone, which is CO (Commercial Office). However, because of the significant amount of testimony in opposition to the proposed zone changes to CO and because the City Council has established a goal to update the Downtown Development Plan in the near future, staff recommends that the City proposal be modified to not change any property to CO in the downtown area. 3 Staff believes a better approach would be to address long-term land use on these properties as part of the future update of the Downtown Development Plan. The update of this plan would provide a more comprehensive approach to determining how these properties fit into the long-term land use, transportation, and economic goals of the downtown and would provide a better opportunity for intensive public involvement in the decision making process through neighborhood meetings, open houses, stakeholder meetings, etc. Exhibits B-33 and B-34 (Woodburn School District): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-35 (Ivan Cam): These properties are all located on Carl Road and are a significant distance from the proposed UGB expansion area. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-36 (Kevin Crosby): These properties are generally located north of the proposed Butteville Road exception area that is proposed to be included in the UGB. This area does not satisfy land use, transportation, and economic goals as well as the areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB. The Butteville Road exception area is included because it is parcelized into smaller lots that are not conducive to farming. The Crosby property consists of much larger parcels that are conducive to farming. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-37 (Paul Serres): These properties include a large amount of farmland on the east side of the UGB. This area was not included in the UGB expansion area because it is more expensive to serve with public facilities and the area does not satisfy land use, transportation, and economic goals as well as other areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-38 (Dorothy McCormick): These properties consist of about 39 acres located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Butteville Road and Hwy. 219. This area was not included in the UGB expansion area because it does not satisfy land use goals as well as other areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB. Specifically, there is a need for a 70-acre industrial parcel in the SWlR. The City proposal provides for this parcel on the west side of Butteville Road where it crosses over I-5. The McCormick properties only consist of about 39 acres, which does not satisfy this need. In addition, these properties abut Iow density residential designated land on two sides which could create compatibility conflicts between industrial and residential uses. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-39 (Roger Alfred): Comment noted. Exhibit B-40 (Donald Kelley): Comment noted. Exhibit B-41 (Will Denecke): Comment noted. 4 Exhibit B-42 (Daniel Koerner): This property is a 2.5 acre parcel located south of the current UGB on the west side of S. Boones Ferry Road. This area was not included in the UGB expansion area because it does not satisfy land use and transportation goals as well as other areas proposed from inclusion in the UGB. In addition this property is separated from the current UGB and only adjoins the current UGB across S. Boones Ferry Road. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-43 (Kuzma Barsukoff): This property is generally located at the southeast corner of the current UGB. This area was not included in the UGB expansion area because it is more expensive to serve with public facilities and the area does not satisfy land use, transportation, and economic goals as well as other areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibits B-44 throuqh B-52 (Marry Rohrer, et. al.): All of this testimony supports including approximately 125 acres of land in the proposed UGB expansion for industrial use. The subject area is generally located north of the existing UGB along both sides of Arney Road north of the Woodburn Company Stores. This area was not included in the UGB expansion area because it does not satisfy land use, transportation, and economic goals as well as other areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB. Specifically, the portion of this area between I-5 and East Senecal Creek is best suited for future commercial uses consistent with Woodburn Company Stores type development. However, the City proposal only justifies 12 acres of new commercial UGB expansion. The portion of this area west of East Senecal Creek is best suited for residential uses because of compatibility considerations with the adjacent residential development in the City and East Senecal Creek. However, residential land needs are better addressed with the City proposal. This area is not best suited for industrial use for the reasons stated above. This area should be preserved for future commercial and residential uses when sufficient justification for such expansion can be provided in the future. Staff recommends no change to the City proposal. Exhibit B-53 (Sid Friedman, 1000 Friends of Oregon): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-54 (Toni Spencer): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibits B-55 and B-56 (Bob Lindsey): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-57 (Kay Peterson): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-58 (Mary Jean Fischer): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-59 (Carla Mikkelson): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-60 (Lolita Carl): See response in Exhibit C. Exhibit B-61 (Theodora Tarbet): See response in Exhibit C. 5 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a final order recommending that the City Council amend the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance, and Woodburn zoning map as proposed in the draft 'M/oodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update" and as modified by this memorandum. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Draft Planning Commission Minutes from 2/3/05 Meeting Exhibits "B-I" through "B-61" - Written Testimony Received Prior to Close of Planning Commission Record on 2/10/05 Exhibit "C" - Winterbrook Response to Written Comments, dated 2/16/05 Exhibit "D" - 1000 Friends of Oregon Letter to DLCD Regarding McMinnville UGB Amendment, dated 4/8/04 6 DRAFT Exhibit "A" WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 3, 2005 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a special 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 Vice Chairperson Bandelow P Commissioner Hutchison P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdling, Associate Planner Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney Chairperson Lima set the ground rules for the Public Hearing and provided an opening statement. PUBLIC HEARING A_~. Legislative Amendment 05-02, City-initiated proposal to amend the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Staff reported the proposal was initiated by the Woodburn City Council to amend the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive Text and Map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and the Woodburn Zoning Map. These amendments are proposed in order to complete the City's Periodic Review Work Program. He further stated the City of Woodburn is currently in State mandated Periodic Review of its Comprehensive Plan and he outlined the 11 Work Tasks the City is required to complete. Staff also mentioned the City has completed Tasks #5 and ~, Parks and Recreation Plan and the Historic Downtown Plan, they have been acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation Development Commission. All remaining Tasks have been completed with the exception of Tasks fl9, #10 and #11. Task #9 Coordinating new Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with Marion County, which is currently being coordinated and is anticipated to be done by the time the amendment proposal gets to the City Council. Additionally, he said although he has completed the Citizen Involvement Report (Task #10), it would not be finalized until the Council actually adopts the amendments and the same goes for Task #11. Completion of all these Work Tasks requires the City to revise the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Text and Map, the Development Ordinance and Zoning Map. In addition, to comply with State Statutes mandating the City provide a 20-year buildable lands supply, the Urban Growth Boundary is proposed to be expanded. Staff indicated public hearings on these proposed Legislative Land Use Amendments have been scheduled tonight before the Planning Commission and have also been noticed and scheduled for the City Council on March 28, 2005. The applicable approval criteria that apply to these proposed amendments were outlined by Staff. Once the proposed amendments are adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by LCDC, the City will have completed its Periodic Review Work Program. The proposed amendments, maps and supporting documents are compiled in a document called The City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update, which has been provided to the Planning Commission. Moreover, an attachment to the Staff Report contains Findings of Fact that demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria, which were provided to the Commission tonight. Staff briefly summarized the proposed amendments as follows: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments: Residential Land Use and Housing Goals and Policies are amended to provide for a Nodal Development Overlay District. Industrial Development Goals and Policies are amended to incorporate recommendations of the 2002 Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 1 of 11 Economic Qpportunities Analysis and Development Strategy and to create a Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay District. Marion County Economic Coordination Goals and Policies are added to provide for coordination with Marion County Growth Management Framework Plan. Commercial Lands Goals and Policies are amended to encourage infill and redevelopment and to create a Nodal Neighborhood Commercial District. Transportation Goals and Policies are amended to be consistent with the updated Transportation System Plan and to create an Interchange Management Area Overlay District. Public Facilities Goals and Policies are added to consolidate and coordinate the Water, Wastewater, Stormwater and Transportation Plans. Natural and CultUral Resources GOalS and Policies are amended to create a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District. The Woodburn Development Ordinance is also amended as part of this proposal to implement the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and are proposed as follows: Six new overlay districts are created, Nodal Single Family Residential, Nodal Multi- Family Residential, Nodal Neighborhood Commercial, Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay, Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay and the Interchange Management Area Overlay. Regulations of proposed Overlay Districts are summarized as follows: Riparian Corridor Wetlands Overlay will generally restrict development within 50 ft. of designated creeks and water courses. The Southwest Industrial Reserve will require master planning of the district to provide fOr minimum lot sizes for targeted types of industries. The Nodal Residential Single Family and Nodal Multi-Family Overlays will allow for higher densities and generally smaller lot sizes. The Neighborhood Commercial Nodal Overlay will be restricted to neighborhood commercial uses and will require dedication of public space. The Interchange Management Area Overlay will generally restrict development based on vehicle trip generation based on proposed development. Minimum density standards are established in the Single Family Residential District, the Retirement Residential District and the Medium Density Residential District and the street improvement cross sectional standards are generally reduced. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments: In general, the Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to apply land use designations to areas proposed to be added to the City's Urban Growth Boundary, to apply proposed Overlay Districts to areas within the current Urban Growth Boundary and to change land use designations within the current Growth Boundary to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate land use designations considering surrounding land use and future development potential. Proposed Zoning Map Amendments: The Zoning Map is amended to apply the Nodal Single Family Residential and Nodal Multi-Family Residential Overlay Districts to existing RS and RM zoned properties South of the Southerly extension of Evergreen Rd., the Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay is applied to the Southerly portion of the WinCo Distribution Center property, the Interchange Management Area Overlay is applied to Commercial and Industrial zoned property generally located around the freeway interchange and to undeveloped residentially zoned properties South of the Southerly extension of Evergreen Rd. In addition, there are numerous zone changes proposed to properties within the existing City limits to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate zoning considering existing Comprehensive Plan designation, surrounding land use and future development potential. Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Map: Based on the results of the City's Periodic Review, the City proposes to expand its Urban Growth Boundary to provide a 20~year buildable land supply and provide for 20-year projected economic growth. In conclusion, Staff recommended the Planning Commission hear the testimony and leave the record open for seven days to allow additional written testimony, at which time Staff will return on February 24, 2005 with responses to that testimony and the Commission will have the opportunity to review that before they begin deliberations on the matter. Staff recommended after that is all done that eventually the Commission will direct Staff to prepare a Final Order recommending that the Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Text and Map, the Woodburn Development Ordinance and the Woodburn Zoning Map. Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 2 of 11 Greg Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning Consulting provided more details on the analysis and justification for the proposed amendments. He reviewed several key objectives they had when they began this project four years ago. Firstly, to develop and implement an economic opportunity analysis and strategy, which was adopted in 2002 by the City Council and provides the foundation for most of the planning work done today. He reported the City Council decided it was imperative to provide local jobs in the community so that people would not have to commute to Portland/Salem to work and to improve the quality of peoples lives as well as to make it so everyone in the community had an equal opportunity. The economists that looked at this and indicated the best way to achieve that is to provide land near I-5 because that is where development demand is located. Secondly, it was recognized that you needed to provide choice among suitable industrial sites, which is required by State Statute. Thirdly, provide sufficient buildabte land for future housing, parks and schools. Land for quality of life, good neighborhoods and land where people can afford to buy their own homes. Additionally, he stated they also had to look very carefully at the Statewide Planning Goals, which requires the use of land efficiently in order to make sure to use the land within the Urban Growth Boundary efficiently and well. Mr. Winterowd mentioned the City is proposing a substantial increase in net densities on buildable land for that reason. They are asking for a more compact Urban Growth form but with good parks, schools and jobs to balance it out. He reported Oregon has many demanding requirements for compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and Periodic Review to ensure ongoing compliance. Mr. Winterowd stated he believed, at this point, the City has a package of plan amendments that meet the Statewide Planning Goals and achieved legitimate objectives of Periodic Review. Moreover, they looked carefully at the Marion County Framework Plan adopted two years ago and made sure that the critical goals and policies of the framework plan were incorporated into the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Next, they looked at the Achilles heel that Woodburn faces in terms of economic development, which is traffic congestion. He said they worked very closely with ODOT on revising the Transportation System Plan and developing ways to limit impacts on the interchange and to create alternative ways to get to that interchange so that it all does not have to go on Highway 211 and Highway 214. Mr. Winterowd further explained the goals require that we take the least productive agricultural land before we move into the more productive land and the direction of growth proposed generally has less productive agricultural land than some of the other choices. He further commented Woodburn is surrounded by Class 2, 3 and some Class 1 agricultural land and the only Class 1 agricultural land proposed for inclusion is land that is within the golf course already. Finally, they wanted to make sure in terms of quality of life and neighborhoods that what remains of Woodburn's wetlands, streams and flood plains are protected so you have open space connections to residential areas for future residents. Mr. Winterowd remarked the goal of a higher employment projection is to have more of a balance between the jobs in this community and the housing that is here. He explained they determined a 20-year land use needs for jobs they began with the Economic Opportunities Analysis and identified probable employment growth and then took a very careful look at the types of industries and basic employment that Woodburn can attract if it provides services, infrastructure and the land along I-5 to do that. They then followed the Statewide Statutory requirement and also a requirement of Statewide Planning Goal ¢¢9 and its administrative rule which compares the supply and demand and match them up. He indicated they attempted to provide the type of housing in adequate supply to meet 20-year needs and matched the buildable lands with the housing needs and increased densities. The school needs were based on the existing ratio of developed school land population to make sure there is enough land for schools in the future. Mr. Winterowd stated an important and legitimate requirement in Oregon is that we use land efficiently within the Urban Growth Boundary, which he recommended by planning for higher density, over ten dwelling units per net buildable acre within the proposed buildable areas of the Urban Growth Boundary and increase a portion of multiple-family development to make it more affordable. The use of Nodal Development Pattern, which is an old fashioned situation where you have a neighborhood commercial area surrounded by housing where you can walk, bike or drive a car to get to and from shopping was also recommended. Also proposed is to bring in exception areas, which are those areas that are in the County now that State law requires that we bring in to the Urban Growth Boundary so that they can be provided with urban services and developed more efficiently so we can minimize impacts on agricultural land. Every exception area adjacent to the Growth Boundary has been brought in with the exception of MacLaren School and they did not seem to have a great likelihood of redevelopment at this point. Additionally, Master Planning was looked at in the Nodal Development Areas and in the Southwest industrial reserve. We have allowed the possibility of housing over retail development in Downtown Woodburn and in Nodal Development Areas. Also recommended were minimum density standards so that people do not use land that is zoned for 4,000 sq. ft. lots for 8,000 sq. ft. lots because that would be inefficient and would Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 3 of 11 discourage development of infill, partially vacant and potentially redevelopable land. In the Nodal Development Areas we have a neighborhood commercial center surrounded by higher density residential, small lots single family supported by integrated park system and multi modal and connected transportation system; Master Planning is required and we have design standards and that everyone has adequate access to parks and schools. He further reported the land located on either side of I-5, accessible to Highway 214 and Highway 211 via Butteville Road and Parr Road and a planned Southern arterial connection between Butteville Road and Highway 99 is reserved solely for Industrial use. Mr. Winterowd stated they propose to relieve congestion at Hwy. 214/Hwy. 211/1-5 interchange by taking the traffic out of central Woodburn, moving it West of 1-5 where it is easier to get onto 1-5 for trucks and employees. Additionally, at the request and in collaboration of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) developed what is believed to be an innovative way of making sure that the limited access that we have to I-5, even after ODOT and the City of Woodburn spends millions of dollars on improving the interchange, we want to make sure that it does not use up that capacity prematurely and that it is used for planned commercial and industrial trips. Regulations have been developed that indicate you can not exceed specified numbers of trips in the peak hour and if you do, you are either a Conditional Use Permit or you have to find ways to decrease peak hour traffic demand to maintain the capacity of that interchange area for the jobs that the City wants to see. In closing, Mr. Winterowd commented he felt a thorough and credible job has been done in justifying the assumptions used and we have not inflated the land use needs. He briefly reviewed the proposed amendments and said everything else that has been proposed for inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary is land that has already been determined by Marion County to be so cut up and parcelized that it cannot be used effectively for agricultural purposes. Mr. Winterowd encouraged testimony and requested to critically look at the work done and to tell the Planning Commission exactly what they think. TESTIMONY Terry Cole, Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2, 455 Airport Rd. SE, Salem, OR 97310 stated ODOT has worked with the City now for a number of years specifically with reference to the Transportation System Plan Update and are very pleased with the draft Transportation System Plan that has evolved from that process. The protections talked about for future interchange development, the other transportation system policies and plan elements will go a long way towards keeping that interchange in its current configuration and in the future as we hope to have it reconstructed viable through the planning period and beyond. Additionally, Mr. Cole felt what they have come up for Woodburn is an outstanding example that will be looked at as a model throughout the State for how you can protect an interchange in a growing urban area and do it in such a way that it supports local economic development but also retains the ability of people to travel both locally as well as statewide. Mr. Cole urged support and endorsement of the proposed Transportation System Plan and all of the supportive elements of Comprehensive Plan Update, as well as all the other elements submitted tonight. Dave Christoff, 671 Ironwood Terrace, Woodburn, OR 97071 spoke on behalf of the Woodburn School District. He stated the School District currently owns 19 ¼ acres on Lincoln St. and they would like to have that included in the inventory. He indicated the difference between the consultant's numbers and the School Districts numbers shows fairly realistically that there was a shortage in the estimate for the School Districts properties. Currently there are no lands in the City that are large enough to site a school because a school has to be sited on a minimum of 10 acres and preferably a minimum of 15 acre site. Mr. Christoff reported they would like to have this included to the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion for when a bond measure is passed they would have a site in which to build a school on because they do not currently have anything that they could buy that is not already spoken for to site a school that is available to them. Nick Harville, Executive Director, Woodburn Chamber of Commerce, 2241 Country Club Rd., Woodburn, OR 97071 he reported he has about 15 years of business and economic development experience and he sees Woodburn as a community that has witnessed many changes since it was first established by Jesse Settlemier. Even when the City was incorporated in 1889, Mr. Settlemier knew that diversity of the business and community were going to be the keys to growth of Woodburn. Today, according to the State of Oregon, there are 772 businesses in Woodburn, 75.3 percent of those businesses employ less than 10 people. Mr. Harvitle explained this is a testament to the number of small businesses that help generate the flow of funds in this community. In looking at the major industries that employ citizens in this community you will find that 34.5 percent are employed in the retail trade and another 23.9 percent are Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 4 of 11 employed in the service industry. These businesses are important to the community and provide needed services but in order to broaden the tax base, create new family waged jobs and further the diversity of the economy of Woodburn we need to expand and attract new businesses and companies to the area. He further indicated that at the present rate we will run out of developable lands within 5 years. In talking with City officials, the City of Woodburn has the best interest of the entire community at heart. The business development plans for the community call for further diversity and commerce generated, which would further support and enhance infrastructure and services provided by the City, schools and other community agencies and groups. Mr. Harville closed by saying new businesses in town help to support the retail and service businesses that already exist here by providing new dollars in to the community. Woodburn was born from agriculture when Jesse Settlemier used his vision and forethought to settle the community and he provided developable lots for new businesses that wanted to move to Woodburn. History seems to be repeating itself by expanding the Urban Growth Boundaries we are providing space for businesses that want to locate here. Robert Walter Staack, 245 Ben Brown Lane, Woodburn, OR 97071 commented he owns property at 585 Grant St., which is an area where Nodal density is intended for and he was not clear as to what that would result in on his renters and neighbors. Greg Winterowd clarified the Nodal development area is located in where Parr Rd. takes a dog leg and what they have tried to do for most of the community of Woodburn is not to go in to neighborhoods and up zone so that people's homes on individual lots are threatened. He further clarified that is why they are moving towards more vacant areas with the exception of Downtown for increased densities. Jose Castillo, 1068 2n~ St., Woodburn, OR 97071 through Chairperson Lima providing Spanish language interpretation, Mr. Castillo indicated he did not understand English very well and therefore, he was unclear as to what the hearing process was about. Staff reported there is a translator in the Planning office that could assist Mr. Castillo and encouraged he come by the office or he could submit written testimony, if he preferred. Alfonso, 1279 N. Second St., Woodburn, OR 97071 inquired whether his taxes will go up due to the proposed changes and if Second St. will be paved? Staff interjected paving is not part of this proposal and he is not aware of any proposal to pave Second St. however, the person to contact regarding that issue would be Randy Rohman with the Public Works Department. Will Denecke, OPUS Northwest, 1000 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97034 was present tonight in support of the UGB proposal and would submit a letter to the Commission. He reported OPUS Northwest has 103 acres of industrial property that they are proposing to develop in to an industrial park located on the West side of I-5 and they have been involved in this process for 6-7 years. Mr. Denecke stated it is really nice to see this happening and for them to get to this stage. Additionally, he thought there is very good innovative planning by Staff and Winterbrook Consulting particularly in the areas of target industries and the interchange overlay. He said target industries are very demanding for a developer like OPUS Northwest because they just cannot go in and put up what they want. OPUS will be required to pick industries and job opportunities that fall into categories that the City has laid out with demanding criteria in terms of type as well as wage and income opportunities. Mr. Denecke further commented although it is a challenge for OPUS, it will give Woodburn the opportunity to improve its economic base. The interchange overlay is creative and a constructive approach to the I-5 interchange problem because ever!body knows that currently I-5 is a big problem and unless that is managed correctly and improved, it will be a constraint on development for Woodburn and the UGB Expansion area. In closing, he added the discussion about a formula and how property owners might contribute if there is a funding gap and if the City will be looking for additional funding, perhaps in part from stakeholders or property owners, take place sooner rather than later. Erin Donnelly, 480 N. Third St., Woodburn, OR 97071 commented her property is currently zoned residential and under the new zoning it would change to commercial office. She stated the entire street, with the exception of two properties, is entirely single family housing. It is a very nice neighborhood with Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 5 of 11 some of the original homes to Woodburn. The notable exception that is not a single family home is the old Woodburn Community Center. Mrs. Donnelly did not feel that it is beneficial to that neighborhood to change it to commercial office to facilitate the sale of the City property. It seemed very logical in her mind that the City has been trying to sell the property for quite some time and that is the connection for the City to want to have that be commercial office. She thought it would be better to keep the homes that are affordable and historical to Woodburn. Staff interjected the old City Community Center is already zoned Commercial General and is the only commercial general in the Downtown area. The reasoning for the commercial off~ce is to make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designation, which is commercial. The Comprehensive Plan back in 1980 contemplated that property would all transition to commercial and all we are doing now is making the zoning consistent, which currently is inconsistent. Moreover, it is not legal to have inconsistencies between the zoning and Comprehensive Plan so we are bringing that zoning in to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and we are trying to put on the least intensive and intrusive type commercial zone, which is commercial office. Martin Rohrer, 16 Abelard, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 reported he bought a property on Arney Rd. North of the Woodburn Company Stores Outlet Mall back in 1979 and at that time there were three neighbors. He said they have consistently presented to various bodies of Woodburn their desire to go in as a group to develop the area. Mr. Rohrer further commented he and his neighbors were a little surprised when they found that they were not included in the most recent proposal. There are about 150 acres that could be used for industrial land out of about 125 acres in the area that is designated. Firstly, that area is the only area not proposed to be included that is surrounded by three sides by land that would be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Rohrer further remarked it would be much easier to make a case before Marion County, LCDC and 1,000 Friends of Oregon if we take land that is already surrounded rather than expanding into areas that are outside the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. Secondly, this property more than any of the others is pretty much ready to go in terms of utilities. It would not require a South bypass and new freeway access and it would simply require starting the development. His vision of an industrial area would allow for sales/marketing offices at the manufacturing location, which is a little different than what is envisioned in the Southwest area. Lastly, Mr. Rohrer stated the property on Arney Rd. comes much closer to meeting the requirements for most manufacturers and developers than the other properties currently proposed to be within the Urban Growth Boundary zone to industrial. Diane Mikkleson, 1090 N. First St., Woodburn, OR 97071 commented she was testifying as an individual. She said the plan for Woodburn's future presented tonight was designed to shape Woodburn's development as a community for the next 20 years. There are aspects of the plan that appear to deserve support including Downtown development and the plans for expanded recreational facilities and opportunities for Woodburn citizens. It was Ms. Mikkleson's belief that other aspects of the plan need to be given further thought. The quest for mega employers may not be the best economic choice for Woodburn especially if those companies work force needs can not be met by those of us already living in or near Woodburn. Moreover, the drive to expand VVoodburn's UGB onto valuable farm lands while allowing vacant and underdeveloped sites within our current boundaries to continue to be idle is, at best, expensive and wasteful. She also remarked the community still relies on agriculture as one of its most important economic factors and we should look for ways to support and further develop this vital industry. A plan that emphasizes the accelerated development of large homes on large lots is not in the best interest of the community whose primary need is for sufficient multi-family housing. Additionally, it is important to support and encourage small and medium sized businesses that exist in Woodburn and actively recruit more of them. The need for a proposed Transportation Plan to create traffic patterns that preserve and promote the integrity and viability of Woodburn's core area rather than creating a ring-road that would pull development further away from existing businesses and already established infrastructure, which costs tax payers millions of additional dollars. She felt we could build a stronger, cohesive community by working together as we move further into the 21 st Century. Bob Lindsey, 7505 Windsor Island Rd. N., Salem, OR said he had the privilege of serving Salem in the years 1967-1977 first as a member of Council and then as Mayor from 1973-1977. He was part of the Urban Growth studies, which led to the concept of Urban Growth Boundaries and brought forth as part of the process Senate Bill 100. Mr. Lindsey commented the proposal brought before the Commission tonight is not in Woodburn's best interest and is a recipe for expectations never met. He further reported Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 6 of l l there are two issues that surfaced from the Urban Growth studies in the early 70's that are still germane today. The public cost of development and the ability of urban centers to fund those costs and for cities to survive need to address two issues: patterns of design and development and develop an elastic funding base or they are going to go broke. Mr. Lindsey described the City of Salem as a classic example of an urban center in deep economic trouble. In the summer of 1976, Salem had a triple A credit rating and Salem's credit rating as of today has plummeted down to an A. In Salem as the population numbers increased, all systems came under stress and the numbers increased, the library hours decreased, the aquatic program slipped away, traffic issues greatly increased, the public safety response decreased, the capacity to supply and treat water decreased, and the livability and Iovability in Salem is diminished. He further added the consultants proposal in its present form leads you right down that path. Woodburn has more than enough land mass in its existing urban growth boundary to accommodate those population numbers that have been assigned by Marion County. In closing, he pointed out Woodburn is a service center for the agricultural industry and this approach is not within Woodburn's economic capacity. He commented Woodburn's best course of action would be to look inward and play to its strength. The challenge is to create a sense of identify and a place that speaks to livability and the challenge is how to build that livable lovable community and not bring pain and misery to the tax payers. Kathleen Carl, 13324 Carl Rd. NE, Hubbard, OR 97032 strongly believed that Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan needs to develop an economic model that benefits the existing population like focusing on local businesses rather than large employers. She remarked many new jobs are created without land being developed such as a processing plant or manufacturer adding a second shift or a retail business expands its hours and hires new people. Ms. Carl hoped the Planning Commission looked at the needs of existing business. She believed VVoodburn's economic model should focus as much as possible on utilizing existing infrastructure, which takes care of our tax payers investment. Expanding to new land is not of benefit to most taxpayers and a new economic model that turns more inward would capitalize on our assets and help our citizens. Ms. Carl closed by stating Woodburn really needs to build a city that works together and looks at businesses that are putting money into Woodburn's pocket right now. We can accommodate the goals of Woodburn with an expansion that is more limited. Lolita Carl, 13324 Cad Rd., Hubbard, OR 97032 urged to look 50-75-150 yrs. into the future. She reported her farm has already had five generations of family living on it in only 90 years. If we think short term, our beautiful valley of mild climate and rich resource land will be paved over. Some day we might not be able to afford to import strawberries and apples from thousands of miles away because agriculture is Marion County's number one industry and you can not stack farm fields on top of each other. Moreover, much of the housing and commercial needs for a small city could easily go vertical because it is more efficient to have apartments with several stories over commercial as seen in many Downtowns. Ms. Carl further added this smaller footprint makes the city more walkable more livable and engenders community spirit. She reported Woodburn has ignored the enormous egg production supporting and surrounding it and the thousands of its residents who work in the egg industry. Reference was made to EcoNorthwest Woodburn Economic Analysis and she pointed out most of these people's occupation has not been counted. Additionally, she indicated Woodburn has recently spent a couple of millions of tax payers dollars for land for additional sewage treatment and roadway construction, this only for the land not for the future millions to develop it. She felt Woodburn has a dependable and growing economic base in place with agri-business and the farmers are not pushing for new roads and infrastructure. The ones who are really pushing for development and expansion are consultants who are paid to say we need it. She pointed out Greg Winterowd was simultaneously paid by Opus Northwest to try to get its land in the expanded UGB while being paid by the City of Woodburn, which is a serious conflict of interest that can not be ignored. In closing, Ms. Carl remarked our rich Willamette Valley soil can produce new crops of food every single year to feed endless generations. How many industries can say that? Randy Sebastian, 1677 Boones Ferry Rd., Lake Oswego, OR supported the Winterowd Planning Plan. He said Woodburn has unique opportunity as the Tukwila Golf Course is the only course in the Portland Metro Area where people can actually buy a new home on a golf course. This is attracting new residents who are coming in from Lake Oswego, Tigard, West Linn, Tualatin and are typically empty nesters paying City taxes whose kids are gone and are not putting pressure on local schools. Moreover, all the utilities are new and are being brought to the site with an emergency access road being built to the site this summer. Mr. Sebastian further commented he has been building at Tukwila Golf Course over the last Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 7 of 11 four years. Although it was slow to start, we now have great momentum and have a waiting list for future phases for people wanting to move to the Tukwila Golf Course. Vasily Mokanukoff, 1031 Queen City Blvd., Woodburn, OR 97071 indicated he was not familiar with the proposal and that such plan even existed. He expressed concerns with the amount of acreage that is being proposed for industrialization. Staff informed Mr. Mokanukoff that all of the proposed plans are on the City's website, at the Library or at City Halt in the Planning Division. He stated one of the Planners could go over any questions Mr. Mokanukoff might have if he came by City Hall. Pat Doyle, Kelley, Kelley, Doyle, 110 N. Second St., Silverton, OR 97381 represented Mr. Dale Baker who owns 10 acres zoned AR in the Butteville expansion area and there are five homes currently on the property.. He indicated they were in favor of the UGB expansion. Mr. Doyle entered a legal memorandum into the record and briefly summarized the contents of the memo. He reported this property is already a goal exception property and it gets a special favor on that basis alone. It is committed to residential use and considered less productive farmland so we are not reaching in to any of the high productive farmland. Secondly, in 1992 the City of Woodburn adopted Ordinance 2081, which essentially expanded the UGB to take in this property. Marion County disagreed with that conclusion at the time based on need, however, in the ensuing years we have seen that in fact that need is there and the 10 acres of land will help the City of Woodburn to meet its buildable lands requirements and will help the City to put people in to homes and to make a more livable community. Toni Spencer, 13736 Wilco Hwy. NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 stated she is a native Oregonian that has lived most of her life on a working cattle ranch in a rural area. She felt compelled as a concerned citizen to comment on the proposed expansion of the UGB. Ms. Spencer indicated she had great respect for those that live and work on the land as well as she realizes the importance of the economic stability that it provides the community. Agriculture and food products are Oregon's largest export by volume and the value of these products has increased in 16 of the past 1.8 years, according to the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Marion County ranks number one in Oregon for growth agricultural sales. She expressed concerns in that we may be too eager to include valuable prime farmland in the proposed UGB. There are vacant properties in areas within the current UGB that can be redeveloped and reoccupied. Additionally, there are at least 8 properties in the industrial park just off Hwy. 214 for lease or for sale and there was one 137,000 sq. ft. property sitting empty. Ms. Spencer further commented all vacant buildings are not even counted in the consultant's inventory of vacant industrial properties. She indicated we have a responsibility to solicit new industry in to our underdeveloped and undeveloped properties before we expand the current UGB because we have the capacity for new industries in our current UGB. It was her hope that we carefully determine and decide what is really needed before including prime farmland in the proposed UGB. Although we all would like to see economic progress in Woodburn, we have to remember that new industry can move in, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in taxes for sewer, water, sidewalks, roads and then up and leave just as fast leaving us with the unemployed and the bill because once prime farmland is paved over, it is gone forever. Kay Peterson, 13740 Wilco Hwy., NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 she asked the Commission to carefully consider the testimony that is being submitted this evening. We all want Woodburn to be an economically viable community, however, some of us just differ on how to accomplish this. She described her mother having been born in Woodburn and raised on a dairy farm in Hubbard. Additionally, her husband is a small business owner in Woodburn located on Evergreen Rd. South of Hwy. 214 and are members of the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. Both oppose the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. Ms. Peterson commented expanding the UGB would only make the traffic nightmare on Hwy. 214 and the freeway interchange worse. She indicated more and more of her husband's clients have complained about how difficult it is to negotiate the traffic when driving to his office. Pushing growth on Woodburn would do nothing to improve the livability of this community. Ms. Peterson felt it was wrong to take some of the best farmland in the country out of production forever in order to attempt to attract some high tech industry to Woodburn, which she doubted a high tech industry would locate in Woodburn because many of the high tech industries have abandoned the United States and gone to China. Agriculture can quickly retool to respond to current market conditions as other industries just pick up and Planning Commission Meeting- February 3, 2005 Page 8 of 11 leave. In conclusion, Ms. Peterson stated the 500 acres Winterbrook Consulting says is needed for industrial sites should stay as it is, productive farmland for our benefit and that of the future generation. Tom Fessler, 14025 Dominic Rd., Mt. Angel, OR 97362 said he is a fourth generation farmer in the Woodburn area and is an affected landowner in the expansion proposal. He favored the expansion proposal as it currently stands. Mike Celmer, 389 W. Hayes St., Woodburn, OR 97071 reported his family searched for about 2 ¼ yrs. consistently trying to find a home and ended up in Woodburn across the street from the old community center. He said he works in Woodburn and purchases goods and services here. Mr. Celmer stated he would have like to have known of the proposal four years ago before he purchased his home because he probably would have not ended up living in Woodburn because the proposal affects him financially. He felt if the City continues with this proposal it would take equity away from his home and basically throwing it away. 5-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:45 PM Roger Alfred, 1120 NW Couch St., Portland, OR 97209 stated he was present tonight on behalf of Renaissance Development. He reported Renaissance Development has developed the Links at Tukwila, which is immediately South of the proposed UGB and supports the proposal put forth by Staff to extend the UGB to include that area to the North which consists mostly of the OGA Golf Course. Mr. Alfred further commented Staff has done a very thorough and very comprehensive analysis. The UGB Amendment is a very complex process that requires the weighing of not only some fairly strict legal rules but also a lot of competing interests, which he felt Staff has done a very good job in weighing all those things. Moreover, the primary thing that the law requires is under Goal 14 is an orderly and efficient extension of urban land onto rural land. The OGA parcel is a unique opportunity from a legal prospective in that you are able to expand onto an area that is not currently in any kind of resource use at all and it is already committed to the golf course use and hopefully where Renaissance will be able to add another 150 homes and not simultaneously taking any farmland out of production. Lastly, Mr. Alfred mentioned expansion in that direction is consistent with prior City decisions in that approval of the most recent phase of the Links of Tukwila Subdivision also included a condition requiring the extension of the road across from the North over to Boones Ferry Rd., which is consistent with the future prospect of more residential development in that area that can fit in the golf course. Sid Friedman, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, 189 Liberty St. NE #307A, Salem, OR 97071 pointed out many community members have a very different vision for Woodburn's economic future than the vision presented by the consultant. He commented that community vision can be accommodated using very reasonable assumptions that are at least as legally defensible as the consultant's. If the consultant's recommendation is adopted, Woodburn would have 500 net buildable acres of developable industrial land, which is a huge amount of industrial land. He compared Medford's proposed 431 acres of industrial land for the needs of an additional 94,000 thousand people. Salem/Keizer with a population that is seven or eight times the size of Woodburn's thinks it could take decades to develop the 500 acre Mill Creek Industrial site. Additionally, Woodburn has 7% of Marion County's population, 8% of Marion County's jobs and between 1990-2000, it captured 11% of Marion County's job growth. Yet the Winterbrook projection assumes that Woodburn would capture 23% of Marion County's projected future job growth, which he believed was unreasonably optimistic. However, even if this inflated projection occurs, by the consultant's own figures, the 503 acres of industrial land would accommodate far more industrial employees than the 38,136 projected under the consultant's most optimistic scenario. Theodora Tarbet, 13305 Carl Rd., Hubbard, OR 97032 commented the Economic Opportunities Analysis prepared for Woodburn concedes that it significantly underestimates agricultural employment. The employment in the agricultural sector grew by 40% in the Woodburn zip code between 1990-2000. She indicated the Economic Opportunity Analysis ignores Woodburn's location in the middle of productive farmland and at the center of the County's number one industry. Additionally, it fails to identify Woodburn's role as a commercial and cultural center for the Valley's Hispanic population as a possible advantage. Instead, it lists an employment goat that Woodburn lose up to 222 agricultural section jobs by 2020. Woodburn is surrounded by prime and high value farmland, which is protected by State law and Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 197.298 governs UGB expansions. In particular, it dictates priority Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 9 of 11 factors for bringing land into a UGB and the Statute requires that land of lower soil classification be included in a UGB before land of higher soil classification. Woodburn should expand further South on to the lands of lower soil quality if Woodburn can prove a factual basis for needing to include more land. The same Statute also prioritizes acknowledged exception areas adjacent to a UGB as land that should be included in the UGB before lower priority lands unless the exception areas can not reasonably accommodate new development. Ms. Tarbet used the Cad Road exception area in which this statute applies. She felt it is not necessary to bring all 13 acres of the exception areas since it can not reasonably accommodate identified land needs. Amanda Deyede, 17244 Arbor Rd. NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 addressed the transportation issue and remarked transportation plans are generally highly technical and a person can easily get lost in the numbers. The important part of a transportation plan is how it will affect the tivability of neighborhoods and viability of economic activity. Ms. Deyerle pointed out I-5 separates commercial and residential development from the rest of the City and Highway 214 splits schools and neighborhoods on the North from the rest of the community to the South. The Transportation Plan needs to address the fragmentation of commercial and residential areas. She did not believe the funding sources available will be able to make the changes except on a piecemeal basis. In the meantime, development will be occurring that has no access to Parr Rd. and traffic will be forced back in to the residential areas between the proposed industries and Highway 214. Ms. Deyerle reported experience shows that building more roads increases, traffic, increases development and puts tremendous stress on core areas, i.e., Lancaster. She further commented Highway 214 bypass in Woodburn pulls development towards the outer areas economically depressing Downtown and is one of the biggest traffic headaches in the City. Jim Grigorieff, 1315 James St., Woodburn, OR 97071 indicated he owns property that is adjoined by two RM properties and requested that the property go with the original comprehensive plan and become RM. He stated the property has unique situations, which include a 2-story fourplex directly behind and within 10 ft. of the property line, the entry side of the units face his back yard and the second stories have windows that look right over his back yard. Needless to say they do not share the same privacy as the other RS lots because the other lots have a 25 ft. driveway plus a single-story garage behind them before the 2-story apartments begin and even then they have east and west entry ways, which allows much more privacy as compared to his lot. Mr. Grigorieff also mentioned he purchased Parkdale Manor, which are the apartments to the West of his property and he intends on being on-site manager and provide maintenance for the apartments. In conclusion, he said based on the criteria stated in the notice, his lot would be better served adhering to the original comprehensive plan and going through and RM zone designation because most of the property on the block is made up of two large apartment complexes, the Woodburn Armory and therefore, future development in fitting with the surrounding properties as stated in the notice would convince him that an RM zoning for his lot would be best for the comprehensive plan and for future plans. Craig Robinson, 1345 James St., Woodburn, OR 97071 said he would like to keep his property RS because he has apartments behind him and gets trash thrown over his fence, urination and all sorts of nuisances and would hate to see this happen on all three sides of his property. Tom Brawley, 4536 Wintercreek Rd., Jefferson, OR represented the Marion County Farm Bureau and an industry that generated half billion dollars last year, which is agriculture. Marion Country Farm Bureau is interested in keeping and preserving all productive agricultural land. He stated one square mile of land is a lot of land base to be lost to an industry. We have a unique climate and a unique opportunity for more commercial products grown than anywhere else in the world. Natural resources that are non-renewable have to be protected and it begins here and needs to continue. Mr. Brawley commented there are three alternatives, look at infill, reduce the number of acres proposed and ease in to it and not take a big block and look for other avenues, or do nothing and let the status ride as it is. He felt the plan weakens a proven industry for an unknown. Staff restated the record would be left open until 5 pm Thursday, February 10th and encouraged anyone who would like to submit additional written testimony addressed to City of Woodburn Planning Department, 270 Montgomery St., Woodburn, OR 97071. Staff will then review all the testimony and provide the Commission with responses, as applicable, to that testimony at least a week before the next Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 10 of 1 1 hearing, assuming tonight's hearing is continued until February 24th, at which time the Commission may continue with deliberations if they chose to do so. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to close the portion for public testimony except for written testimony that would remain open for an additional seven days and we continue the hearing until February 24th, at which time discussion among the Commission would be open. Commissioner Grigorieff seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON DATE ATTEST Jim Mulder, Community Development Director City of Woodburn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 1 1 of 1 1 Exhibit "B"-. I 6OO METRO NORTHEAST GRAND AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97232 2736 TEL 503 797 1540 FAX 503 797 1793 Council President David Bragdon REC'D FEB' 0 4 2005 W00OliUI~ C0MMUNffY DE~MENT DEPT. February 3, 2005 Jim Mulder Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Fax: 1-503-982-5244 Subject: Legislative Amendment 05-01, Periodic Review Work Order #00784 Dear Mr. Mulder: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the record in your consideration of urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion around Woodburn. Early in 2004, Marion County Commissioners Patti Milne, Sam Brentano and Janet Carlson and John Brown from Woodburn met with the Metro Council to discuss their concerns abOUt possible expansion of Metro's UGB south of the Willamette River at Wilsonville for industrialuse. Marion County officials made it clear they strongly opposed proposals for the Metro Council to expand our Urban Growth Boundary south of Wilsonville. We were grateful that they took the initiative to meet with us concerning the importance of agriculture to Marion County, transportation infrastructure, competition for jobs and new industrial land, and the need to raise the standard of living in Woodburn. At the same time, our staff consulted with staff from cities south of our jurisdiction, including Woodburn, to solicit their views. Again, we heard strong opposition from Marion County jurisdictions and agricultural interests regarding the proposal to move Metro's UGB south of Wilsonville. During the very constructive conversation at the meeting with Marion County Commissioners, we all agreed we are part of a larger economic unit encompassing the north Willamette Valley. The City of Woodburn and Marion County officials made clear to Metro that actions the Metro Council takes, such as an expansion of the UGB, have an effect on it neighbors. As you probably know, in part due to opposition from our southern neighbors, the Metro Council chose not to expand its UGB south of the river at Wilsonville. The Metro Council wilt soon be just finishing up its periodic review process, which included expansion of the UGB and adoption of policies to use the land inside the existing boundary more efficiently. As we wrestled with 'state planning requirements and how we could create livable and economically viable communities, we referred on more than one occasion to our conversation with the principal representing Woodbum and the County and the lessons leamed that afternoon. www metro-region org Recycled ~aper Accordingly, we were concerned to learn of the magnitude of the UGB expansion now being contemplated by the City of Woodbum. Metro is not yet f'mished with its UGB work. In response to a remand from Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in December 2004, we expect the Metro Council will have to add several hundred additional acres to the regional UGB in the next several months. It is in the spirit of last year's conversation with you that we would like to offer to meet with Woodburn and Marion County about the UGB policy issues of mutual concern and explore how our common obligations can be addressed in the best public interest. As we discussed last year, decisions made in one of our jurisdictions affect conditions in the other jurisdiction, and vice versa. Woodbum's potential actions could have an influence on the flat, are shape of the metro region, as well as on the transportation facilities (most notably 1-5) between the southern edge of the metro region and Woodburn. We hope that the state government will join the affected local jurisdictions in evaluating these external impacts we have on one another. We look forward to meeting with yqu. David Bragdon Metro Council President CC: Kathy Fisley, Mayor of the City of Woodbum John VanLandingham, Chair, LCDC Sam Brentano, Chair, Marion County Commission MPAC 12-11-2004 Exhibit "B"-2. · A,' REC'D To Whom It May Concern: A comprehensive plan has been basically approved by ODOT, county, city and developers. The plan is enclosed and the perimeter arterials are shown in color and are based on the plan developed to move the U.S. Capitol from Philadelphia to the District of Columbia. George Washington hired a New York architect to develop the perimeter plan for Washington D.C. We find that Woodburn possesses a perimeter plan that complies with that used by large cities. Constantly moving traffic would exit 271 with a right turn on Lawson; another right to the area where room may be found for another motel and an entrance and exit for the existing restaurant, opposite the north entrance to Wal-Mart Most traffc would continue on Stacy Allison to Parr Road. Some would exit to Hav,~ard Street east of Wal- Mart. Most will exit to Evergreen. Every effort should be made to widen Evergreen to three lanes, merge with Harvard and the city planning department should redesign this intersection so Evergreen and Harvard would merge to four lanes and proceed south to Parr Road. The four lane extension of Evergreen should be complete with bicycle lanes, trees, etc. It was never intended that Parr Road north of Centennial Park be used as an arterial express, but that Parr Road south of Cemennial Park coming from the Butteville overpass would continue east over the railroad mad connect to Boones Ferry going south m99E Since Exit 271 is very apt to be overcrowded in 30-50 years it is important that the fight of way for a four lane highway (Evergreen) continue south to the north/south section of Parr Road, then east over a new easement of four lanes, over railroad, and to the intersection of Boones Ferry. This intersection would provide access south to 99E and north to SettlemJer and 214. It would be prudent to plan the intersection of the new road south of Centennial Park and Boones Fe~.~ as a first unit of construction. It would also be prudent to add a fifth lane so it can carry traffic from 99E to the new shopping center without interruption. The intersection would provide continuous travel north on Boones Ferry. The new road south of Centennial Park would be west to Evergreen and go east to a new bridge across the widened 99E with access under the bridge going north to Seattle. ODOT has assured us that if the perimeter road is followed by the city and others, they would intercede in obtaining the right of way. There is no indication that this resistance will happen and it may be contracted back so it cma be used for farm purposes. The fight of way intended is for the road marked (proposed new road) on map. The road would continue east as a perimeter road to the intersection of the Hillsboro Silverton highway where it would form a very important highway fi'om Newberg to Silverton. The perimeter road would continue to encircle an area already in use for residential and business purposes. The perimeter road tums west and crosses 99E north of town, goes west over the ra/lroad and so on Front Street to 214. At some fiature time it would continue west on Crosby Road to haterseet with Butteville Road. The two roads shown through the Smith Addition and Parr Road north of Centennial Park would collect traffic from old town and connect it to the new shopping cent~ south of Wal-Maxt: It seems logical that the area in the Smith Addition be used for residential purposes since there are other areas available and more suitable for manufacturing. The roads would collect traffic developed by those from the Smith Addition. The lanes of traffic rumn~8 east and west according to enclosed map four for 214, two for Hayes Street, four for the two lanes through the Smith Addition, two for the road north of Centermial Park and four for the perimeter road south of Centennial Park. A total of sixteen east-west arterials compared to six provided at present time. (Two for 214, two for Hayes, and two for Parr Road north of Centennial Park.) This should tell one that the perimeter road is the proper solution. This treatise is meant to cover transportation. Zoning must be taken into account because of traffic generated. The area west of I-5 and south of 219 should remain zoned as it is. The area south of Wal-Mart should be zoned for business. Since it was proposed and bonds sold for a Police Station near Legion Park and access to 214 is difficult to get, it might be better to move all city buses and vehicles to the area near Legion Park. Purchase run down property near City Hall for a new Police Department. It is obvious that Chemeketa will never be able to house all or Woodburn's growing school population, so with luck and promotion, Woodbum might fall heir to some acreage near the mass transit station on the Oregon Electric right of way. Recent map of Washington D.C. enclosed. Original draft and reference on film "Mr. Dreyfuss goes to Washington'' available through public libraries. Solving Woodburn traffic depends on inducing traffic between Exit 271 and 99E by way of Boones Ferry Road. It's noted on television airplanes can fly from Los Angeles to New York and back in six hours due to some new airplanes Covered with new material. Mr. Husby and I discussed using the right of way of the Oregon Electric Railway as an extension of Portland Transit system. We both agreed it was too early to be considered but maybe we should investigate the possibility of building the transit with the same framework and coverings used on these airplanes. I even dreamt that these passenger cars would be carded on cables on a framework like a ski lffi and glide over the traffic below. I would like to announce that due to illness I am no longer able to take an active part in sobhng Woodburn traffic. I believe it would be in order that those receiving this material to be given three or four weeds to study it. At which time Mayor Figley would assemble the group and give each recipient a chance to submit v, xitten opinions or short verbal comments. Based on this, elect a small committee to begin solving our traffic as a whole, federal, state, county, city, and the public as quickly as possible. · Sincerely Keith Woollen, Retired Architect CC: ODOT, Mr. Husby, Mr. Cole County Commissioners Mayor Figley, City Co~mcil, City Planners City Public Works, ATT: Randy Pdaoman School Board Hazel Smith Woodburn Independent Index °f CltEes on page 130,13~,'and 1:35 To: City of Woodbum Plm~fing Commission Re: Proposed zone change at 1315 James St. 1 - 25 - 05 Exhibit "B"-~ ~r HEC'D -A' FEB 0 3 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DE",,,'ELOPME NT DEPT. My name is Jim Grigorieff and I live at 13 i 5 James St.. My wife Elaine and I have lived at this address for 15 years and at the apartments next door for another previous 6 years.. We have seen a lot of changes in our neighbor-hood and feel very much connected and a part of it. After managing the 22 apartments next door at Park Del Manor for several years we have now taken ownership of this property, as well as the property at 1315 James St.. We would like to respectfully request that the zoning for the property at 1315 James St. be designated as RM. Some of the reasons why this lot at 1315 is different than the two other RS lots designated for an amended zone change are as follows: This lot has a 2 story 4 plex directly behind and within 10 feet of the property line. The entry side of these units face our back yard. The 2aa stories have windows looking right over our backyard. Needless to say we do not share the same privacy as the other RS lots. These other 2 lots have a 25 ft. driveway plus a single story garage behind them before the 2 story apartments begin and even then they have east and west entry ways. This allows much more privacy. Our lot also has the distinction of having RM zoned properties on 2 sides of the property. Unlike the other two lots in question. The 22 apartment units to the west of our lot and the 4 plex behind us makes this particular lot at 1315 James St. more conducive to an RM designation. We purchased Park Del Manor apartments and the house on 1315 James St. with the intent of being on- site managers and also pro,ride maintenance for the apartments. The RIM zone designation would be more conducive to carrying out these plans with less restriction than an P,S zone designation. In conclusion I would like to say that based on the criteria stated on the Notice of Public Hearing that our lot at 1315 James St. would be better served adhering to the original comprehensive plan and go to a RM zone designation. This is because most of the property on this block is made up of the Woodburn Axmory and two large apartment complexes. Therefore an eye toward future development and fitting in with the surrounding properties ( as stated in the notice ) would convince me that an RM zoning for our lot at 1315 James St. would he best for the comprehensive plan and for our future. Thank you, JIM GRIGORIEFF !il Exhibit "B"- z~ "ti' REC'D ~ Exhibit "B"~ 5- FEB 0 3 2005 Jim: I writing in regard to any possible impact that the proposed UGB will have o~~~primary concern or question is this; Why does the proposed Commercial zone stop at Belle Passi Road rather then proceeding to the south end of the proposed UGB. It seems only natural that at least the frontage properties would be included as they are much more characteristic of a Commercial nature then that of Residence only. For that matter, why are they included at all, considering that the common boundary appears to be Belle Passi rd, with the exception of the 5 Properties in the comer SW section of Belle Passi & 99E? Please see the Document that I've prepared giving a brief description and current usage of each of these properties. It seems pretty convincing that this area should be included as Commercial. Please also note that "All" the properties from Belle Passi Road to Woodburn are categorized "Commercial" FYI: I have lived in my current location for more years then any of the current residents/landowners in this area. I have owned and lived at my current residence located at 1055 S. Pacific Highway for aprox 28 years and have become quite familiar with the neighborhood over that course of time. Thanks: John Catterson 1055 S. Pacific Hwy Woodbum, Or 97071 1-503-981-4448 PS:I left a message earlier today with hopes of discussing this issue. Please respond if possible today. I would like to attend the meeting, but due to another appointment, I might not be able to. MObile Phn 503-984-1121 West Side 99E ust South of Belle Passi Rd Passi Rd ProPerty $~ Cotner Passi Rd W. Side of Property W. Side of SSE. IobilO Home Pnrk Hi ghts East Side 99E of Belle Passi Rd ^ Lot-Zoned ;rcial Conditional Use Variance-Pet .... OrooIer Below: #1 Property SW Comer of Belle Passi Rd x 99E Intersection-Current used as residence with large shop being used for commercial/wholesale Woodwork Below: 92 Property aprox 150' SW of Belle Passi Rd x 99E Intersection-Currently used as Residence & Home Below: 99E Intersection-Aprox 20 Site Mobile Home Park Car Lot on East Side of 99E directly across the highway from Property #2 CHATEAU RANCHETTES 11844 Chateau Drive N.E. Woodburn, OR 97071 President Water Master George Haight 503-981-8089 Mike Palmer 503-981-3967 ,A, REC'D February 7, 2005 FEB 0 9 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Planning Commission City of Woodbum 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 Dear Commissioners, I a~ended last week's Public Hearing and was pleased to have confirmed that Chateau Drive (on the Northeast comer of the Study Area off Carl Road) was not currently included in the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. The last seven years I have served as the volunteer President of our 43 lot subdivision's street light taxing authority and community well systern. At our annuol meeting last month, I addressed the notification mailings from the City that we all received. No one spoke in favor of inclusion. Each time over the past seven years when this topic has arisen, I have never had a property owner speak in favor of becoming part of the City of Woodburm I chose not to speak at the hearing but to submit this letter for your consideration. l1844ChateauDrNE Woodbum, OR 503-981-8089 fax 981-1855 Exhibit "B"-7 February 7, 2005 City of Woodbum Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St. Woodbum, OR 07071 FEB 0 9 ?.005 WOODBtJRN COI~MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEFT. Dear Commissioners: I attended the meeting held February 3, 2005. I would like to give written testimony concerrfing the expansion of the urban growth boundary. I realize that the city needs to have lands available for future growth, but I would like to ask the commission to please look at all sides before making a decision. I reside at 16786 Butteville Rd. NE, Woodburn, OR 97071. One of the issues of concern is traffic. Already semi-tracks use our road as a bypass for the track scales. I am very concerned about increased traffic when more industrial land is developed on the somh side of Butteville Rd. I would hope to see a concrete plan for alleviating this traffic problem before more traffic is dumped onto Bt.~eville Rd. I am especially concerned with the probability of the Seven Oaks subdivision being resurrected. This would allow at least 37 homes (possibly more with the increased density proposed) to be located on these ten acres further adding to'the traffic flow. At current time, the property has approval to build seven houses on the site. Four have been built, with one existing farm house and barn also in place. The property will also be connected to Ten Oaks Lane also bringing more traffic from West Woodburn on to Butteville Rd. Is there not a way that the city can annex in the needed industrial lands without sacrificing rural residential areas? There are several small tree farms and nurseries on our road. These will be greatly affected. Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. Russell Ficek Cc: Marion County Commissioners REC'D Exhibit "B"- g' FEB 1 0 ?.005 Woodburn Planning Division, ( Am Mulder); WOODBURbt GOMMUN[TY 2-I0-05 DE'~qELOPMENI DEFT. My name is Richard Warnick, I own the property at 1365 N. Front st., which is approximately.70 acre zoned CG. I have been told with your proposed amendments that my property could be rezoned to RM if passed. This would radically decrease the value and usage of my property. I would like to make k known ti'mt I oppose this amendment on those grounds. I have r~.~ntly started a bus'mess on one end and getting ready to lease the other partial thai I am not using. I was told that I could continue if this were tt-~ business or a like business, but that does not address the fact I am going to lease the other end to whomever wight want it for wb~t ever type business and that could change from time to ti_me over the years. It also does not address the fact that when I go to sell, no one will want to buy something with those conditions attached. Therefore devaluing the property. In your n~es regarding my property, ii states that the buildings are mn down and in need ofrepalr, this is not true. There are 10,000 square feet of office, warehouse and shop space that are in excellent condition. I have new metal roof on all of it, metal siding on all the warehouse and shop, new siding on the front of office and the construct/on of warehouse and shop are steel trusses with some side wall to the south being block construction. Your notes also state that this property touches the Rid property to the l'4ortb, this is also not hue. This .?0 acre does not abut KM zone prop~eoJ. There is yet another issue if you are to proceed. I recently went in and took out permits to install storm system and blacktopped everything out front of the property. If you had this in the works why didn't somebody say something instead you took my money and allowed me to invest a rather large sum in storm drain and blacktop. I don't want to cause problems but I cannot allow this to go through without some provision to leave me zoned as I am. L~'you have some ideas how we can work this out please feel free to call 503-871- 0361 cell or 503-792-3335 or e-mail at oulwest,~xpressdata.net or write to Richard Warnick at 9925 72~t ave. Salem, Oregon 97305. I would appreciate some kind of response. Thank You ..Richard Wamick Exhibit "B"- <~ FEB i 0 2005 To the Woodbum Planning Commission: V~OODBURN COMMtJI¢I~ February 10, 201J5 DEVELOPMENt I~r. On February 10, we delivered to the Planning Commission offices a petition bearing the signatures of what we believe may be nearly every, resident homeowner on 2nd and 3rd ~. The petition also includes signatures from many neighbors in adjacent areas, who would be impacted by the proposal. On February 10, we also presented approximately 20 signed letters from affected residents requesting that you permit public testimony on February 24 regarding the potential zoning change facing the residential core of historic downtown. This large amount of signatures and letters were gathered in just two days by four neighbors. This amazing response shows that your constituents desperately want to have a say in the decision you will make about converting their homes into to commercial property. On behalf of all the petition signors we implore you to accept public testimony on February 24. Please note that every, affected home owner that we contacted readily signed the petition. Please note that virtually every home owner also commented that they felt that the l~otification sent by the city, did not properly convey that the zoning changes affected o_uf_ar~. Even residents who are well-versed in city business, from newspaper reporters to dty councilors to business owners, indicated that they did not realize that their homes were included in the proposed changes. Further, many said that because they live in a historic area, they believed that they didn't have to worry about such changes to an almost completely residential area that has been relatively unchanged throughout their lifetimes, and for more than 100 years. Those of you who serve on the planning commission are our representatives-- and our oxlly~Yoi~. We hope that this overwhelming outpouring of extreme concern from virtually an entire neighborhood will convince you that you must advocate on our behalf and arrange to re-open oral testimony on February 24. /ierely, /9 Ruth and Dan Wells, 503-982-0552 Erin Donnelly and Jeff Nemish, 503-981-9787 Petition Gatherers Exhibit "B"-IO Petition FEB I 0 ~ WOODBURN COMMONffY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. to Stop the Zoning Change Proposed for Residential Downtown Woodburn The undersigned do not want the downtown historic residential Second and Third Streets area to be zoned commercial/office as proposed by the City of Woodburn. We want this area to remain residential to preserve both the historic and residential character. Please note: We believe that this petition has signatures from nearly all of the owner- occupied homes (and most renters) in the affected area. The petition also contains some signatures from adjacent areas affected by the proposed change. Please note that EVERY affected resident we contacted readily signed the petition. No resident in the affected or adjacent areas refused to sign. Delivered to the City by Ruth Wells on 2-10-05, 503-982-4~0 Name (Signature) Name (Printed) Address Phone # To the Woodbum City Planning Commission: The undersigned do not want the downtown historic residential Second and Third Street areas to become commercial/office as proposed. We want ti,is area to remain residential to preserve both the historic and residential character. 2-7-05 To the Woodbum City Planning Commission: The undersigned do not want the downtown historic residential Second and Third Street areas to become commerdal/office as proposed. We want this area to remain residential to preserve both the historic and residential character. 2-7-05 To the Woodbum CiD' Planning omm2sslon: C ' ' The undersigned do not want fhe downtown historic residential Second and Third S~eet areas to become comxnercial/office as proposed. We want this area to remain residential to preserve bo~ the historic and residential character. 2-7-05 Name (Signature) Name (Printed) Address Phone Na~me (Sign_ature) Name (Printed) Address ' Phone # To the Woodbum City P~nning Commission: The undersigned do not want the downtown l-tistoric residential Second and Third Street areas to become commercial/office as proposed, We want this area to remain residential to preserve both the historic and residential character, 2-7-05 Name ($1g~atu?) Name (Printed) Address Phone # Proposed Zon for the City of ~ Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St Woodbum, OR 97071 Commissioners: 'A' REC'D -A' FEB 1 0 ~005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"-I/ February 5, 2O(Jb In the strongest terms possible, I wish to register my position against the proposed zoning changes planned for our Residential area, North Second and Third Street to Commercial/Retail and request that you allow additional public testimony. There are numerous aspects of this zoning decision that greatly concem me. Primarily, there was not a good faith effort to specifically communicate to the affected home owners with regards to this dramatic change of our zoning and the subsequent limitations to homeowners, as well as the potential impact of the quality of life and loss of property values. The wording in the notification letter was exceptionally vague and left it up to individual homeowners to determine the intent and impact: "...In addition, zone changes are proposed to many properties within the existing City limits to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate zoning considering existing comprehensive plan designation, surrounding land use and future development potentiaL' The apparent lack of understanding and sensitivity of the Planning Commission and their staff in their appreciation of the impact of such a decision on homeowners prior to proposing this zoning change is troubling. In addition, following a Comprehensive Plan (written in 1978 and amended periodically), without reason or forethought, to bring our wood and brick houses, our hearth and homes 'into compliance' with aged pieces of paper does not seem a responsible action by our local government. Another major concern was the relentless pursuit of the Comprehensive Plan, while ignoring the realities of Woodburn. The downtown is a virtual ghost town, but yet you are proposing to expand the Commercial area. All this is based upon the Comprehensive Plan which projected that the population would be 28,000 in 2014 and, if that is so, the ratio of population to land would indicate a needed 448 acres of commercial land, which would be an increase from 256 acres from 1996. With little or no support from City Government, the downtown has been left vacant, while all substantial commercial growth has happened along I-5 and 99E. There is no logical reason why we should expand the downtown Commercial area into the core of our historical residential area. In conclusion, I will restate my opposition to the zoning change proposal, ask that you take a hard look at the reasoning behind such a capricious proposal, allow additional testimony at your next meeting and urge you to vote against it. Sincerely, Dan Wells 275 N 3rd Woodbum, OR 97071 Exhibit "B"-/Z. February 9, 2005 To the city of Woodbum Plam~ing Commission: FEB i 0 2005 WOODSURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. I am a recent arrival to the city, having been here just over a year. I moved here in part because of this great neighborhood with its old homes that are so fi~l of life and classic style. I saw this neighborhood as a place that I could rajse my fum_re children, as it is a place they could love and enjoy as much as I do, a very diverse and vibrant location. I thought that my children would be able to grow up here and feel safe, a place where neighbors all watch out for each other and their property. The question I have for you is: why is this change really necessary? After all you currently have a young and diverse community of people who have all invested a lot of money into restoring their homes, and creating a great family residential neighborhood. I did not move here so that I could take my beautiful early 19m century home and turn it into a bar or a doctors office, and I would prefer that my neighbor not have to do the same. I urge you to question the reason this zoning change is necessary, when this residential community is growing and evolving. Why take what all of us on Third Street have worked so hard to build and ruin it with commercial offices and locations. These homes were built so that people could live in them and raise families in them and I hope my kids will have the opportunity to do the same. Yours truly, Jeffrey C Nemish 480 N. Third St. Woodburn, Or 97071 Dear City Planning Commissioners: REC'D FEB I 0 0o5 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"- ]~ February 8TM, 2005 I feel that you have put a hit out on the best areas of the city. Converting the residential areas of Second and Third Street into a commercial area would effectively kill the heart of Woodburn. The historic houses on these streets have given a pleasant remLnder of oux town's begirmJngs for generations, but now, these reminders are being threatened with conversion into a tavern or flea market or doomed to sit empty and soulless. This rezoning would successfully transform our traditional downtown in a collection of lifeless boxes- effectively matching our lifeless K-mart. I have a personal stake in the planning of Woodburn, as someone who has lived his entire life on Third SWeet; I have a whole life resting within a little plot of Woodbum. /Xatd when I bdng my children to see where I grew up, am I supposed to show them the used car lot and say, "this is where the Van Winkle kids, my sister and I used to play, fight there where that broken down ford is," or will I say, "That nmdown, collapsed porch is where I used to sit and walt for a ride to school from the Thomas's? I would much rather say, "That is my room, this is the tree house that my dad built, here is the backyard where we had most of my birthday parties," and those spots need to be there. As well, family houses are meant to be passed on from generation to generation, not from business to business. The home of my parents, the house they bought months before I was born, could not stay in the hands of my sister or I. This rezoning will bar me from painting my old house with a new coat of paint or giving my old room to my own son one day. If this proposed zoning change goes through, I will lose my chance to keep it my old house. Sincerely, Chris Wells (503) 982-0552 275 North Third Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (541) 954-3657 3867 Colony Oaks Drive Eugene, Oregon 97405 To the City Planning Commission, Exhibit "B"~ lq Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets FEB I 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEFT. I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boundary, change to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, plz~.a delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peace and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K.3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (W'DO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ~bility to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to speak.during the February. 24, 200~' P~anning meeting. The one letter sent by the city was not .sufficient for anyone in the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every, resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal opposition to the change among the affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Signed Name Address Exhibit"B"-I ' FEB I 0 t005 To the City Pla~§ Commission, WOOOBURN COMMUNITY · [IEG/ELOPMENT DEPT. In many ways, Woodbum's historic downtown has been a hard place to live for the past z:~ years. As t type, I hear the boom of a renter's stereo all the way from across the street, Wl-~e I've always loved the beautiful b. istoric houses that surround my 100 year old home, I cpaickly grew tired of a small handful of ever-chan-'gmg renters who blasted stereos throughout the night, sold drags, stole and chopped up cars, and drove down my-narrow street at freeway speeds. But through it all those of us who love tfistoric homes, continued to restore them and raise our families. Now, the threat to our homes is not just from the on-g~ing crime and unchecked noise from out-of-control renters. Now an even more serious menace originates with the City of Woodburn. This threat is far more frightening than the spe~i_ng cars, and much more lilcely to compel me to finally give up and move out than all the years of booming stereos. The threat from the proposed zoning change to 2nd and 3rd Streets means that century old family homes could soon co-exist with pubs, pizza shops, and warehouses. The beautiful Victorian on 2nd Stree~ could soon have a tavern or pool hall for a neighbor. A block over, my colorful Craftsman-style house co-_kl one day have a view of a mn-down motel, per Section 2.105 of the Woodburn Development Ordi_nance. Downtown residents like me are confused why this sacrifice is required. It mak. es no sense. Woodbum is a city of empty boxes. We live among dozens of abandoned builcling~ I can't fathom why the Planning Commission could find it necessary to convert our thriving family neighborhood into a business area when this dty is over-run with empty structures begging for commercial usage. Why does an ambulance service or boarding house need to be located next to my vegetable garden and tree house? Wouldn't it fit better in one of the dozens of vacant commercial structures? I don't understand why the zoning change is even being considered at all. '~Fo conform to the Comprehensive Plan," says the Planning Office Director. But why must we cannibalize thriving homes to conform with an antiquated, antediluvian standard developed nearly one-third of a century ago. Adhering to this hopelessly outmoded mandate from the 70's makes no sense. It was intended to provide growing space for a viable commercial downtown that exists only in memory. Our current commercial downtown needs shrinking space, not growing space. This antique plan fits 2005 about as well as 8 track tapes and go-go boots. But there are even more compellingly irrational aspects to this change. By mak~g the residential area become commercial, you're forcing the thriving residential area to become more like the blighted ghost town that is our commercial downtown. It would make far more sense to change commercial downtown to be more like the thriving residential section. The zov. ing change appears to residents to be dandestine and undemocratic. Although you intended it to be helpful, the notification letter you sent did not successfully communicate that zoning changes were being considered in our area. Although many downtown residents reported reading the mailing, only 3% of the estimated 30-40 families affected by the downtown zoning change, understood the letter to be an alert to potential changes affecting their neighborhood. A whopping 97% of downtown residents failed to comprehend the alert, suggesting that the mailing was profoundly Lnsuffident. Because of that 97% failure rate, I urge you to re-open oral testimony on February 24. Affected downtown residents know that the value of their homes would plummet as potential buyers won't buy homes t_hat could one day abut a bail bond office or parking garage. You only need to look around downtown to see there's no marl. et for business property-- even at rock-bottom prices. Further, we know that under the new zoning, circumstances can occur that prohibit owners from living in, selling or bequeathing their homes for use as residences. You need to hear from us first-hand how lives will be destroyed, property values decimated, and the historic neighborhood shattered. You need to hear how families, already worn down by nonstop problem~ with area renters, will sell and flee, then convert homes into more run-down rentals, hastening the demise of downtown's residential area. Please give us a voice. Let us speak on February 24 so we can save the historic heart and soul of Woodburn. Exhibit "B"-/~ February 3, 2005 City of Woodbum City Planrfing Committee 270 Montgomery St. Woodbum OR 97071 Dear Chairman and Committee Members, FEB 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COIVIMUNtTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. We, the residents of Second St., Third St., West Hayes, Garfield, and Cleveland St. (please see attached map) will be negatively affected by your proposed zoning change where our currently residential zoned district will be changed to light commercial/office zoning. This is a historical residential district within the City of Woodbum which has housed many of the original residents of Woodbum. Some residences have been standing since early 1900 and have always been private homes. Losing this type of residential history to commercial ventures of any type lessens the value of the area. The area you are considering for commercial/office is a residential area which has been constantly working to revitalize itself over the last 15 years and has been very successful in that venture. We feel that the value and safety of our neighborhood would be threatened by the fact that we would no longer be able keep single families in these historic homes should they decide to sell for any reason. Eventually we would be stuck between parking lots and dumpsters while trying to raise our families. No longer would we have the next door neighbor who looks out for our home when we're out of town or lets us kmow that they saw an unfamiliar person perusing our property. We would have a neighbor that only is around from 9am to 5pm a few days a week and would rather tell our children not to ride their bicycles near their parking lot. Also to consider is that some of our homes may be lost to these very parking lots as there is extremely limited on street parking in the area and it is possible that some homes would be tom down to accommodate these lots. There is also tourism to consider. Valuable tourism could be affected as many tourists visit older towns and desire to see the old homes that have been renovated and appreciate that real families live in them to this day. They are not excited to see a business occupying the onetime residence. These homes are part of our history and create the charm of historic downtown Woodbum, please let them remain the family homes that they have always been. We respectfully request that the Planning commission take a second look at the proposed rezoning plan for the downtown area and leave this historical residential area alone in its current residential designation. Respectfully, () Exhibit "B"- 17 FEB 1 0 2005 To the City Planning Commission, WOODBURN COMMUNITY DE'~LOPMENT DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boundary, change to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): ® The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pi~.~.a delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peace and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2,105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as slx months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) ® The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to speak.during the February 24~ 200~~ Pianning meeting. The one letter sent by the dty was not .sUffident for anyone il the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every, resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal opposition to the change among the affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. ed Exhibit "B"- l ~ ; To the City Planning Commission, FEB 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and ThLtd Str~LOPMENT DEPT. I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. at y°ur nTeeting~ Name ~'' A d~'dr l~ffs~sJ~ ~ ~ I am writing to say that I do not want this boundary, change to occur~ I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pi:,~_a delivery store, fast food outlet or other drir& and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peaCe and quiet that I have now. 0NDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool hails, warehouses, radio and TX,/stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you' to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to streak durimz the February, 24, 2005 Planning rneetiqg. The one letter sent'by the city was n. ot' sufficient '~or anyone in the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very ~much want to con_vey the dismay and upset felt by ~ally every, resident of the affected area. · " h~ouCh.a, ng.e' a.mong the affected residents, and we vl;r~remauPcP;arwSant~ tb°eb~m~lTwSaeld°;I~h~C~o tt°e~y mat r~etore you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input Exhibit "B"-/c~ Woodbum Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 FEB WOOOt~URN COMMUNtP~ OEVELOPMEN~' OEPT. February 8, 2005 Dear Comanissioners: I 'would like to ,~oice my complaint against proposed zoning changes plarmed for our house and neighbors in the North Second and Third Street neighborhood. Even though I am away at college, I am sufficiently concerned to take the fane to write in support against your zoning changes. The potential long-range impact is not insignificant. Again, I wish to state my opposition to the zoning change proposal and ask that you allow people to speak at your next meeting and request that you vote against it. Sincerely, 275 N 3ra Woodburn, OR 97071 Exhibit "B"-,Z~ To the City Planning Commission, FEB 1 0 2005 WOODSURN COMMUNITY Re: Proposed Zone Change to No~th Second and ~.izd StreetsDEVELOPMENT DEPT. I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning cha_nges. I a_rn wring to say that I do not want this boundary, chart? to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the follovdng reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): ® The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza deR-very store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) ® The new zoning would pen'edt a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It co~d also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, ff my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance sevtice, delivery services, pubs, P°°l halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to soeak durine the Februarv 24: 200g' Piannin$ meetin$. The one letter sent'by the city was not' sufficient '~or anyone i~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal oppositiorl to the change ar~ong [he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Exhibit "B"- To the City Yl_an~_ng Commission, FEB 1 0 WOODBURN COMMUNITY Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Street~EVELOPMENT DEPT. I am a Woodbum resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I a_m writing to say that [ do not want this boundary, chan_l~e to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): ® The new zoning, allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a. hotel or motel to be loCated next to me. That use is not appropriate for t.he quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool hails, warehouses, radio and TV statioo~s. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you' to allow Second/Third Street neiEhbors to be able to s?eak durinE the February, 24: 200~' l~annin~ raeetin_g. The one letter sent by the dty was not suffident for anyone in the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal opposition to the change among [he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a derision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address Exhibit "B"-2~ To the City Planrting Commission, EEB I 0 ZOO5 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boundarY, change to occur, I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peace and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are Permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool hails, warehouses, radio and TV stations. 0p~T)O 2.105.01 C1) I uree you to allow Second/Third S~eet neighbors to be able to speak durine the February 24, 200~' Pianning meeting. The one le~e~ sent by the city was n. ot' sufficient '~or anyone ir~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by vLrtuallv every resident of the affected are There appears to be universal OODOSition to tho ,.~, ..... '_.___: ...... a. ......... .. . ..... ,-,,,.~,: ,unong me attectea resiaents ancdo~[; very much want to De auowea a voice to tell you that before you make a decision t~at have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Signe!;l~ Name Address Exhibit "B"-2.~ To the City ~an~g Commission, FEB 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY Dr.~tELOPMENT DEPT.. Re: Proposed Zone Chanse to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residen~ historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I a.rrt writing to say that I do not want this boundary, change to oc~r. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peaJe and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It co~d also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, deliver,! services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and 'Pc' stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge vou to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to sneak durine the February 24: 200~' P~anning meetin$. The one letter sent by the city was not' sufficient ~or anyone in the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually eve~, resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal op.r~sition to the change among the affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address Exhibit "B"-2.~/ To the City Planning Commission, FEB 10 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPME~ DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boundary, change to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · T'ne new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are Permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. 0NDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to soeak durine the February 24: 2005 Plannin$ meeting. The one letter sent by the city was n. ot' sufficient '~or anyone ir~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony ',,,'as permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal oovosition to the change a~ong {he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed ~'voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address cxrl loll -- D' FEB I 0 To the City Planning Commission, WOOOBURN COMMUNITY DEveLOPMENT DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodbu_rn resident living ha the downtown residential l-~toric district affected by the proposed zov. ing change~. I am writing to ~ay that I do not want this boundaw chan~e to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woocibu_vn Ordinance is provided as documentation): ® The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, p'tzza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drl. n.k and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these use~ would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six month~, that properr--'y could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstance~ that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urine you' to allow Second/Third S~eet neighbors to be able to speak durin~ the Februa ~ry 24. 2005 Plannin~ meetin$. The one letter sent by the dty was not suffident for anyone in the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal op?sition to the change among ~he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address / Exhibit "B"-2.(o To the City Planning Commission, FEB I 0 ?.005 WOODBURN COMMUNrFf DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: I~oposed Zone Change to No~th Second and Thizd Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want thi~ boundary chanEe to occm'.. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as dooamentation): ® The new zo~g allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drL~k and food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) ® The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as S'DC months, that property could lose it's residen~ designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) ® The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I ur~re you to allow Second/Third Street neighbors to be able to sveak durine the February 24: 200~' I~anning meetin$. The one letter sent by the city was not' sufficient '~or anyone i~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal opposition to the change among [he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input Signed Name Address To the City Planning Commission, Exhibit "B".Z-7 Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boUndary, change to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is pro-tided as documentation): ® The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. 0NDO 2.105.01 K3) ® The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are Permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) ® The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. 0NDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool hall~, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street neit~hbors to be able to sr)eak durin~ the February 24. 2005 Planning meeting. The one letter sent'by the city was n. ot' sufficient '~or anyone ir~ th~ neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony '+,'as permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by via'tually every, residerlt of the affected area. There appears to be. universal opposition to the change among the affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address Exhibit "B"-Z.,~ To the City Planning Commission, FEB 1,0 2oo5 WOODBURN COMMUNITY Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third StreetsP~ELOPMENT DEPT. I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential l-dstoric district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to ~ay that I do not want this boundary change to occur, I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peace and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · T~he new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are Permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street nei~rhbors to be able to streak duHne the Februarv 24. 200~' P~anning meeting. The one letter sent'by the city was n. ot' suffident '~or anyone ir~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtuallv everv resider~t of the affected area. There appears to be universal opposition to the change a~ong [he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address Exhibit "B".2_cj To the City PlanDirtg Commission, FEB 1 0 2_005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am -miting to say that I do not want this boundary, chan~e to ocoar. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following masons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zo '.ning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea(~e and quiet that I have now. 0NDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a. hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (W'DO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circurmtance~ that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I urge you to allow Second/Third Street neiqhbors to be able to sr)eak durin~ the Februarv 24: 200~' l~annin~ meetiq~. The one letter sen~'by the city was not' sufficient '~or anyone ir~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal oppo~itlon to the change ar~ong ~he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address .T d D- g.~' ~4.A~ HA, O ~-~. Exhibit "B"** .~D To the City Planning Commission, FEB' 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I am a Woodburn resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boundary change to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): · The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative peace and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are Permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool hails, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I ur~re you to allow Second/Third Street neiehbors to be able to streak durin~r the February 24: 200~' Pianning rneetinc. The one letter sent'by the city was n. ot' sufficient '~or anyone ir~ the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal oppositiotl to the change a~nong ~he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address ~-xniDit "EI'~.5i FEB t 0 7.005 To the City Pl. anninS; Commission, WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to Nozth Second and ThJzd Streets I am a Woodburn resident li,/ms in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writing to say that I do not want this boundary, chanEe to I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commercial because of the following reasons (the WooEburn OrdLn. ance is provided as documentation'): . The new allows a tavern restaurant, pizza de_?ery s,t.o, re, fast food or other drink and food establishment to open next to me. [',!one ot mese uses wotuct auow me the relative peaC~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) · The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) · The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwLlling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could prohibit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 Ct) I urEe you' to allow Second/Third Street neiEhbors to be able to speak during the February, 24. 2005 Plannine rneetin[. The one letter sent by the dty was not sufficient for anyone in th~ neighborhooc~ to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dismay and upset felt by virbaally every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal op?sition to the change among the affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a decision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Address To the City Planning Commission, Exhibit "B"- ~_. FEB 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Proposed Zone Change to North Second and Third Streets I a_m a Woodbum resident living in the downtown residential historic district affected by the proposed zoning changes. I am writi_ng to say that I. do not want this boundary, change to occur. I do not want my home or neighborhood to be zoned commerdal because of the following reasons (the Woodburn Ordinance is provided as documentation): ® The new zoning allows a tavern, restaurant, pizza delivery store, fast food outlet or other drink and' food establishment to open next to me. None of these uses would allow me the relative pea~e and quiet that I have now. (WDO 2.105.01 K3) ® The new zoning would permit a hotel or motel to be located next to me. That use is not appropriate for the quiet residential streets in my neighborhood. (WDO 2.105.01 K1) ® The new zoning could lower my property values if a problematic business located near me. It could also make it difficult or impossible to sell my home as many families would be unwilling to buy a home that could someday have a bail bond office or parking garage adjacent. These uses are permitted under the proposed change. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The new zoning could restrict my ability to use, sell or will my property. For example, if my property sat vacant for as little as six months, that property could lose it's residential designation, and would have to be sold to a business. There are additional circumstances that could protu'bit me from using or selling my house in a business zone, or passing it onto my children to be used as a residence. (WDO 2.105.01 A) · The following businesses are permitted under the zoning change; all are completely inappropriate to a part of town that is almost all residences: Ambulance service, delivery services, pubs, pool halls, warehouses, radio and TV stations. (WDO 2.105.01 C1) I uree you' to allow Second/Third Street nei_,ghbors to be able to speak during the February, 24: 200~' Pianning meeting. The one letter sent by the city was not sufficient ~or anyone in the neighborhood to realize that there were impending changes in our status. Because of that, we were not even aware of the change during the time when oral testimony was permitted. We very much want to convey the dL~may and upset felt by virtually every resident of the affected area. There appears to be universal opposition to the change among ~he affected residents, and we very much want to be allowed a voice to tell you that before you make a derision that could have a life time of negative impact on us. We urge you to consider permitting brief verbal input at your next meeting. Name Exhibit "B"- ~ August 30, 2004 HALLMAR 'PROPERTIES Jim Mulder Director of Commup2ty Development City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR_ 97071 Dear Mr. Mulder: AUG 80] ZOO4 WOODF~URN GOMMUN;TY gEVELOPi~ENT DEPT. The Woodbum School District has asked me tx) address the Periodic Review Amendments you submitted to them earlier this year. I have no disputes with the findings other than on page 32 under the "Parks" bullet item. It looks to me like there is a typo and an error. The typo is minor; it should say "122 acres of 2020 school lands" instead of I20. This then makes the math come out on the "57 acres of park land". Also, it takes 100% of the schools needed land instead of 50% as noted in the preceding sentences. Given that correction it appears that Parks needs an additional 61 acres (50% of 122 = 61 acres). I am attaching the District's projections for enrollment as it relates to land needs, labeled Exhibit A. This shows by 2013 a need for an additional 70 to 85 acres, and by 2023 a need for 140 to 170 acres. This indicates a need for an additional 18 to 48 acres more the report's findings. Part of this is due to the minimum lot size requirements that it is necessary to site a school facility. The other part is that Woodbum is one of the few cities in Oregon that is growing younger, I.E. more school aged children. Also enclosed are graphs showing District Enrollment History, Exhibit B, BI, B2, B3 and 2003 EnrolLment By Grade, Exhibit C. Exhibits D & E shows 5 to 10 year Projections district wide and by grade. In addition to this, the District needs to have a property that they can build on before they go out to vote for a bond. Historically that has been a must. Their most urgent need is for a school in the SW portion of the city, east of I-5. However, they currently own a 19-acre site on E. Lincoln Street. It is adjacent to the current UGB but not in the proposed expansion. The District would like this added for future needs. This 19-acres was acquired in 1998. The District checked with the planning departments at the City and County and they both gave favorable indication that the site would be good for a school. The common element was that they obtain it for future use. The District employed a consultant and their attorney re-,4ewed the process. 745 Glatt Circle Woodburn, Oregon 97071 503-981-0621 FAX503-081-7042 ~ At that time it made good sense to the City and the District. It would aid in the development of in-fill lots by extending city services to the property. The County liked that as well Currently they could almost fill a grade school from the students on the East side of Hwy. 99-E. Onc~ the in-fill lots are developed they should fill that easily. It also would provide additional Park services to an area that needs it and help with the 61-acre deficiency noted above. Given the DisLrict's research and findings within the Periodic Review .~,anendments report the District would like you to comider two thh~,s: First, to increase the future 2020 r~xls from 122 acres to an additional 48 acres. Secondly they would also like you to add the 19 acres on E. Lincoln Street to the UGB for future planning. If the 19 acres is added, then only 29 acres needs to be added to the 122 acres proposed in the report. Please contact me if you have other questions regarding this issue. Respectfully, David J. Christoff Principal Broker Walt Blomberg, Superintendent Woodburn School District 0 0 0 o o Enrollment ° 'I Nil February 7, 2005 HA_LLMA-RI . ROI EI TIF___ Exhibit REC'D FEB 0 8 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. City of Woodbum planning Commission 270 Montgomery St. Woodbum, OR 97071 De~ Commissioncm, RE: School DistrLot's 19.5 Acres on E. Lincoln St. Thanks for ex~e~ing written ~ny for the UGB Expansion, etc. Briefly, the City's consultant estimated in April 2004 the school lands needs to be 122 acres. The District's estimate is closer to 170 acres. Just using the eonsultanI's number of 122 acres, there are limited siIes available within the proposed UGB expan.~on in which to locate a schooL. The only added locations with lot sizes adequate for a school are in the Parr Rd. area where the District already has facilities. Assuming the District could buy one ofthese sites it would still not be sufficient to meet the entire 122 acres. The District already owns the East Lincoln St. Keep in mind the numbers in my August 30, 2004 letter shows a shortfifll of 61 acres for Parks and Recreation's needs. This location will give Parks and Recreation another desired site east of Hwy. 99-E. Another added benefit, which should be embraced by LCDC, is that once the District builds in this area, it will spur in-fill ofthe residential sites there. The District needs to own a buildable site prior to going for a bond measure. It makes sense to approve this site based on need, availab'fllty, and overall benefit to the City as well as to tbe Di~nrict. Respectfully Submined, DaVid J. Chri_slo Reallor of Reca~rd Woodburn School District 745 Glatt Circle Woodburn, Oregon 97071 503-981-0621 FAX 503-981-7042 Exhibit "B"..~b-- December 22, 2003 Ivan Cam PO Box 567 9884 Mt. Angel Gervais Road NE G~ev..ai~. OR~ 97026 City of Woodburn Planning Division 270 Montgomery Street Room 4 Woodburn, OR. 97071 RE: Urban Growth Boundaries To Whom It May Concern: I, Ivan Cam, owner of the following parcels: #051W04CD00200 #051W04CD00100 #051W04 02800 Would like you to consider these parcels for re-zoning purposes to accommodate urban sprawl. I am attaching property profile information and plot maps for your convenience. "/35 Glatt Circle Woodbnrn, OR 970'71 Phon~:l-503-981-0623 Fax:l-503-981-0925 Visit us on the We?o at: www.fntic.co~ Prepared For Parcel it i Owner : CoOwner Site Mail Land Use Legal :Jessica Reed R12573 .... Cam Ivan · Cam Natalia · *no Site Address* RefParcel it · 9884 Mount Angel Gervais Rd NE Gervais Or 97026~s · 550 Agr,Farm,Laad Only · EFU EXCLUSIVE FARM USE .Marion (OR) PR OPER TY PR OFILE INFORMATION Owner Phone · 503-'792-4678 Tenant Phone · ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION Market Total · $2,710 M/et/x:md · $2,710 Mia Improvrat · % Improved · 02-03 Taxes · $30.13 Levy Code · 01500035 Millage Rate · 11.1137 MSO AssdTotal: $2,711 SALE & LOAN INFORMATION Sale Date : 06/15/2001 Sale Amount : $Cost/SqFt: $0.00 Document it : 1795-0293 Deed Type : Loan Amount : Lender : Loan Type Interest Type : Vesting Title Co ' Loan Type PRIOR SALE INFOR~[_A ~ON Previous Transfer'09~14~1998 Previous Sale Amt' $170,000 II · 05 IW04CD00200 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Year Built : Yr Remodel : Bedrooms : Bathrooms : Living Area : Main Floor Upper Level : Basement SF Basement Fin: Lot Size Ac : 3.00 Lot Size SF : Roof Type : Roof Material : Foundation : Ext. Material : Exterior : Patio Type : Patio SF : Garage SF : Garage Type Driveway SF : Dri%ay Mat'l : Heat Source Fireplace : Fireplace # B MgC ondi ti on : Neighborhood: 05F Stat Class : AS0 The Information Provided Is'Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 735 Glatt Circle Wood'_uur~ OR 97071 Phone:l-503-951-0623 Fax:l-503-981-0925 V:~it us on the Web at: www.fntic, com Pre~ed For: By :Jessica Reed Parcel # : R12574 Owner : Cam Ivan CoOwner : Cam Natalia Marion (OR) PROPERTY' PROFILE iNFORMATION Owner Phone: 503-792-4678 Ten~s~.mt Phone: Mail Land Use Legal : *no Site Address* RefParcel # : 9884 Mount Angel Gervais Rd ?-~ Gervais Or 97026~s : 550 Agr,Farm, Land Only : EFU FARM USE : 051W04CD00 ! 00 ; ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION Market Total · $5,300 Mkt Land : $5,300 MM Improvmt : % Improved 02-03 Taxes : $58.91 Levy Code : 01500035 Millage Rate : 11.1137 M50 AssdTotal: $5,300 I Illllll SALE & LOAN INFORMATION Sale Date · 06/15/2001 Sale Amount : $Cost/SqFt: $0.00 Document # : 1795-0293 Deed Type Loan Amount Lender : Loan Type : Interest Type : Vesting : Title Co : Loan Type : PRIOR SA I,F, INFORMA ~ON Previous Transfer:09~14~1998 Previous Sale Amt : $170,000 The Information Provided Is Deemed PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Year Built · Yr Remodel : Bedrooms : Bathrooms Living Area : Main Floor : Upper Level : Basement SF Basement Fin Lot Size Ac : 5.85 Lot Size SF Roof Type Roof Material: Foundation Ext. Material : Exterior Patio Type Patio SF Garage SF Garage Type Driveway SF Dri~aay Mat'l : Heat Source : Fireplace Fireplace # : B ldgC onAi tion : Neighborhood: 05F Stat Class : A80 I Illll I Ill I I Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. 015 O0 03 5 103 O0 03 5 '/35 Glatt Cixde Woodbum, OR 970'/1 ?hoac:l-503o981-0623 Fax:l-503-981-0925 ~ait ua oa thc Web at: www.fntic.com Prepared For ' By :Jessica Reed .Marion (OR) · *no Site Address* RefParcel ii · 051W04 02800 Site · . · Mail : 9884 Mount Angel Gervais Rd NE Gervats Or 97026~s . Land Use : 550 Agr,Farm, Land Only Legal : ~zgo:!ne ii EFU EXCLUSIVE F ASSESSMENT & TAX INFORMATION PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Market Tota! : $13.850 Mia Improvmt : % Improved : 02-0~ Taxes : $153.92 M50 AssdTotal: $13,849 SALE & LOAN INFORMATION Sale Date · 06/15/2001 Sale Amount ' $Cost/SqFt: $0.00 Document it · 1795-0293 Deed Type Loan Amount ' Lender ' Loan Type ' Interest Type · Vesting ' Title Co ' Loan Type ' PPJOR SALE INFORMATION Previous Transfer' 09/14/1998 Previous Sale Amt: $170,000 Year Built : Yr Remodel Bedrooms Bathrooms : Living Area : Main Floor : Upper Level : Basement SF : Basement Fin Lot Size Ac : 15.53 Lot Size SF : Roof Type : Roof Material: Foundation : Ext. Material : Exterior : Patio Type Patio SF : Garage SF Garage Type Driveway SF : Dri%ay Mat'l : Heat Source : Fireplace Fireplace ii BMgCondition : Neighborhood: 05F Stat Class : A60 The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed. CARL, 280O ROAD (OR 5,31) 3000 ~( tW 09 SEE MAP 05 1W 09 From: To: Date: Subject: Kevin Crosby <kevincrosby@prurep.com> <jim.mulder@ci.woodburn.or.us> 4/12/2004 6:14:02 PM UGB EXPANSION Exhibit "B"-~G April 12 04 To Jim Mulder Jim In regards to the letter we recieved regarding the proposed expansion of the UGB boundary our hop farm is located north of Woodburn surrounding the Crosby Rd.and Buttevil|e Rd. intersection. We are being pressured from many directions here are some of the reasons we support an expansion of the UGB over all our land. 1. Wilt in the soil yields are on the decline for hop and crop production. 2. safety issues regarding mud on the road during harvest trellis collapse from car accidents and safety issues resulting from the dramatic increase in traffic that endanger our employees. 3. new regulations that will restrict spraying next to the creek. ! am considering relocateing my hop farm I would strongly support expanding the UGB boundary over the entire 130 acres that myself and my wife jennifer Crosby own. The inclusion of this land would give the citizens of Woodburn a beautiful parklike setting for bike paths and recreation and very well located building sites that would easily access the freeway at the Donald exit for Portland bound commuters thus minimizeing the congestion at the Woodburn interchange. In addition to the Crosby land LLC property, my father Ed and Brother Brian own 17 ac bordering the city they wanted me to convey that they also support a UGB expansion. Jim I would appreciate your consideration of our request. I know you have alot to consider. Regards Kevin Crosby Jennifer Crosby Crosby Land LLC January 30, 2005 REC'D JAN 3 1 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DD~LOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"- Woodbum Planning Commission: The Serres Family -would like to take this oppomanity to inform the Planning Commission of our Latent to file a Measure 37 claim for waiver of restrictions placed on our property. We understand that the proposed Woodburn UGB was determined in a thorough and thoughtful process that considered current vacant land, possible zoning changes within the existing UGB, location and proximity to roads and services, and protection of Class 1 soils as mandated by the State of Oregon land use regulations. If granted a Measure 37 waiver we will remove obstacles allowing the city to move in the obvious direction. Please take a moment to consider our position. Successful farming requires nearly continuous growth in size and efficiency using the most current economic farming practices. Further growth of our farm is limited by the Pudding River to the East, the City of Woodburn to the West and North, by State Route 214, the 1~ Road and industry to the South. For the past 10 years we have discontinued the use of many economical cultxtral practices to our economic loss in order to avoid conflict with our city neighbors. To mention a few: aerial spraying, nighttime cultivation and harvesting, application of chicken manure, and limited air blast spraying. We are restricted farmland and the proposed UGB expands onto unrestricted farmland. We feel that we are positioned well and will be successful in our application for a Measure 37 waiver. We are currently planning an upscale residential development with amenities. We feel our property has a lot to offer the city for it's future growth. The property is located just to the East of Woodburn and has the natural relief for drainage with existing large bioswales. The property is easily accessible from the city by Serres Lane, Hardcastle, Hwy 214, Lincoln or Tomlin. There is easy alternate access to 1-5 without using the already clogged Woodbum interchange by going north via Aurora cutoff or south at Brooks. The diversity of our 400+ acres includes flat and rolling fields, old growth timber, ponds, wetlands, wildlife habitat, Pudding River frontage and incredible views of Mt Hood, These attributes help the city meet the needs of"Woodbum Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy" and provide an op~rmnity for improved quality of life. Your move to include this unique park, residential and recreational land in your UGB for all Woodburn residents will be lost forever if we go with private development. Sincerely, Paul Series, for The Serres Family P-Il II -A, REC'D ~. Exhibit "B"-.~ Roger A. Alfred mo~: 503.727.2094 ~= 503.346.2094 ~.~ ral fred~pcrkiascoie.com REC'D ,A FEB 0 3 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"~ 3~ er .ins Coie ~2o N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 972o9-4~28 mONE: 503.727.;~ooo ~Ax= 5o3.727.2~2~ www.pefkin$coie.com February 3, 2005 VIA EMAIL Jim Mu!der Community Development Director City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Re: Proposed UGB Amendment- OGA Golf Course Property Dear Jim: As you know, this office represents Renaissance Development in the ongoing development of the Links at Tukwila residential PUD. We are writing in support of the City's proposal to add portions of the OGA Golf Course to the city's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Please include this letter in the record of City proceedings in this matter. The expansion of the UGB in the area north of the existing UGB and east of Boones Ferry Road provides an orderly and efficient conversion of rural land to urban use consistent with Goal 14, and will help the City maintain a 20-year supply ofbuildable land for housing needs. The expansion in this direction provides the City with additional acreage for residential development and also adds desireable open space in the form of the existing golf course facility. The proposed expansion onto the OGA property is also consistent with the City's prior approvals of Phases I-IV of the Tukwila residential development. The City's relatively recent approval of Phase IV of the Tukwila PUD specifically contemplates the extension of Olympic Street across OGA golf course property to Boones Ferry Road. This new road will provide a second means of access for residents and for [41995-0001/PA050330.150] ANCHORAGE . BEIJING , BELLEVUE BOtSE· CHICAGO DENVER - HONG KONG . LOS ANGELES MENLO PARK OLYMPIA PORTLAND SAN FRANCISCO . SEATTLE - WASHINGTON, DC, Perkins Coie LLP and Affiliates February 3, 2005 Page 2 emergency service vehicles if required, and is consistent with an urban designation for those portions of the OGA golf course that are not currently within the City's UGB. Thank you for your consideration of these comments in support of the proposed UGB amendment. Roger A. Alfred cc: Renaissance Development [41995 -0001/PA050330.1501 0Z~03/05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Exhibit "B"-qO FEB 0 3 2005 WOODBURN ~~ DEVELOPMENt DEP[ IN THE CITf OF WOODBURN In the Matter of the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary. LEGAL MEMORANDUM 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1 - LEGAL MEMORANDUM COMES NOW DALE BAKER, by and through his attorney DONALD M. KELLEY, and hereby provides the following Legal Memorandum in support of the addition of his land to the Urban Growth Boundary of the city of Woodbum. Mr. Baker's land is approximately, 10.25 acres along the west side of the city and fronting on the 16600 block of Butteville Road. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS In 1988, Mx. Dale Baker applied for and was granted approval by the county to divide his 10.25 acres into seven acreage homesite lots. The land is currently zoned and planned Acreage Residential ("AR_"). The city limits of the City of Woodbum lie adjacent to and east of ~v~r. Baker's property. The Marion County Board of Commissioners (Board) reco~ed that Mx. Baker's property would likely one day become a part of the City of Woodbum, and therefore required a design allowing for its re-subdivision into urban lots. Marion County Board of Commissioners Order 87-2, p. 2. In 1991, the City of Woodbum granted approval to the owners of an adjacent property to subdivide that property into urban lots. The new subdi-Asion, Seneeal Estates II, had only a KELLEY. KELLEY. DOYLE Attorneys and Counselors 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILYERTON, OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 2 - LEGAL MEMOI~qDUM single access point, which had the potential to cut off residents from emergency services. In light of this problem, Mr. B~er applied to the City of Woodburn for a change in its Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB"), a Comprehensive Plan change, a zone change, and annexation of the application's property to allow subdivision of the property into more than seven lots and' to provide additional access to the adjacent saabdivision. On April 13, 1992, the City of Woodburn passed Ordinance 2081 adopting an amendment to the Woodbum UGB to expand the UGB to include Mr. Baker's 10.25 acres. for Ordinance 2081 included the fact that Mr. Baker's property was not suitable for farming unlike the majofit'! of land surrounding Woodbum, corrected the access problems of Senecal Estates H, created much needed residential housing for west Woodbum, and did not burden the City's emergency services or infrastructure. Although the Marion County Board of Commissioners did not ratify the City's action, Ordinance 2081 is still in effect. The City of Woodburn continues to grow at a rapid pace and is in an ever-increasing need for new residential homes. By placing Mr. Baker's property within UGB, the City will move towards meeting this need. City Ordinance 2081 stated a public policy of the city of Woodbum to place Mr. Baker's property within the Woodbum UGB. The reasons for the passage of Ordinance 2081 still exist, and have increased with the passage of time. Looking at the Goal 14 factors clearly shows this. Mr. Baker's 10.25 acres should be included when the city of Woodbum expands its UGB to meet the needs of its citizens. SIJMMARY OF BAKER'S ARGUMENTS The City of Woodburn, by the passage of city Ordinance 2081, acknowledged that Mr. Baker's prope~y should be in the UGB. Furthermore, Mr. Baker's property is unsuitable for agriculture and exempt from Goals 3 and 4, unlike most of the other surrounding properties the City of Woodburn could incorporate. This makes Mx. Baker's property particularly well- suited to meet the needs of the city whale protecting Oregon's farmlm~d. KELLEY- KELLEY- DOYLE Attorneys and Counselor~ 110 NORTH SECOND STREET $1LVERTON~ OREGON 97381 (503) $73-867! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. Woodburn's passage of Ordinance 2081, which remains in effect, makes Mr. Baker's property not only the most logical, but also the best, property to include in the City's Urban Growth Boundary. City Ordinance 2081 placed Mr. Baker's property within the City of Woodbum's UGB. AlthOugh Marion CoUnty did not agree that the city ~ Shown the nee~ I~or more land, today the need is clear and if the UGB is to be expanded, Baker's property must be the first land added to the UGB. An "urban growth boundary" is a boUndary line established under Goal 14 to separate urbanizable land from rural land. City of Salem v. Families for Responsible Govt., 298 Or. 574, 577 n.3 (1983), reversed on other groUnds, 298 Or. 574, on remand 73 OrA_pp. 620 (1985). Goal 14 provides a process for either the establishment or change of a UGB. The purpose of the goal is to provide art orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco CoUnty Court, 299 Or. 344 (1985). Goal 14 provides for seven factors which must be considered when establishing or chan~ng a UGB. They are: "(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; (2) Need for homing, employment oppommities and livability; (3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; (4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area; (5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; (6) Retention of agricultural land as defined with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and (7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities." 24 25 26 Page 3 - LEGAL MEMORANDUM OAR 660-040-010(1)03). The City of Woodbum determined, with the passing of Ordinance 2081, that Mr. Baker's property met Goal 14 and the concomitant factors. The City of Woodbu_m has not repealed Ordinance 2081, it is still a part of the City's law, and will be so until repealed. There was no language that inferred the Ordinance's effect would cease with the passage of throe or if some event occurred or failed to occur. The fact KELLEY · KELLEY- DOYLE Attorneys and Counselors 110 NORTH SECO1WD STREET SlLVERTON~ OREGON 97381 ($03) 873-S671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 / / Page 4 - LEGAL MEMORANDUM that the Board refused to ratify the City's Ordinance has no bearing of the Ordinance's status as far as the City is concerned. Ordinance 2081 is a part of Woodbum law. The City's Ordinance remains a proposed UGB within the meaning of Goal 14 for the State and County. See, Cecil v. Jackson, 19 Or LUBA 446, 452 (1990). B. Baker's property is zoned for residential use, is exempt from Goals 3 and 4 and has priority when deciding which property to include in an expanded Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Baker's property is unsuitable for agriculture unlike many other surrounding properties the City of Woodbum could incorporate, making Mr. Baker's property particularly well-suited to meet the needs of the city while protecting Oregon's farmland. The City, Marion County, and the State have concluded that Mr. Baker's property is not desirable for ~culmral purposes and exempted it from Goals 3 and 4. When the County changed the zomg from Exclusive Farm Use ("EFU") to AP, it examined, with the State, the properties value in this regard. The City was required to make its own determination before the passage of City Ordinance 2081. City, County, and State all agreed that Mr. Baker's property was not well-suited for agricultural. On January 7, 1992 the Board changed Mr. Baker's property from EFU to AlL In doing so they adopted a list of findings of fact aborn the property. The Board found that this change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They required that the property be designed to facilitate future redevelopmem and incorporation into Woodbum. Most importantly, the Board noted that the County did not want to expand onto good farmland, and changing Mr. Baker's properVy to AR helped protect the good farmland. Mr. Baker's property is wedged between a city neighborhood and Senecal Creek. Finally, the change from EFU to AR zoning is a result of its exemption from Goals 3 and 4 due. // KELLEY · KELLEY · DOYLE Attorneys and Counselors 110 I~4ORTH SECOND STREIIT $1LV~RTON~ OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Although Mr. Baker's property is not saabject to Goals 3 and, it is helpfial to demonstrate the appropriateness of Mr. Baker's property being included in Woodbm's UGB. Priorities for including land within a UGB are as follows: (1) Urban reserve land; (2) Exception and non-resource lands adjacem m a UGB; (3) Marginal lands designated pursuant to ORS 197.247; (4) Lands designated for agriculture or forestry, or both. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 // Page 5 - LEGAL MEMORANDU2¢I ORS 197.298(1). Furthermore, the higher the quality of soil, the more inappropriate its inclusion in the UGB. The majority of properties outside the UGB of WoodbUm on the East, northwest, and south sides of Woodbum are designated fOr agriculture or forestry and subject to Goals 3 and 4, Goal 6 requires that the location of au UGB be based on "retention of agricultural land." Branscomb v. LCDC, 297 Or. 142, 146-147 (1984). Of the four categories used in Goal 14, Mr. Baker's land would be considered urban reserve land. Both the City and County have emured that his property was planned "in a manner that ensures a range of oppommities for the orderly, economic and efficiem provision'of urban services when [his] lands are included ia the UGB." OAR 660-21-040(1). Mr. Baker's property is a buildable property within a urbanizable area that is suitable, available and necessary for residential use. See, ORS 197.295(1). CONCLUSION The City of Woodburn should, in reviewing its UGB, give effect to Ordinance 2081, which was passed by the City and remains in effect for inclusion of the Baker property in Woodbum's UGB. Mx. Baker's property is not subject to Goals 3 and 4, which are designed to protect farmland and forestland. Furthermore, Mr. Baker's property is characteristic of urban reserve land, while the remaining land surrounding Woodbum is predominantly quality fanuland. State law requires Woodbum first incorporate its urban reserve land, and take farmland only as a last resort. KELLEY · KELLEY- DOYLE Attomcy~ and Counselors 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SlLYERTON, OREGON 97381 (503) 873-8671 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this i ~' day of April, 2004 at Silverton, Marion County, Oregon. KELLEY * KELLEY * DOYLE os #7o flo Of Attorneys for Dale Baker 22 23 24 25 26 Page 6 - LEGAL ~v~MORANDUM KELLEY. KELLEY. DOYLE Attorneys and Counselors 110 NORTH SECOND STREET SILYERTON, OREGON 97381 (503) $73-8671 OPUS. THE OPUS GROUP ARCHITECTS CONTRACTORS DEVELOPERS REC'D FEB 0 3 Z ~ of ~ ~ Exhibit "B'C~/ ~ SW Broadway Suite 1130 Pog~d, OR 97205 Phone 503-91~8963 Fax 503-91~8964 ~.opu~orp.com February 3, 2005 Planning Commission City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 Subject: Woodburn UGB Plan Amendment Dear Planning Commission: I am submitting this letter on behalf of Opus Northwest in support of the proposed urban growth boundary expansion plan and plan amendment the city planning commission is formally reviewing tonight at the public heating. As you know, Opus Northwest has worked with the City over the past six plus years in support of the City's proposed UGB expansion. Opus has invested a significant amount of money planning for the development of a 103 acre business park Opus controls west of 1-5 that is within the City's proposed expanded UGB. The Opus business park is projected to provide over 1.4 million square feet of development ($85 m in value), over 1,400 new jobs, and $1.45 m in annual property taxes for Woodbum when the park is fully built out in 3 to 5 years from the date the UGB is formally approved. As the City proceeds with planning commission, city council, and Marion County public hearings, Opus would appreciate it if you would send us notice of future hearings to be held. Please also copy Opus on the formal decisions made by each of the public bodies that review the City's proposed UGB plan. Sine r ,13/: . ~ .. Will Denecke Opus Northwest, LLC cc: Jim Mulder Corinne Sherton THE OPUS GROUP: Atlanta · Austin . Chicago · Columbus · Dallas · Denver · Detroit · Fort Lauderdale · Houston · Indianapohs · Kansas City · Los Angeles ' Milwauke~ Minneapolis ° Orange County ° Orlando - Pensacola · Philadelphia · Phoenix · Portland · Sacramento · San Francisco · Seattle · St, Louis ° Tampa ° Washington, D.C '~r REC'D 'A- FEB 0 3 Z005 WOODBURN COMMUNI]~ DEVELOPMENT l Exhibit "B"-q~ ~/~//~- KUZMA BARSUKOFF Exhibit "B"_z/.~ 5600 s. hwy 211 Hubbard or. 97032 Subject property: 14901 wilco hwy. tie. Woodburn or. 97071 971-221-4094 February 9, 2005 City council Woodbum or. 97071 Dear members, ladies and gentleman This letter is concerning the matter of the expansion of the U.G.B. in the surrounding Woodbum area. I support the expansion on the industrial areas. I have several FACTS to back up my opinion A) One of the sites that would be idea was over looked for the addition of industrial ground was the southeast side of Woodburn on the subject property listed above. This site has the railroad running along the north side of the property line and borders the U.G.B. on one of the three property lines. The nine-area parcel next to my property shares the railroad track and is being developed with a new railroad spur, city water and has been blacked topped with plains for a business to supply the nursery growers. Hwy. 214 are the main artery that supplies the egress and ingress for my property. B) Some of the complaints of the expansion were the idea of using all the high value farm ground. In fact that on exhibit (A) of the letter shows that most of the production is not a food crops and that is in grass seed, nursery, hay and forage, small woodlots and Christmas a tree. On exhibit (B) is more of the same information showing the increase from 1997 to 2003 of the facts that.I stated above. In fact the amount of food crops have declined in 'production over the course of the years. This is the strongest fact for the expansion. C) One of the other issues on my so-called high value ground, (WATEK). My property at 14901 wilco hwy. 214 Woodbum has no water rights. The Oregon water resource department has no guarantee that I wSll or ever will be able to receive a water fight certificate. If I have no water I have no value. D) I believe that my 19.05 acres would be an ideal alternative site to add into the U.G.B. expansion with the cger)prehensive plan of industrial ground to satisfy some of the bellyachers on the ~u)~ west side of town ........... - Sincerel , ~./ ~~t/ ~ OFFICIALSEALD YAGER Y NOTARY PUBLIC.: O_R~G. ~O~N Kuzma Barsukot~ ~/ '~q:ilE/~.~ COMMISSION EXPIRES NI~. 5,2005 STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF HARIOI~I ) ss: The above document was s±gned and executed before me th±s 9th day of Feb., 2005, by KUZIq~ BARSIJKOFF to be h±s voluntary act. Before Me.'--~~. 1997 Oregon County a_nd State Agricultural Estimates Special Report 790 / Revised July 1998 OREGON STATE UNIVER..~ITY EXTENSION SERVICE 1997 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates Prepared by Sandy Seam Economic Information Assistant Oregon State University The following pages report preliminary estimates for the value of sales and agricultural production for the 1997 crop yea.,'. Also reported are revised numbers for 1996 and 1995. Preliminary or first estimates are revised as updated information is received by our office. Estimates are collected and organized through Oregon State University Extension Service personnel. Once county information is complete, state totals are tabulated for this special report. "Other farm income," particularly farm forestry or small woodlotproducts, is included in these agricultural estimates. Farm forest~j has become quite significant over the years, reaching $332.2 million (pg. 8). Use caution when comparing these agricultural estimates with the Department of Forestry numbers, as this may lead to the double counting of sales. This report is designed to provide a quick overview of Oregon's agriculture for this past year. The Extension Service maintains detailed information for Oregon and United States agriculture. Com- modity Data Sheets are published throughout the year, reporting major agricultural commodities produced in Oregon. These contain a county-level breakdown of production, data on other Northwest states or other states important to the specific commodity, and total figures for the United States. Commodity Data Sheets are published by groupings: grains and hay, field crops, tree fruits and nuts, small fruits and berries, vegetable and track crops, specialty products, livestock and poultry. If you are interested in more information contained in the Commodity Data Sheets, contact: Economic Information Office Agricultural & Resource Economics Oregon State University 219 Ballard Extension Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-3601 (541)737-6126 Thank you to all the County Extension agents and specialists who assisted our office with the devel- opment of these estimates for all the crops and livestock throughout Oregon. A special thank-you to Robert Clark of Dixon Creek Software for his programming talents. Mr. Clark rebuilt our sofb, vare programs which house our statistics and generate our county- and state-level statistical reports. AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY SALES OREGON, 1997p Poultry 3% Dairy Products 6% Other Animal Products 3% 8% Hay & Forage 5% Cattle & Calves 12% Grass & Legume Seeds 10% Specialty Products 2% Nurseq/& Greenhouse Crops 13% Small Woodlots & Trees 13% All Crops 76% All Livestock 24% Field Crops 8% Tree Fruit & Nuts 7% Small Fruit & Berries 3% Vegetable & Truck Crops 7% 1997p Sales By Commodity Thousand Dollars Field Crops Grains Grass & Legumes Hay & Forage Nursery & Greenhouse Crops Small Fruit & Berries Small Woodlots & Christmas Trees Specialty Products Tree Fruit & Nuts Vegetables & Truck Crops ALL CROPS 274,859 269,605 340,175 154,259 413,288 93,387 429,029 60,337 232,023 253,156 $2,520,118 p=prelimlnary Cattle & Calves Dairy Products Other Animal Products ALL LIX~STOCK ALL CROPS & LIVESTOCK 395,362 207,676 90,142 $781,804 $3,301,922 Source: Economic Information Office, Oregon State University June 1 O, 1998 Gross Farm & Ranch Sales by County and District 1997p Eastern Crook 77,110 209,032 87,179 181,575 361,040 53,577 79,620 173,914 149,670 1,372,717 13,186 31,798 38,519 18,878 12,444 9,092 123,917 55,255 59,790 19,622 134,667 20,976 59,265 92,416 25,736 267,980 53,682 2,190 522,245 14,893 112,034 38,810 19,010 184,747 19,680 11 237 7 087 9 749 44 344 66 091 23,637 181 825 $2,520,118 10,754 46,181 25,356 37,828 76,045 1,432 18,723 14,003 26,535 256,857 5,353 4,923 22,361 4,177 1,682 65,353 103,849 25,847 21,571 10,047 57,465 3,736 1,596 17,951 7,459 40,278 8,130 4,639 83,789 31,743 45,697 9,922 18,811 106,173 18,441 14,571 20,244 27,069 11,608 60,454 21,284 173,671 $781,804 87,864 255,213 112,535 219,403 437,085 55,009 98,343 187,917 176,205 1,629,574 18,539 36,721 6O,880 23,055 14,126 74,445 227,766 81,102 81,361 29,669 192,132 24,712 60,861 110,367 33,195 308,258 61,812 6,829 606,034 46,636 157,731 48,732 37,821 290,920 38,121 25,808 27,331 36,818 55,952 126,545 44,921 355,496 $3,301,922 Gross Farm & Ranch Sales by Comxnodity GroUp 1996r-1997p 269,605 310,659 154,259 148,737 340,175 316,973 274,859 274,089 232,023 164,291 93,387 98,915 253,156 263,602 902,654 869,656 2,520,118 2,446,922 -15.2% 3.6% 6.8% 0.3% 29.2% -5.9% -4.1% 3.7% 2.9% 395,362 252,141 207,676 237,009 88,624 86,029 90,142 75,218 781,804 650,397 36.2% -14.1% 2.9% 16.6% 16.8% 3,301,922 3,097,319 6.2% Oregon's Leading Agricultural Coro_modities Ranked by Gross Dollar Sales 37 Madon and Other BlaCkberries 395,362 252,141 296,285 332,182 335,107 409,300 323,261 307,024 290,966 227,147 268,492 283,908 207,676 237,009 212,901 135,203 124,914 151,609 129,539 118,438 82,395 104,654 109,387 101,144 96,847 89,710 85,517 90,027 86,253 83,464 85,190 88,054 41,857 70,532 75,391 69,666 59,100 60,009 47,530 54,581 41,394 52,433 52,515 45,342 36,090 49,033 55,645 58,125 46,085 32,138 22,769 40,141 16,774 35,424 35,914 40,470 33,760 34,992 15,904 18,205 33,109 36,643 35,372 26,658 16,185 14,864 25,510 18,300 15,877 25,435 21,709 26,187 23,794 24,943 26,t71 22,754 22,637 20,093 22,113 16,891 17,685 21,470 18,100 8,432 21,212 18,250 17,673 20,319 14,996 15,470 20,229 22,833 26,830 19,943 14,367 14,235 19,831 15,301 13,301 18,658 16,911 16,755 18,596 15,718 11,938 15,988 15,370 12,800 13,676 19,157 16,244 13,572 11,558 6,900 13,327 13,322 10,007 13,243 11,469 9,833 12,494 12,326 14,250 9,375 8,745 15,923 9,202 8,029 8,305 8,782 9,762 7,692 8,639 9,752 13,690 Oregon's Leading Agricultural Commodities Ranked by Gross Dollar Sales (Cont'd) Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. 7,549 8,177 7,779 6,860 7,224 5,562 6,836 4,982 5,630 6,267 5,362 3,747 6,239 6,033 5,443 6,193 7,506 7,311 5,946 6,053 5,230 5,860 4,836 4,512 5,314 5,427 3,771 5,229 8,278 8,981 4,884 5,140 5,180 4,776 4,133 2,630 4,507 4,089 4,136 4,252 3,704 4,602 4,225 3,175 1,550 4,105 4,353 4,632 3,912 4,331 5,460 3,783 3,446 3,255 3,703 3,964 3,444 3,672 5,193 3,750 3,632 6,276 4,592 3,467 4,110 1,127 3,022 19,035 2,878 2,931 1,343 855 2,897 2,645 2,071 2,519 4,315 2,933 2,461 2,002 1,616 2,459 2,834 4,170 2,341 2,251 4,867 2,254 2,455 2,316 2,219 2,113 1,102 2,018 1,807 1,956 2,006 1,770 1,408 1,822 1,938 1,560 1,615 1,611 1,438 1,485 1,398 1,548 1,466 1,443 1,435 1,332 1,011 1,930 1,299 1,350 1,219 1,296 1,503 2,008 1,258 1,284 1,166 1,188 792 1,127 1,004 921 1,035 121,909 112,436 115,522 3,301,922 3,097,319 3,068,379 June 12, 1998 O0 00000 oo88~8ooooo 0 0 0 0 ~ ~0000 ~00~0000~ ~ ~0000~ cO O0 8 eel 0 -r' -r ~ ( 10 ..... ": , I'"'1 -, ~o~m~ ' ~.~ ' ~ ' ' ~ ~o~ , ' ' ~ ' ' ~ ..... ~ ' ~ '----~1~!  .,,:::~:::~:::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ .... ~: ::~: :.-.~.:~:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 04 I~1 / ~ ~ ' /~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c4 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~l~l~ll / / ::: ~:~:: :: ~:~::[: ========================================== ::::~ :~: ~:0::::~::~: ~ :~: ~:~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~: :~:::~ ~:: ~:~ ,.:::: .. ~ ,:,, ~::: : ::~: . : -::::- : .~ :~;s~:: : :~- :: 11 Harvested Acreage Suxnn~ary Oregon Counties, 1997p Harney SoUth Central state Total 5,600 9,900 35,480 4,690 633 190 10,805 1,300 68,598 3,600 30,100 8,820 577 4,795 4,120 5,443 1,930 59,385 4,200 25,760 25,700 5,915 4,150 397 7,511 340 73,973 4,400 22,650 192,700 13,515 1,803 705 8,773 130 244,676 11,700 25,800 75,020 15,529 7,998 6,295 39,835 2,510 184,687 920 4,760 340 300 125 1,385 5,451 80 13,361 11,900 18,600 45,650 5,276 5,598 490 2,105 580 90,199 24,030 26,520 21,495 1,160 7,645 3,700 6,430 290 91,270 17,800 25,000 35,040 1,120 10,825 1,000 7,031 250 98,066 84,150 189,090 440,245 48,082 43,572 18,282 93,384 7,410 924,215 0 5,300 0 0 0 55 0 330 5,685 400 9,900 250 200 23 126 950 50 11,899 !00 !9,450 0 0 35 1,462 60 25 21,132 0 1,700 0 0 0 523 0 210 2,433 0 3,500 0 0 0 25 10 30 3,565 0 9,750 0 0 0 7 20 90 9,867 500 49,600 250 200 58 2,198 1,040 735 54,581 650 13,720 90 20 1,015 75 223 250 16,043 1,275 35,150 400 0 6,335 0 625 145 43,930 425 13,250 0 0 334 0 290 1 O0 14,399 2,350 62,120 490 20 7,684 75 1,138 495 74,372 110,061 3,335 160 460 50 0 0 0 114,066 250 2,900 0 0 13,385 64 30 10 16,639 164,003 22,508 710 16,380 659 25 4,803 0 209,088 121,845 1,900 0 445 15 0 0 0 124,205 350,750 53,300 8,808 36,614 4,550 15 29,258 430 483,725 66,800 7,100 0 615 7,255 0 60 28 81,858 400 11,100 0 70 0 0 0 0 11,570 814,109 102,143 9,678 54,584 25,914 104 34,151 468 1,041,151 10,500 72,400 0 2,745 0 0 0 0 85,645 57,200 91,600 6,600 26,067 334 0 12,515 0 194,316 44,000 34,300 7,825 12,559 531 0 500 10 99,725 23,460 46,000 250 293 0 0 50 0 70,053 135,160 244,300 14,675 41,664 865 0 13,065 10 449,739 1,875 35,020 140 9,673 0 0 0 0 46,708 700 32,000 70 1,611 0 0 0 185 34,566 350 36,500 0 400 209 0 0 0 37,459 5,100 106,000 400 0 0 0 0 0 111,500 15,800 20,675 10,010 10,711 0 0 1,750 142 59,088 39,300 74,000 0 12,100 0 0 0 360 125,760 4,200 107,000 0 80 0 0 0 0 111,280 67,325 411,195 10,620 34,575 209 0 1,750 687 526,361 1,103,594 1,058,448 475,958 179,125 78,302 20,659 144,528 9,805 3,070,419 Source: Compiled by Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State Unviersity. Estimates are not included for many specialty crops, pastureland, and rangeland. 12 June 15, 1998 Harvested Acreage Sum_mary Oregon Counties, 1996r Wailowa Eastern CrO°k Deschutes Grant. Jefferson Klamath Lake SOuth Central State Total Source: Compiled by 5,420 4,340 4,580 5,590 14,460 1,610 15,240 35,420 23,830 110,496 0 510 100 0 0 0 610 720 1,870 700 3,290 121,550 200 160,530 130,620 352,470 71,930 540 837,840 11,260 64,590 45,190 27,750 148,790 3,870 1,220 380 5,730 17,860 39,370 5,290 73,720 10,660 34,960 4,863 624 180 9,905 1,400 68,012 31,210 8,720 770 4,923 4,030 6,357 1,880 62,230 31,650 25,350 5,930 4,141 420 6,080 320 78,471 24,610 191,280 9,685 1,791 675 9,090 120 242,841 27,240 69,000 16,723 7,732 6,225 38,000 2,500 181,880 4,830 350 350 120 1,350 3,690 100 12,400 19,280 42,550 6,113 5,522 470 3,328 580 93,083 27,120 19,530 900 8,359 3,715 7,003 290 102,337 26,510 28,590 1,848 10,234 995 8,358 250 100,615 203,110 420,330 47,182 43,446 18,060 91,811 7,440 941,869 5,080 0 0 0 55 0 10 5,145 10,090 130 190 34 116 755 40 11,865 19,250 0 0 35 1,311 60 20 20,776 1,780 0 0 0 464 0 235 2,479 3,330 0 0 0 25 10 40 3,405 9,670 0 0 0 15 0 20 9,705 49,200 130 190 69 1,986 825 365 53,375 37,810 200 15 1,114 110 393 250 40,612 35,030 290 55 7,009 15 405 130 44,804 13,030 0 0 455 10 290 100 14,585 85,870 490 70 8,578 135 1,088 480 100,001 5,550 200 450 45 0 0 0 127,795 2,900 0 0 13,319 64 30 10 16,523 43,530 230 19,790 772 30 6,955 0 231,837 1,880 0 270 15 0 0 0 132,785 56,210 7,090 31,160 3,341 10 28,825 380 479,486 10,210 0 240 6,369 0 220 20 88,989 11,370 0 70 0 0 0 0 11,980 131,650 7,520 51,980 23,861 104 36,030 410 1,089,:395 73,270 0 2,620 0 0 0 0 87,150 96,070 7,800 30,080 334 0 12,580 0 211,454 36,030 7,061 10,960 490 0 470 10 100,211 48,540 250 0 0 0 170 0 76,710 253,910 15,111 43,660 824 0 13,220 10 475,525 34,950 120 10,001 0 0 300 0 49,241 31,780 120 1,770 0 0 0 144 35,034 36,060 0 380 196 0 0 0 37,01 6 104,910 400 0 0 0 0 0 111,040 16,910 11,230 9,573 0 0 2,000 130 57,703 75,530 0 12,615 0 0 0 325 127,840 111,920 0 80 0 0 0 0 117,290 412,060 11,870 34,419 196 0 2,300 599 535,164 20,285 145,274 9,304 3,195,329 1,174,740 1,135,800 455,451 177,501 76,974 ~xtension Economic Information Office, Oregon State Unviersity Estimates are not included for many specialty crops, pastureland, and rangeland. 13 June 15, 1998 © 1998 Oregon State University. This publication may be photocopied or reprinted in its entirety for non-commercial purposes. The Oregon State University Extension Service educates Oregonians by delivering research-based, objective information to help them solve problems, develop leadership, and manage resources wisely. Extension's agriculture program provides education, training, and technical assistance to people with agriculturally related needs and interests. Major program emphases include food and fiber production, farm business management, marketing and processing of agricultural products, resource use and conservation, and environmental preservation and improvement. This publication was produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties. Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials--without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital status, disability, and disabled veteran or Vietnam-era veteran statuo~--as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Opportunity Employer. 2003 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates Special Report 790 / Revised March 2004 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE 2003 Oregon County and State Agricultural Estimates Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN) Extension Economic Information Office Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics Oregon State University This report provides a quick overview of Oregon's recent crop and livestock production. The following pages include 2003 preliminary estimates for production and value. In addition, there are revised estimates for 2002 and 2001. Preliminary or first estimates are revised as needed when updated information is received. All of the data reported here were in our database as of January 21, 2004. We collect only farmgate level data. That means that no transportation charges or government payments are included in our price estimates. Web access is provided for you to review and download the publicly available numbers that we update periodically in our database. The URL for our homepage is: http://ludwig.arec.orst.edu/econinfo. This publication, as well as earlier versions, can be obtained by clicking on the "Commodity Data Sheets" button on our homepage and then clicking on "Ail Commodity Summaries." To see any portion of our database accessible to the public, you may click on the homepage button, "OAIN Databases." No username or password is required; just click on the "Next" button below the Iogin boxes. You may then bring up preformatted reports on the menu provided or click on "User Defined Report/Query" to create your own tables. These tables may be downloaded for printing or you may cut/paste them into an EXCEL spreadsheet for further analysis. We try hard to protect confidential data from being viewed by agricultural industry members or the general public. That is done by hiding them within our database or by combining them with other com- modities in county, regional, or statewide summaries. Our definition of confidentiality is similar to that used by the Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA: any data that represent fewer than three producers or one producer with 60 percent or more of the identified production are confidential. The data we provide are obtained from a team of about 70 Extension agents and specialists from around the state. They are knowledgeable about selected crop and livestock production in the counties that they serve. These numbers reflect the best judgment of these OSU faculty members with respect to commodity production, prices, and usage patterns over time. The data represent overall annual values. It is important to recognize that their choices for aggregating data may shift the gross farm sales ranking of specific commodities and sectors. Commodities such as some livestock forages are frequently produced, in part, for on-farm use. A single price estimate is made for each county's production regardless of whether it is sold in an open market environment or consumed as an input to the production of other commodities, e.g., beef cattle, dairy cattle, or sheep. The value of production estimate reflects the entire value of the commodity without regard to whether it is sold or consumed on-farm. The percent of sales for the commodity is also esti- mated. That percentage is multiplied by the value of production estimate to dedve the estimated value of sales. Thus, for commodities that are consumed on-farm in other enterprises, the value of production would be significantly higher than the value of sales. A special thank you to Robert Clark, Dixon Creek Software, Corvallis, Oregon. Mr. Clark was the programmer who created the software necessary to make the OAIN system operational. We are now able to collect and disseminate data electronically through our Website. He continues to provide techni- cal support and improvements for our system. Agricultural Commodity Sales Oregon, 2003p Vegetables & truck crops 7% Cattle Dairy products 16% 8% Poultry 2% Tree f~it & nuts Specialty products 3% Sma Christmas 9% Small fruit & berries 3% All Crops 72% All Livestock 28% Nursery & greenhouse crops 19% Other animal products 2% Grains 5% Hay & forage 6% Grass & legume seeds 8% Field crops 5% 2003p Sales by Commodity $1,ooo Field Crops Grains Grass & Legume Seeds Hay & Forage Nursery & Greenhouse Crops Small Fruit & Berries Small Woodlots & Christmas Trees Specialty Products Tree Fruit & Nuts Vegetables & Truck Crops All Crops 185,438 160.478 287,729 205.685 673,315 98,171 308.236 102.0!6 222.337 244.241 $2,487,646 Cattle & Calves 543,048 Dairy Products 282,030 Other Animal Products 72,832 Poultry 80,227 All Livestock $978,137 All Crops & Livestock $3,465,783 p=prelimh~a~ Source: OregonAgdcultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. Gross Farm & Ranch Sales by District & County, 2003p State Total 79,754 11,036 90,790 297,749 43,430 341,179 88,230 25,530 113,760 149,832 40,625 190,457 403,147 83,113 486,260 69,026 2,443 71,469 93,520 25,759 119,279 206,708 16,250 222,958 193,828 31,173 225,001 1,581,794 279,359 1,861,153 2,773 5,479 8,252 20,267 3,359 23,626 34,250 15,705 49,955 20,511 4,240 24,751 8,118 1,626 9,744 2,308 87,177 89,485 88,227 t17,586 205,813 36,827 18,990 55,817 46,670 22,628 71,298 10,990 11,767 22,757 96,487 53,385 149,872 9,400 8,039 17,439 53,530 1,126 54,656 86,630 93,123 179,753 21,022 2,071 23,093 155,760 44,124 199,884 56,020 8,690 64,710 1,658 6,970 8,628 384,020 164,143 548,163 13,994 37,636 51,630 95,161 79,271 174,432 27,449 11,683 39,132 17,263 16,736 33,999 153,867 145,326 299,193 11,675 24,368 36,043 8,379 11,120 19,499 8,522 17,501 26,023 15,294 42,338 57,632 29,753 13,337 43,090 85,329 81,662 166,991 24,300 28,011 52,311 183,252 218,337 401,589 $2,487,647 $978,136 $3,465,783 p=preliminan/ SourCe: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. Gross Farm & Ranch Sales by Commodity Group 2003p, 2002r, & Percentage Change 160,478 155,712 3.1% 205,685 203,425 1.1% 287,729 277,804 3.6% 185,438 211,061 -12.1% 222,337 190,279 16.8% 98,171 83,534 17.5% 244,241 218,466 11.8% 1,083,567 1,040,838 4.1% 2,487,646. 2,381,119 4.5% 543,048 462,488 17.4% 282,030 271,065 4.0% 80,227 81,808 -1.9% 72,832 69,569 4.7% 978,137 884,930 10.5% 3,465,783 3,266,049 6.1% p=prelimJna/~/ r=revised. ~Crops included m Specialty Products are nursery crops, bulbs, greenhouse crops, tu~ miscellaneous specialty crops, farm forest products (small woodlots), Christmas trees, hybdd poptars, and fee hunting and recreation. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. Oregon's Leading Agricultural Commodities Ranked by Gross Dollar Sales 543,048 462,488 506,654 542,797 488,410 482,967 282,030 271,065 268,379 158,003 160,190 150,938 150,233 169,659 165,898 !34,502 126,342 121,916 130,518 129,248 135,350 126,541 88,993 98,093 116,849 121,250 120,082 103,281 126,760 129,084 76,129 87,158 114,589 62,761 42,077 75,527 53,040 48,901 45,628 52,294 36,064 31,979 51,288 46,575 35,469 43,016 43,431 48,989 36,787 37,985 41,991 34,202 31,965 25,851 34,082 36,056 39,862 33,404 30,521 29,068 r ~ ' si~eeP ~ L~bs 36 sqUash&pumPkins 37 ~J~g &FlOWer ~eed 40 Sweet Corn, Fresh 4I 42 Su 43 OrchardgraSs ' 45 Corn for Grain p=prelimina/7, r=revised. 26,750 25,961 25,170 25,414 22,184 23,644 23,751 12,220 20,310 21,217 19,587 15,900 21,006 18,010 18,321 20,924 15,294 16,071 20,400 20,745 20,610 20,098 18,800 18,045 20,043 22,726 23,378 19,384 16,500 15,027 18,662 22,805 23,982 18,067 20,894 22,506 17,591 9,322 6,245 15,839 14,446 13,089 13,081 14,214 8,911 12,317 11,554 12,316 11,542 12,929 12,156 10,931 8,120 7,416 10,723 16,659 15,849 10,203 8,790 8,046 9,755 9,896 10,249 9,592 1t,299 13,018 9,105 11,275 10,739 8,801 8,992 9,589 8,065 8,169 6,835 ~oni~uedonpage~ Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAtN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. Oregon's Leading Agricultural Commodities Ranked by Gross Dollar Sales (continued) 7,064 10,420 8,130 6,973 8,249 7,942 6,662 5,726 6,207 6,586 6,296 6,145 6,387 6,919 7,645 6,270 5,612 5,182 5,981 3,292 0 5,133 6,252 6,470 4,803 4,663 4,647 4,585 2,970 2,770 4,541 6,847 3,085 4,480 4,113 5,415 4,031 3,787 4,243 3,964 5,473 5,621 3,464 4,606 4,379 3,428 3,983 6,155 3,305 3,185 4,085 3,282 3,599 3,905 3,239 2,896 1,875 3,098 4,865 6,949 3,065 2,817 2,623 2,662 1,726 1,351 2,621 3,614 2,834 2,196 2,160 2,168 2,084 988 2,445 2,035 3,408 3,408 1,931 1,874 1,838 1,920 2,862 4,376 1,805 2,589 2,688 1,746 1,257 1,031 1,555 1,645 1,510 1,512 979 1,958 1,444 1,516 1,210 1,416 1,421 1,586 1,244 1,144 910 1,213 1,064 908 1,195 1,124 1,112 1,090 1,930 1,632 1,080 1,084 1,152 11,912 11,587 8,140 154,615 148,971 3,465,783 3,266,042 p=preliminan/ r=revised. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. 5 137,783 3,329,249 CD 0 ,r- CD CD 0 0 i.~ CD 0 0 O~ 0 0 O0 CD CD 0 0 qD 0 0 CD O~ %-- -- ---- X X X 0 0 0 0 CD 0 ~ ~0 0 CD C~ O~ 0 CD ~ Exx xx x x x x · X X~ X X X X 0 0 o "1 0 Grant Lake South Central Total Undisclosed State Total' 3,700 13,450 37,130 2,850 22,800 8,920 2,550 31,350 29,090 14,600 36,400 195,430 12,600 17,800 70,610 1MO0 4,9OO - 16,500 16,600 57,065 21,700 19,240 30,190 18,150 24,700 49,065 94,050 187,240 477,500 5,050 - - 8,300 - 18,500 2,050 1,400 9,500 - 44,600 - - 39,250 1,460 21,300 350 12,700 1,460 73,250 350 95,040 2,150 - 200 900 217,300 50,000 2,695 122,720 600 293,350 25,900 12,565 86,770 5,600 - - 7,650 - 8t 5,380 92,800 15,260 7,250 75,850 50,1 O0 96,500 4,310 35,300 38,000 11,092 17,700 45,650 2,012 110,350 256,000 17,414 2,700 39,000 200 24,000 400 44,200 2,900 123,000 280 8,800 20,450 8,900 38,400 83,000 - 2,400 126,800 - 55,600 460,450 9,380 2,750 1,610 1,079,590 1,114,540 521,514 2,040 759 684 4,798 3,740 4,547 7,315 1,851 710 10,058 8,575 6,535 - 267 1,005 1,442 5,870 535 575 7,615 3,!25 708 11,505 1,095 26,562 45,787 16,660 - 25 1,8-50 - 800 - 25 2,650 - 1,508 208 37 8,960 - 655 - 37 11,123 208 390 101 - 14,807 40 18,050 261 19,305 3,695 - 640 8,394 38,385 27,258 40 16,050 315 12,235 - - 15 - 28,300 315 - 1,699 370 4,115 - 6,900 - - 13,084 3,57O 529 836 109,938 85,037 20,394 6,448 5,854 2,735 8,164 26,826 3,8-35 1,963 5,!05 5,223 66,153 658 551 405 1,614 60 30 9,002 27,326 73 36,491 11,950 810 12,760 1,016 1,240 2,256 1,145 120,419 270 2,055 70 620 250 220 5,715 30 90 60 180 220 10 10 240 10 20 30 4,405 10,570 1,656 750 460 2,866 72 1,748 120 215 2,260 1,170 85O 2,020 560 2,000 202 205 48O 3,447 2,930 415 730 112 907 14,845 65,183 51,791 74,762 264,740 155,059 11,937 100,595 87,80~ 110,666 922,533 5,152 10,138 20,5-55 3,065 1,455 9,550 49,915 43,014 32,668 14,620 90,302 98,301 15,987 299,308 123,522 382,346 101,497 8,130 1,029,091 86,030 179,225 97,042 66,187 428,484 44,615 25,100 44,712 126,180 43,570 128,300 129,200 641,677 3,062,002 p=preliminary. A ? indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiality rules. The 'not disclosed" values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes (-) in any particular row or column. Source: Oregon AgrfculIural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Infortnation Office, Oregon State University. 12 State TOtal 3,900 13,850 38,160 2,070 741 7,930 2,400 23,050 9,540 561 4,805 3,600 5,410 2,405 2,550 31,650 30,480 3,260 4,492 365 2,900 370 9,600 36,500 200,160 6,840 1,721 685 8,840 250 8,850 17,800 71,530 9,150 8,512 6,407 29,039 2,100 1,600 5,300 350 - 277 1,070 4,246 10,550 17,300 55,032 1,655 5,540 510 1,895 610 23,050 20,060 3!,820 7,635 3,010 4,661 13,750 25,200 50,780 442 11,305 1,000 5,223 240 76,250 190,710 487,852 23,978 45,028 16,647 70,144 5,975 - 5,300 - . 8,850 - - 842 40 - 18,500 - 25 1,588 10 60 - 2,100 - 688 - - - 1,300 - . 9,000 - - - 20 45,050 25 2,276 852 120 - 36,750 590 1,184 161 631 220 1,100 21,000 380 50 8,585 540 10 1,150 12,800 - 555 418 35 2,250 70,550 970 50 10,324 161 1,589 265 115,200 2,550 - 803 - - 200 880 - 14,932 40 30 10 202,600 25,550 2,324 17,190 4,460 - 132,130 1,000 180 12 ~ - 293,600 36,100 15,548 24,226 3,830 30,771 - 82,290 6,150 7,918 - 400 7,650 - 80 - - 826,420 79,880 17,872 42,479 26,692 40 35,261 10 5,700 ~75,600 3,300 - . 51,800 98,350 4,430 21,160 315 11,050 - 35,100 38,170 13,940 13,090 - 15,700 45,600 2,392 - - - 108,300 257,720 20,762 37,550 315 - 11,050 2,050 40,500 380 1,694 1,020 - 300 22,500 167 - 350 44,000 - 115 - - 2,800 124,000 460 - - 8,750 24,050 10,6t0 4,596 - 1,219 42,400 82,000 - 5,550 - - 2,500 127,000 - - 59,150 464,050 11,450 t2,007 115 2,239 - 750 80 2,067 1,386 483 156 4,265 1,073,120 1,107,960 538,986 118,131 83,885 19,607 121,291 10,635 1,548 68,199 - 51,771 76,067 264,596 - 153,388 25O 13,093 93,092 890 91,126 107,940 2,688 919,272 102 5,402 533 10,265 110 20,293 215 3,003 55 1,355 20 9,040 1,035 49,358 628 40,164 31,665 - 14,958 628 86,787 50 118,603 16,092 2,951 255,075 133,322 205 404,280 829 97,187 8,130 4,035 1,032,689 84,600 I87,105 390 100,690 266 63,958 656 436,353 45,644 80 23,047 44,465 127,260 65 49,290 129,950 129,500 145 549,156 9,187 - 3,073,615 p=preliminary. A '-" indicates the data may not exist or may not be displayed due to confidentiality rules. The "not disclosed" values are the sum of all values hidden by the dashes (-) in any particular row or column. Source: Oregon Agricultural Information Network (OAIN), Extension Economic Information Office, Oregon State University. © 2004 Oregon State University. This publication may be photocopied or reprinted in its entirety for noncommercial purposes. The Oregon State University Extension Service educates Oregonians by delivering research-based, objective information to help them solve problems, develop leadership, and manage resources wisely. Extension's agriculture program provides education, training, and technical assistance to people with agriculturally related needs and interests. Major program emphases include food and fiber production, farm business management, marketing and processing of agriculmxal products, resource use and conservation, and environmental preservation and improvement. This publication was produced and distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Extension work is a cooperative program of Oregon State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Oregon counties. Oregon State University Extension Service offers educational programs, activities, and materials--without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital statzv, disability, and disabled veteran or Viemam-era veteran status--as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Oregon State University Extension Service is an Equal Oppommity Employer. Revised July 2003. Revised March 2004. Exhibit "B"- ~ WOOOBURN COMIVtUI~ D~PME~ ~. 16 Abelard L~e Oswego, OR 97035-2342 ~anua~ 19~ 2005 Mr. Jim Mulder Woodbum Community Development Director Woodburn City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Dear Jim: This is to remind you to send copies of the letter (and enclosures), which I delivered to you at the December 9 meeting, to the Planning Commission members before the hearings that start February 3. Enclosed herewith is a map of just the northwest quadrant of the map that you and Greg Winterowd prepared to show your proposed UGB additions. On the enclosed map I have added the area that my neighbors and I are requesting that you and the Planning Commission members consider for inclusion along with the other proposed UGB additions. I will bring additional copies of the enclosed map for distribution to the Planning Commission members when I present oral testimony at the hearings, Thanks for your help and consideration. I will see you at the hearings. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer Enclosure UJ Exhibit "B"- ~5'" 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 December 9, 2004 Jim Mulder Woodbum Community Development Director Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, O1~. 97071 Dear Mr. Mulder: Enclosed are 10 copies of the letter (and its enclosures) that I sent to you and Greg Winterowd on April 29, 2004. Please provide each of the Planning Commission members with a copy, in advance of the formal heatings that will be held early in 2005 with respect to UGB expansion. I took the liberV./of affixing the map that was the second enclosure on the front of the letter, because it should be helpful in allowing the commission members to quickly identify the properties that are involved in my request. The map is rough, and I should add that the curve on Amey Road that is at the north end of the outlet mall has been substantially straightened from what shows on the map from which I worked. I look forward to presenting testimony at the UGB expansion hearing, as will my neighbors on Amey Road. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer Enclosures Exhibit "B"-~ 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 April 29, 2004 Greg Winterowd Winterbrook Planning 3 !0 SW Fourth Ave---Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 Jim Mulder Woodburn Community Development Director Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 REC'D o 2004 WOODBuRN COMMUNI DEVELOPMENT DEPT,Ty Gentlemen: This is a follow-up to the open house you held at Woodbum City Hall on April 16, 2004, for the property owners most directly affected by the proposed UGB changes. I told Greg that I would provide both of you with this letter and its enclosures to explain what I and several other landowners on Amey Road have in mind. Enclosed are the following: 1. My letter to John Brown dated April 26, 1999, and its enclosures. 2. A (rough) map showing the current location of Amey Road, the landowners involved, the current UGB (in blue), and our proposal (in red) for expansion of the UGB and industrial zoning along Amey Road. As you can see from the enclosures (which include the letter to Steve Goeckritz dated July 23, 1996) and the record you will find from the various hearings we have attended, the four main property owners in this area have consistently requested this expansion of the UGB since the very start of the current UGB expansion process in 1996. We thought we had previously made our case, and have been trying to avoid making pests of ourselves. In fact, most of this Amey Road area was recommended for inclusion in the UGB, with an IL designation, in prior studies commissioned by the City of Woodbum. With Woodburn Company Stores nearing completion, the other improvements to and developments along Amey Road, and the increased need for industrial properties since 1996, we feel the requested expansion is even more needed and reasonable than it was in 1996 and that the same arguments for that requested expansion apply more than ever. The four owners (Coleman, Adney, Castor, and myself) have three residences on our four properties. Within the area of the requested expansion are five other residences and the concrete plant. The four owners ov, m about 90% of the entire area and, depending on how you calculate industrial acreages, there should be between 110 and 120 acres that could be developed for industrial uses from the four properties. We have had meetings and have somewhat stayed in contact during the planning process. We are all ready to develop our properties when an opportunity presents itself and we have discussed that we Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder April 29, 2004 Page 2 would like to collectively market our properties, to find one buyer/developer for all four of the properties, if possible. The reality seems to be that both developers and manufacturers want to work with larger tracts, and the 110 to120 acres would likely be most attractive. If you review the aerial photo in the enclosures, you can see that the requested UGB expansion area along Amey Road is somewhat outlined as a natural break for the UGB by the trees and Senecal Creek in the back of the area. My "vision" for the area is something different than the typical industrial development. With its great visibility from and access to 1-5 and with its proximity to and the traffic flow associated with Woodbum Company Stores, it would be a great place to have manufacturing facilities for manufacturers that desire an aesthetically pleasing site that their suppliers, shippers, and other visitors can easily locate and access front 1-5. The site would have places nearby for the workers to eat and to shop. It would also probably be a plus to these manufacturers if an associated showroom and salesroom for the manufactured goods being produced were allowed, although it appears to me that the development ordinance has been changed to make that more difficult. (I welcome any alternative zoning suggestions you may have in this regard.) Just a few ideas of the products that fit these criteria would be the manufacturing of clothing, shoes, knives, cookdng ware, computer hardware, or golf clubs, and flower bulb or nursery plant packaging and shipping. This type of an industrial area would supplement and be compatible with Woodbum Company Stores and the other commercial businesses along Arney Road. The proximity of the commercial and these types of industries that I envision along Amey Road should help to increase business for everyone along the road. I assume that such increased economic activity is one of the main goals that Woodbum wants to accomplish with the UGB expansion. Industrial areas on Parr Road and on the west side of Butteville Road will not be as attractive (at least for the types of industries to which I refer) as the areas on Amey Road. Developers and manufacturers may face a shortage of adequate sites, but they still won't go where their needs and expectations are not met. Waiting for a south by-pass to be constructed and being expected to travel to and from Woodbum via Highway 99E would not be very attractive to the industries that I have in mind. They will simply continue to look in other cities for development and business location. (Admittedly, a south by-pass may work for certain other types of industrial and residential development, so I'm not suggesting it is a bad idea. It is just not likely to attract the industries that I would like to see along Amey Road.) One concern that has apparently been expressed by ODOT is the traffic created by the new businesses that are already along Arney Road. I have made frequent trips on Amey Road over the past few years and have visited with the neighbors. The general consensus is that there is no particular problem on Amey Road itself. The main problem is on the east side of the freeway exit, with some problem on the west side of the exit. It won't solve the traffic problem to route vehicles around to Butteville Road (either north or Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder April 29, 2004 Page 3 south of Highway 214). Most of that traffic would still take Highway 214 going east and wind up at the exit. The solution is for ODOT to stop passing the buck and to finally put in an adeqUate interchange cloverleaf. (COnsider what a great improvement the new cloverleaf at I-5 and Highway 217 is and how it seems to have solved what formerly was an almost impossible interchange situation.) Please take a look at your proposed UGB expansion map and note the gap that your latest proposal would create between the residential areas on Butteville Road and the proposed housing area in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of I-5 and Crosby Road. If you were to draw a straight line between the northeast comer of the former and the northwest comer of the latter, it would entirely encompass the entire area that we propose to br~g into the UGB on Amey Road. While it may not be a stated goal or ffl~solutely required to round offthe UGB, it seems generally desirable. In fact, that objective was at least a stated desire of the Woodbum Cit.,, Council in prior hearings on this UGB expansion. Bringing within the UGB an area that is bordered on three sides by the City of Woodbum seems even more logical and desirable where the area also adjoins one of the largest retail malls in the State of Oregon and has a completely improved major road and all the necessary utilities right up to its entrance. My understanding is that you held the open house to encourage input. And I assume that the reason for the input is so that you have the opportunity to make adjustments to your proposal before you present it to the Planning Commission. This is a sincere request that you consider doing so. If you would like us to provide any further information for your consideration, please let me know, and I will be glad to try to obtain it for you. I can generally be reached at my office (503-499-4675) or home (503-635-8768). Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer Enclosures cc: Mr. John Brown VNOd~N i Exhibit "B"- q 7 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 9703~-2342 April 26, 1999 Mr. John Brown City Administrator City of Woodburn 270 Momgomery Woodburn, OR 97071 Dear Mr. Brown: The Buil_dable Lands Citizen Advisory Committee (aka Growth Policy Task Force) held a meeting for public input on March 30, 1999. The consultants reported their conclusion that, between now and 2020, the City of Woodburn will need about 600 additional acres of land suitable for industrial uses within its Urban Growth Boundary. The comments of Committee members and the testimony of the public seemed to both support that concbasion and indicate a preference for encouraging that type of development. Reference was made to job creation, increasing the tax base, and taking advantage of Woodburn's location and freeway access. I spoke at the hearing with respect to the efforts that Bob Engle (my attorney), my neighbors and I have made over the past three years to position approximately 125 acres owned by my neighbors and myself for inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary with a Light Industrial designatior~ This letter and the attachments are what I indicated to the Committee I would forward to them, through you, for their consideration. Please provide each of the members of the Committee and any other officials or staff who you think should receive a copy with one of the enclosed copies. I am also sending copies directly to Mayor Jennings, Chairman Christoffand Steve Goeckritz. The attachments include: 1. Arial photograph looking south along I-5. The 125 acres is the area I have marked by the enclosed lines. The double lines indicate the current Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The consultants' map showing current Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Zones. I have marked the 125 acres with the blue diagonal lines. 3. Bob Engle's letter of July 23, 1996. It presents our arguments for inclusion of the area within the Urban Growth Boundary and its designation as Light Industrial. The reasoning and conclusions are, I believe, even more valid today than they were in 1996. Since then the outlet mall on the adjoining property has nearly been completed, the demand for freeway industrial properties within Oregon has cominued to increase, and the City's own consultants have concluded that 600 more acres of property so designated will be needed by 2020. The 125 acres we ask to have included is probably, of all the alternatives the City has, the best located and most suitable for inclusion and designation as Light Industrial. At the March 30 meeting, I was asked if we had discussed our desires with, and received any comments from, the Marion County Commissioners. I responded in the affirmative and that the only concern that had been expressed, by one Commissioner, is with respect to the extending of Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary closer to Marion County's landfill. My response was and continues to be that, if the concern is that some citizens ii-ring north of the current Woodburn City Limits will complain that pollution is adversely impacting their water supply, the best resolution of Mr. John Brown April 26, 1999 Page 2 that potemial problem is to have as many of the currem rural residents ami any new residents added in the ~e in that area have the benefit of Woodburn's water and storm drainage systems. The fact is that it raay be the controlling of fatal development, rather than of proximity to the landfill, that might be appropriate. With respect to the 125 acres, two additional points for Marion County to consider are that (1)the industrial uses we comemplate will probably decrease, ra~,er than h'~cre~,se, the nmmber of residents that would be tivi~.g on the 125 acres and (2) it is about a full mile beVe¢een the closest points of both the 125 acres and the landfill (which would mean that any Marion County policy preventing any new development within that distance, i.e., one mile, of any part of the landfill would effectively condemn to varyi_~ degrees about 10 square miles on the north border of Woodbum.) From the City of Woodbum's standpoint, we suggest that the issue needs clearly and soon to be addressed with the Marion County Commissioners, because the landfill is just about as close to the most northwestern parts of Senior Estates as it is to the 125 acres and most ofany future developmem north ofthe current city limits on the east side of the freeway between Croslvj~ Road and Boones Ferry Road would actually be as close or closer to the landfill than the 125 acres is. Pollution concerns respect no freeway boundaries, and new developments in that area east of the fxeeway would most l~ely he residential. What the policy of Marion County ought to be is (1)to do more to reduce/eliminate the polbation concerns through good management of the landfill and (2)to encourage expansion of the UGB to the north and require that any new development in the area of concern he connected to Woodbum's water and storm drainage systems. A final comment that I would like to make is that I personally support the concept of having a pretty firm Urban CJrowth Boundary and requiring development to occur wi-thin it, so long as the supply of the various types of zoned acreages within that UGB are adequate to provide for the reasonable demands for development. It is also appropriate to shift zoning from one type where there is an oversupply to another type where there is an undersupply. The current discussion includes one proposal that would essentially result in meeting the 600 acre industrial land shortfall by changing the designation on s'mgle family residential land to a designation of industrial land. That would work where, both economically and politically, in the area under consideration the two designations are interchangeable. However, I submit that ahnost all of the land wi-thin the current UGB that is zoned for single family residential development would be unsuitable for industrial uses ofthe type we have in mind. For those uses, the land needs to he close to and easily served by a major transportation system a.nd would be best located where the industrial uses would he the most compatible with its neighbors and current uses. We think that, from an economic and political standpoint, the 125 acres and a few other small tracts outside of and on the comers of the current UGB are the appropriate answer to the need for designating 600 more acres as being for Woodburn's future industrial needs. An additional justification for the inclusion of these specific 125 acres within the UGB is that the current UGB is already on three sides of the 125 acres and its inclusion would actually somewhat help to straighten out the UGB lines. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer L I t I I~SGLE & S~TMAN ATTOI~NEY~ AT LAW NORTHWOOD OFFICE PARK - 610 {~LATT CIRCLE WOODBUP, N, OR 97O71 Mr. Steve Goeckritz Planning Director City of Woodbtux~ City Hall Woodbtu-n, OR 97071 Re: Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review - Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Dear Steve: I recently discussed with you the faCt that Woodbum will soon begin the process of considering the extent to which Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary should be expanded. I have asked you to allow me to offer input in that process at this time rather than after the proposal has been developed since it has been my experience that public hearings requesting public comments upon an existing proposal seldom result in any significant change or modification to.that proposal. I am currently representing Martin W. Rohrer, a former partner of this office, who owns 45 acres of real property adjoining the present Urban Growth Boundary west of the freeway and north of the 214 interchange. We ask that the City, in preparing its proposal to Marion County and LCDC, consider expanding the City's Urban Growth Boundary to include all of the approximately 125 acres indicated by the coloring on the attached map. Mart-~s property is the portion of that 125 acres further indicated by the diagonal lines. We believe that many reasons exist for the inclusion of this 125 acres within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. I will use this letter as an opportunity to list a few of those reasons which we feel are most compelling. Mr. Steve Goeckfitz July 23, 1996 Page 2 The City of Woodburn will need, within the next planning period, an additional inventor] of light industrial and high density residential property. The 125 acres could substantially contn~aute to meet that need in several ways: 1. The 125 acres could oarrently be brought within the Urban Growth Boundary and all or most of it zoned for light industrial use with minimal opposition or disruption of current owners and activities. This acreage contains only eight residences. The entire acreage is owned by only eleven separate or joint o,~ners, three of whom are currently operating businesses · which might be characterized as light industrial, namely, a cement plant, a wood chip processing plant and a sales yard for heavy equipment. Over 90% of the 125 acres is owned by four of the owners. All are engaged in farming to some degree; but Marty has polled the four owners (Coleman, Aduey, Castor and himself) and all would welcome inclusion and light industrial designation. That designation would also be consistent with the business activities of the other owners who are operating the three businesses. 2. Much of the property south of the current Urban Growth Boundary line (previously owned by the Stampleys) has recently been sold and is. targeted for commercial use, thus removing that property from the City's inventory of property previously identified as high density residential A portion of the 125 acres could be zoned high density residential to replace the Stampley property lost for such uses. Particularly appropriate for such zoning would be the Coleman 30-acre farm on the westerly portion of the 125 acres, since it adjoins residential property in the Nazarene Subdivision to the west and the undeveloped property zoned for high density residential to the south of that 30-acre farm. 3. When the Stampley property develops for commercial use, Arney Road will be improved and in all probability straightened to front the northwest side of I-5 providing very favorable access to the subject property from I-5. If that occurs, access to the 125 acres will likely be the best of all similar properties in any of the four quadrants of the interchange. 4. The City would have much greater diffiaflty handling additional traffic flows east of the 214-I-5 interchange. The development of the subject land, northwest of the 214-I-5 interchange would not detri_mentally affect the flow of traffic into Woodburn east on 214. Much of the traffic would access to and from I-5 and only on the west side. Additionally, with proper planning, Mr. Steve Goeckritz July 23, 1996 Page 3 traffic moving from the subject area into Woodburn could easily be routed north to Crosby Road, over the Crosby overpass, and east to Boones Ferry or Front Street, entirely avoiding the congestion of 214. 5. Much disc-assion has occarred on the subject of a new' interchange on I-5. It appears likely that a new interchange would be built at Parr Road and not at Crosby Road. Therefore, the development of land in the northwest quadrant of 214 and I-5 would not interfere with the planning and acquisition process of a new interchange and, as noted above, would still permit I-5 access at 214 -~thout substantially increasing traffic east of I-5 on 214 and would encourage destination travel to downtown Woodburn from Crosby Road and not from 214. It is particularly important to note that the interchange planning, funding and construction could tie up further meaningful development of both the southwest and southeast quadrants for over a decade. Only the northwest quadrant can have such development during that period without directly impacting or being impacted by the interchange improvements. A decade could be a very long time for Woodburn to wait for the economic development that could result from such business and housing activity. 6. The subject property, if zoned mostly light industrial, would provide a good transition and buffer between the commercial uses to the south and the agricultural uses to the north. Additionally, if the split zoning mentioned above (with a high density residential designation placed on the westerly 30 acres) is approved, the subject property would also provide a good transition and buffer between the existing single family residential development in the Nazarene Subdivision to the west and the freeway and already existing (and hopefully, expanded) industrial uses in the easterly portion of the 125 acres. 7. Good planning envisions the uniform growth of City boundaries. Onxently, the north boundary of the Nazarene Subdivision extends well beyond the north Urban Growth Boundary line of the remaining property west of the freeway. Further, it is likely that the north Urban Growth Boundary of the City east of I-5 will also extend to or near Crosby Road. The extension of the Urban Growth Boundary as here proposed would provide a more uniform north boundary to the City in future planning. 8. The existence of the Marion County LandC:fll located north of Crosby Road should not discourage the development of this acreage. Once annexed, all development will utilize urban services. Therefore, after inclusion of the subject property within the City of Woodburn and development as proposed, Mx. Steve Goeckxitz July 23, 1996 Page 4 any concerns increased. related to the landfill should be decreased, rather than 9. Woodbtu-n has just recently l:q~en recognized by the developing public. We are in the initial stages of development that we have sought and encouraged for many years. One of the greatest features that makes Woodburn desirable to residents and development is our access to I-5. We need to take advantage of our location and plan for development atom. md the freeway interchange. Substantial development has occurred as planned in the southwest quadrant. Development has and will occur in the southeast quadrant and somewhat in the northeast quadrant. There is no reason why the northwest quadrant should not also be available to this freeway access. In addition to it being desirable to have the properties along the freeway be available for development because of their access, the City also would be benefited in a more general way by the in.cations that would make them vis~le from the freeway that Woodburn 'kvelcomes business activity" as would be demonstrated by the kind of development we are suggesting. In summary, we recommend that the City seriously consider and then propose inclusion of the approximately 125 acres within Woodburn's Urban Growth Boundary during the planning and review process. Although this is not the time to consider the ultimate zoning of the property, we recommend that the City consider designating the property in Woodburn's comprehensive plan for light industrial and high density residential uses as discussed above. Part of the planning and review process should include completing an inventory of the currently undeveloped, but zoned, land within the Urban Growth Boundary. My sense is that Woodburn has substantially exceeded the growth expectations that were incorporated into the boundary and zoning that were last modified in any significant way almost t-~o decades ago. My sense is also that the inventory of light industrial and high density residential zoned land is the most depleted. Inclusion of this si~ificantly large block of 125 acres, at this time when it is not only available for such use but also arguably the best candidate for such use, especially in the next several years, is an oppormnlty of which we would like to see Woodbum avail itselL We would welcome the opportunity to participate in any manner in the initial review process. If ftu'ther statistical information or citizen input would be deemed by those staff members participating in the review to be beneficial to the process, please advise. Mr. Steve Go¢ckritz July 23, 1996 Page 5 We appreciate very much the opportunity to offer input at this preliminary stage. Yours truly, ROBERT L ElqG!.F. Rl.F.:hez cc: Martin W. Rohrer ~' a~ AV Exhibit "B"~qiS' 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 February 7, 2005 Woodbum Planning Commission c/o Jim Mulder Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 Dear Planning Commissioners: This is a follow-up to my testimony presented at your hearing on Thursday, February 3, 2005. Please consider this letter in your decision regarding the UGB and include it in the record. My testimony was presented, and this letter is written, on behalf of myself and three families (Castor, A&~tey, and Coleman) who own about 110 out of the 125 acres in the area along Amey Road and ga'ney Lane adjoining and immediately north of Woodbum Company Stores. We have consistently represented to the City of Woodburn, since the UGB study began in 1996, that we would all like to be included in any UGB expansion, have all of our properties zoned for Light Industrial development, and cooperate with each other to try to develop our properties as one entire tract of 110 acres. We presented testimony to the Buildable Lands Citizen Advisory Committee (aka Growth Policy Task Force) in 1999 and at the hearings before the Woodbum City Council shortly thereafter. In fact, a majority of our area was then recommended, as a result of the study, for inclusion within an expanded UGB. We were delighted with that recommendation and were ready for the inclusion. We haven't changed our minds. All three of my neighbors were at your February 3 hearing, although I was the only one who spoke. They indicate they will be sending letters for inclusion in the record that support my testimony and written materials. Two maps and an aerial photograph are enclosed and should be helpful in your understanding of our request. They include: 1. Proposed Comprehensive Plan with staff's recommended UGB adjustments added. 2. My map of the northwest quadrant of Map #1, with the area, roads, and property owners indicated. 3. Aerial photograph of the area we propose for inclusion, with the area outlined and with the double lines showing the current UGB line. There are three main reasons we feel we should be included in the UGB expansion. They Our area is, and has been for about three decades, the area most surrounded by the UGB. That su_rrounding is even more noticeable if the UGB is now extended both north along Butteville Road and all the way to Crosby Road on the east side of I-5. Maps #1 and #2 show that very clearly. Although rounding offUGB borders may not be required, it would seem to have merit and should be less objectionable to those bureaucrats and groups that are concerned about expansion into agricultural areas. With Woodburn Company Stores on one side and housing (or freewaY) on the other two sides, we are already much more impacted by urbanization than several other areas that are outside of the current UGB, but which are proposed for inclusion. Our area adjoins one of the largest retail centers in the Pacific Northwest. It is hard to believe that it would be appropriate for such an area to not be included in the supply of land that is listed as being made available for development within the next 20 years. More than any other area proposed for inclusion in the UGB ex_pansion, except perhaps the area in the southwest quadrant th_at is between Butteville Road and the interchange, our area is ready for development. The roads, water, sewer, and power are right at our doorstep. There is no need for a new interchange (although the current one clearly needs improvement) and no need to wait for a south bypass to start development. Our area has been proven to be an area that is viable for development with the success of Woodbum Company Stores, the auto dealers, and the other retail establishments along Amey Road. We believe empirical evidence of superior freeway visibility and traffic flow is demonstrated by that success. We would like to develop our area as a Light Industrial development that takes advantage of the fairly easy access from and to 1-5 on the west side of the interchange, freeway visibility, and the traffic already generated by the retail establishments along Amey Road. We think there is a substantial demand for Light Industrial land where manufacturing and similar enterprises are able to market and sell a portion of their goods from the location at which they are manufactu_red or packaged. (Such sales offices were allowed in recent Woodbum zoning codes. I believe those codes were amended, but it would be beneficial to the City and the businesses to reestablish such permitted uses.) Our area would be ideal to satisfy the particular demand for property where marketing and sales offices are permitted. Examples of those kinds of businesses are manufacturers of clothing, cookware, microbrews, computer hardware, golf clubs, and wine, as well as those who package products such as flower bulbs and high value agricultural products for shipment. It was noted at your hearing that the City needs to provide a variety of industrial options to satisfy different needs. The manufacturers who would be interested in our area might be quite different tha~those who are interested in areas along Parr Road. You can make land available; but, if it doesn't meet the needs of the buyers/manufacturers, they will go elsewhere to buy and develop. If what the City of Woodbum wants is to create new, good jobs as soon as possible, it needs to offer land that is what manufacturers want, and land that can most readily and quickly be developed. We feel that our area along Arney Road has those characteristics. We feel it would be compatible with Woodburn Company Stores and other retailers along Amey Road and, in fact, all would benefit from a symbiotic relationship. We appreciate your consideration of our arguments and our request for inclusion. Martin W. Rohrer Exhibit August 20, 2004 Mr. Greg Winterowd Winterbrook Planning 310 SW Fourth Ave--Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 Mark L. Castor 7052 SE Scenic Drove Prineville, OR 97754 Mr. Jim Muider Woodburn Community Development Director Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR. 97071 Dear Gemlemen, I am writing to you regarding the UGB changes involving Amey Road. I am a landowner of 16548 Amey Road NE. I am writing to let you know that we are ready to develop our poperty when the opportunity arrises. We lost our father in 1988 and our mother has lived there up until she died in April of 2004. I, along with my 2 brothers and 1 sister own the property there on Amey Road and we are wanting to be included in the UGB expansion area along Amey Road. Mr. Martin Rohrer wrote to you on April 29, 2004 and inclUded us in his letter to you regarding the follow up to the open house you held at Woodbum City Hall on April 16, 2004. I, along with my brothers and sister, want to be able to participate in any future meetings that you have regarding the UGB changes involving our property. Please lhtel f~to write me, or call me at (541) 416-1082. Sincerely, ~ ~/' Mark L. Castor CC: Mr. Martin Rohrer Mr. Denis Castor - 192 Cummings Way, Keizer, OR 97303 Mr. Perri Castor - 16548 Arney Road NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 Mrs. Patti Allen - 3607 SE Umatilla Loop, Prineville, OR 97754 ~ REC'D FEB 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITy' DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"- ~'0 COLEMAN CORRALS, INC. Exhibit "B"- ~ I T. 15151 Feyrer Pk. Rd. · Molalla, Oregon 97038 FEB 0 8 2005 Exhibit "B"-~Z. WOOOBURN COMMUNI~ ~J/-'?/,~ ~" D~OPME~ DEP..T '-' ! 'J~ ~ I ooo/ FRIENDS/ OF OREGON~ 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 ° Portland, OR 97204 ° (503) 497-1000 ° lax (503) 223-0073 ° www. friends.org Southern Oregon Office ° EO. Box 2442 ° Grants Pass, OR 97528 ° (541) 474-115,' lgxh[bit "S"-~'~ W~dlamette Valley Office · 189 Liberty St. N.E., Ste 307A · Salem, OR 97301 ® (50~ )6 Lane County office ° 120 West Broadway ° Eugene, OR 97401 ° (541) 431-7059 ° ~ax ta'~xJ o,~l-~wo Central Oregon Office · P.O. Box 1380 · Bend, OR 97709 * (541) 382-7557 ° fax (541) 31~/-9129 February 10, 2005 Woodburn PlannLng Commission City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 'A,' REC'D FEB 1 0 2005 re: Woodbum Periodic Review WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Dear Planning ¢ommissionen and Staff: We support efforts to actively plan for and shape Woodbum's future and appreciate your care~ review of the "periodic review" package recommended by Winterbrook Consulting. At the conclusion of the public hearing on February 3fa, the written re~ord w~ lei~ open until 5 PM, February 10t~. We wish to supplement our omi remark~ with the following written comments. Please include them in the official record of this proceeding. Introduction At last Thursday's well-attended public hearing, the Planning Commission heard from a large number of community members concerned about Woodbum's future. Many expressed a vision for Woodburn's economic future that is very different fi'om that presented by the Greg Winterowd, consultant from Winterbrook Planning. This community vision can be accommodated using very reasonable assumptions that are at least as legally defensible as the consultant's. Winterbrook is recommending a UGB expansion of 752 net buildable acres, or about 930 total acres. Almost all of this acreage is prime farmland. Much of Winterbrook's uGB proposal is predicated on a very aggressive development strategy that we belic!/e is both outdated and unrealistic. Therefore, it is not in Woodbum's best long-term interests or in the best interest of the surrounding community. Most new jobs are created by small to medium sized businesses, especially those businesses that already have ties to the community. Nonetheless, Woodbum's economic development strategy primarily relies upon the inclusion of very large parcels of land in the UGB to attract new large employers. The largest of these parcels is intended to lure a high-tech computer silicon plant. This is an industry that is shrinking, not growing, in the United States and the Pacific Northwest. We believe Woodbum would be wiser to instead focus its efforts both on the retention and expansion of existing employers and on attracting new small to medium-sized employers who ca_n: a) Strengthen Woodbum's core business district. For example, an economic development strategy that attracts office workers to the periphery of the downtown core will provide potential downtown retailers with a pool of customers within walking distance of their businesses. The new Chemeketa campus on the north end of downtown is a good first step in this direction. , b) Complement existing indus-tries and the exist~g local economy. Year in and year out, Marion County leads all Oregon counties in gross agricultural sales. Agriculture is a traded sector industry. Agricultural exports rank #2 among all Oregon exports, accounting for 25% of all Oregon exports in 2002. 80°/$ of production leaves the state, 40% leaves the country. In 2002, Agricultural exports increased 4% to $1.13 billion while high-tech decreased 31%. Woodbum is located in the agricultural heartland of Marion County, where direct agricultural sales topped half a billion dollars in 2004 for the first time in any Oregon county. Farmland is not undeveloped land waiting for urbanization. It is already develol~.xl industrial land that supports the leading industry in Marion County. The agricultural industry is a primary driver of Woodbum's economy. Winterbrook's proposal would harm the local economy by undercutting the land base that supports this leading industry. II. Winterbrook ~s Industrial Land and Employment Projections If Winterbrook's preferred scenario is adopted, Woodbum will have 503 net buildable acres of industrial land.' This is huge amount of industrial land for a city the size of Woodburm For comparison, Medford is proposing to add 431 acres of industrial land to its UGB for the needs of an additional 94,000 people. Bend recently added 338 industrial acres to its UGB for the needs of an additional 48,000 people. Salera/Keizer, with a population 7 or 8 times that of Woodbum's thinks it could take decades to develop the 500-acre Mill Creek industrial site. McMinnville just adopted period review amendments based on a need for 174 acres of vacant industrial land for the needs of an additional 13,567 people. Winterbrook recommends an extremely optimistic forecast of 8,373 new jobs by 2020~, of which 3,836 will use industrial land.2 This is a substantial jump from Winterbrook's previously recommended forecast of 7,140 new jobs? We believe this significantly overstates what can reasonably be expected to occur. Woodbum has about 7% of Marion County's population and just under 8% of Marion County's jobs.n Between 1990 and 2000, 11.2% of all job growth in Marion C~ounty t Revised Woodbum UGB Justification Reporg Winterbrook Planning, January 2005. p. 2. 2 Technical Report 2.B, Winterbrook Planning~ May 2003, p. 8 Table 6 a Woodburn UGB Justification Report, Winterbrook Planning, November 2003. 4 In 2000, total employment in Marion County was 131,622. Total employment in Woodbthm was 10,388 or 7.9% of Marion County's total. Source: "Woodbum Economic Oppo,-amities Analysis," phase one report, May 2001, p. 2-10, and "Woodbum Population and Employment Projections, 2000-2020" EcoNorthwest Memorandum to Winterbrook, April 29, 2002, p. 16 2 occurred in Woodburm s Even Winterbrook's previously recommended forecast of 7,140 new jobs assumed th_at Woodbum would capture 20% of all job growth forecast for Marion Countyfi This new higher forecast would account for 23% of all future Marion County job growth. This is unrealistic. However, even if Winterbrook's most optimistic projection were to occur, by Winterbrook's own figures Woodburn's 503 acres of industrial land will aco~mmodate far more than the 3,836 new induoqrial employees and Woodburn's total employment land will accommodate far more employees than Winterbrook expects to locate on emplo~nnent land. From Technical Report 2.B, Winterbrook Planning, May 2003, p. 8: Table 6, Total employment growth by land use _type, Woedburn UGB, 2000-202Q Land Use Employment Growth 2000-2020 Categorf Low Medium High Commercial 1,164 1,476 1,810 Office 1,311 1,508 1,71g Industrial 2,759 3,280 3,836 Public 747 876 1,011 Total 5,981 7,140 8,375 Basic Assumptions Commercial Retail: 20 employees per acre Commercial Office: 30 employees per acre Industrial: 14 employees per acre What does this mean in terms of land need, assuming the highest projection and assuming every new industrial, commercial and office job requires development? Commercial: Office: Industrial: 1,810 jobs at 20 per acre = 91 acres of developable land 1,718 jobs at 30 per acre = 57 acres of developable land 3,836 jobs at 14 per acre = 274 acres of developable land Land Use Land Need In Existing Defter WPS proposes WPS proposed Categor~r UGB to add to UGB Total Commercial & Office 148 acres 108 acres 40 acres 32 acres 140 acres Industrial 274 acre 127 acres 147 acres 376 acres 503 acres 422 235 187 408 643 acres s Source: Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and "Woodbum Population and Employment Projections, 2000- 2020" Ec~oNorthwest Memorandum to Winterbrook, April 29, 2002, p.8 6 Revised Woodburn UGB Justification Report, Winterbrook Planning, January 2005. p. 5 Even under the most aggressive assumptions, WPS is recommending adding to the UGB more than 2 V2 times the needed industrial land. ~ Under reasonable as~Jnptions, expected employment growth can be easily accommodated with a much smaller expansion or potentially on existing land The assumptions above are taken directly from Winterbrook's background documents. They assume fi, at Woodburn captures 23% of Marion County job growth and hhat every new industrial, commercial and office job requi_res development. Even under these unreasonable asstumpfions, the industrial portion of Winterbrook's recommended expansion is more fi, an double what is needed for the number of employees who will use industrial land. Winterbrook's own technical reports include 3 UGB expansion scenarios: an "Intensification" expansion of 44] net buildable acres, a "Medium UGB expansion" of 481 net buildable acres and a ``Large UGB expansion"of 558 net buildable acres. For your reference, these are attached to this testimony. As the text of the "Large" expansion scenario explains, it is based on the highest employment forecast and provides alternative sites for target industries identified in the Economic Alternative Opportunities Analysis. At 752 net buildable acres, Winterbrook is now recommending a UGB expansion that is nearly 200 acres larger than his "Large F~xpansion' scenario. III. Purported Need for 125 Acre Parcel The industrial portion of Winterbrook's UGB expansion proposal is based in part on "a need for one -very large site of 100 acres or more.''? The Economic Opportunities Analysis includes a list of target industries (Table 4-4) and their site requirements (Table 4-5).s The largest site requirements for any target industry listed in Table 4-5 is Electronics- Fab Plants at 40-80 acres+. The text of the EOA identifies these as "silicon chip fabrication plants," with site requirements that exceed 100 acres.9 Since 2000, the silicon chip industry in the northwest has closed many plants and retains significant unused capacity. It is unreasonable to base a portion of the UGB expansion on the expectation that a silicon chip fabrication plant will locate in Woodburn. IV. Reasonable Assumptio.~v for Industrial Land The folloWing industrial land assumptions are reasonable and legally defensible. They assume disproportionately large, but credible, increases in Woodbum's employment. They show that using reasonable assumptions, Woodbum's industrial land needs can be accommodated between 161 and 195 acres of industrial land. Since Woodbum already has 7 "Woodburn UGB Justification Report" November 2003, p.9 g "Woodbum Economic Opportunities Analysis," phase one report, May 2001, pp. 4-8, 4-9 9 "Woodburn Economic Oppommities Analysis," phase one report, May 2001, p. 4-8 4 127 buildable acres of industrial land within its UGB, Woodbum only needs to add between 34 and 68 acres of buildable industrial land to its UGB. A. Industrial Job Growth .aa noted above, the consultant previously recommended a forecast of 7,139 new jobs between 2000 and 2020.~° This is an aggressive foro:ast that accounts for 20% of all job growth forecast for Marion County. It aso~umes a 2.65% average annual growth in employment within Woodbum's UGB.u Winterbrook's Revised Woodbum UGB Justification Report c~ls this forecast "optimistic.''ti Nonetheless, this "optimistic" foreca~t requires only minimal expansion for industrial land. B. Inconsistency between employment growth period and land inventory Winterbrook ~.~ommended UGB expansion is based in part on a projection of job growth from 2000 to 2020? It is based upon a land inventory conducted in 2002. Two years of job growth were absorbed by the date of the inventory, but the consultant continues to proje~ a need for new land for these jobs, even though they have already been accommodated. The forecasted employment growth of 7,139 newinob, assmnes a 2.65o/o. average ann~ ..u~. growth in employment within Wocnibum's UGB. The first two years increment of this growth is already accounted for on land that is not included in the land inventq~. At 2.65% annual growth rate, 558 jobs were absorbed by the time of the land inventory, leaving a need to accommodate 6,581 new jobs in all employment sectors. Winterbrook assumes that 46% of all new jobs will locate on industrial land. This means that 3,027 new jobs will locate on industrial land through 2020. C. All New Employment Does Not Require New Development Considerable employment growth occurs on existing developed employment land. In the real world many new jobs are created without land being developed or redeveloped; a restaurant adds additional st. aflin the d'ming room and kitchen, a processing plant or manufacturer adds a second shift, a retail business expands its hours and hires new people to work those hours. Metro recently found that 21% of new industrial jobs and 52% of non- industrial jobs are absorbed on developed land without expanding onto vacant land. ~5 ~o "Revised Woodbum UGB Justification Report," January 2005, p.5 u "Woodbum Population and Employment Projections, 2000-2020" EcoNorthwest Memorandum, April 29, 2002, Tables 8 and 10, pp. 16-17 t2 "Revised Woodbum UGB Justi_fication Report," January 2005, p.5 t3 "Woodburn Population and Employment Projections, 2000-2020" EcoNorthwest Memorandum, April 29, 2002. See also "Woodburn UGB Justification Report" November 2003, p. 8 t4 "Woodbmm Population and Employment Projections, 2000-2020" EcoNorthwest Memorandum, April 29, 2002, Tables 8 and 10, pp. 16-17 ~ Metro Report, September 1999, Urban Growth Report Update" p.51 These numbers are supported by a recent McMinnville Chamber of Commerce Business Survey conducted by EcoNorthwest which found, "that nearly half [45%] of the respondents t_hat indicated they bad expansio~plaris will not need any additiomal floor space to accommodate new employees." We note that EcoNo~hwes't is one of Woodbum's current consultants. Ln a r-~.ent Economic Oppommities A~alysis prepared for McMirmville, this same consultant found: "Some employment growth will be accommodated on e-fisting developed land, as when an existing fi`wa adds employees without expanding space.., if a jurisdiction 1-ms high vacancy rates.., then more of the future employment growth can be acco~.od..ate, d in.e.x??~ buildings. We assume rates of 7% [commercial and office] and 10% [induoqrid]... We believe the rates assmned by EcoNorthwest in McMinnville are too iow and that empirical data supports much higher rates. However, Woodbum should recognize that at least some new jobs will not require new vacant or redevelopable land. Even if only 10% of the 3,027 new industrial jobs do not require buildable industrial land, that means that only 2,725 new jobs will need to be accommodated on buildable industrial land. D. Industrial Land Conclusions Under the "optimistic" forecast of 7,139 total new jobs, 2,725 new jobs will require buildable industrial land. Winterbrook includes a"basic assumption" that jobs will utilize industrial land at 14 employees per acre.Is Thus, only 195 acres ofbuildable industrial land are needed to accommodate this job growth. Applying the same set of assumptions used above to the consultant's lower forecast of 5,981 total new jobs between 2000 and 2020 re.-i*alts in a need for 161 acres of buildable industrial land. Since Woodburn already has 127 buildable acres of industrial land within its UGB, only 34 to 68 net buildable acres of industrial land needs to be added to the UGB to meet the need for 161 to 195 net bulldable acres. Win~rbrook recommends adding 376 net buildable acres of industrial land to the UGB, which is 308 to 342 acres more than the 34 to 68 acre deficit. W~terbrook's highest employment forecast is significantly higher than b. is "optimistic" forecast. Nonetheless, even if this highest forecast is used, under reasonable assumptions regarding job absorption, these jobs would only require 229 acres of industrial land, leaving a deficit of only 102 acres to be added to the 127 net buildable acres already in the UGB. Based on generous but reasonable assumptions regarding industrial employment, the overall UGB expansion should be reduced by at least 308 acres; from the 752 net buildable acres recommended by Winterbrook to no more than 444 net b;,ildable acres. Is McMinnville Business Survey Results, EcoNorthwest, September 2001, p.11 l? McMinnville Economic Opportunities Analysis, Ecolqorthwest, November 2001, pp. 6-3 to 6-4 is Technical Report 2.B, Winterbrook Planning, May 2003, p. 8 6 Expansion Areas It is generally reco~maized that Woodburn has traffic problems associated with the 1-5 interchange with Highway 14. These traffic problems will only be exacerbated by expansion west of the freeway. Winterbrook recommends a major expansion west of the freeway for industrial purposes and for residential purposes west of Butteville Road. Such an expansion is iii-advised and is not warranted under state law. ORS 197.298 establishes the priorities for inclusion of land within a UGB. Under this statute, exception land must be brought in before farmland unless it cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs. If farmland must be included, land of lower soil classification must be included before land of higher classification unless it cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs. Goal 14 has similar provisions. It requires urban growth boundaries to be base~ upon sever~a factors, including: (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; (2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability; 0) Orderly and economicprovision for public facilities and services; (4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of t_he existing urban area; (5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; (6) Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and, (7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. Exception Areas According to Winterbroolc, the Northeast Rural Residential (Carl Road) area '*has no remaining development capacity,'~9 and neither tiffs exception area nor the Southeast Residential Exceptions Area contain land that is "usable for urban purposes.''2° Because these areas cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs and because they would be a significant unbuffered intrusion into surrounding agricultural land they should be excluded from the UGB expansion under ORS 197.298 and factor 7 of Goal 14. Similarly, the Butteville Road Rural Residential area west of Butteville Road has an average parcel size of less than 2 acres? Bemuse it is so heavily parcelized, ~_rther development beyond limited low-density residential development is unlikely. Woodburn has a surplus of low density residential land for housing; Winterbrook allocates this surplus to schools, parks, "Revised Woodburn UGB Justification Report," January 2005, p.22 "Revised W(~Mburn UGB Justification Report," January 2005, p. 38 "Revised Woodburn UGB Justification Report," January 2005, p;24 7 and churches. These uses require parcels substantially larger than those found in the Butteville Road area_ Therefore, th_is exception area cannot accomn/odate the identified land needs. In addition, the Butteville Road Area is located west of Butte-vSlle Road adjacent to unbuffered farmland and is separated from most of W~ .dbun}. by the..tr~.c p.r..~b;t, ems al. ound the freeway interchange. Its inclusion in the UGB would not t~e consistent wi~ uae various Goal 14 factors. For these reasons, it should be excluded from the UI3B expansion under ORS 197.298 and Goal 14. We agree that the Southeast Commercial Exceptions Area should be brought into the UGB. Under ORS 197.298 Woodburn should not expand onto the prime farmland west of the freeway and north of the existing UGB. Instead, any expansion onto resource land should be southward onto the predominantly non-prime soils south of Parr Road between Boones Ferry Road and I-5. Reconnnendations ~ Adopt an employment forecast of either 5,981 or 7,139 total new jobs, based on the consultant's "Woo<Ibm Population and Employment Projections, 2000-2020. El'mainate Silicon Chip Fabrication plants from the list of target industries. Reduce the overall size of the UGB expansion to no more than 444 net buildable acres, based on generous, but reasonable assumptions regarding industrial employment. El'mainate the Northeast Rural Residential (Carl Road) area, the Southeast Residential Area, and the Butteville Road Rural Residential area from the proposed UGB expansion because they cannot reasonably accommo~te identified land needs and bemuse their inclusion would be inconsistent with various factors of Goal 14. Exclude prime farmland west of the freeway and north of the existing ~IGB from the proposed expansion. Instead, any expansion onto resource land shouki be southward onto the predominantly non-prime soils south of Parr Road between Boones Ferry Road and 1-5. We hope these corranents are helpful. They address what we see as the most si~Jficant issues raised by the consultant's proposal. We will try to address any remaining technical issues prior to the hearing before the City Council. Once again, please include this 8 testimony in the official recora of th_is proceeding and please pro-fide us with written notice of your decision. Sid Friedman Attachments: Winterbrook UGB Scenarios from Technical Report 2.B "Site Requirements of Target Industries" p. 3 ORS 197.298 Goal 14 Cc; Marion County DLCD Oregon Department of Agriculture Marion County Farm Bureau n' ooaourn c/roan cirowtl~ Scenarios Technical Report #2.B May 5, 2003 SCENARIO gl I~nVl'E~NSIFICATION (447 Acs_Es) Based on medium employment forecast (7,140 new jobs) with intensification measures to increase density within UGB for residential and commercial land needs. This was the smallest UGB expansion to provide additional buildable land to meet future residential and industrial use needs. Measures used to increase density and efficiency of land use are marked with a"*". *High Density Residential: 16 dwelling units per acre. Using an assumption of 16 du/net acre increases Woedbura's potential supply of high density units by approximately 420.. North Goff Course: LDR- 6 units per acre. Total of 144 additional potential dwelling units. North LDR: 6 units per acre. Total of 240 additional potential dwelling units. South HWY 99E Exception .a~ea: Commercial. Total of 170 additional po. tential employees. "Commercial: Primarily redevelopment and intensification within existing commerciaI areas. Total additions of 473 potential employees. This measure Saves a need for approximately 24 acres of commercial land. *Mixed Use Node: LDR (8 anita per acre'), HDR (24 uaita per acre), Commercial (24 employees per acre). Incr~g LDI~. density f~m 6 to 8 units per acre within the ['~lode adds 102 potential dwelling units. Increasing I-IDR density from 12 to 24 units per acre within the ['lode adds 200 potential dwelling units. Increasing Commercial employees per acre from 20 to 24 within the node adds 177 potential employees. *Public/Government: Satisfied thru LDR. Scenario 1 assumes that 876 potential government and education employees will be added on existing, developed residential land. Industrial: West Industrial Azea with no alternative sites. Adds 1,732 potential industrial employees on 155 acres. Table 7. Scenario l: Surplus and Deficit Comparisons Currant Sur ~ius (Deficit) Land Use Supply Demand Surplus (Deficit) Scenario Adds Res. Low (DU) 2,368 du 3,749 du . (1.381) du 1,443 du Res. High (DU) 1,679 du 1,874 du (195) du 200 du Commercial (EMI=) 1 ~888 amp 2,678 amp (790) amp 790 emp Industrial (EMP) 1,651 emp 3,578 e.mp (1,927) amp 1,927 ernp Public (Acres) r.. 6.1 ac 36.1 ac (30) ac 30 ac Current Surplus (De flcit) Acres 20 Year Surplus Deficit) Acres Surplus UGB Land Use Supply Demand IDeflcit) =.xpand ResLow ResHi~lh COM IND Res. Low (acres) 403 625 (222) 258 10 ~ Res. High (acres) 108 117 (9) 0 0 ~ Commercial (acres) 96 134 (38) 5 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Industrial (acres) 119 256 (!36) 155 ~ 0 Public (Acres) 6 36 (30) 30 0 r~ Total 447 Winterbrook Planning 9 I ecnntcal Report #2.B May 5, 2005 SCENAmO tt2 Ml~oI-~d UGB EXPANSION (481 ACRES) B~ on m~m ~plo~t fo~t (7,1~ n~ jobs) ~out ~t~ificafion me~r.s for msidmfi~ l~d n~. but ~cl~ a ~x of ~t~fi~on (r~elopm~f) ~d M~fional b~l~le l~d ~ m~ ~a~e ~mm~ci~ l~d n~. ~d~ffi~ 1~ Md~ to UGB to meet ~ic mplo~t n~ pl~ pm~de one ~t~ve ~le site for ~g~ ~d~ id~fifi~ m ~ E~no~c ~fi~ ~l~is. M~ ~M to ~m~ d~i~ ~d efficacy of l~d ~ ~e ~ ~ a "*". ~ Densi~ P~idenfl~: 12 ~el~g ~ ~ ~. ~ Ex~pflon A~ V~ ~w D~i~ P.~fi~_ 3 ~ p~ ~. ~!s ~ows 218 ~~ ~elling ~ ~ ~e ~ Exc~on ~ No~ ~ Co~: ~R.- 6 ~ ~ ~. To~ of 1~ ~ons! ~t~ dwelling ~. No~ LD~ 6 ~ ~ ~. To~ of 2~ ~~ ~~ dwel~g ~. Sou~ ~ ~g ~xcepflon 3~: Comm~ *Co~e~i~: ~Jy ~velo~t ~ ~t~~ ~ ~g co~~ ~. To~ ~o~ of 473 ~~ ~ploye~. ~is m~ ~v~ a n~ for ~ro~tely 24 ~ Of ~mm~ l~d. '~ Use NMe: ~R (8 ~ p~ ~re), ~R (24 ~ p~ ~re), Comm~i~ (24 ~ployees p~ ~e). ~~g !.DR d~i~ ~om 6 to 8 ~ ~ ~e ~ ~e Node M~ 102 pot~fi~ dwelling ~. ~~g ~ d~i~y ~m 12 ~ 24 ~ p~ ~e ~ ~e N~e M~ 2~ ~~ ~elli~g ~. ~e~g Com~ ~plo~ p~ ~e ~m 20 to 24 ~i~ ~e n~e M~ 177 ~t~fi~ ~ploy~. ~e ~e~ d~ ~ ~s n~e r~r~t ~pm~ely 34 r~d~ ~, ~d 9 ~mm~ci~ ~. 'Sou~ R~iden~: ~ (6 ~ p~ ~) 75~ ~R (12 ~ p~ ~) 25%. ~s M~ a po~ for 2~ low d~i~ dwe~g ~ ~d 120 M~ d~i~ ~. *~b~ve~ment: Sagsfi~ ~ LD~ Sc~o 2 ~es ~ 876 ~t~fi~ gov~t ~ ~ucafion ~ploye~ ~ be Md~ on ~s~g develop~ r~id~ 1~ ~s saves a ne~ f~ ~roxima!ely ~ ~ ofp~H~gov~m~t ~ B~ic Ind~: W~ ~~ ~ Ad~ 1,732 ~~ ~d~ ~ploy~ on 155 ~. One Suitable lndns~ Si~: Sou~ - pot~ b~ P~k ne~ n~e. Ad~ 1,086 ~t~ ~d~ ~ploye~ on 78 I0 Winterbrook Planning Woodburn Urban Growth Scenarios Technical Report #2.B May $, 2003 Table 8. Scenario 2: Surplus and Deficit Comparisons ...... Current Surplus (Deficit) Land Use Supply .... 3emand Surplus (Deficit) Scenario Adds, Res. LoW (DU) ....... 2,368 du .. 3,749 du .. (1,381) du 1,426 du .... R~S. High (OU) 1,256 du , ,,! ,874 du ...... (618) du .... 616 d~ .... Commercial (EM,p) 1.888 emp 2,678 ernp ............... (790) emp 790 emp Industrial (EMP) 1,651 emp 3,578 emp (1,927) emp 2,711,, ,emp Public (Acme) , 8 ac 36 ac (~) ac .... 30, ~ ..... Currer~SurpiuS(Oef~a)Acree "Sur~u~' ........... UGa ~ Land Use Supply Demand (Deficit) Expand IResLow ~.._.es~'i~h .._ICOM !IND R_~._, Low (acr~si"' 403 625 ,, (~-;,) 240 ! 8 . _ -~ ~ Ree. High (acres) 108 156 (48) 27,~ 0 ~ Commercla! (acres) 96 134 (38),, 5 .......... .~. ...~. 0,.~~ Industrla! (acres) 119 256 (136) 180 ~ ~l m 56 Public(Acres) 8 36 (30) 30 I 0 [] ~ Total -, 484I I I SCENAmO #3 LA~.GZ UGB EXPANSION (558 A~) B~ic~ly, ~e s~e.~pfio~ ~d m~es ~ S~o ~, but it is b~ on M~ ~plo~t for~t (8,375 n~ jobs) ~d ~o~d~ ~o ~t~ve s~le sit~ for ~g~ ~d~es id~fifi~ ~ ~e ~no~c ~o~fies ~is. High Density Residentiah 12 dwelling uni'ts per acre. NW Exception Area: Very Low Density Residential- 3 units per acre. This allows 218 potential dwelling units in the I~W Exception ~Area. North Golf Course: I.DR.- 6 units per acre. Total of 144 additional potential dwelling traits. North LI)R: 6 units per acre. Total of 240 additional potential dwelling units. South HWY 99E Exception Area: Commercial. *Commercial: l~.edevelopment and intensification. Total additions of 30 potential employees through redevelopment and 443 potential employees through intensification. This measure saves a need for approximately 24 acres of commercial land. Commercial: Add two neighborhood commercial sites (north and south). Adds a total of 300 potential jobs. *Mixed Use Node: LDP.. (8 units per acre), HDR. (24 units per acre), Comm. (24 employees per acre). Increasing LDI~. density from 6 to 8 units per acre within the Node adds 102 potential dwelling units. Increasing HDR. density from 12 to 24 u.nits per acre within the Node adds 200 Winterbrook Planning I1 F/oodburn Urban Growth Scenarios Technical Report #2.B Ma), $, 2005 potential dwelling units. Lncreasing Commercial employees per acre from 20 to 24 within the node adds 177 potential employees. The increased densities in this node represent a need for approximately 34 residential acres, and 9 commercial acres. *South Residential: LDR (6 units per acre) 75%, HDR (12 units per acre) 25%. This adds a potential for 240 low density dwelling units and 120 high density units. *Pub!!elG~vernment: Satisfied th~a LDR. Scena,-io 2 aaa'ames that 876 potential government and education employees will be added on e-xJaling, developed residential land. This saves a need for a0_ proximately 44 acres of public/government land. Basle Industrial: West Industrial Area. Adds 1,732 potential industrial employees on 155 acres. Two Saitable Industrial Sites: (1) South. Adds 1,086 potential indtu,"trial employees on 7~8 acres; aad (2) We. st. Adds 593 potential industrial employees on 42 acres. Table 9. Scenario 3: Surplus and Deficit Comparisons ......... cUrrent Surplus (Deficit) "' Land Use Supply ;)emand Surplus (Deficit) Scenario Adds Res. Low (DU) 2.368 du 3,749 du (1,381) du 1.417 du Res. High (DU) 1,256 du 1.874 du (618) du 670 du Comm®mlal (EMP) I r888 emp 3~175 emp (1,287) emp 1,290 emp Industrial (EMP) I r651 emp 4,216 emp (2,565) emp 3,304 ernp Public (Acres) 6 ac 36 ac (30) ac 30 ac , Current Surplus (Deficit) Acres ........ 20 Year surplus (Deficit) Acres Surplus LJGB/ N~D Land Uss Supply Demand (Deficit) Expand ResLow esHi h OM Re_~= Low (acre~) 403 6'25 (79_?) 245 6 ~ ...... ~ 106 ~56 (48) 31/ .... 4 -'~-'~" ~ ......... Commercial ~ 96 159 ~ 30/ Public (Acres) 6 36 (30) 30 Total 558 ! I I t2 Wiaterbrook Planning ECO to WPS 20 October 2003 Page 3 Valley realtors and developers were with expertise on developments in target areas in the Willamette Valley. The required site and building characteristics for the target industries identifed in the EOA range wideIy. Aa such, a variety of parcel sizes, building types and land use desi~_ations will be required to attract target industries. Overall, the most important factors echoed throu~_hout the literat~.~re and inter,dews include appropriate parcel size and l~cation, labor force quality, access to the Interstate highway.system, and proximity to customers. The Woodburn EOA concluded that 'the site needs of target industries generally fall into one of four types of site classifications: large lot industrisl sites (40-80+ acre parcels); campus research and development (R&D) and smaller manufacturing sites (20 to 40 acre parcels); smaller lilLht industrial/office sites (4-20 acre parcels); and speculative space within office/flex and mixed-use developments, o ~ge lot target industdes include Electronic and Electric Ec.p. fipment manufaCtUring~-] L~.e., silicon chip .fabrication plants). These users are generally more land intens/ve ~(typ~.'cal site requirements exceed .!00 acres) and have a relatively high level of ~viror~mental and water system unpacts. Industries with firms that may locate in campus research and development (R/hD) and manufacturing sites include Electronic and Electric Equipment and the rest of the manufacturing industries may fall into this category. Smaller light industrial/office sites (4-20 acre parcels) and speculative space within office/flex and mixed-use developments could accommodate smaller manufacturing fi~us, firms in Wholesale Trade and all of the Non-industrial target industries. Table 3 summarizes the lot sizes needed for firmS in target industries for which data is available at t~s time. The acreage figures for some target industries are slightly dlt~erent than those reported in the EOA. This reflects the additional research conducted on the site needs of target industries for this analysis. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines Goal 14: Urbanization OAR 660-015-0000(14) (Please Note: Amended 09/28/00; Effective 10/04/00) To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Urban growth boundaries shall be established to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be based upon considerations of the following factors: (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; · (2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability; (3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; (4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing urban area; (5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; (6) Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and, (7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. The results of the above considerations shall be included in the comprehensive plan. In the case of a change of a boundary, a governing body proposing such change in the boundary separating urbanizable lands from rural land, shall follow the procedures and requirements as set forth in the Land Use Planning goal (Goal 2) for goal exceptions. Any urban growth boundary established pdor to Janua%, 1, 1975, which includes rural lands that have not been built upon shall be reviewed by the governing body, utilizing the same factors applicable to the establishment or change of urban growth boundaries. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be a cooperative process between a city and the county or counties that surround it. Land within the boundaries separating urbanizable land from rural land shall be considered available over time for urban uses. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of: (1) Ordedy, econol'Sic provision for public facilities and services; (2) Availability of sufficient land for the vadous uses to insure choices in the market place; (3) LCDC goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and, (4) Encouragement of development within urban areas before conversion of urbanizable areas. In unincorporated communities outside urban growth boundaries counties may approve uses, public facilities and services more intensive than allowed on rural land~ by Goal 11 and 14, either by exception to those goals, or as provided by Commission rules which ensure such uses do not: (1) adversely affect agricultural and forest operations, and (2) interfere with the efficient functioning of urban growth boundaries. Notwithstanding the other provisions of ~is ;Ioal, the commission may by rule provide that this ¢;oal does not prohibit the development and use of one single- family dwelling on a lot or parcel that: (a) was lawfidlly created; (b} lies outside any acknowledged urban growth boundary or unincorporated community boundary; (c) is within an area for which an exception to Statewide Plannina Goal 3 or 4 has been acknowledged; and {d) is planned and zoned primarily for residential use. GUIDELINES A. PLANNING 1. Plans should designate sufficient amounts of urbanizable land to accommodate the need for further urban expansion, taking into account (1) the growth policy of the area, (2) the needs of the forecast population, (3) the carrying capacity of the planning area, and (4) open space and recreational needs. 2. The size of the parcels of urbanizable land that are converted to urban land should be of adequate dimension so as to maximize the utility of the land resource and enable the logical and efficient extension of services to such parcels. 3. Plans providing for the transition from rural to urban land use should take into consideration as to a major determinant the carrying capacity of the air, land and water resources of the planning area. The land conservation and developr,~ent actions provided for by such plans should not exceed the carr),ing capacity of such resources. B. IMPLEMENTATION 1. The type, location and phasing of public facilities and services are factors which should be utilized to direct urban expansion. 2. The type, design, phasing and location of major public transportation facilities (i.e., all modes: air, marine, rail, mass transit, highways, bicycle and pedestrian) and improvements thereto are factors which should be' utilized to support urban expansion into urbanizable areas and restrict it from rural areas. 3. Financial incentives should be provided to assist in maintaining the use and character of lands adjacent to urbanizable areas. 4. Local land use controls and ordinances should be mutually supporting, adopted and enforced to integrate the type, timing and location of public facilities and services in a manner to accommodate increased public demands as urbanizable lands become more urbanized. 5. Additional meth[acls and devices for guiding urban land use should include but not be limited to the following: (1) tax incentives and disincentives; (2) multiple use and joint development practices; (3) fee and less-than-fee acquisition techniques; and (4) capital improvement programming. 6. Plans should provide for a detailed management program to assign respective implementation roles and 2 responsibilities to those governmental bodies operating in the planning area and having interests in carrying out the goal. 3 197.298 Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary. (1) In addition to any requirements established by role addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities: (a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS 195.145, role or metropolitan service district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is ha. adequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception ar-~ or nonresouree land. Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas m-dess such resource land is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710· ~ (e) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate to ac/.mmmodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to OR_S 197.247 (1991 Edition). (d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (9) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land desiglmted in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. (2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capabilit)' as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. (3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; Co) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximin efficiency of land uses v~thin a proposed urban growth boundary r~mres inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. [1995 c.547 s.5; 1999 c.59 s.56] Exhibit "B"..~'z~ FEB 0 3 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. WOODBURN COMMu DEVELOPMENT D~/.~N./TY RE Exhibit "B"- ~;~' BobLindsey FEB O 3 2005 7505 Windsor Is Rd N Salem, OR, 97303 WOOOSURI~ COMM~ B~k~<d: ~~. 1967 to 1977, ~1~¢ of s~ng S~em - m~b~ of ~cil ,-~ Mayor, 73 ~ 77. pm of~e U~ ~ ~¢s wMch led to ~n~ ofu~ ~o~ b~~. p~ of~e p~ess ~ br~t fo~ S~. bill 1~.. Negofiat~ ~ UGB ~ impl~m~mfion of Sen. l~ for CiW of S~. 10 y~ ~d ~W hall y~ get a feeling for what m~es ~fies ~ork ~d not work. I c~ tell y~ ~at ~e pr~s~ in ~ont ofy~ is not in W~bum's be~ int~est. Sho~ or long te~. Pro~ in it's pr¢~nt fo~ is a r~ for ~fions n~ m~. P,~ip¢ f~ di~r. Two issues suffac~ from ~¢ U~ ~o~ ~adiCs of~y 7~0 ~at ~¢ still g~ ~ay.~e public oo~ of D~¢lopment ~d ~ili~ ofU~ ~n~a m ~d ~ose c~..For ~fie~ to s~iv~ ~y n¢~ to ~ess ~o issue: pa~s of desi~ ~d d~elopm~t ~d devel~ ~ el~fic ~ng b~ ~ go broke. E~ple, we oMy n~ ~ l~k a f~ mil~ s~.~ CiW of S~em is a cl~si~ ~pl~ ofu~ c~t~ in de~ ~nomic ~ble. Smm~ of 1976, S~d ~d P~r gave S~em a ~pl~ ~ credit rating. S~m cr~it rating has plumm~ed ~A. pop # increased - All systems came under stress. Library hours decreased aquatic programs slipped away traffic issues increased exponentially public safety response decreased. capacity to supply, & treat water decreased livability diminished. Consultants proposal leads you down that same path. Wood bum has more than enough land mass within existing UGB to accommodate Population # assigned by Marion County. Wood bum has acres an acres of under utilized land You are a service center for the Agriculture industry. This approach is not within your economic capacity. We suggest that you stay within existing service systems to create an economic and liveable-loveable model that brings benefit to the taxpayers. you do not need to loOk outward.-Yout best course of action is look inward -- play to your strengths .... regroup, rethink -- organize a plan that speaks to community, speaks to Live ability, speaks to sense of place The challenge is create that sense of identity--a sense of place - Challenge is how to build a liveable, lovable community. Your Challange is to create benefit for the taxpayer- not pain & misery. Those should be the goals Exhibit "B"- ~(~ FEB 1 0 2005 ~1~05 TO: Woodburn Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Subject: Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Hello All, The program as presented puts the commission in a very difficult decision making position. Wherein; any course of a~tion you recommend will be viewed as wrong. I get a sense from this opening shot that many of Woodburn havr little awareness of what is proposed and that there may not be much support if you push this issue too fast without slrong support from community as a whole. The most significant moment of hearing came early on from the Gendeman who asked," Will this plan make my taxes go up"? Plan as presented is very vulnerable on this point. There are plenty of examples to answer the question with a" yes", this program, in this form, will cause taxes to go up and sev¢ice levels go down. Many elements presented are unattainable for a variety of masons, political and economic, ie, Nodal areas, transportation plan, parks. I see no element dealing with issue of increased railroad traffic through core of city. Looking to increased industrial land mass in hopes of creating benefit for Woodbum is risley. Plan that does not integrate school locations is seriously flawed. What I took away from public hearing of Thursday eve wOUld suggest that a very deliberate, thoughtful review is in order. You need to develop support for a plan to succeed. Plan without solid support from community as a whole will be no plan. Just an exercise. Challenge is to create benefit and comfort. Not Pain & Misery 7505 Windsor Is Rd N Salem, OR 97303 503 551 8585 ..,~r,_ ~ ~c.,o' ,-- ~ Exhibit ,,B,,.57 {~B~ame is Kay Peterson. I live at 13740 Wilco Hwy. NE, Woodburn. Before I begin, ,~v_~,~ ~g$~_'~Mdtike~.~ ~..,. to thank you, the Woodburn Planning Commission for your service to the ~"~~hity. I, too, wanted to serve on the Planning Commission, but unfortunately, my application was not accepted. I would ask that you carefully consider the testimony that is being submitted this evening. We alt Want Woodburn to be an economically viable communi~; some of us just differ on how to accomplish this. My mother was bom in Woodburn and raised on a dairy farm in Hubbard. My husband is a small business owner. It is located on Evergreen Road, just south of Highway 214. We are members of the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. We are both opposed to the proposed expansion of the UGB. The city has only recently begun to address the current traffic mess on Hwy. 214 and the freeway interchange. Expanding the UGB is only going to make this traffic nightmare worse. More and more of my husband's clients have complained about how difficult it is to negotiate the traffic when driving to his office. Of what benefit is growth going to be if people can't get to our business? Pushing growth on Woodburn will do nothing to improve the livability of this community. Why sprawl even more on the west- side of the I-5 freeway? We will never wake up from our traffic nightmare if we expand the UGB onto the west-side of I-5. It is just flat out wrong to take some of the best farmland in the country out of production forever in order to attempt to attract some high tech industry to Woodbum. I say attempt because I quite honestly doubt that a high tech industry will locate in Woodburn. Many high tech industries such as computer chip factories have abandoned the United States and gone to China, just ask Salem, Gresham, or Hillsboro. Agriculture can quickdy retool, so to speak, to respond to current market conditions- other industries just pick up and leave. The security of our country depends on us being as strong as possible economically. Every day the economic security of our country is compromised as more and more farmland is eaten up for development. Do you know that for the first time in the history of our country the United States imports more food than it exports? Do we want to be dependent on foreign countries for our food in the same way we are dependent on foreign oil? Each acre eaten up by development adds up quickAy. These 500 plus acres Winterbrook Consulting says is needed for industrial sites should stay as it is, productive farmland, for our benefit and for the benefit of fut~Jre generations. February 7, 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Exhibit "B"-~ City of Woodbum Planning Commission 270 Montgomery St Woodbum, OR 97071 Woodburn Planning Commission members: My name is Mary Jean Fischer and I live at 160 Heritage Court, Woodbum, OR 97071. I have lived in Woodburn for 40+ years. I am writing about the UGB proposed changes. I am very concerned about the annexation of 423 acres into the UGB. I feel we should utilize existing space before going out of the current boundaries. We currently have empty industrial buildings. Drive through the Industrial Park or north on Front Street. Several buildings have for sale signs or buildings for lease. Our forefathers settled French Prairie because of the rich, fertile soil. The land West of the Freeway is some of the best land in the valley. Now developers want to put it under concrete. We cannot make more land. Once it is under concrete it is gone. Let's think beyond the immediate. Yes, now a lot of our food is imported but do we want to put ourselves into the position of relying on other countries for food like we do for oil. Our country right now seems to be obsessed with importing food. We need to recognize that being able to supply our food is a national security item. Agriculture is the leading employer of Marion County. 'The majority of residents of Woodbum are employed in agriculture. Your talking about people's livelihood. People work here and spend money here-groceries, gas and clothing. Woodbum has moved from a strictly agriculture community to an agriculture/industrial bm the industry is agriculture based. This town was once known as The Berry Capital of the World. Now it is known as the nursery and flower center of Oregon. Let's not do to this community that has happen to so many communities. Developers come in and make all kinds of promises. They get their money and are gone. They don't care once they get the money. Everyone testifying for development had addresses outside of Woodburn. Doesn't that tell you something? We don't want another Hillsboro or Gresham. All kinds of deals were made to Planning Commissions or whomever. Expensive infrastructure-streets, water, sewer lines, etc. was done. Large buildings were built and then they moved on leaving large empty building sitting empty. Cathedral City, CA took a million dollar hit when they gave Wal-Mart a sweet deal. Now the building and land sit empty. Why have these expensive infrastructure projects when these structures are already in place in several areas of the community? I find it interesting that a community of 90,000 in Medford is considering less land in their UGB than we a city of 24,000 that may be 34,000 in 20 years. I think before extending and investing in UGB we should deal with Hwy 214. What a nightmare going West or East. I am fortunate to live on the East side of town so ifI need 1-5 1 go to Brooks or Hubbard. Last amraner it took my son~in4aw one-ha!f hour to get from to US Bank from 99E on a Friday. Many of us use side streets to maneuver around 214. I am for progress but let's do it with proper planning. Let's not let developers be the driving force. I think the local community has a much better idea of how tiffs community should grow. I appreciate your time and energy on the coma-mission so thanks so much for all you do. Sincerely, 160 Heritage Court Woodbum, OR 97071 February 10, 2005 Exhibit "B"~ Se[ Carla Mikkelson 17244 Arbor Grove Road NE Woodburn, OR 97071 REC'D Woodburn Planning Commission c/o Community Development Department City Hall Woodburn, OR 97071 FEB 1 0 Z005 ~OBLiRN COMiViUNffY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Dear Commissioners: I belong to many groups and am a Commissioner on the Marion County Planning Commission, however I want to make clear that I am speaking as a private citizen. I have lived on a farm outside of Woodbum most of my life (so far) and I confess my first questioning of Woodbum's UGB expansion was that it took up too much agricultural land. But I have other concerns about the plan beyond this. Woodburn has suffered from a lack of vision, not a lack of planning. What kind of community did we want to build with the comprehensive plan in the 70's? The plan developed only met the requirements of the state. It didn't have a direction. So Woodbum grew, but in an ad hoc fashion. City government itself didn't function particularly well. So I believe that this plan is handicapped from the start. How do you take a town that is socially, ethnically, and physically fractured and make a community out of it? I believe we can use this plan to help build a community by remembering that the purpose of the plan should be to benefit the people currently living here. We also need to remember Woodburn's historic (and current) role as the center of agricultural life in Marion County. As I am sure you've heard a zillion times, agriculture is still Marion County's number one industry. While processing jobs have been lost, please remember that nurseries and other farms have increased t_heir employment, which doesn't show up in the job inventory. I believe the plan addresses some important issues and in some places supports the community well: wetland preservation for greenways and parks; downtown redevelopment; improved public transit and bicycle/pedestrian improvements; and economic growth that results in better paying jobs are all valuable parts of the plan and should be supported Parts of this plan, however, rnake everything harder to achieve. The economic model of aggressive expansion puts a lot of pressure on local taxpayers. Single- family housing never recoups the initial investment in city services. Industrial sites can be a tax positive, but only over the long haul. So the initial burden of expansion is put on current taxpayers. As noted in the hearing, there are people living in Woodbum who would like to see their tax dollars go to improving their own streets, rather than expanding services to new housing and indus'uSes in the expansion area. The industries Woodburn will try to attract are not in Woodbum's best interest. Chip plants and other electronic industries produce much pollution, as they use hazardous chemicals. It's not just to keep a room clean that people have to wear "acid gear". Also, the high paying jobs in these plants go to individuals who have associate, bachelor, and advanced graduate degrees. The starting wages for less skilled work are in the $8-9[hour range. Census data shows that bachelors and advanced degrees are sparse in Woodbmm. If there are not enough Woodbum citizens to fill these jobs, they will go to the unemployed or underemployed, highly skilled individuals in the metropolitan area who are looking for jobs since the electronics industry downtum. The transportation plan also causes problems for the rest of the community. Instead of trying to build links between isolated .pockets of the city (west of I-5, north of 214, east of 99E) the plan calls for roads to be linked to "ting" the UGB. Many communities try these "ring roads" to reduce traffic. Unfortunately, since developing open space is easier than redeveloping urban space, development races to the undeveloped areas along these roads, causing the same traffic issues the roads were built to reduce, and leaving poorly maintained or abandoned development behind. I don't know how many of you may remember Woodbum before the 214 cutoff was built. This cutoff was designed to avoid downtown, thereby speeding traffic to 99E. The same pattern evolved: development followed the new road, devastating downtown Woodbum. And the traffic which was supposed to flow quickly to 99E is blocked by traffic lights and at rush hour barely moves at all. And if you still don't believe that this will happen here, look at the Salem Parkway. It, too, was supposed to move traffic quickly from I-5 to downtown Salem. The area was zoned industrial. But a new city administration grew impatient and changed the zone to commericial when a 900,000 square foot mall, Keizer Station was proposed. Keizer Station construction has only been delayed by a land dispute. Development follows new roads and will again with the proposed transportation plan. Two "nit picks". The proposed industrial land east of I-5 does not have direct access to 1-5. The plan is to send industrial traffic south to Parr Road and over Butteville Road to 214 and then to I- 5. This is a trip of about 2.5 miles, which is the equivalent of being 2.5 miles from the freeway. It also requires considerable road building and intersection improvement, expensive propositions. The other is, I don't care that there are all those people in the metropolitan area just panting to buy a house on a golf course. They are not Woodbum's concern. The people already here are. Growth will happen in Woodburn no matter what. But if you plan to absorb over 20% of the job growth in Marion County, you are not only optimistic, you are aggressive in seekdng out growth. In my vision of Woodbum it does not serve anyone's interest have massive growth. A slower pace of growth would allow services to catch up, slow the need for massive infrasmacture spending, and better serve the needs of Woodbum's taxpayers. Small and medium-sized businesses in the community need the support of the City to survive and grow; transportation needs to provide ways for citizens to get around their city as well as for travelers to get through it; neighborhoods need sidewalks, street lights, and green spaces; downtown needs to be revived and serve as the core of the community. This is how I envision Woodburn, and where the plan 2 helps this vision I support it. But I don't think anyone gains by having WOodbum become more industrialized, polluted and sprawled. Thank you for reading this letter. Sincerely, Carla Mikkelson Exhibit "B"-~0 Written Testimony for Woodburn Planning Commission Hearing on the ~roposea Amendments to Woodbum's Comprehensive Plan; February 10, 2005 To the Woodbum Planning Commission: Thank you for your efforts to make Woodbum a community that works. Hopefully you will each take a Woodbum map with the present UGB and proposed UGB expansion lines clearly marked and drive these boundaries. ! think you will be amazed at how much under-developed land is within the present UGB and how much of the proposed expansion is onto prime farmland. If you drive around t. he already included industrial areas of Progress Way and North Front Street, as well as north of Parr Road, you will see acres and acres of land for sale. We need to support and sustain the small businesses that are already here and provide so many jobs. For instance, Woodbum 'Veterinary Clinic is an agriculture-related business that employs 14 peoplel Local farmers do major business with Lenon Implement and Woodbum Fertilizer, but I have known some who have begun to drive miles further to St. Paul and Donald to avoid Woodbum's traffic. I urge you not to think 20 years into the future, but 50, 75, 150 years. Our family farm just outside of Woodbum has already had five generations of our family living on it, in only 90 years. If we think short-term, our beautiful valley of mild climate, rich soil, and abundant resource land will be Paved over. This is some of the nation's most valuable soil, and the plants and crops that can be grown here include kiwis, wheat, vegetables, berries, nuts, grapes, and nursery stock. In my lifetime, on our farm, we have raised corn, peas, flax, wheat, clover, alfalfa, hazelnuts, beef and dairy cattle, grass seed, fruit, berries, hogs, sheep, trees and chickens. Perhaps you are looking at a grass seed field and thinking: ~Nhat good is that? Let's put in some houses or a commemial or industrial park." Because we now have a planet of 6 % billion people, 1-2 billion of whom are starving. Because the oil reserves are being used up, and we might not be able to afford to import strawberries and apples from thousands of miles away. Because agriculture is Marion County's #1 industry. Yes, Marion County leads the state in agricultural production and Woodbum is in the heart of Marion County's agricultural land. Our county is #1 in nursery and greenhouse, 2"~ in milk, and 3~in Christmas trees. You cannot stack farm fields on top of each other. But much of the housing and commercial needs for a small city such as Woodbum could easily go more vertical. It is much more efficient use of land and infrastructure to have apartments with several stories and housing over commercial, as seen in many downtowns. The happy result is that it also makes a community more walk-able, more livable, and engenders a community spirit. Woodbum is ignoring the enormous agricultural production surrounding it, as well as the fact that thousands of its residents work in the agriculture industry. REC'D ~r FEB 1 0 2005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Most of these people's occupations have not been counted, as indicated in Eco Northwest's Woodbum Economic Opportunities Analysis, page 2-3. Even if Woodbum's population increases at the rate some people predict, we can still accommodate it within our present urban growth boundary. We can save ourselves billions of dollars in taxes for new roads and infrastructure. There are presently hundreds of acres for industrial development within our current urban growth boundary. Many of these sites have been abandoned or not yet developed. They already have sewer and power and roads, it behooves us to take care of these areas first, and conserve our precious prime farmland. The City of Woodbum has just recently spent a couple million of the taxpayer's money for land for additional sewage treatment operation and roadway construction. This only for the land, not the millions to develop the infrastructure on the land. This is only the beginning of a huge drain on the taxpayer. We must take care to develop and re-develop the land that is already within the present urban growth boundary, already with its streets, power, and sewer facilities in place. Let's use common sense. Already, Woodbum has a huge economic base in place wibh agribusiness. The numbers are in for the year 2004, and they are up for the mid-valley by 5.6%. The gross value for all farm commodities in Marion County is $519 million. The farmers that are the backbone of this industry are not pushing for new roads and infrastructure. The ones who are really pushing for development and expansion are the consultants who are paid to say we need it. People such as Greg Winterowd, who was paid by Opus Northwest to try and get its land in an expanded UGB and also paid by the City of Woodbum. This is a huge conflict of interest that cannot be ignored. Please take a moment to reflect on the importance of our decisions today. Think of the eady settlers, my own relatives included, who had no idea what the value of one huge old growth tree would be today. Now think of one acre of land today. With our rich Willamette Valley soil, it can produce new crops of food every single year to feed many, many people for endless generations. How many industries can say that? Respectfully, Lolita Carl 13324 Cart Road N.E. Hubbard, Oregon 97032 ~ REC'D ~r FEB ! 0 Z005 WOODBURN COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT DEPT, .~ REC'D ~ FEB ! 0 2.005 WOOOBURN C0MMLIN[W OB, F..LOPM~m' O~FI'. O~ the 39 inc[Xviclual inclustries shown in Table 2-3, 22 of them added fewer than 50 jobs in the 1990.-1999 periocl. [nclustr[es that Inet jobs over this per[o~l include Forestry (-54), BuilclLug Materials stores (.16), and Heavy Construction (- 10). Table 2-2. Covered employment and payroll in the 97071 zip code are_.~a 't990 and t999 ~ :3~ ~18 $O.lg~.Oae 3S 77S t4 ?O St.~lO.8~4 11 17 ~ ~.724 4 ~ 0 O ~ o o ~ 117 ~.~?1 67 1~ SS.621.~ S 6~ S12.012,401 ? ~O S18,147~ 12 767 S1S~.~ 11 1.013 S25.~,873 3 79 32.115~ 3 1~ 3 lo ~,M7 s 23 10 G s~l 12 128 12 1~ ~.1K.413 11 1M 2 ~ ~7M S ~7 SS.~.~ 16 274 S3~ 17 ~ S27.M,473 6 16 S171,~4 11 61 S828.~ 8 16 $2~,~ 14 42 2S ~ $2,7~,~ 37 ~8 S6.3~71 la 47 SS~ 26 ~ SI~,MO 3 ~ S2St.~ 6 S8 12 St ~12~ 11 49 S979.S74 ~0 30 $S~OJ~ Se ee 4 ~ S270.76~ 8 eS S7~4.~ 2g 216 ~.~6.1~ 26 212 ~.~,740 S ~S S~.~1 g ~e 2 23 S~.~ 4 20 ~0 23 ~e,~ ~ 20 SM.~ 4 s Ms.l~ 6 3 S~.~ 4 47t $0~ S ~2 3 $~ce: Oe~gea Employmem OepaflmenL Ce~ ES-202 Emplwm~nl Oa~a provided Io ECONoflhwest. ............ n' summarized by ECONe~t; C_--,~md amolow~m does .MA flfl~ imploy~ U~ul th~ tao~e ur~efm~m~- Woodbum Economic Opportunities Analysis ECONo~'~west May 2001 Page 2-3 ou~mess ealtor:. Don Currie (503) 3994t677, dcurrle~St Strong agricultural showing may help stave off development son. There are many factors related to the agricultural econon~y that contribute to its impor- tance, including its size, that~ of an economic sector is the value of the product as it leaves the gate. We caU this the "Farm Gate" value for agricultur~ but it can be the gate of a manufacturing company as well Oregon State University Extension Service collects data from every county in Oregon each year and reports on the value of agricultural production. These numbers for 2004 have AgricultUre just been released and I'd like to take a look at the results for the Mid-Valley The best news is that the numbers are up 5.6 percent from 2003. The gross value for all commodities is $519 million for Marion Coun~ $124 miRi0n for Polk County and $242 million for Yam_hill County. The three- county total is $5~5 million Remember that these figures are at the farm gate, that is before any processing or value added takes place. We take acres times yield times price, or head of livestock times price. That gives us the gross value of production. e value added, which translates into a "mul_tiplier" and is higher for agriculture than for many other sectors of the economy. We use a multiplier of 2.O to 2.5 for agriculture to get the overall Lmpact on the local economy. Do the math and we're approaching $2 billior~ What is the commodity makeup here in the Mid-Vane~. It varies a little ~year andby countg btrt has remained at about this level for several years. Ranking the top commodities in our three counties shows nursery and greenhouse commodities first with $289 million, a whopping 32.6 percent of the total; grass and legume seeds next at $135 million; then dairy products at $86 million; vegetables at $36 million; and ~i4 mi{liOIL 'is ' another at~ibute that Looking during the past 15 years gives credence to this statement. The total value for the three counties was $511 million in 1990, $602 in 1995, $760 in 2000, and now ~ in 2004 for an average growth rate of 4.9 percent in this span. Since the value of agricul~ products aren't directly a product of inflation, these growth numbers don't need to be adjusted for inflation. The only time there was a decrease was between 2001 and 2002 where the value dipped 1.9 percent. This is a track record other sectors are hard pressed to follow. Finally, the real value of the agricultural economy is the fact that it is based on our natural resources: our world-class soils, available water and beneficial growing climate. A strong agriculture will help protect and conserve these resources and may be the best way to hold off the pressure to develop these lands for other uses. John Butt is staff chairman of the Oregon State University/Marion and Polk County Extension Service. He can be reached at John. burt(~oregonstate, edu or (503) 373-375Z of,,mterest cited WOODBURN -- A coo- mended ezpandJn~ ~ loeo Priend~ dOre~o~ Woo~mrn omcbds should view Wlntero~d's aid mmb~r ~ 10~ Frlm~ mt av~reolit,"hesaid, rol~ in ~ tl~ TheAm~rlc~ulu~m client's l~'lI one ~Iwot~nev~comlwo- side,"lleadded. Exhibit"B"- FEB 10 Re.: Testimony to be submitted to record for Woodburn Planning Commission Hearing on February 3, 2005 From: Theodora Tarbet 13305 Carl Road, Hubbard OR 97032; February 10, 2005 The Economic Opportunity Analysis prepared for Woodbum states that "covered employment does not include n-Lost farm employment, thus the table underestimates total employment.'~ Even so, the refereed table shows that employment in the a~wSculture, forestry, fishing sector grew by 39% in the Woodbtam zip cxxle be~cween 1990 and 1999.2 At 14% of Woodbum residents' total employment for 1997, farm, forest, and fishing employ the highest percentage of Woodbum residents. No other employment sector employs a higher percentage of Woodbum's residents.3 Thc Economic Opportunity Analysis, when considering Woodbum's comparative advantage, igc, ores Woodbum's location in thc middle of productive farmland and at the center of the County's #1 industry. It also fails to identify Woodbum's role as a commercial and cultmal center for the valley's Hispanic population as a possible advantage. Instead, it lists as an "employment goal" that Woodbum lose between 55 and 222 agriculture sector jobs, based on low to high employment growth forecasts for 2000 to 2020.4 Woodbum is surrounded by prime and high-value farmland, which is protected by state law. Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 197.298 governs UGB expansions. In particular, it dictates priority factors for bringing land into a UGB. The statute requires that land of loxver soil classification be included in a UGB before land of higher soil classificationfi If Woodburn can prove a factual basis for needing to include more land, it should expand further south onto the lands of lower soil quality. This statute also pdodtizes acknowledged exception areas adjacent to a UGB as land that should be included in thc UGB before lower-priority lands UNLESS the exception area cannot reasonably accommodate new development.6 The Northeast Rural Residential Exception Area (13 gross acres) is art example of land to which this statute applies. According to Winterbrook Planning's "Revised Woodbum UGB Ju~qification Report," "Thc Northeast Rural Residential Exceptions Area is fully developed for urban low density residential uses and has no remaining development capacity. Therefore, it is not necessar~ to bring it into the UGB since it cannot reasonably accommodate identified land needs. ° Wood~ourn Econornic Opportunities Analysis, Eco Northwest, May 2001, p. 2-3 Table 2-2 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, Eco Northwest, May 2001, p. 24 Table 2-3 Woodburn Economic Opportunities Analysis, Eco Northwest, May 2001, p. 3-10 Table 3-8 Technical Report 2.B, Winterbrook Planning, May 2003, p. 7 Table 5 Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197.298 2 Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197.298 I(b), 3(a) Revised Woodbtu~ UGB Justification Report, January 2005, p. 22 and p. 26 Oregon l~.evised Statutes Chapter 197.298 1Co), 3(a) Of the 39 individual industries shown in Table 2-3, 22 of them added fewer than 50 jobs in the 1990-1999 period. Industries that lost jobs over this period ir~lude Fores'~ (-54), Building Materials stores (-16), and Heavy Construction (-10). Total Covemd E.--- nl 14 70 $1,010,654 17 403 17 1)0 $844,724 4 36 ~,~ 0 0 S0 · 0 M ~ $4.89~ ~ ~ $t1~1~ 2O e~ $1~70~)43 2e 172 3 23 $481.210 3 13 $4435.973 ~ 603 $12.0~2,401 7 776 $1S,147.293 12 767 $1s. eeoj2e 11 1.013 7 32 $5(~.19~ 4 27 $620,528 3 79 $2.115.'~__ 3 129 $4,1~.9~0 12 64 $1.451.818 12 123 $3.851.292 3 1(3 $272..~u~--7 S 23 S607,,2r/ 10 tSO $'1..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'~.490 10 '1Od $4.04S.320 10 43 $001.321 '12 128 $3.44Z.?e8 12 1~0 S4.188,,413 11 144 S4.234.232 2 72 $a4Z,T88 5 3O7 $5.062.a22 16 274 S3.838.548 17 880 $27,848,473 22 195 S3.,445,54-3 19 274 S8.544.050 8 16 $171.914 17 61 $828.853 e 16 ~4e.322 "i4 42 $723.0ee 16 47 S522.572 20 84 4 73 S2.27g. gOO '14 ?S $2,472.r16 9 24 $462.612 6 24 SG73.383 11 50 $457,258 25 111 $1.610.090 126 5,97 $7460.169 167 906 $¶4.624.274 3 33 S261.334 6 56 S047.896 12 51 $(312.328 11 49 $979.574 10 38 $510.162 16 88 $1.146.371 9 56 $918,108 13 5~ S1.514.528 4 5 $82,7~ 7 7 $173,212 4 37 $279,751 8 65 $714o622 29 216 $2,965,182 26 212 $4,7T1o740 5 15 $293.641 9 16 $427.066 2 23 $232.O99 4 29 $477.842 13 24 $213~,74,8 14 185 $3.495,529 19 66 $554A1S 23 67 $1.190.291 10 23 $4t8,(X)3 11 20 $645,501 4 5 S41.107 S 3 10 2 $8U6~ S S $77.262 4 471 $e.a03,oo3 s 842 ECONorthwest May 2001 Page 2-3 Agrk:ullmal P~. Crops 97 14% $19,868 Agr~_,,.~urat Services 333 476% $12,058 Forestry .-54 ~ $14,139 General Build*rog Contractom 109 173% $29.108 Heavy Construcii~ -10 -43% ~35.g21 Spec~TradeCo~raca3m 81 ~ $20,392 I. und3er&Woodl~ 245 ~ $25,657 Indu~dal~&~ .'50 63% $32,416 Tra~ & Utllitle~ 10t 61% Truddng&VVmahous~ 5~ S2~ $31.S.~ C<)mm~k3~m 7 44% $30,317 WholeealeTrade le2 18~% $28,668 DuraldeGo(x:l~ 107 181% $29,815 Nond~~ 65 196% $26,928 Retail Trade 1,174 101% $23,602 General Merchand*~e 235 326% $16,491 Food Stores 606 221% $31,646 ~~e Oealem & Service 79 41% $31,548 Apparel 45 281% $13,588 Furniture 26 163% $17.216 Eating & Ddrddng 162 42% $11,594 Miscalaneous Retai 37 79~ $15,463 Finance. Insurance, & Real Estat~ 74 60% $26.848 Insurance AGents 0 0~ $28,058 Real Estate 61 122~ $17.208 Servlcee 308 62~ $18,261' Hotels & ~ ~ 25 76~ $11.171 ~ Sewices -2 -4% $19,991 8us~ne~Ser~ 49 126% $13.027 Auto ~& ~ 3 5% S27.365 Misceganeovs Repair 2 4~ $24.745 Amusement& Recreation 26 76% $10.994 Legal Servk,~ I 7% $26.692 Educa~ Sewices 6 26% $16.477 Soc~Ser~ce~ 16~ 671% Sle.695 Membersh~Or--vw~atkms 21 32~ S13.692 Enga~,~ng & Management -3 -13% $32~Z5 Pr~ate ~ -2 ~ $35.295 Nonclall~bk 3 160~ $16.460 Goverm~er~ 371 7~ $24,840 Page 2--4 ECOP~x'J'~est May 2001 CONTEXT FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH IN WOODBURN Economic development in Woodburn over the next twenty years will occur in the context of long-term national trends. '~he most hnportant of these trends includes: Continued westward migration of the U.S. popu~t~on, and the ine~easing role of amenities and other non-wage factors as determinants of the location de~sions of households and firms. Growth in Pacific Rim. trade. The growing importance of education as a determinant of wages and household ~me. The decline of employment in resource- intensive industries and the increase in employment in service-oriented and high-tech manufacturing sectors of the economy. The increaaing integration of non- metropolitan and metropolitan areas. Short-term national trends will -Iso affect economic growth in the region, but these trends are diffic~t to predict. At t~nes these trends may run counter to the longlterm trends described above. A recent example is the downturn in Asian economies, which caused Ore~on's exports to Pacific Rim countries to decline. This in turn led to layoffs in the Lumber 8; Wood Products and high-tech Manufacturing industries. The Asian economies, however, have substantially recovered, and Pacific Elm trade will continue to play a significant role in the national, state, and local economy. This report takes a long- run perspective on the Woodburn economy (as the Goal 9 requirements intend) and does not attempt to predict short-run business cycles. Economic development in WoedbuJn will also be affected by long-run economic trends in Oregon and the Willamette Valley. The Woodburn Ecor. xnic Opportunities Analysis ability to compete well in the job market. A much higher percentage of Hispanics are in Farm, Forestry, and Agricultural occupations than the statewide population as a whole. Moreover, far fewer Hispanics are in professional occupations. This suggests that Hispanics earn less than other groups. -~ccording to the Oregon Employment Department, "there is little doubt that in Oregon, income levels are lower than those for all Oregonians." Table 3-8 shows the percent of population by occupation. This table shows that a larger share of Woodburn residents are in the Fa-rm/Forest~ishing, Laborer & Handler, and Machine & Transportation Operators occupations, which are gener~l_~ low-s~ and loW, wage oco-~oations. Woodburn has a correspondingly iow share of population in Executive/Administrative/Managerial and Professional occupations, which are generally high-skill and high-wage occupations. T_~able 3-8. Percent of population by occupation, 1997 Execs, Admin, Mgm 12% 13% 12% 9% Professicmal 14% 15% 13% 9% Technical 3% 3% 3% 2% Sales 12% 12% 11% 9% Adrnin & Clerical 15% 16% 16% 11% HH Services ' 0% 0% 0% 0% Other Sewices 13% 12% 15% 14% Craft& Precision Prod. 11% 11% 11% 12% Machine & Trans Operators 11% 10% 10% 14% Laborer'& Handler The data in this section suggests that the labor force in Woodburn may lack the skills needed in industries with high-skill and Mgh-wage occupations. If Woodburn wants to attract high-skill and high-wage industries it will need to rely on workers who reside outside of Woodburn, attract higher-skilled residents, or improve the education and training of existing residents. _ HOUSING Housing is an important component of any economic development strategy. Goal 10 requires cities to develop strategies to provide ho,~sing affordable to households at all income levels. In addition to concerns about availability of housing affordable to lower income households, issues of providing higher quality housing for managers need to be considered in both housing and economic development strategies. Moreover, ORS 197.296 requires communities to inventor7 buildable residential lands and conduct a housing needs analysis. Woodburn completed Page 3-10 ECONorUl~est May 2001 Woodbu~-~Economic Opportun~ Analysis 14'oodburn Urban Growth Scenarios Technical Report #2.B May 5, 2003 Residential Land Needs Analysis Residential land needs used in thc Urban Grow't~ Scenarios are based on a very simple residential land need analysis methodology. Total residential traits were determined through the formula: (2020 Population Projection - Current (2000) Population') / Household Size Household unit type was estimated aa 66% low density, 33% high density. Winterbrook used base densitiea of 6 units per acre for Iow density, and 12 units per acre for medium der~ty residential land under these scenarios, ~xcept where otherwise indicated. Exception area density was projeOaxl at h~base density, d~e to the inefficiency of developing around existing dtrvelopmont. Exi~ng zoning and comprehensive plan cL.onsities were used to determine this base projected density under thes~ scenarios. W'mterbrook is completing a moro detailed Residential Land l~4eeds An__alysis based on the Hounding Model created by Richard BjeHmxL The basic assunxptions used in this iteration of the' scenarios will bo replaced by remdts from the detailed needs analysis, for the analysis of the preferred scenario. Commercial Land Needs Analysis Commercial land needs used in the Urban Growth Scenarios were based on the EcoNorthwest Population and Employment Forecast (April 2002) and Land Needs and Site Requirements for Woodburn Target Industries (EcoNorthwest. November 2002). ~. The highest growth sectors ar~ industrial, retail, and service. ~,.~.~.~..a~..~t a~l_.~_~ , Covered Total Sector 2000 2000 1,122 1,368 Industrial 960 1,171 Retail 2,670 3~.56 Service 1,207 1,472 Education 638 778 Government 225 275 Other 1,696 2,068 ,Total 8,518 10,388 5,981 7,140 source: ECONorthwest. Site Requirements for Wo~llxJm Target Indusbtes Table 3 2,430 2,685 2,957 1,164 1,476 1,810 1,311 1,508 1,718 532 624 723 215 252 288 551 736 934 8,375. EcoNorthwest allocated thc employment sectors to land use categories, which led to the forecasted employment growth in Table 6. Under all the gro,~ options, the greatest amount of employment growth is forecast for indu..~a-iai. WLr~-rbrook Planning Oregon Revised Statutes 197.298 PHoHty of land to be included within urban growth boundary. (1) In addition to any requirements ec,~lis-hed by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary ~xcept under th~ following priorities: (a) F'~t priority is land that is de~si~ urban r~'ve land under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan sereice district action plan. (b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to acco~te the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged compm~hensive plan as an exception area or nonresource lancL Second priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land is high-value farmland as described in O1~ 215.710. (¢) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this sub?~tion is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land need~ third priority is land designated as m~'nal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition). (d) ff land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or forestry, or both. (2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class, whichever is appropriate for the current use. (3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (¢) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands. [1995 e.547 s.5; 1999 e.59 s.56] Applicntion of highly cons~v~v¢ nssumptim~ for rn;--vt Commercial Innd (only 12 n~ commercial ncres are proposed within the 20-y~ar plmming period), nccomlmnied by a viruml prohibition on Commemial plan amer~ls near Inte~USe 5. Very strong measu~ to e~_.m~ fi.at indnstriallydesignnted land wig. in tbe Southwest Indttsuial Area (SVi~iR) i~ l~tained in agricuitm~ u~: tmtil targ~ employer riparian corridors. areas that alnmdy lmve bm~ and committed exceptious) adjacont to fl~ Woodtmm U~B are pmlmsed for inchuion within ~ ~ UO-'B. Woodbmu has five existing exceptions areas .adjacent to tbe 2004 UGB: · Buu~vme R~ad Rur~ Re~deafial Excep~on Area (155 gms~ acres) · No~-~ (Hwy99W)Rur~~~~~(13 gross ac~s) The need for low de~ity infill housing can be accom~ to a linfii~ extent within the Buttevill¢ Rond; Nozthea~ and Southeast Rmai Residential Excei~ons Area~ The Butl~lle Road and Southe~t Rmai Residential Ex~ Area have the capacity for limited infiH at an the capacity for 295 units andre ~ area has tbe capacity for45 ,mits TheN~ Rural Residential ~ Area i~ fully developed for ~ low dens~ lz~tde~tial uses and has no rem~ning development catzacity. Thc need for institutional growth cannot I~ met by thc Mac!_~ren School exceptions azca. This state facility already has tub~ services and is p~t available to meet long-term institutional needs in V~oodbumo The need for highway commercial uses can be met to a limited extent within the Southeast Commercial Exceptions A.rea. This area has a range of low-intensity development uses. We have assumed that ~ and other strip conunexcial propexties along Highway 99W will redevelop over time, thus reducing the need to desigrm~e new commercial areas on resource lancL Wintcrbr0ok Planning th_is Study Area provides Woc~.un a location to site upsca~ homes and meet housing needs for families at or above median income levels. ~ A natural drainagcway is located along the no~,~.ncm bmmdary of the golf com'se ami will no~ be impacu~ by tl~ ~ U~B expmsio~ Study Area2 feeds into Boom~ Fen*y la..~ _ ~ which lesds ~,~ctly to Woodlx~'s downtown ~ Study Area 2 caabe reliance on anmnmt~les for slmgping and set~ will be n~lnced in favor of bicycle and foot travel This will have positive eacrgy co~equenc~. Study A~ea $ Study Area 3 is locat~ on thc no~hea~ border of ~g ~g W~ ~. ~s si~ is ~ m ~g w~ by ~ ~ ~way ~ ~, ~by ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~ R~ ~ ~ ~ by ~way 211 ~ land proposed for inclusion within Study Area 3 is a ~ residential cxception area adjacent to the existing UGB that is ful__ly developed as a residential subdivision. This land is proimzed for inclusion to ensure compliance with Factor 6 ami ORS 197.298 ~quixements that exception Economic Consequences Study Area 3 would not meet ~ industrial siting needs, as it has fairly small parcel sizes and does not have good access to 1-5. '~ne economic value of indusuial expansion in this Study Area would be minimal, since the City would be obligated to provide services to an area that is unlikely to n-_~e.t the siting needs of targeted employers. Study Aren 3 is removed from residential neighbod~xxis within Woodbum, and is located nero' industrial nnd con-~ areas, nmi a correctional facility. Though Study Area 3 can be provided efficiently with public services, its location makes it relativcly lcs~ desirable for residential expansion. However, the developed nxral residential exception area in Study Area 3 is proposed for inclusion within the UGB to ensure ORS 197.298 priorities are met. 26 Winterbrook Planning CO R E PL S 0 A N UNITY URCE H I N G M EMO ANDCIM To: From: Date: Re: Exhibit "C" Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Greg Winterowd; Jesse Winterowd February 16, 2005 Response to Written Comments to Woodburn Planning Commission This Memorandum responds to issues raised at the February 3, 2005 public hearing before the Woodbum Planning Commission regarding the 2005 legislative plan and code amendment package. TABLE OF CONTENTS Woodbum School District / Hallmark Properties ......................................................................... 1 Metropolitan Service District ......................................................................................................... 2 1000 Friends of Oregon ................................................................................................................. 3 Woodbum Friends and Neighbors (FAN) .................................................................................. 10 Summary of Expansion Areas ..................................................................................................... 14 Woodburn School District / Hallmark Properties In his February 7, 2005 letter, David J. Christoff (writing on behalf of the District) recorranends that the UGB be expanded to include the District's 19-acre site on E. Lincoln Street (adjacent to the UGB in Study Area 4). To support his recommendation, Mr. Christoff states that the District will need 170 additional acres to meet the need for a new high school, a new middle school and two new elementary schools by the Year 2023. Because the District must purchase land well in advance of school construction, this land is needed by the Year 2020. In our original 2003 analysis, Winterbrook determined that the District had 115 acres of school land. We projected future school land needs based on the existing ratio of developed school land to population. At five acres per 1,000 population, this yielded 175 total school acres and a shortfall of 60 acres. In August of 2004, the District identified a need for 18-48 acres more than we had estimated in 2003 (i.e., 78-108 additional acres, or 193-223 total acres). As a result of the District's August 2004 letter, we updated the UGB Justification Report and projected a need for 223 total school acres. We also updated the buildable lands inventory to account for several minor discrepancies, and because we had miscalculated the buildable land WinterDroo~ Planning 510 SW Bour~;h Ave. Suite 11 O0 · Portlanc~, Orc:~on ~?-ZOq--~.~O~ ~o5.~z7.~ · 505. sz7.+55o (~x) src~winec rb r~lan ning.com area associated with the golf course in Study Area 2 (North Woodburn). This increase in buildable golf course land compensated for the increased District land needs projection. Because schools typically are sited on residential land, the need for schools is met by land planned for residential use. The Revised UGB Justification Report shows that the proposed 2005 UGB includes just enough residential land to accommodate residential, park, school and religious institutional needs. Therefore, the District and the City have two options: Remove approximately 19 residential acres from another UGB expansion area. This option is problematical, because the proposed UGB was carefully drawn to provide buffers (roads, streams corridors, existing exceptions areas) from adjoining agricultural land. For example, if we were to remove land in the Crosby Road area (North Woodbum or Study Area 2), urban land would dir~tly abut agricultural land, which would not happen if the northem UGB line were Crosby Road. Determine whether a special need exists for a school site east of Highway 99E. ORS 197.298(3)(a) allows farm land to be included within a UGB to meet a special need. It is our understanding that the District has an immediate need for a school site of approximately 20 buildable acres east of Highway 99E to serve a growing student population in this area. Locating a school east of Highway 99E will also reduce the need for students to cross this busy highway, and thus will improve public safety. We have reviewed residentially-designated sites east of Highway 99E in Woodbum. There are none over 10 acres. Therefore, the District may want to present a more detailed explanation of the siting criteria it used to select the 19-acre site, and why expansion of the UGB is necessary to meet a special school need. Recommendation The District chose a school site adjacent to the UGB with available urban services that meets an immediate need for the rapidly-growing student population. Inclusion of the school site may be justifiable under two scenarios: (1) remove residential land from another expansion area, or (b) provide evidence of a special need that cannot be met on land within the existing or proposed UGB. Metropolitan Service District In his February 3, 2005 letter, Metro Council President David Bragdon expressed gratitude to City and Marion County officials for meeting with Metro officials last Spring to discuss potential impacts from Metro's proposed UGB expansion south of Wilsonville. Both Marion County and Woodburn officials wrote to Metro requesting that the regional UGB not be expanded south of Wilsonville, in part because Woodbum itself was in the process of expanding its UGB to provide industrial land based on its 2001 EOA. Mr. Bragdon also expressed concern regarding the magnitude of the UGB expansion contemplated by the City of Woodbum. Noting that Metro's UGB expansion decision was remanded by LCDC in December of 2004, Mr. Bragdon extended an invitation to meet with Metro and State officials Winterbrook Planning Page 2 regarding external impacts - notably on Interstate 5 - from potential UGB expansion in both jurisdictions. Woodbum's UGB expansion proposal has been coordinately closely with Marion County, ODOT and DLCD, and had been publicly presented at the joint Planning Commission - City Council work session in November of 2003. This expansion was based on the Economic Opportunities Analysis developed by ECONorthwest and accepted by the Woodbum City Council in 2001. Recommendation We recorrwnend that Woodbum and Marion County officials accept Mr. Bragdon's invitation to meet with Metro, Marion County, ODOT and DLCD officials to discuss potential I-5 and related impacts prior to the Woodbum City Council public hearing on this matter. 1000 Friends of Oregon In his February 10, 2005 letter, Mr. Sid Friedman of 1000 Friends of Oregon submitted an eight-page letter with several issues. Each issue is addressed in the order presented. In his Introduction (Section 1), Mr. Friedman suggests that rather than follow the direction outlined in the Council-approved Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic Development Strategy~, that the Planning Commission focus on an alternative economic strategy that does not rely on the comparative advantages offered by access to Interstate 5, or commitment of high quality agricultural land to meet long-term employment needs. His proposed economic strategy relies primarily on office development near Downtown and along Highway 99W, redevelopment of existing industrial sites, and the existing agricultural economy. In Section II, entitled "Winterbrook's Industrial Land and Employment Projections," Mr. Friedman objects to "Winterbrook's optimistic forecast of 8,373 new jobs by 2020." Mr. Friedman makes a number of selective comparisons with other jurisdictions and concludes that the employment projection is "urLrealistic." In subsequent paragraphs, Mr. Friedman quotes from a transportation alternatives study2 regarding employee-per-acre ratios, and concludes that Woodbum has too much industrial land. Pages 2-3 of the 1000 Friends' letter offer an alternative economic development strategy to the one found approved by the Woodburn City COuncil (i.e., the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and Economic Development Strategy (F~S) prepared by ECONorthwest in ~ These documents are included in the Planning Commission's acket of materials ECONorthwest in 2001-02. p and were prepared by The Remse. d UGB Justification Report at page 20 makes it clear that this background study does not provide justification for the UGB expansion, but was used early in the process to analyze transportation impacts from various land use scenarios. Winterbrook Planning Page 3 201'31). Rather than follow the direction provided in the ECONorthwest documents approved by the City Council, 1000 Friends wants the City to concentrate on the growth of existing firms rather than also trying to attract new finns to the area, especially those finns that reqtfire large sites. We view this as a policy issue that has already be~n decided by the City Council, based on the expert advice provided by ECONorthwest. ECONorthwest is a resp~mted firm in this field and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). The Wo~dbum EOA and EDS provide a solid factual base for determining the types of industries that Woodburn can reasonably attract in the future. ECONorthwest's work constitutes the basis for Winterbrook's proposed allocations of industrial land. For all these reasons, we recommend that the Planning Commission continue to rely on ECONorthwest's analysis and recommendations. The Woodburn City Council, not Winterbrook, has decided to pursue a strong economic growth strategy. Such an approach is encouraged by ORS 197.212 and the Goal 9 Rule (OAR 660, Division 009). These documents require cities "to identify the types of sites that are likely to be needed by industrial and commercial uses which might expand or locate in the planning area." Woodbum's 2001 EOA did this. The EOA makes it clear that Woodbum lacks the types of sites necessapj to attract basic employment to Woodbum, and that provision of suitable sites for such employment likely will lead to increased employment and growth in family income. Woodbum's EDS makes a strong commitment to bringing targeted industries to the community. ORS 197.712(2)(c) states that "Comprehensive plans and land use regulations shall provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations and service levels for industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies." This is exactly what the plan proposed by Winterbrook is intended to do. Mr. Friedman makes selective comparisons with other jurisdictions. We believe that Wilsonville compares more favorably to Woodbum than do Medford, McMinnville or Salem/Keizer. Woodbum and Wilsonville are mid-sized com~nunities with direct 1-5 access. Wilsonville is located 18 miles south of Portland; Woodbum is located 19 miles north of Salem and 14 miles south of Wilsonville. When the Columbia Regional Association of Govemments (the predecessor to Metro) established the regional UGB in 1977, Wilsonville had a great deal of vacant industrial and commercial land along I-5, but relatively little population or employment. In 1980, Wilsonville had a population of 2,920 and relatively few jobs. Wilsonville was surrounded by agricultural land and, before the construction of 1-5, relied heavily on the agricultural economy. As of September 1999, Wilsonville had over 800 acres of developed industrial land and 200 acres of vacant industrial land. By 2003, according to the most recent PSU population estimate, Wilsonville had 15,880 residents - more than a five-fold increase from 1980. Moreover, according to Department of Revenue data, Wilsonville had 18,118 covered employees. Thus, Wilsonville had 1.14 employees for every City resident. Winterbrook Planning Page 4 It is not unreasonable to believe that Woodbum could achieve a similar level of growth, given its location along 1-5 and the availability of flat, well-service industrial sites that are protected from commercial and residential development. Woodburn's high employment projection for 2020 is 18,762 employees, with a projected population of 34,919. If both projections are realized, Woodbum would have a ratio of 0.54 employees per City resident - which is less than half of Wilsonville's current ratio From the above comparison, it is clear that the size of a community has little to do with its employment or population growth potential. Woodbum's EOA instructs tlne City to capitalize on its I-5 location and the availability of large tracts flat, serviceable industrial land. Unlike Wilsonville in the 1980s and 90s, Woodbum has taken aggressive steps to preserve capacity at its only interchange? Woodbum also proposes strong policies to reserve its industrial land supply exclusively for basic employment uses. Thus, if ECONorthwest and Winterbrook have over-estimated potential basic employment opportunities, unused industrial land will be retained in large parcels exclusively for agricultural use. Finally, as noted in the Woodbum Housing bleeds Analysis (Winterbrook 2003), Wilsonville families have much higher incomes that in Woodbum. In 2000, the median family income in Wilsonville was $65,172. Unfortunately, in Woodbum the median family income was only $36,730 - 46% lower than in Wilsonville. The City Council was aware of these disparities and opportunities, and the high number of Woodbum residents that commute to Portland or Salem for employment, when it adopted the strong economic development policies embodied in the Woodbum EOA and EDS. The approach recommended by Mr. Friedman would do little to raise family incomes in Woodbum, or to achieve the jobs-housing balance sought by the City. The final point made by Mr. Friedman (Section RI, page 4) in bold is that the proposed UGB expansion includes almost 200 more net buildable acres than did the "large UGB expansion scenario" found in an earlier transportation alternatives study. This transportation alternatives study was used early in the process and does not serve as the basis for the proposed UGB expansion. There are several reasons for the 200-acre difference: 1. First, the 2002 transportation study did not include land for parka, schools or religious institutions (210 acres); 2. Second, the 2002 study was based on developed employee-per-acre estimates, and did not attempt to match the siting requirements of targeted industries to actual sites on the ground, as required by Goal 9 and ORS 197.712; and 3. Third, these estimates did not account for land needed for the South Arterial. 3 A major reason why Metro decided not to expand the UGB east of Wilsonville to accommodate industrial land needs was the lack of road capacity. Woodbum has coordinated closely with ODOT in proposing to adopt interchange capacity management standards to ensure that cormnercial traffic does not use up the limited capacity of the I-5 ! Highway 214 interchange. Although Woodburn is often criticized for approving an outlet mall west of 1-5, this mall pales in comparison with commercial development served by t-5 in Wilsonville. Winterbrook Planning Page 5 It is quite possible that all reserved industrial sites will not fully develop over the next 15 years, because Woodbum may not be successful in attracting targeted industries to all the sites that have been reserved - exclusively - for targeted employers. In addition, it is not unusual for firms to purchase large tracts of land to preserve future growth options, which results (in the short term) in relatively low employee-to-acre milos. The EOA calls for a choice among industrial sites that meet the siting requirements of targeted industries. If such sites are not provided, then Woodbum cannot achieve its economic development objectives. If such sites axe provided but not used for employment, then those sites that are not used must be retained in agricultural use. In Section 1II, Mr. Friedman opines that the UGB should not include a 100-acre site for a large industrial user, such as a silicon chip manufacturing plant. Noting that the silicon chip manufacturing industr3' has closed plants since 2000, he concludes that Woodbum should not reserve a site for such a large user. In response, we note that this is a long-range plan and that the silicon chip industry may recover during this period. We also note that there may be other emerging industries that require such a large site. A single 100-acre site is reserved for a single user and would be served by the Southern Arterial - east of 1-5. If the site is not needed for such a user, then except for land needed for the South Arterial, it will remain in agricultural production. In Section IV, Mr. Friedman calculates that Woodburn's industrial land needs can be met on 161-195 acres of land, most of which (127 acres) is already within the UGB. What Mr. Friedman fails to recognize is that most of this land does not meet the site size requirements or locational requirements specified by ECONorthwest. Moreover, the 127 acres of industrial land is located along Highway 99E, and therefore does not have direct access to I-5. In fact, Mr. Friedman' s suggestion would exacerbate transportation congestion at the 1-5 interchange upon which Woodbum's economic future depends. Mr. Friedman's "plan" would require truck traffic to use the east Highway 214 access to I-5, which is more congested than the west access. Mr. Friedman's "plan" would route such traffic through the center of town - rather than creating alternative routes to the west I-5 access via Butteville Road, Crosby Road and the proposed South Arterial. Subsection IV.A simply repeats earlier arguments. In Subsection IV.B, Mr. Friedman continues in his rnisperception that Woodbum has projected industrial land need based on employees-per-acre. As noted above, this is inaccurate. Following ORS 197.712 and the Goal 9 Rule, ECONorthwest determined the size arid locational requirements of targeted industries and Winterbrook's proposed UGB expansion includes sites that meet these criteria. Also in Subsection IV.A, Mr. Friedman argues that Woodbum "used up" some of its projected employment over the period from 2000-2002. This corrLment is both irrelevant and inaccurate. Woodburn has not experienced significant employment growth from 2000-2002 for two basic reasons: first, Oregon was in a recession, and second, Woodbum has not had suitable industrial sites near I-5. The lack of industrial development of industrial sites along Winterbrook Planning Page 6 Highway 99E underscores the conclusion of the EOA that without large sites near 1-5, Woodbum is unlikely to reach its employment and family income goals. In Subsection [Il.C, Mr. Friedman repeats the argument that employment growth occurs on existing employment land "in the real world." In Woodbum's "real world," the reverse has often been the case. Many commercial and industrial buildings are boarded up. Food processing plants have closed their doom, and reopened ,,,,,hen automation reduces production costs as well as the number of employees at the plant. Moreover, Mr. Friedman is simply incorrect when he states that Winterbrook did not consider underdeveloped portions of existing industrial sites. As noted in the Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook 2004), 114 acres of Woodbum's employment land (62 industrial acres and 52 commercial acres) are partially developed. Winterbrook counted this acreage as buildable and available for intensification. Winterbrook also assumed redevelopment of 12 industrial acres based on low improvement to land value ratios. In any case, Mr. Friedman's basic argument is based on the erroneous assumption tha indust_rial !and needs are based on projected employee-to-acre ratios, which they are not. In Section V, Mr. Friedman recognizes that there are traffic problems associated with the 1-5 / Highway 214 interchange, and reaches the erroneous conclusion that "these problems will only be exacerbated by expansion west of the freeway." As noted in Mr. Terry Cole's testimony (ODOT) and in the proposed TSP, industrial development west of 1-5 which will help pay for planned road improvements, will have the effect of reducing congestion at this interchange. Next, Mr. Friedman introduces us to ORS 197.298 priorities for inclusion of land within UGBs. He then proceeds to misquote the statute. ORS 197.298 is clear in stating that first priority for inclusion is given to "urban reser~,e" land (Woodbum has not such land); and that second priority is given to exceptions areas, such as Butteville Road. Subsection (3) of the statute states that lower priority land "may" be included before high priority lands if "specific types of identified needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands." Mr. Friedman goes on to argue - in contradiction to previous positions taken by 1000 Friends in McMinnville and the Portland region - that exceptions areas outside of Woodbum should be exempt from this statute. For example, Mr. Friedman states that: "The Butteville Road Rural Residential area west of Butteville Road has an average parcel size of less than 2 acres. Because it is so heavily parcelized, further development beyond limited low-density residential development is unlikely. Woodbum has a surplus of low density residential land for housing; Winterbrook allocates this surplus to schools, parks and churches. These uses require parcels substantially larger than those found in the Butteville Road area. Therefore, this exception area cannot reasonably accommodate the identified land needs." Winterbrook Planning Page 7 Contrast this statement with 1000 Friends' recent objections to McMinnville's decision not to include several exceptions areas from the existing McMinnville UGB. We have included 1000 Friends April 8, 2004 objection letter as part of the record. Countering the McMmnville's finding that an exceptions area lying across the Yamhill River cannot reasonably meet the City's need for transit-oriented development, 1000 Friends argues that: 'This resFmnse misconsLmes the statutory requirement in ORS 197.298. The question is not whether or not this exception area can reasonably accommodate pedestrian and transit oriented development in a neighborhood activity center. The area can only be excluded if it cannot reasonably accommodate some portion of the identified need for housing, employment, and public and semi-public uses.''4 First, there is no "surplus" of residential land, because residentially-designated land is needed for parks, schools and religious institutions. Second, the Butteville Road exception area can reasonably accommodate a portion of identified needs for low density residential development. Third, Vwo parcels in the Butteville Road area have more than five buildable acres, and therefore could meet the needs of a small religious institution or neighborhood park. In conclusion, following Mr. Friedman's advice on this issue would violate ORS 197.298 priorities for inclusion of land within the UGB. Mr. Friedman also argues that the Northeast Rural Residential exceptions area served by Carl Road should not be included within the UGB has no remaining development capacity. He also argues that inclusion of the existing, developed manufactured dwelling park within the UGB "would be a significant unbuffered intrusion into surrounding agricultural land." The reason for including the manufactured dwelling park within the UGB is to allow for the possibility that urban services may eventually be required to serve the park or to facilitate redevelopment of the site for another urban use. The park residents benefit from proximity to the City and do no pay for urban services. Should the park's sewer or water systems fail in the future, it is likely that the owner would come to the City and request urban services. Under Goal 11, this can only happen as a result of a health hazard annexation or a UGB amendment. Thus, Winterbrook continues to recommend inclusion of the Northeast Rural Residential exceptions areas to meet both (a) a livability need for existing and future residents of the park, and (b) an urban efficiency need, to ensure efficient provision of urban services should such be required in the future. The notion that inclusion of a developed manufactured dwelling park into the UGB would be a "significant unbuffered intrusion into surrounding agricultural land" is unfounded. The park and its "unbuffered impacts" already exist and would not be exacerbated by having urban services. 4 1000 Friends cites Residents ofRosenwnt v. Metro 173 Or App 321, fn. 6 (2001): "... we agree with LUBA that the 'reasonably accommodate' inquiry in criterion ii is whether the areas that do not require a new exception can accommodate the use at all, not whether they can do so as efficiently or beneficially as the proposed exception area might." Winterbrook Planning Page 8 In conclusion, Winterbrook continues to recorranend that all exceptions areas except McLaren School be included within the UGB, consistent with ORS 197.298 priorities. McLaren School is developed and publicly-owned, and would not rneet any identified City growth need and is unlikely to benefit from extension of urban services. Section VI of Mr. Friedman's letter summa~hzes i000 Friends' objections. The first four of these recommendations are addressed and require no further comment. The fifth recommendation is not supported by the text of the letter, but raises a new issue that desep~es further discussion: "Exclude prime farmland west of the freeway and north of the existing UGB from the proposed expansion. Instead, any expansion onto resource land should be southward onto the predominantly non-prime soils south of Parr Road between Boones Ferry Road and 1-5." Exclusion of prime farm land west of the 1-5, combined with inclusion of land south of Parr Road, would be impractical and would not meet Woodbum's economic development or transportation system needs. This is true for a number of reasons discussed in the Revised UGB Justification Report and in Planning Commission work sessions held this fall: The success of the economic development program depends on the availability of large, flat and serviceable industrial sites proximate to a functioning 1-5 Interchange. In order to relieve traffic congestion at the eastern access to Highway 214 interchange, traffic must be routed via an improved Butteville Road to the westem 1-5 interchange access. Interchange improvements must also be made and paid for, in significant part by industrial land developers. In order for Butteville Road to be improved as an urban arterial street, land to the east of Butteville Road (west of 1-5) must be developed. The 100-acre Opus Northwest site is on the Govemor's Industrial Task Force list of prime industrial sites in Oregon. Leaving this site out of the UGB would make it impractical to fund Butteville Road improvements. As 1000 Friends recommends, the proposed plan does include land south of Parr Road, in Study Area 7, where there is a greater concentration of Class llI soils than any of the other UGB expansion alternatives,s Inclusion of this area also provides for the Southern Arterial connection to Highway 99E. This arterial street will serve as the buffer from agricultural land further to the south. 5 Study ,area 2 (North Woodbum) also includes a large Class III soils area west of I-5 and south of Crosby Road, which is proposed for inclusion within the UGB. Other study areas are comprise primarily of Class II soils, except in along unbuildable riparian corridors, where Class IV soils are present. Winterbrook Planning Page 9 The Marion County Comprehensive Plan recognizes Woodburn as the growth center of north Marion County.6 A goal of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan is to "Maintain physical separation of communities by lirniting urbanization of farm and forest lands between cities." The Gervais UGB is located approximately one mile from the proposed southern UGB. If Woodbum were to extend further to the south, towards Gervais, it would be more difficult to maintain a "physical separation" between the two cities. Recommendation We do not recommend any additional changes as a result of Mr. Friedman's February 7, 2005 letter. However, we note that a number of changes were made to the Revised UGB Justification Report in response to an earlier letter from Mr. Friedman to the City of Woodbum. Woodburn Friends and Neighbors (FAN) The Planning Commission received a number of written comments from members of FAN or Friends of Marion County. We summarize each of the comments below: Toni Spencer, who lives on a small farm outside of Woodbum, comments on the importance of the agricultural economy in Marion County, and the need to preserve farm land. She points out that there are a number of vacant properties and buildings along Highway 99E. Bob Lindsey, the previous Mayor of Salem, opines that "the consultant's proposal" is not within the City's economic capacity. The City should focus inward to avoid "pain and misery." Kay Peterson, who lives east of Woodbum, its opposed to the UGB expansion because of "the traffic mess on Highway 214 and the freeway interchange." "Sprawling" to the west side of the freeway will make matters worse. It's "just flat wrong to take some of the best farmland in the country out of production forever in order to attempt to attract some high tech industry to Woodburn." The security of our country depends on a strong economy, which depends on agriculture. Mary Jean Fischer lives at 160 Heritage Court in Woodbum. She feels that the City should use existing space before going outside the current boundary. The land west of the freeway is some of the best land around. Once it is paved over, it is lost forever. We don't want another Hillsboro or Gresham. We don't want sorne Wal-Mart sitting empty after the city invests in infrastructure. Highway 214 is a nightmare. According to the Growth Management of the Marion County Comprehensive Plan: 'The north County' area contains the cities of Aurora, Donald, Gervais, Hubbard, St. Paul, and Woodbum, with Woodbum being the largest community and projected to accommodate the most growth in this area of the county. The north County area is also affected by growth and development in adjoining Clackamas County which forms the southern boundary of the Portland metropolitan region." Winterbrook Planning Page 10 Carla Mikkelson, a Marion County Planning Commissioner, spoke as an individual and lives on a farm outside of Woodburn. Woodbum is a fractured community and has suffered from a lack of vision. She believes the plan supports the community well with respect to wetland aaqd stream corridor preservation, parks, downtown redevelopment, improved public transit, bike/ped improvements, and economic development. However, the aggressive economic expansion proposed in this plan will burden taxpayers. 'q~e industries Woodburn will try to attract are not in Woodbum's best interest." The plan errs in proposing a ting road system, which will attract development. "The proposed industrial land east of I-5 does not have direct access to I-5. It is 2.5 miles to the freeway." She also expressed concern about people outside the community wanting to buy a house on a golf course. She opposes a plan that would absorb 20% of the job growth in Marion County. Lolita Carl, who lives on Carl Road NE, believes that too much farm land is being included in the UGB when there is plenty of empty space in the City. We should support small businesses. "Even if Woodbum's population increases at the rate some people predict, we can still accommodate it within our present urban growth boundary." Theodora Tarbet, who also lives on Carl Road, points out a quote from the EOA stating that "covered employment does not include most fasm employment, thus the table underestimates total employment." Even so, 14% of Woodbum residents are employed in farm, forest and fishing industries. The EOA ignores Woodburn's comparative advantage in agriculture. Woodbum should expand further south on lower value agriculture land, as required by ORS 197.298. Because the Northeast Rural Residential exceptions area is fully developed and cannot reasonably meet an identified need, it should not be brought into the UGB. Ms. Tarbet's letter includes 8 footnotes and includes copies of pages from the EOA. Each of these letters reiterate public testimony provided at the Febmapy 3, 2005 Planning Commission public hearing. Each argues for a smaller UGB that preserves agricultural land. Most argue for a greater focus on existing small businesses and support for Marion County's agricultural economy, which boast the highest gross sales of any county in Oregon. Most cite traffic problems at the Highway 214 ! I-5 Interchange. Several argue that taxes will increase to pay for infrastructure. All of the issues related to Statewide Planning Goal and ORS 197.298 compliance were addressed in Mr. Friedman's letter and were responded to above. In essence, each of the FAN members is asking for a different Economic Opportunities Analysis and Economic Development Strategy than approved by the City Council in 2002. While these documents strongly support the growth of existing businesses, they also call attention to Woodbum's strongest comparative advantage - its I-5 location a_nd the availability of suitable (flat and serviceable) industrial sims near the I-5 interchange. Winterbrook Planning Page 11 In our view, supporting industrial development near 1-5 complements - rather than detracts from - downtown commercial and office development. The City Council's intent is to require industrial developers to pay their fair share of infrastructure improvements necessar-y to serve the Southwest Industrial Reserve (SWIR). Thus, the dire predictions of Mayor Bob Lindsey are unlikely to occur. By increasing family wages and strengthening the City's tax base, Woodburn residents will spend more money on local retail sales and services, and the City wilt be able to invest more heavily in Downtown Woodbum and redevelopment along Highway 99E. For reasons stated above, and made clear in the 2005 Trar~sportation System Plan, providing altemative east-west and north-south routes through Woodbum will reduce traffic congestion generally, and will allow traffic to reach the 1-5 interchange from the west, thus avoiding the bottleneck to the east. We appreciate Ms. Mikakelson's comments regarding some of the beneficial aspects of the proposed plan. She is correct in noting that industrial sites located to the east of 1-5, along Parr Road and the proposed South Arterial, require 2.5 miles of street improvements to reach the farthest parcel. These street improvements will be paid for by land developers and transportation impacts fees. Had we based our proposed UGB expansion solely on industrial transportation access - and not balanced access considerations against the preservation of Class I farm soils - we would have recommended "double-loading" Butteville Road to reduce travel distance to the freeway interchange. However, because there are large inclusions of Class I soils on the west side of Butteville Road, we recommended including Class II and m soils in the Parr Road area instead.7 FAN is correct that this proposal, regrettably, commits some 430 acres of highly productive land to eventual industrial development. The City Council is extremely appreciative of the role agricultural plays in both the local and regional economy. The Council explicitly recognized the trade-off between agricultural land preservation and the need to provide for basic employment when it approved the EOA and EDS in 2002. The proposed plan before 7 When Metro conducted its industrial siting analysis last year, it applied three basic criteria to identify blocks of industrial land: · access to transportation facilities (within two miles of a major interchange) · proximity to other industrial uses (within one mile) · less than ten percent slope In 2003, Winterbrook applied similar criteria for Southwest Industrial Reserve designation as follows: · blocks of land contiguous to or within the existing UGB · direct access to the 1-5 / Highway 219 interchange via an existing or planned arterial street without the need to drive through urban residential neighborhoods, or use of Highway 214 east of the interchange to access I-5 · within a two mile radius of the 1-5 interchange · adjacent to existing industrial development · five or less percent slope · consistent with site size requirements outlined by ECONorthwest (October 2003 memorandum entitled "Site Requirements of Targeted Industries" and summarized on Table 7 of the Revised UGB Justification Report) · Avoid Class I agricultural soils · If base siting requirements (needs) are met, go first to Class m soils and then to Class II soils Winterbrook Planning Page 12 the Planning Commission is intended to carry out the Council's balanced economic directive to provide suitable industrial sites for targeted industries while minimizing impacts on agricultural land. In closing, we would like to build upon the recurrent observation made by FA2q members and 1000 Friends of Oregon: Marion County has led all other Oregon counties in gross farm and ranch sales for many years. Table 1 below summarizes gross sales for the top four Oregon counties in 2003 arid 2005. Table I County Gross Farm and Ranch Sales (2003 - 2005) County 2003 Sales 2005 Sales I Percent Increase Marion County $486 million $518 million 7% Clackamas County $341 million $354 million 4% Washington County $222 million t $252 million 14% Yamhill County $225 mill!o..n. $242 million 8% ......... Source: Oregon Department of Agriculture Website. Each of the top four counties increased agricultural sales from 2003 to 2005. Diversity in agricultural products accounts for much of this increase. However, the shift in agricultural products appears to be related to urban development, since Marion, Clackamas, Washington and Yamhill Counties have all experienced high growth rates over the last 20 years. For example, nursery and wine grape sales typically are spurred by the landscaping needs and consumption habits of nearby urban communities. However, there does not appear to be a correlation between growth in the agricultural economy and urban growth boundary expansions. Both Clackamas and Washington Counties have "lost" agricultural land to UGB expansions in the last 10 years. To our knowledge, Marion County and Yamhill County have not experienced major UGB expansion during this period. Washington County, which has had several UGB expansions, showed the greatest percentage increase in farm and ranch sales from 2003 - 2005. The point is that expansion of Woodbum' s UGB by approximately 430 acres to meet its industrial land siting needs will not necessarily undermine Marion County's agricultural economy - either in the short- or long-term. In the short-term, this "industrial" land will continue to be farmed. Incrementally, this land will convert from agricultural to industrial production, with corresponding increases in family wages and local property taxes. In the long-term, the local market for products such as nursery stock and wine grape sales will increase, which may further change the nature of agricultural production in Marion County. Thus, it is far from clear that loss of farm land to urban development inevitably damages the regional agricultural economy. By planning for higher urban residential densities than most other Willamette Valley communities and increasing family incomes, Woodbum is rninimizing the loss of agricultural land while helping to create local markets for agricultural products. Winterbrook Planning Page 13 Recommendation We do not recommend any additional changes as a result of FAN members' testimony. For the most part, their testimony reiterated issues raised in Mr. Friedman's February 10, 2005 letter. Summary of Expansion Areas Last week Planning Director Jim Mulder rexluested a summ~ of proposed plan designations within the proposed UGB expansion area. The UGB Justification Report, while focusing on detailed descriptions of need and comparisons of need to supply, did not include summaries of the expansion area by study area or by plan designation. Tables 2 and 3 below provide this information. Table 2 shows the total expansion acreage by study area. These acres are "gross" acres, indicating that they do not account for natural areas or right-of-way deductions. There are a total of 1,020 gross acres included in the proposed UGB expansion areas. Table 2: Expansion Acres by Study Area I 116 2 262 3 13 4 0 5 0 6 31 7 397 8 2O0 Total 1,020 Table 3 shows expansion acreages by proposed plan designation. Table 3 also shows "Net Buildable" acres for each designation, indicating available developable area after reductions for natural areas and rights-of-way. The Preferred Scenario proposes 845 net buildable acres for inclusion into the Woodbum UGB. Table 3: Expansion Acres by Plan Single Family,, 207 158 Exception Single Family 116 107 Nodal Single Family 54 43 Medium Density Residential 11 10 Nodal Medium Density Residential 51 42 Commercial (Including Exception Areas) 50 32 Southwest Industrial Reserve 433 376 Public ! Open Space 97 77 totals 1,020 845 Winterbrook Planning Page 14 Attached: 1000 Friends of Oregon Letter to Department of Land Conservation and Development Regarding McMinnville Periodic Review Task 1 and UGB 3anendment (April 8, 2004) Winterbrook Planning Page 15 Exhibit "D" 'Iii ATTACHMENT C WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 24, 2005 _CONVENE______~D 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 Vice Chairperson Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Staff Present: Also Present: Lima p Bandelow p Vancil p Grigorieff p Hutchison p Jennings p Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney Greg Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning Chairperson Lim_a provided an opening statement for Public Hearing. Staff introduced the newly appointed Planning Commissioner and former City of Woodburn Mayor, Richard Jennings. The Commissioners welcomed Commissioner Jennings. MIN____UTES A__: Woodburn Planning Commission__~S eci~ Minutes of February 3 2_,_~q~005 Vi__ce Ch__a_airperson Bandelow moved to accept the minutes as presented. Commissioner Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. -- B. Woodburn Planning Commission M~ Minutes of Februa 10 2005 ~ommissioner Vancil made a motion to accel~t the m ~utes' as written. Motion was seconded by Vice _Chairperson~ande~ow, which carried unanimously. ~ None COMMUNIC___.ATION~S A__~. A~. Le_L_~s!ative Amendment 05-02, Cit~tiate__d_prooosal to amend the Woo ,,, . Development O[din~nnCe. ~0ntinued f~0m F~r-=,,, ,~~.dburn F ...... ,IICIt.,li:llllJJ::]~J [nere woula only be Commission discussion tonight because the hearing was closed at the last meeting. He indicated persons with questions or concerns wilt have another opportunity to come before the City Council and clarified the Planning Commission are not the final decision maker body. EX-PARTE CONTACTS Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Page 1 of 13 Commissioner Jennines reported for the record he received a letter concerning this item on the agenda, which he handed over to the City Administrator. C_ommissi____oner. Vancil also indicated he had an ex-parte contact with one of the property owners since the last hearing. Staff indicated he also received a copy of the letter Commissioner Jennings referred to as well as a few other letters after the close of the hearing. He stated he would forward those letters to the Citv Council when they have their hearing so that they will be able to review that testimony at that time. St~ff mentioned the Commission received copies in their packets of all the testimony, a copy of the minutes of that meeting, and a copy of Staff's comments on the testimony that was received. Staff recommended the zoning in the Downtown areas of Second and Third St. be left the way it is based on the substantial amount of testimony from the neighbors. He further commented that issue can be revisited when the City updates its Downtown Plan, which is a Council goal. The anticipation is that they would be able to update the Downtown Plan by July 2006 and as part of that process it would allow you to look at the issue of what future land use should be in the Downtown area in context of the Downtown Plan. Staff further remarked it would also provide a better forum to have a greater public outreach and involvement as far as having either neighborhood meetings or open houses to allow the affected property owners to come in and review in detail what is being proposed in the Downtown area and see how they would then fit in and allow them to comment. DISCUSSION Commission_er Vancil referred to the issues of the location of industrial land in regards to I-5, the lack of land that has that kind of capability and he questioned why wasn't the land North of the outlet center on Arney Rd. considered? ~ responded the City looked at the information provided by EcoNorthwest, searched throughout the Urban Growth Boundary for industrial land that met State requirements including some land on Highway 99 and compared the need with the supply and looked for I-5 sites. He further commented what is being referred to as too much land is simply a linking of the site requirements identified in 2001 in the Economic Opportunity Analysis with available parcels immediately outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Winterowd emphasized you need at least an adequate supply of suitable sites to meet the identified needs from the Economic Opportunity Analysis, as required by State Statute ORS 197.712. Additionally, we want to make sure agricultural land is used exclusively for industrial with very strong policies to protect it, master planning requirements to make sure it is developed efficiently and prohibitions on changes to commercial zoning. With those provisions, it would be an agricultural use in the event we do not need all that land. In closing, Mr. Winterowd reported it was his thought they followed State law and followed what the City Council determined the direction should be on economic development three years ago. Staff_ commented various property owners North of the Woodburn Company Stores are requesting that about 125 acres be brought in as industrial land. He further indicated the primary argument against that is that Staff does not see that as the best use of that property as industrial land and it would actually be better utilized as commercial property, especially the portions between the tributary of Senecal Creek and I-5, which would be more of an extension of the commercial type development of the Outlet Mall. The property between Senecal Creek and the residential area on Woodland would be better suited to residential type development whether that be single or multi-family. Based on that and based on the fact that they are only proposing to bring in 12 acres of commercial, they are not showing the need or justification to bring in any more than that, certainly not anything close to 125 acres. He also addressed the issue regarding bringing that in as industrial property and indicated that does not meet the land use, transportation nor the economic goals because the Economic Opportunity Analysis and the strategy adopted and accepted by the City Council, emphasized the importance of being along the freeway but also part of that plan is to try and consolidate it in the Southwest area. Additionally, the lower quality soils to the South support going that direction more than they support going to the North. From a transportation standpoint, that makes a lot more sense because we have the proposed South arterial that Page 2 of 13 Planning Commission ~reeting - February 24, 2005 would allow traffic to come around and get onto the backside of the interchange. Moreover, with the precarious funding for the upgraded interchange particularly over the short term, it will be extremely important to try to get as much traffic to feed around to the Westside of the interchange. _Commissioner Jennings inquired if those property owners have the option to make an application should they decide that industrial would not work but commercial will as it comes before the City Council? He indicated he would hate to see those people shut out and if there is a way in which they can accomplish their mission and we could accomplish ours all at the same time then we are all happy. Staff_ responded that is currently an option independent of this process. Any proposal for urban growth expansion under 50 acres can be done as a Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment, which means the City Council and County would approve it and it would only be subject to appeal to the State Land Use Board of Appeals. Commissioner Vancil mentioned one of the issues discussed in the Transportation Plan was that we want to restrict the number of trips around that interchange and the Oregon Department of Transportation would have a fit because of the commitments that potentially have been made throughout this whole planning process to not putting more large big box type developments because we cannot handle the capacity now. He was confused how trips generated on Arney Rd. would be any different than trips generated on Butteville Rd. Secondly, he stated he was taken by surprise when the written testimony came in to find out that the owners of the land on the East side of town were interested in developing that land because that is not something that had been discussed in any of the meetings that he attended during this process since last October. Upon investigation, Commissioner Vancil discovered that the family that owns land to the East made the City aware that they were interested in developing that area nine months ago but the Commission were never told that was even on the table. He urged the Commission to consider the reduction of some of the land between Crosby Rd. and the freeway or the reduction of some of the land that is proposed for Nodal Development and add 100 acres on the other side of town. Commissioner Vancil pointed out we have the transportation infrastructure to do some development on that side of town. In closing, he stated he supported not changing the Downtown neighborhood into a commercial area because that is a neighborhood we should be committed to preserve. Vice Chairperson Bandelow indicated it was her understanding the reason why they were not going East prior to Measure 37', at which time there was no consideration of going in that direction, is the quality of the farmland that we would have met with if we felt we had any opposition to expanding to Class 2 or Class 3 soils that are around the freeway. It was her understanding that the farmland to the East has always been prime farmland and there are some wetlands on that property and things she thought would have brought in horrendous opposition. Staff- explained part of the reason they did not propose to go out that direction deals with State Statutes and the priority for bringing land in. Firstly, that area is predominantly Class 2 soils, which is prime farmland around Woodburn. Secondly, another factor they had to look at and analyze was the cost of providing public services. He reported out of the analysis done by the Public Works Department, there were eight study areas around the UGB that were studied and that was the one area that was shown to be the most expensive area to service mainly because of the pump station requirement because it slopes away from the City toward the river. Thirdly, transportation was an important factor why they were not proposing to expand out that direction because they are trying to minimize the additional traffic going down Highway 214 to the interchange. This traffic is the least likely to come around the backside of the interchange. Although not every larger property owner said they wanted to come in, not one has said they did not want to come in. He further stated it has only been smaller property owners that have not wanted to come in. He indicated he was surprised that Commissioner Vancil was surprised that the property owners on the East side want to come in because there are requests from property owners all the way around the UGB that said they want to come in. Gre.q Winterowd commented he perceived the most important thing to do was to find the best industrial Page 3 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 land and use that as a basis for doing further planning. In this situation, they knew they needed the freeway land to make the economy work as directed by the City Council. Additionally, once they allocated the industrial land and they looked where the South arterial would go, they then had to fill in the land that was between the South arterial and the existing City limits. Moreover, they had a huge area of undeveloped land already within the growth boundary that had enormous potential to be planned for higher density, which is why they went to the Southwest. He further indicated because of that, the need to increase densities and to create some sort of neighborhood around the commercial. The options began to run out at that point because they used up all of their land need and if you were to add land in you would probably have to take it out of someplace. However, that does not mean there are not places that you could look at taking land out but it is hard along the Southwest corner because if the South arterial is a difficult thing to achieve, it will be impossible to achieve unless we have development next to it to help pay for it. Commissioner Jennin.qs commented 100 percent of the people he talked to living on East Lincoln, Serres Ln., Tomlin, etc. say that if they are not broke, don't fix them. He agreed with Commissioner Bandelow in that the farmland on the West side is muck. Vice Chairperson Bandelow agreed with Commissioner Vancil as far as the Downtown area. She further stated although the goal is to try to make everything be equal and not have the Comprehensive Plan in opposition to the zoning inside the City perhaps we were looking at it the wrong way and need to go in the other direction and change the Comprehensive Plan rather than the zone in the Downtown area. Moreover, she strongly agreed with the goals that were set for the Urban Growth Boundary because this has been a community that has had double-digit unemployment for a long time. She liked the idea that the large tracks are set aside and the 100 acre site will stay in farmland until it is going to be filled with one employer that could make a real difference to the City. Additionally, she thought it is a good goal to have those targeted industries coming in. Commissioner Bandelow further indicated she liked the way the UGB is set and had no real arguments with it. However, the property by the School District needs to be brought in either by creating an exception/exemption and show that there is a need or take out some of the residential that is being brought in and replace it with the School District property. She questioned how difficult would it be to bring the School District property under a special need case or would it be something we would be fighting for too long a period because the School District needs to prepare their plans soon. Greg Winterowd stated he had a great deal of sympathy for the School District as they have a very tight budget and need to be fiscally responsible when they purchase land. It appeared to him that they chose the site on the East side for a reason (student population, crossing Hwy. 99E to get to school, etc.) yet there wasn't enough information in the record for Staff to tell the Commission it is a sure thing. There was a plea to the School District to sit down with Staff and do more advanced facilities planning so we have a better understanding of their rationale for why the school needs to be located there. It was Mr. Winterowd's recommendation to come up with a Statute of Special Need as a way to go. However, we should probably be looking at removal of approximately 20 acres of land elsewhere in the absence of the Statute. He indicated most of the lines on the UGB are pretty straight and most of the buffers from agricultural land are major roads or streams and he was somewhat reluctant of taking pac-man bites out of the UGB until the special need option was explored further. Vice Chairperson Bandelow indicated although that made sense to her, there are time constraints and the UGB is something we do not want to be dragging our feet on in any case. Gre,q Winterowd suggested that she recommend that we include that site and that the first preference of the Commission would be to work with the School District to find a Iocational justification for including that site within the Urban Growth Boundary and failing that, to look at another area to be removed. He indicated the intervening property would also be brought in. ~hairperson Lima requested clarification as to why another piece of land would need to be removed? Page 4 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Greg Winterowd explained you have to project land use needs 20 years in advanced under Oregon Law. The figures for the Housing, Industrial, Parks and School Needs Analysis together come in within 8 acres of the total what they said they needed and what they currently have. It is his goal to minimize the likelihood of a remand when we go to Land Conservation Development Commission (LCDC). It would be an automotic remand If we have more land than we can justify. Therefore, we have to have the supply side and the needs side matching up. Commissioner Vancil asked whether the testimony received from the School District indicating we were either 37 or 49 acres short is in r,~ ,.,~ ,-,; ,. ~ ,,. ,, cor,.,ct a, ,,~ the ,.,,ty o. ~au, is correct? ~reg Winterowd replied the School District's math is correct. He further stated we looked at their math and incorporated in to our numbers and because we made a mistake last year in the Buildable Lands Inventory mapping where we thought more of the land by the golf course was unbuildable was actually developed. In going back to look at the mapping mistake, the additional land that the school needed almost exactly matched our mistake. Therefore, although there was a misconception by the School District that we did not listen to them because the numbers looked the same from the work that was done, we did listen. Mr. Winterowd further commented there could be a case made that we need a school in a particular location in the growth boundary to serve the needs of that neighborhood. However, he did not have the information to know whether a good case could be made for that. He indicated he would need to work with the City Attorney's office, City Planning Staff and the School District to make sure we have a reasonable case before we put the City at risk for having the plan returned back to us. Nonetheless, the Commission should ask themselves what land should we take out of the UGB if we cannot make a case. Vice Chairperson Bandelow expressed concerns with the freeway overlay zone although it is something that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) states we have to have and have to include to gain their support for our UGB expansion. She stated she is bothered by the idea of ODOT becoming an operative of our City planning although she is aware that the two have to interconnect because transportation is a key part of that. Vice Chairperson Bandelow further commented it will effectively constrain the development of some areas particularly if someone brings in a business that takes up a lot of trips when you have an overlay zone that spells out certain number of trips for certain numbers of properties. However, although she was not concerned so much with the area that we currently have, she was concerned with things that may occur in the future. Nonetheless, she would be in favor with the discussed exceptions of the school property and the Downtown area. Commissioner Grigorieff thanked Staff for considering the Downtown area properties. She agreed with the plan but was concerned about the school property. She questioned whether Staff had any idea of where the 20 acres would be taken out if they decided to go with that option to accommodate the School District's property and whether this gets decided tonight? Staff replied a recommendation would be made tonight and ultimately the Council would provide direction as to making whatever changes. He further explained it is not as simple as changing the map because all of the supporting justification documents are based on this proposal. Staff compared the process as a house of cards in that we are trying to satisfy all the State Statutes and rules in constructing this house of cards. However, when you start tinkering with different things, you may have to rebuild the house of cards because it is not just a matter of taking one card out and sliding another one in. Commissioner Jennings suggested not to demand a change be made tonight and to make a recommendation that it be changed at the Council hearing. Staff indicated it would take some time and analysis to try to figure out where to subtract land from and the impact that would have on the Transportation Systems Plan and on all the other supporting documents. Vice Chairperson Bandelow commented if we are going to forward recommendations that the Council first Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Page 5 of 13 proceed on looking at whether or not we can do this as a Statute of Special Needs for the school and failing that being probable, at least we should be able to have some probability as to whether or not that would work, then recommend to the City Council that they then remove some land if that does not seem plausible. She felt it would seem with what is currently going on in the State Legislature with the desperate need for money for schools, a case should be able to be made for property that is already owned by a school. Vice Chairperson Bandelow further remarked the cost would be horrendous for the School District if they had to purchase property somewhere in the residential areas. ~taff interjected that is Staff's recommendation and they are not opposed to bring that property in. However, we do not have enough information to create a strong case to justify bringing the property in as a special exception area, which is why we need to obtain that information from the School District. He indicated although Staff has met with the School District, it is up to the school to be proactive in pursuing this. Gre.q Winterowd interjected a lot of school districts have master facilities plans that indicate where they need schools, why, when and how much. He stated Woodburn is in the metropolitan area in terms of LCDC and the scrutiny we get from 1,000 Friends of Oregon. The worse thing we could do to the School District and the City, is to take something that is not going to fly to the State and just have it sent back. Mr. Winterowd commented we need to come up with something that resembles a facility plan working with the district so we can be of help to them rather than throwing them a rope when we have the rope to break. Commissioner Vancit asked Mr. Winterowd whether there haven't been specific discussions with the School District about their needs during the four years he has been working on this and he just went on formulas? Gre.q Winterowd responded the School District was contacted early and often. We kept trying to get more information from them but they did not have the information. Mr. Winterowd emphasized we are not simply number crunching and really want to find a way to make this work for the School District. The district supplied numbers of acres, which is different than a specific Iocational justification for why we have to be at this edge of the UGB. The numbers are not good enough by itself because we need to have a school site of x-number of acres. Commissioner Hutchison commented the need for growth in this community is one he felt is necessary and he was in favor of the entire process. He was pleased to see that the zoning in the Downtown area was not going to be changed due to the public outcry and testimony received. Commissioner Hutchison stated he thought it would be great to address the School District property issue through the special needs provision. He addressed the transportation overlay and remarked he felt we would exceed capacity before the year 2020. Moreover, the expectation on the one intersection is unrealistic because people are going to get tired of going the back road. He also commented the area behind Smith Addition near the Nellie Muir School is zoned for 3,000 sq. ft. row houses in the Nodal area for affordable housing and it seemed like it would support the industrial site. However, he did not see other Nodal areas anywhere else and it seemed we would be congesting the roads if the Nodal housing is developed before the Industrial area, which is needed to develop the South arterial. Gre.q Winterowd clarified you do not want to just have high density housing with no jobs to support it or else it would be a recipe for not good planning. He further elaborated we are looking at a plan that has a lot of interconnected parts and advancing it is an act of faith to a certain extent when planning for 20 years because you can not predict the future. Mr. Winterowd stated they have tried to set up the most likely way to get good access to Butteville Rd. to the West side of the freeway and they believed the likelihood of that industrial area developing very rapidly because services are there and there have been a lot of people knocking on the door. He did not believe the industrial part is a pipe dream, although he does believe it will take a while to get around to the Southeast area on the East side of the freeway. The City has been working very hard to get Evergreen through to connect to Parr Rd. and when that happens Page 6 of 13 Planning Cormnission Meeting - February 24, 2005 proceed on looking at whether or not we can do this as a Statute of Special Needs for the school and failing that being probable, at least we should be able to have some probability as to whether or not that would work, then recommend to the City Council that they then remove some land if that does not seem plausible. She felt it would seem with what is currently going on in the State Legislature with the desperate need for money for schools, a case should be able to be made for property that is already owned by a school. Vice Chairperson Bandelow further remarked the cost would be horrendous for the School District if they had to purchase proper'r), somewhere in the residential areas. Staff interjected that is Staff's recommendation and they are not opposed to bring that property in. However, we do not have enough information to create a strong case to justify bringing the property in as a special exception area, which is why we need to obtain that information from the School District. He indicated although Staff has met with the School District, it is up to the school to be proactive in pursuing this. Greg Winterowd interjected a lot of school districts have master facilities plans that indicate where they need schools, why, when and how much. He stated Woodburn is in the metropolitan area in terms of LCDC and the scrutiny we get from 1,000 Friends of Oregon. The worse thing we could do to the School District and the City, is to take something that is not going to fly to the State and just have it sent back. Mr. Winterowd commented we need to come up with something that resembles a facility plan working with the district so we can be of help to them rather than throwing them a rope when we have the rope to break. Commissioner Vancil asked Mr. Winterowd whether there haven't been specific discussions with the School District about their needs during the four years he has been working on this and he just went on formulas? Greg Winterowd responded the School District was contacted early and often. We kept trying to get more information from them but they did not have the information. Mr. Winterowd emphasized we are not simply number crunching and really want to find a way to make this work for the School District. The district supplied numbers of acres, which is different than a specific Iocational justification for why we have to be at this edge of the UGB. The numbers are not good enough by itself because we need to have a school site of x-number of acres. Commissioner Hutchison commented the need for growth in this community is one he felt is necessary and he was in favor of the entire process. He was pleased to see that the zoning in the Downtown area was not going to be changed due to the public outcry and testimony received. Commissioner Hutchison stated he thought it would be great to address the School District property issue through the special needs provision. He addressed the transportation overlay and remarked he felt we would exceed capacity before the year 2020. Moreover, the expectation on the one intersection is unrealistic because people are going to get tired of going the back road. He also commented the area in the area behind Smith Addition behind near the Nellie Muir School is zoned for 3,000 sq. ft. row houses in the Nodal area for affordable housing and it seemed like it would support the industrial site. However, he did not see other Nodal areas anywhere else and it seemed we would be congesting that area if the industrial does not come in but the Nodal housing does. Greg Winterowd clarified you do not want to just have high density housing with no jobs to support it or else it would be a recipe for not good planning. He further elaborated we are looking at a plan that has a lot of interconnected parts and advancing it is an act of faith to a certain extent when planning for 20 years because you can not predict the future. Mr. Winterowd stated they have tried to set up the most likely way to get good access to Butteville Rd. to the West side of the freeway and they believed the likelihood of that industrial area developing very rapidly because services are there and there have been a lot of people knocking on the door. He did not believe the industrial part is a pipe dream, although he does believe it will take a while to get around to the Southeast area on the East side of the freeway. The City has been working very hard to get Evergreen through to connect to Parr Rd. and when that happens Page 6 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 it will provide a pretty direct shot from Parr Rd. across the freeway to Butteville to the Westside and he thought people would begin to use that as an alternative. Mr. Winterowd further explained part of the Nodal concept is to have a 10-12 acre commercial area some day as the housing comes. The strong hope in Nodal development is that it would be a neighborhood where you could walk to the store and not need to get in your car and go to I-5. Additionally, there are some pretty tough design standards for this development so that it does not turn in to a slum. Commissioner Hutchison felt Wal-Mart is the dominant shopping area and people are going to go there irregardless. Therefore, we need to make sure that we can get people there. Greg Winterowd indicated we have a Transportation System Plan but it does depend on things working out and there will be short-term periods when there is an imbalance that will occur. He believed as you get more jobs and the demand for housing will also increase because people want to have affordable housing opportunities near those jobs. Commissioner Hutchison thought the funding for the Transportation Plan was a little general and he did not know why he did not have a specific forecast of the amount of money needed to make that happen. Greg Winterowd said it is tough when doing a 20-year plan to have that level of specificity. Therefore, they think they have ODOT funding for the interchange improvements and we know the biggest contributor to the street system is going to be private developers. They are hopeful to have other sources that can help soften the blow to the State and to the private developers. Commissioner Jennings interjected he was not a stranger to transportation as he was a charter member of the Mid-Willamette Valley Commission on Transportation and was also the Chairperson of the task force that drew up the first transportation plan for the City, which took three years to accomplish. He stated there is no way in the world that you are going to be accurate in computing costs 20-years from now and what those dollars are going to really mean. Commissioner Jennings also stated it would have to be a living document where dollars, ideas and plans change and able to change that TSP to live with it. Staff also added one of the primary reasons the Urban Growth Boundary was set where they did was to try and maximize developers paying for the improvements because there would be no way the funding will be available to pay for that if the City had to somehow come up with the funds to extend the arterials. Commissioner Hutchison inquired why the property owners by the outlet center could not have submitted for commercial zoning instead of industrial? Staff clarified the property owners, separate from this process, could submit an application to the City to bring it in. However, he is not saying it would be an automatic approval because there are multiple factors that apply to whether that can come in or not under the post acknowledgement plan amendment process. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) would be concerned about the transportation impacts of bringing in more commercial land. Vice Chairperson Bandelow also added at this point our goal is to get in more industrial and bring in an industry that would provide higher paying jobs because we have a pretty fair supply of minimum wage employment. Staff indicated they thought it should be up to the property owners to carry the water to justify bringing that land in than to have that jeopardize this process. Commissioner Jennings stated he supports leaving the Downtown zoning the way it is to allow the Downtown Development Plan take care of it. He reported he watched the hearing from the comfort of his home and heard all of the testimony that was given. Commissioner Jennings remarked it became very apparent to him that there are farmers that live in the area that want to be incorporated in to the UGB change. He also found other people testified who are farmers not affected necessarily by the UGB Page 7 of t 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 change and they do not want it to happen. He questioned whether outsiders are going to tell us what we are going to do with our ground and remarked that would be over his dead body. Commissioner Jennings further mentioned it is the property owner's privilege to sell their ground for development if they are included in the UGB. However, the land would remain agricultural if they are included in the UGB and they do not want to sell their property. Additionally, he made reference to open space and clarified the land is not available to us if the owner of that property chooses not to develop it. He reported he reviewed the documentation and felt qualified to vote tonight. He supported the plan with the modifications to remove the rezoning of the Downtown area; otherwise he would not support it. He also mentioned one of his goals while still in office was to square off the UGB. However, the document has been in the works for over five years and we have to move forward with it and he believed Staff and the public have done a good job in trying to incorporate what is best for the City of Woodburn. Chairperson Lima pointed out all of the oral and written testimony certainly made an impact. He was pleased the proposed industrial would remain agricultural if it is not used as industrial. He voiced concerns regarding the transportation overlay and said it needs to be reviewed in great detail as we are growing in leaps and bounds and we do not make mistakes that could possibly jeopardize the transportation in Woodburn. He indicated although the plan is not perfect it is a good first step and he supported it. Additionally, he was in favor of Vice Chairperson Bandelow's possible motion to invite the School District to work with Staff. Commissioner Vancil reported he drove out to Fairwood Village and the areas East of Clackamas Town Center to take a look at the existing Nodal Development. He stated he was not certain in his mind that VVoodburn is ready for Nodal Development during this development cycle; perhaps the 2020 development cycle is where that needs to be looked at. Additionally, he commented the Montebello residential area is pretty dense to him and described Nodal development as being about double that density. He indicated he is not as concerned about it becoming a slum or ghetto as he is about the density and what that means during the development cycle. Commissioner Vancil mentioned Settlemier Ave. is how you get from point ^ to point B in this town and expressed concerns that we decided, as a condition, to recommend that we preserve the historic homes on Settlemier Ave. when we talk about the transportation plan and so there were some adjustments to allow that. However, shoving hundreds if not thousands of people in to that end of town with no guarantees about the transportation issues is a dangerous direction to go. He also thought one of the reasons why there isn't a major grocery store in Woodburn Crossing is because it is too much of a hassle to get to that end of town. Balancing the growth so that we are not putting it all out where we do not have the roads is something that needs to be considered. Commissioner Vancil posed the question if the owner of that land does not want to develop as Nodal and we recommend tonight and the Council approves the Nodal zoning, would that mean that the owner of that property would have to develop that as Nodal development or not develop it? Greg Winterowd explained the Ordinance states you can go back to 80 percent of the density overall. The average lot size is between 4,000-5,000 sq. ft. you can go to the standard 5,500-6,000 sq. ft. in some portions. Therefore, you can have some combination of larger lots and smaller lots and you are not forced to do it according to a simple plan. Moreover, the hope is that the property owners get together and create for themselves a master plan about how they would like that area to develop. The master planning requirement is there so people will think about the impacts on their neighbors when they do the development; there is some coordination on how that occurs and there is also some phasing so it does not all occur in a haphazard fashion. Commissioner Jennings added a report coming out of the Mid-Willamette Valley Commission on Transportation (MWVC) indicates it could appear that we could be well on the road toward getting the road improvements done by the year 2008. Vice Chairperson Bandelow stated she liked the Nodal development concept but was also not convinced that Woodburn is ready for it right now. However, she is being asked to make a recommendation on a plan that is for the next 20 years and she thought by 2025 it will be done. Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Page 8 of 13 Staff reminded the Commission that there would be about 200 acres of Iow-density residential land where there would be a continuation of the minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lot type development. He further clarified they are not proposing all future development be all higher density type single family development. Moreover, it may be that over the next 5 to 10 years it may be that the area to the North will be the area that will develop first but it all will depend upon the market. Chairperson Lima stated there is some potential for disaster if Nodal development is not properly planned. Commissioner Vancil said we do too many variances on the width of roads and now we are talking about a Transportation System Plan that is a multi-year plan and we have not addressed it. Moreover, the work needs to be done before we do the Transportation System Plan as part of the Periodic Review because it is waste of the taxpayer's money to continue to play this variance game with the transportation standards. Vice Chairperson Bandelow clarified the issue is when developing a single or infill lot development normally you would have to put in the full street improvements even though that street is a half street or it has sidewalks only on one side. Therefore, the party then has to apply for a variance in order to do it. She thought perhaps there may be a way to address, other than in this plan, where it is no longer a requirement to do a variance where you have a street that is not developed on both sides, that the single party should not have to come before the Planning Commission and apply for a variance. It is very expensive and extremely time consuming. Staff stated there is a fundamental policy issue here as far as how to accomplish upgrading roads to the standards that the City desires, which essentially are reflected in the Transportation System Plan. They did try to accommodate that to a certain extent in the Downtown area by at least stating that the standards are more flexible in the historical Downtown area as far as what street standards are. He further stated it is a case by case basis as to whether the City should require that or not and it has to do with funding. The City is not likely to have the funds to upgrade streets on its own so we really need to put it on the back of those people that are developing but it needs to be proportional to the impact that they are creating. The variance is the process we have available to determine that, which is the discretionary land use process the City has to make such a determination. Moreover, we have typically required the boundary street improvement and again, it depends upon the magnitude of the development as to whether they actually then have to go beyond their property and also do additional improvements. The Commission has denied development on Ogle St. because of the lack of the street improvements and a variance was not granted in that situation. Staff reported making the cost of a variance for at least smaller projects, i.e., minor partition or small design review, more proportional to the scope of their development will be addressed as part of the budget process in updating the fee schedule. Commissioner Vancil commented it seemed to him some type of wording should indicate that you have to do the street improvements in new and unpaved areas because he thought it is not a good idea to just shove this along during the Periodic Review process. Staff remarked they would have done that by now if it were that easy based on their experience of implementing the code. He said they did not have any standards or requirements for street improvements before the Council adopted the updated Development Ordinance in 2002 and it was more or less determined by the Public Works Department according to what their policy had been. The City was in a very weak position when they were challenged on that and went to court because it wasn't a standard. It ,,vas the policy direction of the City Council at the time that they wanted to put the City in the strongest position to defend itself for requiring improvements proportional to the impact of the development. Commissioner Jennings reported the City granted a nonremonstrance back when the apartments were constructed on Country Club Rd. However, that will not hold up in court because they do not have to do it but the City allowed that to happen. He agreed in that we should get away from granting all kinds of variances but they have to be done on a case-to-case basis. It was further reported by Commissioner Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Jennings that it is possible that the City may have to pick up the tab for all of the improvements in front of the apartment complex on Country Club Rd. because what was granted by the City will not hold up in court. Vice Chairperson Bandelow suggested perhaps reducing the cost for a variance for street improvements when it applies to a minor partition. Commissioner Vancil thought it is the responsibility of the Commission to make sure that we do not end up having volumes of restrictions about developing a piece of property in the Cit')' of Woodburn. The Commission needs to recommend to Council that they slash granting variances on things that they are time and time again granting. Deniece Won addressed the variance and street standards issues and the Supreme Courts decision in Dolan on exactions on development approvals having to be proportional. She commented part of the court decision is that if the City is going to make an exaction, the burden is upon us to prove the proportionality and the variance vehicle that is drafted in the WDO was a mechanism to reverse the burdens and put it upon the applicants. We have a standard that you have to improve the road system but if you feel that violates your constitutional rights, then you need to tell us why it violates your rights by means of the variance, which is a way out. Although the variance may be a cost and some time for the Commission in reviewing that, it can be saving a great deal of cost in litigation. She prefaced the Transportation System Plan is a 20-year objective for street improvements and there are various ways of building those improvements to get to that long-term goal such as exactions and development charges for the new growth, the City could make a contribution or obtain grants or get people to build a part of that. It was her thought that the issue of the variance isn't an issue related to the transportation plan but an administrative issue related to the workings of the WDO and the place to address that would be potentially in the discussions that are about to occur when we get done with this project on larger subjects for the annual review of the WDO. Commissioner Vancil inquired if that issue escaped the recent annual review? Staff replied that issue was not addressed this time around. However, that can certainly be initiated the next round of updates. Greg Winterowd interjected the periodic review amendments include WDO amendments but they are to implement a new plan not to fix lingering problems that exist. Commissioner Hutchison said there is too much Nodal development in the one central area unless there is a guarantee that the permits for these developments are going to be released in proportion to the growth of the job force to support that area. Greg Winterowd mentioned that the 1,000 Friends of Oregon provided testimony regarding how supposedly we were squandering land, moving in to farmland and being very wasteful of our valuable resource. The alternative is to have lower density housing however, if we do that we run in to Marion Count'), and their Framework Plan, the 1,000 Friends of Oregon and their claim of wastefulness and LCDC staff who will say we are using too much land for housing and population. He indicated the reason it is written that way is to focus first on the industrial and also take precautions to make sure that the higher densities we are proposing are well planned and that they do have access on to arterial and collector streets through the Transportation System Plan. We would be expanding the UGB further than we are already if we were to abandon the notion of higher density housing now. It was Mr. Winterowd's prediction that we would have this plan back in our laps faidy quickly and we would have to start all over again. Although he was not saying that no concerns exist about higher density, they have done everything they can through the planning process and design controls to let the market work. There are a lot of steps along the way to make adjustments to make it work better. However, if you do it now it makes it tougher to get the whole package through. Additionally, the Planning Commission has the ability through the master planning process to say although it is understood that the market may not be there yet Page 10 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 for this, show us where we can make up for that. Therefore, overall we are achieving the density objective for this but it does not say everybody has to plan for 3,000 sq. ft. lots. The whole intent of this is to create homeownership opportunities and to de-emphasize apartments in favor of smaller lots that have design review and front porches. He indicated there would be the same effect on the transportation system if you spread all those houses out on to farmland, it would just be more spread out. The tough question is what are we going to do instead and how are we going to get through the process if we don't do this now. Commissioner Jennings mentioned the goal of the City Council is that the mean salary in Woodburn would be between $36,000 to $40,000, which means we are going to create the jobs to support it. Moreover, the politics of the picture is that this plan will not get through DLCD if you do not include the high density housing and it would cost the City a lot more in tax dollars. Chairperson Lima asked if there is a plan to issue permits according to the number of jobs created by the industrial area? Greg Winterowd answered you cannot create a quota on housing but you can create conditions required for annexation and once you are annexed, you have design review. Through the master plan and design review process Staff tried to give the Planning Commission as much authority as they could under the law without violation housing goal #10 that gives you the authority to phase development as jobs occur. Staff commented we are not in a situation where Woodburn controls its complete destiny, not in the State of Oregon. He said it is not a given that it will be Iow-quality Iow-income type housing as it could be very nice and expensive housing. Commissioner Vancil asked Staff if we approve the plan as written, what is to stop a century farm from developing anyway in a Measure 37 atmosphere? Staff responded it should not impact or make a difference on what is currently being considered. Vice Chairperson Bandelow used the Serres property as an example and clarified their claim under Measure 37 would be with the Count'), because they are not part of the City and are not being hurt by the City. Therefore, the City is not going to bear that burden of having to pay them off or allow the development and provide services. However, it would not be a cost that Woodburn will have to bear if they come in under Measure 37 and develop on their own. Commissioner Jennings also added the City does not have to approve the annexation if they were included and came in if you have good reason to not approve it. Randy Rohman, Public Works Department explained we are in a gravity system and 92-93 percent of the sewage ends up over in the Mill Creek lift station by the High School, which gets pumped to the treatment plant. There is a break in that area where the ground starts to flow towards the Pudding River and that ground ends up being lower. Therefore, you have no way of getting that sewer to the rest of the City by way of a gravity system and you have to install lift stations along that area. The cost of lift stations makes it disproportionally more expensive to put in that sort of development. He indicated the major point is that you do not have the opportunity to put a gravity system in that area whereas, there is a major lift station in the area to the West adjacent to Wal-Mart that has about a 39-40 ft. wet well that allows that entire area to be fed by gravity to that station. The lift stations have a life span as well as a relatively significant maintenance cost and replacement would be borne by all of the users citywide, not just the development. It is the most expensive place and naturally that would be the place you would look to last. Mr. Rohman mentioned there are business decisions made when looking at infrastructure and expansion and you try to avoid the highest cost areas. Vice Chairperson Bandelow made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of Legislative Amendment 05-01 of the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Update with the exceptions that the City Page 11 of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Council work to achieve a Statute of Special Needs for School District property located on the Eastern boundary and as a backup plan if that proves too difficult to do, that they keep open the option of removing some residential property in order to bring in the school property; and that the zone change be removed for the Downtown area from the Development Ordinance. Commissioner Jennings questioned if in fact we end up having to take in two pieces of property that are not listed today, would that trigger another public hearing so the property owners have a right to protest and would they be noticed? Staff responded technically they do not have to be noticed because everyone within the study area has already received notice and you could consider that the onus is on each property owner to follow the process all the way through and not assume that something might not change. However, although we are not required to send individual notice, we certain could do so if that were the case. Commissioner Vancil seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. ITEMS FOR ACTION A_~. Final Order for Partition 04-06, Variance 04-26 and Variance 05-02, request to partition property located at 1123 McKinley Street into two parcels, variance request to the street standards on McKinley Street and variance request to lot orientation, Greg Allen. Commissioner Jennings announced he would abstain from voting on this issue and would not partake in the discussion because he was not present at that meeting and was unable to review the materials. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to approve the Final Order as written. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion. Motion carried. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff expressed gratitude and appreciation to the Commission for all of their hard work during the Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update process. Commissioner Jennings requested Mr. Terry Cole, Oregon Department of Transportation, provide an update as to where we are on the interchange upgrade. Terry Cole, Oregon Department of Transportation reported we are moving towards a public hearing on the environmental assessment document and hope to have that completed next Fall. Funding for design and some right-of-way purchase is available, however, they do not have funding for construction but are hopeful in obtaining that. He indicated although it is a $40 million project and as it stands right now $34 million shortfall in what they need to get to make that happen, it is the number one priority with the Mid- Willamette Valley Commission on Transportation. Mr. Cole further commented he thought they possibly could have the project ready to go by 2008 but they are really going to have to do a lot hard work to get the funding by that time. Having said that, he stated they have a lot of interested private parties and ODOT is certainly interested in finding any way to help get the project moving. They will be looking at very innovative and creative ways in the coming months to try to put together a coalition of funds. REPORTS None BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION None ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Jennings moved to adjourn the meeting. Vice Chairperson Bandelow seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm. Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Page 12 of 13 APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, Cha )N ATTEST Cor~rn~nity Development Director Ci~Woodbum, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - February 24, 2005 Page 13 of 13 II. ATTACHMENT D CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 3, 2005 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT 05-01 "Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update" PROPOSAL: This is a proposal initiated by the Woodburn City Council to amend the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance, and Woodburn zoning map. These amendments, in part, are proposed to complete the City's Periodic Review Work Program. RELEVANT FACTS: The City of Woodburn is currently in state mandated periodic review of its comprehensive plan (Land Conservation and Development Commission Work Order #00784). Under this review, the City is required to complete 11 work tasks. These work tasks are outlined as follows: · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task · Task 1.a Buildable Land Inventory 1.b Prepare Growth Management Ordinance 2 Commercial and Industrial Lands Inventory 3.a Update Public Facilities Plan 3.b Revise Transportation System Plan (TSP) 4 Wetlands Inventory and Natural Resources Study 5 Recreation, Parks and Open Spaces Plan 6 Historic District and Downtown Plan 7 Changes in Goal/Objective, Unanticipated Events 8 Update Plan and Zoning Ordinance, Other Related Ordinances 9 Planning Coordination 10 Citizen Involvement 11 Collating/Printing/Mapping Work Tasks #5 (Recreation, Parks and Open Spaces Plan) and 6# (Historic District and Downtown Plan) have already been completed and acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). All remaining tasks have been completed, except for Tasks 9, 10, and 11. Work Task 9 is currently in process with the city coordinating a new urban growth boundary management agreement with Marion County. It is anticipated a new agreement will be approved by the City Council when it adopts the proposed amendments. Work Task 10 is currently in process and will be completed by submitting a citizen involvement report to LCDC after the City Council adopts the proposed amendments. Work Task 11 will be satisfied when the City Council adopts the ordinance approving the proposed amendments. Completion of the periodic review work program requires the City to revise the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance, and Woodburn zoning map. In addition, to comply with state statutes mandating the city provide a 20-year bui!dable !and supply, the urban growth boundary (UGB) is proposed to be expanded. Extensive public involvement has occurred throughout the periodic review process that began in 1997. Most recently, four work sessions with the Planning Commission to review the proposed amendments and three work sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission to review the draft Transportation System Plan Update were completed. Public hearings on the proposed legislative land use amendments are scheduled before the Planning Commission on February 3, 2005 and the City Council on March 28, 2005. As required by the Woodburn Development Ordinance, the City Council initiated this legislative land use amendment by resolution on January 10, 2005. III. APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA: B. C. D. City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IX. Goals and Policies Woodburn Development Ordinance Section 4.1 Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 197 and 227 Statewide Planning Goals 1 through 14 IV. ANALYSIS: When the proposed amendments are adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by LCDC, the City will have completed its periodic review work program. The proposed amendments, maps, and supporting documents are compiled in a document called the City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (Exhibit "A"). In addition, an attachment to this staff report contains draft findings of fact (Exhibit "B") that demonstrate compliance with the above referenced approval criteria. A summary of the proposed amendments is provided below. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments The Comprehensive Plan text is generally reorganized and updated. Significant new and amended goals and policies are proposed as follows: Residential Land Use and Housing goals and policies are amended to provide for a Nodal Development Overlay District. LA 05-01 2 Industrial Development goals and policies are amended to incorporate recommendations of the 2002 Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy and to create a Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay District. Marion County Economic Coordination goals and policies are added to provide for coordination with the Marion County Grov~h Management Framework Plan. Commercial Lands goals and policies are amended to encourage infill and redevelopment and to create a Nodal Neighborhood Commercial District. Transportation goals and policies are amended to be consistent with the updated Transportation Systems Plan and to create an Interchange Management Area Overlay District. Public Facilities goals and policies are added to consolidate and coordinate the water, wastewater, storm water, and transportation plans. Natural and Cultural Resources goals and policies are amended to create a Riparian Corridor and Wetland Overlay District. Woodburn Development Ordinance Amendments The Woodburn Development Ordinance is amended to implement goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Significant new and amended regulations are proposed as follows: Six new overlay districts are created. These are the Nodal Single Family Residential (RSN), Nodal Multi-Family Residential (RMN), Nodal Neighborhood Commercial (NNC), Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay (RCW), Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay (SWIR), and Interchange Management Area Overlay (IMA). The regulations of these proposed overlay districts are summarized as follows: o The RCW will generally restrict development within 50 feet of designated creeks and watercourses. o The SWlR will require master planning of the district to provide for minimum lot sizes for targeted types of industries. o The RSN and RMN will allow for higher densities and smaller lot sizes. LA 05-01 3 o The NNC will be restricted to neighborhood commercial uses and will require dedication of public space. o The IMA will restrict development based on vehicle trip generation based on proposed development. Minimum density standards are established in the Single Family Residential District (RS), Retirement Single Family Residential District (Rl S), and the Medium Density Residential District (RM). · Street improvement cross-sectional standards are generally reduced. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments The Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to apply land use designations to areas proposed to be added to the City's UGB, to apply proposed overlay districts to areas within the current UGB, and to change land use designations within the current UGB to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate land use designations considering surrounding land use and future development potential. Proposed changes will affect many properties in the proposed UGB and within the existing City limits. Woodburn Zonin,q Map Amendments The Zoning Map is amended to apply the Nodal Single Family Residential (RSN) and Nodal Multi-Family Residential (RMN) overlay districts to existing RS and RM zoned properties south of the southerly extension of Evergreen Road. The Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay (SWIR) is applied to the southerly portion of the Winco Distribution Center property. The Interchange Management Area Overlay (IMA) is applied to commercial and industrial zoned property around the freeway interchange and to undeveloped residential zoned property south of the southerly extension of Evergreen Road. In addition, zone changes are proposed to many properties within the existing City limits to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate zoning considering existing comprehensive plan designation, surrounding land use and future development potential. Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary Amendment Based on the results of the City's periodic review, the City proposes to expand the UGB to provide a 20-year buildable land supply and provide for 20-year projected economic growth. The City proposes to expand the UGB primarily to the west and southwest of the existing UGB and to the north of the existing UGB on either side of Boones Fern/ Road. Smaller UGB expansions are proposed along Highway 99E at the north and south ends of the existing UGB. LA 05-01 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a final order recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodbum Comprehensive Plan text and map, Woodburn Development Ordinance, and Woodburn zoning map. Attachment~: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update (previously provided to Planning Commission) Draft Findings of Fact (to be delivered to Planning Commission at 2/3/05 hearing) Written testimony received prior to 2/3/05 public hearing: C-1: Letter from Woodburn School District, received 8/30/04 C-2: Correspondence from Martin Rohrer, received 1/21/05 C-3: Letter from Keith Woollen, received 12/21/04 C-4: Letter from Mark Castor, received 8/25/04 C-5: Letter from Ivan Cam, received 12/23/03 C-6: E-mail from Kevin Crosby, received 4/12/04 C-7: Letter from Paul Serres, received 1/3/05 LA 05-01 5 ATTACHMENT E WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Februap~ 3, 2005 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a special session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Staff Present: Chairperson Lima p Commissioner Vancil p Commissioner Grigorieff p Vice Chairperson Bandelow p Commissioner Hutchison p Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Naomi Zwerdling, Associate Planner Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney Chairperson Lima set the ground rules for the Public Hearing and provided an opening statement. pUBLIC HEARING A_.:. Le islative Amendment 05-02 Cit -initiated ro osal to amend the Woodburn Development Ordinance. ..Staff reported the proposal was initiated by the Woodburn City Council to amend the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive Text and Map, Woodburn Development Ordinance and the Woodburn Zoning Map. These amendments are proposed in order to complete the City's Periodic Review Work Program. He further stated the City of Woodburn is currently in State mandated Periodic Review of its Comprehensive Plan and he outlined the 11 Work Tasks the City is required to complete. Staff also mentioned the City has completed Tasks #5 and #6, Parks and Recreation Plan and the Historic Downtown Plan, they have been acknowledged by the Oregon Land Conservation Development Commission. All remaining Tasks have been completed with the exception of Tasks #9, #10 and #11. Task #9 Coordinating new Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with Marion County, which is currently being coordinated and is anticipated to be done by the time the amendment proposal gets to the City Council. Additionally, he said although he has completed the Citizen Involvement Report (Task #10), it would not be finalized until the Council actually adopts the amendments and the same goes for Task #1 t. Completion of all these Work Tasks requires the City to revise the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Text and Map, the Development Ordinance and Zoning Map. In addition, to comply with State Statutes mandating the City provide a 20-year buildable lands supply, the Urban Growth Boundary is proposed to be expanded. Staff indicated public hearings on these proposed Legislative Land Use Amendments have been scheduled tonight before the Planning Commission and have also been noticed and scheduled for the City Council on March 28, 2005. The applicable approval criteria that apply to these proposed amendments were outlined by Staff. Once the proposed amendments are adopted by the City Council and acknowledged by LCDC, the City will have completed its Periodic Review Work Program. The proposed amendments, maps and supporting documents are compiled in a document called The City of Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update, which has been provided to the Planning Commission. Moreover, an attachment to the Staff Report contains Findings of Fact that demonstrate compliance with the approval criteria, which were provided to the Commission tonight. Staff briefly summarized the proposed amendments as follows: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments: Residential Land Use and Housing Goals and Policies are amended to provide for a Nodal Development Overlay District. Industrial Development Goals and Policies are amended to incorporate recommendations of the 2002 Planning Commission Meeting -February 3, 2005 Page 1 of 11 Economic Opportunities Analysis and Development Strategy and to create a Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay District. Marion County Economic Coordination Goals and Policies are added to provide for coordination with Marion County Growth Management Framework Plan. Commercial Lands Goals and Policies are amended to encourage infill and redevelopment and to create a Nodal Neighborhood Commercial District. Transportation Goals and Policies are amended to be consistent with the updated Transportation System Plan and to create an Interchange Management Area Overlay District. Public Facilities Goals and Policies are added to consolidate and coordinate the Water, Wastewater, Stormwater and Transportation Plans. Natural and Cultural Resources Goals and Policies are amended to create a Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay District. The Woodburn new~ ......... ~ ,~,,,P,,,~,,, O, u~nance is also amended as part of this proposal to implement the Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and are proposed as follows: Six new overlay districts are created, Nodal Single Family Residential, Nodal Multi- Family Residential, Nodal Neighborhood Commercial, Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Overlay, Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay and the Interchange Management Area Overlay. Regulations of proposed Overlay Districts are summarized as follows: Riparian Corridor Wetlands Overlay will generally restrict development within 50 ft. of designated creeks and water courses. The Southwest Industrial Reserve will require master planning of the district to provide for minimum lot sizes for targeted types of industries. The Nodal Residential Single Family and Nodal Multi-Family Overlays will allow for higher densities and generally smaller lot sizes. The Neighborhood Commercial Nodal Overlay will be restricted to neighborhood commercial uses and will require dedication of public space. The Interchange Management Area Overlay will generally restrict development based on vehicle trip generation based on proposed development. Minimum density standards are established in the Single Family Residential District, the Retirement Residential District and the Medium Density Residential District and the street improvement cross sectional standards are generally reduced. · Proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments: In general, the Comprehensive Plan Map is amended to apply land use designations to areas proposed to be added to the City's Urban Growth Boundary, to apply proposed Overlay Districts to areas within the current Urban Growth Boundary and to change land use designations within the current Growth Boundary to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate land use designations considering surrounding land use and future development potential. · Proposed Zoning Map Amendments: The Zoning Map is amended to apply the Nodal Single Family Residential and Nodal Multi-Family Residential Overlay Districts to existing RS and RM zoned properties South of the Southerly extension of Evergreen Rd., the Southwest Industrial Reserve Overlay is applied to the Southerly portion of the WinCo Distribution Center property, the Interchange Management Area Overlay is applied to Commercial and Industrial zoned property generally located around the freeway interchange and to undeveloped residentially zoned properties South of the Southerly extension of Evergreen Rd. In addition, there are numerous zone changes proposed to properties within the existing City limits to maximize efficient use of land and provide more appropriate zoning considering existing Comprehensive Plan designation, surrounding land use and future development potential. · Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Map: Based on the results of the City's Periodic Review, the City proposes to expand its Urban Growth Boundary to provide a 20~year buildabte land supply and provide for 20-year projected economic growth. In conclusion, Staff recommended the Planning Commission hear the testimony and leave the record open for seven days to allow additional written testimony, at which time Staff will return on February 24, 2005 with responses to that testimony and the Commission will have the opportunity to review that before they begin deliberations on the matter. Staff recommended after that is all done that eventually the Commission will direct Staff to prepare a Final Order recommending that the Council adopt the proposed amendments to the Woodburn Urban Growth Boundary, Woodburn Comprehensive P~an Text and Map, the Woodburn Development Ordinance and the Woodburn Zoning Map. Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 2 of 11 Gre.q Winterowd, Winterbrook Planning Consultinu provided more details on the analysis and justification for the proposed amendments. He reviewed several key objectives they had when they began this project four years ago. Firstly, to develop and implement an economic opportunity analysis and strategy, which was adopted in 2002 by the City Council and provides the foundation for most of the planning work done today. He reported the City Council decided it was imperative to provide local jobs in the community so that people would not have to commute to Portland/Salem to work and to improve the quality of peoples lives as well as to make it so everyone in the community had an equal opportunity. The economists that looked at this and indicated the best way to achieve that is to provide land near I-5 because that is where development demand is located. Secondly, it was recognized that you needed to provide choice among suitable industr,al sites, which is required by State Statute. Thirdly, provide sufficient buildable land for future housing, parks and schools. Land for quality of life, good neighborhoods and land where people can afford to buy their own homes. Additionally, he stated they also had to look very carefully at the Statewide Planning Goals, which requires the use of land efficiently in order to make sure to use the land within the Urban Growth Boundary efficiently and well. Mr. Winterowd mentioned the City is proposing a substantial increase in net densities on buildable land for that reason. They are asking for a more compact Urban Growth form but with good parks, schools and jobs to balance it out. He reported Oregon has many demanding requirements for compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and Periodic Review to ensure ongoing compliance. Mr. Winterowd stated he believed, at this point, the City has a package of plan amendments that meet the Statewide Planning Goals and achieved legitimate objectives of Periodic Review. Moreover, they looked carefully at the Marion County Framework Plan adopted two years ago and made sure that the critical goals and policies of the framework plan were incorporated into the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Next, they looked at the Achilles heel that Woodburn faces in terms of economic development, which is traffic congestion. He said they worked very closely with ODOT on revising the Transportation System Plan and developing ways to limit impacts on the interchange and to create alternative ways to get to that interchange so that it all does not have to go on Highway 211 and Highway 214. Mr. Winterowd further explained the goals require that we take the least productive agricultural land before we move into the more productive land and the direction of growth proposed generally has less productive agricultural land than some of the other choices. He further commented Woodburn is surrounded by Class 2, 3 and some Class 1 agricultural land and the only Class 1 agricultural land proposed for inclusion is land that is within the golf course already. Finally, they wanted to make sure in terms of quality of life and neighborhoods that what remains of Woodburn's wetlands, streams and flood plains are protected so you have open space connections to residential areas for future residents. Mr. Winterowd remarked the goal of a higher employment projection is to have more of a balance between the jobs in this community and the housing that is here. He explained they determined a 20-year land use needs for jobs they began with the Economic Opportunities Analysis and identified probable employment growth and then took a very careful look at the types of industries and basic employment that Woodburn can attract if it provides services, infrastructure and the land along I-5 to do that. They then followed the Statewide Statutory requirement and also a requirement of Statewide Planning Goal #9 and its administrative rule which compares the supply and demand and match them up. He indicated they attempted to provide the type of housing in adequate supply to meet 20-year needs and matched the buildable lands with the housing needs and increased densities. The school needs were based on the existing ratio of developed school land population to make sure there is enough land for schools in the future. Mr. Winterowd stated an important and legitimate requirement in Oregon is that we use land efficiently within the Urban Growth Boundary, which he recommended by planning for higher density, over ten dwelling units per net buildable acre within the proposed buildable areas of the Urban Growth Boundary and increase a portion of multiple-family development to make it more affordable. The use of Nodal Development Pattern, which is an old fashioned situation where you have a neighborhood commercial area surrounded by housing where you can walk, bike or drive a car to get to and from shopping was also recommended. Also proposed is to bring in exception areas, which are those areas that are in the County now that State law requires that we bring in to the Urban Growth Boundary so that they can be provided with urban services and developed more efficiently so we can minimize impacts on agricultural land. Every exception area adjacent to the Growth Boundary has been brought in with the exception of MacLaren School and they did not seem to have a great likelihood of redevelopment at this point. Additionally, Master Planning was looked at in the Nodal Development Areas and in the Southwest industrial reserve. We have allowed the possibility of housing over retail development in Downtown Woodburn and in Nodal Development Areas. Also recommended were minimum density standards so that people do not use land that is zoned for 4,000 sq. ft. lots for 8,000 sq. ft. lots because that would be inefficient and would Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 3 of 1 t discourage development of infill, partially vacant and potentially redevelopable land. In the Nodal Development Areas we have a neighborhood commercial center surrounded by higher density residential, small lots single family supported by integrated park system and multi modal and connected transportation system; Master Planning is required and we have design standards and that everyone has adequate access to parks and schools. He further reported the land located on either side of I-5, accessible to Highway 214 and Highway 211 via Butteville Road and Parr Road and a planned Southern arterial connection between Buttevitle Road and Highway 99 is reserved solely for Industrial use. Mr. Winterowd stated they propose to relieve congestion at Hwy. 214/Hwy. 211/I-5 interchange by taking the traffic out of central Woodburn, moving it West of I-5 where it is easier to get onto I-5 for trucks and employees. Additionally, at the request and in collaboration of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) developed what is believed to be an innovative way of making sure that the limited access that we have to I-5, even after ODOT and the City of Woodburn spends millions of dollars on improving the interchange, we want to make sure that it does not use up that capacity prematurely and that it is used for planned commercial and industrial trips. Regulations have been developed that indicate you can not exceed specified numbers of trips in the peak hour and if you do, you are either a Conditional Use Permit or you have to find ways to decrease peak hour traffic demand to maintain the capacity of that interchange area for the jobs that the City wants to see. In closing, Mr. Winterowd commented he felt a thorough and credible job has been done in justifying the assumptions used and we have not inflated the land use needs. He briefly reviewed the proposed amendments and said everything else that has been proposed for inclusion within the Urban Growth Boundary is land that has already been determined by Marion County to be so cut up and parcelized that it cannot be used effectively for agricultural purposes. Mr. Winterowd encouraged testimony and requested to critically look at the work done and to tell the Planning Commission exactly what they think. TESTIMONY Terry Cole, Oregon Department of Transportation Region 2, 455 Airport Rd. SE, Salem, OR 97310 stated ODOT has worked with the City now for a number of years specifically with reference to the Transportation System Plan Update and are very pleased with the draft Transportation System Plan that has evolved from that process. The protections talked about for future interchange development, the other transportation system policies and plan elements will go a long way towards keeping that interchange in its current configuration and in the future as we hope to have it reconstructed viable through the planning period and beyond. Additionally, Mr. Cole felt what they have come up for Woodburn is an outstanding example that will be looked at as a model throughout the State for how you can protect an interchange in a growing urban area and do it in such a way that it supports local economic development but also retains the ability of people to travel both locally as welt as statewide. Mr. Cole urged support and endorsement of the proposed Transportation System Plan and all of the supportive elements of Comprehensive Plan Update, as well as all the other elements submitted tonight. Dave Christoff, 671 Ironwood Terrace, Woodburn, OR 97071 spoke on behalf of the Woodburn School District. He stated the School District currently owns 19 ½ acres on Lincoln St. and they would like to have that included in the inventory. He indicated the difference between the consultant's numbers and the School Districts numbers shows fairly realistically that there was a shortage in the estimate for the School Districts properties. Currently there are no lands in the City that are large enough to site a school because a school has to be sited on a minimum of 10 acres and preferably a minimum of 15 acre site. Mr. Christoff reported they would like to have this included to the Urban Growth Boundary Expansion for when a bond measure is passed they would have a site in which to build a school on because they do not currently have anything that they could buy that is not already spoken for to site a school that is available to them. Nick Harville, Executive Director, Woodburn Chamber of Commerce, 2241 Country Club Rd., Woodburn, OR 97071 he reported he has about 15 years of business and economic development experience and he sees Woodburn as a community that has witnessed many changes since it was first established by Jesse Settlemier. Even when the City was incorporated in 1889, Mr. Settlemier knew that diversity of the business and community were going to be the keys to growth of Woodburn. Today, according to the State of Oregon, there are 772 businesses in Woodburn, 75.3 percent of those businesses employ less than 10 people. Mr. Harville explained this is a testament to the number of small businesses that help generate the flow of funds in this community. In looking at the major industries that employ citizens in this community, you will find that 34.5 percent are employed in the retail trade and another 23.9 percent are Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 4 of 11 employed in the service industry. These businesses are important to the community and provide needed services but in order to broaden the tax base, create new family waged jobs and further the diversity of the economy of Woodburn we need to expand and attract new businesses and companies to the area. He further indicated that at the present rate we will run out of developable lands within 5 years. In talking with City officials, the City of Woodburn has the best interest of the entire community at heart. The business development plans for the community call for further diversity and commerce generated, which would further support and enhance infrastructure and services provided by the City, schools and other community agencies and groups. Mr. Harville closed by saying new businesses in town help to support the retail and service businesses that already exist here by providing new dollars in to the community. Woodbum was born from agriculture when Jesse Settlemier used his vision and forethought to settle the community and he provided developable lots for new businesses that wanted to move to Woodburn. History seems to be repeating itself by expanding the Urban Growth Boundaries we are providing space for businesses that want to locate here. Robert Walter Staack, 245 Ben Brown Lane, Woodburn, OR 97071 commented he owns property at 585 Grant St., which is an area where Nodal density is intended for and he was not clear as to what that would result in on his renters and neighbors. GreR Winterowd clarified the Nodal development area is located in where Parr Rd. takes a dog leg and what they have tried to do for most of the community of Woodburn is not to go in to neighborhoods and up zone so that people's homes on individual lots are threatened. He further clarified that is why they are moving towards more vacant areas with the exception of Downtown for increased densities. Jose Castillo, 1068 2r~ St., Woodburn, OR 97071 through Chairperson Lima providing Spanish language interpretation, Mr. Castillo indicated he did not understand English very well and therefore, he was unclear as to what the hearing process was about. Staff reported there is a translator in the Planning office that could assist Mr. Castillo and encouraged he come by the office or he could submit written testimony, if he preferred. Alfonso, 1279 N. Second St., Woodburn, OR 97071 inquired whether his taxes will go up due to the proposed changes and if Second St. will be paved? Staff interjected paving is not part of this proposal and he is not aware of any proposal to pave Second St. however, the person to contact regarding that issue would be Randy Rohman with the Public Works Department. Will Denecke, OPUS Northwest, 1000 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97034 was present tonight in support of the UGB proposal and would submit a letter to the Commission. He reported OPUS Northwest has 103 acres of industrial property that they are proposing to develop in to an industrial park located on the West side of 1-5 and they have been involved in this process for 6-7 years. Mr. Denecke stated it is really nice to see this happening and for them to get to this stage. Additionally, he thought there is very good innovative planning by Staff and Winterbrook Consulting particularly in the areas of target industries and the interchange overlay. He said target industries are very demanding for a developer like OPUS Northwest because they just cannot go in and put up what they want. OPUS will be required to pick industries and job opportunities that fall into categories that the City has laid out with demanding criteria in terms of type as well as wage and income opportunities. Mr. Denecke further commented although it is a challenge for OPUS, it will give Woodburn the opportunity to improve its economic base. The interchange overlay is creative and a constructive approach to the I-5 interchange problem because everybody knows that currently I-5 is a big problem and unless that is managed correctly and improved, it will be a constraint on development for Woodburn and the UGB Expansion area. In closing, he added the discussion about a formula and how property owners might contribute if there is a funding gap and if the City will be looking for additional funding, perhaps in part from stakeholders or property owners, take place sooner rather than later. Erin Donnelly, 480 N. Third SL, Woodburn, OR 97071 commented her property is currently zoned residential and under the new zoning it would change to commercial office. She stated the entire street, with the exception of two properties, is entirely single family housing. It is a very nice neighborhood with Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 5 of 11 some of the original homes to Woodburn. The notable exception that is not a single family home is the old Woodbum Community Center. Mrs. Donnelly did not feel that it is beneficial to that neighborhood to change it to commercial office to facilitate the sale of the City property. It seemed very logical in her mind that the City has been trying to sell the property for quite some time and that is the connection for the City to want to have that be commercial office. She thought it would be better to keep the homes that are affordable and historical to Woodburn. Staff interjected the old City Community Center is already zoned Commercial General and is the only commercial general in the Downtown area. The reasoning for the commercial office is to make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designation, which is commercial. The Comprehensive Plan back in i980 contemplated that property would ail transition to commercial and ail we are doing now is making the zoning consistent, which currently is inconsistent. Moreover, it is not legal to have inconsistencies between the zoning and Comprehensive Plan so we are bringing that zoning in to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and we are trying to put on the least intensive and intrusive type commercial zone, which is commercial office. Martin Rohrer, 16 Abelard, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 reported he bought a property on Arney Rd. North of the Woodburn Company Stores Outlet Mall back in 1979 and at that time there were three neighbors. He said they have consistently presented to various bodies of Woodburn their desire to go in as a group to develop the area. Mr. Rohrer further commented he and his neighbors were a little surprised when they found that they were not included in the most recent proposal. There are about 150 acres that could be used for industrial land out of about 125 acres in the area that is designated. Firstly, that area is the only area not proposed to be included that is surrounded by three sides by land that would be included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Rohrer further remarked it would be much easier to make a case before Marion County, LCDC and 1,000 Friends of Oregon if we take land that is already surrounded rather than expanding into areas that are outside the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. Secondly, this property more than any of the others is pretty much ready to go in terms of utilities. It would not require a South bypass and new freeway access and it would simply require starting the development. His vision of an industrial area would allow for sales/marketing offices at the manufacturing location, which is a little different than what is envisioned in the Southwest area. Lastly, Mr. Rohrer stated the property on Arney Rd. comes much closer to meeting the requirements for most manufacturers and developers than the other properties currently proposed to be within the Urban Growth Boundary zone to industrial. Diane Mikkleson, 1090 N. First St., Woodburn, OR 97071 commented she was testifying as an individual. She said the plan for Woodburn's future presented tonight was designed to shape Woodburn's development as a community for the next 20 years. There are aspects of the plan that appear to deserve support including Downtown development and the plans for expanded recreational facilities and opportunities for Weodburn citizens. It was Ms. Mikkleson's belief that other aspects of the plan need to be given further thought. The quest for mega employers may not be the best economic choice for Woodburn especially if those companies work force needs can not be met by those of us already living in or near Woodburn. Moreover, the drive to expand Woodburn's UGB onto valuable farm lands while allowing vacant and underdeveloped sites within our current boundaries to continue to be idle is, at best, expensive and wasteful. She also remarked the community still relies on agriculture as one of its most important economic factors and we should look for ways to support and further develop this vital industry. A plan that emphasizes the accelerated development of large homes on large lots is not in the best interest of the community whose primary need is for sufficient multi-family housing. Additionally, it is important to support and encourage small and medium sized businesses that exist in Woodburn and actively recruit more of them. The need for a proposed Transportation Plan to create traffic patterns that preserve and promote the integrity and viability of Woodburn's core area rather than creating a ring-road that would pull development further away from existing businesses and already established infrastructure, which costs tax payers millions of additional dollars. She felt we could build a stronger, cohesive community by working together as we move further into the 21st Century'. Bob Lindsey, 7505 Windsor Island Rd. N., Salem, OR said he had the privilege of serving Salem in the years 1967-1977 first as a member of Council and then as Mayor from 1973-1977. He was part of the Urban Growth studies, which led to the concept of Urban Growth Boundaries and brought forth as part of the process Senate Bill I00. Mr. Lindsey commented the proposal brought before the Commission tonight is not in Woodburn's best interest and is a recipe for expectations never met. He further reported Planning Co~ntnission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 6 of 11 there are two issues that surfaced from the Urban Growth studies in the early 70's that are still germane today. The public cost of development and the ability of urban centers to fund those costs and for cities to survive need to address two issues: patterns of design and development and develop an elastic funding base or they are going to go broke. Mr. Lindsey described the City of Salem as a classic example of an urban center in deep economic trouble. In the summer of 1976, Salem had a triple A credit rating and Salem's credit rating as of today has plummeted down to an A. In Salem as the population numbers increased, all systems came under stress and the numbers increased, the library hours decreased, the aquatic program slipped away, traffic issues greatly increased, the public safety response decreased, the capacity to supply and treat water decreased, and the livability and Iovabitity in Salem is diminished. He further added the consultants proposal in its present form leads you right down that path. Woodburn has more than enough land mass in its existing urban growth boundary to accommodate'those population numbers that have been assigned by Marion County. In closing, he pointed out Woodburn is a service center for the agricultural industry and this approach is not within Woodburn's economic capacity. He commented Woodburn's best course of action would be to look inward and play to its strength. The challenge is to create a sense of identify and a place that speaks to livability and the challenge is how to build that livable lovable community and not bring pain and misery to the tax payers. Kathleen Carl, 13324 Carl Rd. NE, Hubbard, OR 97032 strongly believed that Woodburn's Comprehensive Plan needs to develop an economic model that benefits the existing population like focusing on local businesses rather than large employers. She remarked many new jobs are created without land being developed such as a processing plant or manufacturer adding a second shift or a retail business expands its hours and hires new people. Ms. Carl hoped the Planning Commission looked at the needs of existing business. She believed Woodburn's economic model should focus as much as possible on utilizing existing infrastructure, which takes care of our tax payers investment. Expanding to new land is not of benefit to most taxpayers and a new economic model that turns more inward would capitalize on our assets and help our citizens. Ms. Carl closed by stating Woodburn really needs to build a city that works together and looks at businesses that are putting money into Woodburn's pocket right now. We can accommodate the goals of Woodburn with an expansion that is more limited. Lolita Carl, 13324 Carl Rd., Hubbard, OR 97032 urged to look 50-75-150 yrs. into the future. She reported her farm has already had five generations of family living on it in only 90 years. If we think short term, our beautiful valley of mild climate and rich resource land will be paved over. Some day we might not be able to afford to import strawberries and apples from thousands of miles away because agriculture is Marion County's number one industry and you can not stack farm fields on top of each other. Moreover, much of the housing and commercial needs for a small city could easily go vertical because it is more efficient to have apartments with several stories over commercial as seen in many Downtowns. Ms. Carl further added this smaller footprint makes the city more walkable more livable and engenders community spirit. She reported Woodburn has ignored the enormous egg production supporting and surrounding it and the thousands of its residents who work in the egg industry. Reference was made to EcoNorthwest Woodburn Economic Analysis and she pointed out most of these people's occupation has not been counted. Additionally, she indicated Woodburn has recently spent a couple of millions of tax payers dollars for land for additional sewage treatment and roadway construction, this only for the land not for the future millions to develop it. She felt Woodburn has a dependable and growing economic base in place with agri~business and the farmers are not pushing for new roads and infrastructure. The ones who are really pushing for development and expansion are consultants who are paid to say we need it. She pointed out Greg Winterowd was simultaneously paid by Opus Northwest to try to get its land in the expanded UGB while being paid by the City of Woodburn, which is a serious conflict of interest that can not be ignored. In closing, Ms. Carl remarked our rich Willamette Valley soil can produce new crops of food ever,.., single year to feed endless generations. How many industries can say that? Randy Sebastian, 1677 Boones Ferry Rd., Lake OsweGo, OR supported the Winterowd Planning Plan. He said Woodburn has unique opportunity as the Tukwila Golf Course is the only course in the Portland Metro Area where people can actually buy a new home on a golf course. This is attracting new residents who are coming in from Lake Oswego, Tigard, West Linn, Tualatin and are typically empty nesters paying City taxes whose kids are gone and are not putting pressure on local schools. Moreover, all the utilities are new and are being brought to the site with an emergency access road being built to the site this summer. Mr. Sebastian further commented he has been building at Tukwila Golf Course over the last Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 7 of 11 four years. Although it was slow to start, we now have great momentum and have a waiting list for future phases for people wanting to move to the Tukwila Golf Course. Vasily Mokanukoff, 1031 Queen City Blvd., Woodburn, OR 97071 indicated he was not fam ar with the proposal and that such plan even existed. He expressed concerns with the amount of acreage that is being proposed for industrialization. Staff informed Mr. Mokanukoff that all of the proposed plans are on the City's website, at the Library or at City Hall in the Planning Division. He stated one of the Planners could go over any questions Mr. Mokanukoff might have if he came by City Hall. Pat Doyle, Kelley, Kelley, Do,cie, 110 N. Second St., Silverton, OR 97381 represented Mr. Dale Baker who owns 10 acres zoned AR in the Butteville expansion area and there are five homes currently on the property. He indicated they were in favor of the UGB expansion. Mr. Doyle entered a legal memorandum into the record and briefly summarized the contents of the memo. He reported this property is already a goal exception property and it gets a special favor on that basis alone. It is committed to residential use and considered less productive farmland so we are not reaching in to any of the high productive farmland. Secondly, in 1992 the City of Woodburn adopted Ordinance 2081, which essentially expanded the UGB to take in this property. Marion County disagreed with that conclusion at the time based on need, however, in the ensuing years we have seen that in fact that need is there and the 10 acres of land will help the City of Woodburn to meet its buildable lands requirements and will help the City to put people in to homes and to make a more livable community. Toni Spencer, 13736 Wilco Hwy. NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 stated she is a native Oregonian that has lived most of her life on a working cattle ranch in a rural area. She felt compelled as a concerned citizen to comment on the proposed expansion of the UGB. Ms. Spencer indicated she had great respect for those that live and work on the land as well as she realizes the importance of the economic stability that it provides the community. Agriculture and food products are Oregon's largest export by volume and the value of these products has increased in 16 of the past 18 years, according to the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Marion County ranks number one in Oregon for growth agricultural sales. She expressed concerns in that we may be too eager to include valuable prime farmland in the proposed UGB. There are vacant properties in areas within the current UGB that can be redeveloped and reoccupied. Additionally, there are at least 8 properties in the industrial park just off Hwy. 214 for lease or for sale and there was one 137,000 sq. ft. property sitting empty. Ms. Spencer further commented all vacant buildings are not even counted in the consultant's inventory of vacant industrial properties. She indicated we have a responsibility to solicit new industry in to our underdeveloped and undeveloped properties before we expand the current UGB because we have the capacity for new industries in our current UGB. It was her hope that we carefully determine and decide what is really needed before including prime farmland in the proposed UGB. Although we all would like to see economic progress in Woodburn, we have to remember that new industry can move in, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in taxes for sewer, water, sidewalks, roads and then up and leave just as fast leaving us with the unemployed and the bill because once prime farmland is paved over, it is gone forever. Kay Peterson, 13740 Wilco Hwy., NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 she asked the Commission to carefully consider the testimony that is being submitted this evening. We all want Woodburn to be an economically viable community, however, some of us just differ on how to accomplish this. She described her mother having been born in Woodburn and raised on a dairy farm in Hubbard. Additionally, her husband is a small business owner in Woodburn located on Evergreen Rd. South of Hwy. 214 and are members of the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce. Both oppose the proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. Ms. Peterson commented expanding the UGB would only make the traffic nightmare on HWY. 214 and the freeway interchange worse. She indicated more and more of her husband's clients have complained about how difficult it is to negotiate the traffic when driving to his office. Pushing growth on Woodburn would do nothing to improve the livability of this community. Ms. Peterson felt it was wrong to take some of the best farmland in the country out of production forever in order to attempt to attract some high tech industry to Woodburn, which she doubted a high tech industry would locate in Woodburn because many of the high tech industries have abandoned the United States and gone to China. Agriculture can quickly retool to respond to current market conditions as other industries just pick up and Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 8 of 11 leave, in conclusion, Ms. Peterson stated the 500 acres Winterbrook Consulting says is needed for industrial sites should stay as it is, productive farmland for our benefit and that of the future generation. Tom Fessler, 14025 Dominic Rd., Mt. Anqel, OR 97362 said he is a fourth generation farmer in the Woodburn area and is an affected landowner in the expansion proposal. He favored the expansion proposal as it currently stands. Mike Celmer, 389 W. Hayes St., Woodbum, OR 97071 reported his family searched for about 2 ¼ yrs. consistently trying to find a home and ended up in Woodburn across the street from the old community center. He said he works in Woodburn and purchases goods and services here. Mr. Cetmer stated he would have like to have known of the proposal four years ago before he purchased his home because he probably would have not ended up living in Woodburn because the proposal affects him financially. He felt if the City continues with this proposal it would take equity away from his home and basically throwing it away. 5-MINUTE BREAK AT 8:45 PM RoRer Alfred, 1120 NW Couch St., Portland, OR 97209 stated he was present tonight on behalf of Renaissance Development. He reported Renaissance Development has developed the Links at Tukwila, which is immediately South of the proposed UGB and supports the proposal put forth by Staff to extend the UGB to include that area to the North which consists mostly of the OGA Golf Course. Mr. Alfred further commented Staff has done a very thorough and very comprehensive analysis. The UGB Amendment is a very complex process that requires the weighing of not only some fairly strict legal rules but also a lot of competing interests, which he felt Staff has done a very good job in weighing all those things. Moreover, the primary thing that the law requires is under Goal 14 is an orderly and efficient extension of urban land onto rural land. The OGA parcel is a unique opportunity from a legal prospective in that you are able to expand onto an area that is not currently in any kind of resource use at all and it is already committed to the golf course use and hopefully where Renaissance will be able to add another 150 homes and not simultaneously taking any farmland out of production. Lastly, Mr. Alfred mentioned expansion in that direction is consistent with prior City decisions in that approval of the most recent phase of the Links of Tukwila Subdivision also included a condition requiring the extension of the road across from the North over to Boones Ferry Rd., which is consistent with the future prospect of more residential development in that area that can fit in the golf course. Sid Friedman, 1,000 Friends of Ore.qon, 189 Liberty St. NE #307A, Salem, OR 97071 pointed out many community members have a very different vision for Woodburn's economic future than the vision presented by the consultant. He commented that community vision can be accommodated using very reasonable assumptions that are at least as legally defensible as the consultant's. If the consultant's recommendation is adopted, Woodburn would have 500 net buildable acres of developable industrial land, which is a huge amount of industrial land. He compared Medford's proposed 431 acres of industrial land for the needs of an additional 94,000 thousand people. Salem/Keizer with a population that is seven or eight times the size of Woodburn's thinks it could take decades to develop the 500 acre Mill Creek Industrial site. Additionally, Woodburn has 7% of Marion County's population, 8% of Marion County's jobs and between 1990-2000, it captured 11% of Marion County's job growth. Yet the Winterbrook projection assumes that Woodburn would capture 23% of Marion County's projected future job growth, which he believed was unreasonably optimistic. However, even if this inflated projection occurs, by the consultant's own figures, the 503 acres of industrial land would accommodate far more industrial employees than the 38,136 projected under the consultant's most optimistic scenario. Theodora Tarbet, 13305 Carl Rd., Hubbard, OR 97032 commented the Economic Opportunities Analysis prepared for Woodburn concedes that it significantly underestimates agricultural employment. The employment in the agricultural sector grew by 40% in the Woodburn zip code between 1990-2000. She indicated the Economic Opportunity Analysis ignores Woodburn's location in the middle of productive farmland and at the center of the County's number one industry. Additionally, it fails to identify Woodburn's role as a commercial and cultural center for the Valley's Hispanic population as a possible advantage. Instead, it lists an employment goat that Woodburn lose up to 222 agricultural section jobs by 2020. Woodburn is surrounded by prime and high value farmland, which is protected by State law and Oregon Revised Statute Chapter 197.298 governs UGB expansions. In particular, it dictates priority Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Page 9 of 1 1 factors for bringing land into a UGB and the Statute requires that land of lower soil classification be included in a UGB before land of higher soil classification. Woodburn should expand further South on to the lands of lower soil quality if Woodburn can prove a factual basis for needing to include more land. The same Statute also prioritizes acknowledged exception areas adjacent to a UGB as land that should be included in the UGB before lower priority lands unless the exception areas can not reasonably accommodate new development. Ms. Tarbet used the Carl Road exception area in which this statute applies. She felt it is not necessary to bring alt 13 acres of the exception areas since it can not reasonably accommodate identified land needs. Amanda Deyede, 17244 Arbor Rd. NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 addressed the *" ~'~-'~ ,ra, ,sp..~, ,~,on issue and remarked transportation plans are generally highly technical and a person can easily get lost in the numbers. The important part of a transportation plan is how it will affect the livability of neighborhoods and viability of economic activity. Ms. Deyerle pointed out I-5 separates commercial and residential development from the rest of the City and Highway 214 splits schools and neighborhoods on the North from the rest of the community to the South. The Transportation Plan needs to address the fragmentation of commercial and residential areas. She did not believe the funding sources available will be able to make the changes except on a piecemeal basis. In the meantime, development will be occurring that has no access to Parr Rd. and traffic will be forced back in to the residential areas between the proposed industries and Highway 214. Ms. Deyerle reported experience shows that building more roads increases, traffic, increases development and puts tremendous stress on core areas, i.e., Lancaster. She further commented Highway 214 bypass in Woodburn pulls development towards the outer areas economically depressing Downtown and is one of the biggest traffic headaches in the City. Jim Griqorieff, 1315 James St., Woodburn, OR 97071 indicated he owns property that is adjoined by two RM properties and requested that the property go with the original comprehensive plan and become RM. He stated the property has unique situations, which include a 2-story fourplex directly behind and within 10 ft. of the property line, the entry side of the units face his back yard and the second stories have windows that look right over his back yard. Needless to say they do not share the same privacy as the other RS lots because the other lots have a 25 ft. driveway plus a single-story garage behind them before the 2~story apartments begin and even then they have east and west entry ways, which allows much more privacy as compared to his lot. Mr. Grigorieff also mentioned he purchased Parkdale Manor, which are the apartments to the West of his property and he intends on being on-site manager and provide maintenance for the apartments. In conclusion, he said based on the criteria stated in the notice, his lot would be better served adhering to the original comprehensive plan and going through and RM zone designation because most of the property on the block is made up of two large apartment complexes, the Woodburn Armory and therefore, future development in fitting with the surrounding properties as stated in the notice would convince him that an RM zoning for his lot would be best for the comprehensive plan and for future plans. Craig Robinson, 1345 James St., Woodburn, OR 97071 said he would like to keep his property RS because he has apartments behind him and gets trash thrown over his fence, urination and all sorts of nuisances and would hate to see this happen on all three sides of his property. Tom Brawley, 4536 Wintercreek Rd., Jefferson, OR represented the Marion County Farm Bureau and an industry that generated half billion dollars last year, which is agriculture. Marion Country Farm Bureau is interested in keeping and preserving alt productive agricultural land. He stated one square mile of land is a lot of land base to be lost to an industry. We have a unique climate and a unique opportunity for more commercial products grown than anywhere else in the world. Natural resources that are non-renewable have to be protected and it begins here and needs to continue. Mr. Brawley commented there are three alternatives, look at infill, reduce the number of acres proposed and ease in to it and not take a big block and look for other avenues, or do nothing and let the status ride as it is. He felt the plan weakens a proven industry for an unknown. Staff restated the record would be left open until 5 pm Thursday, February 10th and encouraged anyone who would like to submit additional written testimony addressed to City of Woodburn Planning Department, 270 Montgomery St., Woodburn, OR 97071. Staff will then review all the testimony and provide the Commission with responses, as applicable, to that testimony at least a week before the next Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 PagelOof 11 hearing, assuming tonight's hearing is continued until February 24th, at which time the Commission may continue with deliberations if they chose to do so. Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to close the portion for public testimony except for written testimony that would remain open for an additional seven days and we continue the hearing until February 24th, at which time discussion among the Commission would be open. Commiss oner Gri,qorieff seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, '~H~AI~R ERSON ATTEST Jim Mul~~~~ CommL~it~ Development Director City of W,~burn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - February 3, 2005 Pagellof 11 ATTACHMENT A IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT 05-01 FINAL ORDER WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council initiated a coordinated package of amendments to the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO and Zoning Map) and the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan (including text and map amendments, the Woodburn Economic Development Strategy, the Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan Update and the Woodburn Public Facilities Plan); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held four work sessions to consider the amendment package in late 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 3, 2005 and left the record open for one week to allow for additional written testimony; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony presented by staff, the consultant team, state agencies, and other interested persons at a public meeting on February 24, 2004 (including Exhibits "B-I" through "B-61" - Written testimony received prior to close of Planning Commission record on February 10, 2005); and closed the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the draft revisions to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and WDO described in Exhibit A, with two modifications: School Site. The Commission found that the Woodburn School District's site east of Highway 99E should be included within the amended UGB. This 19-acre site meets an immediate need for the rapidly-growing student population, is adjacent to the UGB and has adequate urban services. The Commission directed staff to justify inclusion of the District's 19-acre site under one of two scenarios: (a) work with the District to provide evidence of a special need that cannot be met on land within the existing or proposed UGB; or (b) if such justification cannot be reasonably provided, identify and remove residential land from another UGB expansion area, as required by state law. West Lincoln Street Area. The Commission received considerable testimony in opposition to changing the zoning on properties generally bounded by Second and Fourth Streets and Oak and West Lincoln Streets. Many of the affected properties are currently zoned RS or RM. This area is currently designated as Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map and has been thus designated since about 1980. The City staff proposal was to change the RS and RM zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Commercial designation but to apply to most restrictive commercial zone, which is CO (Commercial Office). However, because of the significant amount of testimony in opposition to the proposed zone changes to CO and because the City Council has established a goa~ to update the Downtown Development Plan in the near future, the Commission recommends no changes to properties to CO in the downtown area. FINALLY, the Commission instructed staff to prepare a final order and findings to substantiate the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION: The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the draft revisions to the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and WDO as contained in Exhibit "A" and as described below, subject to the two above referenced modifications and based on the findings below. · Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Volume I - Goal and Policy Revisions (Winterbrook Planning, 2005) · Woodburn Economic Development Strategy (ECONorthwest, 2002) · Woodburn Transportation Systems Plan Update (CH2MHilI, 2005) · Woodburn Public Facilities Plan (City of Woodburn, 2005) · Woodburn Development Ordinance Revisions (Winterbrook Planning, 2005) .proposed Plan and Zoning Maps · Proposed Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and UGB Expansion Map · Proposed Woodburn Zoning Map COMMISSION FINDINGS The Commission bases its recommendation on the background studies and memoranda listed below, which are attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan and UGB Amendment Justification Studies (Volume Ii) · UGB Justification Report (Winterbrook Planning, 2005) · Technical Report 1 - Buildable Lands Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, 2005) · UGB Study Area Public Services Analysis (City of Woodburn, 2004) · Site Requirements For Woodburn Target Industries (ECONorthwest, 2003) 2 · Technical Report 2 - Residential Land Needs Analysis (Winterbrook Planning, 2004) · Technical Report 3 - Potential UGB Expansion Area Analysis and Natural Resources Inventory (Winterbrook Planning, 2003) · Population and Employment Projections 2000-2020 (ECONorthwest, 2003) · Economic Opportunities Analysis (ECONorthwest, 2002) · Explanation of Proposed Plan and Zoning Map Changes (City of Woodburn, 2004) Background Maps o Buildable Lands Inventory Map (Winterbrook/City of Woodburn, 2004) o UGB Study Area Natural Resources and Soil Capability Classes Map (2003) The Planning Commission relies on the following secondary sources in making its recommendation to the City Council: Additional Background Studies and Plans · Occupation/Wage Forecast (ECONorthwest, 2003) · Storm Drainage Master Plan (Crane & Merseth, 2002) · Water Master Plan (HDR, 2001) · City of Woodburn Local Wetlands Inventory and Riparian Assessment (Shapiro, 2000) · Woodburn Local Wetland Inventory Map (Shapiro, 2000) · Wastewater Facilities Plan, Volumes 1-3 (CH2MHiII, 1995) Population Coordination Documents · Marion County Comprehensive Plan Amendments Memo (Winterbrook, 2004) · Evaluation of 2004 OEA Population Forecast (ECONorthwest, 2004) · Marion County Ordinance 1201 and Findings Approving Population Projection · Marion County Board Minutes of November 10, 2004 Documents Not Relied Upon The Planning Commission explicitly does not rely on the following documents in making its recommendation to the City Council because these documents have been superceded by the documents cited above: · Woodburn Buildable Lands and Urbanization Project (McKeever/Morris, 1998) · Preliminary Transportation Scenarios (Winterbrook Planning, 2003) Commission Responses to Obiections In responding to objections raised by FAN and 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Planning Commission relies on the February 16, 2005 Winterbrook Planning Memorandum to the Community Development Director. In particular, the Planning Commission agrees with and understands that industrial land needs determination is based on the siting requirements of targeted employers identified in the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) as authorized under ORS 197.712 et seq. and the Goal 9 administrative rule - not on the "employee-to-acre" ratio method preferred by 1000 Friends of Oregon. 3 In responding to objections raised by other parties, the Planning Commission relies on the February 24, 2005 Memorandum to the Commission from the Community Development Director. In particular, the Commission is persuaded by staff's reasoning with regard to expansion of the UGB to the east because such expansion will not meet the City's land use, transportation and economic goals as well as other areas proposed for inclusion and this area will be substantially more expensive to serve with public facilities. Although the Commission is sympathetic to testimony in support of including the Arney Road area (north of the Woodburn Company Stores) within the 2005 UGB, the Commission agrees with staff that (a) these properties may be justified for inclusion within the UGB for commercial and residential uses in the future, but (b) are not justified for inclusion at this time. Approved: Claudio Lima, Chairperson Date 4 Key Local Objectives W~N' · Implement the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA); · Provide choice among suitable industrial sites; · Provide buildable land for housing, parks and schools; · Increase land use efficiency within the UGB; · Complete of the City's Periodic Review process; · Coordinate with Marion County's Framework Plan; · Provide adequate transportation connections -I-5 Intemhange; · Minimize impacts on agricultural land; and · Protect Woodburn's stream corridors and wetlands. I Population and Employment Projections Year 2ooo-! 20201 Percent Growth 2000-2020 ' pOPulationJ 20;--1-0o 34,919/ Employment 10,388 18,762 Because... The existing UG8 Incks capn¢ity to accommodato proi~t~d population and omploymont growtB. 90% 1,, ,,, ,,,,,, ,,, 80% 150% 30% 20% 0% Existing Capacity Population Growth Employment Growth The UGB Amendment Process WOODBUR~ 1) Population and Employment Projections 2) Buildable Lands Invento~ 3) Land Needs Analysis 4) Intensify Land Use within the Existing UGB 5) Alternatives Analysis- ORS 197.298 Priorities Woodburn Industrial Land Supply · Existing UGB 126 buildable land acres · 36 parcels · Average Lot Size = 3.5 acres 1 Southwest Industrial Reserve W~.N' Key to Implementation of Woodburn's Economic Strategy'/~~'~! ~'~' . ....SouthwestIndu~trlai""'" ,,,, ,,,,, Area", ,,(SWi,,, R) Policies · Reserve Land for Targeted Industries · Maintain Large Lot Sizes · Commercial Re2oning · Provide Direct Access to Interstate 5 · Master Planning Required IIIII" Use Land More Efficiently WOODBUi I The fi~t place to look i$ i~$ide the existing UG8. What "mea~um~" ca~ the City take to use the remaining land within the UGB more efficiently? · Plan for higher density - 8.3-8.5 dwelling units / gross acre (about 10.4 dwelling units / net acre). · Multi-Family Mix - 6.5/35 Single Family / Multi-Family. · Increase Nodal Develop~nt Densities - New Overlay Zones. · Increa~ Density in Exceptions Areas Adjacent to UGB. · Ma~er Planning Requirement- SWiR and Nodal Areas. · AIi~ Housing over R~II- Downtown and Nodal. · Minimum Densi~ b"tandards - 80% of allowable density. · Plan for Develop~nt of I~1, P~alIy VaCant, and Potential ~velopment L~. Nodal Development Policies W~~ Nei hborhoocl Corn ~rcial Center ~ded b~dential The.n_Sm_all Lot..Sin_ele,Familv Option Suppo .rtedJ3.y_: · Integrated Park System · Multi-Modal and Connected Transportation System Master P ~a ni~n' Re_, uir OesiQ.n~Standards Factors to Consider When Deciding V~.OODBUlt~ Where to Grow ~.,,.. ~ ~. ~,,.,,'~ '~ ~..,~ A. Ability to meet · Special needs (industrial) and · General and livability needs (residential, commercial, parks and schools) B. Goal 14 and ORS 197.298 "Priorities": · Rural Residential Exceptions Areas · Then Low quality (Class Ill-IV) agricultural soils · Then High Quality (Class I-II) agricultural soils C. Also consider: · Transpo~ation imitations (I-5 Intemhange) · Relative efficiency of sewice · Environmental impacts Eight Study Areas W. OODBUR_N II II Avoid Class I Agricultural Soils and W. OODB .URN tOOO O ~000 ~00 Feet Relieving Congestion at Interstate 5 WOODBU .i~N and Highway 214 ,.,:~,:.~...,,~ IMA Budget (Derived from TSP): 2,500 Peak Hour Commercial and Industrial Trips Commercial Peak Hour Trips / Developed Acre: 33 Industrial Peak Hour Trips / Developed Acre: 11 City of Woodbum With UGB ArnemJments, Woodburn can meet Populatl Employment and Livability Nt~ds for the next zu years.Plan Net Build. Net Acres Surplus Designation Acre i Buildable (Deficit) Supply Acre Need _ 425 259 166 LDR Nodal LDR 195 178 17 81 66 15 ~ MDR Nodal MDR 63 51 12 VMU (Vertical 0 0 0 Mixed Use)* 0 210 (210) Public and Semi-Public All Residential 765 765 0 Commercial 138 ! 141 ; (3) (Retail, Office) IND / Basic 503 486 16 , Employment All Employ 641 628 13 ~ Totals 13 Plan Net Build. Net Acres Surplus Designation Acre Buildable (Deficit) Supply Acre Need 425 259 166 LDR Nodal LDR 195 178 17 81 66 15 MDR Nodal MDR 63 51 12 VMU (Vertical 0 0 0 Mixed Use)* 0 210 (210) Public and Semi-Public All Residential 765 765 0 Commercial 138 141 (3) (Retail, Office) IND / Basic 503 486 16 Employment All Employ 641 628 13 Totals 13 The 2005 Periodic Review Amendment W_OODBU .R~ UG.B Ju,sttfi,,cafipo_R~o .rt (Updated November 2004) · Buildable Lands In~ntory · Land Needs Analysis · Natural ResourCes Report · Site Requirements for Woodbum Target Industries Wood_~um, Comr~rel%.n~l~_Plan an.d.,.De__vet, ooment Ordinance · Revised Woodl)urr~ Cornprehensive Plan (Winterbrook, October 2003) · Revised Wooclbum Development Ordinance (Winterbrook, November 2004) · Revised Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map (Ecotrust, November 2003) · Woodburn Economic Development Strategy (2002) · Woodbum Public Facilities Plan (2005) O'n behalf of Winterbro, ok Planning and Your Staff: Thank you for your consideration tonight and we welcome your comments. Public Testimony Sign In Sheet Legislative Amendment 05-01 "Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update" March 28, 2005 City Council Public Hearing Name Mailing Address Reside or Own Property Provide the name and address of the agency or (Please Check Below) group you are representing or you are represented by Inside Within Outside (Leave blank if you are a private citizen representing City Study Study yourself or someone else) UGB Area(s) Areas and UGB Public Testimony Sign In Sheet Legislative Amendment 05-01 "Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update" March 28, 2005 City Council Public Hearing Name Mailing Address Reside or Own Property Provide the name and address of the agency or (Please Check Below) group you are representing or you are represented by Inside Within Outside (Leave blank if you are a private citizen representing City Study Study yourself or someone else) UGB Area(s) Areas and UGB ' ..~,, I ,, Public Testimony Sign In Sheet Legislative Amendment 05-01 "Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update" March 28, 2005 City Council Public Hearing Name Mailing Address Reside or Own Property Provide the name and address of the agency or (Please Check Below) group you are representing or you are represented by Inside Within Outside (Leave blank if you are a private citizen representing cea~, ~,6~o,~e ~*. :t ~ ~-~, ~-~ ~?'~ 2 ! - Q City Study Study yourself or someone else) ~,,x~O)o~ ~ ~ co ~, q~ 71 UGB Area(s) Areas and UGB