Fillable AGENDA STAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING (City of Stayton)

Fill Online, Printable, Fillable, Blank AGENDA STAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING (City of Stayton) Form

Use Fill to complete blank online CITY OF STAYTON (OR) pdf forms for free. Once completed you can sign your fillable form or send for signing. All forms are printable and downloadable.

AGENDA STAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING (City of Stayton)

On average this form takes 39 minutes to complete

The AGENDA STAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING (City of Stayton) form is 84 pages long and contains:

  • 0 signatures
  • 9 check-boxes
  • 151 other fields

Country of origin: US
File type: PDF

U.S.A. forms for City of Stayton

BROWSE CITY OF STAYTON (OR) FORMS

Related forms
Fill has a huge library of thousands of forms all set up to be filled in easily and signed.
Fill in your chosen form
Sign the form using our drawing tool
Send to someone else to fill in and sign.
find another form
 
Stayton City Council Agenda Page 1 of 4
December 4, 2017
AGENDA
STAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 4, 2017
Stayton Community Center
400 W. Virginia Street
Stayton, Oregon 97383
CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM Mayor Porter
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL/STAFF INTRODUCTIONS
ANNOUNCEMENTS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
Items not on the agenda but relevant to City business may be discussed at this meeting. Citizens are encouraged to attend all
meetings of the City Council to insure that they stay informed. Agenda items may be moved forward if a Public Hearing is
scheduled.
a. Additions to the agenda
b. Declaration of Ex Parte Contacts, Conflict of Interest, Bias, etc.
PRESENTATIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Request for Recognition: If you wish to address the Council, please fill out a green “Request for Recognition” form.
Forms are on the table at the back of the room. Recommended time for presentation is 10 minutes. Recommended
time for comments from the public is 3 minutes.
CONSENT AGENDA
a. November 20, 2017 City Council Minutes
b. Acceptance of Abstract of Election Results – November 7, 2017
Purpose of the Consent Agenda:
In order to make more efficient use of meeting time, resolutions, minutes, bills, and other items which are routine in nature and
for which no debate is anticipated, shall be placed on the Consent Agenda. Any item placed on the Consent Agenda may be
removed at the request of any council member prior to the time a vote is taken. All remaining items of the Consent Agenda are
then disposed of in a single motion to adopt the Consent Agenda. This motion is not debatable. The Recorder to the Council will
then poll the council members individually by a roll call vote. If there are any dissenting votes, each item on the consent Agenda
is then voted on individually by roll call vote. Copies of the Council packets include more detailed staff reports, letters,
resolutions, and other supporting materials. A citizen wishing to review these materials may do so at Stayton City Hall, 362 N.
Third Avenue, Stayton, or the Stayton Public Library, 515 N. First Avenue, Stayton.
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or other
accommodations for persons with disabilities should be made at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. If you require special
accommodations contact Deputy City Recorder Alissa Angelo at (503) 769-3425.
Stayton City Council Agenda Page 2 of 4
December 4, 2017
PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing on Minor Modification Application
a. Commencement of Public Hearing
b. Staff Introduction
c. Applicant Presentation
d. Staff Report
e. Questions from the Council
f. Proponents’ Testimony
g. Opponents’ Testimony
h. Governmental Agencies
i. General Testimony
j. Questions from the Public
k. Questions from the Council
l. Applicant Summary
m. Staff Summary
n. Close of Hearing
o. Council Deliberation
p. Council Decision
Public Hearing Regarding Application for Housing Rehabilitation Funds
a. Opening Statement
b. Staff Report – Dan Fleishman
c. Open Public Hearing
d. Close Public Hearing
e. Council Deliberation
f. Council Decision
Continuation of Proposed Resolution Initiating Annexation and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
a. Continuation of Public Hearing
b. Staff Report – Dan Fleishman
c. Questions from Council
d. Proponents’ Testimony
e. Opponents’ Testimony
f. General Testimony
g. Questions from Public
h. Questions from Council
i. Staff Summary
j. Close of Hearing
k. Council Deliberation
l. Council Decision on Ordinance No. 1014
UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None
Stayton City Council Agenda Page 3 of 4
December 4, 2017
NEW BUSINESS
Mill Creek Park Project Informational
a. Staff Report – Lance Ludwick
STAFF/COMMISSION REPORTS – None
PRESENTATIONS/COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Recommended time for presentations is 10 minutes.
Recommended time for comments from the public is 3 minutes.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
BUSINESS FROM THE MAYOR
a. Appointment of member to vacant City Council seat
BUSINESS FROM THE COUNCIL
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – December 18, 2017
• City Attorney Award of Contract
• Teen Center
• Board and Committee Appointments
ADJOURN
Stayton City Council Agenda Page 4 of 4
December 4, 2017
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
DECEMBER 2017
Monday
December 4
City Council
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Tuesday
December 5
Parks & Recreation Board
Cancelled
Friday
December 8
Community Leaders
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Tuesday
December 12
Commissioner’s Breakfast
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Monday
December 18
City Council
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Wednesday December 20 Library Board 6:00 p.m. E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Friday December 22
Monday
December 25
Tuesday
December 26
Planning Commission
Cancelled
JANUARY 2018
Monday
January 1
Tuesday
January 2
City Council
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Wednesday
January 3
Parks & Recreation Board
6:30 p.m.
E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Tuesday January 9 Commissioner’s Breakfast 7:30 a.m. Covered Bridge Café
Friday
January 12
Community Leaders
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Monday
January 15
Tuesday
January 16
City Council
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Wednesday
January 17
Library Board
6:00 p.m.
E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Monday
January 29
Planning Commission
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
FEBRUARY 2018
Monday February 5 City Council 7:00 p.m. Community Center (north end)
Tuesday
February 6
Parks & Recreation Board
6:30 p.m.
E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Friday
February 9
Community Leaders
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Tuesday
February 13
Commissioner’s Breakfast
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Monday
February 19
Tuesday
February 20
City Council
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Wednesday February 21 Library Board 6:00 p.m. E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Monday
February 26
Planning Commission
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
MARCH 2018
Monday
March 5
City Council
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Tuesday
March 6
Parks & Recreation Board
6:30 p.m.
E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Friday
March 9
Community Leaders
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Tuesday
March 13
Commissioner’s Breakfast
7:30 a.m.
Covered Bridge Café
Monday March 19 City Council 7:00 p.m. Community Center (north end)
Wednesday
March 21
Library Board
6:00 p.m.
E.G. Siegmund Meeting Room
Monday
March 26
Planning Commission
7:00 p.m.
Community Center (north end)
Stayton City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3
November 20, 2017
City of Stayton
City Council Meeting Action Minutes
November 20, 2017
LOCATION: STAYTON COMMUNITY CENTER, 400 W. VIRGINIA STREET, STAYTON
Time Start: 7:00 P.M. Time End: 8:28 P.M.
COUNCIL MEETING ATTENDANCE LOG
COUNCIL
STAYTON STAFF
Mayor Henry Porter
Alissa Angelo, Deputy City Recorder
Councilor Priscilla Glidewell
Keith Campbell, City Administrator
Councilor Mark Kronquist
Dan Fleishman, Director of Planning & Development
Councilor Brian Quigley
Lance Ludwick, Public Works Director
Councilor Joe Usselman
Janna Moser, Library Director
Rich Sebens, Chief of Police (excused)
Charles Button, Police Lieutenant
Wallace Lien, Acting City Attorney
AGENDA
ACTIONS
REGULAR MEETING
Announcements
a. Additions to the Agenda
b. Declaration of Ex Parte Contacts, Conflict of Interest, Bias, etc.
None.
None.
Presentations / Comments from the Public
a. Introduction of Police Cadets by Sgt. Michael Meeks
b. Jerry Flowers
Sgt. Michael Meeks and Officer Brandon
RatheLeGurche spoke briefly about the Stayton
Police Cadet program. Each cadet gave a brief
introduction and background on themselves:
• Claudia Camacho
• Morgan Smith
• Cole Atiyeh
• Jacob Jungwirth
Mr. Flowers has questions about a piece of
property and storm drainage. Mr. Ludwick was
unfamiliar with the property and asked Mr.
Flowers to visit Public Works so they can discuss
further.
Consent Agenda
a. November 6, 2017 City Council Minutes
Motion from Councilor Kronquist, seconded by
Councilor Quigley, to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented. Motion passed 4:0.
Public Hearing
Proposed Resolution Initiating Annexation and Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
a. Commencement of Public Hearing
b. Staff Report – Dan Fleishman
Mayor Porter opened the hearing at 7:19 p.m.
Mr. Fleishman reviewed the staff report. At the
Stayton City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3
November 20, 2017
c. Questions from the Council
d. Proponents’ Testimony
e. Opponents’ Testimony
f. General Testimony
g. Questions from Public
h. Questions from Council
i. Staff Summary
j. Close of Hearing
k. Council Deliberation
l. Council Decision on Ordinance No. 1014
end of the hearing, he will be recommending the
Council continue the hearing to allow for
additional information to be added regarding
traffic impact.
Discussion of the hearing continuance, as well as
the Senate Bill 1573 and how it affects this
situation.
None.
None.
None.
Bill Martinak, 15556 Coon Hollow Road, spoke
about the lack of a Traffic Impact Analysis, and
inquired about a conceptual plan and if the
adopted Master Plans would be followed.
Dan Morgan, 2195 Cardinal Avenue, inquired
about future development to the north and if a
traffic impact analysis will look at this now or when
it’s developed.
Mr. Fleishman responded to the questions from
Mr. Martinak and Mr. Morgan.
None.
Mr. Fleishman provided an overview.
Motion from Councilor Kronquist, seconded by
Councilor Usselman, to continue the public hearing
to the December 4, 2017 City Council meeting.
Motion passed 4:0.
None.
No action.
Unfinished Business
None.
New Business
Proposed Resolution Establishing a Residential Rental
Registration Fee
a. Staff Report – Dan Fleishman
b. Council Discussion
c. Council Decision
Mr. Fleishman reviewed the staff report.
Discussion on how staff knows who has a rental
and enforcement of the fee, and the level of fee.
The Council directed staff to continue research and
return at a future meeting.
Staff / Commission Reports
Finance Department Report – Cindy Chauran & Elizabeth Baldwin
a. October 2017 Monthly Finance Department Report
Police Chief’s Report – Chief Rich Sebens
a. October 2017 Statistical Report
Public Works Director’s Report – Lance Ludwick
a. October 2017 Operating Report
No discussion.
Lt. Button shared that Stayton Police Officers are
participating in No Shave November and provided
a recap on the recent K9 Spaghetti Feed fundraiser
and Coffee with a Cop.
No discussion.
Stayton City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3
November 20, 2017
Planning & Development Director’s Report – Dan Fleishman
a. October 2017 Activities Report
Library Director’s Report – Janna Moser
a. October 2017 Activities
No discussion.
Ms. Moser provided a brief update and offered an
invite to an Ugly Christmas Sweater making event
at the Library.
Presentations / Comments From the Public
Paige Hook, 2088 Quail Run Avenue, shared her
thoughts on the Rental Housing standards and
fees.
Business from City Administrator
Mr. Campbell stated during the recent election
that the revised Charter was passed by the voters.
Business from the Council
None.
Business from the Mayor
Mayor Porter hopes to have an appointment to
the Council by the December 4
th
Council meeting.
Future Agenda Items – Monday, December 4, 2017
a. Public Hearing – Sunshine Coffee
b. City Attorney Award of Contract
c. Board and Committee Appointments
APPROVED BY THE STAYTON CITY COUNCIL THIS 4
TH
DAY OF DECEMBER 2017, BY A ____ VOTE OF THE STAYTON CITY
COUNCIL.
Date: By:
Henry A. Porter, Mayor
Date: Attest:
Keith D. Campbell, City Administrator
Date: Transcribed by:
Alissa Angelo, Deputy City Recorder
Acceptance of Abstract of Election Results –November 7, 2017 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF STAYTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Henry A. Porter and the Stayton City Council
FROM: Alissa Angelo, Deputy City Recorder
DATE: December 4, 2017
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Abstract of Election Results – November 7, 2017
STAFF RECOMENDATION
By consent, accept the Abstract of Election Results.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ORS 255.295 requires that a local government review and acknowledge acceptance of an
Abstract of Election Results, prepared by the county elections department, in connection with
an election within its jurisdiction.
For your information, an Undervote occurs when the number of choices selected by a voter is
less than the maximum number allowed for that contest or when no selection is made for a
single choice contest. An Overvote occurs when one votes for more than the maximum number
of selections allowed in a contest.
FACTS AND FINDINGS
An election was held on November 7, 2017 and citizens of Stayton cast votes for the following:
• City of Stayton Revised Charter
OPTIONS
Accept the Abstract of Election Results
MOTION(S)
Consent Agenda approval.
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Wallace W. Lien, Acting City Attorney
DATE: November 30, 2017
RE: Sunshine Coffee, Case No. Case No. 9-09/17
This Memo is intended to assist the Council with its deliberations on the matter of the
Sunshine Coffee application.
1. Jurisdiction Over the Decision
Jurisdiction over the subject application lies exclusively with the Council at this time. In
order to meet the statutory deadline for final resolution by the City of January 11, 2018, a Council
decision in this process is required before that date. That is to say there is no time for any remand
or further consideration of the matter by the Planning Commission or staff.
2. Process for Deliberations
The matter is now before the Council in the adjudication phase, where public testimony will
be taken and deliberations on the outcome will occur. The intricacies of the process by which this
application came to the Council are no longer of concern. The matter is now before the Council for
hearing and decision as would be the case for any other land use application.
3. Substantive Interpretations Have to be Made
There is a serious policy consideration and code interpretation that is involved in the
determination of this matter. That is to say, what are the parameters upon which one application may
be deemed to be a modification of a prior approval of another different application.
There is some help in our code to guide you in answering this question. SMC
17.12.070(1)(a)(3) provides that staff is entitled to make an original decision on a “minor
modification”. A “minor modification” is defined in the code as a modification that meets none of
the requirements for a “major modification. A “major modification” is defined as 1) a change to
transportation elements (driveways, parking, etc.); and 2) increasing the floor area proposed for non-
residential use by more than 15% of that which was approved; and 3) reducing the common area or
landscaping by more than 10%; and 4) increasing the parking spaces by more than 10%; and 5) add
or increase lot coverage in a sensitive or hazard area; and 6) changing the location of buildings,
streets parking, utilities, landscaping or other improvements by more than 10 feet; and 7) changing
a condition of approval; and 8) any change in the approved use that could have a detrimental impact
on adjoining properties.
Page 1 - Memo to Council
Although there is guidance on how to classify a modification as either major or minor, there
is little guidance on when an application can be considered to be a modification of a prior approval,
and when that same application must be considered as a new and original application. It is this
question that must be answered in this case. This is an important exercise, as the adopted
interpretation will set a precedent for how future applications for modifications will be treated.
SMC 17.12.150(1) indicates the purpose of a modification is to provide an efficient process
for modifying a previously approved land use decision. Modifications are new applications and are
not a continuation of the original approved land use decision. SMC 17.12.150(2)(b). A site plan is
required to show the modifications proposed from the original approval. SMC 17.12.150(3)(b). The
normal approval criteria are applied to the modification, using the original development proposal and
any conditions of approval from the original approval. SMC 17.12.150(4).
While the normal consideration of the modification of a land use approval is by the original
applicant, and for the same use as was originally approved, there are no such requirements
enumerated in the code. In this case, the applicant for the modification is different from the
applicant that received the original approval. Further, the type of use and the structures needed for
that use are also different.
The question then is if this application can be defined as a modification at all, or should it
be considered to be a new site plan application altogether. If it is determined this fact pattern
qualifies for administration as a modification, then it must be determined if the modification is minor
or major. All of these interpretations must be made by Council, and the findings and conclusions
to support the interpretations must be drafted and added to the Order once a final decision on this
application is made.
If it is determined that this application can not be considered to be a modification in the first
instance, the application must be considered null and void. In this case, the applicant would be
required to apply for a new and original site plan review under SMC 17.12.220, which would then
be processed as is otherwise provided for in the code. It does not appear that it is possible to allow
the application to be changed at this time from its current posture as a minor modification, to that
of a site plan review. SMC 17.12.140 provides the circumstances upon which an application can be
changed once it is to the Council, but none of those circumstance would allow the change in the kind
of application that is actually being applied for.
If it is determined the application qualifies for a modification in the first instance, then an
interpretation of the facts of the application must be made to decide if the changes proposed are
minor or major in scope. This simply involves application of definitions in SMC 17.04.100. If the
decision is this application is a minor modification, then findings and conclusions to that effect must
be added to the final decision. If the decision is this application is that the application should be for
a major modification, the current application would again have to be considered null and void, and
the process started over using the major modification process set forth in SMC 17.12.150.
What is missing in the current analysis and not present in the proposed Council Order, are
Page 2 - Memo to Council
findings and conclusions that make the required interpretation whether or not this application
qualifies as a modification at all, and if so why it is interpreted to be a minor modification instead
of a major modification. Staff will supply the findings and conclusions to add to the proposed Order
once Council makes the required interpretations.
It is my opinion the current draft of the Council Order is not reasonably defendable at LUBA,
and there would be a high likelihood of remand with instructions for the City to make the
interpretations discussed above. If such a LUBA appeal were to be brought, it would delay any final
action on the application for six months or more while LUBA decided the appeal.
Various elements that can be considered in making these interpretations include the following
issues:
1. In modifying a prior approval should it be required that the applicant for the modification be
the same party that was the applicant in the prior approval.
2. In modifying a prior approval should the underlying primary use be the same as was
originally approved.
3. Does the modification application have to apply only to the same exact land/tract that was
the subject of the prior approval.
4. To what extent should the procedures for review of a “major modification” under SMC
17.12.150 be applied to the review of a “minor modification.”
5. Should allowable modifications be limited only to design standards, setbacks, dimensional
requirements, landscaping and similar type requirements.
6. To what extent can/should conditions of approval in the original approval be continued,
eliminated or changed in a modification application.
There are undoubtedly more considerations than are listed here. The above list is simply a starting
point for the discussion to indicate the kinds of issues that should be considered in making the
required interpretations.
4. Questions that Must be Answered
In order to help the Council address this complex issue of interpretation of the code, the
following questions are presented as a matrix to assist with the decision making process:
1. Does this application qualify as a modification of a prior land use approval?
If yes, then move to question #2 below. If no, the application must be denied.
Page 3 - Memo to Council
2. If it is deemed this application qualifies as a modification, then do the facts of this
application qualify for a minor or major modification?
If the application is for a minor modification, proceed to final determination on the merits.
If the application is deemed to be a major modification, then the application must be
denied, and the process started over using the major modification process set forth in
SMC 17.12.150.
Once the answers to these questions are made by Council, staff should be directed to draft findings
and conclusions to support the Council’s interpretations, and to bring a final proposed Order in
conformance with the decision to the December 18, 2017 Council meeting for final adoption.
Page 4 - Memo to Council
City Council Staff Report
Land Use File 9-09/17 Page 1
CITY OF STAYTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Henry Porter and the Stayton City Council
FROM: Dan Fleishman, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: December 4, 2017
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Minor Modification Application
120 DAYS ENDS: January 11, 2018
ISSUE
The issue before the City Council is a public hearing on an application for minor modification to
a previously approved site plan for the property at the southwest corner of N Third Ave and
Whitney St, addressed as 2550 Martin Dr. This application was approved with conditions by
staff, but called up by Councilor Quiqley. The City Council retained jurisdiction and scheduled
the public hearing at your November 6 meeting.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The site is a portion of Lot 5 in Santiam Station and is subject to the CC&Rs and architectural
standards for that subdivision. Lot 5 was subsequently replatted and divided into six lots, which
benefit from and are subject to mutual access and shared parking easements.
The property has been the subject of multiple site plan review approvals in the past 14 years or
so. In 2013, site plan approval was granted for the establishment of a seasonal produce stand.
The 2013 site plan approval called for the development of a vacant lot with a driveway entrance
onto N Third Ave, a covered sales area to be located within an area of pavers, and gravel
parking area. The 2013 approval noted that the proposed use did not involve the construction
of any buildings and it was envisioned as a temporary development until such time as more
complete development of the property was envisioned. As such, the architectural design
standards of the CC&Rs were not applied and conditions of approval at that time allowed a
gravel-surfaced parking area for up to five years. The 2013 approval required the parking area
to be paved if the proposed use was in existence five years after the approval was granted.
After the site was developed, some inconsistencies with the approved plan were noted and a
revised plan submitted. The revised plan was submitted and approved with further conditions
of approval that required the restriping of the crosswalk and stop bar at the intersection of N
Third and Whitney St and required a building placed on site to meet the architectural design
requirements if it was still in place within five years.
City Council Staff Report
Land Use File 9-09/17 Page 2
The produce stand operated for only one season. The tent that provided the sales area and the
refrigerator building were removed. The other site improvements – pavers and gravel parking
area – remained in place.
The subject application was submitted to the Planning and Development Department on
September 13, 2017. The application is for minor modification of the previously approved plan
and showed the covered sales area removed and the placement of an 8-foot by 20-foot mobile
unit as a coffee kiosk. Under the terms of Code review of an application for a modification of a
previously approved plan is limited only to the modification request – the whole development
is not opened up for review after it has already been approved.
A spring 2014 aerial photo of the site is included below. On the photo, the area of pavers for the
sales area and what was the handicapped parking space is clearly shown and the former
refrigerator building was still on site.
ANALYSIS
This report presents the Planning Staff’s summary and analysis concerning this application. It
was developed with the input of other City departments and agencies.
City Council Staff Report
Land Use File 9-09/17 Page 3
Attached are application for Minor Modification and a revised site plan. Included in the packet
also are comments received from neighboring property owners throughout the review process
and rebuttal comments from the applicant.
As stated above, as a minor modification to a previously approved plan and as such the entire
site plan is not open to review – only those portions proposed to be changed. The draft order
of approval with conditions constitutes the staff recommendation. In developing the draft
order Staff has continued to take the position that the mobile food vending unit proposed for
placement on the site is not a building. Under the guidelines provided by Marion County
Building Inspection for when a building permit is required, the proposal is a mobile unit and not
a building – no permit is required. With these guidelines in mind the original staff decision
found the Code requirements for buildings and the development guidelines for the subdivision
were met.
Staff’s review of the application has found that the several of the design standards for parking
areas and driveway areas are not met. While the parcel has an existing paved driveway
connecting to N Third Ave on the east and the liquor store parcel to the west, the applicant
proposes that the driveway for drive-through service was to not be paved. Also, the site plan
submitted does not indicate the location of parking. The Code requires a minimum of two
parking spaces, one of which must be handicapped accessible. The draft order contains a
recommended condition of approval regarding these issues.
Because paving may be difficult at this time of year, the draft order recommends allowing the
business to open without the parking area and driveway paved, provided a suitable
performance guarantee is filed with the City in accordance with Section 17.20.120, and the
paving is accomplished no later than May 15, 2018. Section 17.20.120, allows a number of
different performance guarantees. It is likely that submittal of a certified check or cash deposit
with the City will be the best option for this case.
Included in the packet is a memorandum from Gerry Aboud, the owner of a neighboring
property. The letter points out a number of Code requirements that Mr. Aboud believes are
not met. A review of the draft order will reveal either findings that the code provisions are met,
a determination they are not applicable, or a condition of approval to assure they are met. Mr.
Aboud mentioned the 15% landscaping requirement. The site plan does not clearly show the
area of landscaping. My measurements from the aerial photo above reveal that approximately
1,800 square feet of the parcel is landscaped, more than 15%.
It is within the purview of the City Council to interpret the Code and the circumstances
differently than Staff has and require the architectural standards of Section 17.20.200.4 and the
Architectural and Site Design Standards of the CC&Rs to be met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with conditions as presented in the attached draft order.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS
The City Council is presented with the following options.
1. Approve the application with conditions, adopting the draft order as presented.
City Council Staff Report
Land Use File 9-09/17 Page 4
I move the City Council approve the application of Heidi Shamblin (Land Use File #9-09/17)
and adopt the draft order presented by Staff.
2. Approve the application with conditions, adopting modifications to the draft order.
I move the City Council approve the application of Heidi Shamblin (Land Use File #9-09/17)
and adopt the draft order with the following changes...
3. Approve the application with conditions, directing staff to modify the draft order.
I move the City Council approve the application of Heidi Shamblin (Land Use File #9-09/17)
and direct staff to modify the draft order to reflect the City Council’s discussion and bring a
revised draft order for City Council approval at the December 18, 2017 meeting.
4. Deny the application, directing Staff to develop the findings and conclusions to justify that
decision.
I move the City Council deny the application of Heidi Shamblin (Land Use File #9-09/17) and
direct staff to modify the draft order to reflect the City Council’s discussion and bring a
revised draft order for City Council approval at the December 18, 2017 meeting.
5. Continue the hearing until December 18, 2017.
I move the Stayton City Council continue the public hearing on the application of Heidi
Shamblin (Land Use File #9-09/17) until December 18, 2017.
6. Close the hearing but keep the record open for submission of written testimony.
I move the Stayton City Council close the hearing on the application of Heidi Shamblin (Land
Use File #9-09/17) but maintain the record open to submissions by the applicant until
December 18, allowing 7 days for review and rebuttal and then an additional 7 days for the
applicant to reply, with final closure of the record on January 2, 2018.
7. Close the hearing and record, and continue the deliberation to the next meeting.
I move the Stayton City Council continue the deliberation on the application of Heidi
Shamblin (Land Use File #9-09/17) until December 18, 2017.
To: Mayor Porter and the Stayton City Council
From: Gerry Aboud 836 East Kathy St. Stayton
Date November 22, 2017
Subject: Sunshine coffee Site Plan November 17, 2017
The most recent Site Plan by Sunshine Coffee was given to the City 11/17/2017. I would like to
address how it relates to the City’s land use codes.
1. The site plan is incomplete, incorrect and not scaled consistently. From the west end of the trailer to
the west property line is not44 feet but closer to 27 feet.
2. The site plan shows the trailer 10 feet north of the driveway.
3. The site plan show one drive thru window facing south, and shows vehicles being served from the
east and the west.
4. While not being able to figure exact dimensions from the site plan it appears that a vehicle being
served and others in line from the east will back up across a dirt area, the driveway and onto 3
rd
ave.
Vehicles served from the west will back up onto the drive then into the liquor store parking lot. The
code 17.20.060.7f3 requires queuing of 3 vehicles plus the serviced vehicle not go onto driveways or
public streets.
5. The site plan does not show handicapped parking as required by Code 17.20.060.8a.
6. The site plan does not show paved parking and driveways as required by Code 17.20.060.10b.
7. The site plan does not show the 15% landscaping required by Code 17.20.090.2.
8. The applicant does not include a landscaping plan, Code 17.20.090.3 or an irrigation plan, Code
17.20.090.4.
9. The applicant does not address that all non-developed land shall be landscaped as required by Code
17.20.090.6.
10. While the applicant only shows one drive thru lane, the trailer has two service windows. One north
facing, one south facing. A drive thru facility cannot face a street as shown by Code 17.20.060.7f1.
It has been stated before that this is not a building so some requirements need not be adhered to. The
site plan review discussed in the code distinguishes between development and improvements to
property. Clearly bare land, even without a building, is covered by the code even when a building
permit is not required.
Design standards for Santiam Station do not allow this trailer with a metal roof. This is part of the
recorded CC&Rs that the City has been enforcing because the City has Santiam Park in the same
development and is a party to those CC&Rs.
The site plan shows water and sewer connections so all System Development Fees should be collected
and monthly storm water and transportation fees collected.
This entire issue is not about keeping Sunshine Coffee from opening. It is not about being Business
Friendly.
It is about is following the laws (Development Codes) of the City of Stayton. It is about holding
everyone to the same standards. It is about making this a better looking city.
Please follow the Law. If you think the laws are unfair or unreasonable consider changing them in the
appropriate venue. Thank you for your time.
1
Dan Fleishman
From: Heidi Shamblen <sunshinecoffee2017@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 4:45 PM
To: Dan Fleishman; Dan Fleishman
Subject: Sunshine Coffee Company- response. please include this as part of the record
11/27/2017
To whom it may concern, Mayor Porter and City Council members, In Response to FORMER mayor Gerry
Aboud's lengthy concerns about our small business,
The site plan was done & corrected as requested. The measurements are correct to the best of our knowledge.
I find it odd that Mr. Aboud continues to go on the property we are leasing as stated in his email with
measurements of our lot and we would ask that he not continue to do so.
We ask that you keep in mind that this is a MOBILE unit, We can move it to accommodate our needs or the
city's needs. That is a large part of the reason we invested this way.
Regarding his concern over how many windows we have and what they will be used for, that will be addressed
to city council at the hearing.
Regarding handicapped parking or parking at all, this is a drive through, not a business that you park and go
into. Therefore the only people parking would be myself and maybe one other person and I believe we can park
on the street or on the already provided pavers, which could easily be marked if determined that is the need.
We would like to pave certain areas of course but as this is a Mobile unit and a very new business, we would
like the opportunity to be able to run our business for a time before investing the money into a leased property,
and if it is to be made permanent in the future, paving now before we have city utilities on the property would
be a large waste of ours or the property owners money as we would then have to tear it up to put those utilities
in.
I was told about many modifications that were done to the property by the former business owner that should
cover most of the requirements for landscaping, water runoff etc. There is a catch basin that was put there
specifically for the ability to have gravel instead of paving, from what i was lead to believe.
I would like to point out that this area looks 100% better now than it has in over 2 years and have been told that
by many many people in the neighborhood who appreciate how nice it looks and are anxious for our business to
be open.
We have already "improved the look of the city" as Mr. Aboud was concerned with.
And if allowed to open with a grace period to make improvements we would love to be a beautiful addition to
this town.
I may not be familiar with city codes which is why we have tried to do the things that were asked of us by the
people who are familiar with the codes and their purpose. We have taken our direction from them and moved
forward with this venture based on that knowledge.
2
We are not from wealthy families nor do we have extensive ties to the City of Stayton (as the 2 businessmen
who have had such an issue with our business do) but we have made this town our home and had hoped to
become a valuable part of it.
Thank you for your time, I hope this clears up our intention and relays the value of our business to the city.
Heidi Shamblen, Owner
Sunshine Coffee Co.
sunshinecoffee2017@gmail.com
1615 hummingbird lane
Stayton, Or 97383
541-974-5761
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 1 of 7
BEFORE THE STAYTON CITY COUNCIL
In the matter of ) Minor Modification of Previously
The application of ) Approved Site Plan Review
Heidi Shamblen, Applicant ) File #9-09/17
ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL
I. NATURE OF APPLICATION
The application is for minor amendment to previously approved site plan. The application had been
approved by the Planning and Development Director under the provisions of Stayton Municipal Code
Section 17.12.070.1.a.3). The Planning and Development Director’s decision was called-up by a
member of the City Council. A revised site plan was submitted by the applicant on November 17, 2017.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The owner the property is Robert and Patricia Ebner.
2. The applicant is Heidi Shamblen, who has a lease for the property.
3. The property can be described as tax lot
1600
, on Map
91W03DC
.
4. The property is zoned Commercial Retail (CR).
5. The property is located at 2550 Martin Drive and is located at the southwest corner of Whitney
St and N Third Ave.
6. The property is 10,000 square feet in area and is currently vacant, though it was developed with a
paved driveway, concrete pavers enclosed by a chain link fence and a gravel surfaced parking
area under the previously approved site plan.
7. The neighboring properties to the south and southwest are zoned CR and are vacant. The
neighboring property to the west is zoned CR and is developed as a retail establishment. The
properties to the east, across N Third Ave, are zoned Medium Density Residential and developed
with single family dwellings. The property to the north, across Whitney St, is zoned Interchange
Development and is vacant.
8. The property has received several Site Plan Review approvals for developments that were not
constructed. The property received Site Plan Review approval from the Stayton Planning and
Development Department in 2013 as Land Use File #3-03/13 which was amended later that year
by Land Use File 9-06/13.
9. The 2013 approval was for the development of a seasonal produce sales establishment. The
property was improved in 2013 with the installation of a paved driveway, concrete pavers for the
sales area, stormwater detention and quality facility, and a gravel surfaced parking area. The
structures for the seasonal produce sales establishment have been removed, but the property
improvements remain in place.
10. The property is located in the Santiam Station development and was platted as Lot 2 on the
Replat of Lot 5 of Santiam Station. The subdivision provided for stormwater detention for the
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 2 of 7
overall subdivision. The design standards from the Fern Ridge Properties LLC, Order of
September 23, 1998 apply. This lot and the neighboring lots to the south, southwest, and west
are subject to a reciprocal access and parking easement.
B. PROPOSAL
The current application is to modify the site plan to remove the seasonal sales area and to install an
8-foot by 20-foot trailer mounted drive-through coffee kiosk. Similar to the last site plan approval,
this development will be “temporary” in nature, until a more permanent development is planned and
constructed in the coming years.
D. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies were notified of the proposal: City of Stayton Public Works, Marion County
Public Works, WAVE Broadband, Stayton Cooperative Telephone Company, Pacific Power,
Northwest Natural Gas, Santiam Water Control District, Stayton Fire District and Stayton Police
Department.
Stayton Cooperative Telephone Company responded with no comments.
E. PUBLIC COMMENT
Notice of the Planning and Development Department’s pending decision was sent to owners of all
property within 300 feet of the subject property. Notice of the City Council’s public hearing was
sent to owners of all property within 300 feet of the subject property. Comments were received from
owners of two neighboring properties, which are reflected in the findings below.
F. ANALYSIS
Site plan review applications are required to satisfy approval criteria contained within Stayton
Municipal Code (SMC) Title 17, Section 17.12.220. This application is also subject to the design
standards in SMC Title 17 Chapter 20, specifically, Sections 17.20.060 – Off-Street Parking and
Loading; 17.20.090 – Landscaping Requirements; 17.20.140 – Signs; 17.20.170 – Outdoor Lighting;
and 17.20.200 – Commercial Design Standards. Whereas the proposed development is located in
the Santiam Station development it is also subject to the architectural and design standards in the
Stipulated Judgment and City Council Order of September 23, 1998.
This review and approval is concerned only with the elements of the site plan that are proposed to be
amended from the previous approvals: removal of the seasonal sales area and installation of a
mobile drive-through coffee kiosk.
G. APPROVAL CRITERIA
Pursuant to SMC 17.12.220.5 the following criteria must be demonstrated as being satisfied by the
application:
a. The existence of, or ability to obtain, adequate utility systems (including water, sewer, surface
water drainage, power, and communications), and connections, including easements, to properly
serve development in accordance with City’s Master Plans and Standard Specifications.
Finding: The site is currently developed with water, sewer and other utility services available in
adjacent streets. The coffee kiosk will not be connected to public water or public sewer.
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 3 of 7
b. Provisions for safe and efficient internal traffic circulation, including both pedestrian and motor
vehicle traffic, and for safe access to the property from those public streets and roads which
serve the property in accordance with the City’s Transportation System Plan and Standard
Specifications.
Finding: The property has a shared driveway along the southerly property line, partially on the
lot to the south, extending to the west property line that provides interconnected access to the
parking area for the retail establishment to the west. The site plan submitted shows vehicles will
access the south side of the trailer for drive-through service. There was a chain link fence
surrounding the former produce sales area that has been removed by the applicant.
c. Provision of all necessary improvements to local streets and roads, including the dedication of
additional right-of-way to the City and/or the actual improvement of traffic facilities to
accommodate the additional traffic load generated by the proposed development of the site.
Finding: N Third Ave and Whitney St are both fully improved streets.
d. Provision has been made for parking and loading facilities as required by Section 17.20.060.
Finding: See Findings relative to Section 17.20.060 below.
e. Open storage areas or outdoor storage yards shall meet the standards of Section 17.20.070
Finding: There are no proposed open storage areas or outdoor storage yards.
f. Site design shall minimize off site impacts of noise, odors, fumes or impacts.
Finding: There will be no noise, odors or fumes.
g. The proposed improvements shall meet all applicable criteria of either Section 17.20.190
Residential Design Standards, or Section 17.20.200 Commercial Design Standards
Finding: See Findings relative to Section 17.20.200 below.
h. The design and placement of buildings and other structural improvements on a site shall provide
compatibility in size, scale, and intensity of use between the development proposed and similar
development on neighboring properties
Finding: No buildings are proposed.
i. The design of the proposed improvements will fulfill the intended purpose of the requested use
and will properly serve customers or clients of the proposed improvements.
Finding: The proposed structure will provide a location for drive-through coffee kiosk.
j. Landscaping of the site shall prevent unnecessary destruction of major vegetation, preserve
unique or unusual natural or historical features, provide for vegetative ground cover and dust
control, present an attractive interface with adjacent land uses and be consistent with the
requirements for landscaping and screening in Section 17.20.090.
Finding: See Findings relative to Section 17.20.090 below.
k. The design of any visual, sound, or physical barriers around the property such as fences, walls,
vegetative screening, or hedges, shall allow them to perform their intended function without
undue adverse impact on existing land uses.
Finding: No barriers are proposed.
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 4 of 7
l. The lighting plan satisfies the requirements of Section 17.20.170.
Finding: No outdoor lighting is proposed.
m. The applicant has established continuing provisions for maintenance and upkeep of all
improvements and facilities.
Finding: The owner will be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the improvements.
n. When any portion of an application is within 100 feet of the North Santiam River or Mill Creek
or within 25 feet of the Salem Ditch, the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on fish
habitat.
Finding: The property is not within 100 feet of the North Santiam River or Mill Creek or within
25 feet of the Salem Ditch.
Section 17.20.060 – Off Street Parking Requirements
The following are the applicable provisions from Section 17.20.060
17.20.060.7.a: The minimum number of parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for
eating and drinking establishments is 10.
17.20.060.7.b When the required spaces are calculated by this subsection becomes greater than 1/3 of a
space, the number shall be rounded up.
Finding: The application proposes 160 square feet of area, which would require a minimum of 2
parking spaces. The revised plan does not show any parking spaces. The existing gravel surface
parking area has capacity for more than 2 parking spaces.
17.20.060.7.f Drive-Through Facilities Standards. When drive-through uses and facilities are
proposed, they shall conform to all of the following standards:
1) The service window of drive-through facility shall face to an alley, driveway, or interior parking
area, and not a street.
2) None of the drive-through facilities (e.g. windows, teller machines, service windows, kiosks,
drop-boxes, or similar facilities) are located within 20 feet of a street and shall not be oriented to
a street corner. Automatic Teller Machines and kiosks that serve only pedestrians may be
oriented to a street.
3) The drive-through facility’s queuing area shall be adequate for three vehicles in addition to
those being serviced and shall not block travel lanes of a parking area or driveway.
4) Pedestrian ways shall not cross the dedicated drive-through queuing areas.
Finding: The application proposes a drive-through service window on the south side of the trailer,
facing the shared driveway, more than 40 feet from Whitney St. The revised site plan indicates there
is 44 feet between the trailer and the west property line, allowing for no more than two vehicles to
queue without blocking the travel land of the driveway.
17.20.060.8 HANDICAPPED/DIABLED PARKING. Except for single family residences and duplexes,
parking spaces and accessible passenger loading zones reserved exclusively for use by handicapped or
disabled persons shall be provided in accordance with Table 17.20.060.8.a and shall be located on the
shortest possible accessible circulation route to an entrance of the building being accessed
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 5 of 7
Finding: Table 20.060.8.a requires a minimum of one accessible handicapped space. The site plan
does not designate any handicapped parking spaces.
17.20.060.10 DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. All parking and loading areas shall be developed
and maintained as follows:
Surfacing. All driveways, parking and loading areas shall be paved with asphalt or concrete
surfacing and shall be adequately designed, graded, and drained as required by the Public Works
Director. In no case shall drainage be allowed to flow across a public sidewalk. Parking areas
containing more than 5 parking spaces shall be striped to identify individual parking spaces.
Finding: The site currently has a gravel-surfaced parking area. With the removal of the chain link
fence around the pavers, this area could be available for parking.
Section 17.20.090 – Landscaping and Screening General Standards
The following are the applicable provisions from Section 17.20.090
17.20.090.2 BASIC PROVISIONS. The minimum area of a site in the CR Zone to be retained in
landscaping is 15%.
Finding: The site is 10,000 square feet in area. Therefore a minimum of 1,500 square feet of
landscaping is required. The site plan does not indicate the area of landscaping. Staff’s estimate of
the landscaping from a 2014 aerial photo is 1,800 square feet. No change in the area of landscaping
is proposed.
Section 17.20.200 – Commercial Design Standards
The following are the applicable provisions from Section 17.20.200
2. SIZE RESTRICTIONS.
a. All retail stores are limited to 45,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Finding: The application proposes a trailer with 160 square feet of area.
3. SITE DESIGN.
a. Height Step Down. To provide compatible scale and relationships between new multi-story
commercial buildings and existing adjacent single-story dwellings, the multi-story
building(s) shall “step down” to create a building height transition to adjacent single-story
building(s).
Finding: No building is proposed.
b. Building Orientation. All new commercial developments shall have their buildings oriented
to the street. The following standards will apply:
Finding: No building is proposed. The proposed use is a drive-through coffee kiosk located in a
trailer.
4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.
Finding: No building is proposed. The proposed use is a drive-through coffee kiosk located in a
trailer.
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 6 of 7
5. LIGHTING. All new commercial development shall provide a lighting plan that meets the
standards of Section 17.20.170.
Finding: The application does not propose any outdoor lighting.
Relevant Criteria—Santiam Station Architectural and Site Design Standards
A. Architectural Design
Finding: No building is proposed. The proposed use is a drive-through coffee kiosk located in a
trailer.
B. Site Development
Finding: The site development features were established with the previous approval and are not
proposed to be changed.
III. CONCLUSION
The applicant’s request meets the requirements established in SMC 17.12.220.5 and Section 17.20.060
except for the following:
Section 17.20.060.7.f. This section requires a minimum queuing for three vehicles for a drive-
through service window. The site plan provides for no more than two vehicles. This standards
could be met if the site plan were modified to move the trailer to the east to provide at least 60 feet
of queuing space for the drive-through window.
Section 17.20.060.8. This section requires a minimum of one handicapped accessible parking space.
This standard could be met if the site plan were amended to designate a handicapped accessible
parking space.
Section 17.20.060.10.b. This section requires driveways and parking areas be paved with asphalt or
concrete surfacing. The is adequate space on site for the minimum number of parking spaces
required by the Code, however the site plan does not designate their location. This standard could be
met if the site plan were amended a parking area for two vehicles and indicated that they were to be
paved with concrete or asphalt.
IV. ORDER
Based on the conclusions above the City Council approves the minor modification as shown on an
untitled undated plan stamped Received, City of Stayton, November 17, 2017 subject to the Standard
Conditions of Approval for Land Use Applications attached to this decision and the following specific
conditions.
1. All prior conditions of approval from Land Use Files 3-03/13 and 9-06/13 shall continue to be
met unless specifically changed by the revised site plan and this order.
2. A revised site plan shall be submitted that allows at least 60 feet of queuing space for the drive-
through window in addition to the vehicle being served at the window, without blocking the
driveway.
3. A revised site plan shall be submitted that shows the proposed location of on-site parking for a
minimum of two vehicles. At least one of the spaces shall meet the requirements for a
handicapped accessible parking space and be properly marked and signed. The parking area
shall be paved with concrete or asphalt. The driveway lane for drive-through service shall be
City Council Order of Conditional Approval, Land Use File #9-09/17
Sunshine Coffee Kiosk – Minor Modification
Page 7 of 7
paved with asphalt or concrete. Due to the time of year of this decision, the paving may be
postponed and the business open. However, the applicant shall file a performance guarantee in
accordance with Section 17.20.120 and shall pave the parking area and driveway lane no later
than May 15, 2018.
V. OTHER PERMITS AND RESTRICTIONS
The applicant is herein advised that the use of the property involved in this application may require
additional permits from the City or other local, State or Federal agencies.
The City of Stayton Land Use review and approval process does not take the place of, or relieve the
Applicant of responsibility for acquiring such other permits, or satisfy any restrictions or conditions
there on. The land use permit approval herein does not remove, alter, or impair in any way the covenants
or restrictions imposed on this property by deed or other instrument.
In accordance with Section 17.12.120.7, the land use approval granted by this decision shall be effective
only when the exercise of the rights granted herein is commenced within one year of the effective date
of the decision. In case such right has not been exercised or extension obtained, the approval shall be
void. A written request for an extension of time may be filed with the Director of Planning and
Development at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the approval.
VI. APPEAL DATES
The City Council’s action may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals pursuant to ORS
197.830.
ADOPTED BY THE STAYTON CITY COUNCIL this 4
th
day of December, 2017.
CITY OF STAYTON
Signed: ____________, 2017 BY: _______________________________
Henry A. Porter, Mayor
Signed: ____________, 2017 ATTEST: _______________________________
Keith D. Campbell,
City Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Wallace W Lien, City Attorney
Standard Conditions of Approval Page 1 of 2
Standard Conditions of Approval for Land Use Applications
1. Minor variations to the approved plan shall be permitted provided the development
substantially conforms to the submitted plans, conditions of approval, and all applicable
standards contained in the Stayton Land Use and Development Code.
2. Permit Approval: The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the
City of Stayton prior to construction of the project.
3. Change in Use - Any change in the use of the premises from that identified in the application
shall require the City Planner to determine that the proposed use is an allowed use and that
adequate parking is provided on the parcel.
4. Landscaping - The applicant shall remain in substantial conformance to the approved
landscaping plan and follow the criteria established in SMC 17.20.090 for maintenance and
irrigation. Dead plants shall be replaced within six months with a specimen of the same
species and similar size class.
5. Utilities - Utility companies shall be notified early in the design process and in advance of
construction to coordinate all parties impacted by the construction.
6. Agency Approval - The Developer shall be responsible for all costs relating to the required
public improvements identified in the approved plan and the specific conditions of approval
and within the City Ordinances and Standard Specifications. The developer is also
responsible for securing design approval from all City, State and Federal agencies having
jurisdiction over the work proposed. This includes, but is not limited to, the City of Stayton,
the Fire District, Marion County, DEQ, ODHS (water design), DSL, 1200C (state excavation
permit), etc
7. Construction Bonding - Bonding shall be required if there are any public improvements.
Prior to start of construction of any public improvement, the developer shall provide a
construction bond in the amount of 100% of the total project costs, plus added City costs
associated with public construction. The bond shall be in a form acceptable to the Director
of Public Works.
8. Inspection - At least five days prior to commencing construction of any public
improvements, the Developer shall notify the Director of Public Works in writing of the date
when (s)he proposes to commence construction of the improvements, so that the City can
arrange for inspection. The written notification shall include the name and phone number of
the contracting company and the responsible contact person. City inspection will not relieve
the developer or his engineer of providing sufficient inspection to enforce the approved plans
and specifications.
9. Public Works Standards - Where public improvements are required, all public and private
public works facilities within the development will be designed to the City of Stayton,
Standard Specifications, Design Standards & Drawings (PW Standards) plus the
requirements of the Stayton Municipal Code (SMC). (SMC 12.08.310.1)
10. Engineered Plans - Where public improvements are required, the applicant’s engineer shall
submit design plans for approval of all public improvements identified on the approved plan
or as specified in conditions of approval. All design plans must meet the Stayton PW
Standards. Engineered construction plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the City
Standard Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 2
Engineer and signed approved by the City Engineer, or Stayton Public Works Department,
prior to construction.
11. Street Acceptance - Where public improvements are required, acceptance of completed
public street improvements associated with the project shall be in accordance with SMC
12.04.210.
12. Construction Approval - All public improvements and public utilities shall be fully
constructed and a letter of substantial completion provided by the City Engineer prior to any
building permit applications being accepted or issued unless the required improvements are
deferred under a non-remonstrance or other agreement approved and signed by the City.
Construction items must be completed within a specified period of time provided in the
approval letter or the approval of any additional building permits will be withdrawn by the
City.
13. Maintenance Bond - After completion and acceptance of a public improvement by the City,
the developer shall provide a 1-year maintenance bond in the amount of 30% of the
construction bond amount. The bond shall be in a form acceptable to the Director of Public
Works.
14. As-Builts - Where public improvements are required, the developer shall submit to the City,
reproducible as-built drawings and an electronic file of all public improvements constructed
during and in conjunction with this project. Field changes made during construction shall be
drafted to the drawings in the same manner as the original plans with clear indication of all
modifications (strike out old with new added beside). As-built drawings shall be submitted
prior to final acceptance of the construction, initiating the one-year maintenance period.
15. Drainage Permit – A 1200C permit will be secured by the developer if required under the
rules of the Oregon State DEQ.
16. SDC - Systems Development Charges are applied to the project at the time of issuance of a
building permit.
City Council Staff Report
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant Hearing Page 1
CITY OF STAYTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Henry Porter and the Stayton City Council
FROM: Dan Fleishman, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: December 4, 2017
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Application for Housing
Rehabilitation Funds
ISSUE
The issue before the City Council is holding a public hearing on an application to the State of
Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority for a Community Development Block Grant for a Type
II housing rehabilitation grant.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are provided by the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the states for disbursement to units of local
government for the purposes of assisting low and moderate-income households and meeting
urgent needs. Cities larger than 50,000 in population receive CDBG funds directly from the
federal government. Smaller, “non-entitlement” cities and counties may apply for funding
through the established state programs. In Oregon the CDBG program is administered by the
Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) of the Oregon Business Development Department.
Stayton has had a CDBG-financed housing rehabilitation program since 2002. The program
provides low-interest loans to qualified households for home improvements and repairs. As
loans are repaid, the funds are available for relending. The original 2002 grant financed 12
loans and has since provided assistance to more than 20 households.
The City contracts with Valley Development Initiatives (VDI) for the administration of the
program. VDI is a 501c(3) organization established by the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of
Governments for the administration of economic development and housing rehabilitation
programs in Marion, Polk and Yamhill Counties. VDI administers housing rehab programs for
eleven cities and Marion County. The Housing Rehabilitation Partners meet several times a
year to discuss policy issues and I am usually in attendance.
ANALYSIS
Under the terms of previous CDBG grants, loans are made to homeowners and a lien is placed
on the property to secure the loan. The loan is repaid when the home is sold or ownership is
transferred. Owners of manufactured housing units who don’t own the land on which the unit
City Council Staff Report
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant Hearing Page 2
sits have previously been ineligible to participate since a lien could not be recorded to secure
the low interest loans. Recent changes to the rules for new grants will allow grants to these
homeowners. Stayton has been working with other communities to put together a regional
grant application to provide assistance to these residents who have been excluded from
previous programs.
Changes in how the state administers the CDBG program now mean that applications must
represent a group of at least three local governments. One local government is the lead
applicant and bears all responsibility for the administration of the grant. The lead applicant
must contract with a regional non-profit for the management of the program. We expect an
application from Stayton, Aumsville, Turner, Mt Angel, and Marion County to be submitted to
the IFA before the end of the month. Stayton will be the lead applicant and as such, this
evening’s public hearing must precede the submittal of the application. If successful, over
$100,000 should be available to qualified Stayton manufactured homeowners. We currently
have 20 households on a waiting list.
I have provided the Council with the preapplication intake form filed with IFA, the participation
agreement, and a sample letter mailed out to the owners of homes in the three mobile home
parks in Stayton in order to develop the waiting list.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City accept the role as the lead applicant and the City Council authorize
the City Administrator to enter into a participation agreement with our neighboring units of
local government.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS
The City Council is presented with the following options.
1. Serve as the lead applicant and authorize execution of the participation agreement
Move that the City submit an application for a CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant and
authorize the City Administrator to execute the Participation Agreement.
2. Participate in the regional grant program but not serve as the lead applicant
Move to authorize the City Administrator to execute the Participation Agreement for a
CDBG Housing Rehabilitation Grant.
3. Choose not to participate.
No motion necessary.
Project Intake Form - Rev Jul
11 2017
Page 1 of 6
Project Intake Form
Note: Completion of this form does not guarantee an application will be invited. Program and Policy
Coordinator may provide comments and suggestions for further project development.
Section 1 A: Potential Applicant
Organization Name Organization
(Identify the ORS under which entity is formed if
potential applicant is an entity other than city or county,
such as special district, authority, association, et cetera.)
Street Address Mailing Address
Office Phone Web URL
Section 1 B: Project Contact
Name
Title
Phone
Email
Phone
(cell)
Section 1 C: Project Overview
Project Name
Project Location (
physical address / attach map
)
Project Category
Planning Design only Construction only Design & Construction
Other:
Section 1 D: Estimated Funding Request
Amount
Funding Request from Business Oregon
Funds from potential applicant
Not Budgeted Budgeted
Other Funds: Pending
Committed
If committed,
provide term:
Other Funds:
Pending Committed
If committed,
provide term:
Estimated Total Project Cost
City
City of Stayton
362 N. Third Avenue, Stayton OR 97383
362 N. Third Avenue, Stayton OR 97383
503-769-3425
Dan Fleishman
Planning Director
503-769-2919
dfleishman@ci.stayton.or.us
Regional Housing Rehabilitation grant fund
Cities of Stayton, Aumsville, Mt. Angel, Turner and rural Marion County
Housing Rehabilitation, Type II
400,000
5,000
Valley Development Initiatives/Partners
Available in FY2018.
$ 405,000
Project Intake Form - Rev Jul
11 2017
Page 2 of 6
Cost Estimate Date:
Prepared by
Estimated Project Start Date:
Completion Date:
If funding assistance from Business Oregon includes a loan, how will it be repaid?
Estimated date of first draw:
Section 1 E: Project Description
Opportunity / Problem
Proposal / Solution
Describe the proposed solution to the above problem / opportunity including
identification of whether the proposed solution is a planning (feasibility, preliminary engineering,
technical assistance et cetera.) only project, a final design only
project, a construction only project or a
combined final design / construction project.
November 2017
VDI
May 2018
April 2020
N/a.
5/2018
The City of Stayton and its partners, Aumsville, Mt. Angel, Turner, and unincorporated Marion County,
with assistance from Valley Development Initiatives, seek to remedy a significant and growing housing
problem within the region. Substandard conditions exist in many dwelling structures occupied by
low-moderate income residents. These structures need substantial repairs that are beyond the ability of
the owners to correct on their own resources. Most of the repairs requested, if neglected, could endanger
the safety and health of the occupants. Valley Development Initiatives Rehabilitation Partners have
combined their experience in housing rehabilitation to focus the grant application on the needs of those
that do not have equity in their homes or do not own their land and are otherwise ineligible for our
current loan program. This is the first CDBG TYPE II grant application being submitted to IFA to serve the
Marion County area. These communities have also not been associated with a CDBG housing
rehabilitation grant since 2012 or longer, and at the time of the 2012 loan program award, funds could not
be utilized to serve many of those on the wait list due to a lack of equity at that time.
The proposed grant is estimated to provide at least 30 grants to eligible applicants to
rehabilitate their structures, benefiting more than an estimated 100 persons in the
region. The funding will give a resource to low income residents to conduct urgent
health and safety repairs without having to take on additional debt or housing costs.
The Partners propose eligibility would be limited to those persons who do not have
equity upon which a lien on the property can be placed and whom cannot otherwise be
served by the traditional VDI loan program (i.e. stick built or manufactured dwellings
with zero equity and/or applicants who do not own the land).
The City of Stayton will enter into an agreement with the five other regional partners
and the non-profit Valley Development Initiatives to manage the program.
Project Intake Form - Rev Jul
11 2017
Page 3 of 6
Section 1 F: Background Information – Part 1
For Water
or Wastewater Projects Only
Current Monthly Residential User Charge
(Assume 7,500 gallons per month water consumption.)
per month water per month wastewater
Compliance Status Achieve Compliance Maintain Compliance
Meet Future Requirements Not Compliance Related
(
If compliance related, please provide supporting documentation from the related regulatory agency
.)
Identify type of compliance:
Notice Date:
Will the proposed project bring the utility into compliance? Yes No
For Economic Development Projects Only
(Job related)
What type of project is it? Emergency Firm Business Commitment
Industrial Levee Other
If other special project is selected, please provide more information:
Will the project result in locating or expanding industrial or major commercial firm(s)?
Yes No N/A
If yes, provide firm’s name (
type of industry if confidential
) and estimated number of jobs that will be
created / retained.
How does this project build community or economic development?
For economic development, please
provide a brief economic impact statement. Example: this project will create / retain X number of jobs:
construction, post construction and/or add $X value to the community. State how many of the jobs will be at or
above the county’s minimum wage. State if the jobs are traded sector jobs or not. State cost per jobs created or
retained.
This is the end of the form for planning-only projects and technical assistance-only projects.
If your project is design and/or construction, please continue to complete the following pages.
Project Intake Form - Rev Jul
11 2017
Page 4 of 6
Section 1 G: Background Information – Part 2
For Design and/or Construction Projects
Is the project based on a technical document that shows the project is feasible,
cost effective, and completed by a licensed engineer or architect (
such as
approved Master Plan, Facilities Plan or other technical report)
?
Yes No
If Yes, date of plan or report:
If No, when will an engineering or architectural report be completed?
Has the governing body of the potential applicant conducted a public meeting
(council or board meeting, public hearing, workshop, et cetera)
to identify and
discuss the proposed project, including such items as nature and need for the
project, starting date, financing requirements that may involve taking on
additional debt, and consistency with the local comprehensive land use plan,
countywide or regional plan?
Yes No
Type of public meeting: Date of public meeting:
If No, when will the public meeting be held?
For Water or Wastewater Projects Only
(for Design and/or Construction Projects)
Yes No
Are the audited financial reports for the three most recent fiscal years available
on the Secretary of State website?
If No, attach the most recent financial reports
(audited, if available)
What is the existing annual debt service for the existing system?
What is the amount, if any, of existing annual debt service for the system that is paid by property taxes?
per year water per year wastewater
Planned Monthly Residential User Charge Upon the Completion of Construction (
must adequately cover
operation, maintenance, replacement and debt financing
):
per month water per month wastewater
Yes No
Is there a current OM&R
(Operation, Maintenance and Replacement)
Manual for the
system?
Are Maintenance and Replacement expenditures budgeted annually?
Yes No
Yes No
Are meters installed on all service connections?
If No, percentage not metered and provide explanation:
Project Intake Form - Rev Jul 11 2017
Page 5 of 6
USE
Current /
Existing
System
Future / at
Completion of
Construction
Current /
Existing
System
Future / at
Completion of
Construction
Gallons per
Year
Connections
Connections
Billable
Accounts
Billable
Accounts
Usage
Residential
Commercial and Businesses
Industrial
Other
Total Uses
Of Residential, Number
occupied by Permanent
Residents
Percentage of Permanent
Residents
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
Project Intake Form - Rev Jul 11 2017 Page 6 of 6
Section 2: to be completed by Business Oregon staff only
(Applicable for all project types)
Does the potential applicant have other open Business Oregon grants and/or loans? Yes No
If yes, list each open Business Oregon award by project name, number, award amount and project status:
Is potential applicant pursuing CDBG funding? Yes No
If yes, complete A and B below:
A. Does potential applicant have more than three open CDBG grants? Yes No
If yes, explain:
B. Is potential applicant meeting the age and expenditure requirements for
all open CDBG grants? See the age and expenditure requirements below:
Yes No
• Requirements for open ONE-YEAR grants are:
Any Microenterprise grant this is one year old must be 70% drawn
Any Microenterprise grant that is two years old must be administratively closed
Any Housing Rehabilitation project that is one or two years old must be meeting contract requirements
Any Housing Rehabilitation project that is three years old must administratively closed
• Requirements for open MULTI-YEAR grants are:
Any grant that is two years old must be 60% drawn
Any grant that is three years old must be 100% drawn
Any grant that is four years old must be administratively closed
Potential Applicant Population
Low / Mod Income %
Median Household Income
Distressed Area Yes No Mixed
Rural Area Yes No Mixed
Client Number
Deal Number
County
One Stop Meeting (Attach Financial Worksheet from One Stop session if applicable)
Date
Notes
Intake Routing Date
Comment received Yes No
If yes, attach
Invite Application for the following source or sources:
CDBG SDWRLF DWSP SPWF
WWF PPMF OPRLF MNIF
Other
Comments
Regional Development Officer / Regional Project Manager
Name Signature Date
Page 1 of 1
Participation Agreement In Support Of a Community Development Block Grant
From The 2017 Community Development Block Grant Program
Administered By Business Oregon
Agreement Title: Sponsorship of Marion County Home Repair Program
Agreement Date: _________
Signatory parties: Marion County and the cities of: Aumsville, Stayton (lead applicant), Turner,
Mt. Angel, and Woodburn.
Agreement: The above signatory parties agree to jointly sponsor a housing rehabilitation
program provided through a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG),
administered by the Oregon Business Development Department, Infrastructure
Finance Authority and recognize the City of Stayton as the lead agency that will be
responsible for applying, receiving and administering the CDBG award.
Grant Activity: The purpose of the proposed CDBG is to manage a housing rehabilitation
revolving grant fund to provide assistance to low income homeowners to repair
their homes.
Constraints: One-hundred percent (100%) of the benefitted owner-occupied household
occupants must have incomes below the federal low- and moderate-income limit
(80% of the median family income as adjusted by family size).
Only persons who reside within the boundaries of the cities and unincorporated/
nonentitlement county areas of the signatory parties are to receive the housing
rehabilitation funding.
Valley Development Initiatives (VDI) will enter into a sub-grant agreement with the
lead agency, the City of Stayton, to manage the housing rehabilitation program.
Counterparts: This agreement may be signed in counterparts and each counterpart will be
deemed an original. Copies of all signatures will be provided as part of the grant
application and to each signator.
Multiple Parties: In the event that one or more of the signatories identified above decline to sign this
agreement, it remains sufficient for all other signatories to receive the benefits of
the agreement.
So Agreed:
____________________________________ _____________________________
Signed Date
____________________________________
Title (Include Jurisdiction)
C i t y o f S t a y t o n
Department of Planning and Development
362 N. Third Avenue • Stayton, OR 97383
Phone: (503) 769-2998 • Fax (503) 769-2134
dfleishman@ci.stayton.or.us www.staytonoregon.gov
T
HE
C
ITY OF
S
TAYTON IS AN
E
QUAL
O
PPORTUNITY
E
MPLOYER AND
S
ERVICE
P
ROVIDER
P
OLICE
386
N.
T
HIRD
A
VENUE
S
TAYTON
,
O
R
97383
(503)
769-3423
FAX
(503)
769-7497
P
LANNING AND
D
EVELOPMENT
362
N.
T
HIRD
A
VENUE
S
TAYTON
,
O
R
97383
(503)
769-2998
FAX
(503)
767-2134
P
UBLIC
W
ORKS
362
N.
T
HIRD
A
VENUE
S
TAYTON
,
O
R
97383
(503)
769-2919
FAX
(503)
767-2134
W
ASTEWATER
950
J
ETTERS
W
AY
S
TAYTON
,
O
R
97383
(503)
769-2810
FAX
(503)
769-7413
L
IBRARY
515
N
.
F
IRST
A
VENUE
S
TAYTON
,
O
R
97383
(503)
769-3313
FAX
(503)
769-3218
November 7, 2017
Dear Boulders Mobile Home Park Resident,
The City of Stayton has, for the past fifteen years operated a Housing Rehabilitation
Program that has provided financial assistance to homeowners in order to make repairs
and improvements to their homes. The City will be submitting an application for
additional funding for this program, in order to serve additional residents of the City.
Due to changes in federal and state program rules, we are now looking at a program that
would provide assistance to the owners of manufactured housing units located in mobile
home parks.
In order to be successful in our grant request, our application must include an
indication of the number of manufactured housing unit owners who are interested in
participating. I am writing to you in an effort to assess whether you would be interested
in receiving financial assistance in making repairs or improvements to your home in the
Boulders Mobile Home Park. Assistance will be in the form of a grant for eligible repairs
or improvements.
The program is open only to households who qualify as low or moderate income.
Therefore the attached survey form asks about the number of people who live in your
home and your total household income. We also ask about the type of repairs or
improvements you have in mind. In order to be eligible for a grant, you must be the
owner of the home and reside in it.
Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope or in person to City Hall no later
than December 1, 2017.
If you have any questions, I can be reached by any of the methods in the letterhead,
above.
Thank you for your assistance in compiling this information.
Sincerely,
Dan Fleishman,
Planning & Development Director
City Coun
cil Staff Report
Land Use File 7-08/17 Page 1
CITY
OF STAYTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: M
ayor Henry Porter and the Stayton City Council
FROM: Dan Fleishman, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: December 4, 2017
SUBJECT: Proposed Resolution Initiating Annexation and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
ISSUE
The issue before the City Council is the continuation of a public hearing on a combination
application from the City for the annexation of approximately 27 acres of land; a
Comprehensive Plan Map amendment from Residential to Public; and a Zone Map Amendment
from Medium Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public. Following the public hearing the
Council will be requested to consider Ordinance 1014.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On November 20, the City Council started the public hearing on these applications. Staff had
noted that the record did not include the necessary traffic impact analysis required under the
state’s Transportation Planning Rule and had requested the Council continue the hearing.
Testimony at the hearing also suggested that the application for annexation was missing the
required concept plan.
The City’s transportation engineering consultant was requested to prepare the necessary TPR
analysis and you will find it enclosed.
Also attached is a conceptual plan of possible development of the Puntney property as a city
park. The conceptual plan was prepared for a 2008 grant application. As stated in the
previous staff report the City has hired a consultant to prepare a master plan for the Mill Creek
Park. The exact nature of the features to be constructed will be determined during the
planning process.
Unless there is testimony at the hearing requesting additional time to review the documents
added to the record, the Council should be ready for a decision.
City Coun
cil Staff Report
Land Use File 7-08/17 Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission has recommended approval of the applications. Staff recommends
adoption of Ordinance 1014 as presented.
OPTIONS AND MOTIONS
The City Council is presented with the following options.
1. Approve the applications and the first consideration of Ordinance 1014
Move to approve Ordinance 1014 as presented.
T
he City Recorder shall call the roll and the names of each Councilor present and their vote shall be record
ed
in t
he meeting minutes. If the vote is unanimous, Ordinance 1014 is enacted and will be presented to t
he
Mayor
for his approval.
If the vote is not unanimous, Ordinance 1014 will be brought before the Council for a second consideration at
the December 18, 2017 meeting.
2. Approve the applications and the Ordinance with modifications
Move to approve Ordinance 1014 with the following changes … and direct staff to
incorporate these changes into the Ordinance before the Ordinance is presented to the City
Council for a second consideration.
T
he City Recorder shall call the roll and the names of each Councilor present and their vote shall be record
ed
in the meeting minutes. If the first consideration is approved, Ordinance 1014 will be brought before the
Council for a secon
d consideration at its December 18, 2017 me
eting.
3. Deny the applications.
Move to deny the applications of the City of Stayton (Land Use File 7-08/17) for annexation,
comprehensive plan map amendment, and zoning map amendment and direct staff to
modify the findings and conclusions to represent the Council’s discussion and present a
revised order to the City Council at the December 18, 2017 meeting.
4. Continue the hearing until December 18, 2017.
Move to continue the public hearing on the applications of the City of Stayton (Land Use File
7-08/17) for annexation, comprehensive plan map amendment, and zoning map
amendment until December 18, 2017.
5. Close the hearing but keep the record open for submission of written testimony.
Move to close the hearing on the applications of the City of Stayton (Land Use File 7-08/17)
but maintain the record open to submissions by the applicant until December 18, allowing 7
days for review and rebuttal and then an additional 7 days for the applicant to reply, with
final closure of the record on January 2, 2018.
6. Close the hearing and record, and continue the deliberation to the next meeting.
I move to continue the deliberation on the applications of City of Stayton (Land Use File 7-
08/17) until December 18, 2017.
Project #: 3998
December 1, 2017 Page: 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
COMPLIANCE WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (TPR)
The proposed zone change must comply with Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which
implements Statewide Planning Goal 12 - “Transportation.” Specifically, OAR Sections 660-012-0060(1)
and (2) apply when considering amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use
regulations. Below are the applicable sections of OAR 660-012-0060(1) and (2), with emphasis added:
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including
a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government
must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section
(3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if
it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction
of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected
conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating
projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment
may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably
limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction
may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment.[emphasis added]
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing
or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet
the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected
to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
(2) If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the local government must
ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards
of the facility measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP through one or a
combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e) below [emphasis added], unless the amendment meets the
balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local
government using subsection (2)(e), section (3), section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes
that additional motor vehicle traffic congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected
to provide additional capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion.
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned function,
capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility” [emphasis added]
As demonstrated by the criteria above, OAR Subsections (1) and (2) establish a two-step process for
evaluating an amendment’s impacts on the transportation system. First, the trip generation potential of
Project #: 3998
December 1, 2017 Page: 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
a site is assessed assuming a “reasonable worst‐case” development scenario under the existing and
proposed zoning. If the proposed zoning has the potential to increase the number of trips, an analysis
of long-term transportation impacts can be studied to assess whether the rezone will “significantly
affect” the transportation system. Conversely, if the trip generation under the proposed zoning is equal
to or less than that under the existing zoning, no additional operational analysis is necessary to
conclude that the proposal does not “significantly affect” the transportation system.
Subsections (1) and (2a) provide further guidance for the establishment of a “trip cap” in instances
when the reasonable worse-case development scenario under the proposed amendment has the
potential to create a significant affect. This option is explored later in this report.
REASONABLE WORSE CASE LAND USES
The test for significant effect involves an analysis of land uses representing “reasonable worse case”
development scenarios. These “reasonable worst case” scenarios are independent of current or
planned site uses.
Per the City of Stayton Land Use and Development Code Chapter 17.16.060, housing in LD zones may
not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre and housing in MD zones may not to exceed 12 dwelling units
per acre. For this analysis the northern parcel is assumed to be zoned LD and the southern parcel is
zoned MD. To assess a “reasonable worst case” for the existing zoning, it was assumed that both
parcels could be built out according to the zoning designation.
Per the City of Stayton Land Use and Development Code Chapter 17.16.060, the P zone allows lands,
buildings and facilities that are common to a pubic area and will not unreasonably change the area of
the community. Based on the designation, it is assumed that a “reasonable worst case” for a public
area would be a public school or schools.
The proposed zone change site was compared to existing school sites in the Mid-Willamette Valley. For
a site of approximately 35 acres, a combined middle school and elementary school was determined to
represents a “reasonable worst case”. The average Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) was analyzed at three
combined middle school & elementary school sites in the Mid-Willamette Valley. This average was
applied to the two parcels to determine a reasonable building size for both a Middle School and
Elementary School. Table 1 summarizes the FAR at the school sites.
Project #: 3998
December 1, 2017 Page: 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
Table 1: Summary of FAR at Similar School Sites
Area Types
Lincoln Elementary
School & French Prairie
Middle School
Woodburn, OR
Molalla Elementary &
Molalla River Middle
School
Molalla, OR
Lee Elementary School
& Ackerman Middle
School
Canby, Oregon
Average
Elementary School Building Area
59,500 sq. ft.
59,000 sq. ft.
56,500 sq. ft.
58,333 sq. ft.
Middle School Building Area
61,000 sq. ft.
98,000 sq. ft.
102,500 sq. ft.
87,167 sq. ft.
Total Site Area
1,089,000 sq. ft.
(25 ac.)
1,524,600 sq. ft.
(35 ac.)
1,437,480 sq. ft.
(33 ac.)
1,350,360 sq. ft.
(31 ac.)
Elementary School FAR
6%
4%
4%
5%
Middle School FAR
8%
6%
7%
7%
Combined FAR
14%
10%
11%
12%
REASONABLE WORSE CASE TRIP GENERATION
“Reasonable worst case” trip generation estimates were prepared for the existing and proposed zoning
development scenarios based on information provided in the standard reference manual, Trip
Generation, 10th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Table 2 summarizes the daily, weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour trips associated with
reasonable worst-case development scenarios under existing and proposed zoning designations. The
Single-Family Detached Housing land use was used for both of the existing zoning parcels and
represents the “reasonable worst case”. The Middle School and Elementary School trip generation
reflect an average FAR ratio determined from similar sites and applied to the gross area of the two
parcels (35.28 acres).
Table 2: Reasonable Worst-Case Trip Generation (Proposed VS. Existing Zoning)
Land Use
ITE Code
Building Size
Total
Daily
Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Total
Trips
In
Out
Total
Trips
In
Out
Proposed P Zoning Scenario
Elementary School
520
71,720 SF
1,400
500
275
225
98
44
54
Middle School
522
107,580 SF
2,170
724
398
326
128
67
61
Subtotal
3,570
1,224
673
551
226
111
115
Existing LD/MD Zoning Scenario
Single-Family
Detached Housing
210
285 Dwellings
2,692
211
53
159
283
178
105
Proposed Zoning – Existing Zoning Trips
+878
+1,013
+620
+392
-57
-67
10
*Note: Weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation was evaluated using the “Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic” with the exception of the
Middle School Weekday AM peak hour. “Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic” data was available for a Middle should and the table reflects the “AM
Peak Hour of Generator” for a Middle School.
As shown in Table 2, the proposed zone change could result in an increase of 878 daily trips, an
increase of 1,013 weekday AM peak hour trips, and a reduction of 57 trips PM peak hour trips. The
proposed zoning has the potential to create an increased impact and possible significant effect on the
surrounding transportation system because of the increase in daily and weekday AM peak hour trips.
Project #: 3998
December 1, 2017 Page: 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
TRIP CAP
Per OAR 660-012-0060, if a zone change amendment is found to significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures which mitigate
the significant effect. One potential remedy is a “trip cap” designed to limit the vehicle trips associated
with future development of the property.
To mitigate the potential for possible significant effect, the City of Stayton is proposing a “trip cap” to
restrict future development on the subject properties to a level allowed under the existing zoning. By
imposing the following “trip cap”, the proposed zone change can comply with the TPR.
Proposed Trip Cap:
3,570 daily trips;
673 AM peak hour trips; and
226 PM peak hour trips.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
As previously noted, the city intends to develop the northern parcel into a park and the southern parcel
into a storm water detention facility. A trip generation analysis was performed based on these land
used. Table 3 compares the proposed land uses to the proposed “trip cap”.
Table 3: Trip Generation Estimate for Trip Cap Scenario
Land Use
ITE Code
Size
(acre)
Total
Daily
Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Total
Trips
In
Out
Total
Trips
In
Out
Trip Cap (Based on Existing LD/MD Zoning)
Trip Cap
N/A
35.28
2,692
211
53
159
283
178
105
Proposed Development
Public Park
441
23.05
18
1
1
-
3
2
1
Storm Water Detention
1
Facility
None
12.23
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Subtotal
18
1
1
-
3
2
1
Remaining Trips (Trip Cap - Proposed Development)
2,674
210
52
159
280
176
104
1
The storm water detention facility is not expected to generate daily or peak hour trips after construction.
As shown in Table 3, the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation of the proposed of
development would be well under the proposed “trip cap”.
TPR COMPLIANCE FINDINGS
Per the analysis described above, if a “trip cap” were included as a condition of approval for the zone
change, the trip generation potential of the subject site would be held to an amount equal to or less
than what is allowed under the existing zoning. With a “trip cap” in place, no additional further
Project #: 3998
December 1, 2017 Page: 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon
transportation analysis is necessary to support the zone change, as a the “trip cap” would not trigger a
significant effect on the transportation system. A traffic impact analysis may be required for the
development application if the proposed uses require a traffic impact analysis per the City’s code. The
currently envisioned uses would not trigger a traffic impact analysis.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the results of this analysis indicate the proposed P zoning designation has the potential
to “significantly affect” the transportation system, per the criteria outlined in Oregon’s Transportation
Planning Rule. As such, a “trip cap” is proposed as suitable mitigation to limit the any site
development’s trip generation potential to be the same or less trips than what could be generated by
the existing residential zoning.
For the purposes of establishing a “trip cap”, development on the rezoned site should be limited to no
more than:
3,570 daily trips;
673 AM peak hour trips; and
226 PM peak hour trips.
Further the proposed site development of a public park and storm water detention facility can be built
on the rezoned parcels while staying under the “trip cap”.
Please contact us if you have questions or comments as you review this material.
Sincerely,
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Pat Marnell, P.E. Jacki Gulczynski
Senior Engineer Transpiration Analyst
Appendix A – Existing Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
Appendix B – Proposed Compressive Plan and Zoning Map
Appendix A – Existing
Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map
RES
PUB
PUB
COMM
SHAFF
KINDLE
GOLF
EAGLE
GOSHE N
QUAIL RUN
OAKMONT
MEADOWLA RK
HUMMINGBIRD
PARTRIDGE
CARDINAL
GOLDFINCH
Current Comprehensive Plan Designation
P
LD
MD
LD
P
MD
CG
HD
HD
SHAFF RD
KINDLE WY
EAGLE ST
DEER AV
QUAIL RUN AV
ORIOLE ST
JUNCO ST
MEADOWLARK DR
FOX ST
HUMMINGBIRD LN
CARDINAL AV
PARTRIDGE CT
PHEASANT AV
NIGHTHAWK AV
GOLDFINCH AV
BEAVER AV
JUNCO ST
Current Zoning
Appendix B – Proposed
Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map
RES
PUB
PUB
COMM
SHAFF
KINDLE
EAGLE
GOLF
GOSHE N
QUAIL RUN
OAKMONT
MEADOWLA RK
HUMMINGBIRD
PARTRIDGE
CARDINAL
GOLDFINCH
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation
P
LD
LD
MD
P
MD
HD
CG
HD
SHAFF RD
KINDLE WY
EAGLE ST
DEER AV
ORIOLE ST
JUNCO ST
MEADOWLARK DR
FOX ST
HUMMINGBIRD LN
CARDINAL AV
PHEASANT AV
PARTRIDGE CT
NIGHTHAWK AV
GOLDFINCH AV
BEAVER AV
JUNCO ST
SHAFF RD
Proposed Zoning
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 4
Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Amendment – Kindle Way Properties
ORDINANCE NO. 1014
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING INTO THE CITY OF STAYTON CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2800 KINDLE WAY AND PORTIONS OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1450
GOSHEN RD SE AND 2847 KINDLE WAY; AMENDING THE CITY OF STAYTON
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC; AMENDING THE CITY OF
STAYTON ZONING MAP FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC;
AMENDING THE CITY OF STAYTON ZONING MAP FROM MARION COUNTY URBAN
TRANSITIONAL (UT) TO CITY OF STAYTON LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC/SEMI-
PUBLIC; AND ESTABLISHING A NATURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Stayton City Council has, through the approval of Resolution 966, initiated
annexation of that certain real property located at 2800 Kindle Way, Stayton, Marion County, Oregon,
more particularly described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein, and further illustrated on
a map shown in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein;
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2016, pursuant to ORS 222.125 and Stayton Municipal Code (SMC)
Section 17.12.210, the City of Stayton, Oregon, submitted current applications for annexation of the
property located at 2800 Kindle Way, for a comprehensive plan amendment to change the comprehensive
plan designation of 2400 Kindle Way and 2800 Kindle way from Residential to Public, and for an Official
Zoning Map amendment to assign Public/Semi-Public Zoning to both parcels;
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2017, Kirk A Kindle, as the owner the properties, has consented to the
annexation of the portions of the real properties located at 1450 Goshen Rd SE and 2847 Kindle Way,
Stayton, Marion County, Oregon, more particularly described in Exhibit 3 attached hereto and
incorporated herein, and further illustrated on a map shown in Exhibit 4 attached hereto and incorporated
herein;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the applications before the Stayton Planning
Commission on September 25, 2017 and continued until October 30, 2017;
WHEREAS, the property to be annexed is contiguous to the City Limits on three sides;
WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned Urban Transition (UT-20), and the applicant has
requested that the property be zoned Public/Semi-Public in accordance with the concurrent amendment of
the Stayton Comprehensive Plan Map;
WHEREAS, the City of Stayton City Council held a public hearing as required by law on
November 20, 2017;
WHEREAS, the City of Stayton City Council makes findings of fact regarding the applications as
contained in Exhibit 5 attached hereto and incorporated herein;
WHEREAS Chapter 51 of the Oregon Laws of 2016 requires the City Council to finalize the
annexation and not forward the application to the voters of the City as required by City Charter and SMC
Section 17.12.210.2.a.2); and
WHEREAS, the City of Stayton City Council concludes, based on the findings of fact contained in
Exhibit 5 that the applications meet the criteria for approval in SMC Section 17.12.210.4 for annexations,
Section 17.12.170.6 for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Section 17.12.180.6 for Official Zone
Map amendments;
NOW THEREFORE, the City of Stayton ordains:
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 2 of 4
Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Amendment – Kindle Way Properties
Section 1. The City of Stayton City Council makes findings of fact regarding the applications as
contained in Exhibit 5 attached hereto and incorporated herein
Section 2. Pursuant to ORS 222.125, the Stayton City Council hereby proclaims the annexation to the
City of Stayton, Oregon, of territory at 2800 Kindle Way, the legal description of which is described in
Exhibit 1 and is shown in Exhibit 2, which are attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. Pursuant to ORS 222.125, the Stayton City Council hereby proclaims the annexation to the
City of Stayton, Oregon, of territory comprising portions of the properties located at 1450 Goshen Rd SE
and 2847 Kindle Way, the legal description of which is described in Exhibit 3 and is shown in Exhibit 4,
which are attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein.
Section 4. Pursuant to ORS 222.005 the Stayton City Recorder shall provide by certified mail to all
public utilities, telecommunication facilities, and franchise holders operating within the City a written
notice of each site address to be annexed as recorded on the Marion County assessment and tax roles, a
legal description and map of the proposed boundary change, and a copy of this ordinance. This notice
shall be mailed within (10) ten working days of the enactment of this Ordinance.
Section 5. Pursuant to ORS 222.010 the Stayton City Recorder shall, within ten (10) days of the
enactment of this Ordinance, send to the Marion County Clerk and Marion County Assessor a report of
the annexation including a detailed legal description of the new boundaries established by the City.
Section 6. Pursuant to ORS 308.225(2) the Stayton City Recorder shall provide to the Oregon
Department of Revenue a copy of this Ordinance, containing the legal description and map of the territory
being annexed.
Section 7. Pursuant to ORS 222.177 the Stayton City Recorder shall provide to the Oregon Secretary of
State a copy of this Ordinance, containing the legal descriptions and maps of the territories being annexed,
and a copy of documents indicating consent of the property owners.
Section 8. The Stayton Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended as follows:
Area to be Changed from Residential to Public
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Kindle Way and the centerline of Shaff Rd,
proceeding northerly along the centerline of Kindle Way a distance of 1,801 feet to the
southwest corner of Tax Lot 091W04D00200; then continuing northerly along the west line
of Tax Lot 091W04D00200 a distance of 1,507.5 feet; then easterly 665 feet; then southerly
2,291 feet to the southeast corner of Tax Lot 091W04D00301; then westerly 585.5 feet; then
southerly 1,016 feet to the centerline of Shaff Rd; then westerly 80 feet to the point of
beginning.
Section 9. The Stayton Official Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:
Area to be changed from Medium Density Residential to Public/Semi-Public
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Kindle Way and the centerline of Shaff Rd,
proceeding northerly along the centerline of Kindle Way a distance of 1,801 feet to the
southwest corner of Tax Lot 091W04D00200; then easterly 670 feet; then southerly 785 feet
to the southeast corner of Tax Lot 091W04D00301; then westerly 585.5 feet; then southerly
1,016 feet to the centerline of Shaff Rd; then westerly 80 feet to the point of beginning.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 3 of 4
Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Amendment – Kindle Way Properties
Newly Annexed Area to be Zoned Public/Semi-Public
Beginning at the southwest corner of Tax Lot 091W04D00200, proceeding northerly along
the west line of Tax Lot 091W04D00200 1,445 feet; then easterly 665 feet; then southerly
1,445 feet; then westerly 665 feet to the point of beginning.
Newly Annexed Area to be Zoned Low Density Residential
Beginning at the northeast corner of Tax Lot 091W04DA02100, proceeding westerly along
29.7 feet; then southerly 1,306 feet to the southeast corner of Tax Lot 091W04A02100; then
westerly 30 feet; then southerly 662 feet to the north right of way line of Junco St; then
easterly to Kindle Way; then northerly along the right of way line of Kindle Way; then
easterly along the terminus of the Kindle Way right of way; then northerly 1,905 feet to the
point of beginning.
Newly Annexed Area to be Placed within Natural Resource Overlay District
Those portions of the newly annexed areas that are within 100 feet of Mill Creek.
A portion of the revised Official Zoning Map, illustrating the amendments to the Official Zoning
Map is included as Exhibit 6.
Section 10. The land use actions taken in this ordinance are conditioned upon any development to be
constructed or otherwise developed on the subject properties generating not more than 3,570 daily trips,
of which can be no more than 673 AM peak hour trips and no more than 226 PM peak hour trips. Any
application for development on the subject properties shall submit with the development application a
Transportation Impact Analysis or a Transportation Assessment Letter as provided for in the SMC that
verifies the proposed development will conform to the trip cap limitations stated here
Section 11. Upon adoption by the Stayton City Council and the Mayor’s signing, this Ordinance shall
become effective 30 days after the date of signing.
Section 12. A copy of this Ordinance shall be furnished to the State of Oregon, Department of Land
Conservation and Development forthwith.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 4
th
day of December, 2017.
CITY OF STAYTON
Signed: ____________, 2017 BY: _______________________________
Henry A Porter, Mayor
Signed: ____________, 2017 ATTEST: _______________________________
Keith D. Campbell, City Administrator
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 4 of 4
Annexation, Comprehensive Plan Map & Zoning Map Amendment – Kindle Way Properties
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Wallace W Lien, Acting City Attorney
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 1 – Legal Description of City Owned Property to be Annexed
EXHIBIT 1, Annexation Area, City-owned Property
The 23 acres identified as Marion County Tax Lot 091W04D 00200 and addressed as 2800
Kindle Way and further described as:
Parcel I:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of a tract of land conveyed to Lola Lambert by
deed recorded in Volume 564, Page 428, Deed Records for Marion County, Oregon,
which place of beginning is 20 chains South 89⁰ 45’ West and 1865.00 feet North 0⁰ 18’
West from the Southeast corner of the Henry Foster Donation Land Claim in Township 9
South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon; Thence North
0⁰ 18’ West 1445.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lambert tract; Thence North 89⁰
45’ East 665.52 feet to the Northeast Corner of said tract; Thence South 0⁰ 18’ East
1445.00 feet along the easterly line of said tract; Thence South 89⁰ 45’ West 665.52 feet to
the place of beginning.
Parcel II:
A parcel of land in the Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 9 South, Range 1 West
of the Willamette Meridian, Marion County, Oregon, said parcel being part of the Henry
Foster Donation Land Claim No. 45, said township and range and bound by the following:
Beginning at a point on the East line of the land described in the deed recorded at Reel
1186, Page 708, Marion County Deed Records, which point is 1801.00 feet North 00⁰ 17’
51” West from a point on the South line of the said Claim which is 225.37 feet West from
a 3-inch brass disk which marks the Southeast corner of said Section 4; Thence South 89⁰
45’ 00” West, parallel with the said south line, 665.38 feet; Thence North 00⁰ 17’ 25”
West, on the west line of the said land described in Reel 1186, Page 708, 64.00 feet;
Thence North 89⁰ 45’ 00” East, on the south line of land described in the deed recorded at
Reel 1178, Page 41, said deed records, 665.37 feet; Thence South 00⁰ 17’ 51” East, on the
said east line, 64.00 feet to the point of beginning.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 2 – Map of City Owned Property to be Annexed
EXHIBIT 2, Map of Annexation Area, City-owned Property
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 3, Legal Description of Kindle Property to be Annexed
EXHIBIT 3, Annexation Area, Kindle Property
Beginning at the Northeast corner of that parcel deeded to the City of Stayton and described in a
deed recorded in Reel 3029, Page 285, Deed records for Marion County, Oregon which point is 1320 feet
south 89° 45’ West and 1881.00 feet North 00° 17’ West from the Southeast corner of the Henry Foster
Donation Land Claim in township 9 South, Range 1 West of the Willamette Meridian in Marion County,
Oregon;
Thence North 00° 17’ West along the East line of Parcel II of Tract VI as described in a Deed
recorded in Reel 2607, Page 001, Deed Records for Marion County, Oregon a distance of 1936.90 feet to a
parcel of land deed to the City of Sublimity in Reel 14, Page 486, Deed Records for Marion County, Oregon;
Thence South 89° 45’ West 29.70 feet to the West line of Said Parcel II;
Thence South 00° 17’ East along the West line of said Parcel II a distance of 1313.90 feet to the
Northeast corner of Tract VII as described in a Deed recorded in Reel 2607, Page 001, Deed Records for
Marion County, Oregon;
Thence South 89° 45’ West 25.00 feet to a point;
Thence South 00° 17’ East to the south line of Parcel II of Tract VI as described in a Deed recorded
in Reel 2607, Page 001, Deed Records for Marion County, Oregon and the north right of way line of W
Hobson Road as shown on the plat of Phillips Estates – Phase I recorded in the Marion County Book of Town
Plats, Volume H47, Page 8;
Thence North 89° 45’ East 25.00 feet along the south line of the said Parcel II of Tract VI to the
west line of the parcel deeded to the City of Stayton ad described in a deed recorded in Reel 3029, Page
285, Deed Records for Marion County, Oregon;
Thence North 00° 17’ West along the west line of the City of Stayton Parcel to the northwest corner
of that parcel;
Thence North 89° 45’ East 29.70 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 4, Map of Annexation Area, Kindle Property
EXHIBIT 4, Map of Annexation Area, Kindle Property
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
EXHIBIT 5, CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS OF FACT
LAND USE FILE #7-08/17
A. GENERAL FACTS
1. The owners of the properties and the applicants are the City of Stayton and Kirk Kindle.
2. The properties can be described as tax lots 301 and 200 on Map 91W04D and portions of tax lots
2100 and 2200 on Map 91W04DA.
3. The properties are located at 2400 Kindle Way, 2800 Kindle Way, a portion of 2847 Kindle Way,
and a portion of 1450 Goshen Rd SE.
4. 2400 Kindle Way is Parcel 2 of Partitioning Plat 2016-057. It was annexed into the City in
February 2017. The property is designated Residential by the Comprehensive Plan Map. It was
zoned Medium Density Residential (MD) when annexed. The property is 12.23 acres in area with
approximately 1,740 feet of frontage on Kindle Way and 45 feet of frontage Shaff Road. The
property is vacant. The property was purchased by the City from the Lambert family and will be
referred to in these findings as the Lambert property.
5. 2800 Kindle Way is approximately 23 acres in area with approximately 80 feet of frontage on
Kindle Way. The property is developed with a single family detached dwelling and accessory
buildings. The property is outside of the City Limits, is designated as Residential by the
Comprehensive Plan Map and is zoned Marion County Urban Transition (UT). The property is
bisected by Mill Creek. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates a 200-foot wide Natural
Resource Overlay District along Mill Creek. The property was purchased by the City from the
Puntney family and will be referred to in these findings as the Puntney property.
6. The portions of 2847 Kindle Way and 1450 Goshen Rd SE that are proposed for annexation
together comprise approximately 1.7 acres of land and are referred to in this order as the Kindle
Property. This area is owned by Kirk A Kindle, who has consented in writing to its annexation.
This area is outside of the City Limits, is designated as Residential by the Comprehensive Plan
Map and is zoned Marion County Urban Transition (UT).
7. The neighboring property to the east and the north is zoned Public/Semi-Public (P) and is
developed as the Stayton Middle School. The neighboring properties to the west are zoned Low
Density Residential (LD) and are developed as single family detached dwellings or are located
outside of the City Limits, are zoned Marion County UT, and are developed as acreage residential
properties or are vacant. The neighboring property to the south is zoned MD, is developed with a
single family dwelling, and has been approved by the Planning Commission for a 51-lot single
family subdivision.
8. The Puntney property and the Lambert property were purchased by the City of Stayton in the
winter of 2016-2017. The City intends to use the Lambert property as a stormwater detention
facility. The City intends to develop the Puntney property into a park.
9. Annexation of the Kindle property will allow for future dedication of right of way for the future
extension of Kindle Way.
10. The proposal is to annex the Puntney property and Kindle property into the City Limits, to amend
the comprehensive plan designation from Residential to Public for the Puntney and Lambert
properties, to amend the zoning from MD to P for the Lambert property, to assign P zoning to the
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 2 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
Puntney property, to assign LD zoning to the Kindle Property, and to establish a 100-foot wide
Natural Resource Overlay District along Mill Creek on the Puntney and Kindle property.
11. This proposal must comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which implements
Statewide Planning Goal 12 when considering amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans
and land use regulations. The process for analysis of the TPR is a two-step process for evaluating
a proposal’s impacts on the transportation system. First, the trip generation potential of a site is
assessed assuming a “reasonable worst-case” development scenario under the existing and
proposed zoning. If the proposed zoning has the potential to increase the number of trips, an
analysis of long-term transportation impacts can be studied to assess whether the rezone will
significantly affect the transportation system. Conversely, if the trip generation under the proposed
zoning is equal to or less than that under the existing zoning, no additional operational analysis is
necessary to conclude that the proposal does not significantly affect the transportation system.
12. The test for significant effect involves an analysis of land uses representing “reasonable worse-
case” development scenarios. These “reasonable worst-case” scenarios are independent of current
or planned site uses. Per SMC 17.16.060, housing in LD zones may not to exceed 6 dwelling
units per acre and housing in MD zones may not to exceed 12 dwelling units per acre. For this
analysis the northern parcel is assumed to be zoned LD when annexed and the southern parcel is
zoned MD. To assess a reasonable worst case for the existing zoning, the City’s transportation
consultant correctly assumed that both parcels could be built out according to the zoning
designation. Per SMC 17.16.060, the P zone allows lands, buildings and facilities that are
common to a pubic area and will not unreasonably change the area of the community. Based on
the designation, it was assumed that a reasonable worst case for a public area would be a public
school or schools.
13. The proposed zone change site was compared to existing school sites in the mid-Willamette
valley. For a site of approximately 35 acres, a combined middle school and elementary school
was determined to represent the reasonable worst case. The average Floor to Area Ratio (FAR)
was analyzed at three combined middle school & elementary school sites in the mid-Willamette
valley. This average was applied to the two parcels to determine a reasonable building size for
both a middle school and an elementary school. Reasonable worst case trip generation estimates
were prepared for the existing and proposed zoning development scenarios based on information
provided in the standard reference manual, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, published by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers. The Single-Family Detached Housing land use was used for
both of the existing zoning parcels and represents the reasonable worst case. The middle school
and elementary school trip generation reflect an average FAR determined from similar sites and
applied to the gross area of the two parcels (35.28 acres). The proposed zone change could result
in an increase of 878 daily trips, an increase of 1,013 weekday AM peak hour trips, and a
reduction of 57 trips PM peak hour trips. The proposed zoning has the potential to create an
increased impact and possible significant effect on the surrounding transportation system because
of the increase in daily and weekday AM peak hour trips.
14. Per OAR 660-012-0060, if a zone change amendment is found to significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures which
mitigate the significant effect. One potential remedy is a “trip cap” designed to limit the vehicle
trips associated with future development of the property. To mitigate the potential for possible
significant effect, the City of Stayton may impose a “trip cap” to restrict future development on
the subject properties to a level allowed under the existing zoning.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 3 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
15. The City’s transportation engineers determined that if a “trip cap” was applied, the application
would be in compliance with the TPR. The necessary “trip cap” as proposed by the transportation
engineers would be a limit of traffic to be generated from the subject properties of 3,570 daily
trips, of which can be no more than 673 AM peak hour trips and 226 PM peak hour trips.
16. The city intends to develop the northern parcel into a park and the southern parcel into a storm
water detention facility. A trip generation analysis was performed based on these land uses.
Assuming the imposition of the “trip cap” as recommended by the transportation engineers, the
trip generation potential of the subject site would be held to an amount equal to or less than what
is allowed under the existing zoning. With a “trip cap” in place, no additional further
transportation analysis is necessary to support the zone change, as the “trip cap” would not trigger
a significant effect on the transportation system. A traffic impact analysis may be required for the
development application if the proposed uses require a traffic impact analysis per the SMC. The
currently envisioned uses would not trigger a traffic impact analysis.
17. In conclusion, the results of this analysis indicate the proposed P zoning designation has the
potential to “significantly affect” the transportation system, per the criteria outlined in the TPR. As
such, a “trip cap” is proposed as suitable mitigation to limit the any site development’s trip
generation potential to be the same or less trips than what could be generated by the existing
residential zoning. The proposed site development of a public park and storm water detention
facility can be built on the re-zoned parcels while staying under the “trip cap.”
B. AGENCY COMMENTS
The following agencies were notified of the proposal: Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development, City of Stayton Public Works, Santiam Water Control District, Wave Broadband,
Stayton Cooperative Telephone Company (SCTC), Pacific Power, Northwest Natural Gas, Stayton
Fire District, Stayton Police Department, North Santiam School District, Marion County Public
Works, and Marion County Planning Division.
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The surrounding property owners were notified of the public hearing and the applications and notice
appeared in the newspaper and on the City’s website.
D. ANALYSIS
Annexation applications are required to satisfy approval criteria contained within Stayton Municipal
Code (SMC) Title 17, Section 17.12.210.4. Comprehensive Plan amendment applications are
required to satisfy approval criteria contained within SMC Title 17, Section 17.12.170.6. Official
Zoning Map amendments are required to satisfy approval criteria contained within SMC Chapter 17,
Section 17.12.180.6.
E. APPROVAL CRITERIA
Section 17.12.210.4 Annexation Approval Criteria. Pursuant to SMC 17.12.210.4 the following
criteria must be demonstrated as being satisfied by an application for Comprehensive Plan
amendment:
a. Need exists in the community for the land proposed to be annexed.
Finding: The 2004 Stayton Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the need for an additional
40 acres of community parks in the City by the year 2020. The Puntney property was purchased
with the intention of developing a community park. Annexation of the Kindle property will
facilitate extension of Kindle Way in accordance with the Transportation System Plan.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 4 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
b. The site is or is capable of being serviced by adequate City public services, including such
services as may be provided subject to the terms of a contract annexation agreement between the
applicant and the City.
Finding: There is water and sewer service to the Puntney property. The development of the
property into a community park will not create substantial demand on the city or private utility
services.
c. The proposed annexation is property contiguous to existing City jurisdictional limits.
Finding: The property is contiguous to the City Limits on the north, east, and south sides.
d. The proposed annexation is compatible with the character of the surrounding area and complies
with the urban growth program and the policies of the City of Stayton.
Finding: The development of the Puntney property as a community park is in compliance with the
adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan and will provide recreational opportunities to the
residents of the northwest corner of the City. Annexation of the Kindle property will facilitate
extension of Kindle Way in accordance with the Transportation System Plan.
e. The annexation request complies or can be made to comply with all applicable provisions of state
and local law.
Finding: The property owners have consented to the annexation. Chapter 51 of the Oregon Laws
of 2016 requires a city to annex the territory without submitting the proposal to the electors if the
territory is within the urban growth boundary, the territory will be subject to an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, the territory is contiguous to the city limits, and the proposal conforms to all
other requirements of the city’s ordinances.
f. If a proposed contract annexation, the terms and conditions, including the cost of City facility and
service extensions to the annexed area shall be calculated by the Public Works Director.
Finding: The proposed annexation is not a contract annexation.
Section 17.12.170.6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria. Pursuant to SMC
17.12.170.6.b the following criteria must be demonstrated as being satisfied by the application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment:
1) The amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including any
relevant area plans, and the statewide planning goals. In the case of a Comprehensive Plan Map
amendment, the requested designation for the site shall be evaluated against relevant
Comprehensive Plan policies and the decision authority shall find that the requested designation
on balance is more supportive of the Comprehensive Plan as a whole than the old designation.
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan describes the Public land use designation as appropriate for
land owned by governmental agencies, churches, golf club, utilities or not-for-profit organizations.
The Plan narrative indicates that the public designation will be applied after land is acquired by a
public agency in order to avoid affecting private property values.
The City purchased the two parcels in the winter of 2016-17 for development as public facilities.
2) The current Comprehensive Plan does not provide adequate areas in appropriate locations for
uses allowed in the proposed land use designation and the addition of this property to the
inventory of lands so designated is consistent with projected needs for such lands in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 5 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan envisions that land obtained by public institutions will be
designated for public use after it is obtained, in order to avoid limitations on privately owned
property. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that there may be the need for additional public land
for park purposes. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies the need for an additional 40
acres of community parks in the City by the year 2020. The subject property was purchased by
the City for park and stormwater management needs. There is no other City-owned land that is
appropriate for these uses.
3) Compliance is demonstrated with the statewide land use goals that apply to the subject properties
or to the proposed land use designation. If the proposed designation on the subject property
requires an exception to the Goals, the applicable criteria in the LCDC Administrative Rules for
the type of exception needed shall also apply.
Finding: The pertinent Statewide Land Use Goals are Goal 8 and Goal 11. Goal 8 is to satisfy the
recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors. The City has purchased the Puntney
property to provide recreational opportunities and in compliance with the City’s Parks and
Recreation Master Plan. Goal 11 is to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development. The City has purchased the Lambert property to develop a stormwater facility in
accordance with the City’s Stormwater Master Plan.
4) Existing or anticipated transportation facilities are adequate for uses permitted under the
proposed designation and the proposed amendment is in conformance with the Oregon
Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060).
Finding: A trip generation analysis was prepared by Patrick Marnell, PE, of Kittelson &
Associates. The Analysis determined that the comprehensive plan amendment could result in an
increase in total daily trips and AM peak hour trips, but a decrease in PM peak hour trips from the
area. The Transportation Planning Rule requires an analysis of the “worst-case” trip generation
from the current zoning and comprehensive plan designation compared to the “worst-case” trip
generation from the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan designation. For purposes of the
analysis, it was assumed that the Puntney property would be zoned as Low Density Residential
and developed at a density of 6 units per acre. The Lambert property is zoned as Medium Density
Residential and has the potential to be developed at 12 dwelling units per acre. For purposes of
the analysis, the “worst-case” traffic generation scenario under the proposed Comprehensive Plan
designation of Public was determined to be a public school complex with a 71,720 square foot
elementary school and a 107,580 square foot middle school. Based on the analysis, Kittelson &
Associates concluded that the comprehensive plan amendment would have a significant effect on
existing or planned transportation facility unless the traffic from the site is capped by a condition
of approval.
5) The current Comprehensive Plan Map provides more than the projected need for lands in the
existing land use designation.
Finding: There are 1,867 acres of land in the UGB designated as Residential. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are 921 buildable acres of land inside the UGB, and
outside of the City Limits. Since that time, there have been about 54 acres of residential land
annexed, including the concurrent application for annexation. The Plan also indicates that the City
will need approximately 460 acres of land for residential development over the course of the
planning period, and that there was 144 acres of buildable land in the city zoned for residential
use.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 6 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
6) Public facilities and services necessary to support uses allowed in the proposed designation are
available or are likely to be available in the near future.
Finding: The properties are serviced by public water and by public sewer. The development of
the Lambert property as a stormwater detention facility will not require any utility services. The
development of the Puntney property as a public park will have minimal public water and sewer
demand.
7) Uses allowed in the proposed designation will not significantly adversely affect existing or
planned uses on adjacent lands.
Finding: The development of a park will provide needed public recreation opportunities to nearby
residents. The stormwater detention facility will have no impact on neighboring properties.
Section 17.12.180.6 Official Zoning Map Amendment Approval Criteria. Pursuant to SMC
17.12.180.6.b the following criteria must be demonstrated as being satisfied by the application for
Zoning Map amendment:
1) The proposed zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan map designation for the subject
property unless a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment has also been applied for and is
otherwise compatible with applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: A concurrent application for a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment has been filed.
2) Existing or anticipated services (water, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, schools, police and fire
protection) can accommodate potential development in the subject area without adverse impact on
the affected service area.
Finding: The properties are serviced by public water and by public sewer. The development of
the Lambert property as a stormwater detention facility will not require any utility services. The
development of the Puntney property as a public park will have minimal public water and sewer
demand. The North Santiam School District, the Stayton Police Department, and the Stayton Fire
District were notified of the application. No comments were received from the School District,
Police Department, or Fire District.
3) Existing or anticipated transportation facilities are adequate for uses permitted under the
proposed zone designation and the proposed amendment is in conformance with the Oregon
Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060).
Finding: A trip generation analysis was prepared by Patrick Marnell, PE, of Kittelson &
Associates. The Analysis determined that the comprehensive plan amendment could result in an
increase in total daily trips and AM peak hour trips, but a decrease in PM peak hour trips from the
area. The Transportation Planning Rule requires an analysis of the “worst-case” trip generation
from the current zoning and comprehensive plan designation compared to the “worst-case” trip
generation from the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan designation. For purposes of the
analysis, it was assumed that the Puntney property would be zoned as Low Density Residential
and developed at a density of 6 units per acre. The Lambert property is zoned as Medium Density
Residential and has the potential to be developed at 12 dwelling units per acre. For purposes of
the analysis, the “worst-case” traffic generation scenario under the proposed zoning of
Public/Semi-Public was determined to be a public school complex with a 71,720 square foot
elementary school and a 107,580 square foot middle school. Based on the analysis, Kittelson &
Associates concluded that the zone map amendment would have a significant effect on existing or
planned transportation facility unless the traffic from the site is capped by a condition of approval.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 5, Findings of Fact
4) The purpose of the proposed zoning district satisfies the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Finding: Policy PF-1 calls for the City to provide storm water management and parks and
recreational facilities within the urban growth boundary. The City has purchased the properties
for stormwater and park facilities. Policy PF-3 is for that recreational facilities should be
developed as the City’s population grows.
5) Balance is maintained in the supply of vacant land in the zones affected by the zone change to
meet the demand for projected development in the Comprehensive Plan. Vacant land in the
proposed zone is not adequate in size, configuration or other characteristics to support the
proposed use or development. A Zone Map Amendment shall not eliminate all available vacant
land from any zoning designation.
Finding: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the public designation will be applied after land
is acquired by a public agency in order to avoid affecting private property values. There is no
other City-owned land that is appropriate for these uses. Following the zone map amendment, the
Planning Department reports there will be 15 vacant parcels zoned MD within the City, with a
total land area of approximately 7 acres.
6) The proposed zone amendment satisfies applicable provisions of Oregon Administrative Rules.
Finding: Notice of the proposed amendment was provided to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on September 14.
7) The physical characteristics of the property proposed for rezoning are appropriate for the
proposed zone and the potential uses allowed by the proposed zone will not have an adverse
impact on the surrounding land uses.
Finding: The properties are generally flat and would allow for a wide variety of development
opportunities. The Puntney property is bisected by Mill Creek and the portion of the property on
the north side of the creek is mapped as forested wetlands. Development of the properties as a
park and as stormwater detention facility will provide open space and recreational opportunities
for nearby residents. The properties are adjacent to the Stayton Middle School campus, already
zoned Public/Semi-Public.
Ordinance No. 1014 (Land Use File #7-08/17) Page 1 of 5
Exhibit 6, Portion of Zoning Map
EXHIBIT 6, EXCERPT FROM OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
CITY OF STAYTON
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mayor Henry Porter and the Stayton City Council
THRU: Keith Campbell, City Administrator
FROM: Lance S. Ludwick, P.E. Public Works Director
DATE: December 4, 2017
SUBJECT: Mill Creek Park Project
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The project includes, but is not limited to, all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to prepare
a park master plan and Land Use and Site Development Plans and Specifications for the Mill Creek
Park.
This project shall be accomplished in two (2) phases:
PHASE 1 will consist of using the City of Stayton Park and Recreation Master Plan to develop the
Mill Creek Park Master Plan. The consultant will produce renderings of the final park master plan
and a preliminary cost estimate.
PHASE 2 will consist of preparing engineered plans and documents to gain Land-Use Approval and
Site Development Permit Approval. The consultant shall also prepare all construction contract
documents for the Mill Creek Park construction.
The project was advertised competitively on August 25
th
, 2017, in the Daily Journal of
Commerce. The City of Stayton received one (1) sealed bid by the bid closing deadline of
September 28
th
, 2017, from AKS Engineering & Forestry (AKS) of Tualatin, Oregon.
A group comprised of the Public Works Director, the Director of Planning and Development, the
AWARD OF CONTRACT
MILL CREEK PARK PROJECT Page 1
Deputy City Recorder, the City Administrator and a member of the Parks and Recreation Board
met with representatives from AKS to discuss their proposal.
AKS discussed the professional background and experience of their Project Team and showed
examples of previous park development projects.
Their attached proposal discusses the Mill Creek Park Master Plan process and highlights
opportunities for the general public, Stayton’s Parks and Recreation Board and the City Council to
participate in the overall park design.
After AKS’s presentation the representatives for the City discussed the merits of the AKS
proposal and a consensus was formed that AKS should be retained to prepare the Mill Creek Park
Master Plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The consultant will perform the Mill Creek Master Planning in two (2) phases. PHASE 1 will consist
of developing the Mill Creek Park Master Plan. The cost for this service is $29, 861.00.
The Consultant recommended breaking PHASE 2 of the project into two (2) phases; PHASE 2A
and PHASE 2B.
PHASE 2A of the project will consist of obtaining Land Use Approval and preparing cost estimates
for the park construction. The proposed cost for PHASE 2A is $51,680.00.
PHASE 2B will consist of preparation of all construction documents and obtaining the Site
Development Permit. The consultant’s fee for PHASE 2B will be negotiated once the Final Order
and Conditions of Approval are approved.
AWARD OF CONTRACT
MILL CREEK PARK PROJECT Page 2
Download
Save PDF to desktop
Email
Email completed PDF
Send for Signing
Email for others to sign
Print
Print document
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it
Want to add a signature?
You can add a signature field
and assign it to someone else
to sign
Choose a Field
Click on a field and
select the person that should complete it

AGENDA STAYTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING (City of Stayton)

This document is locked as it has been sent for signing.

You have successfully completed this document.

Other parties need to complete fields in the document. You will recieve an email notification when the document has been completed by all parties.

This document has been signed by all parties.

Completed 16 July 2020

Message

View Audit Log
Print With Audit Log
Duplicate Document