Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Vacation of a Segment of Public Street Right-of-Way between Marcola Road and Pierce Parkway AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 7/1/2013 Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird, DPW Staff Phone No: Ext. 3784 Estimated Time: Consent Calendar S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and Revitalization through Community Partnerships ITEM TITLE: VACATION OF A SEGMENT OF PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN MARCOLA ROAD AND PIERCE PARKWAY. ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a second reading and adopt/not adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 320-FOOT LONG BY 60-FOOT WIDE SEGMENT OF 31ST STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH LIES SOUTH OF PIERCE PARKWAY AND NORTH OF MARCOLA ROAD (SECOND READING). ISSUE STATEMENT: A request for vacation of a segment of 31st Street right-of-way has been received from Jeff Gaskill, O&S Contractors, owners of property at 3093 Pierce Parkway. The property owner is requesting vacation of the right-of-way to incorporate the area into their industrial site. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Vacation Application Attachment 3: Ordinance with Exhibits Exhibit A: Map and Legal Description Exhibit B: Staff Report and Recommendations DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City Council is authorized by ORS Chapter 271.080 et seq. and SDC Article 5.20-110 to act on requests to vacate public rights-of-way. The property owner of 3093 Pierce Parkway (Map 17-02-30-23, Tax Lot 103) is requesting vacation of a 320-foot long segment of 31st Street right- of-way that abuts the east edge of their site. The City Council conducted a public hearing and gave first reading to the vacation ordinance at the regular meeting on June 17, 2013. No one testified at the public hearing meeting. Upon vacation approximately 18,292 square feet (95%) of the subject right-of-way would accrue to the applicant’s property and the balance of the vacation area (approximately 931 square feet or 5%) would revert to the Oregon Military Department site on the east side of 31st Street. Numerous public utilities are contained within or cross the subject right-of-way. Prior to conclusion of the vacation process and transfer of the vacated right-of-way to the abutting property owners, the applicant shall be responsible for providing appropriate utility easements and/or licenses to accommodate the existing utilities within Vacation Area “A” as depicted on Exhibit A to the Ordinance. Alternatively, the applicant shall provide for an acceptable relocation of the affected utilities outside of the vacation area. The applicant’s diagram of the subject right-of-way depicts recently-installed fences that encroach outside the area subject to the vacation request, including within public right-of-way not subject to this vacation action. These fencing encroachments will need to be corrected upon vacation of the subject portion of 31st Street. Additionally, the applicant will need to consolidate the vacation area with their abutting parcel (Tax Lot 103) in order to create a single titled parcel. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the vacation of public right-of- way, as depicted on Exhibit A to the vacation request, by adopting the Vacation Ordinance and subject to the conditions outlined in the accompanying Staff Report. LOCATION OF PROPOSED VACATION OF 31ST STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-02-30-23 Proposed Vacation Area Marcola Road Oregon National Guard Armory Pierce Parkway 28 th Street Applicant’s Property (TL 103) Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 2 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 3 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 4 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 5 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 6 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 7 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 8 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 9 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 10 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 11 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 12 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 13 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 14 of 15 Attachment 2, Page 15 of 15 Attachment 3, Page 1 of 11 Attachment 3, Page 2 of 11 Exhibit A , Page 1 of 2 Attachment 3, Page 3 of 11 Exhibit A , Page 2 of 2 Attachment 3, Page 4 of 11 TYPE IV – VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________________________________________ File Name: 31st St. Right-of-Way Vacation Applicant: Jeff Gaskill, O&S Contractors Case Number: TYP413-00002 Proposal Location: Segment of 31st Street between Marcola Road and Pierce Parkway Adjacent Zoning: Light Medium Industrial (LMI) Plan Designation: Light Medium Industrial Applicable Comprehensive Plan: Metro Plan Application Submittal Date: May 2, 2013 Associated Applications: TYP112-00017 – Minimum Development Standards (Major) for Adjacent Site Development at 3093 Pierce Parkway CITY OF SPRINGFIELD’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE POSITION REVIEW OF NAME PHONE Project Manager Planning Andy Limbird 541-726-3784 Transportation Planning Engineer Transportation Michael Liebler 541-736-1034 Public Works Civil Engineer Streets and Utilities Clayton McEachern 541-736-1036 Deputy Fire Marshal Fire and Life Safety Gilbert Gordon 541-726-2293 Building Official Building David Bowlsby 541-736-1029 APPLICANT’S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM POSITION NAME PHONE MAILING ADDRESS Applicant Jeff Gaskill O&S Contractors 541-747-9715 3093 Pierce Parkway Springfield, OR 97477 Applicant’s Representative Tony Favreau, PE Favreau Group Engineering 541-683-7048 3750 Norwich Avenue Eugene, OR 97408 Proposed Vacation Area Marcola Road Pierce Parkway 28 th Street Oregon National Guard Armory Exhibit B, Page 1 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 5 of 11 Review Process (SDC 5.20-115): The subject vacation request is being reviewed under Type IV procedures, without Planning Commission consideration. Vacation Initiation and Application Submittal (SDC 5.20-120): In accordance with SDC 5.20-120 and ORS 270.080, a vacation application for public rights-of-way may be initiated by a property owner. Finding: The property owner of an abutting parcel (municipally addressed as 3093 Pierce Parkway; Assessor’s Map 17-02-30-23, Tax Lot 103) has filed an application requesting vacation of a segment of the 31st Street public right-of-way (Attachment 4). Conclusion: The application requirements in SDC 5.20-120 have been met. Site Information: The public right-of-way requested for vacation is a 320-foot long by 60-foot wide segment of 31st Street lying north of Marcola Road and south of Pierce Parkway. Because of an oblique intersection with Marcola Road and the proximity of a railroad spur line, 31st Street was realigned westward to an intersection with 28th Street in the 1970s. The right-of-way subject to the vacation request is gated and no longer used for public travel, and is deemed surplus to the City’s needs. The abutting property owner to the west (Tax Lot 103) is requesting vacation of the right-of-way in order to incorporate the area into their recently- developed industrial site. Staff has determined that because of the original mechanism for dedication of 31st Street, approximately 95% of the vacation area would accrue to the applicant’s property upon vacation. Notice Requirements (SDC 5.20-125): Consistent with SDC 5.20-125, notice was provided as follows: Mailed Notice. Notice of the annexation application was mailed May 28, 2013, which is 20 days prior to the public hearing date, to the affected property owner(s); owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the perimeter of the affected territory; affected neighborhood groups or community organizations officially recognized by the city that includes the affected territory; and affected special districts and all other public utility providers. Newspaper Notice. Notice of the June 17, 2013 public hearing was published in The Register-Guard on June 3 and 10, 2013. Posted Notice. Notice of the June 17, 2013 public hearing was posted in five public places in the City: at the northern and southern ends of the 31st Street right-of-way proposed for vacation; at Springfield City Hall and in the Development & Public Works office; and on the City of Springfield website. Conclusion: Notice of the public hearing was provided consistent with SDC 5.7-130. Recommendation to City Council (SDC 5.7-135): The Development & Public Works Director shall forward a written recommendation on the vacation application to the City Council based on the approval criteria specified in Section 5.20-130, which are provided as follows with the SDC requirements, findings, and conclusions. The Director’s recommendation follows SDC 5.20-130, Criteria. Criteria (SDC 5.20-130): The application may be approved only if the City Council finds that the proposal conforms to the following criteria: A. For the Vacation of public utility easements, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The application will be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following criteria: Exhibit B, Page 2 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 6 of 11 1. There are no present or future services, facilities, or utilities deemed to be necessary by a utility provider and the easement is not necessary; or Applicant’s Narrative: “There is a natural gas line in the existing right-of-way that services the property to the east. A seven-foot public utility easement, centered over the existing natural gas line, shall be dedicated as a part of the proposed right-of-way vacation. The existing right-of-way is physically blocked off by fencing and will not be needed for any future access or utilities”. Staff Finding: Staff advises that recent responses from utility providers has confirmed that more utilities than just the acknowledged natural gas line are present within or cross the right-of-way proposed for vacation. According to the utility providers, the subject right-of-way contains facilities owned and operated by the City, SUB Water, SUB Electric, EWEB, NW Natural Gas and CenturyLink. In this case, the provision of appropriate public easements will be required to accommodate the existing utilities. The proposal meets this sub-element of the criterion. 2. If the utility provider deems the easement to be necessary, public services, facilities, or utilities can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner in an alternate location. Applicant’s Narrative: “There are no utilities that need the existing right-of-way for current or future use other than that described above.” Staff Finding: As stated above, access to the right-of-way will need to be maintained for current utilities. This access can be afforded through appropriate public easements and licenses for the affected right-of-way (see Criterion B3 and Condition 1 below). Because the proposed vacation is for public right-of-way and not for a public utility easement, this sub-element of the criterion is not applicable. Conclusion: This proposal meets Criterion A. B. Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-of-way, other City property, or Partition or Subdivision Plats is reviewed under Type IV procedure, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application will be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria. 1. The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan, the Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, or Conceptual Development Plan; Applicant’s Narrative: “This portion of right-of-way is not needed as a part of the above mentioned plans.” Staff Finding: The subject right-of-way is depicted on the City’s Conceptual Local Street Map as a truncated segment of 31st Street extending south of Pierce Parkway, but it is not shown as a necessary or planned connector street. There are no adopted Refinement or Conceptual Development Plans for the subject area. Because 31st Street was realigned more than 30 years ago, the residual segment of 31st Street right-of-way has been gated and not used for public travel. The road segment functioned as a driveway for a building on the adjacent property (Tax Lot 103) until it was demolished during site redevelopment in 2012. The proposal meets this sub-element of the criterion. Exhibit B, Page 3 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 7 of 11 2. The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code, 1997; and this Code, including but not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and Applicant’s Narrative: “There are no existing or future parcels that take or will take their access from this portion of the right-of-way.” Staff Finding: The proposed vacation will not affect street connectivity or block length, and does not conflict with provisions of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposal meets this sub-element of the criterion. 3. There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection or any other benefit derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. Applicant’s Narrative: “There are no existing or future parcels that take or will take their access from this portion of the right-of-way, so, there are no parcels that will need this portion of the right-of-way for emergency service.” Staff Finding: The applicant has provided for emergency access to the property and vacation area by installing a keyed gate that can be operated by Emergency and City Operations crews. Because there are multiple known utilities within the right-of-way proposed for vacation, provision will need to be made for maintenance access to existing equipment and buried lines. Staff recommends that the applicant make necessary arrangements for utility easements satisfactory to the affected utility providers, and provide evidence the easements have been recorded prior to the vacated right-of-way transferring to the applicant. Staff Finding: Staff observes the applicant has installed fencing on the north and south sides of the right-of-way proposed for vacation. The fencing encroaches beyond the area contained in the vacation action and occupies portions of public right-of-way that will accrue to the Oregon National Guard site or remain in City ownership and control. To ensure the fences represent the true dimensions of the property combined with the vacated right-of-way, the applicant must relocate the subject fencing onto or inside the delineated property line of the consolidated parcels (ie. Tax Lot 103 and vacated right-of- way). Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Prior to transfer of the vacated right-of-way to the property owner of Tax Lot 103, the applicant shall execute and record utility easement(s) satisfactory to all affected utility operators with facilities within the subject vacation area, including the City of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board, Eugene Water & Electric Board, NW Natural Gas and CenturyLink, and provide copies of these easements to the City. 2. Prior to transfer of the vacated right-of-way to the property owner of Tax Lot 103, the applicant shall satisfactorily address existing fence encroachments outside the northeast and south edges of the vacated right-of-way by installing the fencing on or inside the ultimate property line for consolidated Tax Lot 103. Conclusion: As conditioned herein, this proposal meets Criterion B. Exhibit B, Page 4 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 8 of 11 C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection B., above where the land affected by the proposed Vacation of public right-of-way, other public land as specified in ORS 271.080, or public easement will remain in public ownership and will continue to be used for a public purpose, the request shall be reviewed under the Type IV procedure. The City Council may approve the Vacation application if it is found to be consistent with the following criteria: 1. The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1); Applicant’s Narrative: “The City Council will hear the proposal during the public hearing.” Staff Finding: The vacation action was initiated by an adjacent property owner and not by the City Council. The City Council will act on the vacation request in accordance with provisions of ORS 271.080 and Section 5.20-115.B of the City’s Development Code. Therefore, this sub-element of the criterion is not applicable. 2. Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1); Applicant’s Narrative: “Proper notice will be sent out by the City.” Staff Finding: Notice of the public hearing for vacation of the subject right-of-way has been provided in accordance with ORS 271.110(1) and Section 5.20-125 of the City’s Development Code. Therefore, the proposal meets this sub-element of the criterion. 3. Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-012-00045(3); Applicant’s Narrative: “Since this right-of-way only services the applicant, the general public will not be affected.” Staff Finding: The segment of right-of-way proposed for vacation has been intentionally gated and closed to public travel, and therefore does not provide a connectivity function for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity is not necessary or desirable at the subject location because of its oblique intersection with Marcola Road and the proximity of a railroad spur line. The street was realigned west of the subject right-of-way in order to provide separation from the railroad track crossing and to create a suitable intersection with Marcola Road. The realigned section of 28th/31st Street provides a preferred alternate route because it has been developed as a three-lane major collector street with setback pedestrian sidewalks and dedicated bicycle lanes. Therefore, the proposal meets this sub-element of the criterion. 4. Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right of way in its present status; and Applicant’s Narrative: “Since this right-of-way only services the applicant, the general public will not be affected.” Staff Finding: The segment of right-of-way is City owned and maintained, and because it is not actively used for public travel it constitutes a potential maintenance liability. Incorporation of this land Exhibit B, Page 5 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 9 of 11 into the adjoining industrial site not only eliminates this potential liability, but also enables the land to be used to support the primary industrial activity on the property. Staff Finding: In accordance with Section 3.204 of the City’s Municipal Code, “the City shall require the payment to the City by the applicant of an amount equal to the assessment of special benefit resulting or inuring to the abutting property that results from the vacation and disposition of property to the benefited property owners.” Staff has researched the original bargain and sale deed for 31st Street and determined that Lane County purchased the road alignment from the Pierce family in 1954 for the sum of $10. This is a very modest amount, even when translated to 2013 dollars, so the original public purchase cost for the road essentially constitutes a “donation” and only a portion of the originally dedicated road right-of-way is being proposed for vacation at this time. Because the right-of-way is encumbered by underground utilities and provides limited additional benefit to the adjoining property owner (primarily for additional parking, vehicle maneuvering, and increased site security) staff is of the view that its marginal value does not exceed the applicant’s cost for vacation application fees and assumption of maintenance responsibility. Therefore, the assessment of benefit is not applicable to this vacation request. Staff Finding: Two remnant stubs of 31st Street will remain at the north and south ends of the right-of- way requested for vacation. The northern end will be used for emergency vehicle turnaround and access to the existing fire hydrant at the southeast corner of 31st Street at Pierce Parkway. The southern stub of right-of-way will remain in City ownership at this time. Because this segment of right-of-way abuts property owned by the Pipefitters Union (and would accrue to their parcel), this organization would need to actively participate in the vacation process. The applicant was successful in obtaining a concurrence to the subject vacation from a Union representative, but they did not respond to the applicant’s request for participation in the vacation action. Therefore, the proposal meets this sub- element of the criterion. 5. Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public ownership. Applicant’s Narrative: “The vacated property will be in private ownership and maintained by the applicant.” Staff Finding: As noted above, staff advises that the segment of right-of-way is no longer used for public travel and presents a potential maintenance liability to the City. Staff recommends disposing of the remnant right-of-way because there is no compelling reason to retain the subject property in public ownership. Disposition of the right-of-way is predicated on provision of suitable easements and licenses for existing utilities within the vacation area (Condition 1). Therefore, the proposal meets this sub-element of the criterion. Conclusion: This proposal meets Criterion C. City Council Decision (SDC 5.20-135): City Council approval of the vacation application is done by adoption of a Vacation Ordinance. In accordance with SDC 5.20-135, the City Council may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary to allow the Vacation to be granted, including but not limited to provision of easements for existing utilities. Finding: On June 17, 2013, the City Council will conduct a Public Hearing and give first reading of the Vacation Ordinance. Based on the staff analysis and recommendations, and on testimony provided at the Public Exhibit B, Page 6 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 10 of 11 Hearing, the City Council may direct a second reading of the Ordinance to occur on or after July 1, 2013. The Council may order modifications to this Ordinance in consideration of evidence in the record. The Director recommends approval of the vacation application subject to the conditions described in the staff report and as summarized below. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Prior to transfer of the vacated right-of-way to the property owner of Tax Lot 103, the applicant shall execute and record utility easements satisfactory to all affected utility providers within the subject vacation area, including the City of Springfield, Springfield Utility Board, Eugene Water & Electric Board, NW Natural Gas and CenturyLink, and provide copies of these easement to the City. 2. Prior to transfer of the vacated right-of-way to the property owner of Tax Lot 103, the applicant shall satisfactorily address existing fence encroachments outside the northeast and south edges of the vacated right-of-way by installing the fencing on or inside the ultimate property line for consolidated Tax Lot 103, and provide evidence thereof to the City. Exhibit B, Page 7 of 7 Attachment 3, Page 11 of 11