HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6207 09/17/2007
"
J
. ~.
VACATION
ORDINANCE NO. 6207
.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A 66 FOOT WIDE, 264 FOOT LONG PORTION OF B STREET IN
BLOCK 1 OF THE MAP OF SPRINGFIELD, BOOK 1, PAGE 1 OF PLAT RECORDS OF LANE
COUNTY, OREGON, DATED APRIL 5, 1872
WHEREAS, the Springfield Common Council has declared its intention to vacate public
right-of-way in the City of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, the request for vacation was submitted in conformance with the provisions of
ORS 271.080 et. seq., and with the provisions of Article 9 VACATIONS of the Springfield
Development Code; and
. -r-- WHEREAS, the findings and testimony submitted by the applicant and those in support of
this vacation satisfy the criteria of approval for vacations found in Section 9.060(3) of the
Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, such vacation is in the best interest of the City in carrying out its plans and
programs for the general development of the City; and
WHEREAS, lawful notice of the proposed vacation was published and posted; and
.
WHEREAS, the Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 5,
2007 and June 19,2007 in the Council Chambers of Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield OR and recommended unconditional approval of this public right-of-way vacation
(LRP2007-00019);and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Common Council met in Council Chambers, at 225 Fifth Street,
on Monday, the 2nd day of July, 2007, (First Reading) and on Monday, the 16th day of July, 2007,
(Second Reading) at the hour of 7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the proposed vacation and ~
persons appeared to object;
.
Division of Chief Deputy Clerk
Lane County Deeds and Records
~~~i.~~~1~~
1/111111111 " 111111111111111111111111111111111111 $71.00
00944138200700651200100105
09/19/2007 09:26:17 AM
RPR-VAC Cnt=1 Stn=15 CASHIER 04
$50.00 $10.00 $11.00
Return to: City of Springfield - City Recorder, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
.
Ordinance 6207
- 1 -
~
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN, AS FOLLOWS:
.
Section 1: The Council finds that the legal notice of the hearing was lawfully published and
posted; that --L objections were made at the vacation hearing held; that the public interest will not
be impaired by the vacation of the street right-of-way, and that vacation of said street will be in the
best interest of the public and increase the benefit of the property involved.
Section 2: The public right-of-way in the City of Springfield, as generally depicted on the
site map and more particularly described in the property legal description which are together
attached as Exhibit A of this Ordinance, is declared to be vacated.
Section 3: Findings 1 through 36 and Conclusions of Law adopted by the Common Council
in support of the street right-of-way vacation are hereby made part of this Ordinance by reference.
Section 4: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the special provision that in the event the
vacated right-of-way ceases to be used for Justice Center purposes it shall revert to public right-of-
way.
Section 5: This right-of-way vacation is subject to the establishment of temporary
easements or licenses for existing utilities located within the right-of-way to be maintained,
continued, repaired, reconstructed, renewed, replaced, rebuilt or enlarged subject to the provisions
of said temporary easements or licenses.
Section 6: The City Recorder is directed to file certified copies of this ordinance with the
. Lane County Clerk, Lane County Assessor, and Lane County Surveyor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this E day of September ,
2007, by a vote of ~ for and ~ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 17th day of September, 2007.
,
N01ttr~ 0 tl #!IDWl Y11j PtUJe..
Ordinance (p~ 0 1
- 2 -
..: '; T::'VJED & APPROVED
;S TO FORM
_~c.!r')tc~~ ) L.tU\\~\"f
D!-TE: ~_IJ.LLo,
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
.
.
.
.
ATTEST:
City~r~
State of Oregon
County of Lane
Ordinance /P~o1
)
) ss.
)
, ,.-. _c,,\.~.,,~~.~"~~>:..~~~?!.B~
tj~"""""'';''''''~'0'-'~''''-':;;'':::;o-.::;:>-.- "i
,,;~,--~ OFI::ICIAL SEAL ,;:,
'\(\ i.\MY tSOWA..." 1(,
~',~'~;1 ~'f'...{,\;y PUUL!G.. OflEGU,i',l .. If'!
, C''J'" h.""'\ ... "979"" I)
\,. :/.. COi'~""ISSi()N t'K,. j . .,,- \.~
_ MY ,,,,,""'''Gl' [X~I'!.'S_N,~.:;:~!ji
~'>sss~.:~~.(~~~...,:~t">~..~..~-,......
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
Sep4. 11
as
,~oD1
~~o~on)
by 51&neL1 W. L-e{~€.f\
':J (Name)
of the City of Springfield.
~~~
NOTARYPUB CF ROREGON
- 3 -
My commission expires:
II-do ).~ J.D 0 '1
EXHffiIT A
. I- 13800 S 13
en
<C .
W 4
>-
~ . - I-
~ t 17 -03-35-24 W
---^~--~._-'.'_.Y__.
a::: 14100 1~ w 14
<C . 0:::
0- S I-
a::: 13900 14000 en
w .
(I
W "l. ::I:
....
Z 5 6 I-
0 ~
-
0- .. ~f>' '-6' S
, 2000
o
~
2100
66' 33' I 33'
1
1600 1500 , If,
r--
(:)
~
2 1 in 1
...
4
~ "'"
....
34' ~
0 0
0 0 2400
C"'II tI')
~~ \0) Q 0
<\1
~ ....
, 1800
'='
. \0
, 1700
0
(\J
...
1900 3
0
<J:!
4
;! 17-03-35-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.
Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lot 5 of Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, filed and recorded in Book I
Page 1, Plat Records of Lane County, Oregon, said point being the Northeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B
Street in Springfield, Oregon; thence Easterly along the Northerly right of way of B Street, 264 feet, more or less,
to the Southeast corner of Lot 8, Block 28 of the Map of Springfield, which is the Northwest corner of B street and
Fourth Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the Southerly projection of the Fourth street right
of way, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield,
said point being the Northeast corner of B Street and Fourth Street; thence along the Southerly right of way of B
Street, 264 feet more or less, to the Northwest corner of Lot 4, Block 1 of the Map of Springfield, said point being
the Southeast corner of Pioneer Parkway and B Street; thence leaving the B Street right of way and along the
Northerly projection of the easterly right of way of Pioneer Parkway, crossing B Street 66 feet, more or less, to the
point of beginning, all in the City of Springfield, Lane County, Oregon.
Ordinance &, UJ1
- 4-
.
.
.
VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
City of Springfield Case No. LRP2007-00019
APPLICANT
The City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department
V ACA TION ACTION
The vacation of a 66-foot wide by 264-foot long segment of public street right-of-way.
LOCATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED
The public right-of-way (ROW) proposed to be vacated is a segment ofB Street located between 4th
Street and Pioneer Parkway East. The right-of-way lies on the boundary between Lane County Tax Maps
17-03-35-24 and 17-03-35-31.
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE VACATION
Finding 1: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Section 271.080 prescribes:
(1) Whenever any person interested in any real property in an incorporated city in this state desires
to vacate all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley, plat, public square or other public place,
such person may file a petition therefor setting forth a description of the ground proposed to be
vacated, the purpose for which the ground is proposed to be used and the reason for such vacation.
(2) There shall be appended to such petition, as a part thereof and as a basis for granting the same,
the consent of the owners of all abutting property and of not less than two-thirds in area of the real
property affected thereby. The real property affected thereby shall be deemed to be the land lying on
either side of the street or portion thereofproposed to be vacated and extending laterally to the next
street that serves as a parallel street, but in any case not to exceed 200 feet, and the land for a like
lateral distance on either side of the street for 400 feet along its course beyond each terminus of the
part proposed to be vacated Where a street is proposed to be vacated to its termini, the land
embraced in an extension of the street for a distance of 400 feet beyond each terminus shall also be
counted In the vacation of any plat or part thereof the consent of the owner or owners of two-thirds
in area of the property embraced within such plat or part thereof proposed to be vacated shall be
sufficient, except where such vacation embraces street area, when, as to such street area the above
requirements shall also apply. The consent of the owners of the required amount of property shall be
in writing. [Amended by 1999 c.866 92J
Finding 2: ORS Section 271.130(1) prescribes:
The city governing body may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080 and make
such vacation without a petition or consent of property owners. Notice shall be given as provided by
ORS 271.110, but such vacation shall not be made before the date setfor hearing, nor if the owners
of a majority of the area affected, computed on the basis provided in ORS 271. 080, object in writing
thereto, nor shall any street area be vacated without the consent of the owners of the abutting
property if the vacation will substantially affect the market value of such property, unless the city
governing body provides for paying damages. Provision for paying such damages may be made by a
,
local assessment, or in such other manner as the city charter may provide."
Finding 3: In accordance with ORS 271.080(1), the area being vacated is a one-block segment of public
street.
.
Finding 4: In accordance with ORS 271.080, the City of Springfield prepared a legal description of the
segment of public street to be vacated. The legal description was prepared by the City Surveyor and was
available for public review more than 20 days prior to the opening of the City Council Public Hearing on
the proposed vacation action. The legal description is attached to the enacting ordinance as Exhibit A.
Finding 5: In accordance with ORS 271.080, the City of Springfield stated the reason for the proposed
public street vacation and the purpose for which the ground would be used. The reason and purpose were
available for public review more than 20 days prior to the opening ofthe City Council Public Hearing on
the proposed vacation action. The reason and purpose for the vacation action are stated on the Public
Hearing Notices for the Planning Commission Public Hearing held June 5, 2007 and the City Council
Public Hearing held July 2, 2007. The Public Hearing Notices were published in the newspaper and
mailed to adjacent landowners and residents as required by ORS 271.110 and provisions of the
Springfield Development Code,
Finding 6: In accordance with ORS 271.080 and 271.130(1), the Springfield City Council initiated the
vacation action by passing a motion on May 7, 2007. The motion is noted in the minutes of the City
Council meeting of May 7, 2007.
Finding 7: Notification of the proposed vacation action was given in accordance with ORS 271.110 and
the Springfield Development Code Articles 3.100 and 9.050(2). "Notification of Street Vacation" signs
were posted in conspicuous locations at both ends of the segment of public street proposed for vacation; a
legal notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation (The Register-Guard) on June 15 and 22,
2007 prior to the City Council Public Hearing on the vacation action; and landowners and residents
within a 400 foot radius of the street segment were notified in writing of the Public Hearing, Affidavits
for the public mail out notification and newspaper publication are part ofthe record for the vacation
action.
.
Finding 8: All properties that directly abut the segment of public right-of-way proposed for vacation are
owned by the City of Springfield. There are no third-party properties that would be isolated or deprived
of legal and physical access upon vacation of the right-of-way.
Finding 9: The Public Hearing was advertised, conducted and concluded before any final action on the
vacation was taken. The City Council Public Hearing on the vacation action was opened on July 2, 2007
and continued to the meeting on July 16,2007. The Public Hearing was concluded on July 16,2007. At
the conclusion of the Public Hearing, Council directed staff to return on September 17,2007 for adoption
of findings in support of the vacation action.
Finding 10: No landowners or residents within the 400-foot public notification area submitted testimony
opposing the street vacation.
Finding 11: The street vacation will not compromise safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular access in the area.
Finding 12: Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0045(3)(d) states that "safe and convenient'
means bicycle and pedestrian routes, facilities and improvements which:
(A)
Are reasonably free from hazards, particularly types or levels of automobile traffic which
would interfere with or discourage pedestrian or cycle travel for short trips;
Provide a reasonably direct route of travel between destinations such as a transit stop
and a store; and
Meet travel needs of cyclists and pedestrians considering destination and length of trip;
and considering that the optimum trip length of pedestrians is generally % toY2 mile.
.
(B)
(C)
.
Finding 13: In accordance with OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way and
closure to public travel would not interfere with or discourage pedestrian, cycle or vehicle travel on the
adjacent public street system due to excessive traffic or other unusual hazards. East-west traffic
circulation can be accommodated on adjacent local and collector streets. The adjacent and parallel public
collector street (A Street) is less than 300 feet to the south.
Finding 14: In accordance with OAR 660-0 12-0045(3)(d), vacation of the subject right-of-way would not
result in pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle trips that are more than V4 mile from being a direct route of travel
between destination points. Vacation of the segment ofB Street would result in out-of-direction distance
for passage from the eastern end of the subject right-of-way (at 4th Street) to the western end of the right-
of-way (at Pioneer Parkway East) of about 600 feet (<1/8 mile) for bicycles and vehicles using surface
streets. Vehicles and bicycles have the option of using either A Street or C Street for the east-west
segment of the trip. The out-of-direction distance would be even less for pedestrians using the public
sidewalk system, or bicycles and vehicles passing through the mid-block alley north ofB Street.
Finding 15: A travel distance diagram for the public streets surrounding the proposed vacation area is
provided as Figure 1 in the staff report for the vacation action. For purposes of preparing the travel
distance diagram, staff used GIS mapping information and a calibrated measuring wheel to verify
potential vehicle travel distances. Measurements were taken in the field from points within the travel
lanes of the public streets adjacent to the proposed vacation area to determine likely travel distances for
vehicles. Travel distances for pedestrians using the public sidewalk system and public alley are less than
the distances described for vehicles, but are not described on the diagram as there are more short-cutting
opportunities for pedestrians than vehicles. The diagram also is intended to illustrate maximum out-of-
direction travel distances.
.
Finding 16: The -600-foot out-of-direction distance is limited to trips that have an origin and destination
on B Street and that would otherwise pass across the vacation area. Trips that have an east-west
component and that are not confined to B Street can be accommodated on adjacent public streets without
any out-of-direction travel. Trips that have origins and/or destinations outside the B Street alignment and
require a north-south travel component can be made on adjacent public streets with minimal or no out-of-
direction travel distance.
Finding 17: In accordance with Springfield Development Code Section 32.020(1)(a)1.b, block length for
local streets shall not exceed 600 feet. The proposed vacation action will not create a north-south block
length exceeding 600 feet. As measured from the north edge of street right-of-way on A Street to the
south edge of street right-of-way on C Street, the distance is approximately 575 feet. The existing mid-
block alley between the proposed vacation area and C Street reduces this maximum block length distance
because it will continue to accommodate east-west vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian passage.
Finding 18: Pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicle passage will not be obstructed on the adjacent public streets
outside the vacation area. Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle passage through the east-west mid-block alley
north ofB Street can be accommodated within the existing 14-foot wide paved surface.
Finding 19: The public streets adjacent to the proposed vacation area are developed to City standards
with sidewalks, paved travel lanes and street lighting, The adjacent public streets are designed to
accommodate one lane of vehicle travel in each direction and parking on both sides. The pavement
widths are sufficient to allow for continuous traffic flow in each direction with full utilization of the
curb line for parking. Therefore, negotiating the public street system adjacent to the proposed vacation
area will not create any unusual hazards for pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicles.
.
Finding 20: Safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle travel will be maintained with the proposed right-of-way
vacation. The surrounding public sidewalk and street system adjacent to the vacation area will not be
altered by the proposed vacation action. Speed limits are 20 mph and traffic control signage is in place on
.
.
.
the local streets adjacent to the right-of-way proposed for vacation in order to maintain safe vehicle and
bicycle passage through the area. Additionally, the width of pavement on the adjacent public streets is
comparable to the proposed vacation area. Therefore, vehicles and bicycles will have the same
opportunity for safe passage, parking and maneuvering.
Finding 21: A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by an independent traffic engineering
consultant to evaluate the impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation (Springfield Justice Center
Revised Task 2 Report - Traffic Impact Study, Access Engineering, July, 2006). The TIA was placed in
the record of the vacation proceedings. The TIA examined the existing and post-vacation street system in
the vicinity of the Justice Center and evaluated the possible impacts of the proposed right-of-way vacation
to vehicle movements and the performance of nearby intersections. The TIA concluded there would be
minimal impact on the downtown transportation system with the proposed vacation of public right-of-
way.
Finding 22: The TIA prepared for the proposed right-of-way vacation concluded that the proposed
vacation action would have minimal impact on the transportation system. The report determined that
levels of service would be maintained on nearby intersections and that no traffic mitigation actions would
be required to ensure safe and efficient flow of traffic in the vicinity of the Justice Center.
Finding 23: The Springfield Development Code (SDC) Article 9 - Vacations contains Criteria of
Approval for vacation of easements, rights-of-way, plats and other City property. The section describing
the criteria of approval reads:
9.060 Criteria of Approval
(1) For the Vacation of public utility easements, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions
or deny the application. The application shall be approved if the Vacation isfound to be
consistent with the following criteria:
(a) 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
(b) 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,
(2) Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-ofway, 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 shall be approved if the
Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria.
(a) 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;
(b) 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
(c) There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection
or any other benefit derivedfrom the public right-ofway, publicly owned land or Partition or
Subdivision Plat.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.060(2) where the land affected by the proposed
Vacation of public right-ofway, 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:
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1);
(c) 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-
012-0045(3),'
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtainedfrom the vacation than from
retaining the right-oi-way in its present status; and
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in
public ownership.
Finding 24: The vacation is not a public utility easement, therefore Criterion 9.060(1) is not applicable.
Finding 25: The vacation is a segment of public street right-of-way that will remain in public ownership
and will continue to be used for a public purpose (Justice Center facility). Therefore, Criterion 9.060(2) is
not applicable; the applicable Criterion of approval is 9.060(3).
Finding 26: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(a), the vacation action was initiated by City Council on
May 7, 2007 and pursuant to ORS 271.130(1).
. Finding 27: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(b), notice of the vacation action has been given pursuant to
ORS 271.110(1). Notice ofthe vacation action also has been given in accordance with the City's
Development Code (SDC 3.100 and 9.050) and Municipal Code (Section 3.205).
Finding 28: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(c), approval ofthe vacation would not compromise safe,
convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-
012-0045(3). As described in the above findings, the out-of-direction travel distance for vehicles, cyclists
and pedestrians is not expected to be more than 600 feet. The out-of-direction travel distance is minimal
or non-existent for trips with origins and destinations outside the linear alignment of the street containing
the vacated area.
Finding 29: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(d), the public benefit attributed to a public Justice Center
facility with secure parking area and ancillary building that serves the entire municipal area is deemed to
be a greater benefit than retaining the one-block segment of street right-of-way for public travel.
Finding 30: It is of critical importance and public benefit to maintain a safe Justice Center facility with a
contiguous, secure parking area. The preferred design of the Justice Center facility includes the
contiguous secure parking area, and therefore requires the one-block segment of public right-of-way
proposed for vacation.
.
Finding 31: Damage and vandalism to police vehicles is an ongoing problem that requires repairs at the
expense of taxpayers. Incorporating the proposed vacation area into the Justice Center will improve the
security of publicly-funded police and special operations vehicles and equipment stored at the facility
(testimony from Police Chief Jerry Smith dated May 16,2007). It is of public benefit to deter damage
and vandalism through administration of a secure parking area that is contiguous to the Justice Center
facility.
.
.
.
Finding 32: Safety and security of police officers and the public are paramount to the Police Chief and
other interested parties that submitted testimony in support ofthe vacation action. Maintaining a secure
parking area immediately adjacent to the police station will prevent responding officers from having to
cross a public street to reach their vehicles. The secure parking area will result in quicker response times
for police officers because they don't have to travel as far to their vehicles and don't have to cross a
public street. Therefore, the proposed vacation will benefit the greater community, particularly those
requiring timeiy police assistance.
Finding 33: The preferred site design for the Justice Center includes an ancillary building for retaining
police and court records, evidence, recovered items, and police equipment. Proximity to the Justice
Center and security of the ancillary building is necessary to protect the integrity of its contents. The
preferred placement of the ancillary building is within a portion ofthe street right-of-way area proposed
for vacation.
Finding 34: The secure parking area adjacent to the Justice Center can be used for emergency evacuation
of jail prisoners. The secure parking area provides a contained muster area for prisoners that otherwise
could be subject to an uncontrolled release in the event of an emergency evacuation. Providing a
contained evacuation area increases the safety and security of the community and the prisoners
themselves. The secure parking area that can be used for emergency evacuation is within the street right-
of-way area proposed for vacation.
Finding 35: Based on Findings 29 to 34, the benefit obtained from the proposed vacation area (through
its use as an integral part of the Justice Center facility) is of greater public benefit than retaining the right-
of-way in its present status.
Finding 36: In accordance with SDC 9.060(3)(e), a special condition has been inserted in the enacting
ordinance requiring that the right-of-way revert back to public right-of-way if the vacated area ceases to
be used for the purpose of a municipal Justice Center. The special condition is intended to ensure the land
is retained in public ownership.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing findings and the record of the vacation action (City of Springfield Case No.
LRP2007-00019), the right-of-way vacation is consistent with and meets the applicable requirements of
ORS 271.080 & 271.130(1), OAR 660-012-0045(3)(d), and Springfield Development Code Sections
9.060 and 32.020(1)(a).
, ;.;-18, r.PPRO\lfD
. . ,-. r::(~7 t I" ~
~D.~~~~~.J...J L~t"\~J
,'.-._ _.~jJ.J r a-,
-:r;.:: Oi:: CITY ATTORNEY