HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5884 02/17/1998
.
.
.
A
ORDINANCE NO. 5884
AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN
NORTH SPRINGFIELD, NORTH OF V STREET, EAST OF NORTH 31ST, SOUTH
OF W STREET (T17S R02W S30 PART OF TAX LOT 1500); HERETOFORE
ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, certain real property described below was annexed to the City of
Springfield by order of Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission under Boundary
Commission Final Order Number C SP 95 - 20 and further described in Exhibit A & B, and
WHEREAS, the property to be withdrawn is located within the boundaries of the
Rainbow Water District, and
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield City Council held a public hearing in the Springfield
City Council Chambers on February 2, 1998 in accordance with ORS 222.524, for the
purpose of hearing any objections to the withdrawal of the property mentioned from the
public service district mentioned and there having been no objections raised.
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Council of the City of Springfield does hereby determine that the real
property described should be in the best interest of the City of Springfield withdrawn from
the Rainbow Water District in Lane County, Oregon, insofar as the property is located therein.
Section 2: The Common Council of the City of Springfield does hereby determine that
the following described real property within the boundaries of the Rainbow Water District are
and shall be upon the effective date of this ordinance withdrawn from the Rainbow Water
District in Lane County, Oregon, said property being described as follows:
Township 17 South, Range02 West, Section 30, Map 00, Part of Tax Lot 1500; as more
particularly described in Exhibit A of Attachment 2 of this ordinance, Boundary Commission
Final Order No.C SP 95 - 20.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield thisl7th day of February,
1998, by a vote of ~ for and ~ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City ~f jYingfield this 17th day of February 1998.
Q:;#'?/f{;Vl~
yO!
ATTEST: ~QClt~~4~
~ED & APPROVED
A 0 FORM '\.. \
~\.~ ~ ~\~
DATE: \ J 2, } '1 ~
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
regon
Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission
125 East 8th Avenue
North Plaza Level, PSB
Eugene, OR 97401-6807
(541) 682-4425
FAC((541) 682-4099
John A. Kitzhaber, M.D., Governor
.
January 8, 1998
Ms. Julie Wilson, Recorder
City of Springfield
255 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
DearMs. Wilson:
The enclosed final order has been enacted by the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission and is forwarded in conformance with ORS 199.505.
.
Final Order 1027 (C SP 95 - 20) annexing territory to the City of Springfield
(Duckhaven Subdivision)
Please acknowledge receipt of this final order.
Sincerely,
~&~
Steven'C. Gordon ~
Executive Officer
SCG:pt
Enclosure
cc: Rainbow Water District
pt: LCBC: \\CLSRV1001PLANNERS\BClFOL\PIN995\CSP9520.FOL
Last Saved: May ll. 1995
.
ATTACHMENT 2 - ( .
P13100
')
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
.
FINAL ORDER 1027
( File C SP 95 - 20
( In the Matter of Annexing the
( Following Described Territory
( To the City of Springfield
Approved: February 2, 1995
Effective: January 2,1998
- Legal Description Attached as Exhibit A - -
WHEREAS, Resolution 94-50 of the City of Springfield was filed on January 3, 1995,
for annexation of the territory described in attached Exhibit. A and shown on attached map
Exhibit B-as modified by the boundary commission at its public hearing of February 2,
1995-to the City of Springfield, in accordance with ORS 199.490(2)(B); and,
WHEREAS, the commission duly published notice of public hearing in accordance
with ORS 199.463 and in accordance with the rules of the commission and ORS 199.452(1),
conducted a public hearing on February 2, 1995; and,
WHEREAS, on the basis of the study of the proposal, which considered economic,
demographic, and sociological trends 'and physical development of the land, and of the public
hearing, 'the commission modified and approved the proposal and made the fmdings and
reasons attached as Exhibit.C. 'c.....', '
/
I
.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: That the area described be a part of the City
of Springfield.
ORDERED BY THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY
COMMISSION THIS 2ND DA YOF FEBRUARY, 1995.
, \ 0,- .-
-'~.~
John Lively, Chair
z I Z.\ q 5'
Date
NOTE: The portion of the territory within the Rainbow Water District and will remain in the
district until after the effective date of the annexation, when it will be withdrawn through
separate proceedings by the City of Springfield in accordance with ORS 222.
Upon the effective date of the annexation, in accordance with ORS 199.51O(2)(c), the above
described territory is hereby a part of the Willamalane Park and Recreation District and the
Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District, a county service district organized
. under ORS 451, which is part of the City of Springfield.
p:\bc\fol\csp9S20.fo
2-2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT " A "
That tract ofland lying in the F. Scott Donation land Claim No. 82, Township 17 South, Range 2
West of the Willamette Meridian more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1,2,3,4, 15, 16,17 of DUCK HAVEN as platted and recorded September 27, 1994; in File
75, Slide 68, Plat Records of Lane County, Oregon.
2#3
Krush. certify that this ill an
of the final plat &II shown.
FOUND 2" IRON PIPE MARKING INITIAL POINT
OF "REPLAT OF HAYDENLO" IN FILE 73, SUDE 522-
523, LC.O.P.R., HELD />S INITIAL POINT
1) U ~.l\. .t!1-\. V ~1~
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 30 AND SW 1/4 OF
T 17 S, R 2W, W.M.,
LANE COUNTY, OREGON
A PART OF F. SCOTT D.L.C. NO. e
-??1 ~ -t. -x:; _~
Marvin S. !Crush P .L.S.
~
q
(JderP.L4.:T ~ %A~en.e&
Y 73, 1J 522-523
.l.e.rJ..~.(Jd.
(EAST 731.83 PER REF. NO. n (N 87 57' 23" E 731.83 PER REF. NO.2) EAST 731.83
(N87 57' 2~" t 696.83 PER REF. NO.2) EAST 696.83
3 I (N 87 57' I 23" E 509.96 fER REF. NO.2) EAST 509.96 I ~
[ 4 ' --- 5 [ 6 ! 7 !
162.19 70.00 70.00
LOT ,.r) LOT 5 LOT 6
9285 Sa-:-'Fr. !9 7042 SQ. Fr. 8037 SQ Fr
A 65-49-14 "l A 26-01-24 co " LOT 7
R 46 00 ,.. R 46.00 "! A 22-19-02
L 52'84 110 L 22.50 a R 125.00 8 10,181 SQ. Fr.
I$- S86'08'44"W N46'55'57"W... L 46.69.0
::t I'~ Ch 49.99 g Ch 22.28 N71'15'51"W '"
"'7/" 1.0 1~ LOT @ ...t6' 7.0 P.U.E.&: ij ~ A 7-34-38 g Ch 48.38 ....
119.88 I '. ,'-' 9700 SQ. Fr. SIDEWALK EAS R 125.00 011I A 19-45-34 g
/ .... #'~....?~- -- L 16.53 R 7500
/ --l ' ....?"T" N86'12'41"W L 25:87
~)4.0 P.U.E: IJ 10- A 65-49-14#' / '\.Ch 18.52 N69'59'07"W ~
ml LOT (4t lit) I RL 46.00 Z31'd/ '-37.26--- -Cb 25.74
;;::/ 8592 SQ. Fr. I"': I 52.84 I -_
J Jtt- 2. 35"1 I I S20'19'30"W I -......,
L_____14.0~~:.._jJ L__~~_~~9:_J EAST 75.87 )( _@ --
~""00.>-00
1___~...L4.e.OQ. - -,--- '-L.~~~@-_...\ I @ 0 '~ -..........
/ 6479 SQ. Fr. \.... 8;:::./ tJ' ~
I A44-13-38 ....
18 R 46.00,1
L..... 0 P '-'-/1 TJC ,.. N L 35.51#Z3/1> I LOT 13 -_
I 7. .U.E. y' ....,.. S34'41'56"E I,., W Ii! -_____-
I ~i Ch 34.63 ,Ill I 0:: 5512 SQ. Fr. ,..: '" A 27-56-54
./ LOT ~7) ....1 E~ I~ ~Iln .... ~ ~ 1~~:g~ 2
I '/ 3: ~ e S77"29'53'E ,..:
;t 18,926 S'. Fr. 'I 95.00 I '" Ch 037 0
0/-/ ~ 08 .... 0 I 95 02 a.I 6 . ....
~I .... 3110 .1 : LOT GJ I Z I' 0 LOT 12 LOT 11
'(~. b' I LOT 14 86213 SQ. FT ~
I COl.g~~~~) ~ S 6047 SQ#Fr. .~J13ZII ~ ~I 5741 SQ. Fr. ~ '" A 9-50-11 810,221 SQ. Fr.
I b U) v 2.50, . 0, N .... R 350.00 '" ..
5.0 X 7.0 SIGN EASE. III ~1 C.O P.U.E. & -1:'6 U)r--~6'~.ill<E.&~ U) b LS79"11~~~ ....
5.00 r-'~----i4Q.OT-~--:-';"'-::- -- ~~~~~_J 5.00'1~25.00 La0,3S--- -_ z_~_ 60.01 b 70 PUE" 3:
8 N 89' 47' 00' W 235.01 '!- . NB9' 47' 00"W @ --- 11I_ SIDEwALK EAsEl 8
iii 'V" STREET ~ -_.......
'" ;Go '" .................. ~
(N 89' 47' 00. W 328.40 PER REF. NO.1) N 89' 47' 00" W 328.40 Iv --- (2) ...... b
OU~~G~~~~Nrl~~ cr -; ." --- --------z-- --____ __ ........./11,
1 st. STREIT PER REF. _
O. 2 (R 402~09;-- -----
1
(Q))
2
8
119.57
88.20
/
I
r--7.0 P.U.E. (.',
~I LOT ~
:8, 7902 SQ. Fr.
/ #-2'36/.
I
,
, 25.(
I
12: ,..
15 ....
I~ ~
I
I
I
I
I
/
[7.0 P.U.E.&: /
SIDEWALK EASe;/
""
--_.....", @/ /
"c:fJ.c:fJ ",
_-~ CD
A 100-08-06
R 75.00
L 131.08
S5O'04'03"W
Ch 115.02
/
~
{'()
\
f-
~\
......
\'>1
N
'()
'2
@
.
.
~
"R: ,; Jt'If1."" ~,.
u~..,,~t>t' '/K~ tJ.--:
P..t.d."'~!J ,
EXHIBIT B
1"=400 I
~~
~~
~
~:54 <!.h.
---
L '""'t4"':".. - -.j
SEE MAP
l U
17 02
"":'" ...~
~;
1000
22.52
et~.~S''''t. \i
..I",,4e'(tOlo.4J t.
~I<>' ,
~ ..,."r V ~I:
...".~~"",
1911
IS. 54
~
It
~
&:
t
It
"
~
.....,..,.
...-......... .
-#"
-
_rr_9U1I:M.'
, I . ~....,iM"-
~; ~ 1909
~,. ra Ar\ne'lla.h~ ^~~8
Tn~ ~O~W~~'30
--r-- - --EI I~~"".--- '''oI.TL \ ~:- .... pt-t*: .
. ~ .'.' 'I . ~
. . ~ SeRlN "::~~~
Final Order 1027 -'''~'' ~LJj~
C SP 95 - 20 ~
Page lof 1 -....... ;
20
".<IT
~
1902
15.T2
-.
~
"
, ,(X)
~
\
\
$
2-if
--:.!J. ,..:--
..........,
~~
f
....
I
---.....
, ,-
.
.
.
.. .
EXHffiIT C
Findings:
1.
Three proposals--one annexation and extraterritorial water and. sewer extensions-were ,
initiated with the boundary commission on January 3, 1995, by Springfield City Council
Resolution 94-50 in accordance with provision of ORS 199.490(2)(B) and by petition for
extraterritorial water and sewer extensions by the City of Springfield in accordance with
ORS 199.464. The proposals were deemed by staff to constitute valid filings under OAR .
191-06.
2.
The City of Springfield requested a delayed effective date of January 2,'1998,'for this ..
annexation as allowed by ORS 199.495(1) with interim water and sewer exterisions to
serve development until the annexation's effective date. The City of Springfield requested
a delayed effective date to capture the value of development in its tax base:"~If the
annexation was effective February 2, 1995, (which it would be,without the delay) the'city's
tax base would only increase bY the 'existing (undeveloped) assessed'value'insteac(of the
developed value which will be greater. The boundary commissi6n'set an 'effective~date of
January 2, 1998-the first working dayafte~ the January holiday.
".,": ,.
3.
Theproposed:t -5.29 acre anne"xation'involves one entiretaX'lof'anda'poitio'ii';of ari<
additional tax lot (fl7S R02W S30 tax lot 1500 arid part of tailot 700) and apemon of
North 31~t Street right-of-way.' Low~ensity residential development is plannoo '"for the
annexing area. Water (outside the Rainbow Water District) and sewer line extensions were
approved to provide service to the annexing properties' prior to' the effectivedate~of the
annexation.
. . .,
4. The land is zoned LDRIUF-I0 (low-density residential with urb~izing fringe overlay) in
Lane County and is designated low-density residential in the Metropolitan Plan. .
Provide an impartial forum for resolution of local jurisdictional questions. Conside~ the'
effects of the boundary change on other units of governments. ORS 199. 410(1)(b) and
199. 410(3)(c) . '. .,.,
5. The boundary commission held a public hearing on February 2, 1995. Notice of the public
hearing was given in accordance with ORS 199 provisions. All interested parties were
given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
6. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the area will be annexed automatically to the
Willamalane Park and Recreation District and Lane County Metropolitan WaStewater
Service District in accordance with ORS 199.510(2)(c).
Final Order 1027
C SP 95 .; 20
Page 1 of3
~-5
7.
The portion of the annexation area within the Rainbow Water District. will receive fire and
water services from the district. After the annexation effective date, the City of Springfield
will withdraw this area from the water district in accordance with ORS 222. '
.
8. These proposals are consistent with this standard.
Consider the orderly determination and adjustment of local government boundaries to best
meet the needs of Lane County and Oregon. Consider alternattve solutions where
intergovernmental options are identified and make decisions based on the most effective long-
range option among identified alternatives. ORS 199.410(1), 199.410(2); and 199. 41 0(3)(a)
and (e)
9. The proposed annexation is contiguous to the City of Springfield on three sides.
Annexation to the City of Springfield has been identified in the, acknowledged Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan as the preferred method for providing urban
level services to a new developing area (implementing policy #20a, page II-B-7). In the
event of a delayed annexation, extraterritorial sewer and water extensions will provide
service to the areain the i.nterim period between boundary commission approval arid the
effective date of the annexation.
. '- '"
.
. . .. .
10. Annexation to an existing city is the method for extending urban services to urbanizable
land in the boundary commission's policy administrativerul~, implementing polici~s (1), .
(2), (5) and (7) (OAR '191, Division 30). Delayi~e the, effective date of annexation ;does
not change the fact' that this property is being annexed by this action. In the interim,
extraterritorial water and sewer lines will be extended to allow for development prior to the
effective date of the annexation (January 2, 1998). . .',
11. The proposed annexation is the means of boundary- change outlined in both the
Metropolitan Plan and boundary commission administrative rules for ultimately s~,rving .
the proposal area.
12. These proposals are consistent with boundary commission policies and this standard.
,
Make boundary commission determinations which are consistent with acknowledged local
comprehensive plans. Assure an adequate quality and quantity of public services required in
the comprehensive plan to meet existing and future growth. For major boundary changes,
there must be assurance that the proposed unit of government is financially viable. . ORS
199.410(1)(d), 199.410(3)(b) and (d)
13. The annexation proposal and water and sewer extension requests are within the urban
growth boundary of the acknowledged Metropolitan Area General Plan (LCDC action in
1982 and subsequent amendments).
..
14. The Metropolitan Area General Plan recognizes annexation to the City of Springfield as
the desired option for servicing newly developing areas within the urban growth boundary
Final Order 1027
C SP 95 - 20
Page 2 of3
~, 0
.
.
.
.. ~
east of 1-5. The city interprets a delayed effective date annexation and water and sewer
extension requests to fulfill this Metropolitan Plan policy direction.
15.' The current zoning is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan.
16. The City of Springfield has indicated that the required services as outlined in Metropolitan
Plan policy #7, p. ll-B-4, are either available or can be provided in a timely manner.
Interim water (outside the Rainbow Water District) and sewer extensions will be mace tc
serve proposed development within the annexation area because the annexation will not be
effective until January 2, 1998. No service connections outside the annexation area or the
City of Springfield will be allowed consistent with existing Metropolitan Plan policy.
17. These proposals are consistent with this standard.
Consider the comprehensive plan's economic, demographic, and sociological trends and
projections and its environmental policies, pertinent to the proposal. ORS 199.410(3)(d) and
199.462(1)
18. The proposals are consistent with the Metropolitan Plan. The urban growth boundary,land
uses, and policies in the Metropolitan Plan were developed to meet the future needs of the
metropolitan community. '
19. These proposals are consistent with this standard.
Reasons:
1. These proposals are 'supported by the City of Springfield and the property owners.
2. These proposals are consistent with the LCDC acknowledged Metropolitan Plan.
3. The services required in the Metropolitan Plan are either available or can be provided in a
timely manner when needed.
4. These proposals are consistent with boundary commission administrative nlie policies.
pr: USC: \\CLSRV / ()(N>U,NNERSlBClFOL\EXOJ 995\CSP9520. EXC.DOC
Last Saved: October 30. /996
Final Order 1027
C SP 95 - 20
Page 3 of3
d--7