Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting Miscellaneous 5/15/2008 ,) ZON2008-00021 <' Development Issues Meeting - John Mason Proposed Annexation Vacant Tract at Jasper Road & 32nd Street, West of Kintzley Avenue (Map 18-02-06-24, TL 3500, 3600, 3701, 3900 & 4000) 01. New Rules for the Annexation Process. The applicant applied to annex the subject site in September 2007 (LRP2007-00029) and City staff held a Development Review Committee meeting (October 23rd, 2007), but the city was not able to process the application forward to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission before the Commission stopped receiving applications at the end of 2007. Previously, the Boundary Commission coordinated with the City to process Extra-territorial Extensions. Under the new rules for the annexation process, what is the mechanism for extra-territorial extension of urban services in Kintzley Avenue? How else will changes to the process affect this annexation? A The deadline for submittal of complete annexation packets for review and approval by the Boundary Commission was December 31,2007 The final Boundary Commission public heanng for annexations was on February 7, 2008 Under the current adopted Annexation Ordinance, there IS no provision for extraterrltonal extensions City Council IS reviewing this provIsion at the regular meeting on May 19, 2008. Staff can provide an update on City Council's direction after the meeting. The Annexation Ordinance requires a completed, executed Annexation Agreement pnor to submittal of an application for annexation The annexation application format has changed and It IS now processed as a Type IV Land Use DecISion. 02 Timely Processing. Considering the applicant submitted the application to annex the subject site (LRP2007-00029), along with the required appl.ication fees, in good faith more than six months ago, and considering nothing about the applicant's submittal caused or resulted in either the delay or the requirement to repeat the entire process, what consideration can the City provide in order to process the applicant's annexation agreement in a timely fashion? Is it possible to process it before processing other annexation applications received after September 28, 2007? A Public Works Englneenng to comment. The City IS not entirely responsible for the changeover of Junsdlctlon ansing from abolishment of the Boundary Commission The applicant was previously adVised that a follow-up DIM was required to provide background information on the new annexation procedures adopted by the City. Application for the follow-up DIM was received on Apnl 4, 2008 Due to an unusually high number of DIM meeting requests In the last 3 months, the meeting could not be scheduled until today - even With doubling-up of meeting dates It IS Planning's understanding that the applicant's annexation agreement IS the only outstanding agreement yet to be brought forward (from applications received pnor to January 1, 2008), so It is expected that It Will be processed in a timely fashion 03 Annexation Agreement. Many issues affecting the subject site were already discussed among City staff, Springfield Utility Board (SUB) staff, Willamalane Park & Recreation District staff and the applicant and-project team. Issues include: . Riparian areas and a portion of Jasper Slough in the property's southwestern corner . Issues regarding urban service extension and Kintzley Avenue . The proximity to the City stormwater system in Jasper Road, the City's interest in conveying stormwater from areas east of the subject site via the applicant's property to Jasper Slough, and SUB's attention to the proximity of the Willamette Wellfield. Date RecejVed:*/-200cf Planner: Al ! It appears the annexation agreement proc~ss will be complex but will provide opportunities for the parties to reach mutually beneficial agreements. What is the normal scope of an annexation agreement, what issues spetific to this site must the annexation agreement address, and how can we move the proc~ss forward so City staff can draft the annexation agreement in a timely manner geared towa~d amicable and fair resolution of issues? os A. Public Works Englneermg to comment Potential System Development Charge (SDC) Credits. Considering the open-space potential of the southwestern corner of the propertY, the City's interest in conveying stormwater from off-site areas via the applicant's property\ and the issues regarding off-site improvements, please review these issues and discuss availability of SDC credits to offset fees involved with the annexation. ~s.J fJ!.c- IA-f/j,'-h.a A Je.rve Q.A{!f). f A Pubhc Works Engineering to comment In Ik J'j' { .v &t.d, f. I fJossIA7wlUf~ f{a Of- S. Permit process after Annexation Agreement. Please discuss the permit process after the annexation agreement has been signed a~d confirm the suite of permits required to develop I the site as a residential subdivision (as discussed in the written statement and the attached Conceptual Subdivision Plan, Sheet L3).1 Also, please discuss timing of these submittals under the new annexation process. For example, under the new process, can the applicant apply for tentative subdivision during reviJw of the annexation application? 04. A The applicant cannot apply for a tentative subdiVision until after the property has been annexed. However, the applicant can submit for subdivision pre-submittal after the annexation agreement has been executed and the request IS aw~itmg approval by City Council Before the subdivision IS platted, a pre-approval Land Dramage Alteration Permit (LDAP) can be Issued at the applicant's risk and expense Pi tTVd-r (~" Ov-e-~( Heads-up Issues l~. hl[ ~ cr · Setback from Jasper Slough · Under current Annexation Ordinance, unl~ss the road IS annexed no utilities could be extended , along Kmtzley Avenue - which means that houses probably couldn't be built with frontage on thiS I road Staff would not support a "backmg-on" Situation If the subdiVIsion IS reconflgured Plus, alternate access would be required If mo~e than 30 lots are to derive access from a smgle road entrance. If Kmtzley Avenue is annex~d, It would have to be Improved along the property frontage and out to Jasper Road. i · The City will be executmg an Intergov~rnmental Agreement with various service agencies, mcluding Wrllamalane and the Metropollt~n Wastewater Management CommiSSion, on or around May 28, 2008 In the absence of the IGA, the property owner(s) would have to make separate application for annexation to the service agencies The Implication bemg that the fees would practically triple, and the annexation submittal requirements and approval tlmellnes are completely out of the City's control. .4~~ . S+~ j ) 0<') j( '\-~1 ~ ~f~~tAl w-itL +L- I I 7:.0 w . "