HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6068 11/03/2003
....-' ~'"
'- I.. .
,
.~
1-
.
A~TER RECORDING RETURN TO:
01+., 8.Q ~1~}~\.~JJ
ORDINANCE NO. 6068
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A l4-FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (ALLEY)
BETWEEN SOUTH 'A' STREET AND MAIN STREET FROM 8TH STREET TO 10TH
STREET.
WHEREAS, the application for vacation was submitted in conformance with the
provisions ofORS 271.080 et. seq., and with the provisions of Article 9 Vacations of the
Springfield Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has prepared and will record a deed restriction titled,
"Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Vehicular Access and Utility Purposes to Benefit
Interior Parcels," for each parcel affected by this vacation; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the deed restriction is to institute an access strip allowing
vehicle access to 81h, 91h, or 10lh Streets for any interior parcel that does not have road frontage or
. access on 8tl\ 9th, or loth Streets, upon sale of any portion of the applicant's property; and
WHEREAS, the findings and testimony submitted by the applicant and those in support.
of this right-of-way vacation satisfies the criteria of approval for vacations found in Section 9.030
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 City Council met in Council Chambers, at 225 Fifth Street,
on Monday the 6th day of October, 2003, at the hour of7:00 p.m., to hear any objections to the
proposed vacation;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The Council finds that the legal notice of the hearing was lawfully published
and posted; that the public interest will not be impaired by the vacation of this right-of-way, and
that vacation of said right-of-way 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, described in two segments
as Alley One and Alley Two in Exhibit A qf this Ordinance, are together declared to be vacated.
Section 3: The findings adopted by the City Council in support of this vacation, are
hereby made part of this ordinance by reference.
Section 4: The City Recorder is directed to file certified copies of this ordinance with the
Lane County Clerk, Lane County Assessor, and Lane County Surveyor.
ORDINANCE NO. 6068
Page 1 of2
.
FURTHER, although not part ofthis Ordinance, the Springfield City Council adopts the
findings set forth in the Staff Report which demonstrate conformance of this amendment to the
Metro Plan, applicable State statutes and applicable State-wide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules, and is attached as Exhibit B.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield thi~ day of ~er
2003 by a vote of --2 for and -1) against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ~ dfiy of ~e:f003.
~~g
/ \i MaJYOr
Attest:
CitY~~
REVIEWED & APPROVED
~~M ~ b,~
DATE: ~ c:.~)"2- \~c.G~
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
--
This instrument wassacknowledg~d before me on
.A/ov~r -3. d1J7J3 by . . 51 tlvtwlllJ' Lei k VL
as . }.11LLj()Y. of the C ty of Spri.ngfieJ!(jj.
State of Oregon
County of Lane
)
) s s .
)
OFFICIAL SEAL
AMYLSOWA
NOTARY PUBLIC OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 352109
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV. 22. 2005
NOTARY ~fr(T~~~~.
My commission expires: 11-,,j-J--cJ1JV5:'
.
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 2 of 2
-
~
~
*
(""'''tlle \CAL(
100 ---~;;;~-~;,t
~_h___ \ _ .".,--
.
-
-
AIll:Y RIGIlT-OF-WAY VACATION
F08
LITIIIA TOYOTA OF SPRINGFIELD
AbLP 17 03 35 4 2
SPRINGFlEUJ. LANE COUNTY. OREGON
MARCIl 18. 2002
...
'..
NO SCAU
LUlJ yo'lrV Ull!J~i . )
MAl N r\QQ STREET ~
~~-~- ~.~-~
;~...- r T200 1100'"
LEGEND
~I AFFECTED PROPERTIES
--- INor AIIurnNQ rt4
W4CAr.OH ARIA'
_' A E' ~Q"'E.
VACATION AREA
( ~~~~ 1
.......
..L ~ I'"
.lA&lCS ... IlRAHOf
-
m
><
~
OJ
-I
)>
(lCI'OlE" __ II. ZOOt
200
I
- -@ Branch Engineerii!g2nc.
~ 310 Filth Slnol .".
SpriA.II.ld. On.... . t7~77 . .
(0.1)7.0-0037 FAX (0.1)141-0301
u:,' " . .
PI/O.XC~.N~;"O~~.~1-
~
.
.
.
..... --"-' "-'-' ..--
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALLEY "ONE" .
Beginning at the mtersection of the South inargin of Main Street arid the Eastmai-gm of Eighth .
Street, said point being 4.0-feet North of the Northwest corner of Block 62 of the Springfield .
Investment and Power Company's Addition to Springfield, Oregon as platted and recorded in
Volume 25, Page 306-30.7, Lane County Deed Records in Lane County Oregon; thence South
120.00- feet p~el to the West margin of said block to the true Point of beginning; thence East
parallel to the South margin of Main Street 320.00-f~t; thence South 14.00-feet parallel to the East
margin df said block; thence West panner to the South margjn of Main Street 320.00~feet; thenc:
North 14.00-feet to the true point ofbegin:mg In. the City of Springfield, Lane C9unty~ Oregon.
.
.
.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALLEY "TWO"
That certain 14.00-foot wide .public alley, as situated in Block 61, of the Plat of Washburne's
Subdivision ofThe Springfield Investment and Power Company's Addition to Springfield, as platted
and recorded in Book 2 Page 73 of the Lane County Plat Records, boUnded on the West by the East
margin of Ninth Street, and bounded by the East by the West margin ofT enth Street, in the City of
Spring:fie.ld, Lane County, Oregon.
. .
EXHIBIT B :
.
City Of Springfield
Development Services Department
October 6, 2003
Staff Report
.
Applicant: Journal Number:
Skip Osterhout 2002-08-0254
Lithia Motors, Oregon
863 Main Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Site Address: Consultant:
Lithia Toyota Douglas M. Dupriest, Attorney
863 Main Street Hutchison, Cox, Coons, DuPriest
Springfield, OR 97477 Suite 200
777 High Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Plan and Zone Designation: Properties Affected by the Vacation:
Metro Plan: Mixed-Use 17-03-35-42 Tax Lots: 6500,6600,6800,
Commercial 6900,7000,7100,7200,7300,8700,8800,
Downtown Refinement Plan: 8900,9000,9600,9800.
Downtown Mixed Use
Zoning: Community Commercial Acreage Affected by the Vacation:
Alley area to be vacated: .18 acres
I. Executive Summary
The applicant owns a two square block area between 8th and 101h and Main and South A
Streets. The blocks are composed of several small parcels that have frontage on either
Main or South A Streets. Each of the lots are served by an alley that bisects the blocks
east-to-west. The applicant requests vacation of the alley to provide additional security
on their site, and to allow more efficient use ofthe area for their business.
Staff initially opposed the vacation based on findings that showed the applicant's request
would not have met the criteria listed in the Springfield Development Code for approving
vacations of right-of-ways such as alleys. Among other issues, the Springfield
Downtown Refinement Plan adopted in 1986 specifically mandates the preservation of
alleys in the Downtown area.
.
The Springfield Planning Commission considered the vacation request at a hearing on
October 21,2002. The Planning Commission failed 3:3 to pass a motion to vacate the
Lithia Vacation of Public Right-Ol-Way 1
Journal No. 2002-08-0254
.
alley. The Commission also failed 3:3 to pass a second motion to forward the application
to the Council without a recommendation.
The matter came before the Council on February 24, 2003. No detennination was made
by Council at that time. Subsequent to the Council hearing, staff has been working to
resolve the vacation issue in such a way as to provide the security and utility that the
applicant needs while protecting the community interest described in the Downtown
Refinement Plan.
The applicant has drafted a set of restrictions and covenants which will be recorded with
the deeds for all of the parcels affected by the alley vacation. The document will
functionally reconstitute a privately owned access strip that would guarantee alley access
to any interior parcel within Lithia's holdings that might be sold in the future.
The restrictions and covenants limit access to Main Street or South A from the subject
parcels. The covenant provides that any interior parcels which do not have direct access
to 8th, 9th, or 10th streets, shall be afforded access to those streets by via a 20-foot wide
access strip that will function like an alley. This access strip will provide for customer
access and the delivery of goods to the parcel. Creation of the access strip shall be
triggered by the sale of any ofthe interior lots from the two block area owned by the
applicant. (
.
The restriction and covenant document provides a de facto alley for future use if or when
the applicant sells some portion of their property that does not have frontage or access to
8t\ 9t\ or 10th Streets. It meets ODOT and City transportation concerns about managing
access to Main Street and South A Streets. It also allows the applicant to move forward
with development on their property in such a way as to maximize the utility and security
oftheir site. .
II. Procedural Requirements
Type of Procedure
Vacation of a right-of-way is a Type IV procedure as specified in Section 3.100(1) (d) of
the Springfield Development Code (SDC). The application, together with a staff report
and public comment shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The Commission shall hold a public hearing and issue a decision on the
vacation request based on the criteria for approval found in Section 9.030 of the SDC.
The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council concerning
the request that includes its findings with respect to the decision criteria.
Section 3.100 (6) provides for a public hearing to be held by the City Council with proper
notice being provided as specified in Section 14.030. The Council shall review the
application, together with the staff report, findings and recommendation of the Planning
Commission, any evidence received prior to and during both the Planning Commission
and the City Council hearings, and shall make a decision on the application.
.
Lithia Vacation of PublicRight-Oj-Way
Journal No. 2002-08-0254
2
.
Petition by Abutting and Affected Property Owners
ORS 271.080 states that a petition of abutting property owners and of affected property
owners, supporting the right-of-way vacation, must be submitted by an applicant if the
applicant is initiating the vacation.
Findings:
1. A petition of abutting property owners and affected property owners has been
received and presented to the City Recorder.
2. Notice of the pending vacation was published in the Springfield News on
September 11, 2002. The publication date is more than 10 days prior to the date
of the first public hearing before the Planning Commission.
3. Mailed notice of an October 1, 2002 hearing before the Planning Commission was
mailed to property owners within 100 feet on September 10, 2002.
4. A public hearing concerning the vacation was held before the Springfield
Planning Commission on October 1, 2002. That hearing was continued to
October 15, 2002.
.
5. Mailed notice of a February 24, 2003 hearing before the City Council was sent to
property owners and residents within 100 feet on January 10, 2003.
6. A notice of the pending vacation was published in the Springfield News on
February 12, 2003. The publication date is more than 10 days prior to the date of
the first public hearing before the City Council.
7. A public hearing concerning the vacation was held before the Springfield City
Council on February 24,2003. The hearing was continued to June 16,2,003 and
continued again to September 16, 2003 and again to October 6, 2003 to resolve
issues raised in the initial Council hearing.
8. A staff report and the application together with all supporting materials relied
upon by the applicant were available for public review before the Planning
Commission and Council hearings.
Conclusion:
Procedural requirements for processing the requested vacation of a right-of-way have
been met.
III. Criteria for Decision Making
.
Lithia Vacation of Public Right-Of Way
Journal No. 2002-08-0254
3
.
.
.
'-,
, .
Article 9.030 of the SDC details the criteria to be applied by the Council when
considering a vacation request:
"The applicant shall demonstrate that the following criteria have been met in order to
approve a Vacation request: .
(1) The Vacation is in conformance with the Metro Plan including any adopted Street
Plans, and/or Conceptual Plans.
(2) There are no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, and emergency service
protection; or any otherpublic benefit derivedfrom the easement, right-of-way or
plat.
IV. Findings and Conclusions
Staff presented Council with a report for the February 24, 2003 hearing containing
extensive findings which concluded that vacating the alley would have a negative effect
on access and traffic circulation. Subsequent to the hearing, staff has worked together
with the applicant to resolve the access and circulation issues. The findings offered below
do not replace those presented by staff earlier, but take into consideration new
infonnation and the solutions found by the applicant and staff to maintain the access
afforded by the alley if needed in the future, while allowing Lithia the means of better
protect their property and manage their operations on their site.
(1)
The Vacation is in conformance with the Metro Plan including any adopted
Street Plans, and/or Conceptual Plans.
Supplemental Findings
9. As demonstrated in the original staff report, the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan (Metro Plan), TransPlan and the Springfield Downtown
Refinement Plan promote safe and efficient access and circulation of traffic.
These documents however, do not expressly prohibit the vacation of alleys.
Conclusion:
The proposed alley vacation is consistent with this criterion in so much as the effect of
the vacation does not compromise the safe and efficient access and circulation of traffic
in the area. Findings concerning the effect of the vacation on access and circulation are
the subject of Criterion # 2.
(2) There are no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, and emergency
service protection; or any other public benefit derived from the easement, right
of way or plat.
Findings:
Lithia Vacation of Public Right-Of- Way
Journal No. 2002-08-0254
4
.
.
.
, .
10. The Lithia Toyota site is composed of 14 parcels, each of which is served by the
alley that is proposed for vacation. At the time of the applicant's proposal to
vacate the alley, the affected parcels were not all owned by Lithia. Lithianow
owns all 14 of the parcels affected by the proposed vacation.
11. The Lithia property, taken as a whole, has direct access to 8t\ 9t\ and 10th Streets
and can receive deliveries and accommodate their customers from these streets.
If the parcels were not in one ownership, the access provided by the alley would
be vital to any interior lots that didn't have frontage on 8t\ 9th, or 10th Streets.
12. Finding # 15 of the original staff report states that ODOT opposes the vacation of
the alley right-of-way because it is in violation of the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan.
The alley cun-ently provides alternative access to discreet tax lots which otherwise
abut the state highways of Main Street and South 'A' Street. That alternative
access would be lost and consequently the vacation of right-of-way would
generate more access use of the state highway route.
13. The applicant, in conjunction with staff and the City Attorney have prepared a
deed restriction document. The deed restriction could serve to resolve ODOT
concerns by guaranteeing access to 8t\ 9th or 10th Streets should the applicant sell
one of the parcels which does not have frontage on those streets. The document
provides for the creation of an access strip to serve any interior lot not owned by
Lithia for the purpose of customer access, and service deliveries. The access strip
will connect 8th Street to 9th Street or 9th Street to 10th Street to provide through
access to any interior parcel not having frontage on those streets.
14. The proposed deed restriction allows alternative access to parcels that might
otherwise require access from Main Street or South A Street, in contradiction to
the access management policy promoted by ODOT. When recorded on each of
the Lithia parcels, the applicant should resolve the alternative access concern.
15. The deed restriction document, titled, "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Vehicular Access and Utility Purposes to Benefit Interior Lots," has been
reviewed by ODOT staff and City transportation planning staff. There is general
agreement that the document will work to resolve the concerns about access in
this instance.
16. Alleys often provide an easement for utilities to serve adjoining properties. If an
alley is vacated, care must be given to protect access to these utilities for the
purpose of maintenance or even future upgrades. The subject alley hosts sanitary
sewer and overhead power lines. These utilities are cun-ently accessed by the
alley.
17. The deed restriction provides for road access, but also provides for the
maintenance and placement of utilities.
18. The applicant has indicated that the vacation would promote security of their
property. Staffhas received a report from the Springfield Police Department
Lithia Vacation of Public Right-Of-Way
Journal No. 2002-08-0254
5
.
.
.
, t tF.
. '. ..
showing that since January 1,2000, more than 50 calls for service have been
made to the Lithia site. These calls include trespass, theft, vandalism and even
assault. Some but not all of these activities may be reduced with approval of the
alley vacation.
19. The alley currently provides public access through the heart of the Lithia property.
Unwarranted access cannot be denied if the alley continues as a public right-of-
way.
Conclusion:
The proposed vacation, as mitigated by a deed restriction guaranteeing access to interior
lots if the applicant sells a portion of their property, would not have a negative impact on
access and traffic circulation. Access for the purpose of maintaining public utilities is
secured through the same deed restriction. Police records show that Lithia has been a
frequent victim of crimes against their property. Vacation of the alley may not
significantly stem the criminal activity, but transfer of the ownership of the alley to the
applicant may give them more authority to stem trespass and loitering on their business
site.
IV. Recommendation
Based on the criteria specified in the Springfield Development Code, the requested
vacation of the alley connecting 8th and 10th Streets, and between Main Street and South
A Street, can be made to confonn the criteria for approving vacations of public rights-of-
way found in Section 9.030 of the Springfield Development Code with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall record with the Lane County Clerk, the "Declaration of
Restrictions and Covenants for Vehicular Access and Utility Purposes to Benefit
Interior Parcels," for each of the parcels now served by the subject alley. Proof of
the recording of the deed restriction shall be presented to the Springfield
Development Services Department.
2. Security measures, which may include fencing or other restriction of access to the
applicant's site via the existing alley shall be coordinated with Springfield Fire
and Life Safety and Springfield Police.
Lithia Vacation of Public Right-Of-Way
Journal No. 2002-08-0254
6
.
":\ ~." {'
.
/ Division of Chief Deputy Clerk "MA.nlle11
lane County Deeds and Records 'UU, U g
- -. - -. -- - - ~ - - _ u
· '" II 1111 1111111 I "' "'" "I II II 'III 1111I11 III "' $71. 00
00547356200400116770120122
02/20/2004 03:13:20 PM
RPR-ORDN Cnt=1 Stn=7 CASHIER 07
$60 . 00 $11. 00
,
'-------~-- - ----._-- ---- - - - ------ "------- - -- -- -- ---
.
.