HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5811 03/18/1996
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO, 5811 (Special)
AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (MC CABE'S GROCERY CART)
LOCATED IN NORTH SPRINGFIELD, WEST OF GAME FARM ROAD SOUTH, NORTH OF HARLOW
ROAD AND EAST OF PHEASANT BOULEVARD (T17S R03W S22 PART OF TAX LOT 2700);
HERETOFORE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FROM THE RAINBOW WATER DISTRICT
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
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 95-40 and further
described in Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, the annexed property described is located within the boundaries of the Rainbow Water District and
must be withdrawn from such district, and
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield City Council held a public hearing in the Springfield City Council Chambers on
March '4, 1996 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 ~ objections raised, and
WHEREAS, the withdrawal ordinance must be submitted to the Oregon Department of Revenue on or before March
31, 1996 in order to become effective on July 1, 1996,
NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The council of the City of Springfield does hereby determine that it is in the best interest of the City that
the real property described should be withdrawn from the Rainbow Water District in Lane County, Oregon,
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 is 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withdrawn from the Rainbow Water District in Lane County, Oregon, said property being described as follows: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, Range 03 West, Section 22, part of tax lot 2700; as more particularly described in Exhibit A
(Boundary Commission Final Order No, C SP 95-40),
Section 3: It is hereby found and declared that matters pertaining to the withdrawal from Rainbow Water District are
matters affecting the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Springfield and this ordinance shall, therefore
take effect immediately upon the passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ~ day of March, 1996, by a vote of ~ for
and ~ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ~ day of March, 1996,
ATTEST:
~~
.
g//~$
Mayor
\(E\lLCW~l") n~~ \-\ (>~~c\j~\'')
\1'::. ~ ~~\~~'\
~o ') E.. " \\ ~ \... E \-\\,'\'-1
o 8":: -r.~~. O~ C \\'-\ 0\'\\~~t-)<t "I
{:=-a,5":)c:.::. \ '\ (.\ fc.
..
City Recorder
1
Ordi nance 5811
-Page 2
A~TACHMENT 2
) ~n
November 2, 1995
.
Ms. Eileen Stein, Recorder
City of Springfield
255 N. 5th Street
Springfield, Oregon 97477
LANE COUNl'Y
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
BOUNDARY
COMMISSION
Dear Ms. Stein:
The enclosed final order has been enacted by the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission and is forwarded in conformance with ORS 199.505. Please note that the
effective date of this annexation is Januarv 2. 1996.
Final Order 1040 (C SP 95 - 40) annexing territory to the City of Springfield
(McCabe )
Please acknowledge receipt of this final order.
.
Two previously approved final orders were sent to your agency with an effeCtive date of Ianuary
2, 1996, as follows:
Final Order 1017 (C SP 95 - 09) annexing territory to the City of Springfield
(Janisse) sent May 4, 1995; DOR #20-972-95; Secretary of State's File No. AN
1995-0072
Final Order 1018 (C SP 95 - 10) annexing territory to the City of Springfield
(Anderson Lane Apts.) sent June 3, 1995; DOR #20-987-95; Secretary of State's
File No. AN 1995-0107
Sincerely,
':;tt!'{d~C?~J
Steven C. Gordon ;/ (j2~
Executive Officer
SCG:ce
Enclosure
.'
: : -
-". .'
.
cc: McCabe Investment Company
Rainbow Water District
1
125 East 8th Avenue
North Plaza Level, PSB
Eugene, OR 97401-6807
(503) 687-4425
FAX (503) 687-4099
P13100
de LCBC: \\CLSRVlOO\PLANNERSlBCIF'OL\P1N995\CSP9540,FOL
Last Saved: October 30, 1995
.
.
.
Ordinance 5811
. Page ..3
.~
"
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
FINAL ORDER 1040
( File C SP 95 - 40
( In the Matter of Annexing the
( Following Described Territory
( To the City of Springfield
Approved: April 6, 1995
Effective: Ianuary 2, 1996
- Legal Description Attached as Exhibit A -
WHEREAS, Resolution 94-77 of the City of Springfield was filed on March 1, 1995,
for annexation of the territory-as modified by the boundary commission-described in
attached Exhibit A and shown on attached map Exhibit B 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 April 6, 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 approved the proposal and made the findings and reasons attached as
Exhibit C.
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 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 1995.
~~ L'~~l
John Lively, Chair \
4~5
Date
NOTE: The territory is in the Rainbow Water District 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 Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service
District, a county service district organized under ORS 451, which is part of the City of
Springfield.
cie:' LCEC: P:IBCIFOLIPHll995ICSP9540.FO
Last Saved: April 6, 1995 2
.
.
.
Ordinance 5811
Page 3 .
n
EXHIBIT A
A parcel of'land lying in the Southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 17
South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian, and being further described as
follows: commencing at the Southeast' corner of that property that was
conveyed to William C. Smith 'and Joanne B. Smith oy instrument recorded in
Book 445, Page 220, Lane County oregon Deed Records, said point being 2788.76
feet North 890 57' 30", East from the Southwest corner of the William Stevens
Donation Land claim No. 46, said Township and Range, and run thence along the
East line of said Smith parcel North 00 01' 30" West 44.94 feet to the North
margin of Harlow Road (80.00 feet wide) and the Point of Beginning of the
parcel herein described; from the Point of Beginning thence continue along
the East line, of said Smith Parcel North 00 01' 30" West 145.06 feet to the
Northeast corner thereof, thence along the North line of said Smith parcel
South 890 57' 30" West 104.17 feet to the East margin of Pheasant Blvd.;
thence along said East margin North 00 57' 20" West 189.15 feet; thence North
890 51' 25" East parallel with the North margin of,Harlow Road 364.28 feet to
the West margin of Game Farm Road; thence along said West margin South 40 38'
38",East 310.35 feet; thence continue along said West margin south~20 36'
24" West 33.94 feet to the North margin of said Harlow Road; thence along
said North margin South 890 51' 25" West, 259.04 feet to the point of
Beginning, in springfield, Lane County, Oregon.
ALSO:
That ?ortion of Harlow Road (80.00 foot right-of-way)lying south of the above
descrlbed property to the East line of Game Farm Road.
Final Order 1040
C SP 95 - SO
Page 1 of 1
3
()
EXHIBIT B
>= :;.--.....;.,..:;..,. _/~O.:?-
,y,r'''f4'/~ '/ - r~.,..l.-f'
t-
W
W
a:
t-
CI)
'201
14.49 AC,
~
SEE
TINAMOU
/7..-0 '
lE-,--'-',... -- -~
-~:- '-004'- 2 3'~
W
..J
o
0:
o
-- - .-- -...-- -
MALLARD
(Xl
~ Q)4 ..:I 3
~"o.."-";" ~.' ~ - li;:.:-'G=-:~-'
004 -:23-
119" ~s '.!JO' h'
';"," .
. . .ra
~:::~. a:-:::;,
AM1NGOoqsz:
..." -
~ '2203
0\ 1
~ of.p-:
~ 'r4Vrl '
~(l'
-v~~r , ~\
\~
\\\
\\\
\ \\\ SE
\~
\ \~
\ \\\
~\
~
~\
~ \ \ \\ \
~_~J_:Z\ \ \ \
, I ~' \\
I;;' \ \
\ SEE \ ~AP \\\\17 03
\~,' \\\
,,-OS.. zz. \ \~\
\ 2700 (,a:r.rt) \\~\
L ~ .. ,~ \
.1\\ · '\\\
-
..
..
0(
"
-:
...
0(
"
See
..
.. Map
~
..
...
,
~
~
...
~
.
,'t
~
.~
....v.,. ..
w
Z
<l:
-.J
w
o
~
~
'"
I
I
I
I
,
y S,89-#)E; -'/~,,:;z,
.r .r .r 'f
/3.#
I
1
,
1
I
l.-
t
I
..
\.
~,.
SEW ARD Ii.
CROSBY AVE
4 4
ALLEN AV:
Final Order 1040
C SP 95 - 40
Page 1 of 1
A
'pir~l
I r
R- p(~POSec-(
@ - M1IA-e ~C(f, c~1
A-v'e-O\...- 4
NOIl~+h
5taff. v.n/Cn~VJv7
.
.
.
Ordinance 5811
Pa"ge' 5 ~
..-
".
EXHIBITC
Findings:
1. An annexation proposal was initiated with the boundary commission on March 1, 1995.
The annexation was initiated by Springfield City Council Resolution 94-77 in accordance
with provision of ORS 199.490(2)(B). The proposal was deemed by staff to constitute a
valid filing under OAR 191-06.
2. The City of Springfield requ~sted a delayed effective date of January 2, 1996, as allowed
by ORS 199.495(1). The City of Springfield requested a delayed effective date to capture
the value of development in its tax base. If the annexation was effective April 6, 1995,
(which it would be without the delay) the city's tax base would only increase by a multiple
of the existing (undeveloped) assessed value instead of the developed value which will be
greater. The boundary commission set an effective date of January 2, 1996-the first
working day after the January 1 holiday.
3.
The proposed:f: 2.52 acre annexation involves a portion of one tax lot (TI7S R03W S22
part of tax lot 2700). The area is contiguous to the City of Springfield. The property has
existing commercial development, in accordance with the consent to annexation agreement
between Bill McCabe and the City of Springfield.
4.
The proposed annexation was modified by the boundary commission and as approved,
includes the portion of Harlow Road right-of-way (approximately 0.48 acres) south and
east of the annexation area, from the western edge of the property extending easterly
through the intersection with Game Farm Road South. The proposed annexation, as
modified, totals:t 3.00 acres.
5. The land is zoned CC/UF-lO, community commercial with urbanizing fringe overlay, in
Lane County and is designated commercial in the Metropolitan Plan.
Provide an impartial forum for resolution of local jurisdictional questions. Consider the
effects of the boundary change on other units of governments. ORS 199.410(1)(b) and
199. 41 0(3) (c)
6. The boundary commission held a public hearing on April 6, 1995. Notice of the public
hearing was given in accordance with ORS 199 prov.i~ions. All interested parties were
given a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
7. Upon the effective date of the annexation, the area will be annexed automatically to the
Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District in accordance with ORS
199.51O(2)(c).
Final Order 1040
C SP 95 - 40
Page 1 of 3
5
Ordi nance 5811
Page 6
.-..
\
!
.
8. The annexation area is currently in the Willamalane Park and Recreation District and will
remain in the district following the annexation effective date.
9. Rainbow Water District will provide water and fIre services to the annexation area until the
effective date of the annexation and it is withdrawn from the district by the City of
SpringfIeld in accordance with ORS 222.
10. The proposal is 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 alternative 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 199.410(3)(a)
and (e)
11. The proposed annexation is contiguous to the SpringfIeld city limits. 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).
.
12. Annexation to an existing city is the method for extending urban services to urbanizable
land in the boundary commission's policy administrative rule, implementing policies (1),
(2), (5) and (7) (OAR 191, Division 30). Delaying the effective date of annexation does
not change the fact that this property is being annexed by this action.
13. The proposed annexation is the means of boundary change outlined in both the
Metropolitan Plan and boundary commission administrative rules for ultimately serving
this territory.
14. The proposal is 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 andfuture 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)
15. The proposed annexation is within the urban growth boundary of the acknowledged
Metropolitan Area General Plan (LCDC action in 1982 and subsequent amendments).
.
16. 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
east of 1-5. The city interprets a delayed effective date annexation to fulfill this
Metropolitan Plan policy direction.
Pinal Order 1040
C SP 95 - 40
Page 2 of 3
6
.
.
.
Offj; nance 5811
. Page 7
-,
r,
l ,
...
17. The current zoning is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan and the Gateway
Refinement Plan.
18. The City of Springfield has indicated that the required services as outlin~d in Metropolitan
Plan policy #7, p. ll-B-4, are either available or can be provided in a timely manner.
19. The proposal is 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 199.41 0(3) (d) and
199.462(1)
20. The proposal is 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.
21. The proposal is consistent with this standard.
Reasons:
1. The annexation proposal is supported by the City of Springfield and the property owner.
2.
The proposal is 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. The proposal is consistent with boundary commission administrative rule policies.
pt: LeSC: \\CLSRV1{)(N'LANNERSlBO.FOL\EX0J995\CSP9540.EXC.DOC
Last Saved: November 2. 1995
Final Order 1040
C SP 95 - 40
Page 3 of 3
7