HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5677 03/15/1993
.
.
.
.'
ORDINANCE NO, 5677
AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN
WEST SPRINGFIELD NORTH OF WEST "D" STREET, EAST OF ASPEN STREET,
AND WEST OF RAYNER AVENUE; (17S R03W S33 MAP 14 PARCEL 910);
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 EC SP 93 - 09 and further described in Attachment 2, 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WHEREAS, the property to be withdrawn is located within the boundaries of the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 March 15, 1993 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property described should be in the best interest of the City of Springfield withdrawn from the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 are 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and shall be upon the effective date of this ordinance withdrawn from the Rainbow Water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, Range 3 West, Section 33, Map 14, Tax Lot 910; as more particularly
described in Exhibit A of Attachment 2 of this ordinance, Boundary' Commission Final Order
No. EC SP 93 - 09,
Section 3: It is hereby found and determined that matters regarding the withdrawal
of the above described property affect the public health, safety and welfare and that an
emergency exists, and that this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage by
the Council and approval by the Mayor.
, ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 15thday of March,
1993, by a vote of 6 for and 0 against, -
- -
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 15th day of March, 1993,
:f;ut.~
A~~_
City Recorde
February 12, 1993
()regon
.
.
.
TO:
Boundary Commission Members, Lane County
Commissioners, Lane County Land Management Division,
. Lane County Environmental Health Division, Rainbow
Water District, Willamalane Park and Recreation District,
City of Springfield, and Peter Leung "&-
Steven C. Gordon, Executive Officer 9- c;J
LANE COUNTY
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
BOUNDARY
COMMISSION
FROM:
SUBJECT: EC SP 93 - 09 -- Annexation of Territory to the City of
Springfield (Leung) (Expedited Procedure )
Enclosed is a copy of the staff analysis for this proposal. It is sent to you as required by ORS
199.466. Please read the analysis carefully. The proposal is recommended for approval without
a public hearing or further staff study.
There are two alternatives:
1.
If you agree with this recommendation, you need do nothing.
2. If you feel that a public hearing is needed, you must request, in writing by
February 22, 1993, that a hearing should be set. The request must be in the
commission's office by 5:00 p.m., February 22. A form is provided with the
analysis for your use in requesting a hearing. For units of government, the form
should be signed by the chainnanlmayoror'other authorized person. If you or
your unit of government requests a public hearing, the boundary commission asks
that you attend the requested public hearing. If a hearing is requested, it will be
on the April 1, 1993, agenda.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSAL OR PROCEDURE,
PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE (687-4425).
ce
Attachments
p: \bc\exp\memo\ecsp9308,mem
125 East 8th Avenue
North Plaza Level, PSB
Eugene, OR 97401-6807
(503) 687-4425
FAX (503) 687-4099
P13100
.
EXPEDITED PROCEDURE - STAFF ANALYSIS
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
Annexation of TerritoI)' to the City of Springfield (Leung)
1.
BC File EC SP 93 - 09
Petition by owners of one-half the land area
Action under ORS 199.466 and 199.490(1)(c) of boundary commission law
Received January 28, 1993
Public hearing requests by February 22, 1993
.
Description
Located in southwest Springfield, south of Centennial Boulevard, on the west side of
Rayner Avenue
Property owner: Peter Leung
Tax lot: 910, T17S R03W S33 Map 14
Acres: :I: .21
Estimate of existing population: 0
Existing land use: Vacant
Existing zoning in Lane County: LDR/UF, low density residential with urban fringe
overlay
Applicable comprehensive plan: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(acknowledged August 1982, as amended in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,
1990 and 1991)
Existing public services to the property: Police (Oregon State Police/Lane County
Sheriff), fire (Rainbow Water District contracting with the City of Springfield),
water (Rainbow Water District), electricity (Springfield Utility Board), schools,
(Springfield School District 19), ro!lds. (LaneC~)Unty), parks (Willamalane Parks
and Recreation District)
Reason for Annexation
The property owner desires to build a single family house and will require urban services
available from the City of Springfield.
This annexation proposal was :fIled with the boundary commission on January 28, 1993, in
accordance with ORS 199.490(1)(c), initiated by owners of one-half the land area, and ORS
199, 466 (expedited procedure).
.
ORS 199.466 authorizes approval of annexations without a public hearing or adoption of a final
order if requested by the principal petitioner, Under the expedited procedure, the boundary
commission executive officer must prepare an analysis of the proposal within 15 days from its
receipt. If, after 25 days from the filing date, no written objections are received from direct
recipients of this staff analysis, the request is approved. However, if any direct recipient of this
staff analysis does object, the proposal is scheduled for the next regular boundary commission
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 12, 1993
Page 1
,
"
public hearing. If a public hearing is requested, the issue will be set for public hearing on the .
boundary commission's April 1, 1993, agenda.
The proposed annexation involves one tax lot (TI7S R03W S33 Map 14 tax lot 910) (refer to
Maps No.1 and 2). The property owner is Peter Leung. The property is undeveloped but one
single family residence is proposed. The existing zoning of the annexation area is LDRlUF, low
density residential with urban fringe overlay. The surrounding land use is residential (north,
south, east and west).
The following is a brief analysis of each of the boundary commission standards.
Provide an imparlial 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
199.410(3) (c)
This annexation request was fIled in accordance with provisions in ORS 199 and was detennined
to be a valid filing in accordance with OAR 191-06 (adopted administrative rule on boundary
commission filing requirements). The chief petitioner requested the proposal be processed using
the expedited procedure.
This staff analysis was sent to the Lane boundary commISSIon members, Lane County
commissioners, Lane County Land Management Division, Lane County Environmental Health
Division, Rainbow Water District, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, City of '.
SpringfIeld, and Peter Leung.
The annexation area is in the Rainbow Water District. In addition to water services, the district
provides fIre protection through a contract with the City of SpringfIeld. Following annexation,
the annexation' area will be withdrawn from the district by the city through procedures outlined
in ORS 222. The Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and Rainbow Water District have an
intergovernmental agreement which outlines procedures for transferring facilities after annexation
and withdrawal from the district. Fire protection services will continue to be provided by the
~ity once annexation occurs and the territory is withdrawn from the district.
The intergovernmental agreements which exist with the Rainbow Water District are in keeping
with the boundary commission's policy administrative rule [OAR 191-30-020-(20)].
Upon annexation, the area will be annexed automatically into the Lane County Metropolitan
Wastewater Service District [ORS 199.510 (2)(c)].
This requ~st is consistent with boundary commission policies and this standard.
Consider the orderly detennination 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)
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 12, 1993
Page 2
.
.
.
.
The annexation area is located within the acknowledged urban growth boundary (UGB) of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and is not contiguous to the City of
Springfield, Territory within the UGB ultimately will be within the City of Eugene or
Springfield. Springfield is the unit of government identified in the Metropolitan Plan to provide
urban services to territory in this area.
Noncontiguous annexations are allowed by state annexation law and provided for in the
Metropolitan Plan if certain criteria are met.' The Metropolitan Plan policy for noncontiguous
annexation (policy #11, page ll-B-5, as amended in 1987) requires that noncontiguous
annexations meet the following criteria:
a. The area to be annexed will be provided urban service(s) which is (are) desired
immediately by resident/property ow~et:s., . _."''''.'' _ ,
b, The area to be annexed can be .serviced (with a minimum level of services, as
directed in the Metropolitan Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and is a'
logical extension of the city's service delivery system.
c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within the area proposed for
annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory.
The incremental process of annexation causes short-term boundaries to be established. In the
long term, territory within this geographic area will be annexed to Springfield.
This annexation is consistent with boundary commission administrative rule implementing
policies (1), (2), (5), and (7) which recognize annexation to an existing city as the preferred
method of servicing urbanizable land.
(1) This policy recognizes cities as the logical providers of urban levels of service
within urban growth bOlmdaries _ wheJ:l_ consisien( ~it~ .the comprehe~sive plan.
(2) This policy expresses the commission's preference for providing urban services
through annexation to a city in order to provide urban services to urbanizable
lands.
(5) This policy encourages provision of urban levels of service within urban growth
boundaries,
(7) This policy expresses the commission's preference for annexation to an existing
city over all other alternatives as a means of extending services to urbanizable
lands,
Implementing policy (3) recognizes that in order to meet the long-term objectives of annexing
out to an acknowledged urban growth boundary, short-term ,boundaries are created which are
logical within the context of the future service boundary.
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 12, 1993
Page 3
The proposed annexation area is a logical extension of the city limits. The affected area is .
within the adopted UGB.
This proposal to annex territory to the City of Springfield is consistent with boundary
commission policies and this standard.
Make boundary commission detenninations 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)
The proposal is within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan urban growth
boundary which was acknowledged by the Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC) in August 1982 and amended in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991.
The Metropolitan Plan recognizes annexation as the highest priority for extending the minimum
range of urban services to urbanizable areas (policy #7, page ll-B-4 and policy #9, page ll-B-5)
and recognizes that ultimately, all territory within the urban growth boundary will be annexed
to ail existing city (policy #15, page ll-B-6).
The annexation area is designated as low density residential in the Metropolitan Plan. Following
annexation, the property's zoning will not change since it is consistent with zoning designations
for the City of Springfield. '
.
The' following services are either available or can be extended to the annexation area.
Water - A 6-inch water line is in palce in Rayner Avenue, which can provide service to this
property. Following annexation, the territory will be withdrawn from the district by the city in
accordance with ORS 222.
Electricity - Springfield Utility Board (SUB) currently provides electricity to the proposed
annexation territory and will continue to do so following annexation.
Police services - The Springfield police department will be the first' unit of response should this
property be annexed. Springfield police provide service to nearby properties within the city,
Fire and emergency services - Springfield Fire Department currently provides services to the
area through a contract with the Rainbow Water District. Following annexation, the property
will be withdrawn from the Rainbow Water District by the city in accordance with ORS 222 and
fire and emergency services will be provided directly by the city.
Parks and recreation - Willamalane Park and Recreation District will continue to provide
recreational services after annexation.
Schools - Existing School District 19 schools include: Yolanda Elementary, Briggs Middle and
Springfield High School, which currently serve this neighborhood and will continue to do so
following annexation.
.
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 12, 1993
Page 4
.
.
.
Sanitary sewers - The property can be served by an 8-inch sanitary sewer line in Rayner
Avenue.
Storm sewers - Existing storm drainage is adequate for this property. Annexation will not create
any further burden on the storm drain system.
Streets - Existing streets are adequate for this property. Annexation will not create any further
burden on the street system.
Solid waste management - Private fmns and individuals collect and transport solid waste to the
Lane County administered landfill.
Communication facilities - The annexation area, is_ within, the..U.S. ,West, Communications
telephone service area.
Land use controls - The property is within Springfield's urban growth boundary. Through an
intergovernmental agreement between Lane County, the city already has planning and building
jurisdiction for this property. The city will continue to administer land use controls after
annexation.
The minimum level of required services are either immediately available or can be provided
within a reasonable future time frame as needed. This request is consistent with boundary
commission policies and 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)
The annexation proposal is consistent witbth~ ryfelropo1!tan Area_ Gen.eral Plan. This annexation
proposal is an incremental step in impleIlle..ntingJb~ ~Qng~~g~ pl~ for tltisarea. Theurban
growth boundary, land uses, and policies in the Metropolitan Plan were developed to meet the
future needs of the metropolitan community. The proposed use and plan designations are
consistent with the long range plans for the area.
This request is consistent with boundary commission policies and this standard.
Recommendation
The boundary commission staff recommends that the proposed annexation to the City of
Springfield (EC SP 93 - 09) be approved without the hearing and staff report as required by
ORS 199.466.
If a public hearing is requested, the proposal will be heard at the commission's April I, 1993,
public hearing. If none is requested it will be approved and effective February 22, 1993 (ORS
199.466 and ORS 199.519).
###
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 12, 1993
Page 5
..
(Sign and return to boundary commission office ONLY if you desire that a public hearing, be .
held. Office: 125 E. 8th Avenue, PSB, Eugene, Oregon 97401)
Pursuant to ORS 199.466, I REQUEST THAT A PUBliC HEARING and STAFF
STUDY be conducted on an annexation of territory to the City of Springfield (Leung, T17S
R03W S33 Map 14 tax lot 910), EC SP 93 -09, as required by ORS 199.461. This form must
be fIled in the commission office no later than 5:00 p.m., February 22. 1993.
Reason for public hearing:
Date
Signature
Title
Representing
Note: If you or your agency request a public hearing, the commission asks that you attend the
requested hearing.
ta
p:\bc\exp\ecsp9309.sn
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 12, 1993
Page 6
.
.
~~-
I
I
I
KlN5Ru.v
dl
~
~\ !REGENT
T
Ll
1Ii!!/
o
Y,
'--
:ElJ;RA
Sf I Uc "C:','" , ',"
~V :-. ' ,..' !j!
~ ISTATE fOL7CE ' 'O\5l0~~ 'is ~ ,.12,6
,!AiR OVNT '".:2;;;"' ~ '>- " \ 0 0 w r:;~
:~~~! O~ fl>EC~i\' [x 0 ~ ~ '" !!bulr'il\;l S"l
;;,+.-:ROSE ~ z .~ l ~ 17TH 5' ~~~ L ,,'
( .. J ~! ~( /iI; ~ 1 1 AV'" ~\.:.tt~' "L N VOOO ~, 119l-a.i
~ ~';/~ ';.> I \\Exit192~'<< ---L-~ r ) ...,
:foi~\ . . , ;,;;~~ ·
t,~i9lE General vicinity of
this proposal
~',..'\
0}
, I!
Y41?
~~;) r ~ 2l~_n -~IVD IR ~'''~ 15
:J ' / 1--' LALREL~I I' I :%:
~ ~y ~ ,: ~ ~ i I
~~ ': :i! fLDRAL1~'- ~ 'r
, g \ ~...kx 1;, : I
;" '.\LvI VISlII '" ! I
'i.SS'i.' - I ......, 'lj;, jj'
l'9lHM l ~.. ...; , t99\
, - ~
~ r~k\' 22.\
~ "'~RL C1R Pass ~
.'" .i~r~ .., .... .M" __ ~,
...." ~t,,~.'i~~',~._... .~ ,
~ -. -::......;>oIf--.--I~., I - ^ '" '.V-0~1
Scale: I" = 3 miles
,';,
'MA
, ,~/ ~'v;t~~:,;~.' .'
.' ":'.'!',?;: ~"" >:i"r. ,,'.;,i,
DR';f!'l.~; ~l~;,;.:i' .:'/DY
)t DORRIS '
.,:J i
\JIVE
a:
.
" .;
COAST
. .:JtJ-~ "'~"'~~,..,'
~
Potato
Hill
""----
If
t
/
ST
~~
if
A
.,
.+..
~
t
j
.J tW."'.I"I.
,~J" .... ~.J.I/
s' I ?'~_ 17
j .-or
1100 '(.:c"".;.
""-.
""
IJRE
,r.r.'E /45-'"
~
t
..
i"
:c
'l
,"
I.,
.'"
o
~
r""
{,
'"
"
~ ""
~""
AND TAXATION
USE ONLY
L
----I /II~,..tS'--------
//Y/r/AL
",II/,o'r
//o.c
18
1000
PARK
,... /,r cJ't":
(0.....1..
///:>.0'
182.llJ'
It"
200
"(
I)
~i
/~.H.}'"/ ( ,!rnn.
~.;:';; :/.5p() '"
~,r.",
~,
\ I
\ I
\ { I
\ ~ 1
'0
I " 1
019
-
~
~
<>-
'-1
t
\ Map Noo 2
Ee SP 93 - 09
Annexation to
(Leung)
Site map
Springfie.ld
.
.
/ /9 C/( d/ J/:c.
i J
f8/~/fY /0<1'9'''''''"
(t.r 3
17 r IG
<1
5
908-' .. 907,
z ~,
~~ ~,
~<>~ ~ ~
~ ~ (/) ~
~ '\) w',
"\ ~
/ .7.2.4'...z, . ~A: u~~:t..'_g"/L._-.!~Y. tJ,J'
f_ Gf"~S"/. - ;.9/",{' ,
J 39 c/'t'. ~ ...?f.r F";'
"'" .?9'OS'/rC
/dT. ...2'
914
"
0.
"
..
7:::.'<--'
23
913
"
..
5
/dr. 0'22 ' ~\~~
/- ::'." ~ \"\
912 -' V
\\ \) Y;.,
(j~'} "
"
'"
~
"<
'-.
"
tt" ,-2'
21
"
"
,,"
\ '0.'
'"
,",\",'\
~,,~\
<>" '
'\ '......" '''l
~"\" "\
'-I . \..I ~ l-.... \"
\J \..l \..I "'" '-0 I .
\'~,,~' ~
'\. "{ ~'-\ \""' - ~
,,~'"" ,. \:;.:;
",-..\J ","
"';,, ."
'- " , \ '< .....
" "'''" "<
,
'..
/d..<l-...zt'
~
3
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
Tax Lotted on
Map 17 03 34 2 3
I'
r
Cd-<,
w
>
<(
::; t
~
..
"
\:
A--Z.d-4- '
12 .Jf. ~,,'
903
r8
II.
902
\.
"
x ~ ,\).
'~I>.\)
I., (
"
....
..,
\ '
CL
W~
Z
>-
<(
cr
~f d'+
/,2A. J/..4'
J. n'o>'/.
:15'
"
904
5
"
"
"
"
13
,y J'P"OJ ',N".
/...l~ 04'
...
\"
'"
'"
~ 905
.......____.lV..2 /"J1f",1'-Y:
,LC; d F~'
.
14 f -<F'OS',ey
-----7:;77] ,
906
15
GAROENWAY PARI< SECOND ADDITION:
I. N 2403" 30"(, - LC
Z, N220QO'31"W - LC
3, N650 19'44"W - LC
4, N6200Z' ZO"( - LC
5, N '9039'ZI"E - LC
(;, N2004S'33"W - LC
- L_4Z.90"
. L-39.2I'
L_35.48'
L _36.34'
L: 37.6Z'
L-35.36'
41.60'
38,21'
34.74'
35,55' -
36.74' -
34,63' -
.