HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5678 03/15/1993
.
.
.
ORDINANCE NO, 5678
AN ORDINANCE WITHDRAWING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN
WEST SPRINGFIELD SOUTH OF CENTENNIAL BLVD AND WEST OF ASPEN
STREET; (17S R03W S34 MAP 22 PARCELS 802 AND 824 THROUGH 843);
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 - 10 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WHEREAS, the property to be withdrawn is located within the boundaries of the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property described should be in the best interest of the City of Springfield withdrawn from the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and shall be upon the effective date of this ordinance withdrawn from the Rainbow Water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 34, Map 22, Tax Lots 802 and 824 through 843;
as more particularly described in Exhibit A of Attachment 2 of this ordinance, Boundary
Commission Final Order No, EC SP 93 - 10,
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 ~ for and ~ against, -
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this 15thday of March, 1993,
f?>d /Jt~
Mayor
AT-VUAJ~
City Recorder ~
February 16, 1993
Orego,','A :',
..,'In''':..'''''''.:
, ' '
, , .
'. .
, '
.
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, BIlison & Platz Construction Co.,
Ainslie Krans, Daniel and Patrick Maxwell and Sovereign
Builders
LANE COUNTY
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
BOUNDARY
COMMISSION
FROM:
Steven C. Gordon, Executive Officer
:;;{~
SUBJECT: EC SP 93 - 10 -- Annexation of Territory to the City of
Springfield (Oak Tree Subdivision) (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 26, 1993, that a hearing should be set. The request must be in the
commission's office by 5:00 p.m., February 26. 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 chairman/mayor or 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 HA VB 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
.'Y'.'
.
'EXPEDITED PROCEDURE - STAFF ANALYSIS
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Oak Tree Subdivision)
1.
BC File EC SP 93 - 10
Petition' by' owners' ofone..:half the land area
Action under ORS 199.466 and 199.490(1)(c) of boundary commission law
Received February 1, 1993
Public hearing requests by February 26, 1993
.
Description
Located in southwest Springfield, north side of Kellog Road, and west of Aspen Street,
north of the Willamette River, east' of Interstate- 5
Property Owners: Ellison & Platz Construction Co., Ainslie Krans, Daniel and Paatrick
,Maxwell, and Sovereign Builders
Tax Lots: 802,824 through 843, T17S R03W S34 Map 22
Acres: + 6.40
Estimate of existing population: 0
Existing land use: Vacant
Existing zoning in Lane County: LDR/UF, low density residential with urbanizing
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), roads (Lane County), sanitary sewer (City of
Springfield), parks (Willamalane Park and Recreation District)
Reason for Annexation
The property owners propose to develop a single family subdivision on these lots. The
area requires public services which are available from the City of Springfield. All new
development must annex to receive urban services.
This annexation proposal was filed with the boundary commission on February 1, 1993, in
accordance with ORS 199.490(1)(c), and by petition of owners of one-half the land area and
ORS 199.466 (expedited procedure). The petition was filed by Ellison & Platz, and Ainslie
Krans, the consenting property owners, who together own 19 of the 21 lots in the proposal.
.
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
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 16, 1993
Page 1
.
.
.
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
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 21 full tax lots (T17S R03W S34 Map 22 tax lots 802, and
824 through 843) which is contiguous to the current city limits (refer to ,Maps No, 1 and 2).
The property owners are Ellison & Platz Construction Co., Ainslie Krans, Daniel and Patrick
Maxwell, and Sovereign Builders, The property is undeveloped but 21 single family detached
houses are proposed. The existing zoning of the annexation area is LDR/UF, low density
residential with urban fringe overlay, in Lane County. The surrounding land use is low density
residential (north, east and west).
The following is a brief analysis of each of the boundary commission standards.
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. 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, Ellison & Platz Construction Co., Ainslie Krans, Daniel and Patrick Maxwell, and
Sovereign Builders.
The annexation area is in the Rainbow Water District. In addition to water seIVices, 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
city 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 SeIVice District [ORS 199.510 (2)(c)].
This request is consistent with boundary commission policies and this standard.
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 16, 1993
Page 2
.
.
.
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)
The annexation area is located within the acknowledged urban growth boundary (UGB) of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and is 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.
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 boundaries when consistent with the comprehensive 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.
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)
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 16, 1993
Page 3
.
.
.
The proposal is within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan urban growth
boundary (UGB) 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 n-B-4 and
. policy #9, page n-B-5) and recognizes that ultimately, all territory within the urban growth
boundary will be annexed to an existing city (policy #15, page n.,.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 service~ are either available or can be extended to the annexation area.
Water - An 8-inch water line in Kellog Road can serve these properties. Following annexation,
the territory will be withdrawn from the Rainbow Water 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 currently serve this neighborhood and will
continue to do so following annexation.
Sanitary sewers, - An 8-inch sanitary sewer line located in Kellog Road can serve these
properties,
Stann sewers - Storm drainage will be addressed during the development process.
Streets - Existing streets are adequate for this property.
Solid waste management- Private finns and individuals collect and transport solid waste to the
Lane County administered landfill. .'
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 16, 1993
Page 4
Communication facilities - The annexation area is within the U.S. West Communications
. telephone selVice 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 selVices 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,perlinent to the proposal. ORS 199.410(3)(d) and
199.462(1)
The annexation proposal is consistent with the Metropolitan Area General Plan. This annexation
proposal is an incremental step in implementing the long-range plan for this area. The urban
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 - 07) 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 1, 1993
public hearing. If none is requested it will be approved and effective February 26, 1993, (ORS
199.466 and ORS 199.519).
HHH
.
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 16, 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 PUBUC ~G and STAFF
STUDY be conducted on. an annexation of territory to the City of Springfield (Oak Tree
Subdivision T17S R03W S34 Map 22 tax lots 802, and 824 through 843), EC SP 93 - 10, as
required by ORS 199.461. This form must be fIled in the commission office, no Jater than 5:00
p.m., February 26. 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\ecsp9310,sn
LCLGBC Staff Analysis - February 16, 1993
Page 6
EC SP 93 - 10
Annexation to Springfield
(Oak Tree Subdivision)
General vicinity map
j69'
J
W J
g HAYDEN J
S
S
S
S
1;;:
~
In
#:.....
~j, ';;.i>
'" "',,;
f . ',,, 1WlXJlA\'li,:
;. : V\-IOOIilNo'!
l'C' I' L;..cRf5p;1
~-(~
it'~:,,~ ~l~~~..
\\\,' 'C'.:...kx \,\ ' I
~'( ", '\AlrA VISt\ ~~ j'
t ,:" '\ I _ _ '~__d__+
-''W'I-''I'' ~:
It ~M l -
, I
! I
lEI
~~~
General location of
this proposal
Potato
Hill
I;;
~
I\J
li
,.:;~~;:~~~ ..:...- ....::~--_..._.~_.-......----
-J ...... . ~Tl~~
.
Scale: 1" = 3 miles
~ -~~.....
. '~r
e .11'
C E:N!rltltllll ~"~'~I'<<
1.4_ ''L<o.oo' Lc.. 1%......~I.
4..(;.+' &4..%.t1' ",..af .15' L..c.. __E.''':)
S,",,"40T ',.Il'''~' I.~~ \,117' u' U'"
~- ~I
JJI-:Vl> ,;
t' \ 8~:~:~'~'~' . I~
:J ~" ~ ~~, 804
.~ ~ 1'" ~...~...
,,~ '. <;\?~.S'J
'~ .~ f '" };. '.!
lr?'~ !",.t ~ ;~.
~.. \' , IV_
'\: .,'
4
Map NOD L-
EC SP 93 - 10
Annexation to Sprin~f~e~d
(Oak Tree Subdlvls1on)
Site map
-tl
~I
"...
" . w "
~ ~ ., ~
11"':; ~,~i
7 8!>.0' 6
":f i"~" - ~~':~.
'I ~.. .t. 820 821
ci 0... . I It~ .,
OJ oJ j.J .'" ^ ',f..... 'no
.. ." ",. '" ft' \ . r
~ B~ ~ I ~~.
~,o, ._.. ~p , "') A
.~;~ ~ - 0 ......~
'.. t'S b
o vi .
10i '" 10...1'-
.. 'l! I ""'I, lea
~ ~.
=1 819
17
. '_ 809
~r:
:~
808
.,r."" '.$4
807
806
'"
,
,
? ~.
i .
:t !
~i-
. <:
~ 8
2 -
1oI.&'l'E, C'L!'oT)
&
Eo
JANl
L.' .r:T/
"'t..
-202
G A.
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
,~.
."
201
....
.'It.
~~'...'!
~ "'....,.'" (~"',.)
'00.0
~
..
~
"
t
.v-I~.Z'
,.~,p'
<JJ'l'W.I!r /,Ir"-'"
ISLAt
600
e ..
,.. .. '"
...
o ~
j ,
e
dl
N
.,
e oj
500
, .'7/
~, I '
<e. 220
~
~
, r,.iJ'
"- , ..........
-.
---
e
..
..
.
-.-- City Limi t~
~
'"
,..~
· /( EJ-i~-fi ........----.
't,1-f of- S,r,."R~1d ~
Scale: 1" = 100'
~".. .
f?ld=
Proposed Annexation
area