HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Miscellaneous 10/28/2009
.
.
L1MBIRD Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
TAYLOR Paula L [PTAYLOR@lcog.org]
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11 :24 AM
L1MBIRD Andrew
RE: Wild ish annexation
I'm just here to help........or something.
LlMBIRD Andrew [mailto:alimbird\alci.sorinafield.or.usl
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:23 AM
TAYLOR Paula L
RE: Wildish annexation
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thanks Paula @
From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLORlCillcoq.orq]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:21 AM
To: LIMBIRD Andrew
Cc: BANKS Megan H; DONOVAN James; JONES Brenda; MARKS Alice H
Subject: RE: Wild ish annexation
I just talked with the DOR, and they indicated that an annexation separated from the city
limits by a road r/w is considered contiguous. They would question an annexation if there were
other intervening tax lots between the annexation area and the city limits, but not if it is rd
r/w or water way (defined in OR5 222.111).
So, some of those "non-contiguous" annexations done by the boundary commission really were
contiguous - not matter what the Oregon Court of Appeals said.........
pt
From:
Sent:
To:
Ce:
Subject:
TAYLOR Paula L
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:44 AM
LIMBIRD Andrew
BANKS Megan H; DONOVAN James; JONES Brenda
RE: Wildish annexation
Not bad, Andy.
I suggest that instead of calling annexations like this "islands," continue to call them contiguous
to previously annexed properties (separated only by r/w). The term island means something
totally different in Oregon law. Glenwood is filled with non-contiguous portions of the city - not
what the law considers an island. Continuing to annex is exactly the right approach and will,
over time, make sense in the long-term implementation of the Metro Plan and for providing
municipal services.
I
Date r~eceived: 1~/;j/J1!E'I-
Planner: AL
. .
The one aspect of this that seems less defendable is that there is no "touching" going one
between the areas in the city. The definition of contiguous is touching (I looked it up). Have
you had an opportunity to talk with Joe L or Bill VV about this? I also have a call into the DOR
to see what the rest of the state does.
pt
From: UMBIRD Andrew fmailto:alimbird(a'lci.sorinafield.or.usl
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:24 AM
To: TAYLOR Paula L
Ce: BANKS Megan H; DONOVAN James; JONES 8renda
Subject: RE: Wildish annexation
Hi Paula, we don't consider you a bad dream! Haha
Thanks for pointing out the peculiarities in this annexation request and I'll try to answer your questions in order:
. The case number is C SP 2009- LRP2009-00009 although it doesn't appear on the hearing notice. That's my
fault, since I'm used to just citing the Planning case number in public hearing notices. However, the C SP 2009-...
, case number does appear on other materials including the City Council staff report and the annexation case file
held by Brenda.
. The requested annexation is essentially an enlargement of an existing island, but I don't see any way around this
for most of Glenwood because that portion of Springfield contains a number of isolated portions of City limits
bordered by non-annexed roads and other unincorporated areas. Arguably, virtually all of Glenwood is an
incorporated island (or series of islands) due to separation from the main body of the city by the Willamette
River and unincorporated areas along the west and south bank. Because there are numerous island areas of City
limits elsewhere within Springfield, I expect this type of situation will be encountered frequently in the future.
In the absence of a large-scale annexation, which is unlikely, I would suggest that island expansion is inevitable
(and legal). There are no plans to annex the intervening right-of-way for McVay Highway with this annexation
action. However, the City does consider this to be contiguous in accordance with ORS 222.111.
. The annexation legal description does not include the extreme southern portion of Tax Lot 3800 where it
"pinches out" between the Willamette River and the railroad right-of-way. This was the request of the
applicant; apparently there is conflicting survey information for the southern terminus of the property and the
exact property boundary is not conclusive. To facilitate the request, the applicant decided to pull back the
southern limit of the annexation territory. Although not ideal, this is not a unique situation whereby a small
portion of a tax lot falls outside the City limits.
Thanks for the feedback and we look forward to continuing our perfect record of annexaUon submittals to the State! @
Andy
From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLOR@llcoq.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:35 PM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: BANKS Megan H
Subject: Wildish annexation
Hi Andy,
2
Date Received:
Planner: AL
10/;'/;,01
I I
'. .
I just received the notice on this annexation (LRP2009-00009 - where' s the C SP 2009 - ?) and
had a question. I don't see that this annexation is actually contiguous to any part of the city.
Is the city determining contiguity based on the annexation area being separated from the
existing city limits by a road r/w, even though the existing city limits are a non-contiguous
portion of the city? Does the city need to include the intervening r/w to ensure contiguity?
Also, the map on the back of the notice does not include all of TL 3800 18-03-02-32. Does the
annexation legal description?
I know......I just keep coming back like a bad dream........
Miss you guys. pt
Paula Taylor, Principal Planner
Lane Council of Governments
859 Willamette Street, Suite 500
Phone: 541-682-4425
Fax: 54,-682-4099
3
Date Received: 10/,;.4/ :HP7
Planner: AL ' I