HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PLANNER 10/28/2009 (2)
.
.
L1MBIRD Andrew'
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
JONES Brenda
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:38 AM
L1MBIRD Andrew
RE: Wildish annexation
qreat emai(jlncfy.
I spolis witli qreg regarding tlie 'Wi[d'zsli annex..ation and liow it appears tliat tliey are not anneYiing tlie
compt:ete Cot. J{e saw tliat we can't regu[ate wlietlier or not property owners annex..compt:ete Cots. jl Cot tliis
size, sometimes tliey annex..just portions of Cots 6ecause tliey can't affoni tlie property taJ\fS. }Ina tlien lie
ram6t:ea on for anotlier 20 minutes 6ut I zonea out,
<J1ianl0 (]3renaa @
From: UMBIRD Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:24 AM
To: TAYLOR Paula L
Cc: BANKS Megan H; DONOVAN James; JONES Brenda
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 annexation submittals to the State! @
1
Date,I'{eceived:
Planner: AL
1(J!:J-~!J,nJ,
I
j
I
.
"-
,
Andy
From: TAYLOR Paula L [mailto:PTAYLOR@1cog.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27,2009 4:3S PM
To: UMBIRD Andrew
Cc: BANKS Megan H
SUbject: Wildish annexation
Hi Andy,
.
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: 54,-682-4425
Fax: 54,-682-4099
2
Date Received: 1#7-
Planner: AL