Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous Correspondence 1988-11-14 v- ~ i i .Jd..- /dg7~ . . MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD November 14, 1988 TO: Ron LeBlanc, City Manager Greg Winterowd, Planning and Building Director ~v COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM FROM: SUBJECT: " Request to. Connect to City Sewer on Land Outside City Limits . THE ISSUE The Metro Plan strongly discourages the prOV1Slon of urban services in the absence of annexation to either Eugene or Springfield. Mr. Grant Elkington, who lives outside the City limits, has requested to connect to the City sewer line that, runs beneath Diamond Street and serves River Hills Subdivision (see Attachment A). Mr. Elkington's intent is to build an addition to his home over the existing septic drainfield. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION Policy II-B-7 of the Metro Plan clearly states that annexation is the means by which key urban services are provided and land converted from "urbanizable" to "urban" (city) use. Policy II-B-20 specifies that the preferred method of providing any new urban service is annexation; the second choice is an annexation agreement. Policy 21 states that: "C it i es shall not extend water or san i tary sewer servi ce outs i de the city limits to serve a residence or business without first obtaining a valid 'triple majority' annexation petition, a consent to annex agreement, or ~. health hazard annexation." There are reasons for these policies. The more services that are provided outside cities, the less reason unincorporated residents will have to annex to a city, and so pay.for their share of urban services. The Diamond Street area where Mr. Elkington lives is an "island" -- in that it is surrounded by incorporated land. It is possible that the option of "island annexations" will be removed from Oregon statutes. The Courts have recently disallowed triple majority annexations, and the validity of annexation agreements has also been called into question. Mr. Elkington mentions that Mr. Dick Anstine was allowed by the City to connect to the same sewer 1 ine in 1981 because he wanted to install a swimming pool. A review of the minutes of the Council meeting (Attachment B) indicates that a failing septic tank drainfield was the primary reason. The City Council . . , , .... approved Anstine's request, and the Boundary Commission should have approved any extra-t.erritorial service extensions. There is, however, no record of any Boundary Commission action in this matter. Discussions with Paula Taylor of the Boundary Commission staff indicate that they would be unlikely to approve such a connection based on the policies of the Metro Plan. The Council clearly does not have the sole authority to approve such an extension. There appear to be three options: (I) What usually happens when non-city residents want to receive City services is that they get together and sign a petition to annex to the City. A little old-fashioned perhaps, but this method ensures that urban services are provided in a coordinated and equitable manner. (2) The less desirable option is to have Mr. Elkington sign an annexation agreement -- which has questionable validity in the future should the City seek to annex the area. (3) Not build the addition, or build the addition and reconstruct the drainage field. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Option I. This is the most effective way to ensure that the cost of the coordinated provision of urban services are shared equally by the City residents. COUNCIL ACTION REOUESTEQ Denial of Mr. Elkington's request, with encouragement to Mr. Elkington to get together with his neighbors to request annexation to the City. J - . . ATTACHMENT A ;(;:'::~~>>. J\ .r:. ":'.~- ,:.::.... .......~ . ~:::' j Nov~mber 8, 1988 To: Springfield City Council From: Grant Elkington 1287 Diamond Springfield, OR 97477 503-747-1406 He: Petition to hook on to sewer I am requesting special permission to hook onto the sewer service at my home on 1287 Diamond, Springfield. We have a need to add additional space remodeled additicn will cover a portion of our septic tank. to the our home. and the fi~ld dr3i~s from We are surrently in an "island" of county property, totally surrounded by city. The sewer runs down the middle of Diamond st. to Aspen and there are laterals run into the property line along this street. One of my neighbors, Mr. Dick .Anstine, petitioned the council several years ago and received permission to 'hook up' because of his desire to install a swimming pool in his yard. We have investigated the possibility of re-designing and running additional field drains and find that the combination of the cost, the total destruction of our existing backyard, and the fact that sooner or later we will be annexed into the city make that option .u~d~sirable. I have spoken with city staff concerning this issue and also concerning a building permit to make the addition to our house. They have indicated that the best option for me is to submit this petition to the City Council for special permission for sewer hook-up. They indicated that once that permission is granted they will proceed with assisting me with building permits et.al. I hope that .'e can have positive ,"nn tim~ly acti')n on this request. Respectfully submitted: dt~~ ~r3nt c. Elkington ;. ...~... . . ATTACHMENT B City of Springfield Council Meeti ng April 6, 1981 "N" Streets, Harry Gorham, of 1227 Elm Street, and Ralph Northrup, of 1841 Market Street, spoke to the Council to protest the manner in which trees in front of their homes in the public right-of-way were pruned. The citizens indicated that the pruning was very severe in nature and that no advanced notice was given to the affected property owners. They indicated that after the pruning had occurred, they had contacted the Public Works Department to discuss the problem with them. A neighborhood meeting was held with the Public Horks staff t6 attempt to alleviate this sort of problem in the future. A sequence of slides were presented to the Council showing the effects of the pruning that was done. It was suggested that in the future some sort of notification be given to the affected property owners and an example of such a presentation was given to the Council. This was in the form of a door hanger which could be used to indicate whether or not the citizen wished to do the pruning themselves. The City Manager reported that the Public Works staff was working on a better procedure to use next year as the pruning season for this year has ended. He also encouraged property owners to do their own trirrming and reported it to the Council that these activities were very labor intensive and costly to the City. 2. CorresDondence f~om Ro~t Thrall, Attorney for McKenzie-Willamette Memorial Hosoital, Reouesti~g~acation of a Portion of the Northwest Corner of "G" Street at the Inter~ion of 16th and "G" Streets, and a Sliver of Mohawk Bou 1 evard Located ,B"etwe~"G" and "I" Streets. Ri cha rd Ens tei n, of 1154 Diamond Street, requested the Council's permission to hook-up to the City's sewer system. Mr. Enstein reported that his drain field is failing and that since his property is potentially going to be annexed to the City of Springfield, he would rather not build a new drain field which would subsequently not be utilized. The City Manager reported to the Council that the land in question is an island within the City of Springfield and, thus, is eligible to be annexed. He reported that the staff is investigating the annexation issue of this land. Councilor Rennie asked exactly how many people are living in this island area. City Planner, Dick Johnson, reported that approximately 1300 people are in the affected Menlo Park area. It Nas moved by. Councilor Carter, with a second by Councilor Hulett to (1) approve an exception to the City sewer connection policy because this property is located in an island surrounded by the City; (2) direct the staff to work with Mr. Enstein on the details for his sewer connection and the results involved; and (3) direct the staff to investigate the advantages and . . disadvantages of annexation of the Menlo Park area. The motion passed unani- mously. PERI.1ANENT REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMfmSION - March 18. 1981 It was moved by Councilor Larson, with a second by Councilor Rennie, to approve the Permanent Report of the Planning Corrmission of March 18, 1981. The motion passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. CorresDondence from Patricia A. Vallerand. Attorney for Verail and -44- " ~ . . , . . . M E M 0 RAN DUM City of Springfiela November 10, 1988 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Greg Winterowa, Planning ana Builaing Director Cinaie Harmon, Development Permit coorainator~ REQUEST TO CONNECT TO CITY SEWER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY As per your request the following information is proviaea. We contactea Paula Taylor of L~COG regaraing the possibility of Bounaary Commission action being requirea for this type of request. Ms. Taylor passea along the following information to Greg Mott. If the City of Springfiela chooses to allow connection to the sewer system through Annexation Agreement/Consent to Annex forms it will requires an extra- territorial annexation which must be approved by the Boundary Commission. It is not likely the Bounaary Commission coula approve such a request based on Metro Plan policy. The City of Eugene aoes not proviae this option for it's UGB resiaents basea on the City's interpretation of Plan policy founa in Chapter II of the Metro Plan. With regara to Mr. Elkin~ton's comments on Mr. Anstine ~ 1154 Diamona Street I have reviewea the City s recoras. The City Council approvea by motion Mr. Anstine request to connect to City sewer during the Business from the Auaience portion of the April 6, 1981 Council meeting (minutes attached). I fina no record of any Boundary Commission acknowleagment of this approval. Aaaitionally, the Metro Plan policy's mentionea above haa not been acknowleaged at the time of this approval. ( ~ . . . . . . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, APRIL 6, 1981 The City of Springfield Council met in Regular Session in the Springfield Utility Board Meeting Room, 250 North "A" Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 6, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., with Mayor John Lively presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lively, Council Members Hulett, Rennie, Carter, Larson, Herring and Eilers. Also present were the City Manager, the Finance Director-Recorder, the City Attorney, and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lively. I NVOCA TI ON The invocation was given by Pastor Gerald Conrad, Springfield Lutheran Church. MINUTES It was moved by Councilor Hulett, with a second by Councilor Herring, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of March 16, 1981, and the adjourned meeting of March 23, 1981. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Change Request for Property Located in the Area East of North 42nd Street and West of Hayden Bridqe on the North Side of Marcola Road, from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to R-l Single Family Residential District. The City Manager introduced the issue and referred to the March 30,1981, memo to the Council from Assistant Planner, Sally Sharrard. This memo discusses changes that are required in order for the City of Springfield to be in compliance with the Metro Plan. Mr. Burkett indicated that a review was on-going into properties that were not in compliance and that this zone change represented the first of a number of zone changes that would be made to come into compliance. Planning Director, Dick Johnson, used a large map to illustrate the area in question to the Council. The issue was then opened to the public and no one appeared to speak for or against the proposed zone change. There is legislation for this item on the Consent Calendar, and it was also included as an agenda item under Business from the City Manager. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE l. Strips. Petition Regardinq Maintenance and Pruninq of Trees in Parkinq Kathy and ~le 1 Ewey, of 1345 "L" Street, Judy Bowman, of 13th and -43-