HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 03-47 10/06/2003
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO 03-47
A RESOLUTION TO WITHHOLD INITIATION OF ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORIES
TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD TO THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY
COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, the City received an application to annex 9.53 acres into the City of Springfield on February
. 28,2003, said territory being described as follows:
Township 18 South, Range 2 West, Section 02, Map 12, Tax Lot 5201 as more particularly described in
Exhibit 1 of this Resolution.
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is within the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth
Boundary, and is adjacent to the City Limits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Springfield Development Code 6.030(2)(a) and ORS
222.111 and other applicable Oregon Revised Statutes to initiate annexation when the territory in the
annexation proposal can be provided with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner as defined in Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan Policy 8, page 11-
B-4; and where there will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and facilities;
and
WHEREAS, minimum level key urban facilities and services are defined in the Eugene-Springfield Metro
Area General Plan, page V-3 as wastewater service, storm water service, solid waste management, water
service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, city-wide parks and recreation programs,
electric service, land use controls, communications facilities and services, and public schools on' a district-
wide basis; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed cannot be provided with storm water drainage systems
as described in Exhibit 2 Staff Report Journal Number LRP2003-00003: Stormwater Drainage Systems;
and,
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed does not h;we sufficient property frontage abutting the
public street system to allow construction of a street or driveway which meets City Development Code
standards and Fire and Life Safety requirements, as described in Exhibit 2 Staff Report Journal Number
LRP2003-00003: Transportation Systems; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed cannot be provided with a full range of urban services
in an orderly and efficient manner as described in Exhibit 2 Staff'Report: Discussion of Key Urban
Services.
NOW THEREFORE BASED ON THE FOREGOING RECITALS, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The territory in the annexation proposal, more particularly described and set forth in
Exhibit 1, cannot be provided with the minimum le:vel of key urban facilities and services as
defined in Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General Plan Policy 8, page II-B-4; therefore the
proposed annexation is not in conformance with the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area General
Plan.
Section 2: The Common Council of the City of Springfield does hereby withhold
recommendation of approval of the annexation of the subject territories more
particularly described and set forth in Exhibit 1, to the City by the Lane County Local
Government Boundary Commission, Lane County, Oregon.
.
.
.
Section 3: This resolution shall take effect upon adoption by the Common Council of the City of
Springfield and approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 6th day of October 2003, by a vote
of ~ for and ~ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this
ATTEST:
=~
City Record
"
FORM #1
.
PETITION
ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
TO: LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
We, the undersi.gned, constitute the owners of at least one-half of the land area of the property described in the
attachment marked "Exhibit A" AND
We desire to be annexed to the City of Springfield. A map is attached marked "Exhibit B," showing the affected
territory and its relationship to the present city limit boundaries. .
The annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under the Boundary Commission Act and should therefore be
considered by the BoundaryCommission and, after study, a Final Order should be entered by the Boundary
Commission.
Date
2. - 2-0- ~~
Date
2 ~ '2-6' < 03
Date
By
Date
i It.- 0'2- - 02 -l?..
LOT# -- 5 2. 0 (
MAP#
MAP#
LOT#--
With the above signature, I am verifying that I have the authority to, consent to the
annexation on my own behalf or on behalf of my firm, agency or trust.
.
Exhibit 1
page 1
3
.
Exhibit" A "
.
B~ at the Southeast Comer of Parcel 2 of Land Partition Plat Nwnber 91-POl05, as
filed ii1 Lane County Oregon Partition Plat Records, May 13, 1991; thence South 890 18'
23" West 388.46 feet; thence North 00 09' 25" West 90.00 feet; thence South 89<> 18' 23"
West 175.00 feet; thence North 00 08' 46" West 24.52 feet; thence North 890 18' 23" East
35.00 feet; thence North 170 59' 48" East 325.70 feet; thence South 890 50' 35" West
,136.48 feet; thence North 00 09' 25" West 375.66 feet; thence North 890 18' 23" East
563.46 feet; thence South 00 09' 25" East 800.00 feet to the Point of Beginning in Lane
COWlty, Oregon. . .
.
Exhibit 1, page 2
f
..
FORM #1A
. CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNERS
"
r have caused a search to be made of the assessment and taxation records, Lane County department of Assessment
and Taxation, on
Those records reflect that . individuals listed on the attached petition are the owners of record of the .
property identified by the tax lots described on the attached sheet.
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation
Date
.
.
Exhibjt 1, page 3
4
."
.
PETITION REQUIRE1v1ENTS
FOR VALIDATION OF SIGNATURES
FORANNEXATIONS TO DISTRICTS
OR FORMATION OF DISTRICT
(1-8-2002)
"
. Petition sheet must include: (see attached example)
. Signature
. Printed name
. Residential address/city
.. Associated map & taX lot #
. 'Whether land owner (if it will be utilized for Assessment & Taxation also), registered
voter, or both
. Date of Signature
. "Completed petitions must be submitted as a group.
. Completed petitions must include a complete list of all affected map & tax lots in number order.
.;~ '
.
Once petition signatures are submitted, Lane County Elections will:
. Determine the total valid registered voters for the affected .area.
.. Validate the munber of valid signatures of registered voters.
. Certify the percentage of valid signatures to the total valid registered voters for the affected area.
.
\.
I:\CDCC\ELEC\FRM\annex fonnation PETITIONS REQUIREMENTS. doc
5
Exhibit ~, pag~ 4
.
.
o FORMATION OF DISTRICT
.
PETITION I.D.
0'\
PETITION FOR ~ ANNEXATION TO DISTRICTS
SIGNATURE SHEET
THIS IS A CITY I DlSTRICT
PETITION. SIGNERS OF Tl-IIS
PAGE MUST BE REGISTERED
VOTERS IN LANE COUNTY ONLY.
TO THE COUNTY ELECTIONS FILING OFFICER, CITY I DISTRICT OF
S~lLl f'lC:t''\6-t)
't%j
~
::r'
1-"
0"'
1-"
r1'
~IGNA TYP.E~ I)A TE SIGNED . PRINT NAME RESIDENCE-ADDRESS MAP & TAX LOT PROP REG.
MOIDAYNR. STREET, NUMIlER & CITY OWNER OWNER
V4:::-- -:.' Ct/ &.!> Y..~ 2..--u>-.Q t1 "5T6l.(;- ~"'A~ '7.'.l.", j-icUJ't -j,\. << . ;:# )(
~\, .", I' a . ot..:.t. f'. E::1...Il) I -DJ.- 6;J.-12- !irZ4!
2. (\J.Q~~D. W~t~~. z.. GO .0;., T \A.\A.~' ~t J. l ';WA ... .12- '\ ., rt,. ~l. "t "0. . 1't?.~'J,.- 02.-12. ~:10\ '>(
';,r"{'-,N:;;,,~V)
3.t) (
. .
4.
5. .
,
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12. .
13.
14. " :
.
15. :
.
16. I.
17.
18. .
19.
......
'0
Pl
()Q
0:>
\J1
CIRCULATOR'S VERIFICA nON
...~
THIS VERIFICATION MUST BE
SIGNED BY THE CIRCULATOR
ANNEXATION TO DISTRICTS I FORMATION OF DISTRICT PETITION
I, (print circulator's name) , hereby verity every person who signed
this sheet did so in my presence and I believe each person is a registered voter in the city I district.
SIGNA TURE OF CIRCULATOR
SHEET NUMBER
CIRCULATOR'S ADDRESS (street, city and zip code)
.....
o
.~
...
1;:;
is
~
U
.S
~
4)
o
>
"Cl
4)
~
1;:;
'blJ
~
.....
o
4)
'"
o
-a
~
CI:l
I::
:g
4)
n.
'"
:s
I::
o
e
:::l
tl
I::
bO
'r;;
o
~
~ ~
3 J:l.l
>. U
~ ~
" ~ 0
~
J:l.l
U
.....
u..
u..
o
o
~
...:l
.....
u..
UJ
Z
o
t=:
u
J:l.l
...:l
t.Ll
~
S
o
.u
u..
o
~
z.
o
.....
VJ
INFORMATION' SHEET
.
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
NORTH PLAZA LEVEL, PSB
99 E. Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, Oregon 97401
PHONE: 681-4425
. .
SiE-J<:-- vJiLLIM'(.
(Petitioner's Name)
7.2 ~ll
H-Du-'{ . 'Sl1?-fS-&\
(Address)
S P fL I rJ &11 e-.....o
fCity)
qI4{~
(Zip)
5 7&:1- ~4 '3'-\
(Phone) .
$ffLll\&.f1E-L{J' (City) or
(District)
PLEASE SUPPLY THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REGARDING THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED OR
WITHDRA WN.
<";
Estimatedlqpulation (at present):_
Number of Existmg Residential Units:
-.
Land Area:
ql~3
Acres or
SqU?Te Miles
.
Is the area within a Domestic Water Supply District?
~ . 'f)
'J""u., tJ..
. (Name)
Is the area with a Rural Fire Protection District?
C, t \4 ~ p=7:f1.-i1O -p /rJ ,c.,-tY--:PT';
(Name)
ANNEXATION TO CITIES OR WATER DISTRICTS ONLY
A. If the property is entirely or substantially undeveloped, what are the plans for future development? (Be specific-
if site or development plans have been prepared, please submit a copy)
r ~'l.71~p
(N Ie ,ft. L-ciS.
B. . Can the proposed development be achieved under current county zoning?
Yes.x No
.
Exhibit 1, page 6
.,
7
ALL PROPOSALS
A. Does thIs proposal include all contiguous properly under the same ownership?
"--- If not, are you in the process of a major--,-- or minor _ partition?
--L (No)
If you are not in the process of a subdivision, please state your reasons for not inc~uding entire ownership.
Cc~n~......)' Fr--\>f'eA:.\''-! t\-frS ft'l-P-.C-kn~ e:,~ .~...kcP-f'c>~ li~
~. C-i.T'? . c~ <:>~t!-iN~~...n.
.
.,4 t
B. ORS 199.462 of the. Boundary Commission Act states: "When receiving a boundary change, a boundary commis-
sion shall consider economic, demographic and sociological projections pertinent to the proposal; and past and pro-
spective physical developments of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed boundary change."
Considering these points, please provide the reasons the proposed boundarY chan!?:e should be made. Please be
very specific. Attach additional page if necessary.
\ . \ ~ .
",,\0 ~c.4..,..~,,,~ a...<:.uSti, CI~
i ,-~.~.J.L;';
. ~
r ;- LLL. ",-t" r ...., F:+1
J '-oJ-... .-6,
~ .-1..1
u--:,~ ~,\ I ""-(
J
~.c.,t (;.l--.. f~s, .
.L
\ '
~
~~~~.~
C. Names of Persons to Whom Staff Notes and Notices Shall be Sent
@ en I..{~I
(Zip)
\
Sr~JG- ('-\ :T\A.L.\.~
(Name)
7.?- c>(7 ttD i-L- 'i
(Address)
C:;;(' It.! i.J f:rfi. e'"\...O
(City)
(,...::, l. u.. i /Jrl'^ ~
~t+ PrN D ~~~C-\ k'r~
(Name)
;::.,4 c... .;.Nn:f'JzJ lkL '__Dee
(Address)
. ~~s-
(City)
S'i1Le&1
q 741. 'i)
(Zip)
(Name)
(Name)
(Address)
(Address)
(City)
(Zip)
(City)
.
Exhibit 1, page 7
~
8
S 110.3.S-
Y5100
~
i1'
N
<l"
o
.
o
'0 vi
ll' -
. ..
.., '"
o .
- r
TAX
LUTTE:.lJ UN
MAl"'
., 'S.S'!'
v Co ..:J;J
,~t. ~":. ~~~
,or " l "'l'
>-... \ a L. .
A,"
'f.
.*{\\
. .
~-,."......
~.
0.37 Ar:.S.
204
O.IIAC~
-,~
.,
?>. {
.....
. H~
.' 'T
5201
9.53 AC. TDT.
9.42 AC.
~~1 t.
~. :a I
'"
,
r;.",.1
tlI-'1'{. '\l\.~1
III
..~ ~
, 1~~~
~ ~\.:! .J'~
rl
...
1/1
'"
e
...
I
\IJ
11\
o
.
o
.i
'SITE
. 0
- 0\0
<(
".
g\ '
~o.
5200
0.11 AC.
..
. .(.
<? .
<(. -
Y'
9.16 ACS:
-", ~
"
~
Q 0
<Il 0
5202 . I ~
. III
0.63 AC. ~
N
..' ..
0
. . .
Q
. .0 ...
PARCEL 2. ,;
''''''':::.'.
..
100
",.8,!0'a' Z"",,, - 388."-'-'
-S.B'!
11-
._~;t::r.:;:
-
('
.
--
Exhibit 1, page' 8 .'
".
~ ;
.
Request for Annexation
Staff Report
Date:
May 27, 2003
Planning tournai Number:
LRP2003-00003
Applicant/Owners
Steve and Julie Williams
729.7 Holly Street
Springfield, OR 97478
Owner
Harvey Williams
7297 Holly Street
Springfield, OR 97478
Consultant
Marvin Krush
54 Centennial Loop
Eugene, OR 9740 I
Background: An application for Annexation was submitted to the Springfield Planning Division on
February 28, 2003, for property located east of Holly Street and southeast of South nnd Street, within
Springfield's Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District. The property is more accurately described as Tax Lot
520 I, Assessor's Map 18-02-02-12. The proposed annexation area is 9.53 acres. A northern portion (.26
acre) of the tax lot is currently inside the City limits. A panhandle in the southwest portion of the tax lot
connects with Holly Street and the Springfield city limits: The property is cllrrently developed with one
single-family residence. The application includes a future development proposal which illustrates an 8 lot
subdivision and the repositioning of property lines between Tax Lot 520 I and 5202.
Vicinity Map:
Main Street
Holly
Street
.
South nnd
Streeet
I
I
I I i
.___L____------:-__.l
.
Annexation Request
Exhibit 2, page 1
.
..Exec:utiveSfimh1ary: ....The '.applicanthas .s~bmittedar~questtotheCityt()ann~xi9~5~~cr:e'iit~'iRt:q".:
.theSpringfi~lci,Ci,l:{Lirnits:;.. ..Ipo~d,~~to initiate, and ,supportannexation.{e;ques~,the Cityrpu,g. b~a.bI7to,,;L
'se. rie.thepr<:lpeGY'vVittia ,'IT]iri imurrrlevelpf. keyu rbanservi ces;;i nconforrnance with' the Eugene-Springfiefcf.i"
:MetioAred.'Ge'her?rilan/i]ri..their,review ofthe..al1rie)(ati(j~....proposal;.Public VV:o[ks,....plann,ing;al1d'fire and,'L;'
Life .S~f~,ty,Stafffoundtha tt~~'pto pc>sal.. isnotincopforrnance~I~hE(Jg~pe-Spri~gfi~/cf Metro.Area C;e,n~ral:~S';f
Review Procedure - Annexation Requests
Application Review: The Springfield Development Code (SDq Article 6 states: A complete
application shall be accepted by the Director prior to the review of the request as specified in
Section 3.050, Application Submittal.
Development Review staff found the annexation application to be incomplete and requested additional
information from the applicant. Springfield Development Code 3.050 (2)states that a complete application
shall consist of items required by the Code and that the applicant shall be responsible for providing .
information that may have a bearing in determining the action to. be taken, including findings of fact
demonstrating compliance with approval criteria.
. In the Notice of Incomplete Application, issued March 13, 2003, the applicant was asked to submit
information slescribing how key urban services are to be provided to the entire site area to be annexed.
The applicant submitted additional information 011 May I, 2003, but the submittal did not include all of th~
required items, and did not demonstrate that all key urban services can be provided to the entire site. The
applicant was informed that the request as submitted would likely be recommended for denial by staff. The
applicant directed staff to process the request for the entire 9.53 acres without the required items. The
application was never accepted as complete.
Development Approval - Annexations: SDC 3.100 states that Annexations shall be reviewed under
Type IV Procedure to provide for review by City Council at a public hearing. Type IV decisions are usually
complex in nature and require the interpretation of Metro Plan policies and the criteria of the SDC.
Notice of the public hearing has been provided in accordance with Section 14.030, Notice.
Annexations of territory to the City shall be in accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS) Chapters 1999 and 222; Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission
(LCLGBC) Administrative Rules, Chapter 191, Division 30; the Metro Plan and this Code.
Any territory to be annexed shall be within Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary.
Annexation requests shall be reviewed by the City Council. The City Council may
recommend: approval with or without a request to delay the effective date of the annexation
as permitted in ORS 199 and City Council Resolution 92-35; modification of the annexation
request; or denial of the annexation request. The City Council decision shall be adopted at a
public hearing by Resolution, which is in compliance with the applicable SDC criteria of
approval.
.
Finding: The subject site is within Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary.
Annexation Request
Exhibit 2" page 2
- '-I
.
.
,. .. .;..,.,...,. .:. - . v....H .. ..' ". ............ ..................... ...,..A.. . .....n.. .......n.........e.......x. '.... .a,. ti. 0.. n.... ....c..............r.........i....t......e. ,......r. .i.a.............. ..o.....:.f...... A....... p. ..p.......r.......... ,0.. .....v.... ...a.....I.; .~.....~..: .' ;'. .' <.. ............. .... .......................... :'........:......:.......'...'.. ~":fi...,~::._....:..;.,'....'.~....:..~..c.......:...:.;:c...:...;...:.:.~....,.,..:...:::.::':t,::;~i
i~~\:?:i~~;:~~~~:~;~i~i~~~;t~~~;;;f~~i~;:{:>::~~\;!:~~~..; . ~ - __;- _'o-.:~-
Site Information: The entire site is located within the City's Hillside Development Overlay District
(HD). Elevations of the proposed annexation area range from 850 feet in the northwest corner to 1,040
feet in the southeast corner, and contains slopes in excess of 30%. Any future development of the
property shall be in conformance with HD standards (Article 26 of the Springfield Development Code),
which regulate hillside development and impose stricter standards on street grades, stormwater
conveyance~ lot sizes, erosion control and general infrastructure design and construction requirements.
Finding: The steep topography and high elevations of the site places limitations on the provision of key
urban services in an orderly and efficient manner. . .'
850 feet
contour line
PROPOSED
ANNEXATION
AREA
I 040 feet
contour line
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Finding: The property proposed for annexation does not have approved access onto a public street.
Exhibit 2, page 3
Annexation Request
. Finding: The steep topography in the area limits access opportunities.
.
.
Finding: The only location where the subject parcel abuts the public street system is along its frontage
with the "eyebrow" cul-de-sac at the corner of Holly Street and South 73rd Street. This frontage is 19.90
feet in length, which is not adequate to allow construction of a street to even the minimum dimensions
required for public safety and specified in SDC 32.020 Table 32-1. SDC 16.030 requires that panhandle
driveways serving multiple dwelling units be a minimum of 26 feet wide.
Finding: The proposed annexation area is a 9.53-acre parcel, which is currently zoned for low denSity
residential uses (LDR). LDR zoning allows development at densities up to 10 dwelling units per acre. From
information contained in the application it is not clear how much of the subject property is developable. ,In
the Hillside Development Overlay District, development densities of 2.5-3 units per acre are assumed, due
to the larger lot size and coverage requirements. Assuming development at an average of 2.5-3 dwelling
units per acre, the annexed area would be expected to produce approximately 220-264 vehicle trips per
day. The location and size of the parcel's access to the public street system are not adequate to
accommodate even this minimal amount of vehicular traffic or meet minimum SDC requirements for
access.
. Finding: The future development plans submitted by the applicant illustrate a proposed access to the
site from Holly Street via Tax Lots 4600 and 4500. The applicant does not own Tax Lot 4600. The owners
of Tax Lot 4600 are Asa and Melinda DeForest, 837 South 73rd Street.
Finding: The future development plans submitted by the applicant illustrate a proposed access to the site
from Holly Street via Tax Lots 4600 and 4500. Both Tax Lots occupy hillside land mapped as a Landslide
Hazard Area by DOGAMI.
Finding: Street connections from the east or south may be available in the future"as shown in the
Conceptual Local Street Map, but cannot be constructed to serve the property at this time.
Finding: Since the territory to be annexed does not have sufficient property frontage abutting the public
street system to allow construction of a street or driveway which meets City Development Code
standards and Fire and Life Safety requirements, and since street systems to serve development on the site
are not in place, the minimum range of key urban serVices cannot be provided.
SANITARY SEWERS
'Finding: Sanitary sewer service is available to serve this site where it abuts existing streets.
Finding: The hillside site topography may limit the use of the existing sanitary sewers. The site must be
designed for gravity sewer flow. Public sewer pump stations will not be accepted. The applicant has not
demonstrated that the site can be served by gravity sewer. .
STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
Finding: The City does not have adequate capacity in its downstream system to serve the proposed
annexatio,n area.
Finding: The subject site is part of the Cedar Creek drainage basin. The 1984 study of this basin
determined Cedar Creek has exceeded its capacity. No additional flow from this site will be permitted to
flow into Cedar Creek without substantial drainage improvements. Some of the improvements
recommended in the Cedar Creek Study include channel improvements to Cedar Creek from the existing
720d Street ditch to the creek's confluence with the McKenzie River, channelizing the nod Street drainage
Annexation Request
Exhibit 2! page ,4
.
.
.
Finding: The applicant has not submitted a proposal for a storm drainage system. The applicant's
response to stormwater issues is the statement: "Pervious paving will be used."
. Finding: The south. hills of Springfield are known to have many springs and shallow ground water flowing
through fractured rock. Essentially, near surface geology in the south hills consists of a relatively shallow
soil layer overlying fresh to moderately weathered rock deposits. The rock materials generally consist of a
series of basalt flows interlayered with relic topsoil layers which accumulated during the time between
flows. Excavations for roads and foundations typically encounter fractured basalt rock at relatively shallow
depths. The fractured nature of rock deposits combined with the presence of lower-permeability soil
layers results in complex groundwater features. Road and foundation cuts often allow actively flowing
groundwater channels to daylight. Groundwater control is a serious problem which must be addressed
comprehensively by any development proposal.
Finding: Since paved.streets with adequate provisions for storm water runoff are key urban services that
cannot be provided to the proposed annexation area, The Publ.ic Works Engineering Division recommends
that any request for annexation and/or development of any portion of the site that is outside of the City
limits be denied until an adequate storm water conveyance system .has been constructed.
Finding: The stormwater drainage requirement for annexation has not been met.
FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
Finding: The applicant has not submitted a,proposal for access to the site. Complete topographic
information has not been included for the proposed access route to the annexation area. Site topography
appears to exceed the maximum grade allowed for fire department access.
Finding: The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the following conditions can be met to provide Fire
and Life Safety access to the site:
I. The applicant's property frontage on Holly Street is 19.90 feet in length. which is not adequate to
allow the minimum dimensions required for public safety access. Springfield Uniform Fire Code
902.2.2.1 requires fire apparatus access roads to have an. unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet and unobstructed vehicular clearance of 13 feet 6 inches.
2. Where access roads exceed 150 feet to a dead end, a turnaround must be provided for Fire and
Life Safety service.
3. Any development. due to the hillside topography in the proposed annexation area, must meet
Springfield Development Code Hillside Development Standards (Article 26). Section 26.090
requires all buildings (including the existing dwelling on Tax Lot 520 I) to be constructed within 50
feet of a public street or an approved fire lane.
4. If Fire Code requirements are not met, installation of residential fire sprinkler systems (including
retrofitting of existing structures) will be considered as an alternative.
Finding: The applicant has failed to submit information which demonstrates that the above conditions can
be met for the entire annexation area. Proposed street rights of way locations which meet the Springfield
Engir.eering Design Standards and Procedures Manual for Hillside Development and the requirements of
Springfield Uniform Fire Code 902.2.2.1 must be shown in the Future Development proposal, including but
not limited to grades/slopes of streets.
Annexation Request
Exhibit 2, page 5
.
Finding: Since the territory to be annexed does not have sufficient property frontage abutting the public
street system to allow construction of a street or driveway which meets City Development Code
standards and Fire and Life Safety requirements, and since street systems to serve development on the site
are not in place, the minimum range of key urban services cannot be provided.
WATER SERVICE
Springfield Utility Board reviewed the proposal and submitted the following comments:
Finding: The proposed development is currently outside of an established water system area. Approval
from the Lane County Boundary Commission is needed in order to serve the area with city water.
Finding: The developer proposes to draw water from the third service level to supply individual
customers in the fourth service level. SUB will not supply water to property above elevation 870 feet. At
this elevation there is water pressure of 35 psi with a full third level reservoir. The individual homeowners
will have to install an individual pressure pump system to each service with adequate backflow protection.
Water will be supplied only on the following conditions:
.
. The developer and SUB enter into an agreement requiring the property owner to transfer water
service from Holly Street to a new water service supplied from the fourth level system at some
point in the future when a fourth level system would be available by SUB. The property owner
would be responsible for all costs associated with the transfer of water service,. including the
abandonment of the old service. SUB would place the new meter in the public right-of-way or in a
utility easement. The agreement would be recorded and would transfer with the property.
. The developer and SUB enter into an agreement holding SUB harmless from an interruption of
water service or the delivery of inadequate fire flows to the proposed properties. The agreement
would be recorded ~nd would transfer with the property.
.
POLICE PROTEalON
Finding: The Springfield Police Department will provide police protection to this area upon annexation.
No Police issues were identified.
ELEaRIC SERVICE
Finding: SUB would be the electrical service provider to the site upon annexation. SUB was contacted
regarding the proposed annexation and submitted no comments.
LAND USE CONTROLS
Finding: Springfield Development Services Department will provide planning and land use regulation
services to the area upon annexation.
COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Finding: U.S. WestfQuest would provide communications service to the area upon annexation.
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Finding: The subject area is outside the service area of the nearest existing or potential neighborhood or
community park. Upon annexation, the area would become part of the Willamalane Parks and Recreation
District, which provides park and recreation services to the community.
.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Finding: Upon annexation, the area would become part of Springfield School District 19.
PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD
Annexation Request
Exhibit 2. page 6
.
.
.
A second justification for annexations is the existence of a public health hazard. Having received no
comments from concerned departments or agencies, staff finds that the subject property does not meet the
criteria for annexation under the health hazard provisions of ORS 199 and 222.
Conclusion: To initiate annexation of property into the City, the City must be able to serve the property
with a minimum level of key urban services. . Since stormwater drainage systems, public streets, and access
for Fire and Life Safety are not available to serve the proposed annexation area, the criteria of approval for
annexations are not met. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that these and other key serviees can be
provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manner. The owner may wish to consider submitting a
modified proposal for a smaller annexation area to be served by existing streets and storm drainage
systems, which includes the existing residence permitted on Tax Lot 5202 which is actually on Tax Lot
520 I, the subject property. According to RLlD, this residence is on Tax Lot 5202, which is inside the City
Limits. This dwelling was permitted on Adjacent Tax Lot 5202 (previously annexed), but was built on Tax
Lot 520 I and. has unauthorized connections to City services.
SDC 3.050 (8) states: When an application has been denied, no new application for the same
development application shall be filed within one year of the sate of the previous denial,
unless the Approval Authority, for good cause, grants permission to file a new application.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 726-4608.
Cordially,
Linda Pauly
Planner II
Annexation Request
Exhibit 2, page T