TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Krishna Namburi, City Manager
FROM: Kristin Retherford, Community Planning and Development Director
SUBJECT:
title
Annexation of an approximate 1.94-acre territory, including a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Multi-Family Residential and Zone Change to RM-I (Multiple Family Residential), for property located at 5524 Skyline Road S.
Ward(s): Ward 7
Councilor(s): Nordyke
Neighborhood(s): Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association
Result Area(s): Welcoming and Livable Community
end
SUMMARY:
summary
Annexation of an approximate 1.94-acre territory, including a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Multi-Family Residential and Zone Change to RM-I (Multiple Family Residential), for property located at 5524 Skyline Road S.
end
ISSUE:
Shall City Council approve the annexation of the territory located at 5524 Skyline Road S, including a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Multiple Family Residential, Zone Change to RM-I (Multiple Family Residential), and withdrawal of the territory from the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District, and advance to first reading?
RECOMMENDATION:
recommendation
Approve the annexation of the territory located at 5524 Skyline Road S, including a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to Multiple Family Residential, Zone Change to RM-I (Multiple Family Residential), and withdrawal of the territory from the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District, and advance to first reading.
body
FACTS AND FINDINGS:
1. Proposal
The application, submitted by Britany Randall, of BRAND Land Use, LLC, on behalf of the applicant and property owner, Lantern Gate Properties, LLC (Kenneth Todd Coykendall, Tammy Coykendall, and Ivan Coykendall), requests the annexation of an approximate 1.94-acre territory located at 5524 Skyline Road S (Marion County Assessor Map and Tax Lot No. 083W17DB01600). A vicinity map identifying the location of the territory is included as Attachment 1. The map and legal description identifying the territory proposed for annexation are included in Attachment 2.
Under SRC 260.030, when land is annexed it is automatically given zoning designations that are equivalent to, and implement, its current Salem Area Comprehensive Plan designation, unless the petitioner or City Council propose a different Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation. In this case, the petitioners have requested a different Comprehensive Plan and zoning designation to be applied to the property upon annexation and request that the Comprehensive Plan designation be changed from Developing Residential to Multiple Family Residential (Attachment 3) and the zoning be changed to RM-I (Multiple Family Residential) (Attachment 4).
The property is currently served by the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District. The territory will be withdrawn from the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District upon annexation; the City will provide this service.
2. Summary of Record
The following items are submitted to the record and are available: 1) All materials submitted by the applicant, including any applicable professional studies such as traffic impact analysis, geologic assessments, and stormwater reports; 2) Any materials, testimony, and comments from public agencies, City Departments, neighborhood associations, and the public; and 3) All documents referenced in this report.
All application materials are available on the City’s online Permit Application Center at <https://permits.cityofsalem.net>. You can use the search function without registering and enter the permit number listed here: 25 113070.
3. Notice
Mailed Notice: Pursuant to SRC 300.720(b)(2)(A)(ii), mailed notice was provided as required on February 27, 2026.
Posted Notice: Pursuant to SRC 300.720(b)(3)(A) & (B), notice of the annexation was posted on the subject property, in the Salem Public Library, the west Salem branch of the Public Library, and at the City’s Permit Application Center at 440 Church Street SE.
Newspaper Notice: Pursuant to SRC 300.720(b)(4), notice of the annexation was published in the Salem Reporter on February 26, 2026, and March 5, 2026.
Notice to Potential Enclaved Property: Pursuant to SRC 300.720(b)(2)(A)(ii)(ee), mailed notice is required to all property owners whose property would become an enclave as a result of the annexation. As identified on the annexation territory map (Attachment 2), the territory proposed for annexation is currently surrounded by the City limits and will result in the elimination, rather than the creation, of an enclave. As such, enclave property owner notice required under SRC 300.720(b)(2)(A)(ii)(ee) is not applicable.
4. Neighborhood Association and Public Comments
Neighborhood Association Comment: The subject property is located within the boundaries of the Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association. Notice was provided to the neighborhood association, pursuant to SRC 300.720(b)(2)(A), for both this public hearing and the initial public hearing before the Planning Commission. As of the date of completion of this staff report, no comments have been received from the neighborhood association.
Homeowners’ Association: SRC 300.720(b)(2)(A) requires notice to be provided to any active and duly incorporated Homeowners’ Association (HOA) applicable to the property. The subject property is not located within a Homeowners’ Association.
Public Comment: Notice was provided, pursuant to SRC 300.720(b)(2)(A), to all property owners and tenants within 250 feet of the subject property for both this public hearing and the initial public hearing before the Planning Commission. As of the date of completion of this staff report, no new comments have been received. During the initial public hearing before the Planning Commission, public comments were received expressing concern regarding the following issues:
A. Traffic safety on Skyline Road S. A comment was received expressing concern about the speed of traffic on Skyline Road S. It indicated that as a result of recent multi-family residential development along Skyline Road in the area, and multiple turn-ins, turn-outs, and bike lanes that have added to this narrow roadway, it has become clear that the current speed limit of 45 MPH in this section creates unnecessary dangers for the new residents in this area of South Salem. It explained that many people drive through the area at 55 MPH, which is much too dangerous for the pedestrian / children / bicycle activity and traffic that will accompany the increase residential housing densities proposed. The comment recommended that improved traffic controls be considered for this area and that the speed limit on Skyline Road should be limited to 35 MPH or less, as that is the speed limit on the section of Skyline Road immediately north of this area. It also recommended that a stop sign at the intersection of Skyline and Davis Road would be very helpful.
Staff Response: Skyline Road S is classified as a minor arterial street according to the Salem Transportation System Plan (TSP) with a design speed of 45 MPH, consistent with the posted speed limit of 45 MPH.
This section of Skyline Road S was constructed to Marion County Rural Design Standards, which do not include sidewalks or on-street bicycle lanes. As properties along Skyline Road S have annexed into the City, new development has been required to construct frontage improvements consistent with the City’s minor arterial street cross-section, bringing the street up to urban standards and improving safety for all users. Along the subject property frontage, Skyline Road S remains a rural roadway with no bicycle lanes or sidewalks on the development side of the street.
As no development is proposed at this time, no improvements to Skyline Road S are required; however, when development occurs, the roadway will be improved to meet Public Works Design Standards (PWDS) for a minor arterial, which will improve safety for all users.
As this section of Skyline Road S is brought up to standards, consistent with the section of Skyline Road S to the north of the subject property, a change in speed limit could be requested. Speed zones on all streets in Salem are established by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). These requests may be initiated by a request from community members or a Neighborhood Association to the City’s Traffic Engineering Department. Following that request, the City will request that ODOT conduct a speed investigation to determine if a change in speed limit is appropriate. Because the City cannot control ODOT’s decision to lower the speed of the roadway, speed limits on adjacent streets are not subject to the City’s land use process.
B. Height of future buildings. Testimony was provided at the public hearing expressing concern about the potential heights of buildings within the future multiple family development on the property.
Staff Response: Because the proposal being considered at this time is only the annexation of the property into the City and its comprehensive plan map designation and corresponding zoning upon annexation, specific plans for the future development of the property have not been submitted. Future development of the property will require site plan review and multiple family design review approval. At the time of these subsequent required land use approvals, the development will be reviewed for conformance with the applicable development standards of the Salem Revised Code (SRC), which include requirements for maximum building height and minimum setbacks from abutting properties. Within the RM-I zone (per SRC 513.010(e) - Table 513-6), the maximum allowed building height for multiple family developments is 35 feet. This maximum allowed building height is the same as the maximum 35-foot building height allowed for single family dwellings on the abutting RS (Single Family Residential) zoned properties to the north, east, and south of the subject property.
5. City Department Comments
There were no concerns indicated by City Departments.
Community Planning and Development Department - Development Services Division: The Development Services Division reviewed the proposal and provided comments pertaining to City infrastructure required to serve the property (Attachment 5). The Development Services Division indicates that the property is located outside the City’s Urban Service Area and will require an Urban Growth Preliminary Declaration at the time of future development in order to provide required linking and boundary public facilities to serve the subject property.
Building and Safety Division: The Building and Safety Division reviewed the proposal and indicated they have no comments.
Fire Department: The Salem Fire Department reviewed the proposal and indicated that the estimated response time to this location is approximately three minutes and 50 seconds from receipt of call. Primary fire protection and EMS services would be provided from Fire Station No. 07, located at 5021 Liberty Road S. Secondary emergency response would be from Fire Station No. 04, located at 200 Alice Street S.
The territory will be withdrawn from the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District upon annexation.
Police Department: The Police Department received notice of the proposal and submitted no comments.
Finance Department: The Finance Department reviewed the proposal and provided comments regarding property tax limits, rates, and other information related to the financial impacts of annexation (Attachment 6).
6. Public Agency Comments
The Salem-Keizer School District reviewed the proposal and provided comments that are included as Attachment 7. The School District indicates, in summary, that the property is served by Liberty Elementary School, Crossler Middle School, and Sprague High School. The School District identifies sufficient existing school capacity at Liberty Elementary School, Crossler Middle School, and Sprague High School to accommodate the projected increase in student enrollment resulting from the future development of the property.
The School District indicates that students will be eligible for school provided transportation to Liberty Elementary School, Crossler Middle School, and Sprague High School.
7. Voter Approval
Pursuant to SRC 260.010(d)(2), voter approval is not required if the annexation request meets one of the following criteria:
(A) The annexation is being made pursuant to an annexation agreement effective prior to May 16, 2000;
(B) The annexation is necessitated by a failing septic system or health hazard; or
(C) The annexation, notwithstanding the Salem City Charter, complies with all of the following requirements:
(i) The annexation petition request is signed by all owners of the property proposed to be annexed;
(ii) The territory proposed for annexation is within the urban growth boundary;
(iii) The territory proposed for annexation is subject to an acknowledge comprehensive plan upon annexation; and
(iv) At least one lot within the territory proposed for annexation is contiguous to the City limits.
Finding: The proposed annexation is exempt from voter approval pursuant to SRC 260.010(d)(2)(C)(i)-(iv). The territory proposed for annexation includes one property owned by Lantern Gate Properties, LLC. All of the members of the company have signed the required annexation petition. The property is located within the Salem Urban Growth Boundary and subject to Salem’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan. The property is also contiguous to the City limits along its northern, eastern, southern, and western boundaries. The territory is therefore exempt from voter approval.
8. Analysis of Annexation Approval Criteria
Salem Revised Code (SRC) 260.010(g)(2)(A) sets forth the following criteria that must be met before approval can be granted to a request for an Annexation with a minor comprehensive plan map amendment or quasi-judicial zone change.
SRC 260.010(g)(2)(A)(i): The annexation will result in a boundary in which services can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
Finding: The proposed annexation is for a territory approximately 1.94 acres in size. The annexation of unincorporated territory contiguous to the city limits will result in urban services being provided in a more orderly, efficient, and timely manner. Unincorporated territory adjacent to the city limits prevents the orderly expansion of City services because gaps are created in the city’s infrastructure, and services within those gaps must be provided by the county, or by the City pursuant to intergovernmental or other agreements. This results in inefficiencies due to discontinuous and fragmented methods of providing infrastructure, as well as additional delays for any development proposal. The boundary resulting from the proposed annexation will provide a more compact and efficient urban form for providing urban services, because the services will be integrated into the existing city infrastructure that exists in the surrounding area, and potential jurisdictional conflicts will not exist. The proposed annexation complies with this criterion.
SRC 260.010(g)(2)(A)(ii): The land uses and development densities that will be allowed can be served through the orderly, efficient, and timely extension of key urban facilities and services.
Finding: Comments provided by the various City departments indicate that the territory proposed for annexation can be served through the orderly, efficient, and timely extension of key urban facilities and services as outlined in the City’s adopted master plans, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and Public Works and Parks design and construction standards. No improvements to urban facilities and services are needed at this time to serve the territory but as land within the territory is developed, necessary urban facilities and services and site-specific infrastructure will be identified and required to be provided in accordance with the city’s adopted master plans, CIP, and Urban Growth Management process as set forth in SRC Chapter 200.
The territory proposed for annexation lies outside the City’s Urban Service Area. Pursuant to the City’s adopted growth management program found in SRC 200, an Urban Growth Area (UGA) Preliminary Declaration will be required to provide adequate public facilities, including water, sewer, stormwater, transportation, and park services, that may be necessitated by future development. The proposed annexation complies with this criterion.
SRC 260.010(g)(2)(A)(iii): The withdrawal of the territory from any applicable special districts complies with applicable state statutes governing the withdrawal of the territory from those districts.
Finding: When withdrawal from a special service district is not automatic, the City Council shall decide on withdrawal from those special service districts. These withdrawals shall be made according to applicable state statutes governing the specific withdrawal.
The territory is currently located within the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District. The City will withdraw the territory from the Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District and replace that service with service from the City of Salem Fire Department. ORS 222.520 establishes the process by which the territory may be withdrawn from service districts at the same time as the annexation. No Comprehensive Plan provision or implementing ordinance of the City applies to the withdrawal decision, and none is amended in the process of making the decision. In addition, the decision to withdraw the territory and serve the territory with City-supplied urban services rather than district-supplied services, does not have significant impacts on present or future land uses. Consequently, the withdrawal decision is not the kind of decision that requires application of land use laws.
SRC 260.010(g)(2)(A)(iv): The public interest is furthered by the annexation of the territory.
Finding: The proposed annexation of the territory conforms to the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan and City services can be provided consistent with the City’s adopted master plans. The city is expected to annex land within the Urban Growth Boundary over time to facilitate development commensurate with urban densities found within the city. The annexation of unincorporated territory contiguous to the city limits will result in urban services being provided in a more orderly, efficient, and timely manner and will allow urban levels of development. Therefore, the proposed annexation is in the public interest and complies with this criterion.
9. Land Use Designations Upon Annexation
Under SRC 260.030, when land is annexed it is automatically given zoning designations that are equivalent to, and implement, its current Salem Area Comprehensive Plan designation, unless the petitioner or City Council propose a different Comprehensive Plan or zoning designation. The current Comprehensive Plan designation for the territory is Developing Residential. This designation would otherwise result in the RA (Residential Agriculture) zone being applied. However, as part of the annexation process the owner of the property has requested a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Quasi-Judicial Zone Change to instead change the Comprehensive Plan Designation of the territory to Multiple Family Residential and the zoning to RM-I (Multiple Family Residential).
Although the subject property is currently located outside the City limits, it is located within the boundaries of the Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association. The generalized land use map of the Sunnyslope Neighborhood Plan identifies the property as being designated Single Family, which is different from the property’s current Developing Residential designation under the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to SRC 64.310(b), when there is a conflict between an adopted neighborhood plan and the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan, the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan shall control. As such, because the land use designation for the property on the neighborhood association generalized land use map is different from the property’s designation on the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan Map, the property’s Developing Residential comprehensive plan map designation applies to the neighborhood plan as well.
Because the proposal includes a minor comprehensive plan map amendment to change the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan Map designation of the property from Developing Residential to Multiple Family Residential, it also includes a corresponding amendment to the neighborhood plan map of the Sunnyslope Neighborhood Plan from Developing Residential to Multiple Family Residential.
10. Analysis of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change Approval Criteria
Salem Revised Code (SRC) 260.010(g)(2)(B) sets forth the following criteria that must be met before approval can be granted to a Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Quasi-Judicial Zone Change in conjunction with an annexation:
SRC 260.010(g)(2)(B)(i): The proposed minor comprehensive plan map amendment compiles with the minor comprehensive plan map amendment approval criteria of SRC 64.025(e)(2), when the annexation includes a minor comprehensive plan map amendment.
SRC 260.010(g)(2)(B)(ii): The proposed quasi-judicial zone change complies with the quasi-judicial zone change approval criteria of SRC 265.005(e), when the annexation includes a quasi-judicial zone change.
On November 4, 2025, a public hearing was held with the Planning Commission to consider the Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Quasi-Judicial Zone Change requested by the applicant and the Planning Commission subsequently voted to recommend City Council approval of the requested Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation and RM-I zoning. Findings in support of the requested Minor Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Quasi-Judicial Zone Change are included in the Planning Commission’s decision which is included as Attachment 8 to this report and incorporated herein by reference.
The Multiple Family Residential Comprehensive Plan designation and RM-I zoning requested with the annexation comply with the approval criteria of SRC 64.025(e)(2) and SRC 265.005(e) and will further increase the City’s multi-family land supply and support the City’s further compliance with the adopted Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) and compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 10 - Housing by increasing the amount of land inventory within Salem’s portion of the UGB that generally requires, and is intended to be developed for, multi-family housing.
Future development of the property will be required to conform to the applicable standards of the City’s development code, including the multiple family design review standards of SRC Chapter 702, which ensure that development occurs in a manner that minimizes any potential impacts, and promotes compatibility, between the development and uses on adjacent land.
BACKGROUND:
Land located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside of the city limits is designated as urbanizable land under Statewide Planning Goal 14. Urbanizable land is land that is determined to be necessary and suitable for future urban areas, that can be served by urban services and facilities, and that is needed for the expansion of an urban area. The city is expected to annex land within the UGB over time to provide for facilities or activities which are related to or supportive of urban development such as residential, commercial, and industrial development as well as such things as sewage treatment facilities, water reservoirs or wells, parks, and recreational facilities.
Bryce Bishop
Planner III
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Territory Map and Legal Description
3. Comprehensive Plan Map
4. Zoning Map
5. Development Services Division Comments
6. Finance Department Comments
7. Salem-Keizer School District Comments
8. Planning Commission Recommendation (November 12, 2025)