TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Steve Powers, City Manager
FROM: Norman Wright, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
title
Petitioner-Initiated Annexation of Territory Located at 2487 Robins Lane SE - 97306 (Annexation Case No. C-722)
Ward(s): 4
Councilor(s): McCoid
Neighborhood(s): South Gateway
end
ISSUE:
Shall the City Council:
1. Find that the Petitioners have signed a valid triple majority petition for annexation of the Territory, in conformance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 222;
2. Determine that the Petition satisfies the criteria of Salem Revised Code (SRC) 260.060(c) and adopt Order No. 2018-06-ANX (Attachment 2);
3. Apply the City of Salem RA (Residential Agriculture) zone to the Territory from Marion County UT-5 (Urban Transition 5 Acres); and
4. Withdraw the Territory from Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District?
RECOMMENDATION:
recommendation
1. Find that the Petitioners have signed a valid triple majority petition for annexation of the Territory, in conformance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 222;
2. Determine that the Petition satisfies the criteria of Salem Revised Code (SRC) 260.060(c) and adopt Order No. 2018-06-ANX (Attachment 2);
3. Apply the City of Salem RA (Residential Agriculture) zone to the Territory from Marion County UT-5 (Urban Transition 5 Acres); and
4. Withdraw the Territory from Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District.
body
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
This is a petitioner-initiated annexation of a 0.53-acre territory located at 6719 Devon Avenue SE, including approximately 0.45 acres of private property and 0.08 acres of right-of-way. A vicinity map is included as Attachment 1.
On November 28, 2016, property owners Robert B. Hutchins and Andrea L. Propp submitted a petition for annexation.
This petition has been scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council for July 9, 2018. Notice of the public hearing was duly mailed to those entitled to notice at least 10 days before the hearing in accordance with SRC 260.060(b) and published once a week for two successive weeks prior to the day of the hearing and posted in four public places for a like period in accordance with ORS Chapter 222.
SUMMARY OF RECORD
The following items are submitted to the record and are available upon request: All materials submitted by the applicant, including any applicable professional studies such as traffic impact analysis, geologic assessments, and stormwater reports; any materials and comments from public agencies, City departments, neighborhood associations, and the public; and all documents referenced in this report.
FACTS AND FINDINGS:
1. The Petitioner has met the annexation, petition, application, information submission, fee, waiver, and all other requirements for petitioner-initiated annexations including, but not limited to, those found in ORS Chapter 222, SRC Chapter 260, SRC 260.030, SRC 260.035, and SRC 260.040.
The property owner filed the application and petition for annexation of the subject property which is approximately 0.45 acres. Including public right-of-way that would be annexed adjacent to the property, the “Territory” is 0.53 acres in area.
The Territory consists of one parcel. The owner has requested annexation and submitted a valid triple majority annexation petition (Attachment 2, Exhibit A).
The triple majority requirements of ORS 222.170(1) are satisfied because the owner of the petitioned property represents 100 percent of the owners of the land to be annexed and owns 100 percent of the land to be annexed, which is 100 percent of the assessed value of the territory.
State law (ORS 222.111 to 222.180) was amended in 2016 through Senate Bill 1573 to prohibit cities that have voter approved annexation from submitting an annexation decision to the voters if all of the owners of the property proposed to be annexed have submitted the annexation petition. The law further specifies that in order for the voter approval prohibition to apply, the territory proposed for annexation must be included within an urban growth boundary, be subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan upon annexation, be contiguous to the city limits, and the proposal shall comply with all other requirements of the city’s ordinances. The City of Corvallis filed a legal challenge to the new law asserting, among other challenges, that the law violates the home rule authority of cities. The circuit court rejected Corvallis’s arguments, and dismissed the claims. That decision is currently on appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. The parties are currently filing their briefs on the issues, and a decision from the Court is not expected in the immediate future.
This annexation is subject to SB 1573 because all the owners of the property have applied for annexation.
The law prohibits a city only from referring the question of annexation to voters, but does not mandate a city to annex a property simply because a petition has been received. The city council, as the governing body, retains ultimate authority of whether to annex a property.
2. The territory consists of one parcel with a single family dwelling.
3. The territory is contiguous on the south to properties zoned City of Salem RA (Residential Agriculture). The territory has frontage on Robins Lane SE.
4. Under SRC 260.045, territory annexed into the City is automatically given the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations that are equivalent to the applicable county zoning designations, unless the petitioner or City Council propose a new Comprehensive Plan/zone designation.
The property owners of the territory have not proposed a new Comprehensive Plan or zone designation, and unless the City Council proposes a different designation, the City equivalent Comprehensive Plan designation of Developing Residential and RA (Residential Agriculture) zone will be applied to the territory.
5. Public and Private Facilities and Services Comments
A. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and submitted a memorandum regarding parks (Attachment 3).
B. The territory will be withdrawn from Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District upon annexation. The Salem Fire Department submitted comments indicating that the response time to this location is approximately six minutes four seconds from time of dispatch. Primary fire protection and EMS service would be provided from Fire Station No. 9, located at 5080 Battle Creek Road SE (Attachment 4).
C. The Salem Police Department received notice of the proposal and submitted no comments.
D. The Development Services Section of the Public Works Department submitted comments (Attachment 5) stating that the territory is located inside the Urban Service Area (USA) and no Urban Growth Area Development Permit is required if the applicant proposes to develop the property as defined in SRC Chapter 200.
E. The Finance Division submitted comments regarding property tax limits, rates and other information related to the financial impacts of annexation (Attachment 6).
F. Salem-Keizer School District reviewed the proposed annexation and submitted comments (Attachment 7). The Salem-Keizer School District estimates that the proposed annexation and future development of the property would add no students to the District’s enrollment. The increased enrollment due to the annexation would create an estimated cost of $0 to the School District for facilities.
6. Neighborhood Association and Citizen Comments
The City notified the South Gateway Neighborhood Association (South Gateway) of the proposed annexation. No comments were submitted by the Neighborhood Association.
Staff has not received any written citizen comments regarding the annexation.
7. Salem Revised Code (SRC) 260.060(c) requires the Council to determine whether or not the proposed annexation meets the following criteria:
(1) The proposed land use designations are consistent with the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan and applicable Statewide Planning Goals;
(2) The annexation will result in a boundary in which services can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner;
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed can be served through the orderly, efficient and timely extension of key urban facilities and services;
(4) The public interest would be furthered by the referral of the annexation to the voters.
Attachment 2, Exhibit C contains findings demonstrating compliance with these criteria. In regard to the “public interest” criterion, because the annexation will not be referred to the voters, this criterion is not directly applicable. However, staff proposed findings under this criterion conclude that the annexation itself is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and would further the public interest.
8. As demonstrated by the Facts and Findings and the findings found in Attachment 2, Exhibit C, the proposed annexation and service district withdrawal conform to State law requirements and the criteria found in SRC 260.060(c). The annexation and application of City zoning of the Territory are consistent with the public interest.
For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Find that the Petitioners have signed a valid triple majority petition for annexation of the Territory, in conformance with Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 222.
2. Determine that the Petition satisfies the criteria of Salem Revised Code (SRC) 260.060(c) and adopt Order No. 2018-06-ANX (Attachment 2).
3. Apply the City of Salem RA (Residential Agriculture) zone to the territory from Marion County UT-5 (Urban Transition 5 Acres).
4. Withdraw the Territory from Salem Suburban Rural Fire Protection District.
Pamela Cole
Planner II
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Order No. 2018-06-ANX Adopting the Final Decision and Findings of Compliance
3. Public Works Department Parks Comments
4. Fire Department Comments
5. Public Works Department Development Services Section Comments
6. Finance Division Comments
7. Salem-Keizer School District Comments