Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Glenwood Riverfront topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council takes up first reading of Glenwood Riverfront annexation covering roughly 21 acres
Summary
Staff presented a first reading ordinance to annex approximately 21.11 acres along the Glenwood Riverfront into Springfield city limits; no council action was taken because the item was first reading only.
Get email alerts on the Annexation Glenwood Riverfront topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tom Sievers, senior planner in current planning, presented a first reading ordinance to annex approximately 21.11 acres that include 32 tax lots along the Glenwood Riverfront in western Springfield. The proposal is a first reading only and requires no decision tonight.
Sievers said the area is currently improved by some commercial businesses and otherwise contains vacant land. The applicants are the property owners; the annexation request was initiated by council via Resolution 2024‑22 on July 1, 2024. Under the proposal the subject properties would remain in their Glenwood residential mixed‑use and Glenwood commercial mixed‑use zoning designations but would be removed from the UF‑10 overlay. Annexation would also withdraw the properties from the Glenwood Water District and the Willamette‑Springfield rural fire districts and bring them into city service areas, with sanitary sewer, water, electric, police and fire services provided by Springfield and Eugene‑Springfield Fire as applicable.
Sievers summarized the four annexation approval criteria in the Springfield development code and said staff found the application satisfies them: (A) the territory is within the urban growth boundary and contiguous to the city boundary, (B) consistency with comprehensive plan and Metro Plan policies (staff cited specific policies in the 2030 comprehensive plan urbanization element), (C) availability of key urban facilities and services in a timely and efficient manner, and (D) mitigation of fiscal impacts (in this case addressed by a joint planning agreement tied to a larger urban renewal master plan rather than a separate annexation agreement).
Councilors asked clarifying questions and made brief comments. Councilor Rodley said he was "very excited" about the step and thanked staff; no public testimony was received online or in person for this item. Because this was a first reading, the council took no vote.

