Item 1: Ordinance Concerning the Transition of Annexation Procedures

Home Browse Search

Option 3: Modified 2-track process . Create a hybrid approach that maintains the flexibility of a 2-track process, with some clearer boundaries. Instead of having the council make a case-by- case determination when a hearing is optional, as to whether a hearing should be held on a double-majority application, establish a means to “front-load” this step by creating standards that will dictate whether such an application will go to a hearing. Options could include the following: a) Require a public hearing for those requests which involve a street annexation or involve property over five acres in size. These factors would likely account for the vast majority of community concern, or; b) Provide an opportunity for those receiving public notice to request a public hearing. If none requested, council would act on resolutions. Advantages: Maintains flexibility for council. Maintains opportunity for public input on potentially controversial requests, while maintaining efficiencies for council and staff. Allows sorting of applications to happen up front, thereby creating a one-step process at council. Disadvantages: May not capture all applications of concern. Conversely, this option could require public hearings when public concern is minimal. In the case of option (b), it could involve redundancies at least with notification and other administrative functions. For council’s reference, staff has prepared a rewritten draft of EC 9.7820 to carry out Option 3 Option 3 -- REWRITE OF EC 9.7820 TO PROVIDE FOR attached to this memo as “ HEARING ON CERTAIN ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS .” The standards to be used in determining whether to hold a hearing are left blank in the document and would be filled in, as council directs. Extra-territorial Extension Review Process Councilor Bettman questioned whether a Type II process (approval by the Planning Director) was appropriate. Staff has looked at alternatives to this process. The other forms of review procedures currently in the land use code (Type III, IV and V) are not structured or legally able to accommodate this review. Therefore, staff identifies two options for council consideration: Option 1: Maintain the Type II process as proposed in the draft ordinance . The Planning Director would make the decision on extra-territorial extensions, based on adopted City Council policies. That decision would be appealable to the Hearings Official. Advantages: Creates manageable process for staff. Adopted council policies will provide rigorous criteria for review which staff has been utilizing in current process with Boundary Commission. Given limited number of applications, appropriate checks and balances appear to be in place. Provides local appeal process. Disadvantages: Although infrequent, there could be issues of council interest associated with some applications. Council will not have the opportunity to weigh in. Option 2: Require a quasi-judicial public hearing process with the City Council . All extra- territorial extension requests would be decided by the City Council through a public hearing process. A provision within this ordinance would be added that requires a public hearing before the City Council, according to a quasi-judicial land use process. There is no code process that Page 3 of 8