Item 5: Ordinance Concerning the Transition of Annexation Procedures

Home Browse Search

is later amended or repealed. In this case, the Council may wish to adopt revisions to Resolution 2643 to reflect that the Boundary Commission is no longer the decision-maker. This could be accomplished in conjunction with future Metro Plan amendments intended to address the same issue. Councilor Bettman suggested that the provisions at EC 9.8101(8)(a) be clarified with respect to the meaning of “communicable disease hazard.” Based on our review of related state statutes (those concerning annexations to abate a health hazard) and considering the added references to adopted resolutions, we believe that such clarification is unnecessary. Resolution 2643 defines “communicable disease hazard” as “[a] condition which is conducive to the propagation or dissemination of communicable or contagious disease producing organisms, which presents a reasonably clear possibility that the public generally is being exposed to a disease which can cause physical suffering or illness, and which has potential for spreading within the city of Eugene.” This is almost exactly the same way that state annexation laws define “danger to public health.” Should the City Council ever need to apply EC 9.8101(8)(a), it would reasonably rely on both of these sources for a definition. Therefore, it does not need to be reproduced in the ordinance. Annexation Review Process Councilor Bettman commented on the public notice requirements for annexation applications, including reference to Lane County’s notice of 750 feet for certain applications. Not surprisingly, Lane County requires this level of notice given the significantly larger parcel sizes that exist outside the UGB. While it’s not uncommon to see parcels of 20, 50 or 100+ acres on rural lands, the development pattern within the UGB is substantially more compact, including the River Road/Santa Clara area (the vast majority of parcels are less than 1 acre). Based on the limited scope of annexation requests, staff proposed a 100 foot notice requirement. This distance is consistent with state noticing requirements applicable to city actions. As a comparison, the city requires the following notice: 300 foot notice Type II applications; includes subdivisions, partitions and site review: . ? Type III applications; includes planned unit developments (PUD’s), conditional use ? 500 foot notice. permits (CUP’s) and zone changes: 300 feet. Type IV applications, including site specific Refinement Plan Amendments: ? The applications listed above involve significantly more discretion and complexity than annexation requests. However, the Planning Commission has requested that the noticing be increased to a 500 foot radius. The alternative draft ordinance at Attachment B includes the increased notice recommended by the Planning Commission. Councilors Bettman and Clark raised questions about the review process for annexations. The draft ordinance previously provided to the council, and the draft ordinance provided as Attachment A in this packet, include a “two-track” process, whereby the City Council would only hold a public hearing when one is required by state law (in those circumstances described at proposed EC 9.7810(3)). All others would be considered without a hearing. In response to a suggestion from the Planning Commission, staff set out two other options that were included in council’s November 19, 2007 packet. A copy of the memo outlining these other options is included as Attachment D. The two options identified by staff were: Page 3 of 4