Laserfiche WebLink
<br />planning commissions involved; larger jurisdictions tended not to, as the statute said the final <br />action had to be council action. <br /> <br />In response to questions fromMr. Belcher, Mr. Nystrom and Ms. Jerome said that approval <br />of annexation requests for non-contiguous property would depend on a variety of factors, and <br />that they may be doing more annexation agreements that would take effect if the property <br />became contiguous to the City. It was further clarified that the City would continue to do <br />building inspections using the County-adopted version of the Eugene code. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll asked a number of questions that elicited the following information: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The majority of parcels for which annexation was requested ''''erc under single <br />ownership. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The provision calling for a majority of the electors in an area to concur with the <br />annexation came from state law. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In order to expand the urban growth boundary (15GB) into or around another <br />jurisdiction, an amcndment to the Metro Plan would come to the Planning <br />Commission, subject to prescriptive state laws and criteria around Goal 14. The <br />ordinance under discussion applied only to land in the UGB. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland noted that the ordinances reflccted 222, but that the Metro Plan contained <br />BoundalY Commission language; she asked how the inconsistency would be rectified. Ms. <br />Jerome said that while some of the language would be changed, the majority of references to <br />"Boundary Commission" could be changed to "City." Regardless, the Metro Plan would <br />have to be updated. Mr. Nystrom said the principal effort was to ensure that policy decisions <br />and direction were kept in place, and that references to the Boundary Commission would be <br />cleaned up over time. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome noted that the Metro Plan did not set out prescriptive policies, so the need for <br />updating would not be problematic in the short term. She added that they had not had any <br />proposals from Springfield or Lane County regarding conforming language changes to the <br />Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Kneeland asked what provisions would be made for an appeal of a City Council decision <br /> <br />MrNUTES---Eugene Planning Commission <br /> <br />October 15, 2007 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />