Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Annexation Highway Kk topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council holds public hearing on proposed annexation of 5961 S. Highway KK; ordinance set for later vote

5472192 · March 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff presented a public hearing on an annexation petition for a 1.38‑acre property at 5961 South Highway KK that would extend city services and, if annexed, be zoned R‑1 single‑family; council took public comment and scheduled an ordinance vote for March 17.

The Columbia City Council conducted a public hearing March 3 on a petition to annex a 1.38‑acre property at 5961 South Highway KK, north of Highway KK and west of Villa Wood Court. The petition includes a request to zone the parcel R‑1 (single‑family) upon annexation.

Tim Teddi, community development director, said the lot is enveloped on three sides by city territory, is in city water territory (but currently served by Consolidated Water), and lies within city electric territory. Annexation would make the property eligible for city sewer; staff said the existing onsite lagoon would be abandoned after sewer connection. Teddi noted the home on the lot dates to about 1969 and that the parcel’s configuration matches an old recorded survey, making it eligible to be a legal lot if annexed.

Teddi described the procedural schedule: state law requires a minimum 14‑day gap between the public hearing and consideration of an annexation ordinance, so the companion ordinance introduced that night will be scheduled for council action at the March 17 meeting.

Council members discussed zoning classification options and long‑term growth concerns. Council Member Mallory (surname not specified in record) said she generally opposes expansion of R‑1 zoning because of urban‑sprawl concerns and asked that staff consider other zoning classifications when appropriate; she nevertheless indicated she would support the individual case because it applies to a single residence and would not materially advance sprawling growth.

No formal council action was required at the hearing. The annexation ordinance (referred to as Bill 3725 in the hearing) was introduced and will return on first reading March 17 for council consideration.