Leavenworth council opens annexation hearing for West Benton Street parcel, plans ordinance next meeting

Leavenworth City Council held a public hearing June 10 on a petition to annex a 0.6-acre parcel east of West Benton Street so the property owner can connect to city water and sewer for future development.

The hearing matters because annexation would bring the parcel into city limits and allow city utilities to serve proposed development; the council agreed to move the petition forward and directed staff to bring an ordinance at the next council meeting.

Maggie, a city planning staff member, said the petition is for a 0.6-acre lot and that an earlier packet entry misstated the size. “This property is located in the city's urban growth area in the multifamily zoning district,” Maggie told the council, adding the lot is a legal lot of record and that Chelan County authorized its current configuration via a 2024 boundary line adjustment. She said the petition was routed to the assessment office and the determination of sufficiency is included in the packet.

Property owner Adam Sawyer told the council he plans a single-family rental on the parcel and described possible ways to tap into the city water main, including an easement through a neighboring parcel. “Personally, I think it would make it would I prefer to go down the extension of West Bend,” Sawyer said, describing a residential water line extension as his preferred option but noting the city administration would make final determinations on mains and taps.

Amanda Tao, a GIS analyst with Douglas County who lives on West Benton Street, told the council part of the parcel falls in the city and part in the county and urged the city to pursue a future boundary cleanup so the lot is easier to map. “Maps are really cool for me. And I did notice that the quality that is to be found, this property that's being considered for annexation, part of it is in the city, but part of it is also in the county,” Tao said. Maggie replied the city is aware of the “wonky” boundary and that the 60% annexation petition required a timeline the city followed, but that staff want to clean up the boundary in the future.

Council members asked technical questions about when a multifamily tax exemption would be declared and about driveway and water access easements; planning staff said tax-exemption eligibility would be determined at building permit application and that the applicant had been working on access and easement agreements with neighbors. No council member opposed forwarding the petition; the mayor closed the hearing and the council indicated it would consider an annexation ordinance at its next meeting.

The hearing was procedural: the council did not adopt an ordinance or approve final annexation on June 10. The next formal step is an ordinance on a subsequent agenda, at which point the council could vote on annexation.

If the ordinance is introduced, subsequent hearings or a vote will be required before the parcel becomes part of the city and before city water and sewer hookups may proceed.

— End —