Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation Workshop topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council considers Twin Oaks annexation request, seeks developer details on conservation subdivision
Summary
At a workshop the Conway City Council discussed a request to annex property on Twin Oaks Drive contiguous to the Collins Jolly conservation subdivision. Council members encouraged the applicants to return with preliminary plans and possible mitigation (development agreement) to limit service impacts.
City staff and council members discussed a proposed annexation for two parcels on Twin Oaks Drive during a Feb. 18 workshop, focusing on whether the city should accept a conservation-subdivision proposal before the property becomes contiguous to the city’s utility service area.
City planning staff explained the parcels are adjacent by land to the Collins Jolly conservation subdivision but are not contiguous by roadway. Staff noted the city’s utility service area currently ends at the start of Twin Oaks Drive and that annexation of non-served, outlying parcels can create “donut holes” that stretch city services. "Being that it's not within the utility service area...would create more donut holes, stretch city services, and could slow response times for emergency services," staff said.
Applicants in the room described plans for a conservation subdivision, and an applicant representative said the concept would preserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas rather than allow denser county development. One applicant stated a conservation-subdivision proposal could include about 118 homes. Councilmembers said they preferred voluntary, managed higher-quality development under city standards rather than leaving the land to be developed under county rules.
Councilmember Goldfinch argued in favor of discussion with the developer, saying annexation could let the city shape future development. "If they're offering to put a conservation subdivision in and preserve the natural beauty of that area...we should really consider this," Goldfinch said. He added that development in the county could otherwise proceed without city design standards.
Councilmember Elfensch and others asked whether a planned development (PD) and development agreement could require the developer to offset additional city service burdens with enhancement fees or other commitments. Staff said a PD and development agreement would be the appropriate vehicle for those negotiations. Council instructed staff to invite the applicant to return with preliminary sketch plans and proposals for how the development would mitigate service impacts before a formal annexation application is filed.
No annexation ordinance was introduced that night; the item was a workshop to gauge council direction and to request additional materials from the applicant.
