Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves intent to annex two West Benton properties after public hearing; residents ask for more outreach
Summary
After a public hearing with multiple residents asking for clearer notice and infrastructure details, the council approved Resolution 26-2025 establishing intent to annex two West Benton parcels into city limits; council emphasized that annexation does not guarantee development and that developers remain responsible for infrastructure costs.
Maggie, a planning staff member, presented the petition to annex two parcels at the terminus of West Benton Street — one roughly 33.4 acres (split commercial/multifamily zoning) and a 0.67-acre multifamily parcel — explaining the application used the 60% petition method and that annexation would move the boundary from county to city jurisdiction.
Multiple nearby residents raised procedural and substance questions during the public hearing. Jennifer Hatterasberger asked about fiscal impacts and how the city evaluates road, sewer and water improvements when there is no specific development application. Betsy Steele and others said many neighbors were unaware the annexation was on the docket and requested broader outreach before the Boundary Review Board packet was prepared.
Staff explained that annexation itself does not change zoning or permit development, that the property owners will be required to pay system‑development charges and to construct required infrastructure if they propose development, and that SEPA and other public-notice steps will apply to any future projects. Planning staff also said the Boundary Review Board process and state statutes set minimum procedures for an annexation petition and that the city is working to formalize additional local annexation noticing practices.
Council then moved to approve Resolution 26-2025 establishing intent to annex and forwarding the packet to the Boundary Review Board. The motion passed 5–1; Councilmember Sharon Waters cast the lone opposing vote. Councilmembers asked staff to clarify public messaging distinguishing annexation (a boundary/jurisdictional step) from later development approvals.
Why it matters: Annexation changes jurisdictional review from county to city, meaning future permit reviews will use city codes and system-development charges; residents may see different noticing and review processes when development proposals follow annexation.
What’s next: The city will submit the Boundary Review Board packet and proceed with the statutorily required review steps; staff will also work to improve public-notice procedures and bring additional information about infrastructure costs and multiuse zoning implications to future council discussions.
