Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enumclaw reviews two annexation requests; staff told to prepare modified resolutions
Summary
City staff briefed the Enumclaw City Council on two annexation requests (five parcels totaling about 18 acres) and recommended boundary modifications—potentially increasing the combined area to about 38 acres with an evaluated value of roughly $8.5 million; council asked staff to prepare resolutions and to consult the city attorney on process and possible applicant-funded consultant requirements.
Community development staff presented two annexation requests to the Enumclaw City Council on April 27 and explained the statutory process and options for proceeding.
Chris Massenet (Community Development Director) told council the city received two petitions in March and that the 60% petition method is the usual approach for annexation. He said the submitted areas include five vacant, residential-zoned parcels totaling about 18 acres. Staff recommended modifying the proposed boundaries to include additional parcels to create more regular city boundaries; with those additions the total would be roughly 38 acres with an evaluated value of about $8.5 million. "With the additional parcels, it would be roughly 38 acres in total with evaluation of about 8 and a half million," Massenet said.
Staff explained utility availability and that water and sewer stub-outs exist near the proposed areas, and that zoning upon annexation would be R-2 (low-density residential). Massenet recommended considering processing the two requests together as one annexation but acknowledged the Community and Economic Development (CED) committee’s preference to process them separately.
Council members raised several procedural and policy points. One council member asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether the council could require applicants to pay for a city consultant to handle annexation processing, citing staff workload concerns; the suggestion was to add such a condition or to run the annexations separately. The city attorney later clarified that the review does not equate to a quasi-judicial hearing and that zoning already adopted in the areas would remain a consideration.
Council indicated by head nods and comments that staff should prepare modified resolutions—likely two separate resolutions reflecting the committee’s preference—and return to council within the 60-day window for a formal decision on whether to accept, reject, or modify the petitions. Staff emphasized several procedural steps ahead, including signature collection (60% valuation threshold), county verification, boundary-review board filing, and ordinance-level action if the process proceeds.
Next steps: staff will consult with the city attorney about conditions (including potential consultant cost recovery) and prepare resolutions for council consideration within the statutory timeline.
