Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews two annexation requests; staff recommends modifying areas and processing separately
Summary
City staff outlined two annexation petitions covering about five parcels (roughly 18 acres) and recommended altering the boundaries to include additional parcels (about 38 acres estimated at $8.5 million) for regularity; council signaled support for processing the requests separately and asked staff to consult the city attorney on applicant-funded consultant conditions.
Chris Massenet, the city’s community development director, presented two annexation petitions submitted to the city in March and explained the state’s 60% petition method for annexation, telling the council: “Annexation is the expansion of the city boundary in the properties that are currently located outside of the city.”
Massenet said the two proposed areas together currently cover five vacant, residentially zoned parcels totaling about 18 acres and that staff recommends modifying the proposed boundaries to include additional adjacent parcels so the city boundary is more regular. With the additional parcels, he said, “it would be roughly 38 acres in total with evaluation of about 8 and a half million.” He advised the council that water and sewer stub-outs are close to the west-site parcels and that zoning would be R-2 on annexation.
Council members asked procedural and policy questions. One asked whether the Tarragon properties alone would meet the 60% valuation threshold; Massenet answered they would not, meaning appellants would need signatures from additional property owners. Members also discussed service impacts, with Massenet and staff noting that annexation typically means adopting city zoning and assuming existing bonded indebtedness for the area.
Several council members said they preferred processing the two requests separately to avoid combining geographically separate areas and to treat parcel owners equitably. Council member (functional_label: Council member) suggested requiring applicants to pay for city consultant support to avoid overloading staff, and asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether that condition could be attached as an application requirement.
The council did not take a vote tonight. Massenet said staff will return with draft resolutions and additional information before the 60-day statutory window closes, and council members signaled support for staff preparing two separate resolutions modifying the annexation areas as shown in staff maps.
