Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council previews two annexation requests; staff recommends modified boundaries and separate processing
Summary
Staff presented two annexation petitions affecting roughly 5 parcels (about 18 acres) and recommended adding adjacent parcels to regularize boundaries, which would increase the area to about 38 acres valued at roughly $8.5 million. Council asked staff to consult the city attorney and indicated a preference to process the two annexations separately; possible condition that applicants pay for consultant support was raised.
City staff presented two annexation notice‑of‑intent petitions to the Enumclaw City Council on April 27 and recommended modifying the areas submitted by property owners to create more regular boundaries and comply with the comprehensive plan.
"The city has recently received two annexation requests," Community Development Director Chris Massenet said, explaining the 60% petition method and procedural steps. He said the two submittals together initially included five parcels totaling about 18 acres, all vacant and zoned R‑2, and that staff recommended including adjacent parcels to form a coherent annexation area. "With the additional parcels, it would be roughly 38 acres in total with a valuation of about 8.5 million," Massenet said.
Council discussed process and policy. A councilmember asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether the council could require applicants to pay for a city consultant or otherwise cover consultant costs as a condition of processing, citing staff workload concerns. "I've asked Chris to consult with the city attorney. If it's possible as a condition to amend this not just to amend the property boundary but to require payment to cover the expense of a city consultant," a committee member said.
Committee members said they preferred running the two annexations as separate proceedings to protect minority owners and avoid combining noncontiguous areas; staff said it could prepare one or two resolutions and return with legal advice. Council did not adopt a resolution April 27; staff will return with revised proposal(s) and legal guidance within the 60‑day review window established by state law.
The presentation noted utilities (water and sewer) are available adjacent to the areas and that annexation would require newly annexed parcels to adopt the city's comprehensive plan designations, zoning and assume any existing bonded indebtedness. The council flagged follow‑up items including legal advice from the city attorney and options to require applicant funding for consultant support, and scheduled further consideration at the next meeting cycle.
