06/14/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. disposal system could be approved making development possible. The question of timing was a primary consideration, he said, in attempting to eliminate problems that may arise such as deferred assessments if improvements are extended into the area. There is also the question of determining which public agencies - fire, police, etc. - will serve the area. e- In response to Councilwoman Beal about Mr. Little's presentation to the Planning Commission, Mr. Saul said the Commission had received a letter from Mr. Little in which he stated his objections to having his property annexed now. Councilman Bradley noted indication in Commission minutes of some disagreement among the members with regard to whether the area petitioned for annexation should be en- larged. He asked whether that was resolved at the time the recommendation was made to annex the additional properties. Mr. Saul said the disagreement referred to was a reflection of the staff's reporting the position of the owners. He noted that the Council may elect to annex only Tax Lot 3000. However, the staff feels the en- tire area should be annexed. He added that should the area be rediced by the Council, the minimum recommendation would be to include Tax Lots 3000 and 3100. Mrs. Beal moved second by Mr, Murray to amend the resolution, excluding from the annexation request Tax Lots 2901, 2904, and 2905. Councilman Murray felt the area referred to in Mrs. Beal's motion was relatively safe from urban development which would remove the problem of confusion about urban service. Councilwoman Shirey said she would support the amendment. Councilman Keller was opposed and commented on his experience at a meeting just this week about whether annexation was a way to afford city services. He noted recent Boundary Commission decisions and the problem of drawing a line between those prop- erties which should or should not be annexed. He felt the Boundary Commission e- in this instance would look more favorably upon annexation of all the tax lots rather than just a portion. There were enough problems in that particular area now, he said, and if the countydid allow development and the use of septic tanks, it would just be prolonging problems that would have to be faced eventually. Vote was, taken on the motion to amend the resolution. Motion carried - Council members Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting no. Vote was taken to adopt the resolution as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 2. South of Skyline Drive, east of Barber Drive (Stockman) (A 76-2) 3. North of'Skyline Drive, east of Barber Drive (Christie and Papich)(A 76-4) Jim Saul, planner, explained that both areas were part of the area proposed for annexation in 1974 under health oazard proceedings but excluded because the prop- erty was vacant and the owner indicated he was not particularly interested in annexa- tion at that time. He said review indicates a full range of urban services can be provided to the area. The Commission recommended annexation at its May 10, 1976 meeting. Mr. Saul added that because the city is now extending a sewer line at the rear of Tax Lots 1900 and 2000, the owners of those parcels were requesting annexa- tion to enable connection to that line. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Resolution No. 2515 - Transmitting to Boundary Commission recommendation to annex area south of Skyline Drive, east of Barber -- Drive was read by number aTld title. I-A-2 Mr. ,Keller moved second by Mr. Haws to adopt the resolution. Motion carried unanimously. 6/14/76 - 2: ~g~