01/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Councilman Haws directerl a question to Mr. Saul regarding two issues . that had been brought up in public testimony: 1) the access problem to the annexed area: and 2) the visual and physical impact on the neiqhborhood of the proposed annexed area. Mr. Saul replied that in regard to the access problem they would have to look at the precise development plans when they are submitted. He indicated that it seemed the primary concern was with the actual construction traffic which would occur during the development of the proposed annexed area. In regard to the physical and visual impact he indicated those questions should be addressed when a specific proposal is submitted. Mr. Haws asked then if there were any conflict between the plans either before or after annexation. Mr. Saul replied that he is not sure there is a conflict. The plannings have to be consistent with any submitted plans for the development of the annexed area. Councilman Lieuallen then asked if they could foresee any problems regarding working with the neighborhood groups that would be impacted by this proposed annexed area. Mr. Saul replied that when a specific development proposal is admitted it is usually referred to the neighborhood group for input. The comments from that particular group are certainly taken into account during the process of deciding on any proposals submitted. Mr. Bradley then asked what factors the Council should be considering in regard to this proposed annexed proposal for this annexed area. Mr. Saul replied that the three factors the Council should consider are: 1) whe- ther the property area is in the projected service area; 2) whether the proposed annexed area is consistent with the plans; and 3) whether the e urban services can be extended to the area. Councilman Bradley then asked what the relevant timing was to be consid- ered by the Council at this evening's meeting. He wondered if it would be more appropriate at this time, or would it be more appropriate at a later time, to consider the annexation of this particular portion of property. Mr. Saul replied that timing remains a matter of judgment. He i ndi cated the City Council had not previously looked at the timing of this partic- ular annexed area except in regard as to whether the services can be extended or are planned to be extended to the annexed area. He di d indicate again that the project is now contiguous to the city and that all the various referral agencies had indicated that urban level of pub- lic services can be extended to the subject property. Mr. Obie then indicated that he felt the Council should be considering whether or not to annex the property. Mr. Bradley replied that his concern about the timing of this particular annexation was whether the Council should be concerned with infilling within the city limits as opposed to infilling of property outside of the city and whether the Council has any priority addressed to this issue. Mr. Saul replied that as far as he knew there was no policy concerning priorities on timing, that there is now in existence infilling within the city and annexations in service areas contiguous to the city. Mr. Bradley then asked legal counsel what the cost to the City would be to e extend the urban services, to which Mr. Saul replied that he had no figure 1/10/77 - 3 9