01/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D. Annexation, property north of Holly and west.of Gilham (Tax Lots 202,205,207,300, 500:- Map 17-03-17-2 3) (Bar-Bre Smith) (A 74-5) Maps of the area were distributed with ag~nda. Planning Commission on November 12, 1974 recommended denial of the annexation on the. basis that it would create an "is1and" outside 'the city and people in that area are not in favor of annexing. Man/:tger explained that if Council upheld the Commission in denial of the annexa- tion, the matter would die at this point; if. the Council reversed the Commission, then the petition WOuld be transmitted to ~he Bound~ry Commission for resolution. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to uphold the Planning Commission and deny the annexation. Motion carried unanimously. Comm . 1/15/75 Approve Doug Larkins, West Coast Realty, representing the applicant for the annexation, noted the petition had been before the Planning Commission and Council previa-~- ly and denied. He said that denial at this time would create hardship for more than just his client. He noted and commented on staff reasons on which the recommendation for denial was based, one being the need for ex- tension of city services to the area. He recognized that there would be costs involved in extending sewers to serve the area. However, he said there were already curbs and gutters so there was no reason for that type of improvement. With regard to staff's statement that the annexation would create an island, he said it already was an island, but that it was within the urban service area anG included in the General Plan. They were not pro- posing a density higher than R-l, he said, and all services were available except sewers. He reEinded the Council that, even though a smaller island would be created, extension of sewers at this time would be less costly to those people than it would be later in view of the rapidly increasing im- provement costs. Crossing county property with construction of a trunk sewer ~o serve this area, he said, would not set pr~cedent since that was true of service to Gilham School. He felt it logical to annex this area since it already had residential development; commercial and high density areas were not proposed. Evelyn McKenzie, 4682 Scenic Drive, asked whether the subject property was the only 'land that was being considered for annexation at this time. Manager explained that the annexation requested was concerned with four different Tax lots at the west end of Gilham Road extending to existing city limi~s north of Balboa Street. Hs . McKenzie was in favor of the annexation since it would afford the opportunity to use existing sewer services for property in her ownership. Steve Kenney, 1150 Balboa Street, urged denial of the annexation. He felt the planning staff notes had presented a good analysis of the situation in that neighborhood. Larrie Prociw, 123 Holly, and Walter Sands, 1121 Balbo~" were opposed to the annexation because of the opposition of the residents of the area represented by petition previously presented. Mr. Larkins said there was a lack of understanding of city procedure in the area where residents were opposing the annexation. He said they would have to carry the burden of the 1/2~ per square foot charge for the trunk sewer traversing county property and in effect could be utilizing the services of that trunk line now. Don Allen, director of public works, made it clear that the charge would not be assessed until the property was annexed 'to the city. Mr. Larkins continued that other services were available and denial of annexation would postpone what people in that area were looking forward to. Ms. McKenzie noted that her property was between Holly Street and the prop- erty now being considered for annexation. She thought it should be included in the,; annexation because she would be unable to have it developed until it 1/27/75 - 14 '30 e (1540) e e (1712)