04/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ II-A-2 through II-B-I ---. .. It was understood the intent of the motion was to give time to gather information regarding projects elsewhere of a similar nature and particularly with regard to how successful in specific terms and what kinds of services they provide - day care, social, especially on-site social services, as well as to discuss revenue sharing funds for this particular project. Motion carried - Council members Haws, Beal, Murray, Bradley, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Keller, Williams, and Hamel voting no. A short recess was taken. E. Annexations 1. South Goodpasture Island (City) (A 75-3) Manager explained that the area recommended for annexation by the Planning Com- mission on February 23, 1976 did not include the mobile home park to the north. Jim Saul, planner, said the proposed annexation was one of the recommendations contained in the commercial study of the Goodpasture Island area. The Planning Commission had taken the area in three separate annexation proceedings, recogniz- ing differing land uses in the area and different levels of development. He said the mobile home park was excluded at this time to be picked up in a later pro- ceeding because of deferred taxation on properties not committed to development at this time and because sewer service could not be extended. Most properties included in this proposal, he said, are seeking annexsation or are committed to annexation under contractual arrangement with the city. With the aid of maps, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members, Mr. Saul pointed out the properties included in this proposal and noted those opposed - Holemar property, Kendall Ford, and Dunham Olds. He added that city services are in the process of being provided or have already been provided to all properites involved. The area is within the urban service boundary, is totally surrounded by city limits, and is recognized as critically important to the city in terms of its development. Don Allen, public works director, outlined the sewer service which is available to the properties through a temporary system and unallocated capacity at this time. He noted numerous previous requests, including those from Kendall Ford and Dunham, for sewer service, but since those properties were not contiguous to the city and could not be annexed, they were not included in the system alloca- tion. The Mitchell property, he said, was seeking allocation of 100 gpm of the remaining 120 gpm sewer capacity of the temporary system. The Howell, Smith, Brown property was annexed on the condition that no sewer service would be pro- vided fromthe temporary system serving Valley River Center, to which the prop- erty owners agreed when annexed. Mr. Allen said there was no forecast now as to when permanent sewer system would be constructed in this area. Councilman Williams asked who would pay the cost of the final connection to the permanent system if and when the East Bank trunk was constructed if an individual or company connected property to the temporary system now. Mr. Allen answered that system was designed to serve adjacent properties as the permanent lateral system that would connect to the trunk system when it was built; there would not have to be any changes in connections. Councilman Bradley wondered about the rezoning that would occur when the properp ties were in the city, particularly the Mitchell property. Mr. Saul answered that the Mitchell property was the only one under "intent to rezone" prov1s1ons of the county and that zoning on most of the other properties was committed by vitue of prior action. He explained that the "Order of Intent to Rezone" adopted by the county states the county has approved rezoning the Mitchell property ..:.2~7 4/26/76 - 7