1982/06/14 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

249 June 14,1982 3 DM.HEARING-ANNEXATION(C8 825-280) president Pope said this was a hearing to consider acceptance of a ' 5%annexation fetitonsaid first there would bepresenta- tion Cn bythe staf. Ifte spokesman for o against the h e annexation,they would bgiven Then istm0nyw0uld be received fomanyoneelse wishing sp k. Gary Doughty of the Planning Departsaid a verified petition been received bearing the n oft f75%o£the as valuation• in a area 19th Ave.S.E. 100th St.S.E. This • s approximately 33.3acres running aboutparallel with the E er Hall 'o£I--S.-This petition c result of a reductionsin [ a larger sal which mould n the MR signatures. When petitioner requested eannexationeof his property,he v ted c survey all the property owners s in the area .M quested as annexa n 1979 but found here a enough opposition to prevent annexation. • pointed out M.areas of concern,these are that the boundaries ere y irregular and are not contiguous with the south City limits • and that only portion.100th St.will be annexed. said the w does all 'LID to be formed a residentsinside and outside theacity limits. This could be done,for instance to improve 100th TTIee e f drainage i the proposed boundaries which would cme under y ordinance. i5 t Councilman Overstreet asked of a person were in the area annexed. {El would he have tohook up t0 the sewer and Hr.Doughty answered no. He said however,if an LID re formed for this purpose he could I beforcedt participate lifWthe m 1 y n his areaoappr0ved of the 3, LID.Councilman Langur spoke against the proposed annexation because the contiguous t the city limits. Hesait re several blocksa ain betty the city{emts and thisr would remain in he county andaskedif the wouldn't be aaproblem twith his. ennisuD of the Planning Director said be could s o problem in s becausehefelt this w n interims atl0ne,that i the near future,Eastmont and others areas would bearequesting a nexati0n. .� Councilman Michelson asked how manypeople were in the area that were opposedh to t annexation an lir.0 el errckson replied there w y a f but theyowned nice homes and developed property, whereas the J ity of the property in the annexation was ac t In answer to a'question,Grant Need,Asst.City Attorney said the pro- Posed an could be reduced by the council,but they could not expand the boundaries at this time Councilman ld ft asked if theproponents and opponents of the annex a - tion were aware f the benefits they receive by annexing andr. Doughty said the proponents had se letterst everyone explaining the advantages and disadvantages t0 the annexation .� Councilmanm asked how any parcels tey r were in the and Mr. l: Doughtyreplied about 12 t 15 and most of them re not improved.