City Council Minutes 1999 07 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sisk asked Wood for clarification that the property to be annexed would include everything except the conservation easement, which is defined as 'Parcel 3'. Wood replied, yes. He explained that Parcel 3 is the intervening four-and-one-half acres between the annexation and the property line of the Warembourg holdings. Light further explained that under the purchase contract, the Warembourgs are annexing what was called 'Parcel 2' of the Ranch Property, which is a seventy-two acre parcel that is covered by Conservation Easement in favor of the City and the County. Immediately north of Parcel 2, is what's called 'Parcel 3', which is the four-and-one-half acre right-of- way parcel which will be conveyed in fee title to the City only, and south of that is the two hundred and twenty-acre parcel. The four-and-one half parcel and the two hundred and twenty-acre parcel would remain unincorporated for the time being. Parcel 2 of seventy-two acres is the part that the Warembourgs will continue to own in fee simple, however, they will give the City and County a conservation easement restricting the use of the property to agricultural uses, two additional dwelling units, and some other uses that are permitted under the agricultural zone district. He explained that tonight's annexation would not have the effect of annexing either the four-and-one-half acre tract or the two hundred and twenty-acre tract, which lies to the south. Sisk asked for clarification that the legal description describes seventy-two acres, more or less. Light replied, yes. Light stated that Resolution No. 34, Series 1999, includes a draft of the Annexation Agreement and a resolution to approve the agreement. He explained that the petitioners have not yet executed the Annexation Agreement. Discussions were held today with John Mehaffey, the Warembourg's attorney, and Ms. Chris Wecker regarding the substance of the Annexation Agreement. There are three areas that require some work. One issue is the request by the applicant for some clarification or a statement that they do not anticipate that there would be significant public improvements or street improvements along 96th, or that there would be no internal public streets on the property, which is consistent with their anticipated uses of the property. Also, dedication of any right-of-way for 96th Street would need to be addressed, should the 96th Street project ever impact the seventy-two acre parcel. Finally, there is an additional minor comment, which relates to the party that gets the benefit of certain waivers. He stated that, while there is not an executed Annexation Agreement, typically the annexing party would sign the Agreement and present it to the City Council prior to enactment of the annexation ordinance. He recommended that City Council annex the property tonight by Ordinance No. 1301, Series, however, he suggested that a condition is included that stated that the Annexation Agreement needs to be brought back and be fully executed by the next City Council meeting to ensure that the matter is taken care of in a timely fashion. He stated that there are other options. Council could delay consideration of the annexation ordinance by a meeting, or continue the public hearing and bring this all back.