My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1985 03 21
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1985 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1985 03 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:24 PM
Creation date
7/18/2008 12:15:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/21/1985
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1985 03 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
the Council will address the enclave issue with <br />regard to residential annexation policies and <br />allow the 10 acre :>ite to once again be introduced <br />to Council for annexation consideration. <br />The current Resolut:ion #15, establishing a policy <br />with respect to annexations, is in effect until <br />March 31, 1985. <br />Hundley was requested by Council to provide <br />updates on the crater and sewer situation as <br />relates to possible annexations. Also, a survey <br />was requested as t:o how many such enclaves exist <br />with in the City limits. <br />Fauson related to Council that most homeowners <br />within these enclaves are on the City's water and <br />sewer system plus paying special fees, therefore, <br />not impacting services by possible annexation. <br />However, bringing these properties up to City <br />standards, i.e., curb, gutter, sidewalk, and <br />streets, would be a financial burden. Fauson <br />suggested that t:he City could work out an <br />agreement to addre~;s these problems. <br />Luce suggested that the City should address each <br />enclave request on a case by case basis and should <br />define small and large enclaves. Necessary <br />improvements could. then be addressed individually <br />as requests for annexation were presented. <br />Morris related that. enclave annexation of a single <br />family residence was not a major concern in her <br />opinion, however, annexation with a request to <br />develop several units was a concern. <br />Leary's understanding was that the current <br />resolution did not exclude the annexation of <br />enclaves. Hundley concurred and suggested that a <br />greater definition of terms within a new <br />resolution would be to the City`s advantage with <br />regard to this type. of annexation. <br />Morris moved that Resolution #15 - Series 1984, be <br />extended for 30 days while staff gathers <br />information to formulate recommendations. Johnson <br />seconded. Cussen asked to have the motion changed <br />to read "60 days" to allow ample time for adequate <br />investigation of all pertinent impacts. The <br />motion was so amended and approved unanimously. <br />UPDATE ON DRCOG <br />PLANNED URBANIZATION <br />AREAS Information was supplied to Council regarding a <br />revision to the Regional Growth and Development <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.