Laserfiche WebLink
Leary related that this was a good residential <br />annexation policy and had it been in effect <br />several years before now, it would have been a <br />very useful tool. However, given the fact that <br />the City simply can not provide some services, <br />particularly water- at this point in time, the <br />policy may not be effective. <br />Morris felt that t=here should be specifics within <br />the policy, i.e., large residential annexations <br />should be dealt with more specifically. Also, <br />parcels included in the City's PUA addressed in <br />the policy may not be in the City's best interest <br />for residential annexation. <br />Luce disagreed from the perspective that this is a <br />policy document. "Supporting documents need to be <br />developed to help the implementation of this <br />policy that would quantify those things that are <br />defined within this policy document. With these <br />documents, any residential annexation proposal <br />that comes before the City, will either stand or <br />fail on the merits described within these <br />documents. In a rational objective process, an <br />answer can be decided on an individual basis using <br />this policy as the tool on which to base the <br />decision." <br />Fauson asked that, the draft be sent to the <br />Planning Commission. for their input and related to <br />the other members of Council that in general terms <br />the policy was well written and would serve as a <br />valuable tool in determining residential <br />annexations. Johnson concurred and felt with <br />minor changes/additions the draft would stand on <br />its own merits. <br />Hundley asked if the following items would sum up <br />the changes in the draft that concerned Council: <br />1) Section #5B would be reworded to be more <br />specific; 2) changing the language to reflect <br />enclaves as well as other types of annexations; <br />3) deleting reference to the PUA since it may not <br />be the kind of planning area that the City would <br />want to consider as a basis to make annexation <br />decisions; and 4) provide supporting documentation <br />describing how this policy is applied <br />administratively. <br />Mayor Meier moved that staff revise the policy as <br />stated and take it to the Planning Commission for <br />their consideration. Luce seconded and the motion <br />was passed unanimously. <br />6 <br />