My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1985 04 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1985 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1985 04 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:54 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:51:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
4/2/1985
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1985 04 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
• <br /> the Council will address the enclave issue with <br /> regard to residential annexation policies and <br /> allow the 10 acre site to once again be introduced <br /> to Council for annexation consideration. <br /> The current Resolution #15, establishing a policy <br /> with respect to annexations, is in effect until <br /> March 31 , 1985. <br /> Handley was requested by Council to provide <br /> updates on the water' and sewer situation as <br /> relates to possible annexations. Also, a survey <br /> was requested as to 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 the City could work out an <br /> agreesent to address 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 /> Norris 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 racosmendations. Johnson <br /> seconded. Cuasen asked to have the motion changed <br /> to read „60 days" to allow ample time for adequate <br /> investigation of all pertinent ispacts. The <br /> motion was so amended and approved unanimously. <br /> UPDATE ON DRCOG <br /> PLANNED URBANIZATION <br /> AREAS Information was supplied to Council regarding • <br /> revision to the Regional Growth and Development <br /> S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.