City hears two annexation requests; staff recommends modified boundaries, council asks for options

Enumclaw Community Development Director Chris Massenet presented two annexation notices the city received in March, describing one area on the west side near the Roosevelt Avenue roundabout and a second east-of-town parcel near the county fairgrounds.

Massenet said the packets as submitted total five vacant, residentially zoned parcels (about 18 acres) but recommended that council modify the proposed boundaries to include adjacent parcels and right-of-way to produce a more regular city limit and to conform with comprehensive plan policies. He said water and sewer stubs are nearby and that staff preferred processing a single annexation but acknowledged committee support for separate processes.

"If the council were to consider the annexation areas, staff would recommend modifying those areas to include the additional parcels," Massenet said, summarizing staff’s analysis of utilities, zoning (R-2), and the likely need to assume existing city indebtedness for newly annexed areas.

City planning staff and council discussed the statutory process. Massenet and staff reminded the council that petitioners typically use the 60% petition method—collecting signatures representing 60% of the assessed valuation in the area—and that the Boundary Review Board may require modifications if the city’s proposal results in irregular boundaries. Massenet said, with the additional parcels included, the combined area could total roughly 38 acres with an assessed valuation of about $8.5 million.

Council members asked procedural and policy questions, including whether the Torragon/Tarragon property (applicant parcels on the east side) could meet the 60% threshold on their own; staff said they could not and would need signatures from additional property owners. A council member asked staff to consult the city attorney about whether the council could condition an annexation acceptance on the applicant covering consultant or city-staff costs for processing multiple annexation petitions.

Council direction: members signaled by head nods that they were open to staff returning with two separate draft resolutions that would modify the areas as shown in the staff maps. Staff said they would report back with options and additional research, including any legal constraints advised by the city attorney.

Next steps: staff will return to council with proposed resolutions and the city’s attorney guidance; no final annexation decision or vote occurred at the April 27 meeting.