OCR Text |
Show Annexation Raies Questions annexations oerore relinquishing relin-quishing their authority to the county board and that there was no time to first seek a recommendation from Planning Commissioners. Commissioners and concerned con-cerned citizens reacted to the May 7 annexations with ire, maintaining that the action should have been first reviewed by the Planning Commission. City Council-men Council-men further defended their actions, maintaining that two of May 7 annexations (Treasure (Trea-sure Hills and Quarry Mountain, Moun-tain, now known as Park Meadows Mountain and Quarry Hills) had been favorably recommended by the Planning Commission at some point in the past. Opponants however countered counter-ed that the 50 acre Stahle property included in the May 7 annexation had never been reviewed by Planning Commissioners Com-missioners and although the other two proposals had been recommended at one time, an additional review was called for because the properties had changed hands. The City Council's May 17 annexation decision was further influenced by local real estate executive Hal Taylor who represented Greater Park City Company which owns the 2.3 acre parce, Mr. Taylor told the Councilmen that the property pro-perty was in the process of being sold very shortly and that the sale was contingent upon the property being annexed into the city limits. Mr. Taylor left the Council with 'the impression that should the annexation proposal pro-posal be referred to the Planning Commission, the subsequent delay might jeopardize jeo-pardize the pending sale. Some consideration was given a conditional annexation annexa-tion whereby the Council would accept the proposal providing a favorable recommendation recom-mendation was later obtained obtain-ed from Planning Commissioners. Commis-sioners. However when the motion was made to approve the annexation, it did not include that stipulation. As a condition of the annexation. Greater Park City Company; will agree to provide the city with water rights and physical water equal to 1,000 gallons per day for each unit they plan to build. Whoever buys the property is apparently planning plan-ning a 6 to 8 lot subdivision. Acting with some degree of hesitancy, City Council-men Council-men last Thursday approved an annexation proposal for a 2.3 acre parcel of property located near the Spiro Tunnel, west of the Park City Golf Course. It was the fourth annexation proposal to be approved this month without a recommendation from Planning Commissioners. Commission-ers. Mayor Jack Green and members of the City Council admitted that they would feel "more comfortable" with the annexation if it had been first reviewed and recommended recom-mended by members of the Planning Commission, but were convinced by City Attorney Mike McCoy that such a recommendation was unnecessary. A section of Park City's Land Management Code states: "The Land Management Manage-ment Code (city zoning ordinance) or the district map may be amended by the City Council; however, all proposed , ammendments shall be first brought before the Planning Commission for their recommendation." Since an annexation would add additional property to the district map, such action could be interpreted as an amendment. If such an interpretation holds true, any annexation proposal, approved without a prior recommendation from the Planning Commission, could be in violation of the code and illegal. Mike McCoy however maintains that annexation is the responsibility of the legislative body (City Council) Coun-cil) and the delegation of any portion of that authority to the Planning Commission would not be proper and probably illegal. He interprets the above section of the Land Management Manage-ment Code s referring only to changes in the district map in which the zoning status of specific property is changed or altered. "A legislative body cannot be bound by a Planning Commission nor can any previous City Council Coun-cil restrict the authority of the present one" he said McCoy based his interpretation interpreta-tion on State statutes which supercede municipal ordinances. ordin-ances. He however did not address the fact that on May 8, a newly enacted statute removed the authority of annexation from legislative municipal bodies and placed it in the hands of a seven member county board. The May 8 statute was used by City Councilmen as justification for the three annexations approved May 7 which added almost 3' acres to the corporate limn of Park City. The Council, maintained that they were anxious to complete the |