Marshall Baker, speaking as co-trustee for property in a trust owned by the late June Mason, requested annexation of roughly 21 acres of land adjacent to Bowens and other parcels in the city’s impact zone.

Baker said formal annexation would “allow proactive planning rather than reactive accommodation,” noting the parcel already has sewer and power at the front and that a developer would be expected to install water lines and roads. She said the family would prefer commercial zoning for parts of the parcel, which she believes are poorly suited for residential construction.

Why it matters: Annexation would bring the land into the city limits and allow the city to apply its zoning and infrastructure standards. Baker said the move could open commercial or mixed-use development that would generate tax revenue and jobs.

Council and staff questions focused on utilities and the comprehensive-plan implications. City staff said a West End water line runs through parts of the property but that its exact alignment was not documented in the city files; the pipe lacks a clear locate wire and no recorded easement appears in the files the council reviewed. Council members warned that unknown water infrastructure beneath development-ready sites could create future conflicts unless its location is confirmed.

Councilmember Hart (joining by remote connection) flagged two concerns: introducing an island of commercial zoning surrounded by R-2 residential parcels (“spot zoning”) and whether West End Water Users have an existing easement. City staff said easement issues are typically resolved between property owners and the water users; annexation itself would not automatically transfer ownership of a private water line to the city.

City planning staff advised that rezoning and annexation can be handled together but recommended the council move carefully to avoid creating an incompatible “island” of commercial zoning in the surrounding residential pattern. Several council members said they preferred to “slow down to speed things up,” asking staff to gather clearer records about the water line location, easement documentation and the likely impacts on surrounding parcels before voting.

Outcome: Council did not approve annexation at the meeting. The applicant was asked to return with more information and to coordinate with city staff and utilities; planning staff recommended resolving utility-location and easement questions before proceeding with annexation or rezoning.

Ending: Baker thanked the council for its time and agreed to provide additional information; staff and council said they would work to assemble maps and utility records and encouraged coordination between the property owners and West End Water Users.