Leavenworth pushes annexation forward, highlighting communication gap between city and community

LEAVENWORTH — Leavenworth City Council voted Nov. 12 to advance a proposed annexation at the end of West Benton Street, following a public hearing marked by concerns about development impacts, transparency and frustration.

City staff emphasized during the Nov. 12 meeting that the resolution passed did not complete annexation. Rather, it formally declared the city’s intent to annex, triggering review by the Chelan County Boundary Review Board.

The proposed annexation would shift the city limits line to include two separate properties currently in the Urban Growth Area (UGA), enabling them to use available city services for water and sewer in future development.

The smaller property is less than an acre zoned Multifamily Residential, owned by Adam Pfleeger. The larger parcel is 33.4 acres, which is split zoned Multifamily Residential and Tourism Commercial, and owned by Willkommen LLC. The existing zoning would remain unchanged if annexed.

The two properties were grouped into a single request because the Pfleeger parcel only touches the city boundary at a point, which does not meet the requirements. Combined, the properties create a boundary eligible for annexation. However, the larger property drew concern from the public.

“As a member of the community I have concerns about annexing it in without knowing anything about what's being proposed,” said resident Jennifer Hadersberger. “I would just encourage city council to maybe reach out a little bit more and get some more public feedback on this particular annexation.”

Hadersberger and others feared significant development on the property, expressing concerns about traffic, environmental and financial impacts to the city. Residents voiced concern that the situation would mirror the Leavenworth Adventure Park, which was annexed into the city and faced public backlash.

Councilmember Travis McMaster pushed back on the comments, emphasizing that the hearing was about annexing land and not developing it. McMaster added: “We can't tell people what they can or can't do with their property ‘til they come to us and say, ‘We want to do this.’”

“I personally think that it would be beneficial to respond…because if we don't, I fear that we just continue to have misinformation swirling around our community,” said Councilmember Anne Hessburg. “There was a bunch of misunderstanding associated with those comments, and I would love the opportunity to correct that record.”

Community Development Director Maggie Boles called a comment that the city paid the infrastructure costs for past development “false,” clarifying that developers are responsible for installing infrastructure and paying system development charges. She also emphasized that any large project would face multiple layers of environmental and public review, such as a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) analysis, which would include studies for traffic, stormwater, archaeological resources and other impacts.

Boles also noted that the city changed its codes since the Leavenworth Adventure Park approval, adding traffic impact standards and removing the type of use that allowed that project in the tourist commercial zone. 

“If somebody were to apply for that project today, it would not be permitted,” said Boles.

Hessburg added that having the property within city limits would be advantageous, allowing the city to make permit calls rather than the county. While the resolution passed with the majority, Councilmember Sharon Waters was opposed, acknowledging the residents’ desire for more information.

“We hardly ever have anybody show up, and we had people show up tonight. I feel like I need to honor the fact that they don't know what's going on,” said Waters. “I would certainly not like something like this if there was a bunch of land next to my house…I didn't know anything about it. That doesn't mean I'm against it or for it.”

Taylor Caldwell: 509-433-7276 or taylor@ward.media