Deannexation of 1.5 Acres at 4672 Coffeen Avenue
Summary
A landowner wanted 1.5 acres pulled out of the city to do a lot-line adjustment with a county neighbor, but council members worried it creates a county island surrounded by city land. Access and drainage problems on Trout Lane were at the heart of the dispute.
At a glance
- Total mentions
- 5
- Last 30 days
- 0
Discussed at 1 meeting in the last 60 days; most recently Sep 8, 2026.
Impact analysis
Property taxes on the parcel would drop from 23 to 18 mills if de-annexed, and the owner would pay higher outside-city water and sewer rates.
The property owner gains a simpler, cheaper path to fix access and lot-line problems.
City planning staff argue it fragments the urban service area and sets a precedent for more de-annexations.
Mentions & discussions (3)
City Council (Regular) — September 8, 2026
A landowner wanted 1.5 acres pulled out of the city to do a lot-line adjustment with a county neighbor, but council members worried it creates a county island surrounded by city land. Access and drainage problems on Trout Lane were at the heart of the dispute.
City Council (Study) — August 24, 2026
A property owner wants out of the city just four years after annexing in, and staff say denying it keeps the growth area cohesive. If de-annexed, law enforcement and fire service would shift to county jurisdictions and utility rates would rise to outside-city levels.
Planning Commission — August 24, 2026
KW Capital wants 1.5 acres at 4672 Coffeen Ave removed from the city so it can do a simple county lot-line adjustment with the neighboring Trout Lane property. Commissioner Franklin argued the city's own rules are so costly that de-annexation is a rational workaround — a precedent the chair worried about.
Related development
Deannexation of 1.5 Acres at 4672 Coffeen Ave
If it had passed, the parcel could have developed under county rules in the middle of the city's growth area; instead it stays in the city, and the lot-line fix may need a future annexation-plus-subdivision path.
Petition for De-Annexation, Ordinance 2306-26
If it had passed, the parcel could have developed under county rules in the middle of the city's growth area; instead it stays in the city, and the lot-line fix may need a future annexation-plus-subdivision path.
We'll email you when it's on an upcoming agenda and when it's voted on, at most once a day.
The weekly brief for Sheridan
What the council decided, in plain English — one email a week.
Free. Unsubscribe with one click any time. We never sell your email.