Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKern Center Annexation March 22, 1998 To the Residents of Baytown in Annexation Area Dear: Residents In the past two months I have tried as an individual tried to negotiate a resolution to annexation of the area of Baytown West of Highway 5 to the City of Oak Park Heights. I have spoken to Ron Fredkove and sent him the enclosed proposal. The decision made by the Municipal Board to divide up the annexation area is acceptable to Ron, thus ending all efforts for a resolution between the communities. I still believe that an orderly annexation agreement is in the best interest of all the residents and communities in the proposed annexation area. I do not feel your interest will be served by living in the City of Lake Elmo. The county standard for the smallest lot for safe septic and well is 2.5 acres, if I were to live on a one acre lot what are the costs if my well and septic fail. As a large land owner to sacrifice between 10,000 to 15000 dollars per acre to live in Lake Elmo is a tribute to your values. The time to resolve this issue is nearly past and is up to you to make any changes in the current state of events. OPIIIIIIPPIr 4 el" , r it..‘..4.kr., Dav • :eau.-g 6400 Lookout Trail Oak Park Heights, MN. 55082 439-2582 Pr • 111 February, 7, 1998 Mr. Ron Fredkove Baytown Township Dear: Ron Proposal to resolve the differences in regard to the annexation of 310 acres west of Highway 5 in your community. 1 . The entire 310 acres to be annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights . The following Baytown islands to be created inside the City of Oak Park Heights . The properties of Engle, Palmquist, Gleason, Claugherty and Hauth will remain in Baytown. These properties are to be part of Oak Park Heights in the future . These properties are to remain in Baytown until the one of the following options is chosen at which time the property would become part of the City of Oak Park Heights . If the property is sold by the current owner (if the property remains within the family, this is not to be considered a property owner change) , property is subdivided, property owner wishes to be connected to city water and sanitary sewer and if Baytown mergers with any other City. The City of Oak Park Heights will maintain all of the streets in this annexed area. The cost of improving city streets will be deferred by adjoining Baytown residents, interest cost will accrue and be payable when the property becomes part of Oak Park Heights . 2 . Creation of a Rural Taxing District and a phased in tax rate of 40% of the Oak Park Heights rate in the first year of annexation, and 10% increase in the rate for six years, in the eight year the city' s tax rate and the tax rate of the annexed area to be the same. Baytown to receive in the first year 100% of the taxes paid to the Township at the Township rate (Oak Park Heights to receive the rest) for the annexed area. The amount of tax received by Baytown will be decreased by 20% percent each year. Six years after annexation the Township will no longer receive tax payments from the annexed area. 3 . The owners of septic systems and wells are able to continue using these facilities as long as they function and can be repaired legally. 4 . Kern Center existing Conditional Use Permits with Baytown and Washington County to apply, Existing business practices would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . 5 . A cooperation agreement similar to the Bayport/Baytown agreement will be part of this orderly annexation agreement. . . 6 . Oak Park Heights and Baytown will not support any annexation petitions until the two communities get together within 45 days of upon receiving such a proposal . This will allow the two communities an opportunity to discuss whether or not this annexation is in the interest of both Baytown and Oak Park Heights. 7 . Water runoff in the annexed area to be handled by the appropriate watershed districts. All capital projects to protect lakes from flooding are to be handled by the watershed and cost distributed as previous watershed projects in the past . All water runoff from the annexed area are to comply with the watershed management plans and all appropriate laws. This is beginning of this process. I will be out of town from February 11 through February 16 . I believe that it is in the best interest of the Township and the City, that we work together to resolve this annexation issue. The Municipal Board certainly can make the decision for all parties concerned, This however, is not in the best interest of the communities . Airr David Beaudet • • +) w a) PN 4-1a i $.1N 4-i co ci) O VSO CJ)O in 4 In in •r-I in a1 Z O in O 4 w c o Z 004-) wzcd g � z r-INr1 (11 CO N1/40r-1 OOrI N0 •-I nrl • N .1-1 cd N 4-1 c./)1--1 En cd N 0rIv] rl cn • C I 0 0 ! CO 0 0 4 in 0 in in N in� 0 � O Z4 O H4 4-) H43 H4 •a o • "00ai 0x 'b 0N �vo roc �� a o� baw 9-10 d x •,-1 O dOcd cd d c .. cd A o0 c xcd A10O ADO Me lit r t • o o � Council P Working for the Region, Planning for the Future March 2, 1998 D I City Administrator 51998 MAR City of Oak Park Heights _`J 1 14168 North 57th Street P. O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Annexation of Kern Center in Baytown Township by Oak Park Heights Metropolitan Council District 12 Referral File No. 16589-1 MMB Reference No.A-5821 Dear City Administrator: On February 18, 1998,the Minnesota Municipal Board(MMB) issued a preliminary order annexing the Kern Center commercial/industrial park in Baytown Township to the city of Oak Park Heights. While the City presented plans at the hearing for the proposed 310 acre annexation area including the Kern Center, its comprehensive plan as reviewed by the Council is not up-to-date and does not address the Kern Center. Prior to City approval of any new development proposals,zonings or rezonings, or building permits for substantial new construction in the Kern Center area,the City must: 1. Submit a comprehensive plan,or plan amendment, covering the land being annexed,to the Metropolitan Council for review. a) If the area is proposed to be served by municipal sewer in the next five years,the plan amendment should include a proposed MUSA expansion. b) Any lands that are not included in a MUSA expansion should be planned,and subsequently zoned,for a rural residential density of no more than one unit per 40 acres. 2. And,the Metropolitan Council must take action on the plan or amendment. (see Minn. Stat. § 473.175, Subd. 2). Because of the number of environmental issues related to the subject area raised at the MMB hearing, the Council would encourage the City to consider preparing an Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR) for the annexation area, as permitted under EQB rules 4410.3600 et seq. If you have any questions about this letter,or would like a copy of a sample AUAR,please contact Guy Peterson, Office of Local Assistance sector representative for Washington County communities at 602- 1418. Sincerely, Thomas McElveen, Deputy Director Community Development Division 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer Metro P oliti Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future March 2, 1998 Mary Kueffner,City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave.No. Lake Elmo,MN 55042 RE: Annexation of Kern Center in Baytown Township to Oak Park Heights Metropolitan Council District 12 Referral File No. 16589-1 MMB Reference No. A-5821 Dear Ms.Kueffner: On February 18, 1998,the Minnesota Municipal Board(MMB) issued a preliminary order annexing the Kern Center commercial/industrial park in Baytown Township to the city of Oak Park Heights. The MMB's proposed action leaves the remainder of the area originally proposed for annexation in Baytown Township. If the City and Township decide to go ahead with their Orderly Annexation agreement excluding the Kern Center,the City comprehensive plan must be updated or amended to include the subject area. Prior to City approval of any new development proposals,zonings or rezonings or building permits for substantial new construction in the subject area,the City must: 1. Submit a comprehensive plan, or plan amendment,covering the land being annexed,to the Metropolitan Council for review . a) If the area is proposed to be served by municipal sewer in the next five years,the plan amendment should include a ro osed MUSA expansion. P P P b) Any lands that are not included in a MUSA expansion should be planned,and subsequently zoned, for a rural residential density of no more than one unit per 40 acres. 3. And,the Metropolitan Council must take action on the plan or amendment. (see Minn. Stat. § 473.175, Subd. 2). Because of the number of environmental issues related to the subject area raised at the MMB hearing,the Council would encourage the City to prepare an Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR)for the annexation area,as permitted under EQB rules 4410.3600 et seq. If you have any questions about this letter,or would like a copy of a sample AUAR, please contact Guy Peterson, Office of Local Assistance sector representative for Washington County communities at 602- 1418. Sincerely, Thomas McElveen, Deputy Director Community Development Division 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul,Minnesota 55 10 1-1 634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TrY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 Art Equal Opportunity Employer • LAW OFFICES OF ji � Eclkberg, Lammers. Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. P .L. 9 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Eckberg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 David K. Snyder James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Urosh Piletioh* Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Mark J. Vierling* Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 (1944-1996) Gregory G. Gallery *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator& Mediator Thomas J. Weidner* 4.0ualified Neutral Arbitrator Susan D. Olson March 6, 1998 *Certified Real Estate Specialist Ms . Christine Scotillo O 0 Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul, Minnesota 551083 Re : Legal Description for Commercial Property Oak Park Heights/Baytown/Lake Elmo Proceedings Dear Ms . Scotillo : At the meeting last held before the members of the Municipal Commission I understood the nature of their directive to be that the commercial areas located in the area sought for annexation would be assigned to the City of Oak Park Heights and the residential areas would be assigned to Lake Elmo pursuant to the outstanding O.A. that is also pending. The members assume that the commercial areas were incorporated into the current Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition. That understanding is in error. Specifically, the Buberl Landscaping commercial business, which also owns land in Kern Center 2nd Addition, owns additional commercial lands immediately adjacent to Kern Center 2nd Addition. Mr. Magnuson has prepared a legal description at your request which would assign Kern Center 2nd Addition and Kern Center to the City of Oak Park Heights, but omits the commercial property operated by Buberl Landscaping. Enclosed herewith please find a revised legal description that would assign all commercial properties in the annexation area to the City of Oak Park Heights . It would also have the added benefit of having a more symmetrical boundary line inasmuch as the western boundary, as can be seen on the enclosed drawing, would follow the west line of the East One-Half of the Northwest Quarter. of Section 6 in a north/south fashion with its northern point terminating in the right-of-way of Highway 36 and its southern point terminating on 55th Street . • JP" ' Ms . Christine Scotillo March 6, 1998 Page 2 Given the intent of the prevailing vote of the Municipal Board to assign commercial properties to the City of Oak Park Heights, we request on the behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights that the enclosed legal description be used as opposed to that which is to be submitted by Mr. Magnuson. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc : Thomas Melena, City Administrator David Magnuson Jerry Filla Scott McDonald Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel 111 110 Legal Description for Oak Park Heights/ Baytown/Lake Elmo Proceedings The portion of the annexation area to be annexed to Oak Park Heights : Beginning at the northwest corner of the east one-half of the northwest quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4) of Section 6 , Township 29 N, Range 20 W, the point of beginning of this description; thence southerly along the west line of the east one-half of the northwest quarter (E 1/2 of NW 1/4) of said Section 6 to the southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2, Kern Center Second Addition; thence east along the south line of Kern Center Second Addition to the intersection with the center line of Minnesota State Highway 5, also known as Stillwater Boulevard North, formerly, the Stillwater/St . Paul Road; thence northeasterly along the center line of State Highway 5 to the intersection with the north line of Section 6, Township 29 N, Range 20 W; thence west along the north line of Section 6 to the point of beginning. 02/12/98 13:00 ECKBERB LAW 4 4390574 NO.178 002 FEB 12 '98 12:49PM MN•NICIPAL BOARD P.2 r°'�,'�'•" Phonic(812)803-8757 An Equal Opportunity Employer • -.q Fax (812)B03-5762 E Twin Cities TDD:(812)297-5353 GceaterMt4TDO: 1.800.627-3529 i '1• I STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul,Mlnneeota 55108 MORAN0UM TO: John S. McDonald, Attorney for the Petitioners Mark Vierling, Attorney for the City of Oak Park Heights David Magnuson, Attorney for the Town of Baytown Jerry Filla, Attorney for the City of Lake Elmo Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council, Associate General Counsel FROM: Christine M. Scotillo, Executive Director 00 - DATE: February 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Since the hearing in the above-referenced matter, Ms. Speeter has accepted a position in the Office of the State Auditor, Because of a potential conflict off interest between has the activities of the Auditor's Office and a party to proceeding, recused herself from participating further in this matter. If you have arty questions, please contact me. CMS:sjh cc: Paul B. Double, Chair Andrew D. Hultgren, Vice Chair Lea De Souza Speeter, Vice Chair Dave Engstrom, Ex-Officio Member Dennis Hegberg, Ex-Officio Member • � • An Equal Opportunity Employer �� U Phone:(612)603-6757 4t°' . -6762 Gt,L Fax: {612)603 Twin Cities TDD:(612)297-5353 vt. 3S _ •, Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 1� Suite 225 Bandana Square l LS @ l5 a V l 1 r' 1021 Bandana Boulevard East J If St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 FEB241998 MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Partie-4. FROM: Starlene J. Holm- If Office Services DATE : February 23, 1998 SUBJECT: A-5821 Oak Park Heights For your information, the Minnesota Municipal Board will hold a conference call meeting regarding the above-entitled proceeding at 9:30 a.m. on Friday,April 3, 1998 in the Municipal Board Office, Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota. The purpose of this meeting is for Board discussion only. No new evidence will be taken. The decision will be based on the hearing record already compiled in this matter. You are welcome to come in and observe any meetings or conference calls scheduled because of this proceeding. You are not, however, required to attend and may call the Board office to inquire about any Board action. For special accommodations, please contact the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, (612)603-6757; or Statewide TTY 1-800-627-3529. sjh • LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. F.el�berg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 LTrh Piletieh* Mark Pau l J. Vierling* 1 aul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gaiter* Thomas J. Weidner* 0944-1996)J44-1996) *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator& Mediator Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 *Qualified Neutral Arh trator *Certified Real Estate Specialist January 12 , 1998 E DVE Judy Hoist City Administrator 1aa� City of Oak Park Heights +A'w + 3 P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Judy: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of a letter I received from Attorney David T. Magnuson dated January 8 , 1998 , as well as a copy of a Joint Memorandum and Argument of the Town of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo and proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Please also find a copy of a letter from Jeanne K. Matross dated January 9, 1998, as well as a copy of the Metropolitan Council' s Brief . If you have any questions, please fe- :e to call me . Very ours . rk J. Vierling MJV/alg enclosures • • • MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING • 333 NORTH MAIN STREET•SuITE#202•P.O.Box 438•STI LWATER,MN 55082 TELEPHONE:(612)439-9464•TELECOPIER:(612)439-5641 DAVID T.MAGNUSON RICHARD D.ALLEN • January 8, 1998 • Mr. Mark Vierling Ms. Jeanne K. Matross • Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling Metropolitan Council 1835 Northwestern Avenue 230 East Fifth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 St.Paul, MN 55101-1634 Mr. John S. McDonald Lawson,Marshall, McDonald& Galowitz 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo,MN 55042 Re: Petition for the Annexation of Certain Land to the City of Oak Park Heights Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414; Case No.: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Dear Counsel: Enclosed and served upon you by United States mail is the Town of Baytown's and the City of Lake Elmo's Joint Memorandum and Argument and proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Yours very truly, Dt‘Lt David T. Ma son Town of Bayt Attorney DTM/ds Enclosures z • A-5821 Oak Park Heights BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair - Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren County Commissioner Member Dennis C. Hagberg County Commissioner Member Dave Engstrom County Commissioner Member • IN THE MAI. l'ER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) JOINT MEMORANDUM ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY ) AND ARGUMENT OF OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO ) . THE TOWN OF MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) BAYTOWN AND THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO INTRODUCTION ,: The Municipal Board should deny the request to annex the subject three hundred ten • (310) acres from the Town of Baytown to the City of Oak Park Heights since the Subject Area would be better served by annexation to the adjacent municipality of Lake Elmo. A careful , analysis of the factors that the Board must consider in arriving at its decision leaves no other rational choice. ARGUMENT • (a) Present population and number of households,past population and projected population growth of the subject area and adjacent units of local government. An examination of the population figures for the City of Oak Park Heights is immediately revealing. According to the Oak Park Heights testimony, the 1997 population of the City was 4,001 people. The population forecast for the City of 1 • • Y _ Oak Park Heights developed by the Metropolitan Council for the year 2000 was 3,900. Oak Park Heights has,therefore, exceeded its year 2000 population growth forecast. The population the Metropolitan Council blueprint population forecast for Oak Park Heights for the year 2010 is 5,150. If the 145 vacant residential acres within the current borders of Oak Park Heights are developed at a density of • 3 housing units per acre and the population is projected at 2.5 people per house, Oak Park Heights would have adequate room to reach its Metropolitan Council year 2010 forecast without considering the possibility of any multifamily housing within the City or allowing for the development of any infill or redevelopment . within the City. To allow the annexation of additional vacant residential land to the City under these circumstances in unreasonable. Quantity of land within the subject area and adjacent units of local government;and natural terrain including recognizable physical features, general topography, major water sheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers, lakes and major bluffs. The Subject Area can best be characterized as an area in need of careful and sensitive development standards. The northwest 58 acres is a low wooded area filled with ponds and potholes that does not lend itself to urban development. This area, according to the first Oak Park Heights annexation sewer study done by the Bonestroo Engineering Firm concluded that there were no immediate plans to extend sewer into this 58 acre area because of the elevation of the area and because of the lack of sewer capacity in the sanitary sewer mains currently located in the 58th Street portion of Oak Park Heights. The northwest 58 acres is occupied 2 • • • by residents. The soils have supported on-site sewage disposal systems without failures and are adequate to allow future development on the property if done in a manner which takes into consideration the area's unique physical features and general topography. Further,this 58 acres sheds water into the Browns Creek Watershed District and unless development is carefully handled at less than urban densities, expensive storm water facilities, estimated by the Oak Park Heights engineer, to be in the range of$250,000.00, would need to be constructed to slow the water funneling north under Highway 36 into the Browns Creek Watershed. With the development standards of Lake Elmo and a cluster development approach, water could be adequately ponded and these expensive storm water facilities would not need to be built. The Kern Center being the other recognizable area within the annexation north of 55th Street is approximately one-half developed into a rural commercial area and none of the existing businesses within the area have suffered on-site system failures or have had any problems with their wells. The soil conditions on the Kern Center(Soil Type 49 -Silt Loam Antigo) present only slight limitations for on-site sanitary sewer systems and the general flatness of the area is suitable to the ruraI commercial pattern of development that has already occurred. The surface water from the Kern Center flows to the sensitive Browns Creek area and, therefore, necessitates adequate ponding as would be required by Lake Elmo's more restrictive development regulations in order to avoid the expensive storm sewer projects suggested by the Oak Park Heights Plan. Intensive urban 3 • • • • commercial development on this site is not in the best interest of the Subject Area or the Browns Creek Watershed. The remaining property south of 55th Street contains some flat land but also steep • slopes, ponds,and wetlands. This type of terrain is more appropriate for cluster developments which would avoid the desecration of land caused by excessive grading as would be necessary to accommodate the urban densities envisioned by Oak Park Heights. Lake Elmo regulations protect environmentally sensitive areas • and promote reasonable growth. Further, approximately 17 acres of the land Screaton property located south of 55th Street drains into the Cloverdale/MacDoanld Lake area within the Town of Baytown. These lakes are landlocked and have been experiencing significant flooding. Development of this 17 acres on the Screaton property into urban densities would further exacerbate 'existing flooding problems in the Cloverdale/MacDonald lake area These lakes have already been damaged,perhaps beyond repair,by commercial and industrial development within the City of Oak Park Heights to the north. (c) Degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the annexing municipality and the subject area. Approximately 4,300 lineal feet of the eastern boundary of the subject property is contiguous to Oak Park Heights. However,the contiguity is dramatically interrupted by Washing County Highway 5, which forms a prominent physical barrier between the Subject Area and the City of Oak Park Heights. This prominent physical feature is a natural boundary between communities. 4 ! • Approximately 6,5000 lineal feet of the southern and western boundary of the subject property is contiguous to Lake Elmo. There are no prominent physical features or highly traveled county or state highways separating Lake Elmo from the subject property. (d) The present pattern of physical development,planning, and intended land uses in the subject area in the annexing municipality including residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural and institutional land uses and the impact of the proposed actions of those land uses. The present pattern of physical development in both adjoining communities provides strong evidence of the best future development pattern for the Subject Area The cluster development in the City of Lake Elmo adjacent to the south and east of the Subject Property is an "in place"pattern that should logically be continued through the west and southern portions of the subject property to the Kern Center. In addition,the 2 %z acre rural residential development in the Town of Baytown contiguous on 1,850 feet of the southeast border of the Subject Area would not be significantly interrupted by development of the Subject Area into the Lake Elmo cluster pattern. The pattern of rural commercial land use in the Kern Center is also consistent with the rural commercial pattern of development • in the old village area of Lake Elmo. To complete the Kern Center development consistent with the existing rural commercial development pattern is most logical. Development of the Kern Center into the more dense urban commercial area proposed by Oak Park Heights would create a mix of uses within the Kern Center • 5 , . • 1110 and create a hodge podge development pattern and the aesthetic flaws of a mixed development would result. Further, the impact of high density urban development on the ScreatonlSmith parcels would not be part of any recognizable pattern within the City of Oak Park Heights. Since the Autumn Ridge urban development within the City of Oak Park Heights is approximately 1 mile from the Screaton/Smith development, it cannot be said that a logical pattern of development exists flowing from the Autumn Ridge development to the Subject Area.• The result would be a leapfrog development without connection to any - community. The commercial and high density residential land use proposed by Oak Park Heights would surely have a negative impact on adjacent rural residential property both within the Town of Baytown on the east side of Highway 5 and the Lake Elmo clustered area on the west side of County Road 5. A sore thumb of • commercial or high density residential development in the Subject Area would be a wedge driven between the cluster residential neighborhoods in Lake Elmo and the rural residential neighborhoods in Baytown Township. Robert Engstrom, the developer of the Cloverdale Farm and MacDonald Lake • residential neighborhoods located in the Town of Baytown which are in close proximity to the Subject Area, offered compelling evidence that development of the Subject Area consistent with the Oak Park Heights proposal and the Oak Park Heights development regulations would have additional adverse impacts on these existing neighborhoods. 6 • . • • (e) The present transportation network and potential transportation issues, including proposed highway development. The present transportation network provides the most logical boundaries between • the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo. Highway 5 carries approximately 13,700 cars per day and is a 4 lane divided highway between the Subject Area and the City of Oak Park Heights. This highway has already been improved and was not improved for the purpose of commercializing the adjacent area on both sides of the highway but,rather, to handle the already existing flow of traffic. (/ Land use controls and planning presently being utilized in the annexing municipality and the subject area, including comprehensive plans for development in the area and plans and policies of the metropolitan council, and whether there are inconsistencies between proposed • • development and existing land use controls and the reasons therefore. While Oak Park Heights has zoning and land use controls within the present city, ' it has not developed a zoning ordinance or a comprehensive plan amendment for the Subject Area. The plan that it did introduce into evidence for the Subject Area is general in nature and only proposes high density commercial and residential development for the Subject Area. This proposed development pattern for the Subject Area is not consistent with the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan since no plan exists for the area. Further, the plans and policies of the Metropolitan Council with regard to this Subject Area do not adequately address the future development of the area since the Metropolitan Council Blueprint 7 • • 40 1111 shows part of the Subject Area as rural and only part as a transition area needed for future urban development in order to meet year 2040 forecasts. The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint for the area needs to be refined for at least two (2) reasons. First, it is inconsistent with the comprehensive Plans for Washington County, Oak Park Heights, the Town of Baytown and Lake Elmo. These Comprehensive Plans have been approved by the Metropolitan Council. Local plans more accurately reflect current and reasonably anticipated development patterns. Second, the Regional Blueprint seems to ignore the status of property which has already been developed or permanently set aside. For example, one-half of the Washington County Regional Park located in Lake Elmo is slated for development on the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint. - Since the metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint for the area adjacent to the - 'subject property does not accurately reflect even existing conditions, the Municipal Board should not give it an excessive amount of wight in its deliberations. (g) Existing levels of governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the subject area, including water and sewer service,fire rating and protection, law • enforcement, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational facilities and the impact of the proposed action on the delivery of said services. The existing levels of governmental services should also be compared in a side by side comparison of the level of services in the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo. This comparison shows the superiority of the services 8 • 411 provided by Lake Elmo. The City of Lake Elmo has a larger full-time staff at its City Hall, has a wide range of citizen committees, including a citizen planning committee,that provide governmental services to its citizens. Lake Elmo has a full-time in house Planner,a Financial Director, an Administrator, an Assistant Administrator,as well as, a full-time Building Inspector who is certified to inspect installations of on-site systems and any needed upgrades. Further,the Lake Elmo Fire Department is closer in proximity to the Subject Area and the emergency personnel and the training that the Lake Elmo firemen have with regard to EMT training provides a higher level of emergency protection for the Subject Area (h) Existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems. The most significant environmental problems revolve around storm water from 'the site since all of the Subject Area drains into watersheds that have serious problems at their present level of development. When development occurs within the City of Oak Park Heights, storm water runoff is controlled by the Valley Branch Watershed District regulations and the result of the application of these controls have resulted in serious downstream consequences for Cloverdale and MacDonald Lakes. To develop the Subject Area into urban densities using existing Valley Branch standards and Oak Park standards would surely result in catastrophic downstream consequences that would require enormous sums to correct. On the other hand, the development regulations of the City of Lake Elmo require more feet of dead storage and regulate, not only the rate of run-off but, the 9 • • • • volume of run-off. These significantly different development standards of Lake Elmo would allow reasonable development on the Subject Property without exacerbating downstream flooding in sensitive watershed areas. (i) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the subject area. . The City of Oak Park Heights presented no specific plans for development and • only discussed the proposed density for the area. These densities are classic urban densities with some proposed densities for the area approaching 6 units per acre. The plans of the City of Lake Elmo, on the other hand,revealed reasonable development consistent with regulations in the adjacent City of Lake Elmo and consistent with the environmental sensitivity needed for protection of the Subject Area and the adjacent wetlands. (j) An analysis of the fiscal impact on the annexing municipality, the subject area and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness, and the local tax rates of the county, school district, and township. No plan was presented by the City of Oak Park Heights to finance the expensive extension of municipal utilities into the Subject Area. Oak Park Heights did not reveal the extent of the bonded indebtedness that would be required for these extensions or any method of assessment to recover costs associated with the utility extension and storm water improvements. (k) Relationship and effect of the proposed action on affected and adjacent school districts and communities. 10 • • • Since the City of Lake Elmo,the City of Oak Park and Baytown Township are all within Independent School District#834, only one (I) school district is effected by development in the area. Logic demonstrates,however, that with development • at urban densities,the Oak Park Heights proposed plan would have more impact on School District#834 than the plans of the City of Lake Elmo. (1) Adequacy of town government to deliver services to the subject area. No evidence was presented that the Town of Baytown had failed to adequately deliver government services to the area except for the desires of nonresident land owners to secure municipal sewer. (m) Analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through the proposed action or another type of boundary adjustment. No showing was made that municipal sewer and water services are needed in the Subject Area for any health, safety, or environmental reason. No on-site system failures were mentioned in the testimony and the desire for municipal sewer and water involved only land owners interested in speculation. Municipal governmental services desired for speculation are not necessary,merely desirable by some of the nonresident property owners. To allow leapfrog development, expensive and detrimental to residents and existing owners in.the Subject Area is contrary to sound public policy. (n) If only a part of a township is annexed, the ability of the remainder of the township to continue or the feasibility of it being incorporated separately or being annexed to another municipality. 11 II/ S It is agreed that the Town has the ability to continue even if the Subject Area leaves the Township. However, it is more feasible that the Subject Property be annexed now to the City of Lake Elmo in view of the proposed consolidation between the Town of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo. Evidence was • presented with regard to the extensive meetings between the two (2)cities,work on the consolidation plan and the schedule for having the consolidation question placed on the ballot in the 1998 November Election. The close working relationship between the Town of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo certainly deserves some respect on the part of the Municipal Board. CONCLUSION In conclusion,the Municipal Board may deny the annexation to Oak Park Heights if it appears the annexation of all or a part of the property to an adjacent municipality would better serve the interests of the residents of the property. The City of Lake Elmo is the adjacent municipality that would better serve the interests of the residents. The population of the Subject, Area is 21 and only 2 residents of the area either signed the Petition for Annexation or testified favorably with regard to the annexation. The remaining people in the Subject Area signed petitions on file with the Board asking that their property be annexed to the City of Lake Elmo. • Compelling testimony was presented not only by residents of the area but, of owners of commercial property within the Kern Center with regard to the devastating effect of assessments and hook-up charges on their existing facilities. The development of the area consistent with the Lake Elmo plans would create a recognizable community consistent with the pattern of development in the City of Lake Elmo. Since the statute gives the Board the authority to respect 12 • • the residents of the area,the Board should accept the opportunity given them by statute to make a decision consistent with logical planning principles, sensitive to the environment and in the best interest of residents of the area. Dated: January 8, 1998 Respectfully submitted, • ' vt David T. Ma uson(#66400) Attorney for a Town of Baytown 333 North Main Street •• Suite 202 P.O. Box 438 Stillwater, MN 55082 612/439-9464 Dated: January 8, 1998 Jerome P. Filla(#0029166) • Attorney for the City of Lake Elmo Suite 300 • 50 East Fifth Street • St. Paul, MN 55101-1197 612/291-8955 13 • • • A-5821 Oak Park Heights BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren County Commissioner Member Dennis C. Hagberg County Commissioner Member Dave Engstrom County Commissioner Member • IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) FINDINGS OF FACT, ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO ) . AND ORDER PROPOSED MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) JOINTLY BY THE TOWN OF BAYPORT AND THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO : TO The City of Oak Park Heights and its attorney, Mark Vierling of the law firm of Eckber ` • Lammers,Briggs, Wolff& Vierling, 1835 Northwestern Avenue, Stillwater,MN 55082, �X -. The City of Lake Elmo and its attorney, Jerome Filla of the law firm of Peterson,Fram and Bergman, r gman 300 Midwest Federal Building, 50 East Fifth Street,St. Paul,MN 55101; The Town of Baytown and its attorney, David T. Magnuson of the Magnuson Law Firm, 333 North Main Street, Suite 202, P.O. Box 438, Stillwater, MN 55082; Metropolitan Council and its attorney,Jeanne K. Matross,230 East Fifth Street, St.Paul, MN 55101- 1634; and the Petitioners and their attorney, John S. McDonald of the law firm of Lawson, Marshall, McDonald and Galowitz, P.A., 3880 Laverne Avenue North, Lake Elmo, MN 55042. This proceeding came on for hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414,as amended, on November 24th and 25th, 1997,at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The hearing was conducted by the Municipal Board. In attendance were Paul B. ' • Double, Chair; Lea De Souza Speeter, Vice Chair; and Andrew D. Hultgren, Member,and Washington County Commissioners Dennis C. Hagberg and Dave Engstrom. The City of Oak Park Heights appeared by its attorney, Mark Vierling. The City of Lake Elmo appeared by its 1 • • attorney, Jerome Filla. The Town of Baytown appeared by its attorney, David T.Magnuson. The Petitioners appeared by their attorney,John S. McDonald and the Metropolitan Council appeared by its attorney,Jeanne K. Matross. Testimony was heard and records and exhibits were received by the Board. After due and careful consideration of all evidence, together with all the records,files and proceedings,the Minnesota Municipal Board hereby makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On July 29, 1997,a Petition for Annexation of property from the Town of Baytown, Washington County, Minnesota to the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County,Minnesota was filed with the Municipal Board. The Petition was accompanied by a Resolution of Support from the City of Oak Park Heights City Council. The Petition contained all the information • required by statute, including a description of the area proposed for annexation which is as _ .. .» follows: All that part of Section 6,Township 29N, Range 20W, lying westerly of the • center line of Stillwater Boulevard also known as Minnesota State Trunk - Highway No. 5, Washington County,Minnesota. 2. Due, timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was published, served and filed. . 3. The area proposed for annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights(the"Subject Area") is presently within the Town of Baytown, Washington County, Minnesota, abuts the City of Oak Park Heights and the Town of Baytown on the east, the City of Lake Elmo on the south and west, and the City of Stillwater on the north and is approximately three hundred ten(310)acres in size. The perimeter of the Subject Area is bordered for four thousand three hundred(4,300) feet by the 2 • City of Oak Park Heights, by six thousand five hundred(6,500) feet by the City of Lake Elmo and by one thousand eight hundred fifty feet(1,850) feet by the Town of Baytown. The area borders the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown for a combined total of eight thousand three hundred fifty (8,350) feet. No testimony was offered with regard to the perimeter of the Subject Area that is bordered by the City of Stillwater. 4. The City of Oak Park Heights had a population of two thousand five hundred ninety- one (2,591) in 1980, three thousand four hundred eighty-six (3,486) in 1990 and a current population of four thousand one(4,001). Baytown Township had a 1980 population of eight hundred fifty-one(851),a 1990 population of nine hundred thirty-nine (939)and an estimated current population of one thousand two hundred nine (1,209). The City of Lake Elmo had a 1980 population of five thousand two hundred ninety-six(5,296),a 1990 population of five thousand nine hundred three(5,903)and an estimated current population of six thousand one hundred forty-eight(6,148). 5. The Subject Area has a population of twenty-one (21). 6. The City of Oak Park Heights is approximately one thousand six hundred seventy-nine (1,679) acres in size. The Township is five thousand eight hundred twenty-five(5,825)acres in size and the City of Lake Elmo is approximately sixteen thousand(16,000) acres in size. • 7. Both the City of Lake Elmo and the City of Oak Park Heights are in Washington County. 8. The Kern Center(90 acres) and the Screaton property (49 acres), are almost entirely Soil Type 49, Antigo Silt Loam 0-6% slope. The Soil Survey lists this soil as having only slight limitations for drainfield. For rapidly permeable soils, only soils with prec rates faster than five 3 • • minutes per inch require special construction techniques and only soils faster than 0.1 minutes per inch cannot use a conventional system. When the Kern Center was platted, a total of 42 percolation tests were taken on the plat. The actual measured percolation rate ranged from 5.1 to • 12. Since these perc rates are all slower than five minutes per inch,there is no concern for inadequate treatment due to rapidly permeable soils and conventional drainfields can be used. 9. The Subject Area is not in a ground water impact area and not in a large advisory area an dis up gradient from contaminated water based on the direction of ground water flow. 10 The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have land zoned for • • residential use,multiple residential use, commercial use, institutional use and industrial use. - 11. The Subject Area is partially developed into a rural commercial center known as • Kern Center. The Kern Center area is characterized by commercial lots and development has taken place on approximately one-half(Y:)of Kern Center consisting of a car dealership,a storage'center and an office warehouse complex, all developed on on-site septic systems. The northwest portion of the Subject Area consisting of fifty-eight(58)acres contains ponds, _ wetlands and severe slopes and contains several single family residences co n sistent with a present geographic and wetlands limitation. To the south of Kern Center, the balance of the property is undeveloped agricultural property with a minimum permitted lot size of five(5) • acres. 12. The area within the City of Oak Park Heights that is adjacent to the Subject Area contains the Stillwater Area High School, a partially completed commercial development and related commercial uses. 13. The area within the City of Lake Elmo that is adjacent to the Subject Area is rural 4 • • residential in character. Immediately adjacent and to the south of the Subject Area,an open space development has been approved and partially developed on one hundred twenty-six(126) acres. Forty-six (46)residential units have been approved for this site along with a natural farm preserve to buffer land from adjacent State Highway 5. To the west of the Subject Area in the City of Lake Elmo, is farmland and another rural residential development consisting of nineteen (19) residential units with approximately one-half(4) of the site preserved in natural open space consisting of a tamarack bog and a natural woodland area. 14. The City of Oak Park Heights has approximately 11.64 miles of highways. The Town of Baytown has approximately 12 miles of highways.The Subject Area has approximately 1.5 miles of highways.The easterly boundary of the Subject Area is Minnesota State Trunk Highway 5 which is a four(4) lane divided highway between the Subject Area and the City of - Oak Park Heights. Estimated traffic counts were thirteen thousand(13,000) trips per day " ` _ (Washington County 1994 Daily Estimate) projected to be twenty-three thousand six hundred (23,600) trips per day by the year 2018. 15. The City of Lake Elmo,the City of Oak Park Heights and the Town of Baytown have zoning ordinances,subdivision regulations, official maps, flood plain ordinances, on-site sewage treatment ordinances, and a Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Town of Baytown and the City of Oak Park Heights have wild and scenic river ordinances. 16. The City of Oak Park Heights presently provides most its residents with municipal water, sanitary sewer and waste water treatment, storm sewer, and all of its residents with fire protection, police protection, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services and recreational opportunities. - 5 • . 17. The City of Lake Elmo presently provides its residents in the Old Village section of the City and residences on Jamaca Avenue with municipal water services and in the southwest corner of the City with municipal water and sewer services through a contract with the City of Oakdale. The City of Lake Elmo also provides its residents with fire protection,police protection through a contract with Washington County, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services and recreational opportunities. Presently,no municipal services are adjacent to the Subject Area and the nearest sewer services are in the City of Oak Park Heights • approximately five hundred(500) feet to the east of the Subject Area in the right-of-way of 58th Street. On a case by case basis,Lake Elmo is willing to negotiate agreements with the adjacent cities for the provision of sanitary sewer and water to its residences by the neighboring cities facilities. 18. Although Oak Park Heights has not prepared a zoning ordinance for the Subject Area and has not submitted a Comprehensive Plan revision for the area, city plans for the area are for a continuation of the commercial/light industrial development within the area platted as Kern Center; that the northwest corner of the subject site consisting of fifty-eight(58)acres is planned - for single family homes at a density of 1.5 units per acre, however,the City does not have plans to install sanitary sewer into this area in the foreseeable future, and that seventeen(17)acres at a . • density six (6) units per acre development is planned on that area south of the Kern Center. That the remaining sixty (60) acres would be developed into single family residential development between two (2) and two and one-half(2 V2) units per acre. 19. That the City of Lake Elmo has not submitted a proposed zoning ordinance for the area nor have they prepared and submitted a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the area. The 6 T • • City of Lake Elmo has determined,however, based on their analysis of the Subject Area,that much of the land within the Subject Area should not be developed into high density urban uses since it includes steeply sloped areas,wetlands and certain areas with poor soils,in addition to the Highway 5 corridor. Since urban high density housing adjacent to the Highway 5 corridor is not appropriate in view of high traffic and noise levels, the Lake Elmo policy is to buffer development from Highway 5 by the use of open space, berms and natural landscaping. That the area remaining vacant in the Kern Center would continue to be developed with rural commercial land uses and the balance of the Subject Area developed pursuant to the cluster development provisions of the Lake Elmo ordinances since the area adjacent to the Subject Area in the City of Lake Elmo has been developed into cluster developments and the area adjacent to the area within the Town of Baytown contains residential development of two and one-half(2 %2)acres. There is no other area adjacent to the Subject Area in any community that is developed into urban density " residential development. 20. The City of Oak Park Heights has its own police department and has four(4)patrol cars and a staff of ten(10), including a police chief, sergeant and an investigator. From the Oak Park City Hall to the Subject Area,it is approximately 1.5 miles and the approximate response time is three (3) minutes for police protection. The Oak Park Heights' proposed budget for 1998 projects costs for providing police protection to the City of Oak Park Heights' three thousand eight hundred seventy-three (3,873) residents to be seven hundred eighty-six thousand eight hundred eighty-five and no/100 dollars ($786,885.00). This is approximately two hundred twenty-seven and 49/100 dollars ($227.49) per capita, excluding the Oak Park Heights' prison population. 7 • • • • 21. The City of Lake Elmo contacts for police protection with the Washington County Sheriffs Office. Lake Elmo has recently add its fourth (4th) deputy to its contract for a total cost for 1998 of two hundred nine thousand and 50/100 dollars ($209,000.50). The County provides as part of the contract, a full range of police services including investigations,patrol,canine patrol, and other special back-up services. Based on Lake Elmo's estimated 1998 population, this equals thirty-three and 83/100 dollars ($83.83)per capita for police protection. 22. Oak Park Heights provides fire protection to its residents through a contract with the City of Bayport. The Bayport Fire Department consists of twenty-four(24)volunteers. The Department responds to calls with one (1)tanker, two (2)pumpers and a pickup truck. From the Bayport Fire Station to the Subject Area is approximately seven(7)minutes and the Bayport Fire Station is approximately seven(7)miles from the Subject Area The Bayport Fire Department does not respond to rescue and medical calls unless requested to do so by the Lakeview Ambulance service. 23. Lake Elmo has two (2) fire stations and a fire department of thirty(30)volunteers. The Lake Elmo Fire Department responds to calls with a 1990 pumper rescue vehicle, a 1969 pumper, a 1987 tanker, a 1985 grass rig, 1989 rescue rig, 1980 pumper telesquirt, a 1994 rescue vehicle, 1993 command car and a 1997 pumper. Lake Elmo Fire Station#1 is 2.8 miles from the Subject Area. 24. The Lake Elmo Fire Department responds to all fire, rescue and medical calls within its service areas. All members of the Lake Elmo Volunteer Fire Department must pass the first responder course before they can become members of the department. The members include EMTs and paramedics. 8 • • 25. The City of Oak Park Heights provides road maintenance and snow plowing, mostly through a private contractor. According to its 1998 budget,projected costs for providing street maintenance and snow plowing was one hundred four thousand five hundred twenty-five and • no/100 dollars ($104,525.00) or thirty and 22/100 dollars ($30.22)per capita if you exclude the prison population. 26. The City of Lake Elmo has its own Public Works Department consisting of a maintenance supervisor and two (2)maintenance workers. According to the Lake Elmo proposed 1998 budget,projected costs for providing street maintenance and snow plowing and maintenance repairs for the City of Lake Elmo is one hundred seventy thousand nine hundred __ ._ fifty and no/100 dollars($170,950.00) or twenty-seven and 61/100 dollars ($27.61)per capita. 27. Since the City of Lake Elmo Public Works Department is already servicing the two (2) developments within Lake Elmo that are adjacent to the subject property,Y�Providin these . _.. - service's to the Subject Area would work efficiently into that schedule. 28. The City of Oak Park Heights provides a full-time administrator and two (2)full- time staff members and a full-time building official at its City Hall at 14168 - 57th Street North in the City of Oak Park Heights. The office hours are Monday through Friday. 29. The City of Lake Elmo employs a full-time administrator,a full-time planner, an assistant administrator, a full-time finance director, a full-time building official, full-time deputy clerk and two (2) full-time administrative support persons at its City Hall at 3800 Laverne Avenue North in the City of Lake Elmo. Its office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 30. The City of Oak Park Heights has elected not to have a separate Planning 9 • • • Commission and the Planning Commission functions of the City are performed by the City Council, itself,with the assistance of a consultant professional planner.. 31. The City of Lake Elmo has a five (5) member City Council, an eleven(11)member Planning and Zoning Commission, an eleven(11) member Parks Commission, a five (5)member Maintenance Advisory Committee, a five (5)member Solid Waste Advisory Committee,an eleven(11) member Village Commission overseeing development in the Historical City of Lake Elmo and an I-94 Task Force Committee. All committees are supported by administrative staff. 32. Since the Oak Park Heights Building Official is not as qualified to perform design approval and inspection functions on septic systems, the City of Oak Park Heights contracts with Washington County for that service. .33. The City of Lake Elmo's Building Official is qualified to design and inspect both • new and upgraded septic systems. '34. The City of Oak Park Heights has a Park and Trail System and is in the planning = stage for a twenty-five(25)acre park east of the Subject Area that will provide recreational fields, play structures and trails around a wetland complex. The City of Oak Park Heights has not presented plans that would demonstrate how its trail system would be extended across State Highway 5 for the provision of access from the Subject Area to the remainder of the City's Park - and Trail System. 35. The City of Lake Elmo currently has eight (8)parks ranging in size from approximately four(4)acres to two hundred seventy-five (275) acres in size and in addition, Lake Elmo Regional Park is located within the City of Lake Elmo consisting of two thousand two hundred (2,200) acres. All new parks within the City and all new developments are guided • 10 • • • • • • by the City's Comprehensive Park Plan. 36. Ambulance service within the City of Oak Park Heights, the Town of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo is provided through Lakeview Hospital located at 919 West Anderson Street in the City of Stillwater. The distance from the hospital to the Subject Area is approximately two (2)miles. Ambulance service would remain the same for the Subject Area whether the Subject Area remains in the Town or is annexed either by the City of Oak Park • • Heights or the City of Lake Elmo. 37. This Lakeview Hospital ambulance service is supported by the Lake Elmo Fire Department. 38. Lake Elmo Fire Department responds to all fire,rescue and medical calls and has trained EMTs and paramedics on its staff. • 39. Based upon the taxes payable in the year 1998, the market value of taxable property within the Town of Baytown was $115,050,040.00. The total tax capacity of the Town as $1,992,202.00 and the net tax capacity rate of the Town was 5.455°!0. 40. For the City of Oak Park Heights,the total taxable market value for the tax year payable 1998 was$238,182,700.00. The total tax capacity was $6,124,804.00 and the net tax capacity rate was 26.82%. 41. For the City of Lake Elmo, for the tax year payable 1998, the total market value of the City was $336,684,600.00. The tax capacity was $5,545,017.00 and the net tax capacity rate was 20.293%. 42. The bonded indebtedness for the City of Oak Park Heights for the tax year payable 1997 was $2,215,000.00. The Town of Baytown has no bonded indebtedness and the City.of 11 • Lake Elmo has a bonded indebtedness for the year payable 1997 of$650,000.00. 43. The Subject Area contains property that is in the Valley Branch Watershed District and in the newly formed Browns Creek Watershed District. Approximately fifty-one(51)acres in the southwest corner of the Subject Area is part of the Goetschel Pond Subdistrict of the Valley Branch Watershed District. Approximately twenty-three (23) acres in the southeast corner of the Subject Area is part of the Cloverdale/McDonald Subwatershed District of the Valley Branch Watershed District and approximately two hundred thirty-six(236)acres drains north into the City of Stillwater and is part of the Browns Creek Watershed District. 44. That both the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have ordinances or policies addressing surface water drainage concerns. That the Cloverdale and MacDonald Lakes in the Town of Baytown,the Goetschel Ponds in the City of Lake Elmo and the Browns Creek Watershed District would be impacted from urban development in the Subject Area. '45. That Valley Branch Watershed District classifies both Cloverdale and Goetschel Pond as category three (3)water bodies and as such,the Valley Branch Watershed District Water Management Plan requires that dead storage volume be developed which is greater than or equal to the run-off generated from a 1.5 inch twenty-four(24) hour storm over the entire contributing drainage area assuming full development. That a typical 2.5 acre lot in the Kern Center Development, which has fifty percent(50%) of its lot area covered with impervious surface, would need dead storage equal to about 0.20 acre feet under the Valley Branch Watershed District formula. 46. That the City of Lake Elmo regulations require 0.35 acre feet of dead storage for each acre of impervious surface. That a typical 2.5 acre lot in Kern Center Development,which has 12 • • fifty percent(50%) of its lot area covered with impervious surface,would require about 0.44 acre feet of dead storage under the Lake Elmo regulations. 47. That the additional dead storage required by the Lake Elmo regulations would allow time for cleansing storm water and additional volume reduction through infiltration. 48. That the increase in cleansing and the reduction in volume through infiltration is significant in this instance since both Cloverdale and McDonald Lakes and Goetschel Ponds are land locked with no reasonable outlet and the Browns Creek Watershed is now experiencing flooding in the downstream areas of Long Lake. 49. That historically,the Kern Center property drains southeasterly into the Valley Branch Watershed. That upon development upon the Kern Center in 1989,the drainage was allowed to be redirected northwesterly into the Brown's Creek Watershed. 50. The additional surface water forced into the Brown's Creek Watershed may elevate the temperature of Brown's Creek and,therefore, Brown's Creek might become less conducive for trout habitat. That development of the Subject Area, with increased storm water flow, whether into the sensitive and trout friendly watershed of the Brown's Creek or to the sensitive lakes of Goetschel Ponds and Cloverdale with no outlet, would be regulated under the development regulations of the City of Lake Elmo, with less damage to the environment. 51. That the Subject Area, being currently in the Town of Baytown, is subject to the zoning authority of the County of Washington under the Minnesota County Planning Act. 52. That Washington County adopted their current 2015 Comprehensive Plan on April 22nd, 1997. 53. That the Plan was adopted by Washington County after four(4) years of extensive I3 • • public involvement by citizens and elected officials in both cities and townships. That the Washington Plan was reviewed and commented favorably upon by the Metropolitan Council on October 24, 1996. 54. That the Subject Area was not shown in the Washington County Plan as a transition area since the transition area chosen for the Town of Baytown is located on the border of the City of Bayport and Baytown Township near the property proposed for the new Andersen Corporation facility. 55. That the transition area of the Town near the City of Bayport was chosen by the Washington County Plan because of the compatibility with surrounding land uses;because of the interest of Andersen Corporation and the plans of the City of Bayport to bring sewer and water into the new Andersen facility. 56. That the Washington County Comprehensive Plan land use for most of Baytown Township including the Subject Area is for rural development with an average zoned density of eight (8) lots per forty (40) acres. 57. That the County Plan recognized the Kern Center as planned for rural commercial and industrial uses and that no additional commercial or industrial uses are needed in the County. The County study concluded that while fourteen(14) square miles were planned and zoned for commercial/industrial land use in Washington County, only five hundred(500)to seven hundred forty (740) acres of commercial/industrial land use were needed in Washington County. 58. That the Washington County Plan was circulated to all communities in the County and County staff met with City Councils and Town Boards in Oak Park, Lake Elmo,and Baytown Township during the planning process. 14 • 59. That Washington County held two (2) public hearings on the Plan. One(1) before the Washington County Planning Commission and one (1) before the County Board. That Washington County received no formal comments from any of these three(3)communities and • Washington County interpreted this silence as concurrence with the proposed Plan. 60. That the City of Lake Elmo has adopted a Comprehensive Plan which was approved by the Metropolitan Council in 1992. That the City of Lake Elmo prepared a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on May 26, 1996, that was adopted after ten(10)months of study by the Lake Elrno Planning Commission, City Council, staff,residents and property owners of the City. That the Metropolitan Council reviewed and favorably commented upon the Lake Elmo plan in August of 1996 and the development proposed for the Subject Area by the City of Lake Elmo is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 61. That the City of Oak Park Heights has approximately one hundred forty-five(145) acres of residentially zoned vacant property within the current City without considering the Subject Area. That the one hundred forty-five (145) acres of vacant residentially zoned property within the City of Oak Park Heights is adequate to meet Metropolitan Council Blueprint population forecasts. 62. That urban residential development proposed by the City of Oak Park Heights of 2.5 • residential units per acre south of 55th Street on the Subject Area would be separated from other urban residential development in the City of Oak Park Heights by approximately one(1)mile. 63. That the land development in Oak Park Heights that would separate an urban neighborhood in the Subject Area from other urban areas in the City of Oak Park Heights. These commercial and institutional land uses would effectively form a barrier that would prevent social 15 •-• • interaction and communication among residents in the City of Oak Park Heights and residents in the Subject Area. 64. That the present pattern of physical development in the area demonstrates that the • Subject Area would be better served by being developed into uses and according to the development pattern of the City of Lake Elmo and the development pattern proposed for the Subject Area by Lake Elmo. 65. That State Highway 5 forming the easterly boundary of the Subject Area is a prominent physical barrier that will naturally separate the Subject Area from the community of - Oak Park Heights to the east. That no natural physical barrier exists between the Subject Area and the City of Lake Elmo. 66. That the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown have worked cooperatively beginning on July 11, 1994, when the Town of Baytown consented to the annexation of a part of the Town of Baytown to the City of Lake Elmo in order to facilitate the development of the Goetschel Farm which borders the Subject Area on the south. 67. That the Town of Baytown has conducted meetings with all of its adjacent neighbors to explore neighboring interest in consolidation or merger. That the Town has met with West Lakeland on March 20th and April 3nd, 1997, with the City of Lake Elmo on April 7th and April 25th, 1997, with the City of Bayport's Administrator on April 25th, 1997, and with the Administrator for the City of Oak Park Heights on April 28`h, 1997. That on July 7th, 1997, the Town Board of the Town of Baytown met and determined that continued discussions with the City of Lake Elmo would be most beneficial to the Town. 68. That on August 4th, 1997, the Town Board of Supervisors authorized the Chairman • 16 • • and Clerk to sign a Grant Application to secure money for the study of consolidation with the City of Lake Elmo through the Minnesota Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. 69. That on August 4, 1997,the Board of Supervisors agreed to the Orderly Annexation of the Subject Area lying to the City of Lake Elmo and at the same time adopted a resolution to enter into the consolidation study with the Town of Baytown. • 70. That on August 6, 1997,the Town Board of Supervisors reviewed and approved a Consolidation Steering Committee. 71. On September 25, 1997, the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown conducted . a community workshop with the general public to answer questions regarding the merger and more than one hundred forty-five(145)people were in attendance. 72. That the Town adopted a schedule to complete and review a Consolidation Agreement during the months of April and May, 1998; to conduct public hearings on the consolidation process and to answer public concerns at public meetings during July or August of 1998, and to place the consolidation agreement on the ballot for consideration by the voters at the general election scheduled for November 1998. 73. That even though commercial development has taken place in Kern Center,the development can be characterized as rural commercial since it has been planned and developed • into uses compatible with on-site sewer systems, and consistent with Town, County and Metropolitan Council plans and policies. 74. That the existing developed uses within the Kern Center have functioning on-site systems and wells and have never experienced failures or problems with either their septic systems or wells. That in addition, especially the Iarger developed parcels within the Kern 17 • • • Center such as the storage center, has no need for municipal services and would be adversely effected by either assessments for trunk facilities associated with municipal sewer or water or by the payment of any required connection fees or charges. 75. That when businesses in the Kern Center were established, owners did not anticipate the availability of urban sewer and water services and paid substantial sums for the installation of their own wells and septic systems. 76. That if the Subject Area were annexed to the City of Lake Elmo, its development as • proposed by the City would be consistent with the City of Lake Elmo's existing land use plan and consistent with the pattern of physical development in the adjacent area. 77. That the annexation of the Subject Area from the Town of Baytown to the City of Lake Elmo would not negatively impact School District#834. 78. The Subject Area is within the seven(7) county area where growth is guided by the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint. 79. That the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, as it applies to the Subject Area,does not . adequately reflect existing conditions and,therefore, needs to be redefined to reflect local factors effecting land use. 80. That annexation of the Subject Area to the City of Lake Elmo is not inconsistent with the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint based upon the application of sound and logical planning principles. 81. That Minnesota State Highway 5 is a visible, clearly recognizable physical feature that should serve as the boundary of Oak Park Heights. 18 • • • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. That the Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has jurisdiction of the within proceeding. 2. That the City of Lake Elmo can better provide the Subject Area with any necessary - governmental services. 3. That the best interest of the residents in the Subject Area will be better served by • annexation to the City of Lake Elmo. • 4. That the Town of Baytown can continue to survive without the Subject Area. 5. That the Minnesota Municipal Board issue an Order denying the annexation of the Subject Area to the City of Oak Park Heights and approving of the annexation of the Subject Area to the City of Lake Elmo. ORDER It is hereby ordered: 1. That the property described in these Findings be and the same are hereby annexed to , the City of Lake Elmo,the same as if it had originally been a part thereof. 2. It is further ordered that the effective date of this Order is January , 1998. Dated this day of January, 1998. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 235 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 Christine Scotillo, Its Executive Director 19 1 4 r Metropoli•n Council S Working for the Region, Planning for the Future armaiumilanstausiimint Office of General Counsel Writer's Direct Dial: (612)602-1108 Writer's Direct Fax: (612)602-1640 January 9, 1998 John S. McDonald,Esq. Lawson, Marshall & McDonald, P.A. 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Mark J. Vierling, Esq. Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff& Vierling 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 David T. Magnuson, Esq. Magnuson Law Firm The Desch Office Building " Suite 202 333 North Main Street Stillwater,MN 55082 Jerome Filla, Esq. Peterson, Fram& Bergman Suite 300 50 East Fifth Street ' St. Paul, MN 55101-1197 Re: Baytown Township/Oak Park Heights Annexation 1 MMB Case A-5821 Metropolitan Council's Brief To the Above-Named Attorneys: Enclosed is a copy of the Metropolitan Council's Brief delivered to the Minnesota Municipal Board. on January 9, 1997. Sincerely, Jeanne K.Matross Associate General Counsel JKM:Im Enclosures 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul.Minnesota 55 10 1-1634 (6121 291-6359 Fax 29I-6550 TDD/TlY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer • STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD DOCKET NO. A - 5821 OAK PARK HEIGHTS /BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP BRIEF OF - ANNEXATION METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO: MEMBERS OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD PETITIONERS, THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY: JOHN S. McDONALD CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY: MARK VIERLING BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY: DAVID MAGNUSON CITY OF LAKE ELMO, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEY: JERRY FELLA The Metropolitan Council, a party in the above named annexation proceeding before the State of Minnesota Municipal Board, respectfully submits the following brief in support of its position and testimony presented at the hearing held on the matter on November 24 and 25, 1997. - 1 - ' • S I. BACKGROUND AND COUNCIL POSITION ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. On July 30, 1997, the Minnesota Municipal Board ( MMB ) notified the Metropolitan Council of Proceeding A-5821, a Petition for Annexation of approximately 240 acres of unincorporated adjoining property to the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.031. The Petition had been submitted by • property owners in the area to be annexed. Subsequently, on August 25, 1997, the MMB notified the Metropolitan Council that a public hearing would be held on the Petition for Annexation on September 17, 1997. The property to be annexed was described in the Notice of Hearing as • All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range -. ,..20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater -- W- •- -- --- Boulevard also known as State Highway 5, _ Washington County, Minnesota. The hearing was subsequently scheduled by the M B for November 24, 1997. On October 2, 1997 the Metropolitan Council entered Proceeding No A-5821, on the ;__— basis that the Council has an interest that development of the land proposed to be annexed to Oak Park Heights be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy which shows the subject area as being urbanized in the future and that annexation be carried out in a manner that can most readily provide urban services to the subject land. Subsequently, at the hearing testimony was presented that the actual size of the proposed annexation area was 310 acres not 240 acres but that the above legal description -2 - • 1 ' x • • • of the proposed annexation area was correct. The Council's testimony presented at the hearing and this Brief are applicable to the property in the proposed annexation area as described in the above legal description. Subsequently at the hearing on the above annexation, Metropolitan Council presented oral testimony and written evidence to support its position on the proposed annexation. The Council's position consists of two main points: 1. Most of the area proposed for annexation is shown as urban reserve in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth Strategy for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Council expects area shown as urban reserve in its Regional Growth Strategy to urbanize between now and 2040. 2. There are significant existing regional and local public investments in the vicinity of the area proposed to be annexed which have been built in support of existing urbanization and in anticipation of expanding urbanization in the area to be annexed. The Council, as the responsible government agency for planning, coordinating and financing of regional wastewater treatment and transportation, must provide those services in an economical and efficient manner. Regional wastewater services can most efficiently and economically be extended to the annexation area from the east through the Oak Park Heights Sanitary Sewer Program. Therefore, the Metropolitan Council asks that the MMB make a decision on the proposed annexation that would: -3 - • . • 1. Support urbanization of the proposed area between now and 2040, as shown in the Council's Regional Growth Strategy; and 2. Support the most efficient and economical provision of regional wastewater treatment and transportation services to the area to be annexed. II. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COUNCIL'S ENTRY AS A PARTY INTO THE PROCEEDING Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.129 (1996) the Metropolitan Council may participate as a party in any proceeding originating before the Minnesota Municipal Board under Chapter 414, if the proceedings involve the change in a boundary of a governmental unit in the metropolitan area. In addition, the Council has entered into a Memorandum of Understandin g with the MMB (Council's Exhibit No 1)which specifically provides that in those instances where no comprehensive plan amendment has been submitted prior to the Board hearing, and the proceeding involves a potential impact on metropolitan systems or major policy inconsistency, the Council may enter the proceeding as a party. In this particular case, there are no current comprehensive plans or plan amendments submitted to the Council that reflect current Council policy with respect to the area proposed to be annexed by any of the parties to the proceeding, i.e. Baytow: Township, City of Oak Park Heights or City of Lake Elmo. -4 - • • Pursuant to its Memorandum of Understanding with the MMB, the Council, on September 25, 1997, authorized staff to take the necessary steps to enter Proceeding A- 5821 as a party to present testimony on the Council's Regional Growth Strategy. (Metropolitan Council's Exhibit No. 2). Consequently, the Council entered Proceeding A-5821 as a party on October 2, 1997, based upon its interest that development of the area proposed to be annexed be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy which shows the area as being urbanized in the future and its interest that the annexation be carried out in a manner that would allow the Council to provide regional services to • the area proposed to be annexed in an efficient, economical manner. Finally, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414.031, Subd. 4, the Municipal Board, in arriving at its decision with respect to annexation of unincorporated property, must consider the plans and policies of the Metropolitan Council, as well as land use controls and planning in the annexing municipality and subject area and whether there are any inconsistencies between proposed development and existing land use controls and reasons for such inconsistencies. In this annexation proceeding, pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes and its Memorandum of Understanding with the MMB, the Metropolitan Council has presented testimony and exhibits to the MMB on the consistency of the proposed annexation with the Council's plans and policies, specifically the Council's Blueprint and Regional Growth Strategy and its ability to provide regional services efficiently and - 5 - • • • economically, and is requesting that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.031, the MMB make a decision on the annexation that would support the Council's Regional Growth Strategy for the metropolitan region and the most economical and efficient provision of regional services to the area proposed to be annexed. III METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S POSITION ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION A. POINT NO. 1 MOST OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION IS SHOWN AS URBAN RESERVE IN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA. AS PRIMARILY AN URBAN RESERVE AREA, THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS URBANIZATION OF THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED BETWEEN NOW AND 2040 AND SUPPORTS EXTENSION OF URBAN SERVICES INTO THE AREA. . Pursuant to the Minnesota Statute 473.145, the Metropolitan Council must prepare .',w..— and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The comprehensive development guides is a compilation of policy statement, goals, ,> standards, programs and maps prescribing guides for the orderly and economical development, public and private, of the metropolitan area. The development guide must recognize and encompass physical, social or economic needs of the metropolitan area and those future developments which will have an impact on the entire area including such matters as land use, highways, and transit facilities. The Regional Blueprint(Metropolitan Council's Exhibit No. 3) is the comprehensive development guide for the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan area - 6- • • adopted by the Council in December 1996 pursuant to Minnesota Statute 473.145. The comprehensive development guide also contains four"policy plans" dealing with transportation, aviation, wastewater and regional recreational open space. The Regional Blueprint contains the Council's 2040 Regional Growth Strategy for the metropolitan region and contains the Council's population, household and employment forecasts for the region, updated as of March 1997. Essentially, the Regional Blueprint is the Council's action plan for the Twin Cities metropolitan region, with long and short term strategies for enhancing economic growth and development in the region, bolstering reinvestment, strengthening environmental -protection and building stronger local and regional communities. (reprint,p. 11). -Historically, in order to ensure orderly and economical development, the Council, - under previous comprehensive development guides,had divided the metropolitan region into two areas for planning purposes and established a boundary between the two - the , metropolitan urban service area boundary, known as the MUSA line. In one area, the urban service area, the Council supported urban growth and provided regional services, including central sewer and large-volume sewage treatment, higher capacity highway improvements, more closely spaced highway interchanges, mass transit and high levels of public services in general. Outside of the MUSA line, in the rural service area, urban development was discouraged. (Blueprint, p. 11). -7 - . . • i The Council has periodically updated the MUSA line to reflect development and provision of urban services in the region. The 1996 Update of the Regional Blueprint, while it preserves the Council's division of the metropolitan area into urban and rural areas for purposes of planning and provision of regional services, also contains a Regional Growth Strategy designed to serve the needs and goals of the region for the next 40 years. Before 1996 the Council projected population, household and employment growth for the metropolitan area for the next 20 years. The new forecasts indicate that the metropolitan region will have to accommodate 330,000 more households and 650,000 more people by the year 2020. After extensive public input through community meetings, public hearings and written communication and comments, on December 19, 1996 the Council adopted the Regional Growth Strategy as part of its Blueprint to accommodate this household and population growth in a way that meets the economic, , reinvestment, environmental and other goals in the Regional Blueprint. (Blueprint, p. 8). The Regional Growth Strategy is the selection of an urban growth and development pattern for the seven-county Twin Cities region and the identification of policies and actions needed to carry it out. The Council's Regional Growth Strategy is shown graphically on Metropolitan Council Exhibit No. 4, identified as the Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map. It identifies those parts of the Twin Cities metropolitan area that are "urban" (those areas - 8 - • within the Council's 2000 MUSA line), those parts of the region that are proposed to remain "rural" (those areas outside of the 2040 Urban Reserve Boundary), and an "urban reserve" area (the area between the year 2000 MUSA line and the 2040 Urban Reserve Boundary. The rural part of the region is divided into three subareas on the map: Permanent Rural Area, Permanent Agricultural Area, and Rural Growth Centers. The Permanent Rural area is an area with a mix of farm and nonfarm uses including low density residential uses (where densities do not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres). The Permanent Agricultural area is an area where commercial farming is proposed to remain the dominant use,where nonfarm uses will be minimized and where residential development will be very limited(where densities do not exceed 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres). Rural Growth Centers are smaller cities located in the rural areas that have municipal services but are not provided with regional urban-level services. Council policy encourages growth are urban densities (greater than 3 dwelling units per acre) within the ability of the local government to provide necessary municipal services. The urban part of the region is divided into two subareas: urban core and urban area.- The Urban Core is the downtown areas of Minneapolis and St. Paul, adjacent neighborhoods and a corridor linking the two. The Urban Area is the remainder of the region inside the Council's year 2000 MUSA line. • - 9 - • • The Urban Reserve area is that part of the region reserved for urbanization between 2000 and 2040. The area as shown on the map is expected to be large enough to accommodate urban development at least through 2040, perhaps longer if local communities inside the existing urban area and those with lands in the urban reserve increase residential densities as the Council encourages them to do. Until urban development within the area shown as urban reserve is imminent, local communities are expected to preserve the area for future urbanization by restricting residential development densities to 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. Council forecasts indicate that the region as a whole will need to accommodate 330,000 additional households and 650,000 additional people through the year 2020. If new development densities average 3 dwelling unit per acre (the Council's recommended minimum urban density), 110,000 acres will need to be developed by the year 2020 in orcer to accommodate the forecasted growth. Because part of the growth can occur on vacant lands inside the 2000 MUSA, it is expected that no more than 85,000 additional acres will need to be urbanized by 2020. A common misconception presented in testimony at the hearing by witnesses opposed to the annexation was that the urban reserve is a holding area for development • after the year 2020, and that urban services cannot be extended to the urban reserve until after 2020. - 10 - • The Council's witness, James Uttley, senior planner at the Council refuted such a limited view of the urban reserve. The Council expects that local communities will, through their local comprehensive plans, identify some parts of the urban reserve area as a post-2020 holding zone while planning for other areas to urbanize in an orderly, staged- growth fashion between 2000 and 2020. Any areas within the urban reserve proposed for urbanization in the short term must be adjacent to land that is already urbanized inside the 2000 MUSA, must have municipal and regional services available, and must be needed to accommodate growth forecasted to occur in the community. In sum, the Regional Growth Strategy is essentially a"fair share plan" - i.e. the Council expects all communities in the region to accommodate some of the projected growth in population and households. The Regional Growth Strategy consisting of an orderly progression of urbanization into areas directly adjacent to already urbani-:ed areas, as opposed to leapfrog urban development to outlying rural or agricultural areas, allows , for the most efficient and economical provision of urban services, such as regional sewers and transportation, which are paid for by the entire region. Such orderly urbanization also preserves the outlying areas as rural and agricultural. The area proposed to be annexed is within the Stillwater subregion. The adjoining Cities of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, and Bayport are part of the existing urban area and are served by existing regional and municipal services. The area proposed to be annexed by the petition before the MMB is adjacent to the urban. Approximately 80% of the area - 11 • • proposed for annexation is designated as urban reserve in the Council's Regional Growth Strategy. (Testimony of James Uttley, Metropolitan Council senior planner). The reasons for its designation as Urban Reserve in the Stillwater subregion are the same as the reasons for designation of the urban reserve in the rest of the metropolitan area. The Council expects the Stillwater subregion to accommodate "its fair share" of the projected population and household growth and the most efficient and economical way to provide regional services is to provide for orderly outward urbanization and ensuing services into areas directly adjacent to already urbanized, serviced areas, thus avoiding costly provision of services into outlying"leapfrog development" areas. Since the area proposed for annexation is within the Council's rban reserve,the ,Council supports urbanization of the area and asks the MMB to make a decision that is consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy. The Council has not taken a position on the annexation of the area to any particular city. Instead, the Council asks the MMB to make a decision which would ensure the urban development of the area proposed to be annexed between now and 2040. Given the level of urban development in the areas directly adjacent to the land in question, and the fact that certain regional services are readily available to the land in question, the Council supports urbanization of the area in the near future. Such urbanization would be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy. (Testimony of James Uttley, Metropolitan Council senior planner). - 12 - • • While a small portion of the area to be annexed is shown as Permanent Rural on the CounciI's Metro 2040 Regional Growth Strategy map, Mr. Uttley testified that its location between the Urban Reserve portion of the annexation area and adjacent ex-urban development areas south and southeast in Lake Elmo and Baytown Township (development areas of 2 1/2 acre lots with densities of 4 dwelling units per 10 acres or higher) makes this small area of Permanent Rural unrealistic. The Council expects that the exact location of the 2040 Urban Reserve boundary line will be negotiated with local communities where such inconsistencies exist. The Council implements its policies, including the Blueprint and the Regional Growth Strategy pursuant to its authority to review local comprehensive plans to - :.`determine their conformity with adopted system plans of the council. The Council may require a lc..al government unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. (M.S. 473.175). The Council's Regional Growth Strategy has been incorporated into the Council's Water Resources Management Plan (Council Exhibit No. 5) and the Transportation Plan (Council Exhibit No. 6`. Thus, the Council has the legal authority to require the local government, which will ultimately have jurisdiction over the land in question, to modify its comprehensive plan for the area if the local plan for the area is inconsistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy and such inconsistency - 13 - • has a substantial impact upon or contains a substantial departure from the Regional Growth Strategy as incorporated into the regional system plans. By December 31, 1998, all local government units - i.e. cities, counties, towns - must review their local comprehensive plans for consistency with the Council's metropolitan system plans, including the Council's Water Resources Management Plan and Transportation Plan (Council's Exhibits 5 and 6) and, if necessary, amend their plans to provide such consistency. If a comprehensive plan for the area proposed to be annexed did not allow for urbanization of the area between the present and 2040, it would not be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Plan. Under such circumstances, the Council could use its legal authority under M.S. 473.175 to require the local government to modify the plan. The Council did complete a review of a Baytown Township Comprehensive Plan (November 1996) and the Washington County Plan (October 1996) update in November, 1996. At that time the Council did allow Baytown Township and Washingtcn County to put the plans into effect without requiring a plan modification even though the plan was not consistent with regional policies. However the Council did inform Baytown that Baytown's plan for the area - i.e. single family estate and rural residential development at densities of 2 and 5 units per 10 acres was not consistent with the Council's Regional Blueprint Policies. (Metropolitan Council Exhibit 10). - 14 - I r • • Because the Council's Regional Growth Management Strategy was in draft form at the time of the Baytown Plan review, the Council did not require a modification of the Baytown Plan at that time. The local comprehensive plans for all the communities in the area will have to be updated by December 31, 1998 to make them consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.! Since the 1996 reviews however, the Council has incorporated the Regional Growth Strategy into its Water Resources Management and Transportation Systems Plans. The Council could now determine that a local plan for the area proposed to be :;annexed which is inconsistent with the Council's Growth Management Strategy - i.e. did not allow for urbanization of the area between now and 2040 - would have a substantial act im upon or be a substantial-impact p departure from either its Water Resources Manage::nent Plan or its Transportation System Plan (or both) and thus require a plan modification. B. POINT NO. 2. REGIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN THE VICINITY OF THE ANNEXATION AREA INCLUDING A NEW $38 MILLION HIGH SCHOOL LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE ANNEXATION • AREA, A NEWLY EXPANDED $15.5 MILLION REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT; AND A NEW $n MILLION HIGHWAY 36/HIGHWAY 5 INTERCHANGE AND BRIDGE, SUPPORT CONTINUED URBANIZATION OF THE STILLWATER SUBREGION AND THE ANNEXATION AREA. THE COUNCIL, THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING, COORDINATING AND FINANCING REGIONAL WASTEWATER AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, AND THE ACTUAL PROVIDER OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND TRANSIT SERVICES, MUST PROVIDE THOSE - 15 - • • • • SERVICES, WHICH ARE PAID FOR BY THE ENTIRE METROPOLITAN REGION, IN AN ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT MANNER. The Council's Water Resources Management Plan, adopted in December 1996 (Metropolitan Council. Exhibit 5) is a part of the metropolitan development ghide mandated by Minnesota law. (Minn. Stat. 473.175). It incorporates the Regional Growth Strategy (Water Resources Management Plan, pp. 9-17). Under the Water Resources Management Plan, wastewater service will be extended only to support development which is part of the urban reserve area and which is recognized in an approved local comprehensive plan. The Council's Stillwater Treatment Plant, which serves the cities of Bayport, Stillwater,.and Oak Park Heights, was recently expanded and upgraded and has the .capacity to serve the area proposed for annexation as well as the forecasted growtl-. in the area through 2010. It is proposed to be expanded around 2010 to accommodate future urban growth in the area. (Water Resources Management Plan,pp. 69-70, testimony of Council's witness, James Uttley). The most efficient and cost effective way for the Council to provide the area proposed to be annexed would be from the east- i.e. by extension of the Oak Park Heights sanitary sewer system into the area. The Oak Park Heights system connects to the Council's regional system and ultimately is connected to the Stillwater Plant. Sewer Service to the area to be annexed through the Oak Park Heights local system could be - 16- • • accomplished by another government entity through an agreement with Oak Park Heights, as well as by the City of Oak Park Heights itself. Urbanization of the area proposed to be annexed is consistent with the Council's Water Resources Management Plan. The urbanization of the area proposed for annexation would also be consistent with the Council's Transportation Plan adopted by the Council in December 1996. (Metropolitan Council Exhibit 6). Significant regional transportation investments have been made near the area proposed for annexation which anticipate continued urbanization of the subregion and the annexation area. The annexation area has immediate access to the regional highway and transit systems. Trunk Highway 36, located immediately north of the property, is a four-lane divided expressway :and classified as a principal arterial on the regional highway system. (Metropolitan Council Exhibit 7). It serves as the principal travel route for vehicles traveling between Minneapolis and Stillwater and points in Wisconsin. The Trunk Highway 36 and Trunk, Highway 5 interchange is in the process of an $8 million improvement funded through ISTEA funds. The improvement was sized to reflect continued urbanization of the Stillwater subregion and prioritized for ISTEA funding on that basis. The grade- separated interchange provides motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access for the annexation area to the new shopping center on the north side of Trunk Highway 36, as well as the direct access to bus service at a park and ride lot approximately % north of . Trunk Highway 36. (Metropolitan Council Exhibit No. 8). Metro Transit, a division of - 17 - • • Metropolitan Council,provides regional bus service between Stillwater and downtown St. Paul. (Metropolitan Council Exhibit No. 11). Based upon the level of regional services provided to the area, the Council • supports urbanization of the property to be annexed and asks the Minnesota Municipal Board to make a decision on the proposed annexation that would support urbanization of the property. 4111� JA e K. Matross Attorney Registration No. 68615 Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 (6 12) 602-1108 ATTORNEY FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • 18 - Il • LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff ( Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Eokberg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs* FAX (612) 439-2923 Urosh Piletieh,t Mark J. Vierling* Gregory G. Gaper* Paul A. Wolff Thomas J. Weidner* (1944-1996) *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator& Mediator Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator *Certified Real Estate Specialist January 14 , 1998 C © E Oq Judy Holst City Administrator # 5 1998 JO City of Oak Park Heights 1 P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Judy: Enclosed herewith please find a copy , a l: tter received from Attorney John S . McDonald dated Januar 9, 199 , along with a copy of a Memorandum and Amended Petitio Pleas-- call me if you have any questions . eur- ve tr __ , Mark J. Vierling MJV/alg Enclosure v !► i LAWSON, MARSHALL, MCDONALD & GALOWITZ. P.A. LAWYERS RAYMOND O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH JOHN scar!. MCDONALD LAKE ELMO. MINNESOTA 55042 TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH TELEPHONE: (612) 777-6960 OF COUNSEL ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (6I2) 777-8937 ROOERICK A. LAWSON C 0 py January 9, 1998 Ms. Christine Scotillo Executive Director MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St. Paul, MN 55108 Re: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Dear Ms. Scotillo: Enclosed for filing in the above matter please find our Memorandum and Amended Petition. We have adopted the proposed Findings submitted by the City of Oak Park Heights as our proposed Findings. Sincerely, John S. McDonald JSM:mas Enclosures cc: Mr. David Screaton Ms. Judith Screaton Mr. Jerry Filla Mr. Mark Vierling Mr. David Magnuson A-5821/Oak Park BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair David Engstrom Ex-Officio Member Dennis Hegberg Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND MEMORANDUM TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS OF PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 414 JURISDICTION This proceeding was initiated on July 29, 1997 by filing of a petition of more than 20% of the landowners in the following described property: All that part of Section Six(6),Township Twenty-Nine(29)North,Range Twenty(20) West, lying west of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd., also known as State Highway 5, Washington County,Minnesota for annexation of that property,which currently lies within Baytown Township, to the City of Oak Park Heights.The petition was supported by the Resolution of the City of Oak Park Heights. OVERVIEW The Petitioners originally brought this proceeding to have property presently located in Baytown Township, Washington County, Minnesota annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights in Washington County,Minnesota. Subsequently due to actions by Baytown Township and the 1 • City of Lake Elmo the issue changed to whether the subject property should be annexed to Oak Park Heights or Lake Elmo. According to the testimony of the Baytown clerk the Orderly Annexation Agreement between Baytown and Lake Elmo will require the subject property to be annexed to Lake Elmo if it is not annexed to Oak Park Heights or Lake Elmo as a result of the Petition in this matter. The subject property consists of approximately 310 acres and is bounded on the east by State Highway 5 and on the north by Highway Hi h 36. Much of the 310 acres is Y right of way for State Highways 5 & 36 or is taken up by other public or quasi-public easements resulting in only about 240 to 250 acres available for private use. Much of the northerly portion of the subject property is platted as Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition. The Kern Center plats contain lots with already existing uses,(e.g. car dealership, office building, storage facility and miniature golf) and many lots that are zoned for commercial use but have not yet been developed. Also within the property described in the petition is approximately 150 acres of land which could be used for residential development. The only practical extension of municipal sewer and water services to the subject property is from the City of Oak Park Heights facilities. The present residential and commercial uses within the subject area are served by wells and septic systems. The parties were informed prior to the hearing that public comment would be taken at the conclusion of the hearing but that the comment would not be weighed as heavily as testimony, at least in part due to the lack of opportunity for cross examination. It is important to note that not one single property owner within the subject area testified in support of annexing the subject area to Lake Elmo. The lack of testimony is important because each of the four subject 2 area property Y owners who gave comment nt at the close of the hearing indicating they favored annexation to Lake Elmo, cited their opposition to assessments for sewer and water improvements. Had cross examination of those commenters been permitted they could have been asked about their knowledge of Oak Park's proposal to collect such assessments only in the event the property was connected to city services. It is also noteworthy that the township submitted a statement dated October 15, 1997 ( Exhibit V) which was allegedly signed by six of the eight owners of existing buildings in the Kern Center developments. Assuming that this was actually signed by the owners (there was no testimony as to who witnessed this or how the signatures were obtained) it still can not be presumed that the document expresses their feelings as of the date of the hearing. Only two of the owners listed gave comment at the hearing and none testified. There were many discussions between the involved communities and the owners prior to the hearing date and presumably those owners still having a preference after the discussions would have appeared at the hearing to express their views. At least six property owners within the subject area testified in support of annexation of the subject area to Oak Park Heights. The six owners testifying in favor of annexation of the subject area to Oak Park Heights owned approximately 116 acres of the approximately 150 acres of the subject area which is in residential or agricultural use , one of the commercial buildings, and most of the undeveloped commercial lots within Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §414.031, subd. 4 the Municipal Board shall consider factors (a) - (n) discussed below, in determining whether to grant a proposed annexation. 3 • • DISCUSSION OF STATUTORY FACTORS (a) Present population and number of households,past population and projected population growth of the subject area and adjacent units of local government. The population projections for the affected communities based on the Metropolitan Council projections are set forth at page 7 of the Oak Park planner's report (Exhibit 5) and at Page 1 of the Baytown planner's report(Exhibit J). It is worth remembering when considering these projections that the actual growth rate in Washington County is substantially greater than the rate assumed by the Metropolitan Council when the projections were made. Jane Harper,the Washington County Planner, acknowledged that growth in the county was occurring at a much faster rate than the rate on which population estimates for post year 2000 were based. Oak Park Heights had only 17 available residential lots at the time of the hearing and only about 120 acres of land which could be developed in the future. That acreage was owned by one family which has not made the land available for development. Oak Park Heights has recently lost 65 to 70 low to moderately priced residential units due to condemnation by the State of Minnesota for the proposed St. Croix crossing. On the other hand according to the Lake Elmo city planner's testimony Lake Elmo had between 200 and 300 already platted lots available and an additional 4200 acres of land available for residential development. Clearly Lake Elmo's interest in the subject property is not based on any need for additional acreage but is an attempt to cut off any future growth of Oak Park Heights. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by Baytown Resolution 728-97-01 4 • • (Exhibit G)which states in part, "Whereas the Town of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo have indicated an interest in exploring consolidation to prevent the urbanization of the two communities, both (sic)which have a strong desire to remain rural in character and to provide for non-sewered development " (emphasis added). (b) Quantity of land within the subject area and adjacent units of local government; and natural terrain including recognizable physical features,general topography, major watersheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers, lakes and bluffs; The acreages in Baytown and Oak Park Heights are addressed at page 7 of the Oak Park planner's report(Exhibit 5). The need of each municipality for land is addressed in the preceding paragraph. The eastern portion of the subject property is quite flat with more sloping and vegetation on the westerly edges. Although the property lies within the Valley Branch Watershed District there was general agreement that the northern portion of the property drained to the newly formed Browns Creek Watershed District. Discussion of drainage issues accounted for a substantial part of the testimony at the hearing. There was testimony and public comment from the public and some professionals concerning the possible impact of more dense development on the subject property on residents of the Cloverdale Lake and McDonald Lake areas of Baytown Township. The Oak Park Heights engineer and the Lake Elmo engineer disagreed about whether there would be any significant impact to Cloverdale Lake and McDonald Lake levels if the subject property developed at a density of 3 units per acre. In a report offered by Baytown's attorney however, the Valley Branch Watershed District engineer stated, "It appears there will 5 • • be some impact on the water levels in Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes and Goetschel Ponds resulting from this annexation,but it is not expected to increase the problems of these lakes beyond the current situation. (Exhibit N).(emphasis added). The complaints and petitions from homeowners in the Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes area dealt with drainage into their lakes from the construction of the new Senior High School and a commercial area directly across Highway 5 from the subject area. McDonald Lake is a dead end repository and the may be problems with the water level from future development in Baytown which is growing quickly in the immediate area at 2 '/2 acre density. The only solution to these problems however this matter is resolved is to establish an outlet from McDonald Lake. Based on the Valley Branch report it appears that the attempt to connect the requested annexation to increased water levels in those lakes is a red herring designed to mask the true motivation for resistance by some surrounding property owners- that being their objection to reasonably priced housing near an area where, according to Baytown's witness Mr. Buxell "it is pretty hard to put a house of less than $550,000.00 value on lots with these prices." A large part of the non-commercial property within the subject area is relatively flat land which has been farmed since the mid 1980's by David Screaton. Mr. Screaton described the problems associated with transporting farm equipment down Highway 5 and it appears that it is no longer practical to farm this property even though Mr. Screaton wants to continue farming at some location. Major physical features of the property include Highways 5 & 36 which are four lane divided highways (Highway 5 narrows to two lanes at the southerly end of the subject property). Although it was contended by the Baytown-Lake Elmo witnesses that Highway 5 would create a physical barrier between Oak Park and the subject area if annexed, it is interesting 6 • to note that downtown Lake Elmo is divided by the same Highway 5 and Oak Park Heights is presently serving property on both sides of Highway 36. According to the Oak Park planning report the soils in the area are primarily Antigo- Comstock and Hayden-Nessel-Dundas. The Antigo-Comstock soils are rapidly permeable and while good for building sites are less favorable for septic systems due to rapid permeability. While that does not mean that septic systems could not be constructed in the area there is a clear advantage from a groundwater pollution standpoint to municipal sewer and water availability. (c) Degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the annexing municipality and the subject area. The subject property is contiguous to Lake Elmo on the West Side and on the short south side. It is contiguous to Oak Park on most of the East side which is the longest side since it is a diagonal line. Although there is more contiguous footage with Lake Elmo the difference is not substantial. (d)Present pattern of physical development, planning, and intended land uses in the subject area and the annexing municipality including residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural and institutional land uses and the impact of the proposed action on those land uses; The present pattern of development in the subject area is that of commercial use in the Kern Center areas and agricultural and residential use on the remainder of the property. 7 In the event that the property is annexed to Oak Park Heights the southerly portion of the subject area is planned for residential development at an overall density of approximately 3 units per acre. Due to the topography the westerly portion of the subject property would probably be developed with lower density residential development. At this time neither Lake Elmo or Oak Park Heights has taken steps to amend their Comprehensive Plan to include the subject property. Lake Elmo and Baytown argued that if this property is annexed to Oak Park Heights the intent of the recently completed Washington County Comprehensive Plan, which provided for 5 acre density in the residential portion of the subject area, will be thwarted. Of course, if the property is annexed to Lake Elmo the intent of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan will also be thwarted since Lake Elmo's planner testified the subject property would be treated in the same manner as the other recent cluster developments which allow approximately 16 units per 40 acres plus some bonuses (See Exhibit Q). Furthermore, the annexation of the subject property to Oak Park Heights is consistent with the Metropolitan Council regional plan for the area.Most of the subject property is shown as urban reserve on the regional blueprint. The Metropolitan Council planner, James Utley testified that it would be consistent with the Metropolitan Council plan to have sewer and water services extended to all the subject property even though the regional blueprint showed the extreme southern most portion of the property as rural reserve. He stated that the reason it was consistent was that the rural reserve designation for the southern most portion of the property was intended to preserve property for truly rural use and due to development in adjoining areas of Baytown and Lake Elmo being one unit per 2.5 acres or even less in Lake Elmo's cluster developments there was no reasonable chance of keeping the subject property truly rural. Therefore, if the subject area is annexed to Lake Elmo the regional planning 8 done by the Metropolitan Council will be thwarted since the land will not be preserved for urban use but will be developed at density similar to the present Lake Elmo cluster developments (2.5 acres or less). Mr. Utley also pointed out that failing to use property designated for extension of sewer and water in that manner is a waste of tax dollars since taxpayers have already paid for improvements to the regional waste treatment plant and infrastructure costs like the new Highway 5 bridge overpass over Highway 36. If urban services aren't extended into areas planned for those services the homes that would have gone there will have to go somewhere else resulting in urban sprawl. The subject area has two adjacent four lane highways,a booming commercial area on both sides of Highway 5, a huge high school on the east and sewer and water available for extension. It makes more planning sense to allow urban expansion into this area than to force it into some other area which may truly be rural. Of course it is easy to sit back and say that urban services should be extended somewhere else. It is not surprising that some area residents in exclusive homes would prefer to see urban expansion somewhere else. Washington County is growing much faster than even the Metro Council projections and the growth is going somewhere. The characteristics of this site are why the Metropolitan Council thought that some of the growth should be accommodated in the subject area. The Metropolitan Council can evaluate this issue without the bias held by the other parties to this action. Clearly it is the plan of Lake Elmo and Baytown to contain Oak Park Heights within its existing borders. While it is understandable that people with expensive homes want other expensive homes around them it is not good policy to choke off a community that has the ability to develop property for moderately priced homes. Clearly the subject area is more suitable for 9 • • urban development than the area along Oak Park Heights southern border with Baytown where II there are no major highways, commercial areas or high schools. In any event since Lake Elmo and Baytown readily acknowledge that they are pursuing consolidation of the two communities this may be the only chance for Oak Park Heights to obtain property for residential development. David Screaton and Betty Smith testified that they are already receiving offers from developers interested in purchasing their land for residential development so it appears that the demand for housing in the subject area is already present. It will never be available for urban style development in Lake Elmo, a community that has vigorously fought the extension of sewer at every opportunity. The only sanitary sewer in Lake Elmo is in the extreme southwestern corner of the city more than five miles away from the subject area. (e) The present transportation network and potential transportation issues, including proposed highway development. The property is served by four lane highways on the north and east sides except that Highway 5 narrows to two lanes at the southern end of the east side. Washington County is considering extending Manning Avenue to the south which would contribute to the urbanization of the subject property. There is an MTC bus stop adjacent to the Screaton property on the west side of Highway 5. Jim Utley testified concerning improvements made at the Highway 5- Highway 36 interchange recently to demonstrate how regional money was being invested in the subject area to allow for growth. Whether the subject property is annexed to Oak Park Heights or to Lake Elmo new accesses will have to be built to allow residential traffic to enter Highway 5. The design of the interior streets will be controlled by subdivision review within the annexing 10 • • r . city. Again the arguments made by Baytown and Lake Elmo were that more development creates p e tes more traffic. While that is certainly true it avoids the real question. Is anticipated growth better able to be served by the subject property than some other site where growth will otherwise c o cur. With two major highways adjacent to the subject property and the possible extension of Manning Avenue on the west side this property is well situated to accommodate growth. (f) Land use controls and planning presently being utilized in the annexing municipality and the subject area,including comprehensive plans for development in the area and plans and policies of the Metropolitan Council, and whether there are inconsistencies between proposed development and existing land use controls and the reasons therefor; The residential portion of the subject area is presently zoned for one home per 5 acres by Baytown Township. Washington County's comprehensive plan and Baytown's comprehensive plan reflect that zoning. While Baytown and Lake Elmo argued that annexation to Oak Park Heights would be inconsistent with the recently revised county and township comprehensive plans the fact is that Lake Elmo's proposed land use for the area is also inconsistent with those plans. Oak Park Heights has the ability to serve the property with urban services which is consistent with the Metropolitan Council plan for this area.Lake Elmo's proposed land use is not consistent with present comprehensive plans or with the Metropolitan Council regional growth blueprint. Although the portion of the subject property which has been owned for decades by Betty Smith and her family falls just outside the line urban reserve line on the Metropolitan 11 I II Council regional growth blueprint, Jim Utley testified that it was consistent with the blueprint to have all the subject area served with municipal sewer and water. His opinion was based on the fact that the property would otherwise be classified as permanent rural and due to the surrounding development in Baytown and Lake Elmo the chance to keep the property truly rural was already gone. Mr. Utley also stated that the Metropolitan Council preferred to see the annexation issues decided prior to reviewing comprehensive plan amendments by the annexing community. It is interesting to note that Washington County's policy is not to allow new commercial development in areas without sanitary sewer. The plats of Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition were essentially given grandfather rights and are an exception to this policy. Obviously the county has determined that commercial areas are better served when municipal sewer and water is available. Lake Elmo is not able to serve these commercial areas with municipal sewer and water. Annexation of this area to Oak Park Heights is an opportunity to bring this commercial area up to the same standards as the rest of the county. (g) Existing levels of governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the subject area, including water and sewer service,fire rating and protection,law enforcement, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational facilities and the impact of the proposed action on the delivery of said services; Oak Park Heights is clearly in the best position to provide governmental services to this 12 • property. It has sewer and water services available for extension across Highway 5. Lake Elmo has no sewer and water available anywhere near the subject property. In fact Lake Elmo proposes community septic systems for its clustered developments and has no sewer available even in the densely developed "old village." While it is true that the Lake Elmo fire department is slightly closer to the subject area than the Bayport Fire Department(which serves Oak Park Heights and presently serves all of Baytown Township) there are several more important factors that should be weighed in determining which community can provide better fire protection to the subject area. Lake Elmo has no fire hydrants within several miles of the subject area and therefore tankers would have to be refilled from some other source. There was also testimony that it is not practical to put automatic sprinkler systems into buildings where there is no municipal water service available. The commercial building uses existing or proposed in Kern Center include child care, alternative learning programs for the high school and general office and retail space. Automatic sprinkler systems would be an important safety enhancement for these users. The only municipal water service in Lake Elmo is miles from the subject area and could not practically be extended to serve the subject area. Over the years Baytown Township has chosen to contract with Bayport for fire protection for the whole township. There was testimony that the availability of hydrants would allow for a lower fire insurance rating than would be available for the same area without hydrants. Oak Park Heights has its own police department while Lake Elmo contracts for services with the Washington County Sheriff. On average the Lake Elmo contract provides for one officer 13 • • on patrol in the city on a full time basis (24 hour coverage). Oak Park has more man hours of coverage and often has an officer located at the High School which is directly across Highway 5 from the subject area. There are no significant differences in the ability of the two cities to provide road maintenance, recreational facilities and administrative services to the subject area. (h) Existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve those problems. Large parts of Baytown Township approximately one mile from the subject area are under a well advisory caused by groundwater pollution possibly emanating from a site at the Lake Elmo airport. The soils in the area allow rapid permeation. While septic systems may be used in the subject area there is clearly less potential for environmental problems due to development if the residences and commercial buildings constructed in the subject area have municipal sewer and water. Washington County felt so strongly about the potential for pollution in unsewered areas that it adopted a policy of not allowing new commercial uses in unsewered areas. (I)Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the subject area Oak Park Heights has planned for the extension of water and sewer to the subject area. 14 • • Additional capacity was put into the lines serving new commercial development in Oak Park Heights on the east side of Highway 5 which will allow sewer extension to the entire subject area. Oak Park has a water main at 58th St. with sufficient capacity to serve the subject area. Lake Elmo has no available sewer and water and no plans to provide such utilities. Oak Park Heights also controls its own police department and has the flexibility to assign officers to the subject area as needed. The Bayport fire department which already serves the subject area would continue to do so if the area is annexed to Oak Park Heights. The service that department is able to provide however will be greatly enhanced by the availability of hydrants. (j) An analysis of the fiscal impact on the annexing municipality,the subject area, and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness, and the local tax rates of the county, school district and township; An analysis of this factor is set forth in the report submitted by the Oak Park Heights planner. It shows that there will be no significant adverse fiscal impact on Oak Park Heights or Baytown if the subject area is annexed to Oak Park Heights. Neither the Lake Elmo administrator's re ort or the Baytown planner's s re ort appears to have addressed this issue. (k) Relationship and effect of the proposed action on affected and adjacent school districts and communities; There was no testimony that there would be any adverse impact on the local school district (834) whether the property is annexed to Lake Elmo or Oak Park Heights. While the 15 • population in the subject area will presumably be greater in the future if the area is annexed to Oak Park Heights it must be assumed that growth in the county will be located somewhere if not in this area. Planning for growth in this area, which is directly across Highway 5 from the High School can only decrease the transportation cost for the district compared to where growth would otherwise occur. Some neighborhood groups in Baytown submitted petitions opposing the Oak Park Heights annexation but the basis of the objection was related to fear of increased lake levels on Cloverdale and McDonald lakes and the Valley Branch Watershed District engineers report stated that those lake levels would not be affected by development of the subject area if annexed to Oak Park Heights. (1)Adequacy of town government to deliver needed services to the subject area; This factor is not relevant in light of Baytown's position that the property will be annexed to Lake Elmo by agreement if it is not annexed to Oak Park Heights by this proceeding. (m)Analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through the proposed action or another type of boundary adjustment; and Municipal sewer and water are necessary government services and can best be provided through annexation of the subject area to Oak Park Heights. (n)If only part of the township is annexed, the ability of the remainder of the 16 • • township to continue or the feasibility of it being incorporated separately or being annexed to another municipality. This factor is not relevant in view of Baytown's position that the property will be annexed to Lake Elmo by agreement if it is not annexed to Oak Park Heights by this proceeding. However the Baytown clerk did testify at the hearing that Baytown could feasibly operate as a township despite the loss of the subject area. Dated this 8th day of January, 1998 Respectfully submitted, // 101'111S. McDonald(70063) LAWSON,MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioners 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Telephone: (612) 777-6960 17 . c t ' • • IN THE MATTER OF THE AMENDED PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.031 ,TO: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St . Paul, MN 55108 The Minnesota Municipal Board is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on the question of annexing certain property to the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The petitioner for annexation is: The City of ; or, The Township of ; or, X 201; of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. There are 24 property owners in the area proposed for annexation. The number of owners who have signed this petition is 8 . The number of petitioners required by M.S . 414 . 031 to commence a proceeding is 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows : See attached Exhibit "A" . , f • 1. The petitioners have submitted a copy of this petition to the affected Township of Baytown on April 22, 1997 . 2 . The area proposed for annexation abuts the city on the city' s West boundary thereof, and none of it is presently a part of any incorporated city or in an area designated for orderly annexation. 3 . The total acreage of the area proposed for annexation is : 310 . 4 . The petitioners believe that all of this property is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. 5 . The reason for requesting the annexation is : The property needs extension of sewer and water services which cannot be provided by Baytown Township. 6 . Parties entitled to notice under Minnesota Statutes 414 .09 are : See attached Exhibit "B" . 7 . If this petition is by property owners, a copy of a resolution from the City of Oak Park Heights, the annexing municipality, supporting the annexation is attached -hereto. 1 • / 2k Dated: ..-5;..e14.44y 4 , 199' DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP By / `) David R. Screaton, Partner / _ B�e,,�,:.G f eec 6? � 'J 6Judith Screaton, Partner OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation By Its (res;d „} Bettymith LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. By ! :� I,t S r ,a s. A.L.K. P'.'TNERSHIP It-VPartner / ederick e er `Bernard W. Nass I?!% 1 oella Na s Calvin J. Brookman 01406/98 18:15 BROOKFIELD II + 19417685322 NO.752 Pegg • • • 15�Y Dated: 193-7. DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP By David R. Screaton, Partner By Judith Screaton, Partner OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation By Its Betty Smith LOW &c ASSOCIATES, INC. By Its A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP By _. Its Partner Frederick Kemper Bernard W. Naas Loella Nass Ca 1/4.;74.(4 , vin J. Arookman I i R.84% 6 :y 1:-17-- _ - �•_ ;74�..1,4 P • ar EXHIBIT "A" All that part of Section 5, T cwrship 29 North, Range 20 Nes- ' Yi"c westerly o the centerline cStillwater Blvd. also C=Cv:_aS State Hichway 5, Washington County, neo • • • • • • • Air 410 EXHIBIT � a TCW< OF 3_22W z . a=. __Z L. St . C.__. , Cl =k 14:43 - 10th s : North St' llwater, 33083 • 22 3 CF 7.27.11 171MC EQe4.=-e- &6z'=' s-=acr 33CC Ear e A7enue \c\=5 lake Elmo, Minnesota 53042 52 29&223 TO 337 - �I- 2 a2�5£ Elate_ ' 1 '1 : - 90th North _= 2lwate=, MLzzescca 35082 C` 3 CF 3332 =5 I2te£ei, A.s£z££t=£tc= 2i. /c rte 4th 3253= S=" : wale=, y` --a£c. SO2 58 W11=F GTCE cczr 3 James Sc.uc, Administrator 14900 - 61st Street 7c--5 St, : 7wate=, Minnesota 8`082 9- "F' NGTON COUNTY PLANNTWG cCMMTSS C« 3z£ . McGinnis, Chairman 14900 - Elst Street North St' ' lwace=, Minnesota 55082 • SA C 121=11N «G CC iISSICN Dee £s Tre=3a, Chairman 14I0S Ncrz. 4S=2 Str,At Stilliwater, Minnesota 53082 y=77.00 CLITAT CO i II Kurt Johnson, Chairman 230 Sast Fifth Street St . Paul, Minnesota 55101 • Enclosure 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97- 0 7 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.R. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOICviAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY • TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 .031 WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights is a city incorporated under the general laws of the State of Minnesota, and has more than 3 , 776 inhabitants and, the present territory included in the city limits contains 1, 679 acres; WHEREAS, there is adjacent to the City of Oak Park Heights a tract of land containing approximately 240 acres, of which more than 20% of the owners have petitioned the City of Oak Park Heights for annexation of said property to the City of Oak Park Heights; WHEREAS, the boundaries of said territory proposed for annexation are described as : All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County; WHEREAS, the names of all parties entitled to notice under section 414 . 09 are included in Exhibit "A" hereto attached; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and petitioning property owners recognize that the area continues to develop as an urban industrial/commercial area with the potential for commercial and • • suburban residential development, and that the city of Oak Park Heights will need additional land in the near future to accommodate commercial, industrial, single family and multiple family development; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and the petitioning property owners contend that a municipal form of government will best protect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the City has capacity to provide municipal water and sanitary sewer service which are not currently provided by the Township. WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has its own police force adequately equipped to serve the subject area as opposed to the Township which now relies on the Washington County Sheriff's Department for police protection; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heignts and petitioning property owners agree that the area would best be served under the jurisdiction of Oak Park Heights . The area, with its high visibility and access off of State Highways 36 and 5, is appropriate for mixed land use of commercial, light industrial, and single/multiple family development at urban standards; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights invited Baytown Township Officials to confer and negotiate with the City about the possibility of pursuing an orderly annexation to the benefit of both the Township and the City of Oak Park Heights affecting the property under consideration for annexation; and, • • WHEREAS, it appears that Baytown Township is not interested in negotiating an orderly annexation of the subject property to address the interests of affected property owners of the Township and the City. • NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights that the boundaries of the City of Oak Park Heights, State of Minnesota, be extended so as to include and incorporate within the city limits of the City of Oak Park Heights the above described property, the same being a logical extension of the City of Oak Park Heights for the purposes of land use control, planning, providing municipal services, and assuring orderly development . NOW THEREFORE, IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Oak Park Heights hereby support the petition of property owners seeking annexation of the affected lands as described above to the City of Oak Park Heights . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Oak Park Heights commits to continue to be willing to consider orderly annexation agreements and invites Baytown Township to join in an orderly annexation agreement as it affects the subject property and other lands within Baytown Township adjacent to Oak Park Heights municipal boarders. • S Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this aZ day of July, 1997. -1/ZI4e David Schaaf Mayor ATTEST: 2 // f thae l J/R« .-'tson City Adxrnistrator • it %. - 410 ! EXHIBIT A TOWN OF ?A YTC:vTi Pat-4 -" e L. St . Cla_r� - 30th SCre �Tc�-h Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • Cr= OF LAKE EL MC Ma r-7 :due;_.. _ :atcr 38CC Laverne Avenue No,-t . Lake __uC, M:..7-:es CCa 53042 5T=_ . . ATzR. TO Ns :p • San...._, Clerk 261 - 90th St, er, VCr J St.i__water, Minnesota 55082 CT"'"; C= S^-:.:�:�;vim --- 1TER C iPsee._, AC:i _ i st,.r=tor 2L ,\TC.r h Qt_ Str=.m_,. Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WA C_=NC_'CN CO'CI James Sch LTC, Administrator 14900 - 61st Street Nor` Stillwater, Minnesota_ 55082 W s:==NGTON COUNTY pr_ANN:NG COMMISSION 3r_a _ McGinnis, Chairman _4900 - 61st Street Ncrtt' St_ water, Minnesota 55082 3 A YTCGvN ?LINING COMMISSION D erni s Trenda, Chairman 14105 North 15th Street • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Kurt Johnsen, Chairman 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 . • LAW OFFICES OF Ecicberg. Lammers. Bri88s. Wolff & Vierlin8. P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Eolcberg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James F. Lammers (012) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs** Urosk Piletic6* gg FAX (612) 439-2923 Mark J. Vierling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gallery Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 {I9144996) Thomas J. Weidner* /'� �} p. *QYaIified i\e\tra'Arbitrator V mediator January 9, 1998 *Qualified Ne.tr.I Arbitrator *Certified Real Estate Specialist 1 _ JAN 1 2 1998 Ms . Christine Scotillo j py Executive Director a Minnesota Municipal Board 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul, Minnesota 551083 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown Township Annexation Dear Ms . Scotillo: On behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights, you will find the City' s Final Written Argument and Memorandum of Law, as well as our proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Additionally, I am enclosing additional copies of the exhibits as you requested for distribution to the Board members . Finally, I am enclosing a diskette with the mate ' - ls that we have prepared on disk, should that be of assi - -nce • you and your staff in preparing the final orders in is matt= . Yours very tr y, ark J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc : David Magnuson Jerome Filla J. Scott McDonald Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel Judy Holst, Oak Park Heights Interim City Administrator 411 411 BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair David Engstrom Ex-Officio Member Dennis Hegberg Ex-Officio Member ) IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ) AND ORDER PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, on November 24 and November 25, 1997, hearings having been scheduled after earlier continuances had been granted at prior hearings . All such hearings were conducted at the Oak Park Heights Municipal Building within the City of Oak Park Heights, County of Washington, State of Minnesota. The hearing was conducted by Lea _: De Souza Speeter, Vice Chair, pursuant to Minn. Stat . §414 . 01, Subd. 12 . Also in attendance were Paul B. Double, Chair, and Andrew D. Hultgren, Vice Chair, and County Commissioners David Engstrom and Dennis Hegberg, Ex Officio members of the Board. The Petitioners appeared by and through J. Scott McDonald, Esq. , Attorney at Law, the City of Oak Park Heights appeared through Mark J. Vierling, Esq. , Attorney at Law, the Township of Baytown appeared through David T. Magnuson, Esq. , Attorney at Law, and the City of Lake Elmo appeared through Jerome appeared • d Filla, Esq. , Attorney at Law, and the Metropolitan Council pp e ar through Jeanne K. Matross, Esq. , Attorney at Law. After due and careful consideration of all evidence, together with all files, records, and proceedings, the Minnesota Municipal Board hereby makes the following Findings- -.of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . On July 29, 1997 a petition of property owners pursuant to Minn. Stat . §414 .031, Subd. 1 (c) seeking annexation of real property totalling approximately 310 acres was filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board. Petition was supported by resolution of the City of Oak Park Heights pursuant to Minn. Stat . §414 . 031, Subd. (a) . The petition and the resolution contained all the information required by statute, including a description of the area subject to annexation, hereinafter referred to as "the Subject Area" which encompasses all of the parcels separately described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The following description encompasses all of the parcels previously described and any remnants not included in the prior descriptions . The petition originally referenced the properties as consisting of approximately 240 acres, ,but during the course of the proceedings, testimony was received that the legal description upon which the petition and resolution are based actually contains 310 acres, 240 of which is approximately that portion which is buildable or developable . 2 . Due and timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was duly published, served and filed as required by law. 2 • 111 II! 3 . The subject area is unincorporated, consisting of approximately 310 acres in size and abuts the City of Oak Park Heights, hereinafter referred to as "Oak Park" on approximately 75 percent of its eastern border. The subject property is also bordered by the City of Stillwater and Trunk Highway 36 on its north, the City of Lake Elmo (hereinafter referred to as "Lake Elmo" ) on its western and south borders . 4 . Oak Park had a population of 2, 591 persons in 1980, 3, 486 persons in 1990, and a projected current population of 4 , 001 persons . Baytown Township had a population of 851 persons in 1980, 939 persons in 1990, and projects a current population of 1, 209 persons as of 1995 . Lake Elmo had a population of 5, 296 persons in 1980, 5, 903 persons in 1990, and projects a current population of approximately 6, 148 persons in 1997. The subject urea has a current population of approximately 21 people. . 5 . The subject area has a natural terrain including physical features consisting of the following: the northwestern • portion of the subject area contains-rolling terrain and trees with small wetlands which inhibits commercial and high density residential development but does not prohibit or preclude the provision of municipal water and sanitary sewer services. The eastern area adjacent to Trunk Highway 5 is flat and open with few trees . The southwest portion of the area is slightly rolling and . contains a portion of a large wetland complex. Washington County Soil Survey indicates that the subject area contains primarily two 3 4 S types of soils which are well drained with rapid permeability. The primary soil types are antigo-comstock and hayden-hessel-dundas . 6 . The subject property perimeter is contiguous to the City of Oak Park Heights along 3, 890 feet along the City' s western boundary. The subject area is contiguous to Baytown Township for 1, 800 feet on the township' s western boundary. 7 . That the present pattern of physical development planning and intended land uses in the subject area consist of the following: a. Existing Land Use. The northeastern portion of - . the subject area is dominated by Kern Center, a partially completed commercial and light industrial development . The northwestern quarter of the site is sparsely developed with single family residences and is influenced by areas of significant topography and wetlands . In the southeastern quadrant of the property is St . John' s Lutheran Church and Cemetery, located along Trunk Highway 5. To the south of St. John' s Lutheran Church is a single family residence in the far southeastern corner of the property. The balance of the property is undeveloped agricultural property and .currently being used for tillable acreage . b. Adjacent Lands Within the City of Oak Park Heights . Areas adjacent to the subject area north of 58th Street are planned for high density, commercial development. A shopping center development has been approved and is in the process of construction within Oak Park Heights for a portion of this area. 4 410 410 South of 58th Street and adjacent to the subject area is the Stillwater Area High School which is high school campus catering to approximately 2, 000 students complete with high school structure, campus, accessory structures, related playing and recreational fields and other accessory uses . c. The Area of Baytown Township Adjacent to the Subject Property. On the western border of Baytown Township • consists of residential housing located on approximately 2% acre lots . d. The Area of Lake Elmo Adjacent to the Subiect Property. To the south and west of the subject property is the City of Lake Elmo who has developed adjoining properties with "cluster developments" implementing housing patterns utilizing a ratio of approximately one home per 2% acres . ' e. Transportation Needs . The subject area is currently served by State Trunk Highway 5 and Manning Avenue North, both of which have direct access to State Trunk Highway 36 along its northern border. A local street network has been developed within Kern Center consisting of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North. Additionally, 55th Street North connects Manning .Avenue with State Trunk Highway 5 . Any development will generate the need for construction of collector and local street systems within the subject area. 8 . The subject property is jurisdictionally contained within the Valley Branch Watershed District at the present time . Notwithstanding its jurisdictional location within that watershed, 5 . S agreements have been implemented between the Valley Branch Watershed District and the Brown's Creek Water Management Organization which now provides for the drainage of a majority of the subject area into Brown' s Creek Water Management District . It is anticipated that formal jurisdictional boundaries will be changed to recognize the agreements that have been put in place between Valley Branch Watershed District and the former Brown' s Creek Water Management Organization. Substantially, all of the subject area located north of 55th Street drains into the Brown' s Creek Watershed. The balance of the property located south of 55th Street drains to the Valley Branch Watershed District . Of that remaining property, approximately one-third of the same located along Trunk Highway 5 drains towards Cloverdale Lake and the remaining acreage drains to the west towards Goechel Ponds, both of which are located and controlled by the Valley Branch Watershed District . 9 . Pursuant to the engineers for Valley Branch Watershed District, it is anticipated that there will be minimal impact on water levels within Cloverdale/McDonald Lake and Goetschel Ponds resulting from this annexation, but the same are not expected to increase the problems of these lakes beyond the current situation. 10 . Both lakes, Cloverdale and McDonald, and the Goetschel Ponds currently exist as no outlet receptacles for storm water flowage within Valley Branch Watershed District . Valley Branch Watershed engineers have indicated, as it affects these no 6 411 411 outlet receivers of storm water run-off, that as a result of the annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights of the subject area, the "actual difference in water level with or without the annexation, is difficult to determine, and dependent upon yearly variations and hydrologic conditions . " Valley Branch Watershed District engineers have also projected and recommended that the Valley Branch Watershed District managers begin planning the construction of an outlet system for these no outlet ponds with the plan being developed during calendar year 1998 . Annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights has not been shown to have a negative impact on the ability of the Valley Branch Watershed Management District to manage or control storm water issues as it affects this property. Annexation of the subject property of the City of Oak Park Heights has not been shown to have an adverse impact on the Brown' s Creek Watershed District managing and controlling storm water run-off issues as it affects the subject property. ii. Potential transportation issues impacting the subject property upon development are insignificant. Specifically, as it affects the Kern Center, the land use in the Kern Center is currently shown as commercial/light industrial on both Baytown and Oak Park Heights' plans . Under annexation scenarios in either community, similar volume of transportation/car trips per day are .,r anticipated. Affecting single family residential development in the area west of the Kern Center, the Oak Park Heights submitted plan indicates very low density residential development. Baytown 7 411 Township plan calls for residential development . Both plans shall generate similar volume of car trips . As it affects residential development of the area south of 55th Street, the Oak Park Heights plan calls for medium density, residential development at six dwelling units per acre on 17 acres . Baytown Township shows residential development which assumes one dwelling per 5 acres . Under the Oak Park Heights plan, the area south of 55th Street on the 17 acres would generate 600 daily car trips whereas the Baytown plan would generate 40 daily car trips . The single family residential area south of 55th Street shows the Oak Park plan projecting 2-2% dwelling units per acre over 60 acres . Baytown Township shows residential, which assumes one dwelling unit per 5 acres . Consequently, the daily trip projection at 2 .25 DU/acres x 60 x 9 . 55 trips/SU will generate 1, 290 daily car trips . Under the Baytown plan, the projection is 1 DU/5 acres x 60 - 9 .55 trips/DU = 115 daily trips . The Oak Park plan in terms of • development of the subject area will in total generate 1, 175 more daily car trips. The existing development of Trunk Highway 5 has more than adequate capacity to generate and accept the additional car trips that would be generated from development of the property ,under the Oak Park Heights plan. No adverse impact on existing Trunk Highway 36 or 5 would be generated as a result of the annexation of these lands to the City of Oak Park Heights . Further, there has been no demonstrated need to increase or to further improve Trunk Highway 5 or 36 as a result of the annexation of the subject lands to the City of Oak Park Heights. 8 • 4 12 . Land use controls and planning presently being implemented and utilized in the subject area consist of the following: a. Baytown Township and its comprehensive plan was updated by the Baytown Board in 1995 . Central water and sanitary sewer service is not available in Baytown Township. All areas of the township are reliant upon on-site septic systems . According to the Baytown Township plan, the subject area is proposed to include the Kern Center as a commercial land use and the remaining area as rural residential . The purpose of rural residential within the district is to promote lot sizes of one home per 5 acres with possible clustering being implemented. b. The Oak Park Heights comprehensive plan was . developed and adopted in January of 1979 . Subsequent amendments were implemented in December of 1979, December of 1988,. and September of 1991. The City of Oak Park Heights is presently in the process of a complete update of the comprehensive plan. Previous comprehensive planning has anticipated the eventual annexation of the property to the west of State Trunk Highway 5, which includes the subject area. Sewer facilities constructed .within the City of Oak Park Heights have been designed to accommodate service to the subject area and have the present capacity to provide same. The City of Oak Park Heights has municipal water which can also be extended into the area for which the City and its municipal water systems have the capacity to do. The City' s current update of the comprehensive plan anticipates the 9 411 annexation and extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area to include this site . The plan proposes the land use for the area as a mixture of commercial/light industrial and low density and mid- density residential land use . The Oak Park Heights plan calls for a continuation of the commercial/light industrial development within the area platted as the Kern Center. The northwest quarter of the subject site would be planned for single family homes on large estate-type lots . Seventeen acres of mid-density (6 units per acre) is planned in that area immediately south of the Kern Center along 55th Street . The remaining acreage located to the South of 55th Street is planned for approximately 60 acres of low density, single family residential developments of between 2 and 234 units per acre. 13 . The Metropolitan Council has identified the subject property within its regional blueprint as being an urban reserve which consists of a post-2020 holding zone for future urban service and development . The Metropolitan Council considers the subject area as temporarily rural . 14 . The Baytown Township comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the Metropolitan regional blueprint for the subject property, which would otherwise call for residential densities no greater than one unit per 40 acres as long as the property remains in the township. The City of Oak Park Heights projected extension of urban services by way of sanitary sewer and water to the subject property and its projected developments is consistent with the regional blueprint as advocated by the 10 • s Metropolitan Council. Within the hearings, the City of Lake Elmo also appeared, advocated its own use for the subject property in terms of future development which is consistent and similar to that which is provided by Baytown Township. Such use is also inconsistent with and in opposition to the Metropolitan Council' s regional blueprint and projections for the subject property. • 15 . Existing levels of government services being provided to the subject area and projected to be provided to the subject area by the annexing municipality are as follows : • a. Water and sanitary sewer service. The subject • property is currently not provided with municipal water nor sanitary sewer service by Baytown Township nor does Baytown • Township have the capacity to so provide same in the future. The City of Oak Park Heights has the capacity and the ability to' extend municipal water and sanitary sewer service facilities to the subject area and is prepared to do so. Extension of municipal water and sanitary sewer facilities to the subject area 1s consistent with the Metropolitan Council regional blueprint . b. Police Service. The City of Oak Park Heights =` currently provides its own police service through its police • .department . The Oak Park Heights Police Department is • headquartered in the City Hall and additionally the City has police officers stationed at the Stillwater Area High School immediately adjacent to the subject property. The department has four patrol cars and a staff of ten which includes a police chief, a sergeant, and an investigator. Approximate response time to the subject area 11 • from the City Hall is three minutes and from the high school less than one minute . Travel distance to the subject site from the City Hall is approximately 1 . 5 miles. Baytown Township is presently served by the Washington County Sheriff by statute. The Washington County Sheriff' s Department is headquartered in the Washington County Government Center located at 14900 - 61st Street North in Stillwater. Travel distance from the Government Center to the subject site is approximately 2 .5 miles . The City of Lake Elmo, who also appeared within these proceedings, contracts for police service with the Washington County Sheriff' s Department and has one police officer available on a 24 hour basis within its community. Due to the concentrated service area, the City of Oak Park Heights Police Department with its staff and equipment provide a faster response time to the subject area than does Baytown Township or potentially the City of Lake Elmo. The City of Oak Park Heights and its police department have already experienced calls to the subject area providing service in advance of the responding deputies from the Washington County Sheriff's Department . c. Fire Protection. The City of Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township currently provide fire protection through . contract with the City of Bayport. Annexation of the property to the City of Oak Park Heights from Baytown Township will have no impact on the current level of fire protection service. The Bayport Fire Department consists of 24 volunteers . Approximate travel time from the Bayport station to the subject site is 7 minutes . Travel distance is approximately 3 . 5 miles . Upon 12 II. • • • annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights, the subject area will be served with water for domestic and fire protection purposes which does not currently exist . The addition of hydrants will significantly improve the level of fire service and protection of property within the subject area. The provision of municipal water services and domestic water for purposes of fire protection will also provide a major benefit to the commercial areas developing within the subject area for automated fire suppression systems (sprinkling) , which is not otherwise readily available or economically providable absent a municipal water source. The increased level of fire protection if the property is annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights with the provision of municipal water services will likely lower the existing fire I .S.O. rating.from its current level of 9 to 6 consistent with the balance of the City of Oak Park. Heights. The adjacent community of the City of Lake Elmo provides its own volunteer fire fighting department but the City of Lake Elmo does not have the ability to provide the subject area with municipal water or fire protection systems based on municipal water supplies. The evidence does not provide a discernible .difference in fire protection systems between that which exists currently within Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo. d. Ambulance Service. Ambulance services for both the City of Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, and Lake Elmo are provided through Lakeview Hospital located at 919 West Anderson Street within the City of Stillwater. Travel distance from the 13 • hospital to the subject site is approximately 2 . 0 miles . Provision of ambulance services will not be beneficially nor negatively impacted as a result of this annexation. e. Road Maintenance. The City of Oak Park Heights maintains its own public works department consisting of three full time individuals; however, most road maintenance and snow plowing services are provided by private contractor. Baytown Township currently provides its entire road maintenance services to its residents by way of private contract . City staff provided by the City of Oak Park Heights could provide a faster response and more efficient road maintenance service system than that which is currently experienced within Baytown Township. Additionally, commercial development within the Kern Center will require additional improved roads and potentially curb and gutter. More comprehensive street standards result in less maintenance due to properly designed and engineered roads which are more likely to occur within the City. f . Refuse Removal . The City of Oak Park Heights currently contracts with United Waste Systems for all residential disposal services and subsidizes a portion of the cost to property .owners . Baytown Township owners currently contract directly with garbage haulers for waste control services, not through the Township. As a result of the City's subsidy to its residents, residents within the subject area would experience a savings of refuse removal services by virtue of the annexation. 14 • g. Parks and Recreation. Baytown Township does not provide significant park facilities to its residents . The City of Oak Park Heights has an extensive park and trail system providing for both active and passive recreational facilities . The City of Oak Park. Heights is currently planning a 25 acre park to be located in the immediate vicinity east of the subject area that would provide recreational fields, play structures, and trails around existing wetland complexes . h. Administrative Services . The Town of Baytown has a part-time City Clerk with Township offices being operated from her home. The City of Oak Park Heights has a full-time _ administrator with two office staff, a full-time building official, a public works department, and full time police department . The City Hall for the City of Oak Park Heights is located at 14168 - 57th Street North with office hours being from 8 :00 a.m. to 4 :30 p.m. Monday through Friday. The annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights shall provide for the delivery of all municipal services to the subject property and shall not have an adverse impact upon the City of Oak Park Heights. --.. Conversely, the annexation of the subject property to the Township of Baytown will not impair township services for the balance of the township government and its residents. 16 . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that there are no identified dump sites or contaminate ground or water sites in the subject area. Contamination has been found at sites distant from the subject area. Those sites located within • 15 ! • the Township do not pose an immediate threat of contamination to the subject property. The subject property is within the wellhead protection sphere of influence within the City of Oak Park Heights' existing municipal wells and existing septic systems potential contamination could serve as a source of concern to existing municipal wells located to the east of the subject property should an environmental concern arise. Service of the subject property by municipal water and sanitary service systems would mitigate any environmental and safety concerns existing for potential subject area residences or residences of the City of Oak Park Heights with regard to wellhead protection issues . 17. Fiscal data values affecting tax rates and taxes payable in 1997 for Baytown Township and the City of Oak Park Heights are set forth in the table listed below. FISCAL DATA VALUES AND TAX RATES FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1997 Baytown Township Oak Park Heights Total Estimated Market Valuation 104, 358, 600 223, 205, 500 Net Tax Capacity 1, 925, 858 6, 728, 690 Total Bonded Indebtedness 0 2,215, 000 Tax Rates : • County 27. 87 27 .87 Local Units of Government: District 1 5 . 60 22 .27 District 2 5 . 60 22 .27 District 3 5 . 60 22 . 90 School District 61 . 76 61. 76 Special School District . 30 .30 Watershed District 1 0 0 District 2 3 . 95 3 . 54 District 3 3 . 54 9 Other 4 . 81 5 .32 • 16 • Total Tax Rate* District 1 . 100 . 33 117. 51 District 2 104 .28 121 . 06 District 3 103 . 87 118 . 14 * Source: Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Taxation Division The net effect of an annexation between the City and the Township affecting the subject property would implement a tax capacity change for the township of a 7 . 8 percent decrease after the subject area would be annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights . To the City of Oak Park Heights, it would be a 2 .4 percent tax capacity increase . In both cases, the change in tax capacity and tax rates is negligible. Tax impacts on other taxing districts such as Independent School District #834, Washington County, Valley Branch Watershed District, and Brown' s Creek Water Management Organization are all unimpacted by annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights . The subject area has an estimated market value of $5, 892, 200 . 00 with a net tax capacity of $145, 517 .00 . The subject area has no bonded indebtedness nor are there any outstanding special assessments or capital improvement projects in process. 18 . Annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights would have no discernable effect on Independent School District #834 which serves both Baytown Township and the City of Oak Park Heights . Annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights would have no discernable effect on adjacent communities . 19 . The Township of Baytown is not capable of providing municipal water and sewer services to the subject area. The City 17 M • of Oak Park Heights has demonstrated that it can adequately, economically, and feasibly provide to the subject area municipal water and sewer services and the entire array of municipal services provided within its borders to its existing residents . 20 . The City of Oak Park Heights is the only community that has demonstrated the ability to economically and feasibly provide municipal water and sewer services and other municipal services to the subject property. No other adjacent community can or has demonstrated the ability to provide the level of municipal services that Oak Park Heights can. 21 . Annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights will not impair the township operations of Baytown Township. 22 . Annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights will neither impair nor impact the delivery of services under the Minnesota State Building Code to the subject area. Both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township currently implement building code services, the City of Oak Park Heights, through its own building official and building department, and Baytown Township through the Washington County Department of Health, Environment, and Land Management Services . 23 . With the City of Oak Park Heights, the City currently has 1, 679 total gross acres . The subject property consists of approximately 310 acres, 240 of which has development potential or is currently developed. Within the City of Oak Park Heights presently there exists 145 acres which are currently 18 , amenable to residential development and between 74 to 98 acres potentially usable for commercial purposes and 39 acres for industrial purposes . The subject property would provide a net additional 98 acres to the City of Oak Park Heighti' for residential development and an additional 68 acres to the City of Oak Park Heights for potential commercial development . Growth and population projections within the City of Oak Park Heights currently demonstrate that the City has insufficient volumes of residential properties within its borders to serve its projected needs as estimated by the Metropolitan Council in future years . Current loss by the City of Oak Park Heights of some 68 plus or minus homes in eastern Oak Park Heights acquired by the Minnesota .Department of Transportation for the St . Croix River Crossing has - deprived the City of needed residential units, many of which were provided for low and moderate income persons. While residential development is currently the most predominant urban land use within . the City of Oak Park Heights, the City is also experiencing an increase in commercial development and is expected to see limited light industrial development as well. This trend is anticipated by the City Planners to continue for the remainder of the decade and into the next century. Based on existing building permit data and the population and household projections implemented by the Minnesota Metropolitan Council, the City of Oak Park Heights can anticipate residential and commercial land absorption of 772 acres by the year 2020 . The anticipated land demand with overage for the strong growth scenario is estimated at 928 acres. The City of Oak 19 f • • . Park Heights, under those projections, will not be able to accommodate its growth within the immediate future. The current supply of vacant, mid/high density residential land is currently less than 6 acres within the City' s borders . 24 . Baytown Township has adequate supplies of land to provide for its needs and future growth and development for the foreseeable future and loss of the subject area will not impact their ability to provide for their future housing needs and development patterns . 25 . The City currently has zoning ordinances, • subdivision regulations, capital improvement programs, budgets, fire code, shoreland management, ordinances, flood plain ordinances, sanitation ordinances, and a comprehensive city code. Baytown Township currently is regulated by the Washington County zoning ordinance, subdivision regulation, shoreland/bluffland management ordinance, floodplain ordinances, and sanitation ordinances. 26 . A portion of the property south of 55th Street is currently in Green Acres tax status and is presently under tillage . 27 . Minnesota Trunk Highway 5 does not serve as a prominent physical barrier between the subject property and the City of Oak Park Heights, but does serve as a complimentary transportation system that will facilitate the assimilation of the subject area into the City of Oak Park Heights . Existing commercial development on the west side of Trunk Highway 5 within Baytown Township is complimentary to existing commercial 20 . • development now in place within the City of Oak Park Height "to the east of Trunk Highway 5 and also complimentary to the Stillwater Area High School located to the east of Trunk Highway 5 in Oak Park Heights . 28 . Platting as implemented and projected by the City of Oak Park Heights is consistent with the Metropolitan Council blueprint adopted for development within this area. Planning and future development as projected by Baytown Township and anticipated by the City of Lake Elmo for the subject area is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council blueprint for development within the region. Development within the City of Lake Elmo adjacent to the southern and western borders of the subject property is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Council' s development blueprint for the region as the same is developing in densities that prohibit future urbanization of the subject property which is scheduled and called for in the regional blueprint or urban reserve . 29 . The Metropolitan Council has adopted a regional blueprint for the seven county metropolitan area which anticipates the growth by an additional 660, 000 people and an additional 320, 000 homes . The Metropolitan Council projections, made to facilitate that growth, requires municipalities to take on an additional two-thirds of that projected growth. Consequently, the Metropolitan Council regional blueprint has identified areas of "urban reserve . " These urban reserve areas are necessary to the future growth and accommodation of population within the seven county metropolitan area and the subject property has been 21 411 identified within the Metropolitan Council classification as urban reserve . Development of the subject property in the manner prescribed by Baytown Township and/or the City of Lake Elmo would frustrate and preclude the growth management strategy of. the Metropolitan Council as contained within the regional blueprint and would preclude the future growth of the City of Oak Park Heights, frustrating its ability to meet Metropolitan Council projections • for municipal growth. 30 . That the subject property sought to be annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights is now or is about to become urban or suburban in character. That as it affects the subject property, municipal government in the area proposed for annexation is required to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by the • introduction of municipal water and sanitary sewer systems. 31 . That the subject property should be annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights as the same is in the best interest of the subject area for its future and orderly growth and development. 32 . That the remainder of Baytown Township, less the subject area, can continue to carry on the functions of township government without undue 'hardship. 33 . That the increase in revenues for the City of Oak Park Heights by annexation of the subject property is negligible and provides the subject property with a monetary value and benefit that is in excess of the revenues that otherwise accrue to the City of Oak Park Heights by virtue of the annexation. 22 . . 411 34 . That no adjacent municipality can better provide for the interest of the residents of the subject property. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Minnesota Municipal Board now makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . That the Municipal Board has duly acquired and now P Y 4u has jurisdiction of the subject proceeding. 2 . That the subject area is now or is about to become urban or suburban in character and will be in need of municipal services and the annexing city is capable of providing the services required by the subject area within a reasonable time. 3 . That municipal government is presently required to protect the public health, safety and welfare in the subject area. 4 . That the existing township form of government is not adequate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare within the subject area. 5 . That the annexation would be in the best interests - of the subject area. 6 . That the Town can carry on the functions of government without undue hardship. 7 . That an order should be issued by the Municipal Board annexing the subject area to the City of Oak Park Heights effective immediately as of the date of this Order. 23 • 411 !II Dated this day of , 1998 . MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225, Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul, Minnesota 55108 Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director • • • • 24 II III .. ‘, . ,, . . , BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair David Engstrom Ex-Officio Member Dennis Hegberg Ex-Officio Member _ IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) FINAL WRITTEN ARGUMENT THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO ) AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW THE CITY OF OAK •PARK HEIGHTS ) ON BEHALF OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 22, 1997, land owners having an interest in real property approximating 310 acres in Baytown Township .".legally T described as follows : All that part of Section Six (6) , Township:Twenty-Nine . (29) North, Range Twenty (20) West, lying west of the . centerline of Stillwater Boulevard, also known as Stater Highway 5, Washington County, Minnesota ..-- signed a petition for annexation of this unincorporated property -::::_ _° into the City of Oak Park Heights. The land owners constituted • more than 20 percent of those owning parcels within the affected property. Petition was made pursuant to Minn. Stat. §414 .031 which stated in relevant portion: "a proceeding for the annexation of unincorporated property abutting a municipality may be initiated by submitting to the executive director and the affected township . . . a petition of 20 percent of the property owners or • 100 percent of the property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. " The land owners commenced the action and petitioned the Municipal Board for relief because: 1 . The area in question is in need of sewer and water services which can not be provided by the Town of Baytown; 2 . The land owners believe that all of the property is or is about to become urban or suburban in character; and, 3 . Studies indicate that the City of Oak Park Heights could provide such services in a more efficient manner than any other municipality. On July 22, 1997 the City of Oak Park Heights passed its Resolution 97-07-26 in support of the Screaton Petition. The City .. recognized that the area "continues to develop as an urban, - industrial/commercial area with a potential for commercial and '''-'- suburban development. " Further, the resolution acknowledged that the City would need additional lands in the future to accommodate its growth. Additionally, the City found that the municipal form of government would best protect the health, safety, and morals of the land owners and that the City could efficiently extent police protection and water and sewer connections to the area The Screaton Petition and the resolution of the City of .Oak Park Heights were duly submitted and filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board on July 29, 1997 pursuant to the procedures outlined in Minn. Stat. §414 . 031 and the Board assigned its File No. A-5821, Oak Park Heights . After fulfilling all requirements under Minn. Stat . §414 . 031, the City of Oak Park Heights and the 2 H ' . • land owners were entitled to a hearing before the Board to be scheduled within 30 to 60 days from the receipt of the Petition. On August 4, 1997, the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown adopted a joint resolution for orderly annexation pursuant to Minn. Stat . §414 .0325 (1) which was submitted to the Minnesota Municipal Board and numbered as OA-497/0A-497-1, Lake Elmo/Bayport on August 6, 1997 . The joint resolution of the Town of Baytown and City of Lake Elmo described the same property as that which is described in the Screaton Petition and resolution of the City of Oak Park Heights. At the Municipal Board' s August 15, 1997 meeting, the Board invoked Minn. Stat. §414 . 01 (6) requiring the parties to meet �-- and discuss possible resolutions to the conflicting petitions . Per - past practices and board reconciling two conflicting petitions for the same land, the Lake Elmo/Baytown Orderly Annexation -Agreement was tabled and a hearing date to invoke jurisdiction for the "` Screaton/Oak Park Heights Petition was established on September 17, - 1997. The Town of Baytown and City of Lake Elmo initiated on September 12, 1997 an action against the Minnesota Municipal Board in the form of a Writ of Mandamus within Ramsey County as Court - . File No. C9-97-8893 . Subsequently, the City of Oak Park Heights - and the petitioning property owners moved for and were granted intervention by the Court within those proceedings_ i ' Notwithstanding the directive of the Municipal Board to engage in mediation sessions prior to October 13 , 1997, the City of Lake Elmo and the Township of Baytown declined to cooperate with 3 • . . the order of the Board and refused to meet with the City of Oak Park Heights as directed by the Board. Hearing was held by the district court on the action filed by the Township of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo in the mandamus proceeding on October 13, 1997 at 3 : 00 p.m. Pursuant to the stipulation of all parties, the court treated the matter as a motion for summary judgment and heard argument taking the matter under advisement . The Minnesota Municipal Board scheduled hearings with regard to File A-5821, Oak Park Heights for November 18 and 19, 1997 .. The Municipal Board continued to table Files 0A-497/0A-497- 1, Lake Elmo/Baytown Township until final determination was made with regard to File No A-5821, Oak Park Heights . The district court formally entered its order denying the Petition and Writ of Mandamus from the City of Lake Elmo and Township of Baytown on November 22, 1997 .: Service of entry of that order was implemented upon all counsel by counsel for the City of Oak Park Heights on December 11, 1997. Hearings were duly conducted before the Minnesota Municipal Board with regard to File A-5821, Oak Park Heights on November 18 and 19, 1997 . 4 II. THE AREA SUBJECT TO THE ANNEXATION PETITION IS NOW OR IS ABOUT TO BECOME URBAN OR SUBURBAN IN CHARACTER; MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT IN THE SUBJECT AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE AND ANNEXATION IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SUBJECT AREA. Minnesota Statute §414 . 031, Subd. 4 sets forth fourteen factors upon which the Board is to determine whether or not the area in question is or is about to become urban or suburban, requires municipal government for the safety, health, and public welfare, or should there be a determination of the best interest of the property requires annexation. There should be no question but that the 310 acre —. property in question is, in fact, already urban or suburban in . character. The Kern Center with existing commercial development which is already ongoing within the property verifies the urban-7:::: : nature of the development which is in existence. The persistent efforts of Township officials and their consultants to refer to the - property as a "rural, commercial" area is nothing more than verbal window dressing. There is no such definition as "rural, commercial" , either in a planning, engineering, legal, or other , * ~ sense . Additionally, it is eminently clear that the residential development which is proposed by the Township for the area in question, as well as that which has gone on in the immediate surrounding vicinity, is also not "rural development . " Even the City of Lake Elmo' s Planner referred to as the development schemes put forth by the City of Lake Elmo and the 2% acre developments of P 5 ' • 4 Baytown as "extra urban. " The reports, exhibits, and testimony of the Metropolitan Council verify that Baytown Township, as well as the City of Lake Elmo, are not developing residential properties in the rural context that the Metropolitan Council has defined as one home per 10 acres or one home per 40 acres, depending upon the classification of the lands within the regional blueprint. Baytown • development immediately abutting the subject property on the east has developed parcels into approximately one home per 2' acre parcels . Similarly, the City of Lake Elmo, under the banner of "cluster developments" , has also developed property with one home per 2% acres but has increased the density, i.e. the clustering of the homes, setting aside the acreage into green area or conservation easement in a manner so as to provide for developments which in effect provide for a 2% acre per one home density. Notwithstanding the tortured definition of "rural" that some witnesses on behalf of Baytown and Lake Elmo tried to impose in discussing the subject property, there is simply no issue but that the property is currently urban or urbanizing as far as commercial uses are concerned and is immediately prepared to ' suburbanize in terms of its residential development . The only - . issue deals with the density of that residential development in suburban character, not in a rural character because no one is proposing that one house per 10 acres or one home per 40 acres is appropriate or realistic given the prevailing growth of the City of Oak Park Heights and what amounts to urbanized development for 6 411 411 residential purposes surrounding the subject property from Baytown and Lake Elmo. The uncontested engineering testimony from the City of Oak Park Heights is that both municipal water and sanitary sewer systems can be feasibly and reasonably extended into the subject area to serve it in its entirety. The public health and safety are best served by the extension of municipal water within the subject area to preserve a clean water source for domestic and commercial purposes, as well as to provide necessary fire protection and reasonable sources of municipal water for fire suppression systems (sprinkling) necessary to meet commercial purposes under the building code which is especially critical to the commercial and industrial development that is anticipated to take place within the Kern Center. The Board will remind itself of the testimony of Mr. Ray Kennedy, who has already constructed buildings within the subject property, who as a commercial builder himself has researched the cost necessary to provide sprinkling services on, a well system and determine that it is cost prohibitive to be able to supply that service without municipal water. Municipal water would also bring hydrants into the area, .which would lower its fire rating from 9 to 6 and provide a higher level of fire protection than that which currently exists in the subject area. Finally, the introduction of sanitary sewer facilities to the subject area, both in the industrial/commercial areas as well the projected residential areas, provides 7 ' • 411 opportunities to provide for the safety, health, and welfare of the area and its present and future residents in several respects : a. Introduction of sanitary sewer will ultimately lead to the elimination of septic systems which are currently serving both commercial and residential properties in the subject area. The subject area is located immediately west and municipal wells of the City of Oak Park Heights and are within the wellhead protection area of influence for the City' s municipal water sources. Septic systems in place for commercial as well as residential properties are neither metered nor monitored by the Township or the County and presently serve as a source of disposal of both commercial and residential wastes . b. The introduction of sanitary sewer into the subject - area allows for a greater density and utilization of the commercial area to allow it to go from its current status of light industrial to a more intensive form of commercial use Introduction of sanitary sewer within the residential areas allow greater density of residential development so as to accommodate urbanizing demands which are forecast by the Metropolitan Council which has served as part of the basis for the decision of the Metropolitan Council to - classify the subject area as urban reserve, anticipating its urbanization and ultimate annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights which is the only unit of government able to provide municipal water and sewer to the subject property. c . It is in the' public interest, as well as the policy of the State of Minnesota as advocated by the Metropolitan Council, 8 . • that this area be urbanized and developed in a municipal context so as to maximize the utilization of lands within the subject area for a higher density urban development . Utilizing the property under the current Township or Lake Elmo schemes for development allocating 2 . 5 acres per buildable lot for a residence not only will prohibit the future utilization of the property for urbanized • purpose, either commercial or residential, but will continue the proliferation of "extra urban" residential development which, if allowed to proceed to its conclusion, will utilize and exhaust all land for residential purposes within Washington County by the year 2015 . This, of course, is directly contrary to the growth planned and projected by the Metropolitan Council, who has been statutorily mandated by the legislature to project for metropolitan planning and growth.l 4.. That annexation is in the best interests of the subject area also can not be questioned. The individual interest of=a few land owners who would like to keep their large estate lots is certainly understandable. But those individualized interests are outweighed by the larger public purpose that is served by allowing the urbanization of this area with municipal utilities as opposed to its urbanization without municipal utilities which is currently ongoing and which would proceed if this annexation were not allowed. It is unfortunate that the Town of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo refuse to mediate or negotiate with the City of Oak 'See Petitioner' s Exhibit 15 in conjunction with Metropolitan Council Exhibit 3 . 9 • • Park Heights in the manner so as to allow for the extension of this area to the City of Oak Park Heights by way of agreement so that individualized interests of those property owners that needed to be attended to could not be done in a more cooperative forum. Nonetheless, the City of Oak Park Heights has well indicated its interest to those owners in attempting to deal with their issues while still balancing the needs of the subject property and providing municipal services. III. ANALYSIS OF FACTORS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE §414 .031, SUBD. 4 The vast bulk of the statistical factors as it affects population, geographic location of adjoining governmental entities, etc. were not seriously in dispute. There were, however, critical factors presented in the contested testimony that took place before - the Board. Unfortunately, much of the dispute was in the issue of perception rather than fact . A. Water Shed Districts. Both the Township and Lake Elmo, in addition to property owners living along Cloverdale/McDonald Lake by their petitions, .wish to raise issues of concern as it affects development of the subject property and its impact on the watershed districts . The uncontested testimony received by the Board was that Brown' s Creek is the predominant watershed district that this area provides storm 10 • water to.' Exhibit 13 was not disputed by any authority. The predominant watershed receiving storm water from the subject property is Brown' s Creek, receiving approximately 236 acres of surface waters . The Goetschel Pond area located within Valley Branch Watershed District receives approximately 51 acres and the Cloverdale/McDonald Lake subwatershed also located in Valley Branch Watershed District receives the smallest portion of storm waters, • approximately 23 acres . Barr Engineering Company, the engineers for Valley Branch Watershed District, issued their report on November 10, 1997 noting: "It appears there will be some impact on the water levels in Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes and Goetschel - Ponds resulting from this annexation, but it is not expected to increase the problems of these lakes beyond the current situation. • Clearly the annexation of these lands will not have any substantial impact on Valley Branch Watershed District or its ability to . provide its operations. Without question, storm water ,a._;•. improvements need to be implemented within Valley Branch Watershed District, however, that remains an issue for Valley Branch • • Watershed District in terms of the type of facilities it wishes to ' construct and the method of financing it wishes to implement as .part of that project. The 23 acres that naturally flows into Cloverdale/McDonald Lake from the entire annexation, area clearly will not have any substantial impact on the McDonald/Cloverdale subwatershed. 'See Exhibits 13, City of Oak Park Heights, Storm Water Map and Exhibit N, Baytown Township, November 10, 1997 letter to Valley Branch Managers from John Lenander, Barr Engineering. 11 • 410 . The perception that the Township and the City of Lake Elmo and that the affected home owners along Cloverdale/McDonald Lake wish to convey to the Municipal Board is that somehow the City of Oak Park Heights and the development of the Stillwater Area High School is responsible for the problems that have been exhibited along Cloverdale/McDonald Lake . There is no competent evidence that they have produced in any regard that would indicate that . To the contrary, the clear, undisputed testimony received was that the • City of Oak Park Heights in constructing the Stillwater Area High School had received the permitting authority from Valley Branch • Watershed District and worked closely with the watershed district in constructing the many ponds that serve that facility. The development of lands in 2% acre housing units surrounding Cloverdale/McDonald Lake obviously contribute its own storm water problems to that area, which is ultimately created as a result of McDonald/Cloverdale Lakes being no outlet lakes which serve as the low point receptacle for storm waters throughout the subwatershed. Clearly, the City of Oak Park Heights, as exhibited through the testimony of the planner and the engineer, is capable of dealing with storm water issues, both with Brown's Creek in . terms of the flowages that are restricted under Highway 36 and the water quality issues that are presented within that watershed, as well as the issues relating to Valley Branch Watershed District . Both testified with regard to the type of development that can and would be implemented within the area so as to minimize and deal with storm water issues. Clearly, a major problem has been 12 The perception that the Township and the City of Lake Elmo and that the affected home owners along Cloverdale/McDonald Lake wish to convey to the Municipal Board is that somehow the City of Oak Park Heights and the development of the Stillwater Area High School is responsible for the problems that have been exhibited along Cloverdale/McDonald Lake. There is no competent evidence that they have produced in any regard that would indicate that . To the contrary, the clear, undisputed testimony received was that the City of Oak Park Heights in constructing the Stillwater Area High School had received the permitting authority from Valley Branch Watershed District and worked closely with the watershed district in constructing the many ponds that serve that facility. The development of lands in 2% acre housing units surrounding Cloverdale/McDonald Lake obviously contribute its own storm water problems to that area, which is ultimately created as a result of -- -- McDonald/Cloverdale Lakes being no outlet lakes which serve as the low point receptacle for storm waters throughout the subwatershed. Clearly, the City of Oak Park Heights, as exhibited through the testimony of the planner and the engineer, is capable of dealing with storm water issues, both with Brown' s Creek in terms of the flowages that are restricted under Highway 36 and the water quality issues that are presented within that watershed, as well as the issues relating to Valley Branch Watershed District. Both testified with regard to the type of development that can and would be implemented within the area so as to minimize and deal with storm water issues. Clearly, a major problem has been 12 • 410 precipitated in the Kern Center area as a result of a negligent construction of ponds that now serve that development as was overseen and supervised by Baytown Township. The uncontested testimony from the Oak Park engineer, who was also working closely with the City of Stillwater and Brown' s Creek in designing their systems, is that the Kern Pond was grossly undersized and requires a substantial reconstruction together with additional improvements so as to manage and deal with the storm water ponding and storm water quality issues that must be attended to within the Brown' s Creek Watershed. Obviously, Baytown Township did not properly supervise nor did they appropriately manage the storm water run off issues within the Kern Center at the time that it was platted and developed to deal with storm water ponding and quality issues. The uncontested testimony of Mr. Bob Schunicht of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates is that it was projected to cost between $300, 000 . 00 and $400, 000 .00 to implement the storm water improvements that would have to be put into that portion of the subject area which flows to the Brown' s Creek Watershed area. • Those improvements will obviously have to be paid for by the property owners within the Kern Center and surrounding areas that are tributary to it. The City of Oak Park Heights is clearly prepared to deal with the issue in implementing land development requirements as well as imposing the regulatory charges for improvements and development that will have to be collected from 13 411 411 the area to finance the storm water collection improvements that are required to service that area presently and in the future . The testimony of Mr. Larry Bohrer, hired on behalf of Baytown and Lake Elmo to testify with regard to volume control regulations for development in Lake Elmo, is of marginal value. The testimony of Mr. Bohrer was that the City of Lake Elmo controls volume run off in addition to rate run off and that somehow this land would be developed within the context of the planning authority of Lake Elmo and the issues with Cloverdale/McDonald Lake might be mitigated. Exhibit N from Barr Engineering, who serves presently and has served over the past decades as engineers for Valley Branch Watershed District, obviously indicates that current problems exist .� within McDonald/Cloverdale subwatershed which need an engineering solution. The development of this property, even if it would not - `- contribute any further water to those deadend outlets in Valley Branch Watershed District, would not obviate the need for an engineering solution to the obvious problems of McDonald/Cloverdale Lake. Further, it is obvious that all engineers, including the City of Oak Park Heights' engineers, indicate that the municipal authorities do not in the State of Minnesota have the authority or the power to control volume run off . The standard implemented as a legal standard for engineering purposes on development is rate run off . Although the City of Lake Elmo attempts to regulate and mitigate volume run off in terms of set aside and green space areas 14 II ' 4 • for ponding and holding of waters, the City obviously has no legal authority to implement that type of control and there is no demonstration by way of competent evidence or engineering data that the Lake Elmo plan is effective. Watershed districts by their very nature are multi- jurisdictional boundaries . Watershed districts are created for the express purpose of managing, controlling, and financing storm water improvements throughout the multiple jurisdictions in which they are established. The individual actions of a singular unit of government within the multi-jurisdictional district may or may not be helpful to the watershed district but the overall authority and responsibility for controlling, evaluating, and managing storm water run off remains with the watershed district . In this particular instance, it is obvious that the Valley Branch Watershed District is managing the issue of this subwatershed of McDonald/Cloverdale Lake which does exist within three jurisdictions and Exhibit N verifies that the Board of Managers for Valley Branch Watershed District will be implementing improvements to deal with water management issues, the cost of which will most assuredly be passed along to all property owners in what is an obviously large watershed area. B. Municipal Services . Obviously, the most significant municipal service that is in issue here is the rovision of municipal water and sanitary P P sewer services to the subject property. Clearly, only the City of 15 4 . • Oak Park Heights among all the competing governmental units is the only City positioned with which to do so. There is no question but that for future commercial development within the subject area, the ability to economically • provide fire suppression systems by way of building sprinkling can • • only be provided by way of a municipal water source . The testimony of property owner and builder Ray Kennedy, who currently occupies and builds structures within the Kern Center, that his research and • attempts to provide water sprinkling systems by way of private well source proved to be cost prohibitive. Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo had no ability - or interest in providing municipal water and/or sanitary sewer services to the subject property. The manner of development proposed and advocated by Baytown Township as well as the City of • Lake Elmo precludes the use of municipal services and utilities in • the form of municipal water and sewer. Additionally, the refusal of the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township to mediate as • originally ordered by the Board on annexation issues certainly precluded opportunities to extend conversations on to other such topics . The balance of - governmental services distinguished between these three governmental entities is typical with that which is found in an urbanized versus a non-urban setting. The City of Oak Park Heights obviously has a far more thorough and intensive provision of police and public safety services to its residents with its police force which has already been in the habit • 16 • of providing services to the subject area as a result of the mutual aid agreements that are in place between the Sheriff' s Department and the City of Oak Park Heights. The City of Lake Elmo pointed out the extra expense of the Oak Park Police Department service on the 3 500 per per capita basis (i .e. 10 police officers for p r P P P o population of Oak Park Heights as oppo sed to 1 p olice officer for II the 6, 500 person population of Lake Elmo) . These differences obviously reflect a difference in community values . Notwithstanding those community values, it is clear that the City of Oak Park Heights is fully capable of extending the full array of municipal services, fire, police, public works, administration, and other services, to the area without difficulty. C. Existing Patterns of Development and Municipal Planning. Notwithstanding attempts to characterize existing development as rural commercial or rural residential by the Township of Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo and their witnesses, it is clear that the Kern Center has urbanized as a commercial area and continues to develop in a commercial manner. The balance of the land south of 55th Street and west of the Kern Center are to be developed in a residential manner. The debate that was presented before the Board is whether or nor that development would be "extra urban" as that term was used by the City of Lake Elmo' s Planner or whether the property would be developed in a suburban and urbanized fashion as projected by the City of Oak Park Heights and as would be consistent with the Metropolitan Council regional blueprint . 17 ! . The Board received testimony from six professional planners : Mr. Scott Richards and Mr. David Licht from Northwest Associate Consultants on behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights, Ms . Meg McNonigal on behalf of Baytown Township, Ms . Ann Terwedo on behalf of the City of Lake Elmo, Ms. Jane Harper from Washington County, and Mr. James Utley on behalf of the Metropolitan Council . There is no question that the subject property could be developed in several different ways . The issue before the Board is how should the property be developed. Mr. James Utley on behalf of the Metropolitan Council clearly identified the area as earmarked by the Metropolitan Council for urban development. The Metropolitan Council itself took an unprecedented step in moving to intervene in this action as a party. Obviously, the issue from a regional standpoint is the significance of the blueprint that has been adopted by the Metropolitan Council following their legislative authority from the State of Minnesota to do so. Without question, should the subject property remain in Baytown Township or be awarded to the City of Lake Elmo, the regional blueprint and the Metropolitan Council prospective on the urbanized development of the subject property will be frustrated _ and prohibited. The existing development schemes within the City of Lake Elmo as well as Baytown Township as identified by Mr. Utley do not comply with the Metropolitan Council prospective on rural development . Similarly, the City of Lake Elmo and the Township of Baytown have development plans which would not comply with the subject area' s designation as urban reserve . The Metropolitan 18 4 • Council regional blueprint requires urban reserve development to be put in at a density of no more than one unit per 40 acres . Even in a permanently rural area, overall gross density is permitted up to one dwelling per 10 acres .' The scheme of development now implemented within Baytown Township as well as the City of Lake Elmo is implementing densities at 2 and 2' acres per unit . That complies with neither the urban reserve or the permanent rural designation with the blueprint . Further, to so develop vacant land which has been clearly earmarked for urban expansion will block and frustrate the Metropolitan Council regional blueprint and prohibit its ability to be completed in this area. Obviously, the blueprint itself and significant regional development policies as adopted by the Metropolitan Council are drawn directly into issue by this case. Commentary on the comprehensive plans for Washington County and Baytown Township by the Metropolitan Council clearly denote that the County and the Township policy with regard to development of residential properties within the Township is not consistent with the regional blueprint . Mr. Utley corrected that the Township and the City of Lake Elmo, . as well as Washington County' s Planner, to indicate that the Metropolitan Council does not "approve or _ - disapprove" of any comprehensive plan, but passes back its commentary in letter form in the manner in which it did. The City of Oak Park Heights' comprehensive plan obviously complies with the Metropolitan Council prospective, both as to existing development as well as projected development within the subject area. More 'See Metropolitan Council Exhibit 3 . 19 . 411 • importantly from a development and a future land growth standpoint within the City of Oak Park Heights, it is clear that this area is the logical extension of the City of Oak Park Heights for future development . The City has no more growth area to the immediate south of the Stillwater Area High School as the same has already been developed by Baytown Township in 2% acre parcels which precludes any further expansion or development. The philosophy of the City of Lake Elmo in developing cluster or other forms of housing based on a 2% acre density similarly precludes future development . The Lake Elmo development scheme as testified to by Ms . Terwedo and classified as "extra urban" is more onerous inasmuch as the City of Lake Elmo testified as to its current philosophy in not only developing based on a 2% acre density, but - . ._ essentially locking up in perpetuity all other green or open space within the development by placing same in a conservation trust for - eternity which will preclude any opportunity _ for future development, not only by the City but by the property owners . themselves . The City of Oak Park Heights' Planners clearly testified that the City is running out of developable space and has - insufficient vacant lands available to it to meet its metropolitan forecast and projections . Ms . McNonigal, hired by the Township of Baytown thirty days prior to the hearing for the obvious purpose of attempting to contradict planning reports from the City of Oak Park Heights, 20 i i testified in the manner in which she was paid to do so but clearly did not have the facts to support her opinions . There is no question but that the City of Oak Park Heights has remaining 145 acres of land for residential development .' Twenty-five of that 145 acres is going to be designated by the City of Oak Park Heights as a park. Under the analysis provided by the City of Oak Park Heights: "Using the building permit data, the population and household projections developed earlier in this section, and the existing breakdown of housing unit type, the future absorption of residential and commercial land may be calculated. Under the strong growth scenario, it is projected the City can anticipate a residential and commercial land absorption of 772 acres by the year 2020 . These projections include land necessary for public buildings/facilities, streets and parks (30 percent) , the anticipated residential land demand with overage for strong growth scenario is 928 acres. i' Clearly, the City of Oak Park Heights will not have land to accommodate growth past the turn of the century. Ms. McNonigal ignored the realities of land that are available within the City of Oak Park Heights and had attempted to project multiple family development at 12 units per acre across the entirety of the remaining 145 acres for the City of Oak Park Heights, attempting to surmise that the City could double its population from within the remaining 145 acres. Ms . McNonigal further attempted to testify that the metropolitan projections on populations were nothing more than projections and forecasts and were not planning tools nor expectations for the Cities to meet . She was directly contradicted 'See Exhibit 5 at Page 18 . 'See Exhibit 5 at Page 20 . 21 f I by Mr. Utley from the Metropolitan Council, who as their Chief Staff Planner, indicated unequivocally that the population forecasts implemented by the Metropolitan Council precipitate designing of all regional systems and are meant to be followed, i .e. they are not loose goals . Ms . McNonigal also tried to play traffic engineer, offering the opinions that traffic impacts "may be detrimental should the property be subjected to development at urban densities . " The only legitimate traffic engineer to testify before the Board was Mr. Sheldon Johnson, who clearly demonstrated in his Exhibit 11 before the Board that transportation systems were more than adequate to deal with urbanized development from the subject property. Ms. McNonigal' s further testimony that the City of Lake Elmo had no plans for development for the subject property and had not done any planning with regard to it is obviously contradicted by Exhibit 5, being the comprehensive report from the City of Oak Park Heights with regard to planning which had been conducted from . . April of 1997 through July 22 of 1997 as well as Exhibits 2, 11, 12, and 13 . Finally, Ms. McNonigal offered the opinion that trunk highways serve as a natural barrier between communities. The same is not only contrary to the statements of almost all professional engineers who . testified on the matter, but certainly is contradicted by the realities of communities that exist within this very region. Both the Cities of Oak Park, Stillwater, Bayport, Oakdale, Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Newport, St . Paul Park, Afton, 22 • • I Lakeland, Lake St . Croix Beach, and numerous others exist on two sides of trunk highway systems. The existence of a trunk highway is no more a barrier to extension of a municipal border than is a county road, city street, or even interstate highway. In short, Ms. McNonigal' s testimony, other than being a tribute to hired witness programs, was of no value. Finally, the testimony of Planner Jane Harper on behalf of Washington County merely indicated the process that Baytown Township had gone through in preserving its philosophy of "semi- rural" development on 2% acre parcels . Ms . Harper acknowledged that Baytown' s plan of developing the subject property in residential development with 8 lots per 40 acres (clearly in violation of the Metropolitan blueprint) acknowledged the Township' s intent to develop the property in a non-rural fashion that would preclude further urbanization of the area and completion . of the philosophies of the Metropolitan Council with regard to the blueprint and the designation of the property as urban reserve. Unfortunately, Ms. Harper also testified that the County had not received any commentary on the plan from the City of Oak Park Heights, which proved to be incorrect as is verified by City Exhibit 17 referencing a letter sent by the then City Administrator Michael Robertson to Jane Harper of August 29, 1996 . The testimony from the Lake Elmo City Planner at least contained the candor that the development pursued by the City of Lake Elmo was not rural in nature. .Even though Ms . Terwedo classified it as "extra urban" , she acknowledged that it is not 23 • i • F a rural under the definition of the Metropolitan Council blueprint. She further acknowledged that the housing styles implemented within Lake Elmo, which of course are compatible to Baytown, are also certainly not classified as affordable housing. What was portrayed before the Municipal Board within the context of the testimony from the various planners was largely a display of the philosophical differences between Baytown and Lake Elmo as opposed to Oak Park Heights and the Metropolitan Council as it affects issues of development . The Metropolitan Council, of course, is pursuing the regional blueprint to provide housing on a regional basis throughout the seven county metro area, anticipating realistic population and housing demands that will be placed upon _ these communities in the upcoming years . The City of Oak Park Heights is an urban unit of government with municipal water and sewer services, has and continues to provide lifestyle housing for its residents, and is interested in providing affordable housing for all economic groups. The City' s current shortfall of available land, coupled with the recent loss of over 70 homes in the eastern portion of the City taken by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the new St . Croix River crossing, places a critical need upon the City to provide residential housing for this community. The philosophy of Baytown Township and Lake Elmo is to preclude urbanized growth and yet not provide rural development either. The method of development pursued by these communities is a form of large lot 2% acre suburban type developments. This philosophy will preclude urban growth in the case of the City of III 24 4 . Oak Park Heights should they be able to secure this land next to the City' s borders and will further continue to provide limited numbers of housing units in addition to no opportunity for housing for members of the population in low, moderate, and middle income groups . Testimony received from the Lake Elmo City Planner and other developers produced by the Baytown Township indicate that housing now being developed within Lake Elmo and Baytown is being marketed for in excess of $250, 000 . 00 per home . This type of housing may provide opportunities for the affluent but will never be available to fulfill the needs of the other segments of the population. Large lot suburban development such as this has and will continue to be put in place by the Baytowns and Lake Elmos within the balance of their community. However, when developments such as this would utilize critical space strategically located next to urbanized areas that are prepared to extent municipal water and sewer facilities in for purposes of development, it denies the larger segment of the populace the opportunity to be provided affordable and 'reasonable housing by the urbanized centers of government that are best suited to provide for their needs. The philosophy of the State of Minnesota as provided for by the Metropolitan Council through the regional blueprint mandates the growth of the urbanized areas into those areas designated as urban reserve within our townships and surrounding lands so that land can be reasonably, environmentally, and affordably developed to provide for the needs of our society as a whole . It is the urbanized centers that provide the jobs, the shopping, the schools, and the 25 111 affordable housing upon which the needs of society are provided for. That township lands need to be assimilated in areas adjacent to urbanized development is a reality that must be faced. There is no part of the annexation area that can not be served with municipal water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer services .' Notwithstanding their argument, it is clear that the disputes between the communities lie exclusively in philosophical differences on development . When confronted with such philosophical differences, a reasonable weighing of society' s values require that the greater good of the population be served by allowing the urbanized areas to grow to accommodate the greater needs of society, which they have always done. Ironically, it is . in the growth of the urbanized areas and the very provision of those services that the balance of the Township is best preserved —4.4 =t in what they would like to call their "rural" lifestyle. -_ D. Fiscal Impact. In terms of fiscal impact, it is obvious and important to note that no testimony was presented that would indicate in any way that an adverse fiscal impact would be experienced by either Valley Branch Watershed District, Brown' s Creek Water Management Organization, Independent School District #834, or. Washington 'Witnesses .on behalf of the responding parties attempted to argue that the northwestern portion of the annexation area was too hilly to be able to provide water and sanitary sewer services . The testimony from Mr. Bob Schunicht on behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights as their consulting engineer clearly indicated that there was no difficulty in providing not only water, but sanitary sewer facilities in that region as part of any projected development . 26 County by this annexation. Indeed, the expansion of tax base that would be experienced as a result of the growth of this area and urbanization would benefit each of those adjacent taxing and governmental units . Testimony and report of the City Planner of the City of Oak Park Heights' as it projected the fiscal impact of annexation of these lands to the City of Oak Park Heights was fundamentally undisputed by any other party. Petitioner' s Exhibit 5 at Page 15 reflects the following: FISCAL DATA VALUES AND TAX RATES FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1997 Baytown Township Oak Park Heights Total Estimated Market Valuation 104, 358, 600 223 , 205, 500 Net Tax Capacity 1, 925, 858 6, 728, 690 Total Bonded Indebtedness 0 2,215, 000 Tax Rates : County 27. 87 27 . 87 Local Units of Government : District 1 5.60 22 .27 District 2 5 .60 22 .27 District 3 5 .60 22 . 90 School District 61 .76 61 . 76 Special School District .30 . 30 Watershed District 1 0 0 District 2 3 . 95 3 .54 District 3 3 .54 9 Other 4 . 81 5 .32 Total Tax Rate* District 1 100 .33 117 . 51 District 2 104 .28 121 . 06 District 3 103 . 87 118 . 14 * Source: Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Taxation Division 'See Exhibit 5 . 27 • • • The net effect of the annexation between the City of Oak Park Heights and the Township would implement a change in tax capacity for the Township of 7 .8 percent . For the City, it would implement an increase in tax capacity of 2 .4 percent . In either case, the same would be negligible. Tax impacts on other taxing districts such as Independent School District #834, Washington County, Valley Branch Watershed District, and the Brown' s Creek Water Management Organization are all unimpacted by annexation of this land. The subject area has no bonded indebtedness nor are there any outstanding special assessments or capital improvement projects in process. Removal of the subject property from the Township of Baytown would remove the obligation upon Baytown to implement the massive storm water ponding improvements that will be required for the existing Kern Center which will be mandated as a result of the Kern shortfall in storm water storage that exists to serve that property. Presumably, the Township would also see savings in reduction of contract services for fire protection and - -- road maintenance. Based on the foregoing, there is no question but that the factors set forth by statute predominantly favor an annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights. IV. EFFORTS BY BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP AND THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO TO CIRCUMVENT THE AUTHORITY OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD The early attempts by the City of Lake Elmo and the Township of Baytown to take action and to forestall action by the • 28 i • . Municipal Board obviously have failed. Notwithstanding that, constant references were received during the course of the hearing from witnesses from the Township and the City with regard to their "cooperative agreement" and intent to pursue a consolidation or merger of their respective communities which they felt the Municipal Board ought to give deference to. The so-called orderly annexation agreement is, of course, nothing other than a sham. The document itself was entered into days after the City of Oak Park Heights passed its resolution and the property owners filed their petition with the resolution with the Municipal Board. The City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township did not pursue in earnest an agreement between themselves until the written agreement was hurriedly put together after the Screaton Petition and the Oak Park resolution became known. In the months preceding the filing of the Screaton Petition, the Township' s own exhibits reflect that they made efforts to solicit neighboring townships to the south to consider merger as a defensive move. Baytown Township had already formally withdrawn from the Oak Park/Bayport/Baytown Township talks affecting merger and possible consolidation that had been earlier funded by the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation.' Not only did Baytown Township withdraw from considering merger with Bayport and the City of Oak Park Heights, but withdrew from the committee so as to not even consider consolidation of services or agreement with regard to jointly forming services to save expense . The second Screaton 'See Respondent' s Exhibit E. 29 4 4 Petition, which was finally acted upon by the City of Oak Park Heights, actually was initiated in the first week of April, 1997 . It was not until then that the Baytown Township seriously pursued any type of discussion and even then only pursued same in a defensive mode with its neighboring community. The draft of the orderly annexation agreement itself is an illustration of a scant document thrown together at the last moment in a last ditch effort to obstruct a possible annexation of this land by the City of Oak Park Heights . The further demonstrated attitude of the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township in refusing the order of the Board to meet in cooperation and mediation with the City of Oak Park Heights to see if issues. could be resolved before October 13 in this matter is a further illustration of the arrogance and the outright refusal of those two governmental entities to pursue reason to compromise and agreement as it affects the subject property. Baytown and Lake Elmo are not only in opposition to the City of Oak Park Heights, but they also stand in opposition to the Metropolitan Council. Proceeding ahead developing lands in 2% to 5 acre parcels in contravention to the regional blueprint and with an open arrogance in utilizing what remaining resources of land availability exist in a manner to preclude future utilization of land for reasonable urbanized development . Development of lands in the style that has been promulgated to date by Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo in terms of their residential cluster concepts is, at best, onerous . Despite the vast array of open lands available in the 30 heart of the Township, these cluster developments are being strategically located adjacent to urbanized areas and will have the obvious defensive impact of precluding future growth and urbanization of those areas as would otherwise be projected under Metropolitan and City comprehensive plans . V. CONCLUSION -Based on the factors provided by statute as well as the overriding public policy that has served in supporting the Metropolitan Council regional blueprint and the need for urbanized areas to expand to accommodate increasing populations and demand for growth, the City of Oak Park Heights respectfully requests the Minnesota Municipal Board to issue its order granting the annexation of the subject property to the City of Oak Park Heights and making said annexation effective immediate or all purposes . Dated this 71 day of Janu- y, 1998 . Respe• fully . itted, Ma k J. Vierling EC BERG, LAMMERS, BRI , OLFF & VIERLING, . .P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (612) 439-2878 Attorney I .D. 112823 31 01/16/98 15:02 ECKBERG LAW -4 4390574 N0.037 D01 ••y17'y,.. Phone:(612)603-6757 Fax:(612)603-6762 An Equal Opportunity Employer F Twin Cities TOO:(612)297-5353 ( "' _ Greater MN TOO: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St, Paul,Minnesota 55108 TO: Interested Partie FROM Starlene J. Holm.:, Office Services DATE : January 13, 1998 SUBJECT: A-5821 Oak Park Heights regarding the above-entitled For your information,the Minnesota Municipal Board will 1998 in the Municipal Board Office, proceeding at 10:00 am. on Wednesday, February Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul,Minnesota. meetin is for Board discussion only. No new evidence will be taken. The The purpose of this 9 compiled in this matter. decision will be based on the hearing record already Is scheduled because You are welcome to come in and observe any meetings or conference calls this proceeding. You are not, however, required to attend and may call the Board office to inquire about any Board action. For special accommodations,odations, please contact the Minnesota Municipal Board, uite 203-5757; Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota or Statewide TTY 1-800-627-3529. sjh f i 1 • • Enclosure 3 • An Equal Opportunity Employer � ?;•., Phone: (612)603-6757 J' ,;j3` 41: F ax: (612)603-6762 q Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 __ s Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA `� -- f'� MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square DEC 12 j997 ;Idij 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 December 8, 1997 The Honorable Dave Schaaf The Honorable Wyn John Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo P. O. Box 2007 3800 Laveme Avenue, North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Ronald Fredkove, Chair Baytown Town Board 4220 Osgood Avenue, North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: OA-497/0A-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Twp(Joint Agreement; 235 acres) A-5821 Oak Park Heights/Baytown Twp(Petition/City Resolution; 240 acres) Gentlemen: At the December 5, 1997 Regular Meeting, the Municipal Board unanimously voted to continue to table consideration of the OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Township matter. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD açkSthcti(lChristin . Sco illo Executive Director CMS:sjh cc: John Scott McDonald,Attorney at Law(Petitioners A-5821) Mark Verling, Attorney at Law(City of Oak Park Heights) David Magnuson, Attorney at Law(Baytown Township) Jerry Filla,Attorney(City of Lake Elmo) Jeanne Matross, Met Council Associate General Counsel Dennis O'Donnell, Washington County Health, Education&Land Mgmt. Dept. Mike Robertson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Administrator Patricia St. Claire, Baytown Township Clerk I • v E" `': Phone:(612)603-6757 An Equal Opportunity Employer // f% ( ) t� ' 't "t,;.4_ Fax: (612)603-6762 a Twin Cities TDD:(612)297-5353 ��_ Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA Esgi.GOWIE, MUNICIPAL BOARD i` Suite 225 Bandana Square DEC 12 l 1021 Bandana Boulevard East u i St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 1J December 8, 1997 The Honorable Dave Schaaf The Honorable Wyn John Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo P. O. Box 2007 3800 Laveme Avenue, North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Ronald Fredkove, Chair Baytown Town Board 4220 Osgood Avenue, North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Twp(Joint Agreement; 235 acres) A-5821 Oak Park Heights/Baytown Twp(Petition/City Resolution; 240 acres) Gentlemen: At the December 5, 1997 Regular Meeting, the Municipal Board unanimously voted to continue to table consideration of the OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Township matter. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD ‘\_,4,Pl‘t \ RA>, v4. .___\:-4.1(_, Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director CMS:sjh cc: John Scott McDonald, Attorney at Law(Petitioners A-5821) Mark Vierling,Attorney at Law(City of Oak Park Heights) David Magnuson,Attorney at.Law(Baytown Township) Jerry Filla,Attorney(City of Lake Elmo) Jeanne Matross, Met Council Associate General Counsel D9rinis O'Donnell, Washington County Health, Education&Land Mgmt. Dept. ike Robertson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Administrator Patricia St. Claire, Baytown Township Clerk • • LAW OFFICES OF Eekberg, Lammers. Briggs. Wolff' & Vierling. P.L.L.P. 01835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle 1. EelcFerg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susen D. Olson ,lames F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 Mary ,1. Vierling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gallen* Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 (1944-1996) Thomas J. Weidner* December 11, 1997 *Qualified Neutral Arh trat,rr& Mediator *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator *R(ertifIed Reel Estate Specialist Court Administrator Civil Division PY Ramsey County Government Center O 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Suite 600 St . Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re : City of Lake Elmo and Town of Baytown v. The Minnesota Municipal Board City of Oak Park Heights, Intervenor Court File No. C9-97-8893 Dear Administrator: Enclosed herewith for filing please find tw• h. • ' es of Entry and Affidavit of Service by Mail in re• - -• to the -bove- referenced matter. Yours v trul I,. Ma, k J. Vie ' • MJV/sdb Enclosure cc: Michael Robertson DEC 1 21997 1 • LAW OFFICES OF • Eckberg, Lammers. Briggs. Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L.P. 0 01855 Northwestern Avenue /�I Lyle �. i �Cberg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susdn D. Q,son �ames F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs*. FAX (G 12) -159..2925 Mari, .J. Vierling* Paul A. Wolff • Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 G. G it err (1911-1996) /� Thomas .J. Weidner* *Quat.1ied Neutral Arbitrator& Mediator December 11, 1997 •Quaticied Noulrat Arbitrator. *Certif.ed Reat Estate SPecietiwl Copy Mr. Jerome Filla Mr. J. Scott McDonald Person, Fram & Bergman Lawson, Marshall, McDonald 300 Midwest Federal Building & Galowitz, P.A. • 50 East Fifth Street 3880 Laverne Avenue North St . Paul, MN 55101 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Mr. David Magnuson Mr. Kenneth E. Raschke Attorney at Law Assistant Attorney General 333 North Main Street 525 Park, Suite 200 Stillwater, MN 55082 St . Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re : City of Lake Elmo and Town of Baytown v. • The Minnesota Municipal Board City of Oak Park Heights, Intervenor Court File No. C9-97-8893 Gentlemen: - Enclosed herewith and served upon you by U. S. Mail please find two Notices of Entry in regards to the above-referenced matters . Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc : Michael Robertson s R . 410 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. C9-97-8893 City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Town of Baytown, a Minnesota Township, Petitioners, NOTICE OF ENTRY v. The Minnesota Municipal Board, Respondent, and City of Oak Park Heights, a statutory City and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Intervener, and David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc. ; Low & Associates, Inc. ; A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loella Nass, Interveners. TO: THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND ITS ATTORNEY, JEROME FILLA, 300 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING, 50 EAST FIFTH STREET, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101; THE TOWN OF BAYTOWN AND ITS ATTORNEY, DAVID T. MAGNUSON, 333 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 202, P.O. BOX 438, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082; THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ITS ATTORNEY, MR. KENNETH E. RASCHKE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 525 PARK, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101; AND DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , LOW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, AND BERNARD AND LOELLA NAAS AND THEIR ATTORNEY, J. SCOTT McDONALD, LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWIT2, P.A. , 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH, LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on the 15th day of November, 1997, the annexed Orders, issued by the Honorable Bertram Poritsky, Judge of District Court, with regard to the above-referenced matter, was duly entered and filed in the office of the Court Administrator, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Dated this 11th day of December, 1997. ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING, P.L.L.P. • • BY: (st Mark J. Vierling Mark J. Vierling Attorney I .D. #112823 Attorneys for City of Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (612) 439-2878 • . . • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. C9-97-8893 City of Lake Elmo, a Case Type : Other - Mandamus Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Town of Baytown, a Minnesota Township, Petitioners, vs . ORDER The Minnesota Municipal Board, Respondent, and City of Oak Park Heights, a statutory City and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota Intervener, and David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc. ; Low & • Associates, Inc. ; A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loella Nass, Interveners . APPEARANCES JEROME FILLA, 300 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING, 50 EAST FIFTH STREET, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101, ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO; DAVID T. MAGNUSON, 333 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 202, P.O. BOX 438, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082, ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN OF BAYTOWN; KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR. , ATTORNEY GENERAL' s OFFICE, 525 PARK, SUITE 200, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101, ATTORNEY FOR THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD; • • • • MARK J. VIERLING, 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082, ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS . • This matter came on for hearing by this Court on 13�r day of C)CVcAoty , 1997, on the City of Oak Park Heights' motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 . 01 and Rule 24 . 02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, in this action involving the Writ of Mandamus requested by the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown to compel the Minnesota Municipal Board to order annexation of a certain portion of land that is the subject to an orderly annexation agreement between the Petitioners. Oak Park Heights argues that it should be allowed to intervene as a matter of right in this action because it has substantial property and economic interests that would be impacted if the Petitioner' s requested relief is granted. Oak Park Heights further contends that its interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties and that its motion is timely. Oak Park Heights argues in the alternative that it should be granted permissive intervention in this action because the City' s defense and the main action have questions of law and fact in common, and that the intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties . Accordingly, based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, including the briefs and arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that : The motion for Intervention is GRANTED. Dated:v t-lci cr 13 , 1997 di'tc,� "r t�wC'�� Judge of District Cour c.� 7T c7� Si e � Q 11 15 7 o R ' • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT - COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FILE NO. C9-97-8893 CASE TYPE: OTHER - MANDAMUS City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Town of Baytown, a Minnesota Township, Petitioners, ORDER vs . The Minnesota Municipal Board, Respondent, and City of Oak Park Heights, a statutory City and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Applicant for Intervention, and David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc . ; Low & Associates, Inc. ; A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loella Nass, Applicants for Intervention. APPEARANCES THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND ITS COUNSEL, JEROME FILLA, 300 MIDWEST FEDERAL BLDG. , 50 EAST FIFTH ST. , ST. PAUL, MN 555101; 1 THE TOWN OF BAYTOWN AND ITS COUNSEL, DAVID T. MAGNUSON, 333 NO. MAIN ST. , SUITE 202, P.O. BOX 438, STILLWATER, MN 55082; THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ITS COUNSEL, MARK J. VIERLING, 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVE. , STILLWATER, MN 55082; THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ITS COUNSEL, KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR. , ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, 525 PARK, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MN 55101 . This matter came on for hearing by this Court on the 13th day of October, 1997, on the Interveners, David R. Screaton Partnership, Oakgreen Farms, Inc. , Low & Associates, Inc. , A.L.K. Partnership, Frederick Kemper, Calvin J. Brookman, Bernard and Loella Nass' motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24 .01 and Rule 24 . 02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, in this action involving the Writ of Mandamus requested by the City of Lake Elmo • and the Town of Baytown to compel the Minnesota Municipal Board to order annexation of a certain portion of land that is the subject to an orderly annexation agreement between the _ Petitioners . Interveners, David R. Screaton Partnership, et al argues that they should be allowed to intervene as a matter of right in this action because they have substantial property and economic interests that would be impacted if the Petitioner' s requested relief is granted. Interveners, David R. Screaton Partnership, et al further contends that their interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties and that their motion is timely. Interveners, David R. Screaton Partnership, et al argues in 2 the alternative that they should be granted permissive intervention in this action because the City' s defense and the main action have questions of law and fact in common, and that the intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties . Accordingly, based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, including the briefs and arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that : The motion for Intervention is GRANTED. Dated: CP vrv}w► 1.3 1997 . dot cry �v Pa/Ma. 'V .- Judge of District Ye c. � c. g Court &cot, �� j '5197 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. C9-97-8893 City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Town of Baytown, a Minnesota • Township, Petitioners, NOTICE OF ENTRY v. • •• • The Minnesota Municipal Board, • Respondent, 0 PIT and • City of Oak Park Heights, a statutory City and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, Intervener, and David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc. ; Low & Associates, Inc. ; A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loella Nass, • Interveners. TO: THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND ITS ATTORNEY, JEROME FILLA, 300 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING, 50 EAST FIFTH STREET, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101; THE TOWN OF BAYTOWN AND ITS ATTORNEY, DAVID T. MAGNUSON, 333 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 202, P.O. BOX 438, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082; THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ITS ATTORNEY, MR. KENNETH E. RASCHKE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 525 PARK, SUITE 200, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101; AND DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , LOW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, AND BERNARD AND LOELLA NAAS AND THEIR ATTORNEY, J. SCOTT McDONALD, LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. , 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH, LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA • 55042 • s PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on the 22nd day of November, 1997, the annexed Order Denying Petition Writ of Mandamus, issued by the Honorable Bertram Poritsky, Judge of District Court, with regard to the above-referenced matter, was duly entered and filed in the office of the Court Administrator, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Dated this 11th day of December, 1997. ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING, P.L.L.P. By: is! Mark J. Vierling Mark J. Vierling . Attorney I .D. #112823 Attorneys for City of Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (612) 439-2878 • r • • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT File No. C9-97-8893 City of Lake Elmo, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Town of Baytown, a Minnesota Township, Petitioners, vs. The Minnesota Municipal Board, Respondent, and ORDER DENYING PETITION City of Oak Park Heights, a WRIT OF MANDAMUS statutory City and political subdivision of the State of .. Minnesota, -- ` _ - _ Intervener,__ _ and David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc . ; Low & Associates, Inc. , A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loelle Nass, Interveners. The above-entitled matter came duly on before the undersigned Judge of District Court for hearing on the 13th day of October, 1997. The matter was before the Court upon the alternative writ of mandamus of the undersigned dated September 12, 1997 . Appearances: John M. Miller, Esq. , and Jerome Filla, Esq. , appeared for Petitioner City of Lake Elmo. David T. i S Magnuson, Esq. , appeared for Petitioner Town of Baytown. Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr. , Assistant Attorney General, appeared for Respondent Minnesota Municipal Board. Mark J. Vierling, Esq. , appeared for Intervener City of Oak Park Heights. John S. McDonald, Esq. , appeared for Interveners David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc. ; Low & Associates, Inc. ; A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loelle Nass . Upon all the files records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of City of Lake Elmo and Town of Baytown for a writ of mandamus be in all things denied. The attached Memorandum is made part of this Order. Dated at St . Paul, Minnesota this 22 day of November, 1997. BY THE COURT: Be`rtrand Poritsky Judge of District Court M E M O R A N D U M The material facts in this matter do not appear to be in dispute. The proceeding involves competing attempts by Petitioner City of Lake Elmo and Respondent City of Oak Park Heights to annex a portion of the town of Baytown ("the Property") . On July 29, 1997, the Respondent Minnesota Municipal Board ("the Board") received a petition for annexation of the Property to the City of Oak Park Heights. The petition was signed by various landowners in I _ 2 I ' 111 the Property and was accompanied by a resolution of support from the Oak Park Heights City Council . Thereafter, on August 6, the Board received a joint resolution by the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown providing for an annexation of the Property by Lake Elmo. The Petitioners, Lake Elmo and Baytown, cite Minn. Stat. §414 . 0325, Subd. 1 (1996) which provides in part: If a joint resolution designates an area as in need of orderly annexation, provides for the conditions for its annexation, and states that no consideration by the board is necessary, the board may review and comment but shall, within 30 days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of the resolution. (Emphasis supplied. ) On the basis of the language in the cited statute, Petitioners claim that the Board must order the annexation by Lake Elmo of the Property. Since the Board is mandated to order the annexation, Petitioners argue, they are entitled to a writ of mandamus from this Court commanding the Board to order the annexation. Respondents and Interveners cite Minn. Stat. §414 . 031 (1996) . The petition submitted by the landowners and supported by the Oak Park Heights resolution is in compliance with that statute. The statute provides for a hearing to be held before the Board and for the Board to consider some 14 factors in deciding whether or not to approve the annexation. In opposition to Petitioners' arguments that a writ of mandamus should issue, Respondents and Interveners cite the case of Dexner v. Houghton, 190 N.W. 179 (Minn. 1922) . In that case the 3 • • • trial court denied a writ of mandamus, and the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court pointed out that a writ of mandamus should issue upon "a proper showing, " Id. at 180, but the Court went on to say: But this does not mean that a court may never refuse a writ where a prima facie right to it is shown. . . . The consensus of opinion is that the writ still remains a discretionary writ, and should be refused, if sound judicial discretion bespeaks that course. In saying that in a proper case the writ issues as a matter of course, no more is meant than this: It may not be refused arbitrarily or capriciously, but only in the exercise of discretion, guided by law and reason. (Citations omitted. ) Ibid. It is my opinion that both law and reason require that the writ not issue. Minn. Stat. Chap. 414 creates the Minnesota Municipal Board and gives it broad authority over the drawing of municipal boundaries . In Minn. Stat. §414 .01 (1996) the legislature set out extensive findings as a basis for the creation of the Board. It is true, as Petitioners argue, that the portion of Minn. Stat . §414 . 0325, Subd. 1 upon which Petitioners rely was passed after the enactment of §414 .031. However in the instant case the landowners had filed their petition first, and the Board prepared to proceed with that petition. Since §414 .0325 was not made an express exception to §414 .031, in this case there appears to be a conflict between the statutes: §414 .031 tells the Board to proceed with the landowners' s pending petition, while §414 .0325 orders the Board to grant Petitioners' joint resolution. . In order to avoid the conflict and give effect to both statutes, I conclude that the 4 410 proper construction of §414 .0325 is to apply it to cases where no petition for the same property has been received at the time the Board receives the joint resolution. I am aware that the case of Village of Farmington v. Minnesota Municipal Com'n, 170 N.W.2d 197 (Minn. 1969) , abrogated the "first-in-time-first-in-right" rule. The above statutory construction does not conflict with the holding in Farmington, because in the instant case the Board can consider both the landowners' petition and Petitioners' joint resolution simultaneously. As the Supreme Court noted in Farmington: • These provisions [Chap. 4141 contemplate that the commission will be confronted with conflicting petitions. It is clear therefore that the legislature necessarily intended to authorize simultaneous consideration of such petitions. Such authority not only is consistent with the legislative purpose and design of c. 414 when considered as a whole, but also appears necessary if the commission is to fulfill its intended role and function of aiding, advancing, and authoritatively controlling the orderly expansion of existing municipalities . . . Id. at 202. For these reasons, I believe the appropriate legislative intent of §414 .0325 was not to divest the Board of its broad grant of discretion in cases where the joint resolution was received by the Board while a petition prusuant to §414 . 031 was already • pending. Accordingly, I conclude that Petitioners are not entitled to a writ of mandamus, and the attached Order denies their petition. F:\baytown.ord B. P. 5 I '^'� �.tri �a � 5• �� r,,•'$ p 6 � 0 5. � 5 �,'S� 5 S x� � �. bd ono $•12 11 1 51 ° lots. 31 gl E 5 ., y a g 8 t.° S g 0 5. ;: n ° p� 6 ... v, o R. coo �' A ss C. =oral..a £°i 0 ^ A. ° ... " ° 2.p g,do0 ° co 0 000 co - A� �� .`< �* a o s:Oao . S' 0 'S � 5•° _ � � '* � 5'co ° g = � � o �p Egqi 1 =8 0,8 = � g.S• . 318sOFa ci'py'. = .7 '° 0cme ca. E. JSo ,J,... C�'�. °' a ERR,FO5 6 oa ►e S co = .,,co5•= 9. ., = sct2: c'' w ° $. p °5 �'S:�b o oa°P0 C 5' ce e ° •n ° 0 5 g s, p »4 o 6' OO ', 'co ore p U g3�Ro o o n S c .�= 5 A8. � •° co o n e 5 • ors. S •w� ... •, oap;ozrc, ° ooS o ° 1 °� oo ¢ � ° g �° y� �•.� 5 � 60 �� °-° �• ° � � tr��g;� =� �coo � o �•�° is.SSw � g � �e,'� S o a ' ate .6 § � � � Eri s � Q� 9, S. R g _ > EaaE 8.4 g, W8 oao•t °° r 5g ° i � o ¢•� 81a ° "8 g. k �gna.6D• 9si •. 'b tai =ak' - Egl = a„ E• E.g 0,...° y o A• o ova. 5 lg.F�o gv, rsl ifl:apup o ! =,Fi3 = ° Sao Wo� _° co e ° �, o �j Q �°'�. pi: . Oi c:i 1 Oi R can �C 4 , 01 8�' = = 6 C�O.1'"b g o 0 9 .7 O D i `C i i s t g MO* W�D a �y CC �0 O'C!04 O A ...∎ 'i I I 'i� a ."y • q `6 Coyc, p u, � _ � y 1 � O -• �0� � o Two i .-IEF-gl 'a� a ��` ceo cos in ° °° `° 0to Sio 1-.,„+0° + Cs= 0 8. = our. II g ° '16 5.9 = ° aw s.cD0 =.0 * cgs. iigli e ,:' 0. .m. ,i-,'• .z * e. Cad 5 p 9 ° 1a m 4 co o m as 41! 1. c A = g a= § rgg § 5 O � —a n ►' o .er. y p . • 9,,F17,19„ Y W=1 .' Sp0 o `< _ 5' 0 '4:0 � 5 � e S � �.�'S o . p _.» c = s •ta 5•`0 0' 6• x ° g g.65 V911 g' g., RS+ 9 5 °< a g.'. co a c 2 "p'�0 co o ;; S. IIIiIII1I1.Q1 .iIliIUI1 0 i i+ �0' 0 O• O ^ 1�$yy �y y �.. '. e t `' �'j lea e ogpoo 8a oQ .�p'g ° et Uj! i !119 1JiIiI re e: R5. gb Is . .kr" g g g kEl 0 E.gg w 3 cm 5: 5i eo e� o5a `< a'„ 5g5• 'ea � 0. .° c(o :N • Sp a0.'4 a °�to' n o°° S °r=, a�' ' _• 5 Sag. R � 4. p 4g cxo a �0. . 0 ... e Q ° / ti a0 o co 5 oo as 0 6 o as . c I = O � G a .. a co b = u � o � X3 uu°p, t. � = 9 aC 1§ F y t�7co is a °0av p r+: G g . o o * x5 p. � has a;�• 0 .. Flo v; 5' �'" I.E. 00.rmgc.miirgills. ki 0'51 ° F. ,- s.og B S =4.2, im '4 ' -- .=..Miz g-0. 0 8.2. g mrs4 CI = it - B =si.' rg g.s,01 P, 1 ' ig‘< Q gr,4 • g ... oaqww,za , 2og , 0 OQ 124 oZa is."1 Ciltra",77.411 ; g r+4:. afri a 4 r so RN� too . o a a� =co _ , , O . no = = r. E Er =id ao, ao'eygElm' 4 1.0 ilr g-1 r; lg. ' it. CDC1 5� •1 4 ril ,It . it to r ° GI—xi-11 • • • LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, l3riggs, Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle .{. Lelci ? �4 Minnesota 55082 J C Susan l). (71s011 VJ James F. Lamm. { (G12) 1.59-2878 David K. Snyder Rohe,' G. Brig,.. t A (612) 4.39-2925 Marl, .f. Vierlin, 2 4 , 7 i Paul aul A. Wolff e.t Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 Gregory G. Gal cry (19-14-1996) Thomas J. Wei.ner* CITY OF *Qualified Neutral Ar(a;trator& Mediator OAK PARK HEIGHTS November 21, 1997 *Qualified Neutral A,-Litrater *Certified Real Estate Specialist • • Ms . Christine Scotillo Executive Director • Minnesota Municipal Board In7 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul, Minnesota 551083 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown Township Annexation Dear Ms . Scotillo: Pursuant to the agreement that was reached at the pre- hearing conference between the attorneys and the Board on November 18, 1997, I am providing you with our list of witnesses and our list of exhibits within this correspondence. The City of Oak Park Heights anticipates calling the following witnesses : 1 . Mr. Scott Richards • Northwest Associated Consultants 2 . Mr. David Licht Northwest Associated Consultants 3 . Mr. Robert Schunicht Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 4 . Mr. Sheldon Johnson Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 5 . Mr. Lindy Swanson Chief of Police City of Oak Park Heights 6 . Mr. Charles Schwartz Chief - Bayport Fire Department • 410 Ms . Christine Scotillo November 21, 1997 Page 2 7 . Ms . Judy Hoist Interim City Administrator Oak Park Heights 8 . Mr. James Butler Building Inspector City of Oak Park Heights The City' s exhibits will be as follows : 1 . Stipulation Minnesota Municipal Board Form as prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants . 2 . Planner' s Report, Northwest Associated Consultants - Oak Park Heights . 3 . Curriculum Vitae, David R. Licht . 4 . Curriculum Vitae, Robert Schunicht . 5 . Curriculum Vitae, Sheldon Johnson. 6 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - Kennedy Builders. 7 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - Kennedy Builders. 8 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - Oak Park, L.L.C. 9 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - St . Croix West Holding, L.L.C. 10 . Metropolitan 2040 Regional Growth Strategy Map with study area and surrounding cities and townships . 11 . Air photo of study area. 12 . Study area development potential - Baytown planning and zoning standards . 13 . Study area land use map. 14 . City base map. Ms . Christine Scotillo November 21, 1997 Page 3 15 . West Highway 5 annexation area sewer and water main map. 16 . West Highway 5 annexation area storm water management narrative . 17 . West Highway 5 storm water m- agement .map. 18 . West Highway 5 annexatio. area t -nsportation map. Yours v-ry t sly, ar • J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc : Judy Holst, Interim City Administrator (via fax) David Magnuson (via fax) Jerry Filla (via fax) Scott McDonald (via fax) Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel (via fax) • • LAW OFFICES OF • Ecicherg. Lammers. Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L.P. • 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle .f. col<6erg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James 1'. Lammers (612) 459-2878 David K. Snider RoLert G. Briggs:** I'A\ (G12) 4,5c)_9925 Marl, <l. Vierling* Paul aul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gallery Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 (19•11-1990) Thomas I. Weidner* *QunitEied Nufral ^r6oralor t Mediator.Qua{'tied Neutral Arl3tirater II tkCertitted Real Estate Specialist 24199 ' Ms . Christine Scotillo AHE OAK PARK HEIGHTS Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board C OPy 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul, Minnesota 551083 Dear Ms . Scotillo : Enclosed herewith and provided to you please find additional consents of property owners of St . Croix West Holding, L.L.C. and Kennedy Builders consenting to the Screaton petition and the annexation of the City of Oak Park Heights of their properties . These properties affect Lots 1, 2 , and 3 , Block 2, Kern Center and Lot 7, Block 2 , Kern Center and Lot 4, Block 1, Kern Center. I have already provided you with • e sit ed consent of Stacey Jo Thompson on behalf of Oak Park, .L.C. -ffecting Lot 2, Block 1, Kern Center. I will be provid' g the .riginals of these documents at the hearing on Monday mar. ng. Yours ,ery ruly, • M- .1( J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc : Judy Hoist, Interim City Administrator • David Magnuson Jerry Filla Scott McDonald Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel • • CONSENT AND PETITION TO JOIN THE PETITION OF . . . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.R. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROCKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §414 .031 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225, Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East .St . Paul, MN 55108; and, • City of Oak Park Heights • 14168 57th Street North P . O . Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • The undersigned owners of real property located at >cuc}c kLiernv2‘74-(, N1 . (address) and legally described as : t� fc 2-, 4;% 7 AC iu Agi,A 7/a.0 • (legal description and PIN) • doe hereby join in the Petition of David R. Screaton partnership et • al seeking annexation of unincorporated lands to the City of Oak Park Heights . Dated: NpO 17- 115 7 By: KGM ILO te AntarMir./ • • • CONSENT AND PETITION TO JOIN THE PETITION OF . . . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROCKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS FOR ANNEXATION • OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §414 .031 TO : Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225, Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East • St . Paul, MN 55108; and, • City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North P . O. Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • The undersigned owners of real property located at • rA toi-ttC. AO& NC. (address) and legally described as : 274e - / /'GT 4/ //1 "/./ ,4W;r/l/r� (legal description and PIN) doe hereby join in the Petition of David R. Screaton partnership et al seeking annexation of unincorporated lands to the City of Oak Park Heights . • Dated: !7L//7- /9 ,7 B is . 4#O " , _. S%/L e. • • CONSENT AND PETITION TO JOIN THE PETITION OF . . . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERS-HT.?, O RGREEN FARMS, INC . , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.R. PAR'T'NERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROGAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OA_{ PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINN. S TAT. §414 .031 TO : Minnesota Muni c oal Board Suite 225, Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East • .St . Paul , MN 55108; and, City of Oak Park Heights • 14168 57th Street North P . 0 . Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 The undersigned owners of real property located at F 'K icA., r rz (address) and locally described as : L2 / cc_ K ..I._. - r rz- Crvr - • e-e, "D ' r- re � (legal description and PIN) doe hereby join in the Petition of David R. Screaton partnership at al seeking f unincorporated t lands to the City of Oak a_ s-_t_:�g of y Park Heights . Dated : /4/1/92 By;� • O ra tea • ■ • • CONSENT AND PETITION TO JOIN THE PETITION OF . . . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROCKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §414 .031 TO : Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225, Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East .St . Paul, My 55108; and, City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North P . O . Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, MV 55082 The undersigned owners of real property located at �C c 2a To s ' „, 53 �-�A-, .7--re z (address) and legally described as : �v -r- t - 2 *- 3 ER 2 K z_ (legal description and PIN) doe hereby join in the Petition of David R. Screaton partnership et al seeking annexation of unincorporated lands to the City of Oak Park Heights . Dated: /vo0 . 19 - 1997 B . - - . ► x CST ��o �yr,J tee LL .1 ��nn N .lrr rrr:!(Y/Ir...!!f :r.. .t�itrr.�,r� III 'I I ° -0"4;^rr•rr.w•r. r ml.IrrvvNVY, r• r r Kr (i' - i N.i . ...- -•" Ltic.:4 .. I 4D nrNn'r.r.",r i . • • f+�M4Yrw.vYr(vYrrr�lrr.`Mr'rr.� 1 --X X m.1= w VD / x i. I `� '''''.1,.".... ,,•se. T�lIN i'l rN ��N • ?��jq� r+^ • %O • /or, -.1111111rak ill 1 ..,...; - X I w r_O O O • ib ` 1 ri O O w• ' 4.. 4,-4. { 4 CO 444 t ! .. NB-3 S to .3 1' - , CD p • • I ' I . N--I X 7` r .1 tD 2 . I z r f t7t 6i •, fi ZD� ' I, c)m c r 70 j I x m n , X n m 1 1 \ ^� ' f� SDI .N D Nl r� `� . . —i_ N _/_ 1 ' •i. W 6 ,t in- W Iv�n• NCB(' - V+ Dc , 1* N D I•1� 5 Zr. — I / .L.1 i 1 . [{ I I r ; • ` ` DD w . b I ! n N.:-'g s ', 22�x , . .... _._-- o XD t. ; I .�._ — «.:... -�..-1 _..- 1111`4' ` _t VS to •-' n���_ 2 • t _ R= 1 (l1 m r ' ti Allillib'..23 E a r 0 44. / 0. { r X e _. . -,,, , i R -..__ / t.,. -0 ,, II 1 3 X i 1 tt,.- t4 X ,� �,� Imo : C . r � 4I I I _ y " mot • • I. I I I{ .$ BR ``/ v 6) 3> / ��, y W , ll 1 i 1\ <'- 4.: <°-C1' 0 , 0 • w 0 w O J C4 C)J ° W O C t7 C. N N N U{ N °zZ I 1 O? � • P) =I I < = N a aO m,^ ma CO maLntt) mmm rn Cr) to u, � inlo r o. yet Y ►� N N N CV CV CV N CV fV Cj' N r N C7 a L9 r CD t.., L a to o .- tD W u 1- < C7 M N !7 N N t7 M 4 CD r O ." J T J W N r 0 N !O'N U)1111 Co n tD to to'Co to N ") CO CD CD CA r CI 0 D) C7 f7 co • 11/ 0 r O a' N ") .- N N N 0 CA N C.j 'Cr P• w Ir t7 Q ri C9 f� t`/ N fV fV lV fV fV N tV ri C') N fV fV O N to ct Il co co N II 1 1111N11111111 t- w O < X ' . 1 11 0 0 , . .. Y I 04a XX 1XX XXXXX ' • Ix giiiiiiiiiii < ' ' WO II g w X X x X X X I cc f W IiIIIIIuIIuIi1II1iII1iI1II. NIA D � w CA O N P9 co co V C e an co co t0 I� CO C) N N N N I N N P N N N N ! z I. Z O y w I v' W I Z I I O W • U x a O F.. O.. U 2 J I Q 0 Cr) D m U J - F}- Ew 000 w I _ co ...1 ! tL' lob Yg ' Y z o5o 00ZwwW 0 F Cl 0 a y cd LL AOw. C NjU JJ ._, wW =C9 C9 t7 w m 2 z -. O us. o CeEz Z W < w z �' m0 wxxx � � m � � � O w F- vi z Q o r 0 cr w -� F- N w x co O Z O N O. L,., 0- 0ow a zwm di-- t-- }- aao000 to 0z — coz F- ~ J -3 to W •LQLi O `t � z2m0 -U' � `ZawuyiwuLi ww � c~i� U) CO W ui > j C=lw+ C ¢ Z cNn W w � W .T'iLt_ V) m zaaw Z1— ►' zzz wagagOLLx � Q < m2mcn U U 1! O it w .e mmaD0 w W I. - - - Z x ._tzZF- C9 OZUt- 0 ± Z 2zcrI- F- 1- Z ¢ � < Oczv000Y � w0www ZZ _ azw0wm cc < 0 ' 2 - - W _.1 O: ( Z Co �S QZmmXF Wm � m Q W J m m -� _� � m 0 ODXLUWW Wm5Y < Za ODU U JF' F: Z » > Z = z o > U' E JZ ZQEwZ to F- !iE IQ m QmODOOQ < � F- QYtmF- F-I} O ¢ aWwww W _ w < F-1< Wa � W < WO > w O � � ' m < CC » It UOxco -, < tLcncncn > s5YIncoco mEYC.QcoOm -- < momzW "- •-- !Z X w N to 2 3 Q 2 z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z o o a o 0 0 o b o a o 0 0 0 0 0 =z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F' >: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J J = < < < < < < Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z m m (.1 x 1- 1- � Ny0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m w m w .5 V) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 m m m m m m w w w W w w w w 1.0111w w w w w w Lu W U.; W LLl W > > > F > U F. = M U. LL LL Lt LL LL CO Cn CO CO CO Cn CO CO CO Cn CO CO CO CO 0 VI < < < < . < G < >- trm'[Ln' mammmtrmmXmmmmmam [CCC OC9t7 3int7 Q W W W LLJ W W W W F- F- ►- >•- ►- ►- W W LU F- F- F- W W z z z c r t � t z 0 O. 3 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 t) N N O Z ) y Z w ~ 4_ m W w W W W W W W LIJ W Lu w w w W w w w W w w w • W U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 2 2 Z Q < Z Z Z tf) Z < F- co g Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z m NN LO CO O wwwwmwL CO o o t. NNN N a o m Oa_ wwwwwwwwwwwwLwuaw V( - - r � � )U(0- U`Y Y,Y,YYYYYYYYY,YYYYYYYYYY I 111tr) U 0 y 71'7 717 J C 4 ! C I J J J(N N J N N N N J N N���"„� ,��1,a 2 0 0 M CO CO?CO m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m m m CO CO CO CO m m 0 U 4 r N C) of N r N ") < UC) CO P r N Q N CD P al DQ J F- F- F- t— I . F- t F- t t— H t— F+ t— t— F- F- F- F- F 00101000000000�00000000100 1 m , t 411 110 . - MESSAGE O itF I RMAT I ON 11/21/97 17:20 • ID=ECKBERG LAW • DATE S.P—TrIE DISTANT STATION ID MODE PAGES RESULT 11/21 04'39- 612 296 9926 CALLING 03 OK 0000 • 11/21/97 17:14 ECKBERG LAW = 6036762 NO.056 D01 • LAW OFFIt;;t5 OF Lek ers. Lammers. Briggs. Wolff & \'ierlit, . P.L.L.P. • I,85:i Northwestern I\vanue (:A6c.eq Stillwater. Minnesota 5-50 82 Swan }) (612) 1351-287$ Oa.i<I K Snyder • It.dwrt G. hriggs:k• i'.1ti (lit2) +i.',f1-2!}2 i !'1•,.l .1 �'.�r}i,.,_ 11au1 A. Wc}rr C.r.: .,, G. G.,ll,•,. (194.1.inoc;) 16.,.,., ,I Wei 1,.�,.t COVER SHEET - FACSIMILE TR.ANSMISS IOI>�i„t;r;oa Vvolrrl,�.6;,..,�.& <tna;w,r.r 11,01.1116.4 N:oI,JI A,1..It3,nr • rrl��•t r!R I I,wtolc.7pru.sf.e1 DATE : November 21, 1997 Please deliver the following page (s) to: FAX NO: (612) 603-6762 NAME : Christine Scotillo, Minnesota Municipal Board FROM: Mark J. Vierling I Sandy TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 8 , INCLUDING COVER SHEET. The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information from Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling . This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof . If you are not the intended riecioient . be aware that any c3isc:]nAure:. r.r,nv i net . „':>, er 25199'1 t Witte b, jy4 ' k 5vib, 3 .. tug _ ... t .k b� e ,, ,,,,, .. .. . , . _, ,Nice gdon't play hard 3 bi: ' Despite the outward appearances of good support their position.For instances a study - i will-displayed by.Oak Park Heights repre- of the annexation area showed'that;. i*614d = titatives at last week's"summit”regard- not be feasible for the city to annex wily partk, ing the Baytown Township annexation area, of the area.,In the interest of long-range , there was a darker bottom line talking planning,therefore, it makes sense*then First the good.will: •to annex the entire section. ': „. i i Oak Park Heights Mayor Furthermore,if the • Dave Shad said the city . Municipal Board glycs Oak: Confident that the would phase irttaxes at 40 they Park Heights.the,lam then percent of the urban rate in would win a Muniai- it would be politically more the year of annexation and -pal Board decision difficult to offer thelit 10 percent thereafter for between competing ation area concessi than each of the next consecu- ` '. ,,r,* if it were worked o n a r annexation ;requests, rive six years. separate negotiation, Sch .a '. In addition,he said Oak Park Heights was. and Robert argued,perhaps assessments a g ainst prop- sa id g� `give us the rightly,that it would be ` erty owners choosing not to land, or we'll punish hard to convince Oak Patk connect to sewer and water ,, Heights residents that the residents. services would be deferred concessions are necessary until they wished to connect "after the fact" of annex to they system . ation. • .'this is very good pews for Baytown Nevertheless, the view from the other side ;Township residents living within the annex- of the negotiating table was,to paraphrase W.: 4 ation area,because they would not have to Lake Elmo Mayor Wyn John,like putting a experience the shock of watching their gun to the heads of annexation areareidents. taxes rise from around three percent to.over Give Oak Park Heights the land, and these 20 Oereent in just one year. Moreover, they .land owners would be spared the full brunt of would not be expected to pay for sewer and taxes and assessments.Don't give up the A. i, water hook-ups until they wanted the ser- land,however, and they would immediately vice, and could delay that event until their face roughly seven their current tax• existing well and septic,system&failed a" rate,plus sewer hook-up costs,plus even :crucial money saver considering the formi- more taxes due to the increased property; dable.assessments that would be otherwise values resulting from the sewer hook-ups. [due. For owners of open land,this is not a Now for that darker bottom line: problem. Future development along the Schaaf,backed up by Councilwoman bustling Highway 36 corridor will ensure th Janet Robert, stressed that Oak.Park these bills are paid. But for homeowners and 'Heights would only offer the afroremen some business owners,this will be nothing •timed concessions if Lake Elmo abandoned short of a nightmare.And especially.crubl its bidlor any-or all of the annexation area. •since Lake Elmo representatives have said :Confident that they would win a Municipal they would offer,concessions if the annex- ,B`oard decision between competing annex- " ation area goes to them. '"r :ate request's, Oak Park Heights was Does Oak Park Heights have a point?` " ive us the land,,or we'll punish Certainly.But,does that mean Lake, 44 a _; , :thy residents." and whatever resistance to an Oak Perk Undoubtedly, many on the Oak Park Heights annexation in Baytown'Township Heights council would take issue with this should submit? , ' summary,and have good arguments to Well,that's just playing hard bail. 11/21/97 17:46 ECKBERG LAW -> 4390574 NO.062 D01 • • LAW OrFICLS OF Eol<bcrc . Lammers , Briggs, Wolf & Vtcrlin . I) L,1.. P. I335 Nnrilli•vcsterri Avenue Li.le Sti{lwalr.r, Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson (612) 139-'2878 Da.i<I Snvt'lor .In n+c rr I I:Jmmr•rs G 1',\.1 (G12) 1,39-201'• , ark ` Ic Yl{ifl K• I'.tnl A W n1(I (rrt• rlry O. (tallrr• (19:14-1490 111 UIIIaY .1 W(.u4 a<•rw COVER SHEET - FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIO , .•.1 \eorr4( Ar4;lr,.l,.r , M4alr,+ •QNaIl(Ird Neutral Arborait•• i&t:r.r l.!.e<I Il^••1 1:.L.in S,... l.al DATE : November 21 . 1997 the following page (s)deliver 5 e (s) to :p g FAX NO: 439-0574 NAME: Judy Hoist FROM: Mark J. Vierling / Sandy TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 4 , INCLUDING COVER SHEET. The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information from Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling . This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof . If you are not the intended recipient , be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. Violation of this confidentiality notice could constitute a basis for a claim for damages against the violation. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (612) 439- 2878 . TF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (612) 439-2878 COMMENTS: Re : Oak Park Hei•hts Ba town Townshi. Annexation * * * * * * * * * * * HARD COPY WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL 11/21/97 17:46 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.062 D02 • • LAW OFFICES OF ��:�e.r Lammers. Wolf c t . Wo{f� ��c.r{ink. f .L.L.P. 1855 Nc rlhwcsi v.I.9 I\VGnuc. 't SIiIIwalHt', M■nftlsold 55082 S1tSatn D. U{F�l,t Lyle 1 1.I.'lrl,4'I`v (012) /159-2878 David Snvdcr Itr,hrri C. I5riggs*• FAX (($12) 430-202.' \ t�• Paul A. WTI({ rlt .1 Vlcrlln ( ( It Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 091A-M)0) I I +(�u..Ll.•,i N,:a,ral Arbitrator t,1r4:01.,, IItn m.l.< .1 Wr I�It I!r♦ November 21 , 1997 •(}uul,I,tJ ?.t: t,al Arbttralcr k( .•.t,I,anl f1.a1 f,aate Sprcial� l Ms . Christine Scotillo Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul , Minnesota 551083 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown Township Annexation Dear Ms . Scotillo: Pursuant to the agreement that was reached at the pre- hearing conference between the attorneys and the Board on November 18 , 1997, I am providing you with our list of witnesses and our list of exhibits within this correspondence . The City of Oak Park Heights anticipates calling the following witnesses : 1 . Mr. Scott Richards Northwest Associated Consultants 2 . Mr. David Licht Northwest Associated Consultants 3 . Mr. Robert Schunicht Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 4 . Mr. Sheldon Johnson Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 5 . Mr. Lindy Swanson Chief of Police City of Oak Park Heights 6 . Mr. Charles Schwartz Chief - Bayport Fire Department 11/21/97 17:46 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.062 P03 • • Me . Christine Scotillo November 21, 1997 Page 2 7 . Ms . Judy Holst Interim City Administrator Oak Park Heights 8 . Mr. James Butler Building Inspector City of Oak Park Heights The City' s exhibits will be as follows : 1 . Stipulation Minnesota Municipal Board Form as prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants. 2 , Planner' s Report,ort,e Northwest Associated Consultants - Oak Park Heights . 3 . Curriculum Vitae, David R. Licht . 4 . Curriculum Vitae, Robert Schunicht . S . Curriculum Vitae, Sheldon Johnson. 6 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - Kennedy Builders . 7 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - Kennedy Builders . 8 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - Oak Park, L.L.C. 9 . Consent to Petition to Annex Lands - St . Croix West Holding, L.L. C. Growth Strategy Map Tonal Gro 9Y P with 10 . Metropolitan 2040 Regional area and surrounding cities and townships. 11 . Air photo of study area. 12 . Study area development potential - Baytown planning and zoning standards . 13 . Study area land use map. 14 . City base map. 11/21/97 17:46 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.062 004 • Ms . Christine Scotillo November 21, 1997 Page 3 15 . West Highway 5 annexation area sewer and water main map. 16 . West Highway 5 annexation area storm water management narrative. 17 . West Highway H' hwa 5 storm water m_ agementMap. 18 . West Highway 5 annexatio• area t =nsportation map. Yours f-ry t • y, ar ,, J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure cc : Judy Holst , Interim City Administrator (via fax David Magnuson (via fax) Jerry Filla (via fax) Scott McDonald (via fax) Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel (via fax) NOU. 19. 1997 5:31PM P 2 FROM : �4;TILLWATER GAZETTE PHONE NO. 1 612 439 4713 6 O O N C-1 (V elg 0 to CO tr Z z a ri ai N N 2 z " i N O m Ce d co to to to to In CO. ID to o> p� m In �n X11 in RC v 00 '�t N: N N (.i N N N N N mod' N •' R R r a r O• = C Y 3 W O t0 U) a in °a N PJ 1) N P') N N P7 lh f0 a- 0 r O �A t� _7 MA W Nf- M ■ 0 CO N to In m h N to to m In N to'CO CO 10'to'r Of CO, CO CO CO 00 N !D O a N N r N LO In g IT N e.1 PS yt " C7 Q' C) C) t` N N N N N N N N N CO Ih N N N ^ " N C - N (V tO U •0 0 e- < 2 D ZQ X ' r X .-- lV Y a Y X ¢OQ X x X X X X X X X I X 0 X X X ' X " d .a. a . • _ r -r . , A go w x x x x X xxxX X so 1 .-'N CO R 'Q to co'r-l(o 01 O fa N t7 r) t•7� - e'to t0 to t0 r-'to O)1- N M 4 0 r- pp N'I--0 r r r N N N N N N e- (V N N N tow • z Z 0• 0 r We fX j = W o U 0 g I O w i 4 A-f i i "��7 V x m_ O 0 a M W Q � O • ri, 1 \ t`° U cez aa !- iiw 4 1F. ez• 7ZZZ d \ U U N o2 a w O � Y � � .. f ; - 000Fttnt>, zwww Z z Z z xQ O 0 u. o K2 : ; : u1o00 dwwic� c� WG w aaa = � t'� Oz LL 4' 13- v i � 0000 yU) 0 2 I- E0 w u. m z z m - _ z x � z z � o z v _ 0 IN < ZNwti mmyN- >r � xXXX Wwy 2MM pV = ¢ w � t7 UpN � m � Z Q � � zNrt- N- mpaomv00o owww mA a Iyt mm �i Qmatn1- O w WW Z v� wmrnr4Z0ai ..1 < XXCLCCIZ • wuJC4XM O�Qrr ._, za wC0 › Q zJG Q Oft .7 2 W J J w 5 a -a 20. 0 U U � F )- Z S > > Z' l Z O C9 t Z Z p w z d1 1- CO < X0000aa �' ~ o � z � H � O ¢ dzwww u�, UZu.� ¢ Nw- ¢ ate wa o > W O iii 1 ¢ Nr » IYtU,ONZtn �.¢ wtnv� rn53 r`�,rntn (n coXY0000) ¢ mommw K 1-, Z W ri"i a 2 i � Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z z z z 0 o b b ° qoq b ra a b o ° b ° b qqo F 0000004 < « « « « « « «¢ 4 4 ¢ ¢ 4 4 Q Q 4 Q 9 9 D 0 0 0 Z a 0 0 Z Z Z O Z 0 Z Z J J _ _ < < h < < < z Z z 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z 2 z Z m m C 7 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 m J m W qp Cl) Cl) CO Cl) y U V V U V 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 00 m W W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W w W - W W 0 1_ Z O t7 LL LL Li. IL tL W co to N 0 U) 0 h N N CO V) N CO N 0) CO ¢ ¢ Q < . a Q < mmumrxmmmmxmNrtrmmammmmocmer 000 � � O n FW- H F-- N H ►W- FW- W W �W- ►W-- i" IW- 1--W- w U hW- 1- w I-UJ '�-' IW- z Z z ytr v.t J Z 0 J d Et w w w w W w w W w W w w w w w w w w W w w W Z Z Z '� U? U~j Z W (j W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U 0 0 (] U 0 U 4§ § g Z Z Z z 4g Y p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z N Z O 2 _ iYZCGCerI2CCetteX0ireCCCIr IrCe RIYIZXCc � N hO a ? ( N .- N N N N N N N N N N W J .J J 2.1 _i ..) J J J „I J J J J .J J J J J J O 0 m m m m m to CO m m m co t0 m m tt m t m t 7 t -,---^ I" Q N M 7 t> •• N CO Q h CO h. N 1,1 '11* m IO h CO OI G Q WWCD 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 p ( . 00000000 M J �J,J J J J J J J J,J J ..a J J J J J J J J -I, NOV. 19. 1997 5:31PM P 1 FROM : SiILLWATER GAZETTE PHONE NO. : 1 612 439 4713 Gazette SINCC ism STILLWATER EVENING GAZETTE 102 South Second Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Telephone: 612/439-3130 Telecopier: 612/439-4713 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET C 1.131 r ir X41 ►�„v, Srat,oTaN2 Our' TO: •! ? 1 FROM ) 1I 4 R.IC. 'Total number of pages including cover sheet. if you do not receive all the pages, please call back as soon as possible. TELEPHONE: 6121439-3130 Dater ti Time: 1 4(5 Operator: e.-1?' % r G.k- 1 io • • ` • Baytown Township Washington County Stillwater, MN 55082 November 15, 1997 Mayor David Schaaf City of Oak Park Heights 14168 North 57th Street Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Orderly Annexation Discussion for Portions of Section 6, lying west of Hwy. 5 Dear Mayor Schaaf: Baytown and Lake Elmo have given consideration to your October 31st response letter finally indicating that Oak Park Heights consents to the exchange of ideas related to a possible orderly annexation agreement for portions of the proposed annexation area with concessions being addressed. If Oak Park has sincere intentions of negotiating in good faith so that the interests and concerns of all impacted parties can be addressed in this matter, Baytown and Lake Elmo have identified the following points of a preliminary plan for your review prior to our November 17th Joint Meeting. Items for your consideration include the following: 1) Kern Center allowed to be annexed into Oak Park Heights . a) Creation of a rural taxing district and a phased in tax rate at 40% of the urban rate in the year of the annexation and 10 % for each year for six successive years. Taxes received by Oak Park based upon tax capacity generated from the annexed areas in the year of annexation will be paid to the town and thereafter reduced by a negotiated percentage each year until the amount reaches zero (0) to reduce the fiscal impact on the Township. b) If annexation becomes effective on or before August 1st of any year, the City may levy on the annexed area beginning with that year. If after August 1st, the Town may continue to levy and the City may not levy in the annexed area until the following year. c) An assessment policy will be adopted that will protect individuals from special assessments and utility charges for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street improvements, and other urban infrastructure • • improvements in the annexation area who are not subdividing or requesting municipal services. d) Guaranteed use of existing septic systems and wells indefinitely by existing property owners as long systems continue to function. e) Existing businesses guaranteed application of Baytown Building Code for eight to ten years; Sprinkling and fire suppression systems for existing buildings not mandated. f) Guarantees that existing Kern Center businesses be allowed to operate under present Conditional Use Permit requirements agreed to during Baytown / Washington County permitting process. g) Consideration of any other reasonable protections / guarantees identified in future discussions by existing businesses / landowners necessary to reduce impact or hardship of being annexed into Oak Park Heights. 2) Screaton / Oakgreen Farms parcels totaling approximately 48.5 acres to be annexed into Oak Park Heights with Smith 4.6 acre residential parcel. a) Density of residential development on these parcels to be negotiated with at least a one dwelling unit per acre density along 55th Street North. Additional densities to be less than the three units per acre to provide consistency and transition to existing area residential development in Baytown and Lake Elmo.. b) Oak Park development plans for the area must be disclosed. c) Low impact, light commercial (if any) to be limited and placed near Highway 5. d) Every effort will be made to preserve existing woodlands and wetlands. Use of earthen berming and landscape screening will be considered in the development of the property. 3) All property west of the Kern Center and north of 55th Street North to become Lake Elmo. The Buberl (19.1 acres) parcel will be considered for annexation to Oak Park Heights should Mr. Buberl desire this. 4) The Smith parcel (approx. 31.0 acres) will become Lake Elmo as well as the Gleason (1.0 acres) parcel and St. John's Church. a) The rural taxing district and phased taxes will apply to any property annexed by Lake Elmo as well. 5) Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo will plan for and assume responsibility for downstream studies and remedial improvements from their future • • • i development on the annexed parcels and its impact on Baytown's Cloverdale Lake and Lake McDonald. 6) Oak Park Heights will not support or pursue any annexation requests for Baytown or Lake Elmo properties for a period of seven to ten years. 7) Creation of a Joint Powers Land Use / Planning Committee to monitor the development of this annexation area; Baytown and Bayport have a similar cooperative agreement for the 245 acre Andersen Windows planned expansion and this facilitates information exchange between communities as well as being able to communicate areas of concern. This committee could be comprised of two township members, two Lake Elmo and Oak Park members, one area citizen at large, and could have a sunset date established. 8) The final Orderly Annexation Agreement will be completed through the communities' designated agents as agreed upon. It is Baytown's and Lake Elmo's desire to have Oak Park Heights carefully assess the importance of expediting a cooperative agreement prior to the November 24th hearing date, not only for the impacted landowners, but for the benefit of this entire area of Washington County. It is anticipated that if Oak Park fails to give careful, respectful consideration to the above plan, Baytown and Lake Elmo will proceed with vigorous preparations for the Municipal Board hearings and support of the Writ of Mandamus proceedings. Very truly yours, B. own Board o Supervisors ,,r / 1 ' Ronald J. redkove Chairman . 1 . , ,0 . ._ . . . ,i s • ' . i • , , 1 , . . _ . , • ' . ' . . .. ,. . . , . • T, i, ,,e) t ,4.. I M . Evil(, I "ma •WY WI al • # ji. i . ... n" -- • - ig-i• • . . , .. , • vv %.‘ to 441%* ,11 174.11 . •.". . •, 151C 7 „, 4 eiVinfa 4 sr ■ Mei 11 i V) yt,j I. ilid wirti i OA 4 ; _i WM ow Ihilb rit ar N I 1'4 W ' . MI el- i--- • PA 11 -;-• 1 / . • 4( YY‘A r)' I .• • AM CA& I 5 7 11. 6 0 0 . . i-tvzglimaNnzamins :11:6 ',AMU,: .. Immillriiillb.."1"# Ilina-M111.11[7-7-11-77.111,1111111111rt . . ' . :. . • /." j-inV'' V -- fi-;'-IF s / iii iiiimarff, ,,.,--- oefe 71- ",1' ;i•:,:' --Mtril 1,o MIL 1 _ .449. 41004& * : fr, gdi i.' . ;', :Aims ,. ,. .,, ..,,. ..:. „,3 . ,:._ , _ . . . e.t. Iv o 1 w-71•Nw■lip.... a_,r , -'•. - .,,, - .4-4',.,VA ''- .. . .. <3 / paiikA41.211111\111, .; .:.ii:,.1 ,01P.Wt.„L,.-111 misc.-- -,•&„ , ,.- • 1, 4_.,„,,,_.,ii. .,_ RDALE ' IFOW*SlillaikiiiMilillir . , ....i \ , /101.10089, ---------i _7__ w .,.i i Off ' M.NA mill rzw4 , .,. 1 7- . rera 1,\•■■,_ twinin - salimi _ ••- t, 1 Itxammi . .. t.,! .::,.„. Nur wall m i 4 r ;4tHO; .i:•', \.% ,WM. Aar-. // 7.......:,,..::, lizi ...., ,foliors .,. , ..:, . ,,,J,,,.. ,,,,:,,,,, :.,,„. , .. ,..i Sigilliiiilitt.4 AL Ittifii glom _se, 1 OM 1 , • Irr...apgarillhh‘. ,, I . . ,•'!;t I '1\ . 711 II I 118-/ KM:ral ill 61.°I 1 I 1 'SI 44TH VT N : , ■ . 11/14/97 18 09 ECKBERG LAW 4390574 N0.014 D02 •NUSON LAW OFFICE 639$641 P. 02 MAGNUSON LAW FIRM t.10ENSEU IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN I nt pr;}t:n Orrice wt-v Ma,..S i g e l,' •SUI m$202•P.O.Box 438•STILLWATIUt, s o n MN Z rtsi.0101sit:.(GI 2)4.l9.940µ-Twt,cuf?rtr.K:(612)e39.364t RICHARD D.ALLEN DAVIT T. Mnten')SON MEMORANDUM TO: John Scott McDonald, (Petitioners A-5821) Mark Vierling, Attorney for City of Oak Park Heights Jerry Filla, Attorney for City of Lake Elmo Mark Thompson, Met Council Deputy General Council Christine Scotillo, Executive Direct of the Municipal Board FROM: David T. Magnuson, Baytown Town Attorney DATE: November 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Baytown and Lake Elmo v. the Minnesota Municipal Board and Oak Park Heights Ramsey County File No. C9-97-8893 1 am writing this note to inform all counsel of an inadvertent ex pane contact that I had yesterday with Judge Poritsky. I called Judge Poritsky's clerk and asked to schedule a Motion hearing before Judge Poritsky for the purpose of arguing that Judge Poritsky should stay the Municipal Board Hearing scheduled for November 24, 1997, until such time as Judge Poritsky had made a determination and entered an Order with regard to the pending litigation wherein Baytown and Lake Elmo are requesting a Writ of Mandamus. When Judge Poritsky's clerk asked the Judge about a date, Judge Poritsky asked to be connected with me and explained that he would deny my request for a hearing date on a Motion to Stay but instead treat my request as a request for an expedited decision on the matter pending before him. Since this contact was neither intended nor done by design, Judge Poritsky asked that I write to all of you informing you of this contact. Please let me know if you have any problems with this. DTM/ds cc: Judge Poritsky - 11/14/97 17:46 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.012 P02 S LAW OFFICES OF F>c� k _erg. Lammers. 13 • ( g . W • 11 Viei .1. n . P.L.I..P• 1833 Nc,rlhwc•ste I II Avcnu • Lyle •1. I;c.lcloc•,•` Stilfwatcr. P'linnr`cnla 55082 Jul In I)c t)Icnn James l• I.nnlmc{:{ ((312) 4.39-2878 l)a v;tl I\. Snv�C It„L II G. k;}tC(N,• FAY (GI'l) 430-292: I'a„I A. Wolff G. (IJdd-IJ9G) ll •cal„ . �ial�cr• I ,I I wLun�ill{•{l \.. I,.,I ;\rLnrala.r f1 hled�su; Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 •l�urt,t, d `,„a.l n.t,.,..,i. 1',•,(.L::(I II(•ol h':.(4(e Speelalle( November 14 , 1997 Via Facsimile 439-0574 Mr . Jerry Turnquist City Council City of Oak Park Heights Re : Miscellaneous Annexation Issues Dear Councilman Turnquist : question a had asked uestion of our office affecting the possible imposition of assessments or collection of same as it affects a hypothetical circumstance in the annexation area . You specifically hypothesized that there could be a residential property that had multiple acres that is currently being used for homestead premises . You had further hypothesized that there would be experienced on the property a septic system failure on the multiple acre homestead but that the individuals would have an alternate septic site available to them that would be otherwise suitable under appropriate septic codes . The individuals were questioned whether or not the City would require them to hook up to municipal sanitary sewer service at that time and pay the projected cost for doing so or, in the alternative, whether or not the City would or could allow them to rebuild the septic system in the alternate septic field area that would presumably meet code . Obviously, the issue is hypothetical in nature and has presented been resented to the City Council . My impression from the past history o f the City of Oak Park Heights is and would be that given the multiple acres that are in place on the homestead premises and what may be a prohibitive cost to serve a singular dwelling on a multiple acre parcel that the City Council could and probably would allow the construction of the alternate septic system. Obviously, when the homestead utilization of the entire property was completed or when a desire would be manifested to divide the lot for further subdivision 11/14/97 17:46 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.012 D03 • t Mr. Jerry Turnquist November 14 , 1997 Page 2 development, it would be the more appropriate time to extend the appropriate ri ate sewer service into the area and then co llect the P p ro sanitary sewer charges from the individual lots that would be developed. Additionally, should the property change in its use from residential to commercial or to residential/multiple family or other significant change in use on the property occurring which would make it economically justified to extend the sewer and collect the appropriate charges, the Council would be within its authority under those circumstances to direct the extension of the sewer as opposed to allow the construction of an alternate septic system. I trust the same answers your r ques ns h tio; however, should you require any further detail, p lo Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb • 41 ,) (/0 4liQ/ or Nat\otkilvvv.Akca, ) IckSZSaesptx59el'hovi", tsyca.44-1-17.^- 1)&"14' , S c-f(AA-kint Sr rkx3 C./U2.04-04 ) eiv?-043,1A Ya g1C-• •1 • • • • 11 I! 11 CITY C • OAK PARK HEIGHTS �-' 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 FAX 439-0574 •1 , Fax Transmittal To: Mark Vierling Fax #: From: Judy Holst Date: 11-13-97 Subject: Annexation Total Number of Pages, including cover sheet: 3 ♦♦♦•••••♦♦i••♦•••♦••♦♦••O♦•♦•••♦•i••♦•••♦i••♦••♦♦•••:•••: •••••••♦•♦•0••••i••♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦•••••:•••♦• Mark, Please review enclosed letter and review with John McDonald at Dave Screaton' s request. Council would like to know if this reflects their agreement of Wednesday' s meeting. They would like an answer by Friday Nov. 14. Zi "L. Tree City U.S.A. • • LAWSON, MARSHALL, MCDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. LAWYERS RAYMOND O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH JOHN SCOTT MCDONALD LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH TELEPHONE: (612) 777-6960 OF COUNSEL ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (612) 777-8937 RODERICK A. LAWSON November 12, 1997 Kern Center Property Owners RE: Oak Park annexation Dear Friends: I am writing on behalf of the Screaton family concerning issues relating to the attempt to develop an Orderly Annexation Agreement between the Town of Baytown and the City of Oak Park Heights prior to the November 24, 1997 hearing before the Municipal Board. Based on comments we received from Mayor Schaaf we believe that Oak Park Heights wants to make the proposed agreement as simple as possible. He suggested that the agreement should include a provision that no property owner presently in Baytown would be assessed for sewer or water improvements until that owner requested connection to Oak Park city services. While that condition is acceptable to Screatons and should alleviate some of the concerns of those Kern Center owners who have already built on their property, Screatons are concerned about how the proposal will be perceived by those of you who have vacant lots in Kern Center. In the event that any of you want sewer extended before Screatons property develops Oak Park would probably not extend sewer without an overall payment plan. We understand that the projected cost of extending sewer and water services through Kern Center and up to 55th St., exclusive of the portion which the City would recover through sewer and water area charges would be $246,000.00. This cost is for the improvements described in the report of the Oak Park city engineer dated March 10, 1997. Screatons are willing to guarantee the payment of that portion of the cost of extending sewer and water when any of you request extension of city services. Screatons would recover the initial payment as each of the property owners hooks up to city services or in the alternative if the City finances the initial cost of that portion of the improvements, Screatons will agree to pay the interest on that amount on an annual basis and the principal will be reduced as hookups occur. Screaton's obligation could be set forth in a formal written agreement secured by a Letter of Credit. That way each of you would have the security of knowing that financing was available to • Kern Center Property Owners Page 2 November 12, 1997 construct the improvements should you be the first to build. Screatons do not want to support any proposal which does not have the backing of those lot owners who have supported the annexation request. This proposal is contingent on approval of an Orderly Annexation agreement between Baytown and Oak Park Heights before November 24, 1997. Sincerely, /John S. McDonald • • • • DATE: November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 7111r • 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3 , 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line . Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring. Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same . . • 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code. Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week ---7,7111F 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. Tie City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site . This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less . Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site. .40 LAW OFFICES OF Eekberg, Lammers, Briggs , Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 L l e J. e I<b erg S usan D. Olson James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Brlggs*• FAX (612) 439-2923 Marls .J. Vierling* Paul A. Wolf( Gregory G. Gaffer* (1944-1996) Thomas .J. Weidner* *Qua1F,ed Neutral Arbitrator&Mediator Direct Dial No. : 351-2118 *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator *Certified Real Estate Specialist November 13 , 1997 Property Owners Within the Proposed Annexation Area Re : Annexation Issues Municipal Board File No. A-5821 Dear Property Owners : In order to clarify the City' s position on the annexation, we are providing you this document with a list of items that the City would expect to see in an orderly annexation agreement . Please keep in mind that an orderly annexation agreement would require the cooperation of both Baytown Township and Lake Elmo to implement these items : 1 . Tax Rate. The City would agree to phase in a tax rate over a period of years . The proposal that is in place at the present time would be to phase the tax rate at 40 percent of the urban rate in the year of annexation and 10 percent thereafter for each and every year for the next six consecutive years . 2 . Implementation of Utilities Service. The City is willing to extend, after concluding agreements with Mr. Screaton, water and sewer utilities to Kern Center and the surrounding properties . The City was then and is now willing to implement deferrals of assessments against the property owners choosing not to connect the water and sewer services with the charges and services being kept in deferred status until such time as a connection to the system would actually be made . This system is part of the Screaton proposal which you are already familiar with. 3 . Use of Existing Individual Septic and Well Systems. The City will not mandate the discontinuation of existing well and septic systems . As long as individual well and septic systems continue to function and do not fail, they may be used by the effective property owners indefinitely. 4 . Building Code - Fire Suppression Systems. As to those properties already constructed within the proposed annexation area, November 13 , 1997 Page 2 the City agrees to extend and use Baytown Building Code provisions for a period of eight years from the date of annexation. As Baytown Building Code provisions do not currently require sprinkling or fire suppression systems, those existing buildings and properties will have the opportunity to construct additions, make modifications, etc. without having to implement sprinkling systems for fire suppression. 5 . Garbage Rates. The City of Oak Park Heights under its contract with United Waste individually regulates commercial rates . The City would commit that all existing commercial rates now being experienced by business owners within the area will be maintained. The City' s contract with United Waste Systems expires in 1999 and the existing City Council has indicated that any new contract with any provider will not include commercial service . 6 . Residential Development South of 55th Street. Residential development south of 55th Street shall not implement a density that is greater than three homes per acre . If the communities of Lake Elmo and Baytown are willing to negotiate a orderly annexation agreement over the area with Oak Park Heights, the Municipal Board decision will assign the area in question to one of the communities and the opportunity to negotiate provisions such as these to the benefit of property owners will be lost . Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb 11/13/97 10:40 ECKBERG LAW -> 4390574 NO.013 P01 • • LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg. Lammers. Brigs. Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L-P. 1835 Northwostern rlenue Minnesota LyIc .1. 4ivlrt,crg Stillwater. ,linnesota 53062 S n U, VIYAn Jams,: r. Lemm. 012) .139-2878 D..41 K. Sayeir, IR..bcri G. br■ggyq. PAX (612) 439-2923 r� I , 1‘141-14 4 .I, Y e►I.nsi 1 41 A. wow Gre my G���))Gnll,r. COVER SHEET - FACSIMIt,,E TRANSMISSION (10.44-1006) Tkomas .I. W1 JnCrf *Q.etirird Na.irel.rl.iie t e(s Awc1;a.e• .Q)..t,r:ed ye..rel turd lr.lor .�`.,I;r;eJ Re.I E......Sp..r;.I;.■ DATE : 13 K)( 'v7 Please deliver the following page(s) to: FAX NO: NAME: 72 -- -i`7cel 1 C•t, Cl FROM: V-444-4-41— TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES ?Z, INCLUDING COVER SHEET. The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain 1. confidential information from Eckberg, hammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof . If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. Violation of this confidentiality notice could constitute a basis for a claim for damages against the violation. If you received this communication .in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (612) 439- 2878 . IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE LET US KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (612) 439-2878 COMMENTS: * * * * * * * * * HARD COPY WILL (NOT) FOLLOW BY MAIL 11/13/97 10:40 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.013 002 • III/ 411/ LAW OFFICES OF LcLLerg, Lammers. Briggs. Wolff & 1835 Northwestern Avenue He J. EcGberg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Juann tl OISQP F (G 12) 439-2878 David K S„I rder �amea t �Jmmera ��roal, P�ICliet, Rn6ert C..)5r■g9sao• PAS (612) 439-2923 [� ` 1 / (p J rV,er(in81' haul A woltt Gregory G. Caller* (19:14-t990 knmas J We dnerw MQ .L(,ed Ne+trsl Ar6aeator f! Mrd.,o• Direct Dial No. : 351-2118 / •Q .i.Led NLeutral A•tIr+tnr •l•c.l,r,ed R.•1 G.,nic Spcciakst November 13 , 1997 Property Owners Within the proposed Annexation Area Re : Annexation Issues Municipal Board File No . A-5821 Dear Property Owners : In order to clarify the City' s position on the annexation, we are providing you this document with a list of items that the City would expect to see in an orderly annexation agreement . Please keep in mind that an orderly annexation agreement would require the cooperation of both Baytown Township and Lake Elmo to implement these items : 1 . Tax Rate. The City would agree to phase in a tax rate over a period of years . The proposal that is in place at the present time would be to phase the tax rate at 40 percent of the urban rate in the a efor the annexation next six and consecutive yearsercent for each and every ye 2 . Implementation of Utilities Service. The City is willing to extend, after concluding agreements with Mr. Screaton, water and sewer utilities to Kern Center and the surrounding properties . The City was then and is now willing to implement deferrals of assessments against the property owners choosing not to connect the water and sewer services with the charges and services being kept in deferred status until such time as a connection to the system would actually be made . This system is part of the Screaton proposal which you are already familiar with. 3 . Use of Existing Individual Septic and Well Systems . The City will not mandate the discontinuation of existing well and septic systems. As long as individual well and septic systems continue to function and do not fail, they may be used by the effective property owners indefinitely. 4 . Building Code - Fire Suppression Systems . As to those properties already constructed within the proposed annexation area, 11/13/97 10:40 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.013 D03 • . November 13 , 1997 Page 2 the City agrees to extend and use Baytown Building Code provisions for a period of eight years from the date of annexation. As Baytown Building Code provisions do not currently require sprinkling or fire suppression systems, those existing buildings and properties will have the opportunity to construct additions, make modifications, etc . without having to implement sprinkling systems for fire suppression. 5 , Garbage Rates. The City of Oak Park Heights under its contract with United Waste individually regulates commercial rates . The City would commit that all existing commercial rates now being experienced by business owners within the area will be maintained. The City' s contract with United Waste Systems expires in 1999 the existing City Council has indicated that any new contract with any provider will not include commercial service . al Development South of 55th Street. Resident/ F 6 . a Residential development south of 55th Street shall not implement density that is greater than three homes per acre . If the communities of Lake Elmo and Baytown are willing to negotiate a orderly annexation agreement over the area with Oak Park Heights, the Municipal Board decision will assign the area in question to one of the communities and the opportunity to negotiate provisions such as these to the benefit of property owners will be lost . r Yours very truly, Y Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb Page 4 - City Coil Minutes 11/12/97 • of herself, Ms . Vadnais, Police Chief Swanson, and an Oak Park Heights resident to define the procedure where it may be appropriate for the City to intervene in a particular case . Interim Administrator Holst said that the $520 that was quoted by M. Vadnais for this process could come out of the General Management Contractual Services Fund. Councilmember Swenson said that he felt the City' s job is to act as policy setters, and this may go beyond this charge . Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the establishment of a committee to formulate the criteria for a mediation committee at a cost not to exceed $520 . Carried 5-0 . New Business: Manning Avenue Improvements - Councilmember Beaudet said there are currently three options being explored for Manning Avenue. A route through Lake Elmo to the west; A route through Baytown/Kern Center; No-build option Beaudet recommended that Oak Park Heights advocate the no-build option with no acquisition of right-of-way due to the fact that the traffic flow and projected traffic counts do not support a build option. Beaudet also said that Lake Elmo and Baytown have both taken this position and he suggested that the three cities cooperate and draft a joint resolution advocating the no-build option. Council directed Attorney Vierling to draft a resolution indicating this position by November 17 . Cooperation Meeting with Bayport - Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Robert, moved to set a cooperation meeting with Bayport for Thursday, January 22, 1998 at 7 : 00 P.M. at Bayport City Hall . Carried 5-0 . Annexation Meeting with Baytown - Mayor Schaaf said that Oak Park Heights would like to meet with Lake Elmo and Baytown to discuss the possibility of an orderly annexation. Councilmember Robert, seconded by Beaudet, moved to meet with the two cities on Monday, Y Y November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. at Lake Elmo City Hall to discuss this issue. Carried 5-0 . Closed Session: Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to adjourn the meeting to a closed session to discuss union negotiations and pending litigation at 8 :30 P.M. Carried 5-0 . Adjournment: Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to adjourn at 9 :55 P.M. Carried 5-0 . Respectfully submitted, JUICUta--)1(11)°1(66 Melanie Mesko Administrative Intern 411 • OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1997 Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 4 :35 by Mayor Schaaf . Present : Councilmembers Robert, Swenson, and Turnquist . Staff Present : Interim Administrator Hoist, Police Chief Swanson, Public Works Director Benson, City Attorney Vierling, City Engineer Bob Schunicht, and Administrative Intern Mesko. Arrived late : Councilmember Beaudet . II. Department Reports Police Public Safety Training Facility - Chief Swanson said that he has spoken with Bayport Administrator Ken Hartung and that Oak Park Heights would need to contribute $5, 000 to become a member of the training facility steering committee . Swanson also said that he did not feel as if Oak Park Heights would be excluded if they did not contribute, and he did not feel it was necessary. There was discussion about whether the Council would authorize this expenditure . COPS Grant - Swanson said that he has not heard if the City has received the grant, and that he was instructed not to contact the agency; Oak Park Heights would be notified if they were chosen to receive the grant. Swanson also noted that only four cities in the metropolitan area have received this grant. Winter Parking Ban - Swanson said that he had heard from a resident with concerns about the recently passed winter parking ban. He encouraged the Council to strictly enforce the ban and not make exceptions because then it would be harder to enforce in the future. He said that a copy of the new ordinance is being distributed with warning tickets to help inform residents . Administration Utility Rate Increase - Interim Administrator Hoist requested that the Council approve raising the garbage rates for 1998 to recover the cost of the Junker Landfill Lawsuit so that notices could be sent to residents before the next billing period. Screaton/Low Annexation Costs - Hoist said that a promissory note between the City and Screaton and Low states that those two must pay for the preliminary engineering study only if the City did not pursue an annexation. Because the annexation was pursued, the City needs to pay the approximately $4, 000 for the study. Hoist also wanted to know how these bills should be split . Attorney Vierling said that he had never seen the promissory note and is unsure who initiated the form. He also said that he would assume that Mr. Screaton would be responsible for the costs incurred from pursuing the annexation. ! • Baytown Township Washington County Stillwater, MN 55082 November 15, 1997 Mayor David Schaaf City of Oak Park Heights 14168 North 57th Street Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Orderly Annexation Discussion for Portions of Section 6, lying west of Hwy. 5 Dear Mayor Schaaf: Baytown and Lake Elmo have given consideration to your October 31st response letter finally indicating that Oak Park Heights consents to the exchange of ideas related to a possible orderly annexation agreement for portions of the proposed annexation area with concessions being addressed. If Oak Park has sincere intentions of negotiating in good faith so that the interests and concerns of all impacted parties can be addressed in this matter, Baytown and Lake Elmo have identified the following points of a preliminary plan for your review prior to our November 17th Joint Meeting. Items for your consideration include the following: 1) Kern Center allowed to be annexed into Oak Park Heights . a) Creation of a rural taxing district and a phased in tax rate at 40% of the urban rate in the year of the annexation and 10 % for each year for six successive years. Taxes received by Oak Park based upon tax capacity generated from the annexed areas in the year of annexation will be paid to the town and thereafter reduced by a negotiated percentage each year until the amount reaches zero (0) to reduce the fiscal impact on the Township. b) If annexation becomes effective on or before August 1st of any year, the City may levy on the annexed area beginning with that year. If after August 1st, the Town may continue to levy and the City may not levy in the annexed area until the following year. c) An assessment policy will be adopted that will protect individuals from special assessments and utility charges for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street improvements, and other urban infrastructure improveme• nts in the annexation area who lint subdividing or requesting municipal services. d) Guaranteed use of existing septic systems and wells indefinitely by existing property owners as long systems continue to function. e) Existing businesses guaranteed application of Baytown Building Code for eight to ten years; Sprinkling and fire suppression systems for existing buildings not mandated. f) Guarantees that existing Kern Center businesses be allowed to operate under present Conditional Use Permit requirements agreed to during Baytown / Washington County permitting process. g) Consideration of any other reasonable protections / guarantees identified in future discussions by existing businesses / landowners necessary to reduce impact or hardship of being annexed into Oak Park Heights. 2) Screaton / Oakgreen Farms parcels totaling approximately 48.5 acres to be annexed into Oak Park Heights with Smith 4.6 acre residential parcel. a) Density of residential development on these parcels to be negotiated with at least a one dwelling unit per acre density along 55th Street North. Additional densities to be less than the three units per acre to provide consistency and transition to existing area residential development in Baytown and Lake Elmo.. b) Oak Park development plans for the area must be disclosed. c) Low impact, light commercial (if any) to be limited and placed near Highway 5. d) Every effort will be made to preserve existing woodlands and wetlands. Use of earthen berming and landscape screening will be considered in the development of the property. 3) All property west of the Kern Center and north of 55th Street North to become Lake Elmo. The Buberl (19.1 acres) parcel will be considered for annexation to Oak Park Heights should Mr. Buberl desire this. 4) The Smith parcel (approx. 31.0 acres) will become Lake Elmo as well as the Gleason (1.0 acres) parcel and St. John's Church. a) The rural taxing district and phased taxes will apply to any property annexed by Lake Elmo as well. 5) Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo will plan for and assume responsibility for downstream studies and remedial improvements from their future • • development on the annexed parcels and its impact on Baytown's Cloverdale Lake and Lake McDonald. 6) Oak Park Heights will not support or pursue any annexation requests for Baytown or Lake Elmo properties for a period of seven to ten years. 7) Creation of a Joint Powers Land Use / Planning Committee to monitor the development of this annexation area; Baytown and Bayport have a similar cooperative agreement for the 245 acre Andersen Windows planned expansion and this facilitates information exchange between communities as well as being able to communicate areas of concern. This committee could be comprised of two township members, two Lake Elmo and Oak Park members, one area citizen at large, and could have a sunset date established. 8) The final Orderly Annexation Agreement will be completed through the communities' designated agents as agreed upon. It is Baytown's and Lake Elmo's desire to have Oak Park Heights carefully assess the importance of expediting a cooperative agreement prior to the November 24th hearing date, not only for the impacted landowners, but for the benefit of this entire area of Washington County. It is anticipated that if Oak Park fails to give careful, respectful consideration to the above plan, Baytown and Lake Elmo will proceed with vigorous preparations for the Municipal Board hearings and support of the Writ of Mandamus proceedings. Very truly yours, B. own Board o Supervisors /Td / / Ronald J. redkove Chairman -.1 . . . 1 - • . . •_ . . • . .• . • • , . . _ . - . . s . . s ' . . • .4, 1 wc.--111 Mr Elf he r 1 ra fa ZEE_ imp! , , . i,Q(( 1-• ,viptit _ - , _ . , \ 0 , • A • . p Ii• L.,0Ae.,i: or •, , . , Aeit mar 4 1 i; RAI 71 Ir MI *Ai I- R e l 0 3 f t1i t.'2-'2 11111b bA10,- 4. PA R,g_ 61P 111 eel,1 ST N -A r - ST IV -a Int . As .1d1:11‘111 c'' I 6 1 . . . . Primposiontlow ! 1.1 •• 11. 1 , esno et 1111011111111A.40,171117.'-'''l 1'4 / ■ .:1 .. ,. 11114:::\ ' • - o.i,—k,,k,-. . .'Lt' Ww._■Ak „lei ,,,,,eel -4,1 ..,,- ,:,,. - , LAK--/.7 imE24RIP)Pr ) 1047,/t115,1IFF-.77.1.' Pial 1 / "inum: 711,7 ,1*!1.:'2;'IIINOW116(.1.7141 q'.'. :E, ,.,-v '.-. i i6.6,ta.,31' '•' ;• i ' .i.,,..RDALE 14111111174AMEIMINICIA -it•Insiogitt ---------il...4.__- WC , , • , ilium ..; i I lillk k TAMIL , ..:.- .,:‘,.„, / •F'MAW iiiir.,,,„..,...,., . .,,,., .., . Aar,- 1,43011, /, row ais _ y oil & w.,.. raffara442:4_,......\_4,103—::,,,..i_,...„. ... ..:. ,, . :,..)..,,. , ..... . _. 1 •;.`4,4!....-7'1 . . . MN , . . iL. -; \■s / i ,j( volmicor-470011 - , ViliPtiPh•'1,__ it , 44Th Th N I • • i\ • / ■ Iiiii • • Baytown Township Washington County Stillwater, MN 55082 November 15, 1997 Mayor David Schaaf City of Oak Park Heights 14168 North 57th Street Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 RE: Orderly Annexation Discussion for Portions of Section 6, lying west of Hwy. 5 Dear Mayor Schaaf: Baytown and Lake Elmo have given consideration to your October 31st response letter finally indicating that Oak Park Heights consents to the exchange of ideas related to a possible orderly annexation agreement for portions of the proposed annexation area with concessions being addressed. If Oak Park has sincere intentions of negotiating in good faith so that the interests and concerns of all impacted parties can be addressed in this matter, Baytown and Lake Elmo have identified the following points of a preliminary plan for your review prior to our November 17th Joint Meeting. Items for your consideration include the following: 1) Kern Center allowed to be annexed into Oak Park Heights . a) Creation of a rural taxing district and a phased in tax rate at 40% of the urban rate in the year of the annexation and 10 % for each year for six successive years. Taxes received by Oak Park based upon tax capacity generated from the annexed areas in the year of annexation will be paid to the town and thereafter reduced by a negotiated percentage each year until the amount reaches zero (0) to reduce the fiscal impact on the Township. b) If annexation becomes effective on or before August 1st of any year, the City may levy on the annexed area beginning with that year. If after August 1st, the Town may continue to levy and the City may not levy in the annexed area until the following year. c) An assessment policy will be adopted that will protect individuals from special assessments and utility charges for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street improvements, and other urban infrastructure di im rovv P ents in the annexation area who a not subdividing or requesting municipal services. d) Guaranteed use of existing septic systems and wells indefinitely by existing property owners as long systems continue to function. e) Existing businesses guaranteed application of Baytown Building Code for eight to ten years; Sprinkling and fire suppression systems for existing buildings not mandated. f) Guarantees that existing Kern Center businesses be allowed to operate under present Conditional Use Permit requirements agreed to during Baytown / Washington County permitting process. g) Consideration of any other reasonable protections / guarantees identified in future discussions by existing businesses / landowners necessary to reduce impact or hardship of being annexed into Oak Park Heights. 2) Screaton / Oakgreen Farms parcels totaling approximately 48.5 acres to be annexed into Oak Park Heights with Smith 4.6 acre residential parcel. a) Density of residential development on these parcels to be negotiated with at least a one dwelling unit per acre density along 55th Street North. Additional densities to be less than the three units per acre to provide consistency and transition to existing area residential development in Baytown and Lake Elmo.. b) Oak Park development plans for the area must be disclosed. c) Low impact, light commercial (if any) to be limited and placed near Highway 5. d) Every effort will be made to preserve existing woodlands and wetlands. Use of earthen berming and landscape screening will be considered in the development of the property. 3) All property west of the Kern Center and north of 55th Street North to become Lake Elmo. The Buberl (19.1 acres) parcel will be considered for annexation to Oak Park Heights should Mr. Buberl desire this. 4) The Smith parcel (approx. 31.0 acres) will become Lake Elmo as well as the Gleason (1.0 acres) parcel and St. John's Church. a) The rural taxing district and phased taxes will apply to any property annexed by Lake Elmo as well. 5) Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo will plan for and assume responsibility for downstream studies and remedial improvements from their future . .► . developm,on the annexed parcels and its im act on Baytown's Cloverdale Lake and Lake McDonald. 6) Oak Park Heights will not support or pursue any annexation requests for Baytown or Lake Elmo properties for a period of seven to ten years. 7) Creation of a Joint Powers Land Use / Planning Committee to monitor the development of this annexation area; Baytown and Bayport have a similar cooperative agreement for the 245 acre Andersen Windows planned expansion and this facilitates information exchange between communities as well as being able to communicate areas of concern. This committee could be comprised of two township members, two Lake Elmo and Oak Park members, one area citizen at large, and could have a sunset date established. 8) The final Orderly Annexation Agreement will be completed through the communities' designated agents as agreed upon. It is Baytown's and Lake Elmo's desire to have Oak Park Heights carefully assess the importance of expediting a cooperative agreement prior to the November 24th hearing date, not only for the impacted landowners, but for the benefit of this entire area of Washington County. It is anticipated that if Oak Park fails to give careful, respectful consideration to the above plan, Baytown and Lake Elmo will proceed with vigorous preparations for the Municipal Board hearings and support of the Writ of Mandamus proceedings. Very truly yours, B. own Board o Supervisors i� A /1 /T ' Ronald J. redkove Chairman 1 . o , I . , . . • 2 4 • ■ . • •. a.. • 0 i e ' . , . . ,.. ... . , • •4r ; .-4,-4t, Mr. gyher 1 • fri" MUNI ji, t p#A1 . .vv / • . 4 i ' 011x , I • d• • 1: 4611,..4%744, , — —_ , kk• (dr t, .os•. . 1 r 1 /00 1,, prii 1 , 1 , E, ,, • . .Aliniummil it A.- VIIIII 1 . ii i Vairl' It 117 iril Orle 111W 1 i J 0.1 1 gm I 110' , oll eirrOi 1 1 rES111 ST N allIl RAM / 0 A ‘7.. 'NM VC •A 71 VW 21/ ST N jai drrf`i .-.., 6 : 4 . /7 1 1 • 0 1- • 4. 1 / / . y , 1 111111r(-41441111a112RIN1111111 r . 1 •. , •11,-, 1.(V., .':(/ --- 2,.-irkt.0,01 i,, I v /1 . , , ,, 1.,..) ., / , .:1 ---; , ..i. _ i, . . ., -1 ciell ..„,11 . „ ‘i, I --- '1--tin- " 111111111111111k i - _ AX 41101MOIA . . 41114401. . ' ''''') Oil i• L A KI15 / grWIIIX‘A rite ilipArrIrl P'tp 17'777(411M .111111111166,\ . ) •; . 1..4', --V1p_. 01# 1 1°j,,-'s Pi , ;. s<3.• / Walligin -:f..!..i.e21 e ArtabOliZ;,;44 ,' P.a. , ,,:. '- .„.,__,_,Nr., _Zir RDALE , , 1111111M slITillaillilitili WW1 --1 / 4.1111111 7 ------- J14 * ' itINIEI ' : .* • t.Z I 'AMYL" 001' " , ,..,_If, / ar mia" 1111114FA\,% _ Ma ' 44111111111111 Ar, - MUM ...• . • .. . Itillicem, Izir .,.,,i,....;04,,. mil T::,. 0111111111111/ :.-.7._.. ••• ‘rrf.- F. 1411114 m11 ...: . ..,,.„ at; . . , . • 1,-,. ..„ t • NMEIllei:Villaill . .--':, • I., z f - • s s' ' -=-- - 11 1 la I I 16 ri:m._1■;.g.h., 18011 ...; 44TH PT N i N, 1 • • LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Ect(t�erg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Susan 1). 01son James F. Lammers (612) 59-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs4• FAX (612) 439-2925 Mart( J. V ierling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Galler• (1914-1996) Thomas J. Weidner* *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator M Mediator Direct Dial No. : 351-2118 •Q al tied Neetral Arbitrator *Certified Real Estate Spee■alist November 13 , 1997 Property Owners Within the Proposed Annexation Area Re : Annexation Issues Municipal Board File No. A-5821 Dear Property Owners : In order to clarify the City' s position on the annexation, we are providing you this document with a list of items that the City would expect to see in an orderly annexation agreement . Please keep in mind that an orderly annexation agreement would require the cooperation of both Baytown Township and Lake Elmo to implement these items : 1 . Tax Rate. The City would agree to phase in a tax rate over a period of years. The proposal that is in place at the present time would be to phase the tax rate at 40 percent of the urban rate in the year of annexation and 10 percent thereafter for each and every year for the next six consecutive years . 2 . Implementation of Utilities Service. The City is willing to extend, after concluding agreements with Mr. Screaton, water and sewer utilities to Kern Center and the surrounding properties . The City was then and is now willing to implement deferrals of assessments against the property owners choosing not to connect the water and sewer services with the charges and services being kept in deferred status until such time as a •connection to the system would actually be made. This system is part of the Screaton proposal which you are already familiar with. 3 . Use of Existing Individual Septic and Well Systems. The City will not mandate the discontinuation of existing well and septic systems . As long as individual well and septic systems continue to function and do not fail, they may be used by the effective property owners indefinitely. 4 . Building Code - Fire Suppression Systems. As to those properties already constructed within the proposed annexation area, • November 13 , 1997 - Page 2 the City agrees to extend and use Baytown Building Code provisions for a period of eight years from the date of annexation. As Baytown Building Code provisions do not currently require sprinkling or fire suppression systems, those existing buildings and properties will have the opportunity to construct additions, make modifications, etc . without having to implement sprinkling systems for fire suppression. 5 . Garbage Rates. The City of Oak Park Heights under its contract with United Waste individually regulates commercial rates . The City would commit that all existing commercial rates now being experienced by business owners within the area will be maintained. The City' s contract with United Waste Systems expires in 1999 and the existing City Council has indicated that any new contract with any provider will not include commercial service . 6 . Residential Development South of 55th Street. Residential development south of 55th Street shall not implement a density that is greater than three homes per acre . If the communities of Lake Elmo and Baytown are willing to negotiate a orderly annexation agreement over the area with Oak Park Heights, the Municipal Board decision will assign the area in question to one of the communities and the opportunity to negotiate provisions such as these to the benefit of property owners will be lost . Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb • Cloverdale Farm Community Association Baytown Township The undersigned are residents or taxpayers in Cloverdale Farm, a 250 acre development in Baytown Township. We either have access or live on Cloverdale Lake and Lake McDonald. We oppose the proposed Oak Park Heights Annexation of 235 acres in Section 6, lying west of Highway #5 for the following reasons: 1. The ordinary high water elevation of Cloverdale Lake was 900.5 prior to the intensive development of commercial property and the Stillwater High School property. In March 1993, the surface water elevation was 897.2, today the water level is 905.0. We have already lost 200-300 mature trees and hundreds of smaller trees because of the increased water level. 2. Oak Park Heights City Administration, City Council and Consulting Engineer were completelyi/nresponsive when asked to help solve the problem of the increased watershed run- off. 3. Oak Park Heights has not presented a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the proposed annexation area. 4. The confiscation of the only commercial tax base in Baytown is entirely inappropriate. 5. The environmental damage and lack of creativity in the Oak Park Heights development process causes us to be concerned about the type of future development and the amount of surface water run-off into Cloverdale Lake. 6. It should be noted that both Cloverdale lake and Lake McDonald do not have natural outlets. When the 905.0 water level of Cloverdale I a ke reaches 908.5, the water will overflow into Lake McDonald with severe environmental damage to the existing trees and vegetation. 7. Because of these concerns and the lack of a Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Land Use and Water Management Plan, we feel that either Baytown or Lake Elmo are better qualified and more sensitive to the needs of the land and the people. NAME ADDRESS o/ .., �� / . _ 3 /,rte._,/_g--1• I ___ 1173v 7n ei,e4iLb M. PL. I • 0 _.... • CLOVERDALE FARM NAME ADDRESS ,,eacte6cL2.4...t.<7z.D q730 •Cly. 2,,,, ,suArs4. ,g , PA H-11 c Pr e_&-try-,A,L9 ( /‘. Cl . N. LibeefeL-44,5y_AP/aR_ g )/1/ /Th 414-7 75 bcc,-- 4,7&/ /) -)1&Ili Ar), , 6:-. Al s-4/ /14 e...60,1,,/ti a. Ad' , t-r .441,-„fri.,--- 4/-5-c-- 114 e 4)141(1 61. C,,c 1‘ . <.Z ,z A14 . u.:_a7 9 -657 / 1)eWe-I/1&a"C/ , 1 IL 4/40c a1 0 ILie- 0 v.401 beityl., ,in kt , , . / ox, frz ..„.. 4 e/s--7( (4 / „,iii b6 A/ 4 7e7 t ' -/ ''‘e 4/Y/7 Wigi)OYAI-/;% , 7 . AL /72 ./),,..144& .,7 ,i/ ,, L ' o i.-, I"c 3 ,% /-7 c ,9i ,-, ,/./ „e)■ Ai f ilec.t$0„pkve OA, p. {--- n_ INA. °-WeY1A-4 _cc 4, 3 II` cx/14se //1 e _ /.7-•-• I -: . (/111,71/ 174S3- ie0 i . ,/ r c I I, A'ibik . , 111M111,Wrea; ea 2 % . 1 .A ! c ) S • • CLOVERDALE FARM NAME ADDRESS flett,e(5441 Me-D"(44127-t.- $ MA). y /. A.42 7530 /L1rb 4 pr ti $i4 /w7 , 6/6 L A I1_,tI , % / � ■~AijPv -v • ._ I _ ... 7z1:5- i-n< DG�/t �7 OR. a. .5-714 l c.'A-tt�� i� , -``. / '`77 y(. 0 A. "cam^.. t 4/14-L 0 . 11/06/97 18:09 ECKBFRG LRW 4390574 NO.027 D01 LAW OFFICES OF Eekherg. Lammers. Briggs. Wolff & P.L.L.P. 1 1833 Northwestern Avenue 1 I,Lers Stillwater. M1nfe: . 4 5308'2 Su7141, D. ()ism, JumeN I', I..mmora (612) •139-2878 David K. Snyder I,„I,�rt G. BrigQ~M' FAX (G12) X139-20•?3 M4.1, J. Vierling• Paul A. Walrr Ge.gor;' G. G•11«4, COVES SHEET - FAcSIM ,,I E TR INSM;SSION (194,4-19 00) T6„m.>, •I. We;elne-'. *(1.w1;r,.1)1.1,.l:,.O;``I..Iu,&,1,.J4I0. SP..;.1s.1 ' DATE : (0 /000 'T7 Please deliver the following page (s) to: FAX NO: NAME : FL/ Cc:1c.-`c 4.:t FROM: /'"t-W-- TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES , INCLUDING COVER SHEET. The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information from Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof . If you are not the intended recipient; be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. Violation of this confidentiality notice could constitute a basis for a claim for damages against the violation. If you received this communication .in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (612) 439- 2878 . IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE LET US KNOW AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (612) 439-2878 COMMENTS: (900 /4i-e /4 0/e. * * * * * * * • * * * HARD COPY WILL (NOT) FOLLOW BY MAIL 11/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LRW 4390574 N0.027 D02 ' - 77 893'/ 11/06/9? 08:9-1 Of;;1L ' :1717 t 1 - 4392923 NO.414 P001 ' + 4 FAX TRANSMISSION LAWSON,MARSHALL,MCDONALD&GALOWITZ P.A. 3680 LAVERNE AVENUE LAKE Eulo, MN. 777-e9e0 Fax' 777-5937 To: Mark J., Vierling Date: November 5, 1997 Fax #: 430-2923 Pages: 7, including this cover sheet. From: John S. McDonald Subject: Annexation COMMENTS: For your information the notes from the Baytown meeting which Judy Screaton recorded. . - 1.1/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LAW 4390574 NO.027 UO3 11/06/97 08 -i [PI))Ot.,L 1 t 9 4392923 • NO.414 P002 NO,tw S f-7/f'O"/ BA't'Ts)WN J..tEE It.,O r..;WFMBEP . 1997 0,=iK ;ARK HT ANNE COMMENTS: FREDt-:C=JE : +i: . : SCUSSI ON ON WHAT' S HAPPENING AND WHERE WE'RE GOING. ;'HERE ' S rBEETi,•,ia SET UP FOR NOVEMBER 24 , HAVE WE APPLIED FOR AN EXTENSION? H NS ON: WW E,CU ,- T WE HAOE DAVE UPDATE US ON THE STATUS? f°la,G! JSON; - TEF: Ll- a T COURT HEARING HE TALKED TO EXEC DIRECTOR. THOUGHT THE NE..,T DAYS MEETING WC'L+LD NOT HAl 2 ACTION TAKEN. DIDN'T THINK HE NEEDED TO GO 0•JER THERE . HOLii'.JEP , THEY DID SET DATE FOR HEARING. HE WAS VERY STARTLED TO YEAR THAT , `;INCE HE ASSUMED THEY'D 'WAIT WITH HEARING UNTIL JUDGE RI T Zr r S DECISION. RE'GIJESTED A CONTINUANCE UNTIL AFTER JUDGE PER I T S KY` S DECISION. . OPH OSJECTED TO CTN . . OTHER PARTIES , SCREATONS & MET COUNCIL WILL WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE !,,,DEAF.I NG . HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THEY' RE GOING TO DO. SEEMS LIKE THE MUN I C I i'AL l UARL) I S ALMOST AANTAGONISTIC TO BAYTO WN AND LAKE ELMO. N!CHOLS THEY ARE . NELSON T H I r HE LETTER THAT LAVE SCHAAF WROTE TO RON : THE CITY OF OAK PARK HET • BEL I EYES THAT MR SO_REATONS PETITION WILL BE ACTED ON r-4VCRABLY Gt THE MUNICIPAL BOARD AND THE DISTRICT COURT . HOWEUEF+' . I T J7 I NL(E TO BE THE COUNCIL' S GOAL TO MITIGATE THE tMP;:CT OF THE ANNEAHTION ON THE EXISTING BLUSINESSES AND RESIDENCES THROUGH AN _1PDE RL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT . THIS AGREEMENT WILL ALLOW Fop INCREMENTAL PHAF-•:;;G IN OF URBAN PROPERTY TAX RATES . DEFERRAL OF SEWER AND WATER CHARGE'S A':L'' ASOC ACTED CHARGES, THE CREATION OF RURAL TAKING DISTRICTS . T HA IS WHY , AS WE STATED AT OUR COUNCIL MEETING 05 6110/97. WE WISH F_.R THE" ,r NEGOTIATIONS TO END WITH AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT. . WE ARE OPEN )' 0U MAY HAVE FOR AN ORD=RLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT . HOW,EVEF , AN'f AOW EF.MFNT :'"UST BE REACHED PRIOR TO THE MUNICIPAL BOARD MEETING ON NC•cEMBEF , V 9;'. IN THAT REGARD, WE INVITE THE EOARP OF SUPERVISORS TO H2E7 EITHER ON WEDNESDAY . NOVEMBER 5 , 1997 AT 7 O'CLOCK OR MONDAY :40VEMBE F• 10 4,T } WE REGARD THE MEETING AS A PUBLIC FORUM FOR ELECTED OF1= I ,C I LS Ti i•i ';,ti 3,S THE ISSUES. THE MEETING COULD BE HELD AT OAK PAR '. HE I GkTS L i T , H.;LL I F YOUR FACILITY IS NOT AVAILABLE. A MEDIATOR COULD BE -ST t cr T1T2 FALILIT,ATE THE M%tTIN± YOURS aEFV T P�L' OAV I D SCHAAF • SO THAT'S WHAT WE' RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT . FREDKOVE: RIGHT . HELL ARE WE GOING TO MEET WITH THEM OR WAIT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE o'•'-?EF' DECISIONS ARE , THE MUNICIPAL BOARD AND THE JUDGE? KELSEY : iN ALL OF MY BORN DAYS I HAVEN'T BEEN SUMMONED TO A MEETING BY LETTER WHEN •,'CiU FEE Tr J'INC TO WORK OUT A MEETING. YOU GOT THIS THING lc'•'EMBER, 1 . FREDKG':'E: ON GC.ToE I R lisT , FRIDAY NIGHT AT HOME. ;KELSEY : IT JU E1 IRKS ME . WE GOT A CHOICE OF 2 DATES , THEIR TERMS,ONE A WEE/ BEFORE THE MEETING IS TO BE HELD, ITS JUST NO WAY TO CONDUCT AN ORDERLY . — TO 1R1. TO HANDLE THIS. . 11/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.027 D04 11/06/97 08: 5 >1F'! LI? II = 4392923 NO.414 P003 rail cHOL3: SHOU C.' H4.,..(E TAKEN PLACE 2 OR MONTHS AGO. THEY WERE +:TILLING TO TALK , NCJ ITS A MATTER WHETHER WE'RE LULLING TO TALK. A LOT DEFENDS ON `A .F ELMO. THEY HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY INVESTED IN THIS. AND OAK PARE . i THINK WE SHOULD ASK LAKE ELMO, I S THERE ROOM FOR NECGTIATI ^N AMC; TAh.E IT FROM THERE? NEL ,Or.i: THAT : WHAT I THINK TOO . IF ANYONE ATTENDS THIS MEETING IT SHOULD SE WITH LAKE ELMO . LAKE ELMO HAS MORE AT STAVE IN THIS THAN WE DO BECAUSE THE 'LL GET THE VERN CENTER. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE COMPROMISE WOULD BE. IT WO:.`LC BE NIJE THIS WHOLE THING COULD OE SETTLED. FOR INSTANCE, IF THE JUDGE PULES F OI- LE , THEN LE WOULD BE FACED WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WANT SEWER . NICE I ;:" IT COULD ALL aE ROLLED UP IN ONE AfliREEMENT . BUT I DON'T kr•i0L IF THERE room FOP FOR COMPROMISE. IT DOESNT APPEAR THAT OPH WANTS A COMPROMISE . NICHOLSSS : iT 5A,'S HERE THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT . HANSON: THAT .JUST MEANS THEY WANT TO GET TO UE TO TELL US WHAT THEY WANT . iNICHOLS: 1H4-+T HAY BE , B!tT TIMING IS IMPORTANT. THE TIMING FOR TALKING MAY BE HERE . I T W,SN T A MONTH AGO, IT WASN'T 2 MONTHS AGO. MAYBE NOW IT IS. ARE WE 501N T) PASS : T UP? NELSON; ANY MEETING SHOULD HAVE LAKE ELMO THERE , FFEDK Oar: '1,2•, CAE WE SHOULD :5--,ET UP A MEETING 1•`ITH LAKE ELMO AND DECIDE WHAT WE RE GOING, TO -;n , v ;EY : T r S,t GETS FROM READING THIS LETTER IS THAT THIS IS -EL__ � THE :'•t FE'S %tv HE C� � THIS FULFILL THE JUST TO IMF FC�'.S THE 'TUM I C I PAL BOARD THAT THEY' RE TRYING TO RECJIREMENT . TO HIM , iT8 JUST. . AFTER THAT MEETING ON .JUNE B WHICH HE WENT INTO GREAT HOPES AMD HE CAME AWAY WITH NO EXPECTATIONS +WHATSOE'.IER. ;1E HE .RD THAT 'JPH IS ACTUALLY MORE INTERESTED IN THE LAND THAN THE KERN CENTE>` . WELL HOW IN THE WORLD CAN WE COMPROMISE ON SOMETH`NG LIKE THAT . OE iir+'., F ;GME i:.'.T I ZEUS THAT ARE AFFECTED VERY SE-�EREL T , AND itr.H1LDING CUR RESPONSIBLITIES IF WE DON'T FIGHT FOP THEM. .�t=' PE NOT - t�.GHC•LS : 'J�. LET:.. SA( !JE 'vl: GOT a 75% CHANCE OF LOSING . WHAT HAVE WE DONE FOR THE CITIZENS T HEt;E E'r HOLDING FAST TO THIS COURT CASE I F WE HAVE LITTLE CHANCE OF w I NN I N G IT . NOW I F THE JUDGE RULES I r•s OUP.. FAVOR , THE ATTORNEY E STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS SAID HE'D APPEAL IT , NOW WERE GENERAL OF THE MINNESOTA HAS FIGHTING THE -�.TArE CP MINNESOTA. CARRY THIS DOWN THE LINE AND WHAT CHANCE DO WE HAVE or . INNINO IN COURT . } •,ELSEY : WELL I 'M NOT AS PESSIMISTIC AS YOU ARE BRIAN. FREDKO' E : WAI '- A MINUTE . LIE DO HAVE SOMETHING BEHINDA s WITHPRHISEMS WATERSHED 'I S•TF I C I . I F WE COME UP WITH A GOOD CASE WITH THE L;AI EF: HED , WE MIGHT HAvE SOMETHING TO HOLD US TO TRYING TO KEEP DOWN THE DENSI T IN THAT AREA. NICHOLS; THE THING 15 , IF THIS 1S DECIDED BY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, WE'RE DEAD. WE FE :,BAD. WE YE ALWAYS BEEN DEAD. `Y; r 41/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N1027 D05 11/06/97 08;5r. E A L.C i I I 4392923 NO.414 P004 EL55 Y ; EARLIER !.IE +trERE TOLD THIS WAS'T NECESSARILY THE CASE . WHAT'S YOUR FEELING NOW LAL'E . IC THE MMB DECIDES AGAINST US . IS THAT THE END OF THE STORY . MAGNU ION: COULD APPEAL A DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD TO THE DISTPI ''T COURT , AN APPEAL. TO THE DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A STAY , SO I 'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN THAT WITH CASE UNDER APPEAL . THE SEWER WAS ALREADY STUCK i t•1T._> THE PROJECT . SO THE APPEAL PROCESS I S INEFFECTUAL , TAKES A LOT OF TIME . E-'. TCUGH TO OVERTURN, AND IT ALMOST: NEVER HAPPENS. KELSEY: WASN T ; 1 YiJUP IMPRESSION THAT YOU TOLD US THAT AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION HAD FRECEDEP;CE OJER A UNFRIENDLY ANNEXATION'' MAGNUSOIN: THAT WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. TRATS WHAT WE ARGUED WITH ,JUDGE PER I T V ( . WE ARC.,UED THAT THE STATUTE WAS VERY CLEAR. NOW A PRIOR DISTRICT STRICT .JUDGE ;../TH SIMILAR ISSUE RULED THAT THE MUNICIPAL BOARD COULD HEAR THESE GE T IT:C,N . IN WHATEVER ORDER THEY CHOSE. SO ITS A GUESSING GAME TO TRY TO FIGURE 'f'_U1 WHAT THESE .BUDGES ARE GOING TO DO. AS BRIAN SAYS IT DOESN T HELF THAT THE STATE OF MINNESOTA HAS TAKEN - STRONG POSITION ON THI': , IT DOESU T HELP THAT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HAS TAKEN A STRONG POSITION . (0'J' .'E GOT BOTH OF THOSE THINGS GOING ON HERE. IF YOU' D ASK ME WHAT' S THE EEST IJA TO GO WELL . IT WOULD BE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH LAKE ELMO AND ET-+ (TOWN AND OAK PARK TO SOMEHOW WORK TH S WI . USUALLY ITS BETTER TO GET A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT IN ONE OF THESE THINGS OR ELSE YOU GET SOMETHING G ,JAMMED DOWN YOUR THROAT . USUALLY . NELSON; I I'?D OF THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA TO MEET WITH LAKE ELMO I j I CHOLS : AND A7,;' :.AKE:. ELNO I F THERE'S ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION HERE. NELSON: THERE S NO NEED TO MEET WITH THEM, WE'RE VTt4O OF ON THE OUTSIDE LOCKING IN . KUEFFNEP: ,. '>EF DIFFICULT TO HEAR ON RECORDER) TALKS ABOUT PER I T I SKY AND 1 THE COURT CASE . SHE ' S MORE OPTIMISTIC THAN MAGN_ISON ON THE OUTCOME . THE M M^c DEAF'1NC• I S A DIFFERENT ISSUE ON PETITIONERS REQUEST . THINKS ONE OF THE E I GGE':T NEGOT:HT I NG POINTS THEY MAY HAVE I S WHAT COMES OUT OF THIS ; &JAL LE'( EFAN H OA T ERSHED STUDY . CALLED TO VERIFY TO SEE I P THEY'D COMMISSIONED SS10NED S 7 ;JD'Y . I T SOUNDED LIKE A STUDY TO ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM? THAT ARE CAUSE` NO(? ANC WOULD BE MADE WORSE EY MOPE URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH II TT_ILP•ir COST ii L' I.U OF DOLLARS . THERESULTS 0F THE S TUD Y MUST S E LOOKED ED AT. UP TO Il l t THINK WE'VE HAD ANYTHING TO hGLOT I ATE • THE MAYOR WILL COME IN • tC 'i,nY I LL T ALK ABOUT ANYTHING E;CEFT THE 2E 5 ACRES. I THE RESULTS OF =TJDY COULD GIVE EITHER SIDE THE NEGOTIATING TOOLS T AT THE NEED. IF OPH IS WILLING TO PICK UP THE TAP FOR DOWNSTREAM AM AND � •' �;-I GET FLOODEC? OUT , i I?1F' OVEMEN+ `.r. 'HAT MACDONALD LAKE AND CLOVERDALE � CIJ" ET HEN 11 THERE A LOS or ROOM FOP NEGOTIATION THERE. BUT I DON'T THINK ITS FAIR W 1 THE VE►:1D :E E'F'ESE^ITED WITH THAT TAB, AND MOST OF OPH IS NOT IN THAT i ED I T WOULD SEHOOOVE 'IS TO WAIT UNTIL I L THAT. REPORT COMES OUT ,THINK HAS :J .ND IT I GO o CONCERNED ABOUT :,HAT HAS HAPPENED AND .- Cr,L,Lr. r;�,i E,I r:-,eR 1.1�-,Y , .,UT THEY ARE „C) � � ,} THINK THAT ALF:EADT , fC1P: DEVELO"l1ENT COULD MARE THAT ISSUE WORSE . S" I ,i;LL GIVE ''= :0JMETH1NG TO TALK ABOUT , AND THAT ' S TDUE�OUToTHE 13TH, A AND DPERT'f WE LL HA'JE `C '.:•LUPR'T" TC ANAL•r'ZE IT BEFORE WE MEET WI , H OPH I r: I:E. CAN 'T REACH AN AGREEMENT . (TALKS ABOUT HOMES FLOODED ;:i1�C1CR.=. �'� :_cam . ,. OUT ETC) . i E i.5 CAN DO OMETHING-; TO NEGOTIATE LOWER DENSITY , AND IT MIGHT BE SC' LOW -HAT SEWERS AREN'T NEEDED. WE'RE OPEN. WE DON'T WANT TO DO 2 11/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LAW -4 4390574 NO.027 D06 IA 11/06/97 08:55 EF'J•LD 11 ./ 4392923 N0.414 P005 P,'TTLE ••I!'ri- E : T r1ER UP!-? OR THE MUNICIPAL BOARD. AND DON'T WANT TO START NOW. .'.I'._'RE JUST NC.ERNEG ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS DOWNSTREAM. YOU'RE ALL PART OF THE '.ALLEY 3RAM7k SC, YOU' LL PAY FOR IT TOO. WHOSE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT THATS ONE '?F THE. ISSUES LIE'LL TAKE TO THE TABLE Tn NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT . . SHE NEf ERPED TO THE OLSON LAKE ESTATES PRJPLEM) L 'N JOHN: THIS WILL GO TO COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW NIGHT . : FEEL WE ' LL AL_ BE C!IUI TE HAPPY TO MEET WITH THE BA:YTOI.WN BOARD AND DISCUSS WHEN IT COULD E.E :,I i TH OPH. NOY 5 I S OUT OF THE QUESTION , BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE EARLIEST DATE THAT THE WHOLE LAKE ELMO COUNCIL COULD MEET WITH BAYTQWN 70 D1S';:USS PROBLEMS OF MUTUAL INTEREST. DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE REST OP COUNCIL TH1NF';=, . IT MIGHT PE THAT THE 10TH I S TOO EARLY TO MEET WITH OPH PARTICULARLY IF THE ST T Y FROM THE 'JBWD I S DUE ON THE t STH. MARY REFERRED 70 THE COST O- THE MAJOR PROJECT OF THE VWGD - PERSONAL EXPERIENCE BECAUSE HE L IQES ON LAF E JANE . ON THE OLSON LAKE ESTATES PROBLEM, THE VEIIJD COMPROMISED WITH AN its '.JALOREM TAX ON ALL IN WATERSHED, ALSO BENEFICIARIES PAID ANOTHER PORTION , THOSE ON LAKES PAID ANOTHER THIRD. HE PAID 3 TIMES. CAUSE OF PROBLE 1 WAS UP TFEP.M. AND AGAIN THOSE ON CLOVERDALE AND MACDONA;.O LAKE MIGHT BE I r l THE SAME 'SITUATION WHEN THE CAUSE CP THE PROELEM MAY BE UPSTREAM. AND THE( MIGHT PAY A TRIPLE ASSESSMENT . KELSEY : SINCE THE SOHC'11L WENT IN THERE ARE OAK TREES THIS BIG AROUND STANDING IN 5 FEET OF WATER DEADER THAN A MACKEREL . YOU CANNOT CONVINCE ME f OP ANYONE ELSE I.•HC LIVES IN THAT AREA THAT IT WASN'T CAUSED 6Y THE SCHOOL. AND NOW WE' RE T.-,L.KING ABOUT MORE DEVELOPMENT UP THERE. I HAPPEN TO LIVE ON MACDONALD AND IT > NOT AS SAD AS CLO'JERDALE, PUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN •OAK TREE PROBAEL', 90 ,-EARS OLD, SO THE WATER HASN'T BEEN THAT HIGH IN 100 (EARS OR HIDE E , AND NOW WE' RE PUTTING IN A FOOD STORE AND THE WHOLE WORKS , AHD MENAPDS AND ITS GOING TO GET WORSE AND WORSE. • 1. I CH7L S s THE ()ALLEY ER=Nr H, DO THEY HAVE THE POWER n TO STOP DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE'' SEE I ,ME OONE V JSE A PROBLEM , Or DO THEY -AVE TO WAIT UNTIL ITS ESTABLEHED MAGNUSON: ONE OF THE FACTORS THE MMB MUST CONSIDER I 'S THE PROPOSED PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT . , .IJSALL\' THE ENVIROMENTAL CONCERNS CONNECTED WITH P,=L L:JTin(4. :P ;TS CONNECTED WITH FLOODING, THE DANGER IS THAT ITS WITHIN THE MMB' S c I SCPE T ION TO EXPAND THE AREA PROPOSED TO INCLUDE OUTLETS . ITS ! L i 1:EL Y EEC.AUE.E I..r I,JUUL5) MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ANGRY , SUT ITS ALWAYS A I, FO:.!&i L i TY . TP I •S 'CONY OF APPROACH MIGHT POINT OUT HOW EXPENSIVE THE IF 'T '" SC EXPENSIVE THAT IT V SOLUTION MIGHT - •,td%I , r- .� � r '" '"' ��7A1iE5 DEVELOPMENT TENT UNFEASIBLE , THE!:r THE PRI?PER''Y WOULD NOT BECOME URBAN OP SUBURBAN AND THERE WOULD SE STRONG E:'.-'I UENC E THAT IT SHOULD STAY RURAL . N I C HOL S:DDE5 THE 'MLLE', BRANCH HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THIS THING? THEN WHY DiO THEY LET THE I? r,H SCHOOL GO IN? co THEY GIUE THEIR OPINION AND THEN TRY TO WORK ;.t I T H THE PROBLEM? MAI_NUSON: THEr HAVE F'Lr-=,T REVIEW. THEY ARE THE SOURCE OF PERMITS REQUIRED UNDER THE LEtI.: . THERE : 5 THE OBLIGATION TO SET WETLANDS ASIDE AND NOT !NC PEASE THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEORETICAL RULES APPLIED THE , O GOES N PLAT � WHEN I LOOK WAY FLOODING CdE_ 0 , TO PEAT RE 1 E�J. UNFORTUNATELY , tdHEt� >'Ql, �,.CsK :=iT � HE aA THE CONTROLS THAT THEY HAVE DON'T SEEM TO AFFECT IT . MAYBE THE CONTROLS HAVE TO CHANGE , MAYBE THEY HAVE TO GET MORE STRINGENT . I THINK THEY'RE BETTER AT CONTPOLLLN5 PROJECTS NOW IN PLAT REVIEWS , BUT STILL, PROBABLY NOT IN PR.OTE;:.TItIG AREAS FROM FLOODING. Lf I ..11/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.027 D07 -. 11/06/97 08:55 DROI LD II 4392923 0 NO.414 P006 KELSEY : WHAT t+F•° S'"ARTc'.0 TO HAPPEN IS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED THERE ON THE NORTH AND WEST 7,I ?F =LOVERDALE, THEY WENT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BARR ENG I NEER I N:', . OF'H, E' ERYBODY THEY COULD. THEY PLEADED THEIR CASE, I ,.+ENT TO A COUFC= OF MEETINGS . THEY GOT NOWHERE. IT APPEARS LIKE BARR ENGINEEPING iS r.T FAULT , BUT NOBODY WOULD TAKE RESFONSIBIL�Y. OTHSTA10 IT ISN ' T THEIR FAULT , EVERY 3OD SAYS IT ISN'T OUR FAULT , IT JUST +. DOWN THEIR THROATS . ATOM: I M UNE ur THE PETITIONERS . FIRST 05 ALL , TO RESPOND TO THIS �E T I j` 4 IT' S 3 MY UNDER5TANDI NG, AND CORRECT LETTER ', OU FtECE R)ED FROM DAVE CHAR , ' RESPONSE FROM ONE cO , BUT : UNDERSTAND THAT HIS LETTER WAS �+ HE RECEIVED FROM PATTY .VT CLAIRE TO APPEAR AT TONIGHTF,EAEETINC,T DIDN'T COME YOU KNOW , - '' '407 THAT HE WROTE A LETTER FOR NO L THE MEETING TONIGHT TO TALK. OUT OF THE SLUE., ;�r LAcl. ASKED TO COME TO NICHOLS: THAT . S RIGHT . SCREATONi :O HIS LETTER IS A RESPONSE, IT'S NOT TELLING YOU TO SHOW OF A MEETING . r, TALK." BECAUSE DO THINK THAT REALLY �,;- 1 TO SECOI N- HIS "LET'S S THEME , BE_A THESE I !.:>JES GET TO EE TERRIBLY CONFRr1NTAT I TONAL AHD THERE GET TO BE � I LOOK_ T ISSUES PEPSONAL I'I E I psi,:OL.UED . AND BASICALLY I THINK WE SHOULD OOK �' REASON SSU TAKE THE FEP5t)NALIT?ES OUT OF IT . MY MAII- CONCERN AND THE ETREA r4 AN 1 T IS THERE TAL I NG. , . TALK, SINCE +��J '>~E '-;F; I NG WHAT EENEF I , I.., ; NEF.E T+✓ ORDEFLY r•:NNE. .r+r1C,N . I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO REALLY BENEFIT ARE THE BUSYNESS QtjNEPS THERE . BECAUSE THERE COULD BE ARRANGE►''ENTS MADE TO SOMRLYE THE EXPENSES THAT THEY VI C 4 H T BE SUBJECT TO I F THE ANNEXATION I SN'YOU COULD -ETT'_E T-i'. QUESTIONS, ASSESSMENTS QUESTIONS . ALL THESE THINGS I.IHICH !"LEAF- APE IMPORTANT`FOP THEM L+A�ID8E EVERYBODY IETELK ABOUT .w'QN'T BACK Gr, AND TAL-, ilr THOSE 5L1-(S AND MAKE � A RULING.THE UP . AND THE MMS MAKES THEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE �: SUGGESTIONS F � �" �T THINK THEY SHOULD BE. REALLY HURT AFE THE BL INESS OWNERS , AND IFDONH AND THINK BAYTOWN AND THEY BUILT THEIIN E;I)SINES:ES THERE IN GOOD ,TitEiR BEST K0 YTO N NHESE OPH AND LA. E F..LMO AND THE PETITIONERS SHOULD DO PEOPLE . KELSE( : THE FE ICO:', AGAINST GOING, INTO OPH. THEY SAID EITHER STAY IN BAYTi7wN OR LAh E ELMO, S R THE PROBER' ARISE'' IF THE MMB RULES FOR OPH, THEY'LL PAY TAX AT SCR EATON;: ' ARISE'', BUT THEY COULD BE SUBJECT TO H I aHER OPH RATES wH I+:>� IS �[I-I I LaR TO LS , BU ' VALUATIONS tH I `:H RAISES THEIR TAXES, AND YHF1 COULD SE SUBJECT TO SEWER ASSESSMENTS . HANSEN: THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM. SCPEAT+JN: THAT S PIOt.T . BUT THE POINT ABOUT TALKING IS TO TRY AND PROTECT THESE PEOPLE IF THEY GO INTO OPH. END OF TAPE ON SIDE I - PL44N i NG ADEf'+C' FOR I' — REPORT ANNEXATION HEARING AND FOR 299Ee. . A THE ��1EXA. DISCUSSION ON :-�iIRIIiG ra PLANNER FOR . HE ,�,f'1 , 11/06/97 18:09 ECKBERG LAID 4 4390574 NO.027 P08 11/06/47 08:55 k 'U•LD II 4 4392923 N0.414 P007 • t .aN`!I I JL3 F:I PM OPTIONS TO REPRESENT THEN FOR THE ANNEXATION. I THINK. WE SHOULD MAKE r+ DECISION TONITE , 1"5 REALL'r NOT THAT COMPLICATED . COST I APPROXIMATELY % 4050 TO $ 48000 FOR THE ANNEXATION i,,ORV , THEY ALSO ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING TESTIMONY . HOWEVER, WE DISCUSSED T0A AS THE ENC;INEER . THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TIME BETWEEN NOW AND 7-4E 24TH. IF wE W.:tIT TO HAVE ANY KIND Or TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING , WE SHOULD DEC :DE THIS EVEN INCA I F WE WANT THESE PEOPLE TO CO S THIS. NLSEY1 H«-:uE A CHANCE THAT THE HEARING WILL SE DELAYED, CORRECT? WELL . . . . ✓ELZE'! : HEF•E HRE AND ITS AN AWFULLY SHORT TIME AND I 'm NOT COMFORTABLE TO AGREE T O mETH I HO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY' RE THE RIGHT GUI'S OR NOT. WHAT DO C'U SI.'6UE'ST WE DO? KELSEY:l•9ELL WE DON' T ►-+r,1,-E A LOT OF TIME . BUT I ' D SE MORE COMFORTABLE 15 I 'D READ IT, END OF TA7'c SUMMARV POr" ME: AR' : DECI :ION MACE TO HIRE MCTOMES FOR THE ANNEXATION ONLY CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS MEETING WITH BAYTOWN SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1997 1:30 P.M. Council present : Mayor Schaaf, Councilmembers Beaudet, Robert, and Turnquist . Staff present : Administrative Intern Mesko. Visitors : Maynard Kelsey, Baytown Board of Supervisors; 4440 Neal Ave. N. ; Will Zintl, 5620 Memorial Ave. N. ; Joe Kohout, 5595 Memorial Ave. N. ; Carol Palmquist, 12202 55th St . N. ; Barb Engle, 12058 55th St . N. ; John Low, 329 S. Main St . ; David Screaton; Greg St . Claire There were several issues discussed regarding the potential annexation into Oak Park Heights . The meeting was called to clarify what issues are important to the residents and business owners for Oak Park Heights to address . a. Manning/55th Street improvements; b. Watershed Districts/Cloverdale and McDonald Lake flooding; c. Potential housing density; d. Establishment of Planning Commission/Advisory Board with Baytown residents; e. Establishment of residential/rural taxing district; f. Tax phasing schedule There were also questions about the urgency of this proposal and suggestions that Oak Park Heights wait until watershed issues are examined before proceeding. Council said that even if the annexation were to be approved tomorrow, development would still not take place for quite a while. That would give Oak Park Heights plenty of time to review this issue, which it plans to do. There was discussion about the format of the meeting scheduled for Monday, November 17 and the most effective way to have productive dialogue. r' r i • ii ,, ..I i VAivImoo) KY€ l'65./h St \Nak,(wifectDec- /C. iovc c b +-Macbimk-4 ..i KEUSIm beinSi-b6 1 1 i Tlornirq co WI ryt,(&S---i 0 h_, /MOS() 4 , 1 , - ,, , ,, ,, .:1 I , it) n a 1r. , 1 --vim- 'Lulu L L u..._. (4 4 111 iv . ockL , ) l./'(_ , \if acko - , .LkD C C t„ , — :' (J, -(4, y\rcd.+? ,i-t)r /Vittun_ OMUL 7, V0)11,1/X ird 1 a 1)/ i) SCra( 7) lOcit6111--. 7111-c- r - 1 1-1-6willind u,d, T ,11 C�-=� C !L-c g-ns-vbarrhai /41tivu,u- Y-1)( ', , ‘ 1(S-"frict ‘-r. C o'h _____ ' .,1 N A R ,. .i , . i ',pled,,a:-7,-)L? c , )42 b - C/vC (60-e nri f , ,,, ____, 1 s 7 Virz,uk Rho c ii it II I I l , ! i( tU i Fi l' I lip I I , I ■ t iI ef2SZA IA,4St CrY\i L (j L( ` , E r 9r 1- ` . ' 70. ;(WL 5610 /1' /eti..csrt i I;( ,��%�F f, �'- �iDo�- 5�� �� c5%. _----� Low 3 Z 9 1-‘a it f ill 1., '�I f 1 ... ... p v, 0.VA o n Q• O • ... q. .r* 0 cr.o a r�,00 t c ,,j o a rii;g° S � $` oo f p ,0 CD M 0 cuoo S'g S o mow. s,,o � e'^- 8 -, S n•a -,co o - y g 0 :u ° . Ii ; ! t.«, , 3• y . l7 O y ... a 5• S• y `< �,eg Foci pFa 8 F. a •coo o oq 15. 0 & Sw ` cj,q gbd ^,g s § 0 y � co 0 0 «, IN" ~ 'o a CM S S. S a a s .' `< 0 O o y M. 0 S ° p, a, Ica o �eb R:° c S o s c5 �. a`< co 0.;2. 'Oo = &n a.° ° ."S elp c'3 aco � '- p, 'c�o �c �� =a 0.1.'•n a � � � '� 05 �t o ... v '� + Lr". � � $ c c� �i •no ...y �.o arr ., trig ca rJ Ec P•< ', ; 'a (Al. o' S g ° X c, c.^ a ° oq 8 "- a s .; � c. t''g.a � � ocg 'gp• 4 o & ° g'= ogx� aE' * ' o' 0 •, �• T C �o D << 5'a 'rag * = p q ,/ o fa O a r o oN• O, 0 0 . pC cp •-, 0— 11, • O,0. i„. C3i , i4 `Ti a E. b - y 171.I C 4 $ .43 o y cc w°,y '.00O O I. § g' oao a•§ ° 1 AC:i KU 8 `,p �• ° g 'Ft .-.E. ' 851I0 ° y y pp < � 5 y ; ii C Oy vi UIli .-..• 0., o S ...g o =o0 Y� �, a ` 0 Mr a o =y c<oa, 5• v' oti pm °c �.co. O cm `/ h1. • 'ro ": ai° '", a a _ 0. < •• 5o ao . �•oo .Z * Clii a•S 0 0aG:oyo'a§ �°+ 5'_�g• 4 gcaoo ■.j Ag ^ 0 ii1i4ftiL4fl a co a ' �� r-� �O r1-•S 8 p o ° a5 v M 0 .4 Wo n o,coo c`3 �,_q; 5 < r•5o'S.oaS . .sumo cow .,.°r.' o � ; 2 08"1"80 5 a o S 0,0 .� m Ca' o i o cno. o a „,°.- .” p � C'' 5 $' x �' 5 »,o �° S.S ' a �° p 5F•9. 5 < co 5'r i.s co ci,coo ate, PC' F. C48 g 0 ES °0'a.S` aso o `�' " ° c° CO °+ <~o o•d co elf" • S rc, g)'Sg g o o' y a•& : 8 0g' ,F; ego cao cob P. go a � =.0 f CD oo co io's E•M O o R a ' 0 a o �• "'0•S aS o (r59. a ,o ., g O 50- 05. o `e ' S ° 0 5:a �° co 5 a Sa o v',04 co 5, �, n :v ... y tz' Q' 10.5, ..•d 0 5 Fa S• s g o 5. m ��j.* c�6_,o.� g 60 g..fld..<i .&.o .�._ clo y 5a' J ,° � G :�p 50' 2 .m,`< o ay 5oaov y ° 5 �° �° � Y :u �is wo ' SOS ° o• », � S as ° ' a• o ^ obi � p T� cxo8 ° �'s'oa8caaaa � ovo•�° Sea cSa / 0 � •,, 5 , g�"gg"'" 8 ^ fir � V1•• a ' .a ,» c� • •< to . 0 V1 B.g..og. 5 UUi c z8ryg- 4. 4. 8xrb Fry .. uu Uii 5^ ° 3 �'.p.R RR.y '0 °°• 0 C° ' o oc 5 a S i,, 12.a g P. aO.g Cr o o y rl o co rg' -' °'g eD 2 v, 0 5 o ".g.a:z 2 y trice E. o, o otes'�co. �`< S E. < a o � . g ' Q' ., 5' S S so S0 0 < a o ra aa o a � O a ° cA � : o o "� a • �y S (14:: r. SaF ' e.� CqDNC.0r r .. Og o g C .� DS 0 Ca ca 5. a y. o 4.40. 1, m— R a aQ a :. .O O C, c � S �4 a � O. Fv o $ , 5 i?E? R.F' O o Plilli igi.CSR . o gco" M. - g ° oS a 0 e• * p; l iI ` 5r' c�O y Z1jiiuft s Ca < 5 td S 8 T 8 p n 4g r. + o c o ^ a 10 S § „• y a n o o .0o oQ a A b s O , imii 4 � : o 'O° a " " _ ''';•.•. ,. d 1 ' rol 1r" 4 'o _ ;.» CALLUN 41—Xi—11 • i City of Lake Elmo Washington County,Minnesota Summary of Ordinance 850 Relating to Signs On November 19, 1996, the Lake Elmo City Council adopted Ordinance 5150 relating to Signs. On November 19, 1996, the Lake Elmo City Council received a summary of Ordinance 8'150 and by affirmative votes, approved the publication of a summary of this ordinance, to wit: Section 535 - Signs 535.01 Purpose 535.02 Sign Permits Required 535.03 Definitions 535.04 General Provisions 535.05 Permitted Signs 535.06 Prohibited Signs 535.07 Permitted Signs in Residential Districts 535.08 Permitted Signs by a Sign Permit in the"Old Village" (South of State Highway 5, in the (GB) General Business Zoning District) 535.09 Permitted Signs by a Permit in Business Park Districts 535.10 Directory Signs 535.11 Automobile Service Station Signs A complete copy of Ordinance S L.b t "Signs" is on file in the Office of the City Administrator and can be viewed by the public during normal business hours. Wyrr yor eat: Mary k' City Ali ii1 iistra r • • City of Lake Elmo Washington County,Minnesota Ordinance $!,5( AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 535 AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS OF THE LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS Section 1. Amendment Section 535 of the 1979 Municipal Code of Lake Elmo is hereby adopted; to wit: ' • • SIGN REGULATIONS page 1 Sabd. PURPOSE. Signs have an impact on the rural character and quality of the environment in 535.01 Lake Elmo. They may attract or repel the viewing public and affect the safety of vehicular traffic. As a rural community, Lake Elmo is unique. The proper control of signs is of particular importance because of this rural quality and uniqueness. Signs should be kept within reasonable boundaries consistent with the objectives and goals of the community to retain its special character and economic advantages which rest in part on the quality of its appearance. The following standards in this section are therefore adopted to regulate signs. Sabd. SIGN PERMITS REQUIRED. All signs Shall require a sign permit as required in this 535.02 Chapter. A sign permit application containing the following information shall be Sled with the City Planner. a. A drawing of the proposed sign, or signs, showing dimensions and describing materials, lettering, colors, illumination and support systems. b. Photographs of the building face and the building faces of both adjacent buildings. c. • A drawing of the building face and site plan showing the location of the proposed sign(s) as necessary. d. A cross section of the building face showing how the sign will be attached and how far it will extend from the building. e. Any pictorial proof or other information that the sign is of historical significance or is a reproduction of an historic sign as appropriate. £ A building sign plan for a building with more than one use or business, showing all signs. Sabd. DEFIlVTTIONS. 535.03 Awning Signs Any sign that is painted on or attached to an awning. Banner A sign intended to be hung either with or without a frame possessing character, letters, illustrations, or ornamentation's applied to paper, plastic or fabric of any kind, excluding flags, emblems and insignia or political, professional, religious, educational or corporate orgnn»ations providing that such flags, emblems and insignia are displayed for noncommercial purposes. Billboard Refers to a non-accessory sigh erected for the purpose of advertising a product, event, person or subject not usually related to the premises on which said sign is located. Building Sign Plan An illustration that shows all signs on a building or group of related buildings. • page 2 Construction Sign A sign placed at a construction site identifying the project or the name of the architect, engineer, contractor financier or other involved parties. Directorial Sign A sign which contains no advertising of any kind and provides direction or instruction to guide persons or vehicles to facilities intended to serve the public. Electrical Sign An illuminated sign upon which the artificial light is not kept constant in terms of intensity or color at all times when the sign is illuminated. Freestanding Signs Any stationary, self-supporting sign standing on the ground not affixed to any other structure. Includes monument, ground or pedestal signs. Graphic Signs Means any mural or pictorial scene painted on the side of a wall or building or painted on a sign board affixed to a wall and in which a mural or scene has its purpose artistic effect. A"Graphic Design" shall be considered a"sign" for the purpose of this ordinance. Gover nmental Sign A sign which is erected by a governmental unit for identification or traffic. • Estorical Sign Any sign that is of historical significance and that is a historical resource within the meaning of Minnesota Statues Chapter 116B. Illuminated Sign Any sign which is lighted by an artificial light source either directed upon it or illuminated from an interior source. Marquee Sign A permanent roof-like structure extending from part of the wall of a building but not supported by the ground and constructed of durable material such as or glass. Mobile Sign Signs on wheels or otherwise capable of being moved from place to place. Motion Sign Any sign which revolves, rotates, has any moving parts or gives the illusion of motion. Nameplate Sign A sign which states the name and/or address of the business, industry or occupant. Portable Sign Any sign that is designed to be moved. Projecting Sign Any sign projecting from a building wall. Public Utility Sign Signs which identify public utilities. Sign A display, illustration with lettering, structure or device which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution, organization or business. The term • page 3 shall not include the United States flag or any governmental flag properly displayed in approved manner. Sign Area The area which is framed either physically or visually by the construction, design or layout of a sign itself but not including supporting structures. Sign Structure The supports, uprights, braces and framework of the sign. Temporary Sign A sign constructed of paper, cloth, canvas or other similar lightweight material with or without frame and all others intended to be displayed for a short period of time only. Three-Dimensional Sign A type of projecting sign which depicts a physical object, such as a shoe or product sold, as opposed to utilizing letter to convey the signing message. Real Estate Sign A business sign placed upon property advertising that particular property for sale, rent or for lease. Roof Sign Any sign which is erected, constructed or attached wholly or in part upon or over the roof of a building. Wall Sign A sign attached to, painted on or erected against the wall of a building with the exposed face of the sign plane parallel to the plane of said wall. Window Sign A sign affixed to a window galls or door glass. This does not include merchandise on display. Subd. GENERAL. PROVISIONS. 535.04 The following provisions apply to signs located in all zoning districts: a. All signs and structures shall be properly maintained and than be constructed of sufficiently permanent material so that they hail not succumb to deterioration from weathering. Any existing sign or sign structure which is rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, defaced or otherwise altered, shall be repainted. repaired, replaced or removed as necessary. b. When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the State's Electrical Code. Overhead electrical wiring is not allowed. c. No signs other that governmental signs shall be erected or temporarily placed within any street right-of-way or upon public lands or easements of right-of-ways without Council approval. d. No sign or structure shall be erected or maintained if it prevents free ingress or egress from any door, window or fire escape. No sign or sign structure shall be • attached to a standpipe or fire escape. 411 • page 4 e. Temporary signs may be allowed for special business events such as business openings and closings, change in management, district wide shopping events or other special occasions for fifteen(15) days maximum by permit from the City Planner. £ Sign structures not used for signing twelve (12)consecutive months shall be removed. g. The City of Lake Elmo may grant a permit to locate signs or decorations on, over or within the right-of-way for a specified period of time. All signs shall be compatible with the building and area in which they are located. i. No more than three (3) properly displayed flags may be displayed outside of the building. j. A sign shall not obscure architectural features of a building to which sign is attached. k. A building address shall not be considered a sign. L The terms of this ordinance may be waived if the sign is a historic resource or if the sign is a proposed reproduction of a historic sign. m. Graphic design signs sba1l require a Special Use Permit. Subd. PERMITTED SIGNS. 535.05 The following signs are allowed without a permit in all zoning districts but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of this ordinance:, a. Public Signs: Signs of public, noncommercial nature including safety signs, danger signs, trespassing signs, traffic signs, signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques and the like, when signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty. b. Integral Signs: Names on buildings, date of construction, commemorative tablet and the like, which are permanent construction and which are an integral part of the building or the structure. c. Political Signs: Signs or posters announcing candidates seeking political office or issues to be voted upon at a public election. Such signs must contain the name and address of person(s) responsible for its removal. These signs shall be erected no more than 45 days before any election and be removed 10 days after the general election for which they are intended. The City of Lake Elmo shall have the right to remove and destroy signs after the 10 day limit. • • page 5 Size: The size of a political sign shall be regulated as follows: 1. Residential Districts - The maximum sign size shall be 6 square feet in area with a maximum height of 4 feet. 1 2. Commercial Districts - The maximum size shall be 35 square feet in area. Not withstanding this provision, all noncommercial signs of any size may be posted from August 1st in a state general election year until 10 days following the state election. d. Holiday Signs: Signs or displays which contain or depict messages pertaining to a national, state or local holiday and no other matter and which are displayed for a period not to exceed 60 days. e. Construction Signs: A non-illuminated sign announcing the names of architects, engineers, contractors or other individuals or firms involved with the construction, alteration or repair of a building (but not including any advertisement of any product) or announcing the character of the building enterprise or the purpose for which the building is intended. Such signs shall be confined to the site of the construction, alteration or repair and shall be removed within two (2) years of the date of issuance of the first building permit or when the particular project is completed, whichever is sooner. One sign shall be permitted for each street the project abuts. No sign may exceed 32 square feet in Multi-Family Residential, Commercial and Industrial District and 12 square feet in Single Family Residential Districts. £ Individual Property Sale, Lease, or Rental Sign: An on-premise sign announcing the name of the owner, manager, Realtor or other person directly involved in the sale or rental of the property or announcing the purpose for which it is being offered. Such signs are limited to six (6) square feet in residential districts and 32 square feet in commercial districts. Signs must be removed within then ten (10) days after sale or rental of property. g. Rummage Sale Signs: Signs advertising a rummage sale not exceeding four (4) square feet located on private property which conform to the applicable provisions of this title and are removed at the termination of the sale. h. One name plate sign, placed on a wall of the structure, for each dwelling not exceeding two (2) square feet in area per structure. No signs shall be constructed to have more than two (2) surfaces. • • page 6 i. One name plate for each dwelling group of six (6) or more units. Such sign shall not exceed six(6) square feet in area per surface. No signs shill be constructed to have more than two (2) surfaces. j. Real Estate Development Project Signs: For the purpose of selling or promoting a development project of three(3) to twenty-five(25) acres, one sign not to exceed 100 square feet of advertising surface may be erected on the project site. For projects of twenty-six(26) through fifty(50) acres, one(1) or two (2) signs not to exceed 200 aggregated square feet of advertising surface may be erected. For projects over fifty(50) acres, one(1), or two (2) or three(3) signs may be erected. For projects of over fifty (50) acres, one(1), two (2) or three(3) signs not to exceed 200 aggregate square feet of advertising surface may be erected. No dimension shall exceed 25 feet exclusive of supporting structures. Such sign shall not remain after 95 percent of the project is developed. The permit for such sign must be renewed annually by the Council, shall be bordered with a decorative material compatible with the surrounding area. If such signs are lighted, they shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other development are open for conducting business. k. • No sign permit is required for window sismage that does not cover more than one third of the total area of the window in which the sign is displayed. L No trespassing and no hunting sign no Iarger than 2 square feet. Subd. PROHIBITED SIGNS. 535.06 The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts: a. Any sign which obstructs the vision of drivers or pedestrians or detracts from the visibility of any official traffic control device. b. Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal, except for private, on-premises directional signs. • c. Off premises advertising signs except as regulated herein. d. Any sign which moves or rotates including electronic reader board sign, except approved time and temperature information signs and barber poles. e. No sign shall display any moving parts, be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights or shall be animated, except time and temperature information. All displays shall be shielded to prevent any light to be directed at oncoming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor signs which are visible from public streets. f. Roof signs. • 111 page 7 g. Any sign which contains or consists of banners, pennants, nbbons, streamers, string of light bulbs, spinners or similar devices, except where used for noncommercial purposes or part of an approved sign plan. h. Portable Signs including but not limited to signs with wheels removed, attached temporarily or permanently to the ground, structure or other signs, mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, parked and visible from the public right-of-way, except signs identifying the relaxed business when the vehicle is being used on the normal day-to-day operations of that business, hot air or gas filled balloon or semi-truck umbrellas used for advertising. 1. Signs painted directly on building walls unless approved by sign permit. j. Miimina*ed signs or spotlights giving off an intermittent or rotating beam existing as a collection or concentration of rays of light. k. Revolving beacons, beamed lights,or similar devices. L Signs supported by a guy wire. m. No sign shall be erected, places or maintained by any person on rocks, fences or trees. n. No sign shall be erected which will interfere with any electric light, power, telephone or telegraph wires or the supports thereof o. Graphic design signs without Special Use Permit. p. Billboards Sabd. PERMITTED SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICTS 535.07 a. Professional name plate wall signs.not exceeding two (2) square feet in area. b. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings and the date of erection when cut into a masonry surface or when constructed of bronze or other incombustible material. c. Political signs as regulated. d. Individual property sale, lease or rental as regulated. e. Construction signs as regulated. f. Bulletin boards or public information signs not over thirty-two (32) square feet located only on the premises of public, charitable or religious institutions. • • • page 8 g. Other signs, such as neighborhood or project identification signs consistent with the neighborhood character, subject to Special Use Permit. Sabd. PERMITTED SIGNS BY A SIGN PERMIT IN THE"OLD VILLAGE" 535.08 (South of State Highway 5, in the (GB) General Business Zoning District) The following signs are hereby permitted with a sign permit: General Requirements: a. All signs in the"Old Village"are regulated by the following requirements: I. Number: One wall, monument, awning and canopy or three dimensional sign is allowed per business. When a building or business abuts two or more public streets, an additional sign located on each street building face is allowed. 2. Sign Plan: When there is more than one business or use in a building with more than one sign, a building sign plan shall be provided with the sign permit application. • 3. Other requirements: See area, location and height requirements below for type of sign selected. b. Wall Signs 1. Area. the total building signage shall have an aggregate area not exceeding .75 square foot for each foot of such building face parallel or substantially parallel to a street lot line. 2. Location. A wall sign shall not project more than sixteen(16) inches from the wall to which the sign is to be affixed. 3. Height. A wall sign shall not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is to be affixed or fifteen(15) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever is lower. 4. No internally illuminated signs are allowed. 5. Special Conditions. Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more permitted uses, the operator or each such use may install a wall sign for their particular use. A sign plan must be submitted for the entire building. a. The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed .75 square feet for each foot of such building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line with a maximum of twenty • (20) square feet per business. • • page 9 c. Freestanding Signs 1. Area. The area of pedestal type freestanding sign shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. 2. Location. A pedestal sign shall be located in any required yard but shall have a setback of fifteen (15) feet from any point of vehicular access, public roadway or property line. 3. Height. A pedestal sign shall not project higher than six(6) feet, as measured from the base of sign or grade of the nearest roadway, whichever is lower. 4. Landscaping. The area around a monument sign shall be landscaped. 5. Lighting. Externally illuminated or back lit letters are allowed, no internally illuminated signs. d. . Awning and Canonv Sign 1. Area. The gross surface of an awning or canopy sign shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross surface area of the smallest face of the awning or canopy of which such sign is to be affixed. 2. An awning or canopy sign shall not project higher than the top of the awning or canopy or below the awning or canopy. £ Projecting Sign 1. The total areas of a projecting signs sball be six(6) square feet. 2. All projecting signs shall be located on street level and easily visible from the sidewalk. 3. If lighted, projecting signs shall be externally illuminated. Subd. PERMITTED SIGNS BY A SIGN PERMIT IN BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS 535.09 All commercial, office and industrial signs in all Highway Business, Limited Business, General Business and Business Park Zoning Districts. • • page 10 a. wan Signs 1. Area. The gross surface area of a wall sign shall not exceed .75 square feet for each foot of building, parallel, or substantially parallel, to the front lot line. 2. Location. A wall sign shall be Iocated on the outermost wall of any principal building but shall not project more than sixteen(16) inches from the wall to which the sign is to be affixed. The location and arrangement of all wall signs shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planer. 3. Height A wall sign shall not project higher than the parapet line of the wall to which the sign is to be affixed or twenty(20) feet as measured from the base of the building wall to which the sign is affixed, whichever is lower. 4. Special Conditions. Where a principal building is devoted to two (2) or more uses, the operator of each such use may install a wall sign upon his/her proportionate share of the building wall to which the sign is affixed. A sign plan must be submitted for the entire building containing the following information: a. The total gross signage for the entire building shall not exceed one (1) square foot for each foot of such building face parallel, or substantially parallel, to a street lot line or a maximumof twenty- five (25) square feet per business. b. The location, sizes, types and elevations of all signs. c. All signs shall be visually consistent in location, design and scale. b. freestanding Sign 1. Area. the gross surface area of a ground sign shall not exceed thirty(30) square feet for each exposed face nor exceed an aggregate gross surface area of 60 square feet. 2. Location. A ground sib, may be set back fifteen (15) feet from front or side property line. 3. Height. A ground sign shall not project higher than six (6) feet, as measured from base of sign or grade of the nearest adjacent roadway, whichever is lower. 4. There shall be one freestanding sign per development site. • • page 11 c. Multi-tenant Master Sign Program. A building Master Sign Program chall be required (for multi-tenant commercial buildings)besides the individual tenant and occupant signs. A building master identification sign may be permitted according to the following requirements: 1. Building master identification signs shall not contain the names of any tenants or occupants of the center. 2. If the multi-tenant commercial building has a floor area of 40,000 square feet or less, the building may have a freestanding sign with a maximum of one square foot of sign for each five feet of building frontage or 40 square feet maximum in hei ght of eight feet. S� 3. If multiple tenant commercial building has a floor area greater than 40,000 square feet, but less than the 100,000 square feet, the enter may have a master identification sign with a maximum of 75 square feet on each side and with a maximum height of 9 feet. - 4. If the multiple tenant commercial building has a floor area of greater than 100,000 square feet, the center may have a master identification sign with a maximum area on 120 square feet on each side and a maximum height of 15 feet. Sabd. DIRECTORY SIGNS 535.10 Directory signs are used to guide pedestrians to individual business within a multiple tenant commercial area and are permitted. 1. Placement- a. must be placed on the site of the development b. shall be erected only in internal pedestrian access areas and not in vehicle access areas. c. directory sign area to be used for the purposes of direction and identification only. 2. Area- A directory sign may have maximum area on one square foot for each business listed on the sign and four square feet for the mane of the building or complex. 3. Directory signs may be freestanding but shall not exceed four feet in height. ..^ • page 12 Sabel. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION SIGNS 535.11 Automobile service stations are allowed one(1)wall sign and one(1)ground sign subject to the following conditions: a. Wall signs. There shall be no more than one(1)wall per building face sign with a maximum sign area of.75 square foot for each lineal foot of building frontage. b. Freestanding Signs. There shall be no more than one(1)freestanding sign for each principal building. A freestanding sign shall be set back fifteen(15)feet form the front and side property line. A freestanding sign shall not project higher that six (6)feet as measured form grade or contain more than 30 square feet of signage. c. Service Bay and Island Identification Signs. Service bay and islands identification signs are permitted providing direction or instruction to persons using the facility but containing no advertising material of any kind. • • 410 DATE : November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE : Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 4 S 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4 , 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3, 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line. Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring. Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same . 411 410 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a . development agreement with the City. P g Y 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week A A 411 411 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to worst with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13, 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site. This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less . Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property ert owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site. • • DATE: November 13, 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, • • 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once . An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3 , 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line . Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same. 411 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code. Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards. 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space. The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business. B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are: Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week 410 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo . For example, the City of Lake Elmo ' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Y Y g Please reference 1997 se erence Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 19 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site . This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less. Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site . . 411 DATE: November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE : Questions about annexation 1) Can P roperty taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, _street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 410 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2 , 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3, 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line. Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same. 111 110 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week 411 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo ' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site. This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less . Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site . 1 • I DATE: November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pp ays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including uding patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 411 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once . An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2 , 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3 , 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line . Running the service P P � .y g lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same . L a. 411 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space. The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses. The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week S • 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site. This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less . Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site . DATE: November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter. street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost. Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once . An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3, 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line . Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups. An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same. • • 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants. We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space. The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week AU. . . 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 .35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new vuidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existinv Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to wor.c with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13, 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site. This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less. Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site . R 110 110 DATE : November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE : Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-La.{e Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets. The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 411 • 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3 , 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line . Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same. 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 :00 A.M. to 10 :00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week II! 410 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo ' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas. Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions. 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site. This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less . Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site . • 110 DATE: November 13, 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement. An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, r . . . 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once . An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2 , 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3, 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line. Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same . 110 110 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code. Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are: Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week i 411 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new guidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas. Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site . This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the following year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less . Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site . J '% 110 DATE : November 13 , 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for a water/sewer hookup and who will pay for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation by the property owners whose land abuts the streets in which laterals are installed. The proposed first phase of installation of sewer and water does not call for installing lateral lines to serve the area north of Memorial, but only a stub of a lateral from the street to the ditch so the street will not have to be torn up again. When the area north of Memorial is ready for sewer and water, 411 !II 2 it will be cost effective to extend that lateral to serve the entire area at once. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of the first phase of assessments until the property is hooked up to sewer and water. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2 , 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3 , 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payments of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. An orderly annexation agreement can provide for deferral of these charges until hookup. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places laterals to a property line. Running the service lines from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous P Y P , annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . An orderly annexation agreement can provide that hookup will not be required until the septic or well fails or the owner requests it . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same . 411 110 3 Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code. Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. The Council is reconsidering this requirement . 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. The contract with UWS expires on December 31, 1998, and commercial business owners will be dropped from future contracts . Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week F 411 • A 4 $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - The City is bound by any existing covenants, but the City' s setbacks and open space requirements are less restrictive than Baytown/Washington County and Lake Elmo. For example, the City of Lake Elmo' s ordinances restrict the amount of impervious surfaces (building and paved areas) in the general business area. Where there are no water or sewer services available, impervious surface is limited to 45% of the land for lots up to four acres, 35% for lots from four to eight acres, and 25% to lots more than eight acres . Lake Elmo has also adopted a moratorium on building in the Brown' s Creek Watershed District, but Oak Park Heights has not . Instead, Oak Park Heights is considering new vuidelines that will restrict the water flow to Brown' s Creek by maximizing infiltration processes by greater use of ditches, grading, and piping. Subdivision of Existinv Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. Tie City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? Please reference Attorney Vierling' s letter from November 13 , 1997 11) Will the Assessor' s Office Raise the Assessed Value of My Property Because Water and Sewer Are Available to My Land? For those properties which have laterals installed, the typical increase in assessed value is approximately $10, 000 per site . This valuation increase will take effect on January 2 in the year after the lines are installed and assessed, which will affect payable taxes for the followin g year. If your property is not part of the first phase of installing sewer and water laterals (such as north of 58th Street) , you will be affected less. Denny Montague of the Washington County Assessor' s Office asked property owners to call him at 430-6092 to discuss the specifics of their site. 410 . Enclosure 2 JOHN C. KOHOUT CUSTOMER SERVICE SUPERVISOR UNI'TE' T/�TES PCFSTAEL D SERVICE 11/13/97 NOII 14 19111 Mayor David Schaaf 14168 N. 57th ST Box 2007 Oak Park Heights MN 55082 Mr. Schaaf: I am returning a letter, written by you to Carol Palmquist on 55th ST N. Ms Palmquist brought the letter to me today and was very upset that you, or one of the city employees, could access her mailbox. She is correct to be upset, for as I'm sure you know it is a federal crime to tamper with another persons mail or mailbox. It is also illegal to mail letters without using proper postage. I'm sure this was an oversight on the cities part, and that letters are normally sent through the mail, therefor I won't charge you postage fees. I must insist however, that you use postage on all letters in the future. i cerely: J4hn C. Koh t Customer Services Supervisor Stillwater MN 55082-9998 cc: Ms. Carol Palmquist Roger Karrick, Postmaster PO BOX 9998 STILLWATER MN 55082-9998 (612)439-4232 FAX: (612)351-7135 • CITY • OAK PARK HEIGHTS � .; 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574' November 10, 1997 Carol Palmquist 12202 55th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Ms. Palmquist, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 11, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us. The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since. June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday. ° vembe r 1 1997 at 2 `r. P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process. These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ver truly yours, /i David Schaaf Mayor Tree City U.S.A. DATE: November 10, 1997 _ TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb, gutter, street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years . Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for water/sewer hookup and who will pay K 2 for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4 , 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3 , 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payment of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places stubs to a property line . Running the utilities from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? . 3 City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same. Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards . 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . . • �{ 4 New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing in g Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - As noted earlier, once we receive copies of your existing covenants, we will compare them to the standards of our zoning code. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? The agreement can provide for incremental phasing in of urban property tax rates over a period of years and creation of a rural taxing district, neither of which can be done without an orderly annexation agreement LAKE EL : -6 . ��OV�MBE� � O 1997 5 . 3O (MOTES FROM TAPE OF MEETI*G) JOHN: DID OPH RESPOND TO -�HE NOVEMBEP l7 MEETl��G FREDKOVE � LETTER WAS SENT BY KUEFFNER : YES FREDKOVE: RECEIVED FROM MAYOR SCHAAF OCTOBER 31 , SUGOESTED MEETING . SO THIS IS THE 9EASON NOW TO TRY TO FIND A PLA' . . . . NELSON : FOR AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION FREDKOVE : IT ' S NOT REALLY FROM THE COUNCIL , IT' S FROM THE MAYOR HIMSELF , IT' S ON THE STATIONERY FROM OAK PARK HEIGHTS KUEFFNER : DO YOU NEED COPIES ?? JOHN: ON FRIDAY THE MUNICIPAL BOARD DECIDED THEY WOULD NOT CONTINUE THEIR NOVEMBER 24 SESSION AND WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE JUDGE FREDKOVE: WELL WE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION JOHN: THE MUNICIPAL BOARD WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE � JUDGE HAS THE OPPOORTUNITY TO RULE ON THE PRIOR ISSUE FREDKOVE : WELL HOW CAN WE MAKE A DECISION IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE JUDGE IS GOING TO DECIDE JOHN : IF THE JUDGE MAKES A DECISION FOR LAKE ELMO , I 'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE VALUE OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD DECISION IS NICHOLS: WELL , THEY WON'T RULE ON IT ON THE 24TH , . , KUEFFNER : NO, THEY HAVE UP TO A YEAR TO RULE . THEY' LL RECEIVE TESTIMONY FOP 2 TO 3 DAYS , POSSlBLY , THEN THEY' LL I WEIGH ALL THE EVIDENCE KUEFFNER: COULD I ASK A QUESTION . I D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID AT OUR LAST MEETING IN BAYTOWN . IT WAS SOMETHING THAT MRS . SCREATON SAID, SO IF SHE DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, THAT' S O .K . SHE . . IT APPEARED TO ME MRS . SCREATON THAT YOU WERE SUPPORTIVE OF SOME NEGOTIATIONS AND, OF NEGOTIATIONS IF I DIDN'T MISUNDERSTAND YOU . I THINK THAT . . IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO THAT WOULD STOP THIS ANNEXATION FROM CONTINUING . I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT RIGHT NOW , THAT' S NOT MY INTENTION , BUT I DID GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU THOUGHT NEGOTIATIONS WERE WORTH SOMETHING AND THAT YOU WANTED TO BE INVOLVED IN THOSE AND I KNOW DAVID' S HERE TOO . . » |�� ' III III ' ~ ` .- J SCREATON1 I ' LL ANSWER BASED ON WHAT I SAID . l SAID I SUPFORTED E',/ERYTHING THAT MAYOR SCHAAF HAD PUT IN HIS LETTER WHICH WAS " L71T'S ��VE NEGOTIATIONS AND A SETTLEMENT BEFORE NOVEMBER 247H" KUEFFNER : WHAT IS SETTLEMENT TO YOU? J . SCREATC A Si GNED AGREEMENT ON AN ORDERLY ANNEXATI ON OF THE 235 ACRFS TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS . KUEFFNER : SO , THERE' S NO MIDDLE GRnUND THEN, I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU . . . . J . SCREATON : WELL ` I THINK THERE' S ALWAYS MIDDLE GROUND TO NEGOTIATION . KUEFFNER : . . . , l DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS OR NOT JOHN : MRS , SCREATON , IF I 'M INTERPRETING WHAT YOU SAID YOU'RE OPEN TO LISTENING TO NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN BAYTOWN AND OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND YOU THINK THAT COULD BE SETTLED PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 24TH MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL BOARD BECAUSE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT . IT' S FAR BETTER TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT , AND THAT AGREEMENT, IN YOUR VIEW , WOULD BE ANNEXATION TO OAK PARK? J SCREATON : I THINK THAT AGREES WITH WHAT THE MAYOR PUT IN HIS LETTER . KUEFFNER: WELL YOU' RE THE PETITIONER, AND RIGHT NOW THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE BETWEEN THE CITIES, BUT YOU AS THE PETITIONERS MIGHT HAVE SOME STAKE IN THERE , SO JUST TO BE REAL DIRECT , IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD STOP THIS PROCESS THAT WOULD SATISFY YOU? IT' S REALLY BEING AS POINT BLANK AS I CAN BE AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT , IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER, THAT' S FINE WITH ME. J . SCREATON : WE REALLY THINK THAT THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THE WHOLE CONTROVERSY IS FOR THESE 235 ACRES BE ANNEXED TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS. KUEFFNER : SO THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND . JOHN: CAN I ASK A QUESTION, MRS SCREATON. ORIGINALLY YOUR DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH BAYTOWN AND WASHINGTON COUNTY BECOMING SEWERED . IF YOU'RE PART OF LAKE ELMO , IT DOES GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER REZONING TO BE PART OF OUR OPEN SPACE ORDINANCE WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AKIN TO WHAT WE HAVE IN FIELDS OF ST CROIX OR TAMARACK, WHICH I5 ADJACENT TO YOUR AREA. IS THAT SOLUTION ONE WHICH YOU MIGHT CONTEMPLATE? ~�;1.-- . ^ ' III III '.- , D . SCREAT0N : I GUESS WE'VE EXPLJFE THE OPTION OF BEING IN LAKE ELMO , AND NO . WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN LAKE ELMO . WE , WANT TO BE IN OAK PARK HEIGHTS . DUNN : I 'VE GOT A QUESTION . IS TT ALL FINANCIAL , THE SEWER? D SCREATON ; IT' S ENVIR0MENTAL TOO , WE LIKE THE SEWER AND THE WATER BETTEP . J . SCREATON ; I THINK IT' S ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE ` WHEN YOU DEVELOP TO DO IT WITH SEWER THERE' S NO WORRY ABOUT � , ^ POLLUTING WELLS. ' DELAPP ; IT' S INTERESTING , BECAUSE WE HAD THE HEADS OF THE PCA AND DNR OUT TO THE FIELD OF ST , CROIX , AND THEY WERE JUST E8CTATIC AT HOW WONDERFUL THE SYSTEM IS WE' RE PUTTING . THERE . IT' S FIVE TIMES BETTER IN TERMS OF POLLUTION CONTROL , THAN THE PCA' S PLANT AT PIG' S EYE . ' KUEFFNER : MY PROBLEM IS , IF IT' S JUST FINANCIAL , THERE' S MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAXIMIZE DOLLARS. FREDKOVE : DON'T WE HAVE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE VALLEY BRANCH STUDY WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE OUT ON THE 13TH . WHAT' S GOING � TO HAPPEN THERE, MAYBE THAT WILL DEFINE THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT . , JOHN: NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THAT STUDY IS GOING TO TURN OUT ! KUEFFNER : I PLAN ON ATTENDING THAT MEETING AND GETTING A COPY FOR THE BOARD AS SOON AS ITS AVAILABLE , WITH THAT I WAS HOPING THAT THERE WOULD BE ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION• WITH THE PETITIONERS. THAT NOT BEING THE CASE , I ' D HOPE THAT YOU'D WANT THE STAFF , AND PAT AND I AND THE ATTORNEYS TO PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF CONDITIONS BASED ON THE DISCUSSIoNS THAT WE'VE HAD OVER OUR MANY MEETINGS THAT WE CAN PRESENT TO OAK � PART HEIGHTS AT THE JOINT MEETING NEXT MONDAY . KELSEY : VD LIKE TO ASK MRS . SCREATON TO ELABORATE ON THS , ENVIRONMENTAL REGPONSIBILTY . COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT OAK PARK HEIGHTS WOULD BE 3 TO THE , ACRE , MAYOR SCHAAF SAID SOMETIME 6 , BUT I DON'T THINK THAT' S PRACTICAL OR REASONABLE. THE OTHER SITUATION I BELIEVE IS I PER 5 ACRES . NOW HOW IS THAT MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE? D . L D SCREATON � I GUESS WE FEE THAT SEWER IS A BETTER WAY OF , HANDLING THE WASTE , AND WE PREFER NOT TO HAVE ALL THE WELLS PUNCHED INTO THE GROUND . PREFER 1 WELL FOR THEM ALL . , DELAPP : THAT' S INTERESTING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE PROPOSED FOR THE FIELDS OF ST CROIX , AND THEY ENDED UP NOT GOING THAT WAY` BUT IT WAS KIND OF FLEXIBLE . 3 HL�� ^ DELA�P , JOHN DISCUSS WELLS AND STORM ��TER RUNOFF KELSE 'E A RE�-L PROBLEM . I DON'T UNDERSTAND HO�! B4VIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE IT IS . FREDKOVE : L . THAT' S BECAUSE OF -HE DENSlTY . KELSEY : IS OR CITIES MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE? WHAT' E THE LOGIC , l CAK UNDERSTAND IT FOR OTHER REASONS , NELSQN: WILL THE VALLEY BRANCH HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE TYPE OF DEVLEOPMBNT THAT THEY HAVE TO APPRC0E THESE DEVELOPMENTS, DON'T THEY? THEN THEY COULD APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE , COULDN'T THEY? JOHN ; (TALKS ABOUT SOLUTIONS , POTENTIAL PROBLEMS , OAKDALE , LAKE JANE ETC. ) MORE TALK ON WATER RUNOFF , THE HIGH SCHOOL PROBLEM, CONTROL RATE VS . VOLUME ETC. NELSON : WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DENSITY OF THIS AREA WILL BE, DO WE? JOHN : MR. SCREATON , DO YOU HAVE ANY DEFINED PLANS AS TO WHAT THE DENSITY WOULD BE? D . SCREATON: NOT AT ALL. OAK PARK HEIGHTS HAS NOT SPECIFIED DENSITY , ZONING , IT' S ALL JUST A GUESS AT THIS POINT . LIKE MAYNARD SAYS, WE'VE HEARD 3 TO 1 , 6 TO 1 , THERE' S NO FINAL NUMBERS SET . KUEFFNER: I HAVE A QUESTION ON WASHINGTON COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . HOW DO YOU GUYS FEEL ABOUT HOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TURNED OUT WITH REGARD TO YOUR PARCELS OF LAND? WAS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU? J SCREATON : WE REALLY WERE NEVER ASKED , AND WHEN WE TRIED TO GIVE SOME INPUT , WE WERE IGNORED. IN THE END, WE TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE COUNTY'S POLICY OF NOT ALLOWING COMMEPCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON UNSEWERED LAND . THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH, WE AGREE WITH IT , AND THAT' S ONE OF THE REASONS ANNEXATION MAKES MORE SENSE . THAT WAS SOMETHING NEW THIS TIME AND IT' S AN EXCELLENT POLICY. JOHN : SO THEREFORE ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF YOU HAVE YOUR PROPERTY SEWERED BY OAK PARK HEIGHTS , YOU' D EXPECT IT TO BE DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY? J . SCREATON : IT POSSIBLE . ' ^ S �������� .- KUEFFNER : WELL ' THE PLAN ALSO SAYS THAT ' S THERE' S ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AVAILABLE IN STILLWATER AND I THINK CAK PARK HEIGHTS ITSELF . I THINK 17 THEY SAW THE NEED , THEIR PLAN WOULD CALL FOR THIS AREA TO BE SEWERED , BUT , I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT DEBATE. . . . DELAPP: PROBABLY LOCATED IN MORE APPLICABLE SITUATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (MORE TALK ON LAND AVAILABILITY - INCONSISTENCY WITH COUNCIL GUIDELINES . VBWD DENSITY / ESTIMATES BASED ON SEER CAPAClTY) , NELSON: IF IT WERE DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY THAT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN RESIDENTIAL . . . JOHN: I 'M PUZZLED , THAT MR . SCREATON HAS REQUESTED ANNEXATION TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS BUT HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL ACHIEVE WITH THE PROPERTY WHEN IT'S ANNEXED . SO PART OF THE WHOLE SCENARIO WOULD BE TO JUSTIFY IT ON A FINANCIAL , , BASIS TO MAKE IT WORTHWHILE . IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU' RE GOING IN FOR , OR WHAT YOU' RE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO , HOW CAN YOU FEEL THAT lT' S A MORE DESIRABLE PROPOSAL THAN STAYING IN LAKE ELMO OR BAYTOWN? DO yOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR ME MRS . SCREATON . J SCREATON : l 'M NOT SURE IT'S RELEVANT. I 'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RELEVANCY IS OF THE QUESTION . JOHN : OF MY QUESTION? J . SCREATON : UHM JOHN : I 'M INTERESTED IN HOW YOU CAN FEEL YOU WISH TO ANNEX TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS IF YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED THE REASONS YOU WANT TO ANNEX OR HOW YOU CAN MAKE A JUSTIFIABLE DECISION � FROM AN ECONOMIC ASPECT OF YOUR OWN PROJECT , IT SEEMS AS THOUGH YOU' RE WILLING TO STAND AT THE END OF A PLANK AND JUMP OFF . YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO NlCHOLS : JUMP OFF INTO A LOT OF M8NEY , WE KNOW THAT NlCHOLS: IS THERE SOMETHING WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH HERE TONIGHT? JOHN: THE ONLY ANSWER TO FIND A COMMON GROUND WAS PROVIDED BY MRS . SCREATON' LAST MONDAY WAS IT, WHERE SHE SUGGESTED THAT YOU ALL GOT TOGETHER AND AGREE TO PERMIT THE ANNEXATION TO TAKE PLACE BY NOVEMBER 24TH AND THEN WRAP UP AND GO , , HOME. D . SCREATON : CAN I EXPAND ON THAT? I THINK THERE ARE , ADVANTAGES IF WE CAN GET AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY 5 � ���� ��N� ' ^ ~- NOVEMBER 24TH , WE HAVE A =I T--T WlLL HELP THE OWNEPS OF BUSINEESES IN KERN CENTER , ivE ARE WILLING TO =UT MONEY FOR: HILP THE SEWER ASSESSMENT FEE , IT WE CAN REACH AGREEMENT BET D NOVEMBEP' 24TH THERE IS PINANCIAL INCENTIVE FgR US TC -ELF THE E OWNERS IN KE� . CENTER . THATS T-E ADVANTAGE , JOHN; BUT THAT DISAPPEAR AFTER 24TH? D. SCREATON; IF WE WENT TO A CONTESTED HEAFING , IT' S JUST PLAIN WHATEVER THE MUNICIPAL BOARD DECIDES . BUT IF WE COULD REACH AN AGREEMENT , WE' D LIKE TQ HELP THE BUSINESS OWNERS OF KERN CENTER . KUEFFNER : I THlNK . MR , MAYOR , THAT THE KERN CENTER 8LSINESS OWNERS ARE AWARE OF THAT I THINK THAT OFFER T ON THE TABLE A LONG TIME AGO , AND THEY AT THAT MEETI'.;G A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, CAME FORWARD WITH A STATEMENT THAT THEIR PREFERENCE WAS TO REMAIN IN 8AYTOWN, BUT IF NOT POSSIBLE , LAKE ELMO . BUT WHAT I WANTED TO DO TONIGHT WAS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION THAT WOULD PREVENT ?BUT I THINK THAT BASED ON THE INPUT WE'VE HAD OVER THE MEETINGS, I THINK PAT AND I CAN PUT TOGETHER THE FINDINGS OR SOME CONDITIONS TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS NEXT MONDAY AT A JOINT MEETING WHICH WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND SEE IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THAT. , FREDKOVE : O.K . I ' D LIKE TO SEE THAT , I ' D LIKE TO SEE THAT STUDY TOO . KUEFFNER : YEA^ WE' D WRAP IT UP WITH THAT STUDY . WELL I 'VE GOT A LOT OF NOTES FROM OUR MEETINGS THAT , I THINK THERE' S A COMMON AGREEMENT . THAT STUDY WILL BE PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THAT PROPOSAL TO OAK PAPK HEIGHTS , AND THEN WE' LL GIVE IT TO YOU BEFORE THAT MEETING . NELSON : AS FAR AS THE ANNEXATION TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS , BAYTOWN HAS ALREADY MADE A COMMITMENT TO A ORDERLY ANNEXATION TO LAKE ELMO - IS THAT RIGHT DAVE - HOW MANY ORDERLY ANNEXATIONS CAN THERE BE? MAGNUSON: WHATEVER YOU CAN ENVISION , WE CAN DRAFT , NICHOLS: ROGER (TUCKNER) , ANY CHANGE AMONG THE PEOPLE IN THE KERN CENTER IN THEIR THOUGHTS TUCKNER : I DON'T THINK co .Q WELL THE LETTER THAT WE SENT WAS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD I THINK . ????: WE APPRECIATE IT . .-/ ^ III` II 111 � KUEFFNER : SO I WOULD JUFT LIKE YOUR VOTF 70 DIREC: -rHE STAFF AND MAYBE W�TH SOME HELP FROM THE ATTORNEYS TO PREPARE A PROPOSAL FOR NEXT MONDAY' S JOINT MEETING WHICH WE HAVE - WE HAVEN'T BEEN URED THAT THE7E WILL BE A MEETING WE' RE GOING TO PROCEED AS IF THERE WILL BE . JOHN : I TAKE IT FROM THE REACTION TO THE PROPOSAL THAT MRS S17REATO1 GAVE YOU IS THAT TO AGREE TO THE WHOLE ANNFXATION IN AN ORDERLY FASHION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO LAKE ELMO AND BAYTOWN . , NICHOLS : BUT I GUESS WE COULD ASK WHAT ARE WE GOING TO :)O THIS NEXT MONDAY , KEUFFNER : BRIAN l THINK THAT AT OUR LAST COMMUNITY MEETING EVERYONE OF THE COMMUNITIES , AND WE DECIDED TO DC IT JOINTLY , SO WE WERE GOING TO PUT DOWN AN OFFER THAT WE , THOUGHT WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE IF YOU WILL TO 8O ' INTO THE HEARINGS' AND I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT WE CAN PUT FORWARD ST CLAIRE: WE ALSO ARE PROCEEDING ON TRACK FOR THE NOV 24 , HEARING. WE'VE GOT ENGINEERING ON LINE , WE'VE GOT THE WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY , THE HOMEOWNER:S , ASSOCIATIONS AROUND LAKE MCDONALD AND CLOVERDALE ARE , ORGANIZING AND WE SHOULD HAVE PLENTY OF ???? , JOHN: THIS IS THE POINT I 'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH . THE MAYOR OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WANTS ALL THE 235 ACRES , BUT THAT' S IT . HUNT , DELAPP , FREDKOVE , KELSEY : WELL THAT' S IT FOR NOW - TALK ABOUT OPH WANTING MORE, NEGOTIATIONS V. PROPOSALS , THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WHOLE THING ETC. , NICHOLS: I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST WE WENT UP TO THE OAK PARK BOARD AND ASKED IF THEY WOULD HOLD OFF ON f THIS SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT . . . WE NEVER GOT TO SAY A \ WORD. THEY HAD THE UPPER HAND AND WE WERE SHUT OFF , . . SO WE LEAVE THAT MEETING FEELING PUT OUT . AND THEN A SHORT TIME LATER WE COME UP WITH THE IDEA OF MERGING THAT 235 ACRES WITH LAKE ELMO . NOW AT THE MEETING FOLLOWING THAT OAK PARK HEIGHTS IS UP AT OUR MEETING REQUESTING THE SAME THINS THAT WE WERE GOING TO REQUEST OF HE HOLD OFF OF THIS AND GIVE US A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT IT . REMEMBER THAT? SO WHAT HAPPENED FIVE MONTHS AGO IS NOT THE SAME SITUATION AS NOW . WHEN ANYBODY GETS THE UPPER HAND THEY SHUT OFF DISCUSSION AND THAT' S TRUE OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, AND THAT' S TRUE OF US , WE DID THE SAME THING . SOMEPLACE ALONG THIS LINE , � 1 HOPEFULLY , EVERYBODY WILL GRAVITATE TO THE POINT WHERE WE' RE I HAIL! lNS TO TALK AND FORGET ABOUT WHOSE GOT THE LEVERAGE AND 1WHO HASN'T GOT THE LEVERAGE ` AND TALK ABOUT WHAT' S BEST FOR 'THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE . NOT JUST BAYT[WN , NOT JUST LAKE ELMO , NOT JUST OAK PARK HEIGHTS BUT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE iOUT HERE AND CAN'T . ALL OF THAT IN A GROUP , AND ALL THREE / -� , | ' ���� �������� ���� , ~ ._ COMMUNITIES SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS THAT , WE MAY NOT SE AT THAT POINT , I THINK WE' RE MOVING TO THAT POINT , HANSEN: ?? NICHOLS : WE CAN SAY WHAT HAPPENED FOUR MONTHS AGO, THEY / SHUT US OFF , WELL WE DID THE SAME THING TO THEM . WHOSE GOT 1 / . THE UPPER HAND . SOMETIME WE'VE GOT TO GET BY THAT POINT . HUNT : WE MUST TAKE THE VERBAL COMMENTS WE MAKE INTO SOME KIND OF NEGOTIATING POINTS . KUEFFNER : I THINK WE' LL ADDRESS WHAT YOU SAID BRIAN . BASED ON SOME OF THE NOTES I HAVE THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE WHAT IS INDEED IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY , NOT JUST LAKE ELMO OR BAYTOWN OR THE SCREATONS . DELAPP: WELL TO DO THAT TO SOME EXTENT WE HAVE TO THROW OUT A HALF A MILLION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE COUNTY AND PRETEND IT WAS NEVER WRITTEN AND DECIDE FOR OURSELVES WHAT � THE PEOPLE WANT . THEY PUT A LOT INTO THAT SO WE TO THE EXTENT THAT WE NEGOTIATE WE HAVE TO PUT THAT ASIDE . HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED? KUEFFNER: RIGHT . BUT AS LONG AS THERE' S A MEANS TO USURP THE PROCESS AND THERE IS ONE. IF YOU' RE NOT SATISFIED WITH . THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY — I SAY THAT THEY THROW OUT THE LAND PLAN — IT' S NOT WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON. BUT , EVERYONE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES` YOU KNOW , THERE'S EIGHT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT AREN'T HAPPY, AND THERE' S A MEANS NOW THAT THEY CAN GO TO A LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT ABOVE AND GET WHAT THEY WANT , I THINK WE MIGHT LOOK AT SOME LEGISLATIVE � CHANGES, I FIND IT VERY DISAPPOINTING , BUT IT' S LEGAL , SO 1 WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT . NICHOLS : IT' S THE UPPER HAND THING , THE CITY AND THE TOWNSHIP . THE CITIES HAVE THE LEVER OVER THE TOWNSHIP . THAT'S THE WAY THE THING IS SET UP. HUNT: RIGHT NOW NO ONE HAS THE UPPER HAND . WE HAVE SOMETHING SITTING IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, WE HAVE A SET OF HEARINGS COMING UP . NOBODY' S GOT AN UPPER HAND . FREDKOVE : ??? � HUNT: NOBODY'S GOT AN UPPER HAND AS OF TODAY . A JUDGE CAN DECIDE . NOBODY KNOW HOW THE JUDGE COMES UP WITH HIS DECISION . I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL BOARD , AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THEY COME UP WITH A DECISION ON THIS . IT' S NINE PARTS EMOTION AND ONE PART FACT , DELAPP : I HOPE WE CAN PRESENT OUR CASE BASED ON THE FACTS AS WE SEE THEM . AND TO ME THE FACTS AS I SEE THEM STRONGLY , FAVOR THE POSITION WE ARE LOOKING AT , , c�" �} ' ���� ���� - ���� ���� ' ��' �_ _ I JOHN : WE CAN I DENT : FY FACTS AND PUT SOME W77 GHT BY THEN . l � THINK I F WE CAN GET THE ',.)ALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED STUDY TO BE SOMETHING THAT GIVES US GUIDANCE AND COMMENTS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA ON THE REST OF THE WATERSHED , THEN WE'VE GOT SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT . DELAPP : WELL , WHAT ABOUT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM . LET ME MENTION A ?????( 720 ) I 8riT FROM SOMEBODY THAT I 'M FRIENDLY WITH ON THE OAK PARK COUNCIL FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS . NOTHING TC DO WITH THIS OBVIOUSLY ` AND SHE SAID TO ME, " IF WE BUILD SOME I HOUSES AND ONLY SENIOR CITIZENS LIVE IN THEM, THEN IT WON'T ADD TO THE SCHOOL 'SYSTEM , AND lT WILL BE FREEING UP HOUSES FROM OTHER RESIDENTS IN TOWN WHO HAVE PROBABLY OUTLASTED THEIR STAY OR OPEN THEM UP FOR NEW FAMILIES . AND I 'M SITTING THERE THINKING , HEY WAIT A MINUTE ` IF YOU' RE TAKING THE OLD PEOPLE AND MOVING IN FAMILIES WITH KIDS , WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THEY MOVE INTO THE NEW HOUSES OR OLD HOUSES . . FREDKOVE : OLDER PEOPLE ARE HAVING KIDS TOO . DUNN : COULD WE DIRECT STAFF . . . NELSON: I REALLY THINK IT WOULD HELP A LOT IF THERE WAS . SOME IDEA OF WHAT THIS AREA OF DEVELOPMENT IS . IF IT' S GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL , IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE SCHOOL THAT MUCH . DELAPP: WELL IT WOULD , BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RIGHT ACROSS � FROM THE SCHOOL , AND HAVE A CHARACTER THAT WE MIGHT NOT WANT . IT TO HAVE FOR STUDENTS . DELAPP, NELSON ETC . TALKING ABOUT REZONING , PUBLIC GOOD , ETC JOHN : THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS A LITTLE SHOCKED , BECAUSE THE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL WAS FULL, WHEN THEY BUILT THIS TO RESPOND TO POPULATIONS THAT WERE ALREADY THERE AND WE' RE ALREADY , BUILDING ANOTHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN THE WRONG PLACE , AND . THEREFORE THEY WILL END UP BY HAVING TO BUILD ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS. NELSON : SEEMS TO ME I 'VE HEARD SOMETHING FROM THE MET COUNCIL OR METRO BOARD SAYING THAT THE REASON THEY' RE INTERESTED IN PUTTING SEWER IN THIS AREA SO THAT WE CAN FIND PLACES FOR PEOPLE FROM THE CORE CITY TO LIVE WHEN THEY'RE LEAVING THE CORE CITY . SEEMS TO ME IT' S KIND OF A SAD THAT THAT SHOULD HAPPEN . SO MAYBE THEY'RE LEANING TOWARD HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL , SO MAYBE THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD IS SAYING, I DUNNO. FREDKOVE : HAVE THEY ASKED WHAT' S PLANNED FOR THERE : �� � ' ���� ��N� - DE_APP : WELL WHEN I WAS AT A SOVERNMENT MEETINS THERE LAST EE- THE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER SPOKE TO AEOUT lT , -ER ASSUMPTION WAS IT WOULD BE SEWEF DENSITY HOUSING . A PREDOMlNANCE OF PEOPLE WANTING TO GET OUT OF THEIR HCUSES INTO A SMALLER THING PLUS PROBABLY SOME ????? THAT'S WHAT HER PRESUMFTION WAS AND SHE HAD NO DOUBT HER MIND AT ALL THAT WHAT IT WOULD BE . ???? LIKE A TOWNHOME? DELAPP: SOME OF THAT , WELL , OR SMALLER HOUSES L[ KE TWO BEDROOM. WYN : THE lNT7RESTING THING IS THAT IF THIS MET COUNC: L FLYER THAT JUST CAME OUT SAYS WE MUST THINK DIFFERENTLY OR GET READY TO PAY . (READS FROM MET COUNCIL FLYER) , KUEFFNER: I THINK WASHlNSTON COUNTY JUST WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. DELAPP : SURE DID JOHN: WHAT WE NEED IS TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO ASSEMBLE SOME POTENTIAL POINTS WHERE WE CAN GIVE A LITTLE, ACCEPT A LITTLE. KUEFFNER: YOU KNOW I WOULD HOPE THAT IT WOULD BE IN RESPONSE TO A SIMILAR PROPOSAL THAT THEY WOULD EXCHANGE WITH US. THAT WAS THE INTENT ACCORDING TO ?????? AND I THINK WE'LL GIVE A CALL TO THEIR ACTING ADMINISTRATOR AND VERIFY ??? JOHN: WILL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE POINTS BEFORE THE MEETING NEXT WEEK? KUEFFNER: THE ONLY PART I DON'T KNOW IS THE WATERSHED . . JOHN: WELL IT DOES HANG ON THAT DELAPP : THERE COULD BE CONTINGENCIES ON THE WATER. THE DENSITY WOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE PROPER PROTECTION OF SURFACE WATER , YOU KNOW , THAT TYPE OF THING, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO KNOW THE ANSWER BEFORE WE MAKE SOME COMMENTS DUNN, KELSEY : COMMENTS ON ABOVE . HUNT WANTS INFO BEFORE MONDAY MEETING MOTION , SECOND TO ADJOURN . MORE TALK . ST . CLAIRE : HAVE WE ANSWERED THE QUESTION IF OAK PARK AND SCREATONS SHOW WILLINGNESS TO NEGOTIATE , NCT AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION FOR 235 ACRES, BUT PERHAPS PARTS, AND SOME OTHER CONCESSIONS , AND YET LAKE ELMO AND 8AYTOWN ??? WOULD LAKE ELMO AND BAYTOWN TALK WITH OAK PARK? /0 ���� 110 ����`w~' NELSON : I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS PAT SAID ABOUT THE 235 ACRES, I STILL DON'T KNOW IF THE DLIHER CAPACITY IS THERE FOR ALL THE 235 ACRES AND IF IT' S NOT , WHAT' S THE REASON FOR . , THAT AREA IN OAK PARK? FREDKOVE: IT' S LIKE A PIE SHAPE , AND THAT'S THE REASON (TAPE CUT OFF AT THIS POINT) . FROM WRITTEN NOTES: MORE DISCUSSION ON SEWER CAPACITY , THE ST . CROIX RIVER. ADJOURNED A LITTLE BEFORE 6 .30 PM. x ' • 110 LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONAtD & GALOWITZ, P.A. LAWYERS RAYMOND O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH JOHN SCOTT MCDONALD LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH TELEPHONE: (61 2) 777-6960 OF COUNSEL ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (61 2) 777-8937 ROOERICK A. LAWSON November 12, 1997 Kern Center Property Owners RE: Oak Park annexation Dear Friends: I am writing on behalf of the Screaton family concerning issues relating to the attempt to develop an Orderly Annexation Agreement between the Town of Baytown and the City of Oak Park Heights prior to the November 24, 1997 hearing before the Municipal Board. Based on comments we received from Mayor Schaaf we believe that Oak Park Heights wants to make the proposed agreement as simple as possible. He suggested that the agreement should include a provision that no property owner presently in Baytown would be assessed for sewer or water improvements until that owner requested connection to Oak Park city services. While that condition is acceptable to Screatons and should alleviate some of the concerns of those Kern Center owners who have already built on their property, Screatons are concerned about how the proposal will be perceived by those of you who have vacant lots in Kern Center. In the event that any of you want sewer extended before Screatons property develops Oak Park would probably not extend sewer without an overall payment plan. We understand that the projected cost of extending sewer and water services through Kern Center and up to 55th St., exclusive of the portion which the City would recover through sewer and water area charges would be $246,000.00. This cost is for the improvements described in the report of the Oak Park city engineer dated March 10, 1997. Screatons are willing to guarantee the payment of that portion of the cost of extending sewer and water when any of you request extension of city services. Screatons would recover the initial payment as each of the property owners hooks up to city services or in the alternative if the City finances the initial cost of that portion of the improvements, Screatons will agree to pay the interest on that amount on an annual basis and the principal will be reduced as hookups occur. Screaton's obligation could be set forth in a formal written agreement secured by a Letter of Credit. That way each of you would have the security of knowing that financing was available to • • Kern Center Property Owners Page 2 November 12, 1997 construct the improvements should you be the first to build. Screatons do not want to support any proposal which does not have the backing of those lot owners who have supported the annexation request. This proposal is contingent on approval of an Orderly Annexation agreement between Baytown and Oak Park Heights before November 24, 1997. Sincerely, John S. McDonald • • 'fi' r CITY Al • � . OAK PARK HEIGHTS t rtx 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 Fax Transmittal To: /lccr Fax #: From: �,� �� IA-6 ( S Date: 1 / —/ e0--- 7 Subject: / ,, Gt,)vCkS,X U7o Total Number of Pages, including cover sheet: 7 •♦••♦•••♦•i•••i•♦♦♦•♦••••:•••:♦ • ♦ • • • • • ♦ ,c,LA- c. / ' S '_ D.1` // c 71-© /2.0 /c,( 4,%) r ko . ll — 1 3 d— S) / I— i5', =.� �/0s c-/ ,` s (' u e "( ° '-t j £v u n c ; ( it u ej Yl2 a r' / d l tt Litt c r �a —7-4) a(.c,. 1 cj a n t T P2 11 0 4-'0 o A(.4.• et,..-11-7.e y Tree City U.S.A. CITY c S OAK PARK HEIGHTS -•° ' :�'`� r 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,lV N 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 Fax Transmittal To: JT u., rr - V r-k Fax #: From: � dc. LI Date: / 1-- 10 -G Subject: /Ila c - / n wo r oi<j Total Number of Pages, including cover sheet: 7 ♦♦♦•O♦•♦♦�•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•♦♦••♦♦••♦♦♦•♦♦••♦♦••♦♦�•A•O�•♦♦♦•♦♦♦•O♦•♦♦••♦♦♦•♦♦♦•+•+•O♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ` S ( S tA) k- w cis s '� f-- c (- -e,\ U r k S (1 Tree City U.S.A. S i CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ANNEXATION WORKSHOP THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13 AT 2 :30 p.m. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 15 AT 1:30 P.M. The City Council of Oak Park Heights has scheduled workshops for Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 : 30 p.m. and Saturday, November 15, 1997 at 1 : 30 p.m. at Oak Park Heights City Hall, 14168 North 57th Street . The Council will be meeting with Baytown property owners to discuss the proposed annexation of the Screaton/Kern Center land into Oak Park Heights . Posted: November 10, 1997 r . :. CITY Of 411 tliti: N.F1_,,, :. , . +OAK PARK HEIGHTS '` 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 Y.^ November 10, 1997 Richard and Sally Claugherty 5757 Manning Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Claugherty, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes . . and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms . of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at . :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ve / truly yours, David Schaaf Mayor Tree City U.S.A. S • DATE: November 10, 1997 TO: Property Owners in Proposed Baytown Annexation Area FROM: City Council of Oak Park Heights RE: Questions about annexation 1) Can property taxes be phased in over a period of time? Property Taxes - Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and it was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which city' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . Property Tax Phasing -The City Council has indicated its willingness to consider phasing in taxes over a period of years if it is part of an orderly annexation agreement . An orderly annexation agreement must be agreed to prior to the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997. The City Council has publicly indicated its willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb. gutter. street reconstruction, and utilities - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb and gutter are required. City policy is that the benefitting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter and 50% of the cost for streets . The City pays 100% of the cost for the replacement of sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Street assessments can be paid over the period of the bond issue, usually ten years. Streetlights - If a developer puts in a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put in a sidewalk, the City will pay 100% of the cost . Street Maintenance - According to the City Engineer' s report, the streets in the proposed annexation area do not have to be reconstructed as part of the utility installation. There will be some patching of the streets done at 100% City cost . The city pays 100% of the cost of street maintenance, including patching and sealcoating. 3) What is the actual cost for water/sewer hookup and who will pay • 2 for this? Actual Costs - The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. In March 1997, the estimated costs for lateral sewer and water line installation were $55 . 00/front foot . These assessments are paid at the time of installation. Any discussions those property owners have had with David Screaton about him paying some or all of the costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. City Area Connection Charges - In addition to the lateral assessments, sewer area charges are $2, 310 per acre and water area charges are $4, 010 per acre for commercial/ industrial land and $3, 110 per acre for residential land plus $475 per dwelling unit . Payment of these area charges are usually deferred until the owner hooks up to City sewer and water. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefitting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menard' s Rainbow, any other developer, or any other homeowner. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and a Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Met Council and the City has no control over them. Costs to Run Utilities to your Building - When the City installs utilities, it places stubs to a property line. Running the utilities from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost to the building owner. 4) What is the Time Frame for Hooking up to Water and Sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexation, is that existing building owners are not required by the City to hookup to City sewer and water until their septic or well fails or until they request it . There are no state or federal laws which require earlier hookups . 5) After Annexation, will Building Owners be Required to Update Their Buildings to Current City Codes Every Time They Change Tenants or Modify Their Buildings? Will Existing Building Owners be Required to Bring Their Buildings up to City Code When They Hookup to Water and Sewer? • • 3 City Code - The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Lake Elmo have both adopted the 1994 building code, so their standards would be the same. Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and do not remodel your building, you do not have to do any updates. When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area into compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are not required to bring the entire building up to current code. Hooking Up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current code standards. 6) Does the City Have Minimum Requirements for Sprinkling Buildings and Would it Require Building Owners to Retrofit Their Buildings with Sprinkler Systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. 7) If the Kern Center Businesses Become Part of Oak Park Heights, What Effect Will This Have on Their Existing Business Practices, Such as Hours of Operation? What Types of New Businesses Will be Allowed to Locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override these covenants . We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart has a 24-hour operation. We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 A.M. to 10 : 00 P.M. , Monday through Saturday. New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses . The main restriction is that outside trash storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . • • 4 New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 8) Could Property Owners Continue Using Their Own Garbage Contractors Rather Than Being Forced to Use the City' s Contractor? Your garbage hauler will be United Waste Systems, but the City will set the garbage rate for businesses at the same rate you are currently paying. Homeowner rates are : Senior Rate : 36 gallon container or a regular trash bag per week $12 . 75/Quarter Others : 36 gallon--$13 . 50/Quarter 64 gallon--$16 . 35/Quarter 96 gallon--$20 . 85/Quarter 9) If Kern Center Becomes Part of Oak Park Heights, Will Existing Standards Change? Would Requirements for Open Space Remain the Same? Would Any Further Subdivision of Existing Lots Be Allowed? Could Existing Businesses Be Constituted as a Review Board to Approve Any Changes in the Kern Center Area? Existing Standards and Open Space - As noted earlier, once we receive copies of your existing covenants, we will compare them to the standards of our zoning code. Subdivision of Existing Lots - City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas . Under these standards, a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which meet the one acre minimum. Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of review board in the annexation area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . The City Council must by law respect covenant restrictions . 10) What May Be the Terms of an Orderly Annexation Agreement? The agreement can provide for incremental phasing in of urban property tax rates over a period of years and creation of a rural taxing district, neither of which can be done without an orderly annexation agreement • is - :' CITY O III ; . - OAK PARK HEIGHTS . � ;. `" 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 November 10, 1997 Mr. Vavoulis Secure Mini-Storage Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Vavoulis, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton - Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to workout an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . V_ 'y .truly , _ i il . . David Schaaf 0 Mayor Tree City U.S.A. CITY O • f • , OAK PARK HEIGHT-.S 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 Y^i November 10, 1997 Daniel J. Raduenz Stillwater Motor Company 5900 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Raduenz, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate :the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a -ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City's attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights. Since May of this year, the. City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our -request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown "one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process. These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ve y truly yours, Odj / David Schaaf Mayor Tree City U.S.A. CITY O• 11) OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574 November 10, 1997 Richard and Sally Claugherty 5757 Manning Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Claugherty, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for anne xation into Oak Park Heights . hts . • Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the g Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . P We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 : 30 . P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 : 30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which • have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ver truly yours, - i 45f44 / David Schaaf Mayor , Tree City U.S.A. , _ ., • . , 7 ', �; r CITY O till PARK HEIGHTS y � OAK PA T.S E j ---:/":71414:: 14168 N. 57th Street •Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 November 10, 1997 Joe Kohout 5595 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Kohout, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown. Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to. the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton_ ' Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights. Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our- request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 . P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City - - Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation . agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Very truly yours, �� . .a� a eir4"4 / Tree City U.S.A. ;, CITY 10) 4 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 'Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 • November 10, 1997 Barb and Steve Engle 55th t 12058 55t Street Nort h Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Engle, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City .Hall. The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling, on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based 'on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board- will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings wi th Baytown Township to negotiate otiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is anew draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ver truly yours, i . David Schaaf Mayor Tree City U.S.A. CITY O A`,-,, OAK PARK HEIGHTS - ' �`` " 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574, November 10, 1997 Nancy and Kenneth Hauth 5775 Manning Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. and Mrs . Hauth, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3, 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement _is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton- Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council ,believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton -- Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested _ meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17. at , ' 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ver truly yours, 0(i David Schaaf - Mayor Tree City U.S.A. r r CITY 0 4 " --,' OAK PARK HEIGHTS II 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574 November 10, 1997 Carol Palmquist 12202 55th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 alm Dear Ms . Palmquist, , At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since. June 3 , 1997, Baytown Township mitigate the impact with Bayt p to act of city taxes g P and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior - to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation P etition. _ Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton _ Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final d November 17 at scheduled for Monday,meeting called at our request is sche Y. 7 : 00 P.M. , whi ch gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement re ement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24 , 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time 4 frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P .M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 : 30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process. These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ver truly yours, 451J(41!( David Schaaf • Mayor Tree City U.S.A. f ,. r '. CITY C O ' K OAK PARK HEIGHTS Y t.. s 1 ., 14168 N. 57th Street•Sox 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 ti 1 . November 10, 1997 St . Johns Evangelical Lutheran Church of Baytown Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear St . Johns Church, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall. - The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation - Petition. .Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council -believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into .Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal - Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time. frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13, 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and .comments . Ve truly yours, , :: i „if" , _ , ; , , David Schaaf Mayor Tree City U.S.A. " CI TY O OAK PARK RK HEIGHTS,, 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574 November 10, 1997 Roger Tuckner 5929 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Tuckner, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3 , 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for . Monday, November 17 at 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Please come with your questions and comments . Ve truly yours,.4 ' _ . . , . ., _ . David Schaaf Mayor Tree City U.S.A. ¢ � CITY O PARK HEIGHTS OAK PAR 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 November 10, 1997 Raymond Kennedy 5635 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Kennedy, At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your _ issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us . The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall . The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since June 3, 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate. the impact of city taxes and assessments to your property. The deadline for negotiating. an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation' Petition. Based on the advice of the City' s attorney, the City Council believes that the Municipal- Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation into Oak Park Heights . Since May of this year, the City Council has repeatedly requested . meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation petition. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday, November 17 at _ 7 : 00 P.M. , which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board hearing on November 24, 1997 . We would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . Due to the short time frame, we invite you to meet on Thursday, November 13 , 1997 at 2 :30 P.M. or Saturday, November 15 at 1 :30 P.M. at Oak Park Heights City Hall . Enclosed is anew draft of the written answers to questions which have been posed to us during the process . These answers deal with existing City policy and possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement . -Please come with your questions and comments . Very truly yours, r ii,,,,C;41( David Schaaf Mayor • Tree City U.S.A. 11/21/97/11r 09:16 ECKBERGLAW 4 4390574 N0.046 D02 SEP-12-199' 11:49 4111 NAC 1111 612 595 9837 P.02/12 E To: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-5113 STIPULATION The City Oak Park Heights and the Township of Baytown Township stipulate and agree to the following facts concerning Minnesota Statutes 414.031, Subd. 4 to wit: I (The term "subject area" referred to herein means the area that is proposed for il annexation.) (a) Present population and number of households, past population and projected population growth of the subject area, the annexing municipality, and adjacent units i� of government: Present City Present Subject Area Adjacent Unit of (Oak Park Township Govt.(Lake Heights) (Baytown Elmo) Twp.) 1980 Population 2,591851 — 5296 f �I 1980 Population 3,488 939 — 5,903 i� I Current Population 4,001 (1997) 1,209(1995) 21' 6,14$(1995) Current Households 1.458(1995) 403(1995) — 2.123(1995) Projected in 5 years 1,650 500 -- 2,300 (2000) Source of Data: U.S.Census&Metropolitan Council City of Oak Park He(phts Projections ..... (b) Geographic Features: 1 I 1. ___.._, • Present City Present Subject Area Adjacent Unit Township _of Govt. ^Total Acreage I 1,679 5,825 235 15,000+ I i 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERGLAW 4 4390574 N0.046 D03 SEP-12-1997 11:50 0 NAC • 612 595 983? P.03112 9 , 2. Describe any waterways in or adjacent to the subject area: (rivers, streams, shorelands, protected water, protected wetlands) There is a DNR grgie.gtetyiettand in the jouthwest corner of the subjct Kea. 3. Describe the soils and terrain in the subject area: The northwestern portion • e •. - ae- con -in . 1'.. t- K -•. -ndtr- -swih •- .,.- - •• - which inhibits commercial or high density residential development. The eastern area adjacent to State Highway 5 is flat and open with few trees, The southwest portion of the area is slightly rolling and contains a portion of a large wetland complex. _ _ he Wa h n. • •un Soils urv- i •' ...:te th-t :. •'• .. :r- - ' •s ..1 • •lis V, • t • -sof soils di =r= -ll •r.in: • wl h ra•'d to •erm:- •' i e •r'ma - •11 • - - _r- ' . k :n• a d-n- Nessel-Dundas (c) Contiguity. 1. he •erime er •f the - •'. - • a '• • . - • a - '► •i • ., '6 - Hai, - Hai, •l. : •i1 - • • ' • ,i •• a• - a a •- - . pLontjguous to Blown Tpwnship fgir 1.800 feet. (d) Present pattern ofphysical development, planning, and intended land uses In the subject area and annexing city: 1. There are the following land uses: (Please fill in acreages or percentages if available instead of yes or no.) ;I City Township Subject Area - Yes No Yes No Yes No Residential x x X Institutional (tax x x x exempt) Commercial x x x Industrial x x X Agricultural x x x Vacant Lands x x x _ 2 !Ir— 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERGLAW 4 4390574 NO.046 PO4 SEP-12-1997 11:50 4111 NAC 4111 612 595 9837 P.04/12 2 What type of development is proposed for the subject area? The .m• e = 'IV? • =i C• •: . - ►Fa!•• - •f1.7• ansa amended in December of 1979. December of 1988. and September, -• .. ' - - , •- • • _ . u . : ••.t_ •f h- Com•reh:nsiv- P -n. Pr-via, •• .r-►_n .iv- •tannin. has a tic' t eventual annexatio of • •.-IL • h- _- of State Hi. a - - .L= fedi! i- -n r_ct_• within Oak Park H-'..• : =v- •e-n desi•ned to accommodate service to the subject area. The current update of the •m r h n ive Ie -ntic'•-tos tha = -x_ is :nd extension of the ue r• •o •.- • Urban Service Area US: • lac � -• = • - •1-n • • • • , - -. -i•. • • - se•A - a •11U i- I. ht . - i• resident'a and u e industrial and i w ns'� =n• mi. ens' The City Plans fore continuation of Me commerciatlliaht industrial development within the area platted as Kern Center. The nodwti est_comet of the subject site would be planned for single family homes on large estate- •e 16 :v:n .- • ,, •• .:n•i six nits • : * •1-nn:d •n that areasouth of Kern Center_ Ili- • < . • . • r- -• planned for approximately 60 acres of low density single family residential. devel• • - •f • s,.• • +,L- •• --ha f units •er acr-. (e) The present transportation network: 1. Present City Present Subject Township Area Number of Miles of Highways,Streets, 11.84 12 1.5 and Roads 2, Are any transportation changes planned in the subject area? yes_LL no in the City? yes no x _ (f) Land Use Controls and Planning: 1. Comprehensive Plan: City Township County Region Adoption Date 1979• 1995 Oct. 1, Oct,10, 1997 1996 Status of Plan Being revised " Amended In December of 1979, December of 1938,and September of 1991 3 11!21/97 09: 16 ECKBöNAC LAW 4390574 N0.046 D05 SEP-12-1997 11 50 • 612 595 9837 P.05/12 2. Have any area planning authorities adopted an official position on the proposed boundary adjustment? (planning commissions, boards, joint boards, Met Council, Minnesota Planning, region, county) yes no x supportive non-supportive 3. Please check where the following exists and give any necessary explanations on how it relates to the proposed action. (since it may be possible that two or more plans attempt to regulate the same area, please circle whose ordinance presently applies to the subject area.) City Township County Date Adopted Yes No Yes No `Yes No City Town County Zoning x x x 1996 Dec.6, Nov.9, 1982 1979 — ----1 Subdivision x x x Regulation Official Map x x x Capital x X X Improvement/Budget Fire Code x x (Provided by the City Of Bayport) Shoreland Ordinance x x x - ► I Floodplain Ordinance x x x Wild &Scenic River x x x Ordinance Sanitation Ord.(on- x x x site sewage) Zoning administration for Baytown Township isrp�c vided by Washington County. Under the Washington Count onin• •r•i - h: Kern enter are- i oned for commercial uses and the remaining area to the west end sn�th i9 zoned rural residential with a density of one home oer five acres. Upon annexation into the City .i Sak -ar . =i.h it, .l.- •1 . - . ". . .- lige. 0 • . a, • . - :.• - • - :s .ent - •.-• • ,'• , - ., • i -. zosi.! l 'fi -bins u•o eV- .f e a••ro•riate land use desi•..a io..s b -17 „ 'ti • n ii The exist' _ _ •nin• for t. - develo•in• sho+sine -me ' - r -I- n-• nit Develop• ,- , . e - . 4 F11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERG LAW 4390574 N0.046 D06 SEP-12-1997 11 50 •NAC •• 612 595 9937 P.06/12 , in- , •i t .n „ h:. •erl I. ;It . •, 1 = a•• , ' •O _ • I • , I !'I • areas that are not d-velo•ed :r: , •I:• • • •= a p,. - •I - a -. • l 4. What is the current zoning of the subject area? Qommercial and rural residential with a density of one home,per five acres. 5. What is the anticipated zoning if this boundary adjustment is approved? • ••e tia -n' I • density residential 6 Is the subject area, or any ortion thereof, in Green Acres (M.S. 273.11)? yes no 7. Has the City adopted Urban/Rural Taxing Districts (M.S. 272.67). yes no x (g) Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and subjectarea. City City provides Township Township provides i provides to to subject area Provides to to subject City area township • Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 'Water x x x x ** Sanitary x x x x Sewer/Wastewater Treatment Storm Sewer x x x x Solid Waste x x x x Collection d Disposal Fire Protection x x x x - -a Law Enforcement x x x Street Improvements x x x x Street Maintenance x x x x Administrative x X x x Services Recreational Services x x xx _ --,, a- Other 5 r11/21/97 09 16 ECKBERG LAW + 4390574 NO.046 907 • 5t--1d-1997 11 51 • NAC . 612 595 983? P.07/12 • If City does not provide water to the subject area, who does? NolApplicable • Would City take over or allow existing use? Not Applicable •• If City does not provide sewer to the subject area, who does? Not Agplicable " Would City take over or allow existing use? Not Apollo�lble (h) Describe any existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems: (Example: ground or surface water problems, water quality and levels, sewage treatment, air pollutant emissions, noise, odors, affect on fish or wildlife; affect on historical resources, s archaeological resources, aesthetic resources; impairment of park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, critical area; abandoned dump or disposal site, etc.) The i i. , . Pollutio .n rel ,as •n• -ted th- . - - - •- • • identifi-• dum• sites •, •1 :minated .roun• • .c =r .it= i = ••e area. Contamination has been found across Highway 5 at a site identifies as the Jerry li•ser Ma hine ho•. The •it- i-. 1. •sifiedfor avoluntar investi•atio -nd e-n u• •ro•r- „nd is not r- tar. - • ; causin. an serio sen 'ro. • z. • • _- . A large area of the Township. approximately one-half mile to the south and east of the fl subject site has •rou d ,r.- . .,•nta i -tion. The ite 's located on the -tional Priorities List (NPL) which is a national listing of hazardous waste sites which e•resent si.ni . :.-tto •ubliche-Ith •r h- - ir. -n .n. . - .ri.r1 ins • remedial ion. This list is also known as the FeSleral Superfund List, Within the •r. nd water cont.m'n ,i. site over 70 vvat- su• •I wells residential and • .siness in Ba A.• 1 •wnshi• 1 -st :k-I: • •wn h'. _n• :a •• h•w v.l ile or•anic • •,_�.;• •1 :1 -• •u - - • • _ ,• - e Minnesota ;I 11 -0:14. =1 • 1's ►1D,• eat isk imis. Ti i tofcoat, ii: 1 '1 - i a • • ., • - 1 - carbon etra 1.r*. - 1 - - r- . I•r•-th I•ne - d 1 2-dichlon lene. Probable - • r - - .r - -:u' I d- the ake m Air ort and a former grain storage area. Alth. • the oontamina ion h- n. • f. n• in ,,;IIs in t e stud _re. the close • O. mit of i- • 1 ,„.."a- a - 1 - • - • '• 1 • • _ . - • ./ .• :• •• • 1- wells hi h- • .'_ct area •nsiderin• the Is .e s e= i Iii Ie • 0 n• -t-r contamination site th. ••. -•sill .f t =f = . .ndin. with ime must be considered. If the subject area is annexed and served by,the water and sanitary sewer -, , . -'. , .. . - - I. i• .- .;.I - -n ir•nmen and safet cone-m f.r -_ 1•• • •• - ... . .•'-a -r- , r- ident or -m•to - - `I I I 6 Ir 1 ' I 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERG LAW 4390574 N0.046 D0B SEP-12-1997 11:51 .NAC 0 612 595 9937 P.e9/12 of blisinesses irtthe area. (i) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed t governmental services to the subject area and the impact of the proposed action on 1 delivery of said services: An . - .i • • • _r,a=, ,I =rvi - ' . f•lI• /...: 1. - . . • . a -,. , . -". • • . , .. _ •• ce e - • •, . • . • •Ii.- se•artmen . Th- P.I' _: .r- - .•• . -r- • in h; a . P.. -i•, i H_ I • .: , - - ► •t• ;.. •' •••. • : • .17. - stationed at the Stillwater Area High School at 5701 Stillwater jitQulevard North in Oak Park Heights. The department has four patrol cars and : -I oen which incl_• -s .- - .ti e hief -r.e-n -n• - investigator. Approximate response time to the subject site from City Hall is three minutes and from the High School Is less than,a minute. Travel distan e • he sub'ect si - from Cit Hall 's :••ro imatel 1.5 miles. Baytown T o wnsbiip is served by the Washington Count Sheri ._ T e s 0 : •:.• us.* • ,- 7 .. c'l l 3. a N' L -Il • •• •.. •, • - It' t enter locat-d - 4••• •rth -1st Street Stillwater. Travel .i .• ; ( •I1 1 _ .. - ,•uL:, 1 - .• .I ' • - ., •r• -, - - miles. • - • - conce trat-d s-rvice ar-a th- oak • . -i - •I' ,- Department. Department. with its staff�nd equipment_ provide a fast response time to anywhere In the City. The Oak Park Heights Police will provide the fastest and b: :rvi -: •r 1 : z b'- 1 1 Z. Fire Service. Both Oak Park Heiohts and Baytown Township are provided 1 fire •rotection thro • , • . . .i , , - 1. of B- eon Fi • ! - .a • - : . ..• - I : II: I I• : =• 1"1:..j. it Hall which is to :• 225 Third Avenue South. The Fire Department consists of 24 volunteers. The de•artmen r:s•,.nd • _.II wi h • : - ker, two • ,.. =n• - •i . up truck. Approximate arrival time from the station to the subject site is sev-n in t- - r.v:I •'-,.n,. •m : jr: ,. : • -rtment to the s b': it: is approximately 3.5 miles, •.n .n c _ i.n • it - ;r, i.-'., i ••: . • . ,' . _. - . ,. ,; w_ e for d• , • i •• - • n'•, • rs• _ he addition of h •. -nts - -.• •. ..:• •u• • - • - - - • - - - a • .:- .1 . . • ectio, • •r• • - I, •'• • _ - Ti"- '-I1 critical for _ . - : . ,in. commercial and Ii. • •.. . •- ,- -, . :-s:. -vel of fire •rotecti•n . .: • .4. • •• • • - • • - - •u .9" to .6I C.. .s with the existing City of Oak Park Heights,_._,., 7 II 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERG LAW 4390574 NO.046 P09 SEP-12-1997 11:51 4111 NRC 612 595 9837 P.09/12 • 3. Ambulance. Ambulance service for both Qak Park Heights and 8avtown Township itprovided through the Lakeview Hosoital located at 919 West Anderson in Stillwater. Travel distance_fcomibe hps,,pital t lie subject site is2.0 'les The ambulance has two full time crews around approximately miles, - • . . t - •ui. •-d with • .arame•ics •r e • - .• .h- -Ink-Lamb! crew is available on call e}. Department consisting of three full time individuals, however. -most road ' .ntractor. The- . . .r v_ marntean - d -now •Iwi • i .r. ._ „ . - . contractor has a staff of six .eo•le I h thr-e •I_des •ne loader a truck i e1 tre tar low for now remov I. rovid fast aw. end a c a s a The G tv_ cin p e . er . ,, hi.. . . ••. ._'• or co acialdeve •.m=nti Oak ParkHei•h. r-fuires i m•roved ro,• in I_ids,. . r. _n• .ut er. More co -r- - ive street standards result in less maintenance_dugdes/ neg ed aPd engineered reads. . 1. Wn .1! • - a and snow plowing. The contractarh�a staff of five full tirrte_people and adequate S nisele ringegiment 5. Sanitapt Sewer and Watt. Baytown Township does not provide sewer and water service. All development. including the existing commercial and_ residentiel_prooerties in the su•'- -r- - are desi•ne• '.h on-sit- s- 61- s fs s -ms and wells. • _ -i.h. • • - • •v'• - - - .4- -n. water .,i :rid tI - . Infra .t a r: i _v-il<bl- :a-t • ••t ,,r- • i - III - . •.. -- l - it throu..h it consultin• -n.' ler :onestroo Rosen'? Aiderl'k =nd Associates Inc. corn•leted =•• '11 1a- a •• ••,- - '16 1: •'• . of .rovidin• u 'c'• . 3. • 1 - !'e - ea. The re•• entitled • - u'i-. a : =.o •n ater and S- =r . ensions W=st Hi•hwa • tu. Area .rovid-s the basi i ' I- ou ca. i anal si :n• cost allocation for the en ir- .r- The 1 • - . •u -• 11" 1111 indicatin• the ■ I •r'• r-.- o t . e'&u.r• e ents • = - isti • - ewer = h: :ntiresub'ec s'te - a •e . - & :• I - u -u• - + - • - • under. The st • •n I , . : • t - .1: '.1 • -,' - se =r - r+• water m-in • serve the - •'6 : = - • f- :sible .-t bein. irnil-r t. •th developing areas in Oak Park Helahts. 8 11/21/97 09: 16 ECKBERG LAW -* 4390574 NO.046 D10 SEP-12-1997 11:52 4111 NAC • 612 595 993? P.10/12 Garbage. In Baytown Township. property owners contract directly with garbao haulers for waste disposal. Irak Park Heights. the City contracts with nit:. lr • .; ....,- _n■ . • •i•i . ..rf•n • 13 • -, • . ` I\ •144 " • / " -► " -• - •• .I• • 441 •1 • - i'n s-rvi I- !' ,• - 1 1I/lie' ill" .1 • • • �� • s- N•1 Or 96,20 ter e-r and 22.00 •er month or 64.00 •er ear for the T• tie IC* home er_utilizing United Waste Systems. A table showing di ce the ere in rates and resulting savings to the Township resident upon) annexation to the City is es follows; GARBAGE SERVICE - RATES AND DIFFERENCE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS 30+ Gallon 60+Gallon 90+Gallon Per Month Per Year Per Month Per Year Per Month Per Year BaytownTwp. $18.50 $222.00 $22.00 $284.00 $24.00 $288.00V ' Oak Park Heights , `, Krk- $13.50 $162.00 $16.35 $196.20 $20.85 $250.20 Difference $5.00 $60.00 $5.65 $67.80 $3.15 $37.80 Source. City of Oak Park Heights Note: All rates reflect service by United Waste System. 7. Parks _Baytown Township doet tot.pravide D facilities The City of Oak ., Hei• s -s r,1 - _t-1 - • -r • r.il stem •rovi•in• yth active 1 G. to sive -cre- •n: . ' I; - I i rrentl i 1 = • -nni • stages for a 25 -cre park east of the subject area that will ori ide. recreational fields •la structures and tra'Is - o Ai t • •u • - The it woul• u - • - 1 • A • ' r-• • sem - ro, State Hi•h r_ 5 at 8th tre- • • • '•e -ccess to - ' ' •ark and trail system. Administrative Services The ]T n �t Baytown does not hgye fuiLtimS •t_ •r _ . _ ,; 1 . . • 1 - •U . he Ci of I ei•hts has a full time administratorand two staff members, and a full time Building Official The City Hall is located at X58 57th Street North and the office sours are 8:00 AM to •:30 P i 1i• • - hrou.h Frida . 9 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERG LAIC - 4390574 NO.046 P11 , SEP-12-1997 11:S2 4111 NAC 612 595 9837 P. 11/12 (j) Describe the fiscal impact on the annexing city, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government. Present City Present Subject Area Year Trend over last 3 Year(payable Township Year (payable 1997) years 1997) (payable 1997) City Township r Net Tax 6.728,690 1,925,858 145,517 +4.0% +67.8° Capacity County Tax 27.87 27.87 27.87 -9 9% -9.9% Rate Local Tax Rate 5.60 -3.7% -34.2% District 1 22.27 5.60 District 2 22.27 5.60 District 3 22.90 5.60 School District 81.76 61.76 61.76 -8.6% 4.6% Tax Rate Special Tax .90 .30 .30 nla Na District Rate Insurance 6 9 nta — — Rating Levy Limit 0 — -• — — Actual Current 1,394,918 107,500 — +3.1% +8.5% Levy Total Bonded 2,215,000 0 0 -8.7% Indebtedness (k) Would the proposed action affect area school districts or adjacent communities? yes no x • (I) Are new services necessary for subject area? yes x no (m) Can necessary governmental services best be provided by the proposed boundary adjustment or another type of boundary adjustment? yes x by proposed action no by (n) If only a portion of the township is annexed: 1. Does the remainder of the township have the ability to remain as is? yes no 10 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.046 P12 SEP-12-1997 11:52 411 NAC 410 612 59S 9937 P.12'12 2. Should the remainder be annexed to another city? yes no 3. Should the remainder be annexed to another township? yes no x STIPULATED TO BY: City of Oak Park Heights, this _day of_ , 1997. Mayor City Administrator Raytown Township, this day of . 1997. Township Chair Township Clerk 11 TOTAL P.12 11/21/97 09:16 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.046 1701 • • LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg. Lammers. Briggs. Wolff & P.LL.P. 1835 Nortkwestern Avenue Lyle .I. I;el(brru $t���waler, l‘tnncsola 55082 Susan D. Moo •Idn„O„ r. l..„.nierx 0312) 430-2878 ()Avid K. Sn clvr It. 6cri G. I5ri4gs . F. (612) 450-2025 , 1‘.1.,1, .1 \'�.;r1�ii,�+ I .,,.1 A. Wulff Greer. 0 Geller! (I04.1-199G) 1 I.o maz ,I. WCiOoC.'+� *Q.wlil.rd�.uiral :�.�a f( 1lu.li.in, .Q...IJivd Nc.irvl ;1rbiiretur COVER SHEET - FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION �l'rr,ti. fl.•i 1 .i.io sP..i.li,i DATE : 11 -21- 47 Please deliver the following page (s) to: FAX NO: NAME: "J FROM: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES , INCLUDING COVER SHEET. The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information from Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof . If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. Violation of this confidentiality notice could constitute a basis for a claim for damages against the violation. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (612) 439- 2878 . IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL11111...11 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (612) 439-2878 COMMENTS: • Pic 4,); e-LO * * * * * * * * * * * HARD COPY WILL/WILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL Page 6 - City Coll Minutes 08/26/97 4111, Correspondence: Letter from Minnesota Municipal Board - City Attorney Vierling stated the letter is directing the City of Oak Park Heights, the City of Lake Elmo, and Baytown Township to meet three times in the next 60 days to attempt to reach a resolution by the competing annexation petitions . Vierling recommended that the City officially indicate its willingness meet with all parties and also recommended that a professional mediator be hired to facilitate the discussions . Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to indicate a willingness to meet as directed by the Minnesota Municipal Board and to pay 1/3 of the cost to hire a professional mediator to work with Oak Park Heights, Baytown, and Lake Elmo on the annexation issue . Carried 5-0 . Letter from East Oaks Townhome Association - Administrator Robertson said that the association is requesting that the City take over ownership and maintenance of Oxboro Avenue . He reported that the Development Agreement signed by East Oaks clearly says that all streets and utilities are to be private, and that the City has no obligation to take over the streets. Robertson also said that there were repairs done on the street without the notification of the City Engineer, so there is little way of knowing whether the quality of work meets City specifications . City Attorney Vierling said that if there were problems with the streets, the developer would be responsible for the work quality. City Engineer Anderlik said that there are several engineering issues associated with the street that the City should examine before even considering taking it over. He cautioned that street breakdown is a long-term process and that they cannot anticipate every problem that may arise. Council directed Robertson to send a letter to the East Oaks Townhome Association discussing these issues and enclosing a copy of the development agreement . Council also directed staff to prepare a report of all the issues involved with the East Oaks development . Closed Session: Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to adjourn to closed session to discuss union negotiations, litigation, and personnel issues at 9 :40 PM. Carried 5-0 . Adjournment: Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to adjourn at 11 :17 p.m. Carried 5-0 . Respectfully submitted, :/ Michael Robertson City Administrator 1 Page 3 - City Council Minutes 07/22/97 There was also considerable discussion about what kind of requirements the City should establish for the outside storage of recreational vehicles and boats . Council debated how far back from the curb or the property line such items should be stored. Council was in consensus to set a (7) seven foot setback from the curb for recreational vehicles . Richards was directed to prepare a more thorough definition of the types of equipment that Council wished to regulate . Council reviewed the proposal regarding a requirement that all new construction homes have a covered two car garage . Staff indicated that this was proposed to prevent a homeowner from not having enough room to park all their cars . Council agreed with this change. Richards noted that he changed language in the ordinance to allow for Home Occupation Permits in a detached accessory garage through a Special Home Occupation License . This would give the Council flexibility in issuing a permit which would allow home occupations in a dwelling other than the primary building. Richards explained recent changes to State laws regarding manufactured housing. He said that a city is required to have a portion of its land available for that use. Richards noted that Oak Park Heights has adequate standards to provide that any manufactured housing is of sufficient quality to ensure that it will fit in with the other housing in Oak Park Heights . City Attorney Vierling was directed to draft a notice of a city moratorium regarding manufactured housing in order to allow the Council to review and change the city ordinance to bring it in compliance with State law. Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved at 8 :30 p.m. to continue the public hearing to the next Council meeting. Carried 5-0 . Unfinished Business: Annexation Report - City Planner Richards presented the revised report to the Council . He outlined the major points to the Council . (1) Oak Park Heights has not initiated the annexation petition; it is responding to a request by over 20% of the landowners of said property to annex the land into Oak Park Heights . (2) Oak Park Heights is a logical city to support this kind of development, being the nearest City that can provide urban level services . (3) The soil of said property is not ideal for septic systems, therefore utility access is logical, which Oak Park Heights can provide . 411 111 Page 4 - City Council Minutes 07/22/97 (4) The tax impact on the areas remaining in Baytown Township would not be significant, according to Richards . Richards noted that Oak Park Heights does not make the final decision as to whether this portion of Baytown Township will be annexed into Oak Park Heights . That decision is made by the State Municipal Board. City Attorney Vierling reviewed the annexation process, indicating that a contested annexation such as this will take several months to come to a resolution by the Municipal Board. City Engineer Anderlik stated that sewer and water services could be provided to the proposed annexation area at costs similar to other suburban areas in the Twin Cities . Anderlik noted that the properties being annexed will be charged connection fees for sewer and water utilities, therefore there will be no additional charge to current City residents and businesses . Administrator Robertson noted that he had received a letter from Baytown Planning Commission Chair Debra Foley objecting to the proposed annexation on Monday which had been passed on to the Council . He also indicated that he had received a letter from the Magnuson Law Firm, the Township' s attorney Tuesday afternoon expressing Baytown Township' s objection to the annexation and that the City Council had not had a chance to review that letter before the Council meeting. Resolution 97-07-26 , A Resolution Supporting the Proposed Annexation - Councilmember Robert, seconded by Beaudet, moved to adopt Resolution 97-07-26 . Carried 4-1, Councilmember Swenson voting against . New Business: Association of Small Cities Conference - Budgeting Information - Council noted receipt of the requested information from Administrator Robertson. Councilmember Turnquist said that he would not be attending the conference because the meeting with NSP was that day and he thought that was a more important issue. Party in the Park Update - Administrative Intern Mesko updated the Council on the Party in the Park to be held on Sunday, August 10 from 1-3 p.m. at Brekke Park. There was discussion about what type of prizes would be given away and what type of activities would be held. Council directed Mesko to distribute fliers to local businesses the week before the party to spread the word. The Council also decided to table the issue of renaming Swager Park until after the park improvements have been made . 4111 4111 Page 3 - City Council Minutes 07/08/97 2 . Minutes - Councilmember Robert moved that the phrase "was opened" be stricken from page 5, line 2 of the June 24 minutes on the grounds that it is redundant . Councilmember Swenson seconded, carried 5-0 . Councilmember Robert, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve the minutes as amended. Carried 5-0 . 6 . Councilmember Beaudet ' s Request for Reimbursement - This item was tabled until next Council meeting to obtain more information. Public Hearings: There were no public hearings . Unfinished Business: Annexation Report - City Planner Richards summarized the report prepared by Northwest Area Consultants regarding the proposed annexation of the Screaton and Kerns Center land. He said that the report addresses the issues required by state statutes. Richards also said that as far as government services to this area are concerned, Oak Park Heights is the only logical choice to provide these services because Lake Elmo is unable to do so. Richards also noted that while Oak Park Heights will not be able to provide the entire annexation area with sewer and water immediately, it will be able to do so in the future. Mayor Schaaf and Councilmember Robert both noted the increased benefits to the annexed areas of the higher level of services that would be provided to those residents . There was discussion about service costs and tax rates . Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Beaudet, moved to table the issue until the next Council meeting so that Richards could address some of the issues that were raised and amend the study. Carried 5-0 . Strategic Planning Retreat - Mayor Schaaf requested that the Council meet on a Saturday this fall to do some strategic planning. Councilmembers Turnquist and Robert said that they felt that there should be some type of facilitator there to ensure that the Council stays focused. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Beaudet, moved to schedule a strategic planning retreat for Saturday, September 27 at 9 : 00 a.m. at a site to be determined in the future. Carried 5-0 . New Business: Resolution 97-07-25 - Resolution Authorizing the Oak Park Heights Police Department to Make Application in Conjunction With the Forest Lake Police Department to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety for Enrollment Within the Safe and Sober Community Project for the Period of Time of October 1, 1997 Through September 30 , 1998 . Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve Resolution 97- 07-25 . Carried 5-0 . 411 Page 7 - City Coun Minutes 06/10/97 • Variance from Front Yard Setback - Construction of Garage - 14387 Upper 56th Street - James Vidana - Mayor Schaaf opened the public hearing at 8 :44 p.m. Jim Vidana stated that he was told in 1991 by former Oak Park Heights Building Inspector Mick Kaehler that he would be able to build a garage on his lot after he transformed his other garage into a family room. When he recently applied for a permit to build a garage, he was told there was not enough room to build a garage because the front of the house is only 30 feet from the edge of the road right-of-way. Vidana indicated he was seeking a variance of 20 feet from the 30 foot setback requirement on the hardship that not having a garage will be a deterrent if he ever decides to sell his home and that he was told previously that he would be allowed to construct a garage. Councilmember Beaudet asked why the original garage was allowed to be converted into a family room. City Planner Richards stated that the ordinance only provides that there be enough room for the construction of a 2 car garage, not that there actually be one . Richards noted that there is room in the back of the house for construction of a garage, but that there is not room on the site for a driveway to reach the garage. Councilmember Robert expressed her concerns about setting a precedent by ignoring the setback requirements . She said that the Council may as well just revoke the 30 foot setback requirement if they approve the variance because many Oak Park Heights residents have converted their garages into other rooms and they would all be coming to the Council requesting variances to build garages . Hearing no further comment, Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Robert, moved to close the public hearing at 9 : 00 p.m. Carried 5-0 . Councilmember Swanson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to approve the variance. Motion was denied 3-2 with Beaudet, Robert, & Schaaf voting against the motion. Variance not approved. Unfinished Business: Annexation Petition Update - Mayor Schaaf reported on the meeting with Baytown Township and residents on June 3rd. Schaaf stated that he thought Baytown would get many financial benefits from an orderly annexation agreement with Oak Park Heights . City Attorney Vierling said that if the annexation is contested, which it looks like it would be based on the petitions objecting to the annexation, it would take 9 months to 1 year for a ruling to be made regarding the issue . O 411 Page 8 - City Coun• Minutes 06/10/97 • Council continued discussion of this item until the next Council meeting and directed City Planner Richards to prepare an annexation report and for staff to make an estimate of the additional cost of services needed that would be required if that portion of Baytown was annexed. Street Reconstruction - Councilmember Turnquist reported that he had seen Tower Asphalt cutting into the street and wanted to know why they were doing that . Council directed City Engineer Caron to prepare a memo regarding this issue . New Business: Approval of Newsletter Articles - Mayor Schaaf reported that he wanted to write an article about the bridge for this edition and that he would have it in to Administrator Robertson by Tuesday, June 17 . Administrator Robertson indicated that this edition would come out around the end of June . Council directed him to add a small mention about the Party in the Park scheduled for August 10 and to write a complete article about it for the newsletter that will come out the beginning of August . Time Limits of Acceptance of Agenda Items - Councilmember Turnquist suggested a cutoff date and time for agenda items so that Council has enough time to read all items on agenda. This would exclude items deemed urgent. Councilmember Robert agreed but expressed concerns that visitors be given more leeway and freedom to participate . Councilmember Turnquist said he would draft a policy for Council consideration on this issue. Correspondence: Thank You from Graffiti Teen Center for $1, 000 Grant Letter from Washington County Board - Request for Development Moratorium in Browns Creek Watershed Closed session was set for the City Administrator' s review on June 24, 1997 at 4 : 00 P.M. . City Attorney Vierling noted the Council met in closed session at 6 : 00 p.m. before tonight ' s meeting to discuss the review of the City Administrator. Adjournment: Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Turnquist, moved to adjourn at 11 :20 P.M. . Carried 5-0 . Respectfully submitted, Michael Robertson City Administrator Page 4 - City Coun� Minutes 05/27/97l 41110 Unfinished Business Stillwater Ford Drainage - City Engineer Anderlik reported that Stillwater Ford has submitted a revised drainage plan. Anderlik stated that the drainage plan is acceptable and recommended the City approve the plan. Councilmember Beaudet, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve the May 26 , 1997 Stillwater Ford drainage plan as recommended by the City Engineer. Carried 5-0 . Annexation Petition - David Screaton, 12055 North 55th Street, was present and asked that the City Council pass a resolution of support for his recent annexation petition. Council discussed the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation. City Attorney Vierling requested that Screaton furnish him with a legal description of the proposed annexation area so he can incorporate it into the resolution. Council tabled action until the June 10, 1997 meeting so that Vierling could draft a resolution. Council also asked Screaton to provide the City with a list of residents who support annexation. Baytown Township' s Request to Meet - Administrator Robertson stated that the Baytown Town Clerk contacted him and requested to meet with the City of Oak Park Heights in a non-quorum meeting to discuss annexation and drainage issues on June 3 , 1997 at 5 : 00 p.m. at City Hall . Mayor Schaaf and Councilmember Turnquist were chosen to represent the Council at the meeting with Baytown Township. New Business: A-1 Maintenance Conditional Use Permit Review - Administrator Robertson stated that Jon Nelson, A-i Maintenance, is not in compliance with the conditions of his Conditional Use Permit . Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Beaudet, moved to schedule a Public Hearing on Tuesday, June 24, 1997 to consider revoking the A-i Maintenance Conditional Use Permit . Carried 5-0 . Approval of Conservation Partners Grant Application - Habitat Restoration Project - Valley View Park - Councilmember Robert said that the Conservation Partners Grant the City is applying for is intended for prairie restoration in lower Valley View Park. The project is scheduled to begin this fall and is expected to be completed next year. Councilmember Robert stated that the project includes 8 acres of both upland and lowland prairie restoration. Councilmember Beaudet, seconded by Robert, moved to approve the Conservation Partners Grant Application - Habitat Restoration Project- Valley View Park. Carried 5-0 . Recreational Vehicle Regulations - Councilmember Robert requested striking this item from the agenda. lib Page 7 - City41111 Cou1 Minutes 05/13/97 Resolution from Baytown Township - Council reviewed a resolution from Baytown Township stating that they oppose annexation. Baytown Township has rejected the Oak Park Height ' s request to meet . City Attorney Vierling stated that the applicants interested in annexation will be informed that their request to annex was rejected by Baytown Township. Vierling stated that the applicants will need to contact the Minnesota Municipal Board to schedule a hearing. Letter from MNDOT - City Administrator Robertson reported that MNDOT has responded to the City' s requested changes to the Highway 5 project. Robertson reported that MNDOT is agreeable to the changes if the City agrees to split the cost . The cost of the changes is estimated to be $200, 000 . The City would be responsible for $100 , 000 . This estimate covers the addition of a second left hand turn lane on Highway 5 and changes to the traffic signal to accommodate that Additional lane . Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Robert, moved to direct City staff communicate with MNDOT that the City approves the proposal conceptually and to begin negotiations on a written agreement . Carried 4-0 . Graffiti Teen Center - Grant Request - Acting Mayor Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to grant $1, 000 to the Graffiti Teen Center. Carried 4-0 . American Red Cross - Grant Thank You - Council reviewed a letter from Jan George, Executive Director of the American Red Cross, thanking the City for the $2, 000 grant to the Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund. Memo Regarding Chronic Nuisance Violations - Councilmember Robert requested the Council invite City prosecutor Greg Galler to the next meeting to discuss possible prosecution of chronic nuisance violators in civil court rather than criminal court . City Attorney Vierling will meet with Chief Swanson to review the list of violators and discuss this issue at the next City Council meeting. Union Negotiations - Councilmembers Turnquist and Swenson were appointed as a Council committee to review union negotiations and make a recommendation to the Council . Adjournment: Councilmember Swenson,, seconded by Beaudet, moved to adjourn at 10 :30 p.m. Carried 4-0 . Respectfully submitted, 77 .-- ! -,,/'" ,...—.---- Michael Robertson City Administrator Page 5 - City Coun Minutes 04/22/97 41110 Staff Report - Cover Park Neighborhood Request for Rezoning - Councilmember Robert, seconded by Turnquist, moved to table this issue indefinitely. Carried 5-0 . Support for Annexation of Screaton Property - Ray Kennedy, 1200 Nightingale Boulevard, stated that he was aware that David Screaton has obtained 20 percent of the signatures required to petition for annexation. Kennedy stated that he has talked with other affected building owners and most have indicated support for the proposal, but there are still some issues that need to be addressed. Council requested Kennedy identify the issues that need to be addressed in a letter. Council directed City staff continue to work with the affected property owners of the proposed annexation area to resolve issues . Petition for Annexation - Administrator Robertson stated that he received a formal petition for annexation from five property owners west of Highway 5 at 2 : 00 p.m. , April 22, 1997 . Council directed Robertson to schedule a meeting with Baytown Township to discuss annexation. New Business: Approve Street Sweeping Bid - Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve the low bid of $50/hour from St . Croix Sweeping for street sweeping, with the City providing the truck to haul the sweepings to a City provided site. Carried 5- 0 . Council directed Robertson to check with St . Croix Sweeping on where they haul the sweepings before they would authorize him to haul the sweepings away. Set Party-in-the-Park Date - Councilmember Robert, seconded by Swenson, moved to schedule the Party-in-the-Park on Sunday, August 10, 1997, from 1 : 00 p.m. to 3 : 00 p.m. at Brekke Park. Carried 5-0 . Zoning Recommendations for the Haase Property - Councilmember Robert requested the Council review the City' s current zoning ordinance to establish recommendations for zoning and lot size for the proposed residential development of the Haase property. City Planner Richards stated that the R1 zoning requires a minimum lot size of 10, 400 square feet, R1A zone requires a minimum of 12, 500 square feet, RiB requires a minimum size of 15, 000 square feet, and R1C requires a minimum of 20, 000 square feet . Richards stated that 95% of the Autumn Ridge neighborhood meets R1A zoning requirements. Council was in consensus that conceptually they preferred Ri zoning for the eastern part of the Haase land and R1A zoning for the western part of the Haase land. Approval of the Board of the Review Recommendations - Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Beaudet, moved to adopt Resolution 97-04-20, A Resolution Approving the Recommendations of the Board of Review. Carried 5-0 . 11, OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP, THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997 Call to Order: Mayor Schaaf opened the workshop at 4 :45 p.m. Present : Councilmember Turnquist . Councilmember Beaudet arrived at 4 :47 p.m. and Councilmember Robert arrived at 5 : 00 p.m. Absent : Councilmember Swenson. Staff Present : City Administrator Robertson, City Attorney Vierling, and City Engineer Anderlik. Discussion of Request for Annexation - Dave Screaton discussed his request to be annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights . Screaton offered to pay all the sewer & water extension costs up front . He said he would be willing to be paid back over time as people hooked up. He said he did not want anybody to be forced to hook up to sewer and water. Present for the discussion were; Steve & Barb Engle, 12058 55th Street; Dave Screaton, 12055 North 55th Street; Tony Vavoulis, 740 Linwood Avenue; Norm Krueger, 2263 Oakgreen Avenue; Roger Tucker, 10545 Mayfield Avenue; Don Shoemaker, 3500 Effa Street; John Low, 324 South Main Street; Kevin Lacasse, 324 South Main Street, #280; Ray Kennedy, 5649 Manning Avenue; Carol Palmquist, 12202 55th Street; DW ???, 711 Manning Lake; Dan Raduenz, Stillwater Motors; Mel & Jane Eder of St . John' s Church, 5274 Stillwater Boulevard; Rob Buberl, Buberl Landscaping; Kelly Brookman, no address; John Hall, no address; Ken Hath, no address; Bill Nelson, Baytown Board; Anders Hanson, Baytown Board. John Low and Kelly Brookman said that they owned land in the Kern Center area and were in favor of the proposal . Barb Engle said that she had the following questions . 1) Would 55th Street have to be upgraded (blacktop/curb & gutter) for development and would they be assessed for that? 2) Would the proposal for housing on the Screaton land cause increased costs for fire & police protection and subsequently cause increased costs for her? 3) What land uses will be allowed in the area? 4) How long would the annexation process take? 5) If the land was developed with residential uses, would curb & gutter and bike paths be provided? What would the costs be for this? City Attorney Vierling said that annexation would take 6-12 months, depending on whether it was contested or not . The City Council stressed that they would not make any specific zoning commitments for any specific piece of land. Administrator Robertson said that the direction from the City' s Comprehensive Plan was that the area land uses would be Commercial/Industrial north of 55th Street and residential south of 55th Street . �tet. 4 4111, Page 2 - City Coun 1 Minutes 04/x£/97 Roger Tuckner, Rob Buberl, & Ray Kennedy, owners of existing buildings, expressed opposition to annexation. They felt that they would experience increased costs in City taxes without a corresponding increases in services that would benefit them. They also wondered if they would be forced to hook into sewer & water within a certain time frame. They asked whether City building permits were more expensive than Township building permits and what the increased costs in taxes would be. Bill Nelson of the Baytown Board asked whether there would be an increase in valuation due to the availability of water and sewer. John Hall was opposed to annexation for fear it would raise his taxes . Steve Engle was opposed to annexation because he did not want urban density housing constructed near by him. Ken Hath was opposed to annexation. Robertson noted he had received a letter from Bernie ness favoring the extension of water & sewer to his property. Council directed Robertson to gather the requested information on taxes and building permits . Adjournment: Mayor Schaaf adjourned the workshop at 6 :25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Robertson City Administrator 410410 Page 4 - MinuteA /97 Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Beaudet, moved to approve Resolution 97-04-18, a Resolution Approving the Brackey West Addition Preliminary Plat, the PUD General Plan of Development for Phase 1 of Lot 1, Block 1, a variance to allow three identification signs 7 . 75 feet in height, and a variance to allow a 454 square foot wall sign on the facade of retail space "A" subject to the conditions outlined in the April 4 , 1997 Staff Report . Administrator Robertson stated that Oppidan Investment Company would like to begin grading the site and have requested the City grant a temporary grading permit . Councilmember Beaudet, seconded by Robert, moved to issue a temporary grading permit to Oppidan Investment Company. Carried 4-0 . Councilmember Robert, seconded by Beaudet, moved to authorize the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility report regarding street and utility improvements on the Brackey West Addition. Carried 4-0 . Unfinished Business Screaton Annexation App ication Report - Council reviewed a letter from City Attorney Vierling in response to David Screaton' s proposal to advance the cost of extending municipal water and sewer service to the Screaton land and Kern Center area. Vierling stated that it is possible for the City of Oak Park Heights to enter into an agreement to allow Screaton to advance the costs of extending municipal water and sewer service and to be paid back as people hook up to the system. Barb Engle, 12058 North 55th Street, Baytown, asked why the engineering report did not include all of the property west of Highway 5 to the Lake Elmo border. Vierling stated that the report was prepared in response to the proposal by David Screaton to pay for municipal water and sanitary sewer to the Screaton property and Kern Center area only. Screaton emphasized that his proposal extends only for his property and Kern Center. Engle asked how the Manning Avenue Corridor study would affect the proposed annexation area. Administrator Robertson said that he did not know, as this was a County study that had just started. Robertson stated that the next meeting of the Manning Avenue Corridor Study was Wednesday, April 9 . John Low, 324 South Main, Stillwater, requested the Council schedule a workshop with affected property owners to discuss the consequences of Screaton' s proposal and issues relating to annexation. Councilmember Beaudet, seconded by Robert, moved to set a special workshop to discuss issues related Screaton' s proposal and annexation on Thursday, April 17, 1997 at 4 :30 p.m. at City Hall . Carried 4-0 . SEP-12-1997 11:49 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02/12 • • li To: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, Minnesota 55105-5113 STIPULATION The City Oak Park Heights and the Township of Baytown Township stipulate and agree to the following facts concerning Minnesota Statutes 414.031, Subd. 4 to wit: [The term "subject area" referred to herein means the area that is proposed for annexation.] (a) Present population and number of households, past population and projected population growth of the subject area, the annexing municipality, and adjacent units of government: • Present City Present Subject Area Adjacent Unit of (Oak Park Township Govt(Lake Heights) (Baytown Elmo) Twp.) 1980 Population 2,591 851 — 5,296 1990 Population 3,486 939 — 5,903 Current Population 4,001 (1997) 1,209(1995) 21* 6,148(1995) Current Households 1.458 (1995) 403 (1995) — 2,123 (1995) Projected in 5 years 1,650 500 — 2,300 (2000) Source of Data: U.S.Census&Metropolitan Council *City of Oak Park Heights Projections (b) Geographic Features: 1. Present City Present Subject Area Adjacent Unit Township of Govt. Total Acreage 1,679 5,825 235 15,000+ .SEP-12-199? 11:50 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/12 • • 2. Describe any waterways in or adjacent to the subject area: (rivers, streams, shorelands, protected water, protected wetlands) There is a DNR protected wetland in the southwes corner of the subject area 3. Describe the soils and terrain in the subject area: The northwestern portion • - • - are- contains ro lin• terra' and trees with s - -•• - which inhibits commercial or high density residential development. The eastern area adjacent to State Highway 5 is flat and open with few trees. The southwest portion of the area is slightly rolling and contains a portion of a lar.e wetland com•lex. • The Washington County Soils Survey indicates that the subject area cont is ns imarily o types of soils which are well drained with rapid to permeability. The.primary soil types are Antioo-Comstock and Havden- Hessel-Dundas. (c) Contiguity 1. The •erime er of the - b'- - : , of i• • • • - 't • • _. • - Heights along 3.89Q feet of its westerly boundary, The subject area is contiguous to Baytown Township for 1,800 feet. (d) Present pattern of physical development, planning, and intended land uses in the subject area and annexing city: 1. There are the following land uses: (Please fill in acreages or percentages if available instead of yes or no.) City Township Subject Area Yes No Yes No Yes No Residential x x x Institutional(tax x x x exempt) Commercial x x x Industrial x x x Agricultural x x x Vacant Lands x x x 2 SEP-12-1997 11:50 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/12 • • 2 What type of development is proposed for the subject area? The om.re e siv- • ., • • • _ , _ . ,r:- a••.te• in anua of 1979 - d ame de. ii ft- -a.- • • • Dec-uber .f 19:8 :nd e• :m•-r 190 . e -s 'a ,- . • - • .f = . a. _ - u•date of h- Comprehensive Plan. Previous comprehensive planning has anticipated the eventual annexation of property to the we t of State Hi. - ,C facilities constructed within Oak Park Heights have been designed to accommodate service to the subject area. The current update of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates the annexation and extension of the e r• •o 'tan Urban Service Area MUSA to lac! .• - a' - - se clan • ••• - s- .ss - • s- _ - _ . U•! . - • .Itu - i. l'.ht industrial, and low density and mid density residential land use. The City plans for a continuation of the commercial/light industrial development within the area platted as Kern Center. The nortttwest�om_er of the subject site would be planned for single family homes on large estate- type lots. Seventeen acres of mid density (six units per acre) is planned on that area south of Kern Center. The remaining area south of 55th Street is planned for approximately 60 acres of low density single family residential development of between two to two one-half units per acre. (e) The present transportation network: 1. Present City Present Subject Township Area Number of Miles of Highways,Streets, 11.64 12 1.5 and Roads 2. Are any transportation changes planned in the subject area? yes x no in the City? yes no x (f) Land Use Controls and Planning: 1. Comprehensive Plan: City Township County Region Adoption Date 1979* 1995 Oct. 1, Oct. 10, 1997 1996 Status of Plan Being revised • Amended in December of 1979, December of 1988.and September of 1991 - - 3 SEP-12-1997 11:50 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05/12 • • 2. Have any area planning authorities adopted an official position on the proposed boundary adjustment? (planning commissions, boards, joint boards, Met Council, Minnesota Planning, region, county) yes , no x supportive non-supportive 3. Please check where the following exists and give any necessary explanations on how it relates to the proposed action. (since it maybe P P possible that two or more plans attempt to regulate the same area, please circle whose ordinance presently applies to the subject area.) - City Township County Date Adopted Yes No Yes No Yes No City Town County Zoning x x x 1996 Dec.6, Nov.9, 1982 1979 Subdivision x x x Regulation Official Map x x x Capital x x x lmprovementBudget Fire Code x x (Provided by the City of Bayport) Shoreland Ordinance x x x Floodplain Ordinance x x x Wild&Scenic River x x x Ordinance Sanitation Ord.(on- x x x site sewage) Zoning administration for BaytownTownship is provided by Washington County. Under the Washington County Zoning Ordinance_ the Kern tenter area is zoned for commercial uses and the remaining area to the west and south is zoned rural residential with a density of one home.per five acres. Upon annexation into the City of say. Park Hei.ht a- - _P•-•1 - - _ ,c• . . •11-41. I • •-a - -a' subse. entl :. .1-. . 1-•,- 'a - t zo i • classifications u•on rev'ew of t e appropriate land use designations by the City Council. The existing zoningfor the developing shopping center is PUD. Planned Unit Development with 6-2, General 4 SEP-12-199? 11:53 NAC 612 595 983? P.06/12 - • Business District as the underlying standard. The high schooL and surrounding areas that are not developed are zoned 0. Open Space C4n$grvation District. 4. What is the current zoning of the subject area? Commercial and rural residential with a density of one home per five acres. 5. What is the anticipated zoningif this boundaryadjustment is approved? P 1 _ Commercial/light indu51riClow density_sin le mil residential and mid density residential 6. Is the subject area, or any portion thereof, in Green Acres (M.S. 273.11)? yes no 7. Has the City adopted Urban/Rural Taxing Districts (M.S. 272.67)? yes no x (g) Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and subject area City City provides Township Township provides Provides to to subject provides to to subject area City area township • Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 'Water x x x x Sanitary x x x x Sewer/Wastewater Treatment Storm Sewer x x x x Solid Waste x x x x Collection &Disposal Fire Protection x x x x Law Enforcement x x x Street Improvements x x x X Street Maintenance x x Administrative x x X X Services Recreational Services x x x x Other 5 .SEP-12-1997 11:51 NAC 612 595 9837 P.07/12 • I� " If City does not provide water to the subject area, who does? Not Applicable Would City take over or allow existing use? Not Applicable ** If City does not provide sewer to the subject area, who does? Not Applicable Would City take over or allow existing use? Not Applicable (h) Describe any existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems: (Example: ground or surface water problems, water quality and levels, sewage treatment, air pollutant emissions, noise, odors, affect on fish or wildlife; affect on historical resources, archaeological resources, aesthetic resources; impairment of park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, critical area; abandoned dump or disposal site, etc.) The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that there are no identified dump sites or contaminated ground or water sites in the subject area. Contamination has been found across Highway 5 at a site identifies as the Jerry Clipper Machine Shop. The site is classified for a voluntary investigation and clean u. •ro•ram and is not r-•arded as causin• an serious en 'ro. i-s ; •t - a A lar•e area of the Townshi• a.•roximatel one-half mile to the south a f. - - • •- subject site has ground water contamination. The site is located on the National Priorities List (NPL) which is a national listing of hazardous waste sites which represent significant threat to public health or the environment and are priorities for remedial action. This list is also known as the Federal Superfund List. Within the around water contamination site over 70 water supply wells (residential and business) in Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township and Bayport show volatile or.anic • • _teal t •t tZ _• •fg _ e - - • :•• _ e Minnesota Q partment of Hea th's fj/1DH1 health risk limits. The list of contaminants include, - t • • - t e - carbon tetrachloride 1 2 2 2-tetrachloroeth lene a d c 1,2-diichloncethylene. Probable sources for the contaminants include the Lake Elmo Airport and a former grain storage area. Although the contamination has not been found in wells in the study area. the close • O_:mit of i- •a .111.1-t - . . - '.t • - • * kite -••. .•t- wells within the subject area. Considering the large area within the ground water contamination site, the possibility of that area expanding with time must be considered. If the subject area is annexed and served by the water and sanitary sewer systems of Oak Park Heights, there will be no issue with the environmental and safety concerns for existing or potential subject area residents or employees 6 SEP-12-199? 11:51 NAC 612 595 983? P.08/12 • • of businesses in the area. (i) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the subject area and the impact of the proposed action on delivery of said services: An analysis of governmental services is as follows: • - a ' e •- • e'•• s •.o • -s .• .ce service h . .•• ' • Police Department. The Police are headquartered in the Oak Park Heights i Hal •S • -- ►01$ s••• •I 1 - •_ •• ice officer stationed at the Stillwater Area High School at 5701 Stillwater Boulevard North in Oak Park Heights. The department has four patrol cars and a staff of ten which includes the Police Chief. Sergeant. and an investigator. Approximate response time to the subject site from City Hall is three minutes and from the High School is less than a minute. Travel • distance to the subject site from City Hall is approximately 1.5 miles. Ba town Townsh'• is -e ed . t - W_s '•• .• • _• -riff. he •ff's * - .-t11-• - •--•• .-t- -! l •- A - •'•• •• • . • Government Center. located at 14900 North 61st Street, Stillwater. Travel •i _ reit •- •• -nu -0 cente to the sub'ect site is a••ro at-1 5 miles. Due to the concentrated service area. the Oak Park Heights Police Department. with its staff and equipment. provide a_fast rgsponse time to anywhere in the City. The Oak Park Heights Police will provide the fastest and best service for the subject site. 2. Fire Service. Both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township are provided fire •rotection thro •• •• - ,; • • - t of Ba sort Fire Des-rt -n Tk Bayport Fire.Qepartment is locatednext to City Hail which is located at 225 Third Avenue South. The Fire Department consists of 24 volunteers. The department responds to calls with one tanker. two_pumpers. and a pick up truck. Approximate arrival time from the station to the subject site is seven minutes. Travel distance from the Fire Department to the subject site is approximately 3.5 miles. .on annexation to • .k Par. _'s s •_ - _•'- - ,' •= - •=14.•! ►i w_ e for d. ,e i ,1! - . • - • . _ •ose- The addition of h drants • ••i i /tl 11. • - •- - - • • - -L - ,as. • o.ectio• • •r.•- within Jsubiect area. This i pecially critical for a developin4 commercial and light industrial ama. The increased level of fire protection • • ,, •- - '•s . •- s .'-c - - o f «9„ to "6" c••s'st-nt with the existing City of Oak Park Heights. 7 5EP-12-1997 11:51 NAC 612 595 9837 P.09/12 , . • • 3. Ambulance. Ambulance service for both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township is provided through the Lakeview Hospital located at 919 West Ai!' •s '. till a e . Travel distance f o the ito •'tal t• t - .• - - - is approximately 2.0 miles. The ambulance has two full time crews around the clock. each equipped with two paramedics for service to the area. A third ambulance crew is available on call. 4, Road Maintenance. The City of Oak Park Heights has its own Public Works Department consisting of three full time individuals, however, most road maintenance and snow plowing is provided by a private contractor. The contractor has a staff of six people with three blades, one loader, a truck plow, and a tractor plow for snow removal. The City can provide faster response and more efficient road maintenance service thapjhe Township. Any subdivision or commercial development in Oak Park Heights requires improved roads including curb and gutter. More comprehensive street standards result in less maintenance due to properly designed and engineered roads. Ba own o :s s • ' _ .111 • • •.• ii- � se- A and snowplowing. The cantractor has a staff pf fjYe full time people anq _•-. _ _ - -. ...ne • 5. Sanitary Sewer and Water. Baytown Township does not provide sewer and water service. All development, including the existing commercial and residential properties in the subject area, are designed with on-site septic systems and wells. Oak Park Heights does provide sewer and water service and the infrastructure is available east of Highway 5 jo sive the§ubject area. The City, through its consulting engineer Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates inc. com•leted - =••r ' u- 1 •• - .18 i e o___providing_mnicipal services to he subject rea The report entitled Prelirniny Report on Water and Sewer Extensions West Highway No. 5 Study Area, provides thebasic utility layout} capacity analysis, and cost allocation for the entire area. The City Enginegrjs§u t;pitted a memo indicating that with minor infrastructure improvements to the existing sanitary sewer s stem the entire sub'ect s'te c,2 •e -a -. a - 111-111* . - - 11 -1! under. The study concluded that construction of unitary sewer and water mains to serve the subject area is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in Oak Park Heights. 8 SEP-12-1997 11:52 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10/12 • 6. Garbage. In Baytown Township, property owners contract directly with. garbage haulers for waste disposal. In Oak Park Heights, the City contracts with United Waste Systems f y disposal services and subsidizes a portion • a- • • •- • o•-at !we- • a- _ - _.- a. . -a• . it u .1 •_lion servi - t - . • _ ',nee iia- • . • •- • •- us, or '. 96.20 per year, and $22.00 per month or $264.00 per year for the Township, homeowner utilizing United Waste Systems. A table showing the difference in rates and resulting savings to the Township resident upon annexation to, the City is as follows- GARBAGE SERVICE - RATES AND DIFFERENCE RESIDENTIAL.CUSTOMERS 30+ Gallon- 60+Gallon 90+ Gallon Per Month Per Year Per Month Per Year Per Month Per Year BaytownTwp. $18.50 $222.00 $22.00 $264.00 $24.00 $288.00 Oak Park Heights $13.50 $162.00 $16.35 $196.20 $20.85 $250.20 . - Difference $5.00 $60.00 $5.65 $67.80 $3.15 $37.80 Source: City of Oak Park Heights Note: All rates reflect service by United Waste System. 7. Parks. Ba own Towns i. d•es a• • • -• - •- . - - a- - • 0-. Park Heights has an extensive park and trail system. providing both active and.passive recreational facilities. The City is currently in the planning stages for a 25 acre park east of the subject area that will provide recreational fields play structures and trails around the we land complete The City would nlalse plans to extend its trailsystem across State Highway 5 at 58th Street to provide access to the City's park and trail system. 8. Administrative ervices. The To • :_ • in *•- II• 11, - . '111 " staff u - staff or a town Hall with regular office hours. The City of Oak Park Heights has Bail time administrator and two staff members and a full time Building Official. The City Hall is located at 14168 57th Street North and the office @ours are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monde throush Frida 9 .8EP-12-1997 11 52 NAC 612 595 9837 P. 11/12 r i (j) Describe the fiscal impact on the annexing city, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government Present City Present Subject Area Year Trend over last 3 Year (payable Township Year (payable 1997) years 1997) (payable 1997) City Township Net Tax 6.728,690 1,925,858 145,517 +4.0% +67.8% Capacity County Tax 27.87 27.87 27.87 -9.9% -9.9% Rate o Local Tax Rate 5.60 -3.7,6 -34.2% District 1 22.27 5.60 District 2 22.27 - . 5.60 District 3 22.90 5.60 School District 61.76 61.76 61.76 -8.6% -8.6°4 Tax Rate Special Tax .30 .30 .30 n/a n/a District Rate Insurance 6 9 n/a — Rating Levy Limit Actual Current 1,394,918 107,500 — +3.1% +8.6% Levy Total Bonded 2,215,000 0 0 -6.7% -- Indebtedness (Ic) Would the proposed action affect area school districts or adjacent communities? yes no x (I) Are new services necessary for subject area? yes x no (m) Can necessary governmental services best be provided by the proposed boundary adjustment or another type of boundary adjustment? yes x by proposed action no by (n) If only a portion of the township is annexed: 1. Does the remainder of the township have the ability to remain as is? yes x no 10 ,.SEP-12-1997 11:52 NAC 612 595 9837 P. 12/12 • 110 2. Should the remainder be annexed to another city? yes no x 3. Should the remainder be annexed to another township? 14 yes no II STIPULATED TO BY: I'r City of Oak Park Heights, this day of , 1997. Mayor City Administrator Baytown Township, this day of , 1997. Township Chair Township Clerk 11 TOTAL P.12 • • BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP 14949 30T11 STREET NORTH ST111WATER,MN 55082 (612)439.8879 October 20, 1997 Ms. Christine Scotillo Executive Director OCT 2 8 IN State of Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square • 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul , Minnesota 55108 RE: A-5821 Oak Park Heights I Baytown ( Petition I City Resolution ) OA-497 I OA- 497-1 Lake Elmo I Baytown ( Joint Agreement ) Dear Ms. Scotillo: Six of the eight existing businesses operating in the Kern Center, and six of the eight residential properties, all located in the proposed annexation area, have insisted that Baytown forward their petitions to your agency for review. They have struggled to be heard in this matter and have serious, legitimate concerns based on preservation of their personal investments and property rights. Their respective petitions clearly indicate a preference to remain as Baytown or to be cooperatively annexed as Phase One to the City of Lake Elmo as Baytown and Lake Elmo continue their community consolidation talks that began February 1997 under the auspices of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation ( Mr. Jim Gelbmann - see attached letter ). Since these two petitions represent a majority of the residents and existing businesses within the proposed annexation area and are most impacted by the ongoing annexation proceedings, it is imperative that Baytown and others recognize and consider their collective rights. It is obvious from these petitions that the Screaton /Oak Park Heights petition benefits a minority of speculative landowners and is ill-advised or premature at this time. Baytown will continue to support the rights of the majority of residents and businesses who rely on their local government to respect and preserve those rights. After several months, Oak Park's inability to provide factual information and constructive dialogue and leadership on an issue that will geatlyimpact the environment, schools, watersheds, road systems, and future land use patterns for many communities, is suspect. Oak Park's threats, insults, and attempts to circumvent the normal due process in this matter in addition to the Baytown - Lake Elmo orderly annexation & consolidation talks, have done more to set back community relations than any other singular event in the last ten years. The development of a cooperative, respectful working relationship with • • the City of Lake Elmo has been insightful and has fostered great enthusiasm for Baytown's ongoing attempt to be proactive about its future as a township via the community consolidation workshops with Lake Elmo. These workshops are well attended and designed to function with 'much citizen input and a final voter referendum based on an informed, equitable consolidation plan for all impacted by the merger. In past conversations with Oak Park Heights, Mayor Schaaf stated that his city had identified other areas of Baytown for possible annexation and Baytown could cooperate or " Oak Park would do what it has to do". In light of Baytown, Oak Park, and Bayport cooperatively exploring the possible merger of the three governments or at the least, possible service sharing as far back as 1993, the hostile decree came as a surprise. Although the outcome of the merger talks was not successful, perhaps because they were not designed to include public input in the creation of the consolidation draft ageement, the three communities had at least explored areas of possible cooperation. Baytown would like the opportunity to continue being proactive about its future with the City of Lake Elmo, a community that is most compatible with the town. The township has always been a good neighbor and has carefully weighed the overall community need for adjacent cities to annex into the town for land to accommodate the new Stillwater Area High School ( Oak Park ) , the Andersen Windows( Bayport ) expansion onto the DNR land, or the necessity of an individual landowner to develop consistently within one municipality ( Lake Elmo ). We have a Washington County and Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plan and wish to have the opportunity to steer Baytown toward a sensible future for its thirteen hundred residents. We would hope that with this additional information, the dynamics of the communities' actions are better understood. Baytown must represent the majority of its constituents and will stay on course with its consolidation talks with Lake Elmo. Please contact the Baytown office if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Baytown Township Patricia L. St. Claire Clerk cc: Paul B. Double, Lea DeSouza Speeter, Anckew Hultgen ( MMB Members ) M. Peterson & D. Engstrom ( Washington County Commissioners ) Mike Robertson ( Oak Park Heights Administrator ) Mary Kueffner ( Lake Elmo Administrator ) Oct-15-97 08:03A R J AMUSEMENTS INC 612-439-6471 P.01 .wi-ta-oi 'mu cosi w. Ltfllli ins. rrn nu. 9JOf f'P r,V4 • • r ' October l S. 1497• To Whom It May Cowin: • The undersigsNd existing business owners located in Kim TCenter, Baytown Township,would lite to intone all ponies that it is our desire to remain a part of Anytown Township. Each of us made a choice to locate in Baytown Township. We identified the requirements Por bafndtna and opehratlag a business in Raytown. We alio identified the services provided by the Township and the County. The limited services and their i ctresponding lower less. stages and-taxes was one of the mesons we invested in the Baytown community and hew been able to succeutWhy operate our businesses. •Additlenal services have limited value to us. Additional fees, assesmenes and an increased tax barden may not be manageable. Each of us Is very limited in ow ability to psis on increased costs to our customers. We do not feel we can afford to be wend into ember community and absorb die increased burdens associated with the change. We would Ilke to reataion in Baytown Township. We do, however understand. there is considerable momentum regarding Moon. If we do not have the option to remain In Baytown oar second. choice would be annexation into Lake Elmo. If this did occur, we ask the City of Lake Blrno for consideration regetding m y vies to the mount of hhaces.foes or assessments paid. 1161IATIMM: JV$DIRSS KAM S AMMO, 1110Xle . G *4 stU tw,'L,ghat., 7.0hs+wa,40.4 Air 6 ;Weid/A4kg&- -i:ibd i V iairA 4:Adde__1( • faf irdiark.-A%A.)4_4T- stichoerao;bite..Y12:-.2274 IM2A ,, _ ,;r ' g.4.t 3 ti ia. 4491109e> /. �� l S 'l''v� (Z '? 5?!� &1 ,•01 A/t 2-(1,n�'io-7 - .e 1..• u. aa .. • •� V 1 a. ti,•- v J J U, -•LLL 1 U L:L L • U U tt • • • July 25, 1997 Baytown Board c/o Pat St. Claire 14949 N. 30" St. Baytown Township, MN 55082 We the undersigned would like to pursue the orderly annexation between Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo for the entire area of: Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West, lining westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd, also known as State Highway 5, Washington County. We request that the Baytown Township Board initiate this process as soon as possible. PropertvOwners Kenneth :uth Nancy Hauth 5775 Manning Ave • Baytown Township, MN > a Ir- R.ichar4 Claugherty R 1 . �. a.c. . Sally trlau?. x 5757 Manning Ave N. �/ Baytown Township, MN g. St en Eng , Barbara Engle 12058 - 55 Street N. Baytown Township,MN • Carol Palmquist 12202 - 55" Street N. Baytown Township, MN • Pagel OCT-21-97 TUE 9:06 AM Co OF LAKE ELMO FAX NO, 6;1177 9615 P. 3 SEP-21-0T 10:14 Frov:MN INU 0122083898 111. T-OTT P 82/83 Job-703 State of Minnegota Board of Government Innovation arid Cooperation Third?Ivor Curltuhnlrl$WIIAInp•500 Cedar Street.Wilt P5I t,MI55MPI6t0 56166 a 617tZu1•235D•FIX Bi2I2116.3i05 September 23, 1997 The Honorable Ron Predkove Chair, Baytown Town Board 14949 30th Street North Stillwater. Minnesota 5 082 Dear Mr. Frettkove: I want to once again thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear at a public meeting on Thursday evening to describe the role of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation in facilitating a merger between Baytown Township and Lake Elmo, As I stated when 1 appeared before the Baytown Town Board earlier this month, the Board of Government innovation and Cooperation does not have the authority to force local governments to consider A consolidation. The Board is only able to help facilitate a merger if and when the merger is supported by both governing bodies and a majority of the citizens voting in a referendum on the proposed merger. The Board believes the local elected officials and the citizens themselves should be making these critical decisions, since they are the ones who will have to live with the results. Ms. Pat St. Clair also requested that I briefly recap the Board's involvement in the proposed merger between Lake Elmo and Baytown Township. Approximately one year ago, I had a bricf conversation with Ms. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator for the City of Lake Elmo. At that time, she requested some very general background material about the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation relative to the consolidation of local governments. Approximately seven months ago, Maly called rile back to inform me that Lake Elmo and Baytown Township were considering the possibility of a merger. At that time, Mary requested that i send her detailed information about the process for the development of a cooperation and combination plan, including a detailed description of all issues that must be addressed by the plan. 1 complied with Mary's requests and opened a file on the proposed merger. In my discussions with Pat St. Clair, I have since learned that Baytown Township has been informally assessing various options for its future, One of those options included the potential for merging with the City of Lake Elmo. Promoting Effective and Efficient Delivery of Public Services OCT-21-97 TUE 9:06 AM CIT OF LAKE ELMO FAX NO, 612 7 9615 P. 2 • sEP-�23.9r 16'15 FrovtN PL 6I'L'C9tibbeu +"p1 y"'y" tow., "' 'I"k+e Honorable Ron Fredkove September 23, 1997 Page Two It is my understanding that the information I was providing to the City of Lake Elmo was being shared with Baytown Township offlclals as they assessed the option of a merger with the City of Lake Elmo- I further understand that the Baytown Town Board used an extensive process to fully assess all possible options prior to developing a cdfsensus that a merger with the City of Lake 13huo was in the best interests of the residents of I3aytown•Township, Having worked with several communities that have seriously considered merging with a neighboring community, I can assure you that the process used by Raytown Township is by no means unique. To develop a consensus between any two governing bodies relative to a proposed merger requires months, and otten years, of careful deliberation. Cange is very difficult for any organization, and it is especially difficult for community leaded to overcome decades of histoty and tradition that have helped shape their community's identity. The Baytown Town Board is to be commended for carefully considering all of its options for the future before deciding that a merger with Lake Elmo was the best course of action to take. Sincerely, • /141`1. iGetbrnann Executive Director Oct-30-97 09 : 19A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P .01 • • JERRY TURNQUIST TELECOPY TRANSMITTAL TO: FROM: Jerry Turnquist FAX # 6/37_ oc7v PHONE: 612-439-1619 DATE: W3/e7 FAX #: 612-439-7531 Number of Pages P.- (Including z(Including cover sheet) COMMENTS: cfc,te A.)41- Are/(wr.-a, i • • ti.L. - i/� Age. .fir /1,fr'ed 9 e7iciya& 45.,..? „1 liee_oz„:0,4,0,,, II Oct-30-97 09 : 20A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P. 02 • • Baytown Township Washington County Stillwater, MN 55082 October 24, 1997 Council Member Jerry Tumquist City of Oak Park Heights 14168 North 57th Street Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Council Member Turnquist: The Baytown Board of Supervisors extends an invitation to you or representatives of Oak Park Heights to attend the next township monthly meeting that will be held on Monday, November 3, 1997, 8:00 P.M., at the Civil Air Patrol hangar on the Lake Elmo Airport. Baytown would like to review opportunities for continued discussion now that the communities of Oak Park, Lake Elmo, and Baytown have talked on October 8th and October 15th. Exploration of concerns and issues for each community relative to the proposed annexation of Section 6, lying west of Highway 5 should have been defined by now, and perhaps a follow up dialogue needs to occur now that the existing business owners have presented their petition opposing the annexation into Oak Perk Heights. We anticipate your positive response to the invitation and hope to take small steps in the direction of restoring constructive community relations. Sincerely, Baytown Township /),e/-414-6' Patricia L. St. Claire Clerk Oct-30-97 09 : 20A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P.03 1¢777'7/ 113:117.5 tCK LRW NO.016 902 LAvy Q>•VIci.; OF DRAFT Ec1t erg. Lammers, ()rtqgs. Wolt4• & ``';c r,�n P, , P rri35 North»e,10.„ .'\.•<•hur SIIrl M•.]If••r. M;nnrsola 5i(1R? Sopor I) Olio. 131)-3478 R„L•,•1 G lir.smm:• I A\ (iG121 L3;4-2921 A Wulff i (Isi 1,:i•IUDs) �tl•,I•I•.:� \.-..1r..I .�.b,l,u,.tMI-11,.ua: 11„,". .1 r; fnc1� •1� 1,L,•,1 N.• ,,.,1:1.6. ,.1.,. Direct Dist (612) 351-2116 �',•,,,f,.,J(Tal (:+In le\L.,•.Il,ol October 29, 1997 • THE HONORABLE DAVID SCHAAF MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER 55TH ST 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 RT MR JERRY TURNQUIST MS JANET ROBE 14298 56TH STREET NORTH 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID BEAUDET 6400 LOOKOUT TRAIL NORTH OAK PARK NTS MN 55082 RE: Annexation Area East of Trunk Highway 5 and North of 50th Street Dear Mayor and Council: You have requested that we review the existing/proposed Lake 11 Elmo/Baytown Township Orderly Annexation Agreement and review the various features of that document as it affects the interest of the property owners and presumably the government entities involved in the contested annexation matter. 1 . The Order Annexation document appears to be rather scant with regard to any detail affecting the actual provision of services and benefits for the affected property owners but does implement a tax benefit to the township in the following regard. IM There is an agreement to phase in a tax rate over a period of years. The proposal by Lake Elmo was to phase in the tax rate at forty ra(10k)%) of the thereafter ban forrate in the each and everar of y year forannexation thenext ten percent consecutive six years. it has been the Councils position in the past that they have always been willing to consider a phased tax rate in similar form. Oct-30-97 09 : 20A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P.04 10feJ5( 18:03 ECK. LAW • NO.016 D@3 MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Two October 29, 1997 Over and above that, the City was interested in establishing a special rural service taxing district that would serve to the benefit of those parcels that would not be immediately connected to municipal water and sewer services and would have the benefit of having the phased transition to the urban tax rate. Finally, the City of Oak park was interested in entering into an agreement allowing for the return of revenue to Baytown Township from the area over a phased period of time so as to reduce and mitigate a financial impact to Baytown Township for the loss of this area- Again, the City had reviewed the agreements that had been entered into between the City of Stillwater and the Township of Stillwater, most recently and was very willing to consider provisions very similar thereto. 2 . Implementation of Utility Service. The City was willing to extend, after concluding agreements with Mr. Screaton, water and sewer utilities to Kern Center and the Screaton properties. The City was then and is now considering deferrals of assessments against the property owners choosing not to connect water and sewer services with the charges and services being kept in deferred status until such time as the connection to the system would be made. Such was also predicated upon the contribution that would be made by Mr. Screaton. That concept is still in place, however, the expenditure by Mr. Screaton in these proceedings will mitigate the benefit that could otherwise be accrued to those property owners. 3 . Connection Charges. The City of Oak Park Heights would not impose nor collect connection charges until a property specifically connected to municipal water and sewer services. Unfortunately, there has been misinformation provided to some property owners which would indicate that somehow they are going to be forced to be assessed or forced to connect to a municipal system if it is extended past their property. We have reviewed existing laws and regulations and find no such authority that would compel a mandatory hook-up to municipal water and sewer services in the event that they are extended past a property now served by individual well and septic. The City Council has further indicated in the past that it would not take any adverse action to require hook-up to a municipal source from . those that are now served by individual wells and septic systems unless and until they experienced a failure of the primary well and septic system now serving that lot . Oct-30-97 09: 21A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P_05 1.13/29/97 18:03 ECK LAW N0.016 D04 I` MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Three October 29, 1997 4 . The City considered also entering into an agreement to do phased extension of utilities to those areas outside of the immediacy of Kern Center and the Screaton property. That phase service would, of course, be dependent upon engineering recommendation. 5 . The City would immediately provide to the entire area City police, fire, administrative and utility services resulting in a presumed reduction for Baytown Township of their existing commitment to the Bayport Fire Dept. for contribution for fire protection services. 6 . Phased Acquisition. The City of Oak Park Heights has considered the possibility of doing a phased acquisition that would not bring in certain properties along the western boarder of the properties in the annexation area. This, of course, would be subject to much further discussion but conceptually the City was willing to take a look at the possibility that as long as a commitment had been put in place to have those properties annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights within a limited period of time, that those properties may, for that limited period of time, remain in Baytown Township. 7. The City of Oak Park Heights also was willing to take a look at issuing a commitment to Baytown Township and Lake Elmo. That the City would agree not to consider requests to extend its boarders beyond Manning Avenue for a limited period of time (i.e . ten years) . This memorandum is not in replacement of that which is currently being prepared in conjunction with Councilperson Turnquist as requested by a joint meeting of Baytown Township and Lake Elmo and Oak Park Heights ae it affects a more comprehensive study of annexation issues throughout the balance of Baytown Township. Please review the enclosed materials and contact me with any suggestions or proposed changes or additions as it affects any of the items contained herein. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sap 1 Oct-30-97 09: 21A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P. 06 4110 • BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP 14949 30TH STREET NORTH STILLWATER,MN 55082 (612)439-8879 October 20, 1997 Ms. Christine Scotillo Executive Director OCT 2 8 199T State of Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square • 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul , Minnesota 55108 RE: A-5821 Oak Park Heights I Baytown ( Petition I City Resolution ) OA-497 I OA- 497-1 Lake Elmo I Baytown ( Joint Agreement ) Dear Ms. Scotillo: Six of the eight existing businesses operating in the Kern Center, and six of the eight residential properties, all located in the proposed annexation area, have insisted that Baytown forward their petitions to your agency for review. They have struggled to be heard in this matter and have serious, legitimate concerns based on preservation of their personal investments and property rights. Their respective petitions clearly indicate a preference to remain as Baytown or to be cooperatively annexed as Phase One to the City of Lake Elmo as Baytown and Lake Elmo continue their community consolidation talks that began February 1997 under the auspices of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation ( Mr. Jim Gelbmann - see attached letter }. Since these two petitions represent a majority of the residents and existing businesses within the proposed annexation area and are most impacted by the ongoing annexation proceedings, it is imperative that Baytown and others recognize and consider their collective rights. It is obvious from these petitions that the Screaton/ Oak Park Heights petition benefits a minority of speculative landowners and is ill-advised or premature at this time. Baytown will continue to support the rights of the majority of residents and businesses who rely on their local government to respect and preserve those rights. After several months, Oak Park's inability to provide factual information and constructive dialogue and leadership on an issue that will geatlyimpact the environment, schools, watersheds, road systems, and future land use patterns for many communities, is suspect. Oak Park's threats, insults, and attempts to circumvent the normal due process in this matter in addition to the Baytown - Lake Elmo orderly annexation & consolidation talks, have done more ,Baytown set back community relations than any other singular event in the last ten years. The development of a cooperative, respectful working relationship with Oct-30-97 09 : 21A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P . 07 • • the City of Lake Elmo has been insightful and has fostered great enthusiasm for Baytown's ongoing attempt to be proactive about its future as a township via the community consolidation workshops with Lake Elmo. These workshops are well attended and designed to function with 'much citizen input and a final voter referendum based on an informed. equitable consolidation plan for all impacted by the merger. In past conversations with Oak Park Heights. Maya Schaaf stated that his city had identified other areas of Baytown for possible annexation and Baytown could cooperate a- " Oak Park would do what it has to do". in light of Baytown, Oak Park. and Bayport cooperatively exploring the possible merger of the three governments or at the least, possible service sharing as far back as 1993, the hostile decree came as a surprise. Although the outcome of the merger talks was not successful, perhaps because they were not designed to include public input in the creation of the consolidation draft ageement, the three communities had at least explored areas of possible cooperation. Baytown would like the opportunity to continue being proactive about its future with the City of Lake Elmo, a community that is most compatible with the town. The township has always been a good neighbor and has carefully weighed the overall community need for adjacent cities to annex into the town fa land to accommodate the new Stillwater Area High School ( Oak Park ) , the Andersen Windows ( Bayport ) expansion onto the DNR land, or the necessity of an individual landowner to develop consistently within one municipality ( Lake Elmo ). We have a Washington County and Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plan and wish to have the opportunity to steer Baytown toward a sensible future for its thirteen hun&ed residents. We would hope that with this addtional information, the dynamics of the communities' actions are better understood. Baytown must represent the majority of its constituents and will stay on course with its consolidation talks with Lake Elmo. Please contact the Baytown office if you have additional questions. Sincerely. Baytown Township .Zuccrt, xec Patricia L. St. Claire Clerk cc: Paul B. Double, Lea DeSouza Speeter, Andrew Hultgen ( MMB Members ) M. Peterson & D. Engstrom ( Washington County Commissioners ) Mike Robertson ( Oak Park Heights Administrator ) Mary Kueffner ( Lake Elmo Administrator) Oct-30-97 O9: 22A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P . 08 ..,. ... o. i ... ._ _•• • .tea va- r JJ V, L.U. L coed • • Jul •25: 1997 Baytown Board c/o Pat St. Claire 14949 N. 30th St. Baytown Township, MN 55082 We the undersigned would like to pursue the orderly annexation between Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo for the entire arca of: Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West, lining westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd, also known as State Highway 5, Washington County. We request that the Baytown Township Board initiate this process as soon as possible. • Property Owners Kenneth uth • - - . . . / _ 4 !. _ . Nancy Hauth 5775 Manning Ave , Baytown Township, MN Richar^ Clougherty ^ L ' Sally C`.lau:. ' 5 75 7 Manning Ave N. Baytown Township, MN g Steven Eng Barbara Engle . 12058 - 55 Street N. Baytown Township, MN g.dtr Carol Palmquist 12202 - 55"Street N. Baytown Township, MN • Page 1 - Oct-30-97 09: 22A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P .09 411 • Alvtn Bergmann ' • Helen Bergmann 5810 Manning Avenuc Lake Elmo, MN Richard Bcrgrtt 5833 Lake Elmo Avenue Lake Elmo, MN Walter Gloasor. 12176 N. 50th Street Baytown, HN 55082 • • 2 Oct-30-97 09: 22A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P . 10 GCT-21-97 TUE 9:06 Ali cr.. iAF.E ELMGr'=.:: :1G. 612 9615 P. 3 SEP-21-07 16:14 Frort:YN FLAMING 6122063644 1-477 P 02/0! Job-703 State of Minnesota Board of Government Emitivation and Cooperation Third floor Cantwnnlal ew4dtne a led Cedar street•dalnt PAW,Wenner*salsa•657!2$2-2311D FaltS12/21i6.31198 September 23, 1997 The Honorable Ron Fredkove Chair, Raytown Town Board 14949 30th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Dear Mt. Fredkove: 1 want to once again thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear at a public meeting on Thursday evening to describe the role of the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation in facilitating a merger between Baytown Township and Lake Elmo. Ash stated when I appeared before the Baytown Town Board earlier this .roonrb, the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation does not have the authority to force local governments to consider a consolidation. The Board is only able to help facilitate a merger if and when the merger is supported by both governing bodies and a majority of the citizens voting In a referendum on the proposed merger. The Board believes the local elected officials and the citizens themselves should be making these ethical decisions, since they are the ones who will have to live with the results. Ms. Pat St. Clair also requested that I briefly recap the Board's involvement in the proposed merger between Lake Elmo and Baytown Township. Approximately one year ago, I had a brief conversation with Ms. Mary Kueffner, City Administrator for the City of Lake Elmo. At that time, she requester) some very general background material about the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation relative to the consolidation of local governments. Approximately a seven months ago, Mary called me back to inform me that Lake Elmo and Baytown Township were considering the possibility of a merger_ At that time, Mary requested that I send her detailed information about the process for the development of a cooperation and combination plan, including a detailed description of all issues that must be addressed by the plan. [complied with Mary's requests and opened a file on the proposed merger. In my discussions with Pat St. Clair, I have since learned that Baytown Township has been informally assessing various options for its future. One of those options utclnded the potential for merging with the City of Lake Elmo. Promoting Effective and*Ef icient Delivery of Public Services Oct-30-97 09: 23A Jerry Turnquist 612 439 7531 P . 11 ULT-tl-'a.; 'IL 'j'Ub AM CI ; LAKE ELMO FAX NO, 61. 9615 ? SEP-I2-11 Il-IS Frpww191 PLA it7TyliAv •• �•••• ••• •. The tlonorab1e Ron Fredkove • September 23, 1997 Page Two Elmo was being It myis understanding that the information I was providingto ate Cityof Lake and g w shared with Baytown Township officials as they mussed the option of a merger with the City of Lake Elmo_ 1 further understand that the Baytown Town Board used an extensive process to fully assess all possihie options prior to developing a consensus that a merger with the City of Lake Elmo was in the best interests of the residents of Aaytown•Township, Having worker{ with several communities that have seriously considered merging with a neiehtnring community, t can Inure you that the process used by Raytown Township is by no tneatu unique. To develop a consensus between any two governing bodies relative to a proposed merger requites mastitis, and often years, of careful deliberation. Ci ange is very difficult for any organization. and it is especially difficult for community 1eadezi to overcome decades of history and tradition that have helped shape their community's identity. The Baytown Town Board i► to be conunended for carehtily considering all of its options for the future before deciding that a merger with i.ake Ebno was the best course of action to take. Sincerely, Jim Gtlbmann kxecutive Director •• Oct-30-97 09: 23A Jerry Turn uist 612 439 7531 P. 12 o•cr •• Pt J *SEMEN ZNC 612- 6471 P.O1 wl-ITCf wcv w•cr A. GtRIL, 1 rnn nV• VJ01 Ito .. r , October 13, 1997 To Whoss It Miky Cowan: The undersipsed existing business owns loomed in Kern Center, Baytown Township,would tithe to inform all parries that it is our desire to remain a part of Baytown Towstahip. Each of us made a choice to locate in Baytown Township. We identified the requirements for bulletins and operating a business is Raytown. We also identified the servtoes provided by the Township and the County. The limited services and their Corresponding lower has, charges end-taxes wits one of the Mem we invested in the Baytown oesttn unity and have been able to successlWly operate our business,, Additional Services hive limited vales to us. Additional fres, assessments and an tnoreaed tax btrdca may act be m sageebla. Each of us is very limited in our ability to pass on increased costs to OW custotnera. We do not fat we can Mord to be sanexad into another oceurnottity and ebeotb the tnotwseed burdens ascaci tad with the vbmtp. We would like to remiss in Baytown Township. We do, however rinderstsnd. there is considerable momentum repardiot MIlliOXIC011. If we do sot have the oprim to remain in Baytown our second choice would be annexation into Lake Elmo. If this did occur, we ask the City of ate Ebno for Consideration regarding any chows to the snow of taxes.fees or assessments paid. slGltAJTZ?/si'ts: Dvsnrps ItAMS4 ADDtlits rims o , ub�hM►►JL dkit4242:giigat —44-121V4A4402- /¢14.46%* i 401011P5- •�- / _' sT;l1.,.1. B,,�a Cr-� r.. NIr►•e.. C• '/3? ? Z enc.. - " 3-2ms► >-t4710 4.39-109b Ar 5-) t1i4W;;“.I 2P1b X07 Page I July 28th 1997 MEETING WITH OAK PARK I-IEIGHTS AND DAVID SCREATON ON ANNEXATION ON BAY TOWNSHIP. QUESTIONS THE COMMERCIAL OWNERS HAVE FOR OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND DAVID SCREATON: c CT's %ctC'2' , ' � 1.TAXES? Freeze or increment increase. C7C ( �, Lw (C;z;,7)&�/1 e(C Also, what affect would happen on all Businesses and Home owners if and when NSP doesn't contribute to property tax budget. 2. Who pays for the following? curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, storm sewers. 3. Actual cost for water/sewer and who will pay for this? i4i v() otr 4. Why $4000.00 for hook ups?. (Only one stub per lot). Who will pay for this? >j C 4,(>1i e/i.0,,>J`� ,? 5. Time frame on hooking up to water/sewer? ��' ' ` ✓ f tiAA.i/-�) r_ /a j ovi ;;),:,)4/, C'A. 7- c 1 t1.5) (.)After hookup are we required to update our buildings each time we change tenants to Oak Park Heights codes? 7. If existing well/septic phased out who makes up cost? 67(,) kie 8. Building Codes: Sprinkler system interior other update and costs. ,k c i k4, h, .9. If we become Oak Parks Heights, what affect would this be on our business? I " ) /L: /,Ji C�)l ) Nature of business's allowed in the park area. � cr� �.'-V' - `k' ✓ -� Our business hours. %'�' �� ' C� � ? '' Building Additions etc. ' (y 10. TRASH: We would like to continue having our own trash haulers. (Please note: We did some checking on Commercial rubbish prices. Please see hand out.) 11. If we become Oak Park Height will our standards in Kern Center be changed? We would like to proposal the following items to maintain our standards in Kern Center and to preserve the open green areas that presently exist. a. All unbuilt lots remain as plotted. o sub-dividing allowed. L3% a) TT • • Page 2 b. A Kern Center planing review board be established to approval to any changes in our area. c. Any and all concerns within our area would be addressed from and to our review board. 12. To date Oak Park Heights has only been interested in our tax dollars and has not shown any respect to us as Business people or our concerns. l agreements must be approved and adopted by our review board. We would like to thank all of you today for coming and listening to some of our questions and concerns. 6.)it"t 12/1,i_ii e„r- ls c),,e 5 --7 / ice'` / 0 • ' ntn � 'f4 Z Z C G "nC v, Cn rnn N1 77 777777C77C7Co n434mG 5:1 O w c = o' °' °' CI 3 Sin.. s . co r, n o a n n _ o = o _ cg_ o -, oto 0 ..o ti �, o o` . ao - ' ^ ETI• ,a r, o o `; c S F ° f n certi o " mff n n fn m v, w n CD CD sv — x U. o G C C C Ill" C GO O O tj OcA N w w .�. A�• - — — — — N - — •� w N — U I 1 ggg w 111111111231111 C I •' 'O ro c 11111e 03 - -i I v � CD aC 11111111:'-: 'n7" m y �A 2, d I.(D 11111111111111111 co -2 ," 1111 Z 7 0 F, i c(p 7_.-7 1111 ,A. iflhiF' 1iiII 111111 coco = O y. A y 111111 U ..7 7r fn 3 ' o 07/28/97 MON 17:17 FAX 612 452 5550 C K S & F 21 002 • • JOINT RESOLUTION AND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND THE TOWN OF BAYTOWN FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1997, ("Effective Date") between the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota ("City") and the Town of Baytown, Washington County, Minnesota ("Town"), and constitutes a "Joint Resolution" between the City and Town authorized by Minnesota Statutes §414.0325 providing for a procedure and a framework for orderly annexation of a part of the Town to the City. SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1.01 Certain land owners within the Town have petitioned the City and Town for orderly annexation of their property from the Town to the City. 1.02 The Town and the City are currently considering a plan for the eventual consolidation of the two political subdivisions. 1.03 Annexation of the subject property at this time would further the consolidation process. SECTION TWO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA 2.01 The legal description of the property which is the subject of this orderly annexation agreement is: All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County. The Orderly Annexation Area is designated as in need of orderly annexation and no consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board is necessary, no alteration of the boundaries is appropriate, and all conditions of annexation have been provided for in this Resolution: the Minnesota Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Resolution, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this resolution. 53599 07/28/97 MON 17:18 FAX 612 111015550 CRS 8: F . (2100 2.02 The subject area is 235 acres in size, and has a population of 21. SECTION THREE REAL ESTATE TAXATION 3.01 Town/City Tax Rate Differential. It is recognized that there is a significant difference between the City's tax capacity rate and the Town's tax capacity rate, and that a phase-in of the City tax rate would prevent a hardship to annexing properties. 3.02 Tax Rate Adjustment for Annexed Parcels . Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.035, for parcels annexed by this orderly annexation agreement, the initial urban tax rate in the year of annexation will be forty percent (40%) of the urban rate, with the percentage being increased 10 percent (10%) each year for six (6) years to the full urban rate. 3.03 Tax Payment to Town. During the term of this Agreement, taxes received by the City based upon the tax capacity generated from any area annexed in the year of annexation will be paid over to the Town and thereafter the amount to be paid to the Town will be reduced by twenty percent (20%) each year until the amount reaches zero (0), when taxes based upon the full tax capacity will remain with the City. For the purpose of this section, any increase in tax capacity over the tax capacity generated in the year of annexation will remain with the City. 3.04 Year of Annexation. If the annexation becomes effective on or before August 1 of any year, the City may levy on the annexed area beginning with that year. If the annexation becomes effective after August 1 of any year, the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that year, and the City may not levy in the annexed area until the following year. • SECTION FOUR MODIFICATION 4.01 This Agreement may be modified at any time by written agreement approved by both the City and the Town. SECTION EWE GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.01 If any provision of this agreement is declared invalid, for any reason, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be 53599 -2- ,07/28/97 MON 17:18 FAI 61152 5550 C K S & F .004 effected and the agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid. CITY OF LAKE ELMO TOWN OF BAYTOWN By: By: Wyn Iohn, Its Mayor Ron Fredkove, Chairman of Its Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: Mary Kueffner Patricia L. St. Clair Its Clerk/Administrator Its Town Clerk • 53599 -3- BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES 6612 6361311 07/16/97 10:12 5 :02/02 N0:853 • r(i/Ile sl,UO.R01E'R£.Artdtvh ,.,,c(A)!ur,..rrc, lc.cn A((rnrc;•lrrr Arrrn.F'ifup!(1Apc crcrchry talpluyer Bonestroorrlr1<3r.dS OLIO ourcuslruu rt. • lncrph AndrrhY PF M.vwn I )ory,u,. Pt • R u.Iiszd F.Ic rico,r t Ulrnri 1!.r:ou%,I't •Mullett(.. )r hunit hr P1 . lrrry A Rn,pggn,Pt • RoseneIlnhrrt W R,srrI 1,F m1,1 Suc.m M rfc ilIll.C SEnlur Cumultaitl Anderlik & Acsorlate.Pruulpdre Howard A Sanfor 7. r t.• kcal)A.Gurclun.Pi.•RUhrrl R.Pfrlferlr 1?1 • Gir lova W.Fn ctrr.hl + ILwit1 r? I na4.,!:•.PI- •Rof rrt C Russek,Al. A.•Ma(1 A.Ilansun,Pr • Mir Pmel'r A.cutm.•nn. Pf • TPC/IC)INd.ri •K(nnc•rh P Anderson.P.f • Mark R Rolfs.Pi • es AssociatSidnry P Willi.vnann,P6_RS •Rnh,rt t Kotimrrh Associates VV F JJ iif(irrc-St Paul.f(nchrcter.WIHm.Ir and St Cloud.MN•MHwaLlkee,WI Engineers & Architects July 16, 1997 Mr.Michael Robertson City of Oak Park Heights 14168 N. 57th Street P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re: West Highway 5 Utility Study Our File No. 55136 Dear Mr. Robertson: A preliminary report on the extension of public water and sewer to provide service to the land in Baytown Township lying west of Highway 5 was prepared to determine the feasibility and costs associated with this proposal. The report was dated March 10, 1997 and assumed that only the existing excess capacity in the Oak Park Heights sanitary sewer system would be utilized. It should be noted that with a couple of rather minor modifications in the Oak Park Heights system, additional sewer capacity could be provided so that all of the Baytown Township land lying west of Highway No. 5 could be allowed to develop to usual and customary urban density and uses with public sewer service. These modifications would include the replacement of the pumps and motors in the existing sewage pumping station and extension of the force main from the station 725 feet east where it would discharge into a larger trunk sanitary sewer. It is proposed that the modifications be undertaken only when or if the pumping station starts to reach its original design capacity. There will be some point in time when the pumps and motors will have to be replaced after their useful life with the increase in size being of little significance. The original report would seem to imply that there were capacity limitations that could not be overcome. We want to assure you that this is not the case and there should be no concern that the subject property can be developed to its highest and best use and that sanitary sewer capacity can be made available in a timely and economical manner. Very truly yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES, INC. Joseph C. Anderlik 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 P • 5�,' • An Equal Opportunity Employer f'd.•'m ,• Phone: (612)603-6757 s ,•„i`� p��°'.':6�,: Fax (612)603-6762 a,_ � � _ Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 ., Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 i''' '4.,..../ STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square + ? h 1021 Bandana Boulevard East AUG 2 81991 St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 , ! Lil August 25, 1997 Mike Robertson City Administrator Oak Park Heights City Hall P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Preparation for annexation hearing - A-5821 Oak Park Heights Dear Mr. Robertson: A hearing will be held by the Municipal Board on the above-proposed boundary adjustment. Minnesota Statutes 414 requires the Municipal Board to consider certain specified factors in arriving at its decision. It is important that you are prepared to present adequate testimony since the evidence you present will be the sole basis for the board's decision. State aids to your governmental unit may be adjusted because of the board's decision and will be based upon the evidence received at the hearing. One example is that the Department of Revenue will adjust the Local Government Aids distribution based on the data you present at the board hearing on the following: (1) population of the territory proposed for annexation, the city, and the township, (2) the net tax capacity for the property proposed for annexation, the city, and the township, (3) the township tax rate, for township purposes only, on the area proposed for annexation payable in the year of the annexation. The parties involved may jointly stipulate specific facts which will expedite the proceeding. Enclosed is a suggested format for preparing a stipulation. Please cross out any areas that cannot be stipulated and make any attachments necessary. The stipulation should not be regarded as complete evidence for the hearing. If complete and accurate evidence is presented, it will facilitate a more expeditious decision. We also call to your attention the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board and specifically Rule 6000.1200, which requires the petitioner to notify the board at least seven days prior to the hearing of any personal knowledge of controversy regarding the hearing. We also request all parties to alert our office on the number of witnesses and 1110 • Mike Robertson Page Two August 25, 1997 the approximate expected time their testimony will require at the hearing. Notice may be given either by a letter or phone call to the Municipal Board Office. Any request for continuance of a hearing should be submitted to the board 10 days before the hearing. Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000. The rules are also contained in Minnesota Statutes Annotated immediately following Chapter 414 in the pocket part. If you are going to have legal representation at the hearing, it is strongly recommended that you forward this letter to your attorney. Please contact our office if you have any questions or if additional clarification is needed. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director PDL:ry Enclosure The hearing scheduled for September 17, 1997 will be opened only to take jurisdiction and will be immediately continued to a later date. No evidence will be received on September 17, 1997. /is d-e-e / r/9' • • A-5821 Oak Park Heights BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair County Commissioner Ex-Officio Member County Commissioner Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY ) NOTICE OF HEARING OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO ) MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above-entitled matter. the 17th day p of September,tember The hearing will, be held on 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Oak Park Heights City Hall commencing at 9:00. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally and to submit written data, statements or concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testifyand the admission of arguments co g 9 testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board. [The Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000.] The property proposed for annexation is described as follows: All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Boulevard also known as State Highway 5, 0 • -2- Washington County, Minnesota. After all testimony is complete and the record is closed, the Board will meet from time to time to deliberate, approve and issue its findings and order. Persons desiring to be present at such meetings or conference call meetings should contact the Board Office. For special accommodations, please contact the Minnesota Municipal Board, Sukte 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, (612) 603-6757; or Greater Minnesota TDD 1-800-627-3529. Dated this 25th day of August, 1997. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 _._ -_,,..27a.25-76-. ,e,--- _ --t.7',- -—- Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director • . STIPULATION 1. Those involved in a proceeding for boundary adjustment may jointly stipulate facts into the record to expedite the proceeding. Attached is a suggested format for preparing a stipulation. The stipulation should not be regarded as complete evidence, but rather a tool to assist cities, townships, and property owners involved in a boundary adjustment proceeding prepare for the hearing. 2. Please provide all information possible. Attach additional sheets and maps as necessary. (Petitioner/city should have already filed maps with the Municipal Board as described in M.S. 414.012.) Other suggested maps include: Map of existing highways, thoroughfares. and streets(with indication of maintenance responsibility for each roadway). In case of new development proposals, description of thoroughfares and streets in development area should be provided with a description of the effect upon traffic patterns and need for upgrading existing roadways. Aerial photo map. Map showing existing city services and proposed or needed extensions of city services because of proposed boundary adjustment. Map showing existing hydrologic features. surface drainage. surface contours. soil types. Maps showing farmland, such as State Conservation Service classes I, II, and HI or SCS prime farmland maps by counties. 3. Attached to the stipulation is a list of data resources and other agencies which may be helpful in providing data, resource information, and assistance. 8/97 • • PLEASE CROSS OUT ANY AREAS THAT CANNOT BE STIPULATED AND MAKE ANY ATTACHMENTS NECESSARY. To: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-5113 STIPULATION The City of and the Town of stipulate and agree to the following facts concerning Minnesota Statutes 414.031, Subd. 4 to wit: [The term"subject area"referred to herein means the area that is proposed for annexation.] (a) Present population and number of households, past population and projected population growth of the subject area, the annexing municipality, and adjacent units of government: Present Present Subject Adjacent City Township Area Unit of Gov't 1980 Population 1990 Population Current Population Current Households Projected in 5 years Source of Data (b) Geographic Features: 1. Present Present Subject Adjacent City Township Area Unit of Gov't Total Acreage 2. Describe any waterways in or adjacent to the subject area: (rivers, streams, wshorelands, protected water, protection wetlands) • -2- 3. Describe the soils and terrain in the subject area: (c) Contiguity: 1. The perimeter of the subject area is approximately %bordered by the municipality. (d) Present pattern of physical development, planning, and intended land uses in the subject area and annexing city: 1. There are the following land uses: (Please fill in acreages or percentages if available instead of yes or no.) City Township Subject Area Yes No , Yes No Yes No Residential Institutional (tax exempt _ Commercial Industrial Agricultural Vacant Lands 2. What type of development is proposed for the subject area? • (e) The present transportation network 1. Present Present Subject City Township Area Number of Miles of Highway, Streets&Roads 2. Are any transportation changes planned in the subject area? yes no in the city? yes no • • -3- (f) Land Use Controls and Planning: 1. Comprehensive Plan: City Township County Region Adoption Date Status of Plan No Existing Plan 2. Have any area planning authorities adopted an official position on the proposed boundary adjustment? (planning commissions, boards,joint boards, Met Council, Minnesota Planning, region, county) yes no supportive non-supportive If yes, describe: 3. Please check where the following exists and give any necessary explanations on how it relates to the proposed action. (Since it may be possible that two or more plans attempt to regulate the same area, please circle whose ordinance presently applies to the subject area.) City Township County Date Adopted Yes No Yes_ No Yes No City Town County Zoning Subdivision Regulations Official Map Capital Improve- ments/Budget Fire Code Shoreland Ord. Floodplain Ord. Wild&Scenic Rivers Ord. Sanitation Ord. (on-site sewage treatment) • • -4- 4. What is the current zoning of the subject area? 5. What is the anticipated zoning if this boundary adjustment is approved? 6. Is the subject area, or any portion thereof, in Green Acres(M.S. 273.111)? yes no 7. Has the city adopted Urban/Rural Taxing Districts(M.S. 272.67)? yes no (g) Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and subject area: City provides City provides City will Township Township to city to subject area provide to provides to provides to subject area township subject area Yes No , Yes, No Yes No Yes No Yes , No *Water **Sanitary Sewer/ Wastewater Treatment Storm Sewer Solid Waste Collection &Disposal Fire Protection Law Enforcement Street Improvements Street Maintenance Administrative Services Recreational Services Other S • -5- If city does not provide water to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? If city does not provide sewer to the subject area,who does? ** Would city take over or allow existing use? (h) Describe any existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems: (Example: ground or surface water problems,water quality and levels, sewage treatment, air pollutant emissions, noise, odors, affect on fish or wildlife; affect on historical resources, archaeological resources, aesthetic resources; impairment of park lands, prime farmlands,wild and scenic rivers, critical area; abandoned dump or disposal site, etc.) (i) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the subject area and the impact of the proposed action on delivery of said services: S • -6- (j) Describe the fiscal impact on the annexing city, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government:: Present City Present Township Subject Area Trend over last 3 yrs. Year. Year. Year. Net Tax Capacity Tax Rates: County Local Unit of Gov't School District Special Tax Dist. Insurance Rating(fire) Levy Limit Actual Current Levy, Total Bonded Indebtedness (k) Would the proposed action affect area school districts or adjacent communities? yes no Describe if yes: (I) Are new services necessary for subject area? yes no Does township have capacity to provide? yes no (m) Can necessary governmental services best be provided by the proposed boundary adjustment or another type of boundary adjustment? yes by proposed action no by (n) If only a portion of the township is annexed: 1. Does the remainder of the township have the ability to remain as is? yes no -7- 2. Should the remainder be annexed to another city? yes no Describe if yes: 3. Should the remainder be annexed to another township? yes no Describe if yes: STIPULATED TO BY: City of ,this day of , 19 Mayor City Clerk Town of , this day of , 19 . Township Chair Township Clerk 8/97 S S DATA RESOURCES 1. POPULATION: Metropolitan Council (Twin Cities Metro Area) State Demographer Mears Park Centre 300 Centennial Building 230 East Fifth Street 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55155 (612)291-6359 (612)296-4100 2. GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES: County Soil and Water Conservation Office University of Minnesota Department of Agriculture Agricultural Extension Office Soil&Water Conservation Board 1994 Buford Avenue 155 South Wabasha Street Rm 146, Classroom Office Building Suite 104 St. Paul, MN 55108 St. Paul, MN 55107 (612)625-3797 (612)296-3767 Land Management Information Center 330 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 (612)296-1211 3. LAND USE: Metropolitan Council Land Management Information Center Mears Park Centre 330 Centennial Building 230 East Fifth Street 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55155 (612)291-6359 (612)296-1211 4. TRANSPORTATION: Local City and Township Offices County Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55155 (612)296-1638 (over) • • -2- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL: Local City, Township, and County Offices Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Health 520 Lafayette Road 717 Delaware Street, Southeast St. Paul, MN 55155 Minneapolis, MN 55414 (612)296-6300 (612)623-5000 Land Management Information Center 330 Centennial Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 (612)296-1211 6. PLANNING: County Zoning Administrator Regional Development Commissions Local Planning Board&Commissions Metropolitan Council Minnesota Planning Mears Park Centre 300 Centennial Building 230 East Fifth Street 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612)291-6359 (612)296-3985 7. GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES: City, Township, County, and Regional Development Commissions 8. FISCAL DATA City,Township, and County Auditor City,Township, and County Budgets Financial Reports made to the State Auditor. OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION: A helpful slide/tape show, Orderly Annexation: A Way to Grow, may be checked out from Minnesota Planning, 300 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155(612) 296-3985. Useful publications are available from the League of Minnesota Cities, 145 University Avenue, West, St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2044, (612)281-1200: Annexation of Land to Minnesota Cities, Consolidation of Cities, and A Guide for New Cities. 8/97 • • Enclosure 8 f, RESOLUTION NO. 97- C,2—e4C CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 . 031 WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights is a city incorporated under the general laws of the State of Minnesota, and has more than 3 , 776 inhabitants and, the present territory included in the city limits contains 1, 679 acres ; WHEREAS, there is adjacent to the City of Oak Park Heights a tract of land containing approximately 240 acres, of which more than 20.% of the owners have petitioned the City of Oak Park Heights for annexation of said property to the City of Oak Park Heights; WHEREAS, the boundaries of said territory proposed for annexation are described as : All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County; WHEREAS, the names of all parties entitled to notice under section 414 . 09 are included in Exhibit "A" hereto attached; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and petitioning property owners recognize that the area continues to develop as an urban industrial/commercial area with the potential for commercial and • • suburban residential development, and that the city of Oak Park Heights will need additional land in the near future to accommodate commercial, industrial, single family and multiple family development; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and the petitioning property owners contend that a municipal form of government will best protect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the City has capacity to provide municipal water and sanitary sewer service which are not currently provided by the Township. WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has its own police force adequately equipped to serve the subject area as opposed to the Township which now relies on the Washington County Sheriff' s Department for police protection; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and petitioning property owners agree that the area would best be served under the jurisdiction of Oak Park Heights . The area, with its high visibility and access off of State Highways 36 and 5, is appropriate for mixed land use of commercial, light industrial, and single/multiple family development at urban standards; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights invited Baytown Township Officials to confer and negotiate with the City about the possibility of pursuing an orderly annexation to the benefit of both the Township and the City of Oak Park Heights affecting the property under consideration for annexation; and, "/ w • • WHEREAS, it appears that Baytown Township is not interested in negotiating an orderly annexation of the subject property to address the interests of affected property owners of the Township and the City. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights that the boundaries of the City of Oak Park Heights, State of Minnesota, be extended so as to include and incorporate within the city limits of the City of Oak Park Heights the above described property, the same being a logical extension of the City of Oak Park Heights for the purposes of land use control, planning,, providing municipal services, and assuring orderly development . NOW THEREFORE, IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Oak Park Heights hereby supportE the petition of property owners seeking annexation of the affected lands as described above to the City of Oak Park Heights . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Oak Park Heights commits to continue to be willing to consider orderly annexation agreements and invites Baytown Township to join in an orderly annexation agreement as it affects the subject property and other lands within Baytown Township adjacent to Oak Park Heights municipal boarders . f III 111 4 , A' Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this 2) day of July, 1997 . /l _ / David Schaaf Mayor ATTEST: V // � � 'c 4°X'-/-4 Z -, :/ hael J '' .-'tson City Ad istrator Enclosure H • • /rt.. ar LAW OFFICES OF : f1 :/` El l R r r p T ckberg, Lammers , Briggs, Wolff \rlerling, 1 .1.. 1855 Northwestern Avenue Lyle I:elcheri Stillwater, Ntnnesota 33089 Susan I). Olson .)lame~ F. Lammers (012) .1.50-2878 [)avid K. Snyder Vohcrt G. [riggs«♦ VAN (612) -150-2925 Mark .1. Vterlinc* I'attl :\. wolf!, Gregory C. Galler* Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 (15)3t-19��') I Nomas •1. \Y eidner* *Q .I 1 e l \ctrdl .iri, tratatr& M1ccli.tor •Q.4like)d �Culrat _c rb�Iraitar �t rftlflyd t\a`d' F:t tallr JP<'<•Id l,.i August 20, 1997 MR JEROME FILLA MR J SCOTT McDONALD PERSON FRAM & BERGMAN LAWSON MARSHALL McDONALD 300 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING & GALOWITZ P A 50 EAST FIFTH STREET 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH ST PAUL MN 55101 LAKE ELMO MN 55042 MR DAVID MAGNUSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 333 N MAIN STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 RE : A-5821 Oak Park Heights/Baytown Twp (Petition/City Resolution; 240 Acres) OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Twp (Joint Agreement; 235 Acres) Gentlemen: I have received Ms . Scotillo' s correspondence of August 15 , 1997 and have been on the phone with both Mr. Filla and Mr. Magnuson. It is my impression that our clients are not only best served by complying with the directive of the Municipal Board but also that our communities are best served by having the hearings that have been ordered be conducted in an orderly fashion so as to provide an opportunity of substance to our clients and the citizens that they serve . In that manner, I am suggesting that the communities agree to hire a professional mediator/moderator to organize and conduct these meetings with each equally paying one-third of the cost thereof . I will be making that recommendation to the City of Oak Park Heights and have every expectation that my Council will agree to same . I would also propose that conference calls be held between Counsel respectively with regard to organization of this process in pursuit of compliance of the directive of the Municipal Board. I understand that counsel for Baytown Township and Lake Elmo may wish to meet prior to direct their City Council on this t , , 11':v AUG 2 2 t.:_ s • I MR JEROME FILLA MR DAVID MAGNUSON MR J SCOTT McDONALD Page Two August 20, 1997 matter which, I understand, can happen within the upcoming week and I would expect to hear from both attorneys (Filla and Magnuson) with regard to their availability, for conference call purposes, within the upcoming week. I understand that Mr. McDonald is generally available and will schedule cooperatively a conference call in this matter and I, of course, will remain available as well . Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp cc: Mayor David Schaaf, OPH / Michael Robertson, OPH City Admin. / Christine Scotillo, Minn. Municipal Board . ` a • 0 • An Equal Opportunity Employer ���'� ? „•. Phone: (612)603-6757 ztre"N :Gi,'. Fax: (612)603-6762 is,:%.: �a Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 �, Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD _; ; --_g ,�;7 17 --. I Suite 225 Bandana Square 1� 2.� 1, i I 1021 Bandana Boulevard East i ?y f St. Paul,Minnesota 55108 i"iG 2 0 ;r , T ! l '; August 15, 1997 The Honorable Dave Schaaf The Honorable Wyn John Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo Oak Park Heights City Hall Lake Elmo City Hall P. O. Box 2007 3800 Laverne Avenue, North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Ronald Fredkove, Chair Baytown Town Board 4220 Osgood Avenue, North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: A-5821 Oak Park Heights/Baytown Twp (Petition/City Resolution; 240 acres) OA-497/0A-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Twp (Joint Agreement; 235 acres) Gentlemen: The Municipal Board has before it the two above-referenced petitions. A-5821 Oak Park Heights is for annexation of certain land to the City of Oak Park Heights; while OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo is for designation and immediate annexation of essentially the same area. A hearing on A-5821 Oak Park Heights has been scheduled for September 17, 1997. The hearing on September 17th will be opened,jurisdiction will be taken, and the hearing will be immediately continued. No evidence will be taken on September 17th. At the Board's August 15, 1997 Regular Meeting, the Municipal Board unanimously voted to invoke Minnesota Statutes 414.01, Subd. 16, which allows the Board to require the parties to meet to discuss possible resolution of contested matter. The Board therefore directs representatives of the City of Oak Park Heights, the City of Lake Elmo, and the Town of Baytown to meet at least three times over the next 60 days to discuss resolution of issues raised by the petitions and other issues of mutual concern and report back to the Board. s August 15, 1997 Page Two The Board further directs that the City of Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, and the City of Lake Elmo each host and facilitate one meeting, repeating the rotation if more meetings are required. The parties are to keep in mind the broad view of the area and recognize all units of local government, school districts and county interests that need to be considered and included in the discussion. Such entities should be invited and encouraged to attend, but their attendance is not required. The parties shall designate a person to report back to the Board at the conclusion of the time period. The time frame for these discussions shall begin as soon as possible and conclude by October 13, 1997 Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD (Lo Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director CMS:sjh cc: John Scott McDonald, Attorney at Law(Petitioners A-5821) Mark Vierling, Attorney at Law(City of Oak Park Heights) Joel Jamnik, Attorney at Law (OA--497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo) David Magnuson, Attorney at Law(Baytown Township) Dennis O'Donnell, Washington County Health, Education & Land Mgmt. Dept. Mike Robertson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Administrator Patricia St. Claire, Baytown Township Clerk 08/18/97 08:14 ECKBFRG LAW 4 4390574 NO.002 l02 • t/L\/V e • MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Vierling FR: Greg Geller DT. August 15 , 1997 RE: OPH/Screaton Annexation File No. 1501-2970 Municipal Board Conference Hearing I attended the conference hearing on August 15, 1997 at 9:15 a .m. at the Minnesota Municipal Board offices at Bandana Square (plenty of free parking) . Present for the Municipal Board were its Chairman, Mr. Paul Double, Mr. Andrew Hultgren and Ms . Lea Speeter. Absent from the meeting was the Executive Director of the Municipal Board was Ms . Christine Scotillo. The meetings secretary duties were handled by Ma. Patricia Lundy. This was apparently a regular monthly meeting of the Municipal Board, one of the early items they had on their agenda was an Orderly Annexation petition between Baytown and Lake Elmo regarding a relatively small (1 .4 acre) parcel of property. This parcel of property is apparently not included within the 235 acres that we are interested in. That Orderly Annexation was approved. Discussion then centered on the Orderly Annexation Petition filed between Baytown and Lake Elmo regarding the 235 acres. Ma . Lundy outlined the three (3) alternatives that Ms. Scotillo has discussed in a memorandum to the Board. Those options were as follows: 1 . Table the Orderly Annexation until completion of the annexation hearing. 2 . Consolidate the proceedings into one hearing. 3 . Table the Orderly Annexation, set a date for the hearing but continue the hearing until the parties have met three (3) times within 60 days under subdivision 16 . Mr. Double spoke and stated that he liked the third option of basically tabling everything until a settlement conference has been completed. He said in this fashion a Municipal Board would not tip its hand as to how it was leaning. This would allow options to remain open and it would not help or hurt either parties' request . Additionally, it would not benefit or harm any of the parties in the negotiation. He thought it also would put equal pressure on all parties to attempt to come up with a settlement . 08/18/97 08:14 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.002 P03 August 15, 1997 Page Two -- Chairman Double then asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Municipal Board as to these issues. Dave Magnuson spoke first . Dave requested the Municipal Board to approve of the Orderly Annexation and not to order a settlement conference. Dave stated that Baytown may be willing to sue the Municipal Board for a mandamus proceeding if the Orderly Annexation is not approved. Dave stated that any type of settlement conference would be completely a waste of time and money. He states that Baytown, Lake Elmo and Oak Park Heights have never gotten along and never will get along. He expressed his opinion that the three (3) parties would not be able to agree on anything. Scott McDonald then spoke. Scott stated that he was very disappointed that Baytown was expressing the opinion that they were unwilling to agree with anything. Scott claimed that his clients were very willing to sit down and discuss possible settlements. Scott also discussed the Winona case and stated that he believes his clients have an absolute right to have a hearing before the Municipal Board. I spoke next and elaborated a little further on the Ashbacker Radio case which was discussed in Judge Schumaker' s Memorandum in the Winona case. I also stated that it seemed patently unfair to deny the City of Oak Park Heights and the homeowners their opportunity for a hearing when they had been working many months and had conducted many hearings about this issue. I described the Lake Elmo/Baytown Petition as a "last ditch effort to derail the process . " Attempting to feel where the breeze was blowing, I also represented that the City of Oak Park Heights would be willing to take part in settlement discussions, although I also pointed out that we would be very disappointed if Baytown would not come to the table in good faith. Following further discussion by the Municipal Board a motion was made by Member Specter to invoke subdivision 16 and order a 60 day settlement . Wherein the parties would have to meet at least three (3) times . She also moved to table the Orderly Annexation until at least 60 days have expired. A hearing date of September 17, 1997 was scheduled for a hearing on the Annexation Petition. That motion was seconded by Member Hultgren and unanimously approved. It was discuss, however, that the hearing on September 17, 1997 will be opened, the jurisdictional documents will be read and the hearing will be continued indefinitely in order to determine what happens through the settlement process . The hearing 08/18/97 08:14 ECKo6 LAW 4 4390574 NO.002 D04 r ti 410 August 15, 1997 Page Three date of September 17th was chosen as the Municipal Board' s calculations indicate that the stature requires the hearing date to be set some time between August 28, 1997 and September 27, 1997 . If you have any questions regarding this, please let me know. GGG/emp Enc l osure H • • (� (LAW OFFICES OF ��a � { Eoikber .. Lammers . Briggs. Wo C �f ter1ing. P.L.L . J 1855 Northwestern Avenue Lyle Stlitwater. Minnesota 5508'' �.f�:c•�c�cr� t15usan )`Olson .Limes Lammers Lammers (012) _L39-_28778 t)a�•ic) 1\. JnvJcr lio6crt G. brlgcti;is♦ FAX (012) 139-2925 Marl: •1. ,' werling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gaffer* Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 Il (191-1.1-I99G) 'llamas J. ' *Quallite•d Xe,lydl .\rIotralor�S `ledod1Ur •Qaa liford :Crntrdl .\rl>,Iralor August 13 , 1997 *Cerl,srd Real Eslale SpeCidl„1 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (612) 603-6762 • MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LLyI MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD ' ' AUG 1 5 1997 225 BANDANA SQUARE 1021 BANDANA BLVD E 431� ST PAUL MN 55108 RE: City of Oak Park Heights Annexation A-5821 Dear Ms . Scotillo: On behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights this office will be representing the city at a hearing scheduled in the above matter in the a.m. on Friday at 9 : 15 . It is my understanding that the Board will also be addressing an Orderly Annexation Agreement that has recently been filed by the City of Lake Elmo and the Township of • Baytown. The Petition that has been filed by property owners with • accompanying Resolution approved by City of Oak Park Heights was filed in this matter first and we believe deserves priority in consideration. It is my expectation that the City of Lake Elmo will assert that the statute affecting orderly annexation requires • decision within 30 days . Although the statute makes reference to the 30 day time period, the existing Petition by the property owners and the City of Oak Park Heights clearly has priority in this matter and authority exists to indicate that it should receive hearing before any action is taken with regard to the Orderly Annexation Agreement . This is particularly appropriate inasmuch as the petitioning property owners and Oak Park Heights have spent several months in meetings and public hearings discussing the providing of urban services to this area. The action by Baytown Township entering into an Orderly Annexation Agreement with the City of Lake Elmo was a hurried decision on their part initiated 411 410 , , .. MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO Page Two August 13 , 1997 solely to circumvent the property owners' Petition to have their lands annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights. __ The City of Oak Park Height does hergo on record as noting is objection to the Orderly Annexation agreement and requests that the property owners' Petition seeking .nnexation/to the City of Oak Park Heights be granted a hearing f. thwith. You ve ruly, , alk J. Vie MJV/smp cc : Mr. Michael Robertson • • LAW OFFICES OF Eekberg, Lammers, Briggs. Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Ecicberg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James L. Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 Mark J. Vierling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Galler• (1944-1996) Direct Dial No. 351-2115 Tomas J. Weidner* *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator& Mediator *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator August 6, 1997 *Certified Real Estate Specialist Mr. Michael J. Robertson City Administrator J City of Oak Park Heights • AUG - 71r7 P.O. Box 2007 14168 57th Street North 1 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 In Re: Oak Park Heights/Screaton Annexation Dear Mike: Regarding the above-entitled matter and pursuant to your request, I have reviewed the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414, and I submit to you the following comments and preliminary recommendations. It is my opinion that the Municipal Board, having received the Screaton Petition for Annexation, must schedule a hearing on the Petition within thirty (30) to sixty (60) days pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414.031, and that the Board must submit its order within one (1) year after the date of the first hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 414.09(1). We have contacted the Municipal Board, and we have been advised that the Petition will apparently be initially considered at the August 15, 1997 meeting of the Board. We have also been advised that the Municipal Board typically will consider a petition with a hearing requirement prior to a petition with a review and comment requirement, and that it is therefore likely that the Board will table the orderly annexation matter until the Screaton Annexation Petition hearing has been completed. We were further advised that, when the Board receives a petition for a smaller piece of land and a petition for a larger piece of land which encompasses the smaller piece of land, the Board will typically have a hearing on the smaller piece while they table the petition for the larger piece. You have also inquired as to the advisability of pursuing annexation by ordinance. Based upon my preliminary review of this matter, it is my recommendation that this procedure not be followed. In order to annex by ordinance, it would be necessary to withdraw the Screaton Annexation Petition and to have the annexation by ordinance . . August 6, 1997 Page 2 submitted to the Board for consideration at its August 15, 1997 meeting. If this deadline is not met, and the Annexation Petition has been withdrawn, then the Lake Elmo/Baytown orderly annexation petition will receive priority. Also, it is obvious that, in a proceeding to annex by ordinance, Oak Park Heights would not be able to annexall of the land that is involved in the pending annexation petition. As set forth above, these are my preliminary opinions and conclusions, and we will continue to research this matter. In the meantime, should you or any members of the Council have any additional specific questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, 17 J es F. mers JFL:dmr : � CITY of III OAK PARK HEIGHTS _ft" 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439•FAX 439-0574 August 4, 1997 Baytown Town Board C/O Town Clerk Pat St . Clair 14949 North 30th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Possible Orderly Annexation Negotiations Dear Board Members : We have been informed that some of the existing business owners in Kern Center along Trunk Highway 5 are supporting discussions involving the businesses, the Baytown Board, and Oak Park Heights City Council . The City of Oak Park Heights supports this idea, and wishes to add the following points. 1) The City of Oak Park Heights has always supported _ negotiating an orderly annexation agreement . We think there is plenty of time between now and when the Municipal Board holds its hearing -to work out an agreement. 2) : The property owners who comprise more than 600 of the land area petitioning for annexation are petitioning the City of Oak Park Heights because they want sewer and water services . Their desire for sewer and water services will still remain if their land becomes part of Lake Elmo and they will still continue to push for water and sewer extensions . 3) The Municipal Board has recommended that Baytown and Oak - Park Heights seek an orderly annexation agreement so as to avoid a long and costly process . Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, „ l'''' ' Michael Robertson City Administrator cc: City Council City ,Attorney Tree City U.S.A. Aug-02-97 02 : 12P marSwenson oph council 3 1436 P.02 41/ TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM MARK SWENSON RE; ANNEXATION OF BAYTOWN/SCREATON GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE, This morning I recieved a call from the business owners at Kern center and Mr Screaton concerning the annexation request for annexation from the City. All the parties that were at the meeting with Jerry Turnquist myself and administrator Robertson were in the conference call I recieved. The call was asking us our feelings on possibly setting the annexation back a few months to allow for more meetings between the city of Lake Elmo, the township of Baytown, the city of Oak Park Heights and a group of owners at the proposed anexation site known as the Kern center. Mr Kennedy had an idea to have a board or commission set up to deal with this issue set up as follows. Baytown,Oak Park Heights, lake Elmo each would have two representitives and the Kern center would have two also. This group could have meetings to try and figure a way to get the annexation done so all parties could be satisfied. The problem now is that Lake Elmo wants to annex all Baytown and Baytown seems to be leaning that way. in my discussions this AM the kern people have talked all parties into stepping back and try to resolve the issue. I think this would be a great way to get the land we as a city need to expand and to allow Baytown to remain a rural area that it wants to be. Let41t me know feelings Good day all 411 • MEMO Date : August 1, 1997 To : Business Owners in Kern Center From: Mike Robertson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Re : Response to your 13 questions from meeting of July 28, 1997 This memo is intended to give you the best response possible to your questions from the meeting of July 28 , 1997 . We agreed in the meeting that it would take approximately three weeks to give you a full response . That was a response prepared by City staff, where all responses could be adequately checked against existing laws, and approved by the City Council at a Council meeting. On July 29, 1997, I received a call from Ray Kennedy asking that our response be given to you in three days because that was all the time you thought you had to make a decision, due to the possible orderly annexation of your area to the City of Lake Elmo. I have done the best I can to answer the questions in this short time frame without formal City Council approval . We would be happy to meet again with you to discuss this memo so that there are not any misunderstandings . QUESTIONS COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 1) What will happen with taxes? Can they be phased in over a period of time? What happens if NSP property taxes are reduced or eliminated? Property Taxes - Taxes are higher in Oak Park Heights than Baytown Township. Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . The city' s portion of the tax rate is slightly lower in Lake Elmo than in Oak Park Heights, but Lake Elmo has a higher Special District tax rate than in Oak Park Heights . Special District rates cover the Mosquito Control District, Met Council, watersheds, and other special districts . If you become part of Lake Elmo your taxes will go up as much as if you became part of Oak Park Heights . You will have to decide which City' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . 1 !r • I Property Tax Phasing - The City Council has indicated its willingness in the past to consider phasing in taxes if it is legally allowed to do so. I know that phasing of taxes is not allowed under a contested annexation but is allowed under an orderly annexation agreement . Our Mayor has publicly indicated his willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . NSP Property Taxes - If the State Legislature reduces NSP' s personal property taxes we will all suffer. If this tax is eliminated, it is likely that the City will reduce services, such as garbage subsidies, to keep its tax rate competitive. The proposed legislation failed to pass during the last State Legislative session. The City has joined other communities affected by the proposed NSP tax reduction in a lobbying effort . Now NSP and the affected communities are working together to try to find a win-win solution. 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb & Gutter - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb & gutter is required. City policy is that the benefiting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter, 50% of the cost for streets, and the City pays 100% of the cost for storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Streetlights - It is not the City policy to require installation of streetlights in commercial areas . As an example, the' City did not require streetlights to be installed when the Highway 36 frontage road was reconstructed this year. The installation of streetlights has typically been paid for by the developer. The City pays the cost of the electricity to run the streetlights, and pays for their maintenance. Sidewalks - If the property owners in Kern Center request a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never, to my knowledge, put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it . If the City wants to put a sidewalk in, it will pay 100% of the cost. Storm Sewers - I do not have any information about the Kern Center storm sewer system. If it meets State standards, it probably meets City standards . If the Kern Center property became part of Oak Park Heights, we would have the City Engineer examine the storm sewer system. If the system was inadequate, the cost of improvements would have to be worked out with the 2 411 • City Council . If the recent rains have not revealed any problems, the system is probably adequate . If new development would cause storm water problems then that new development would have to pay for the improvements to the system. Street Reconstruction - According to the City Engineer' s report the streets in Kern Center do not have to be reconstructed as part of utility installation. There will be some patch of streets done at 100% City cost . When the City does have to reconstruct the streets in Kern Center (when they start failing) it is the City policy that the benefiting property owners pay 50% and the City pays 50% of cost . 3) What is the actual cost for water/sewer hookups and who will pay for this? Cost/Payment - The City will not extend water/sewer utilities to the Kern Center area unless property owners petition for them. The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. The benefiting property owners will pay 100% of the cost . Any discussions those property owners have with David Screaton about him paying some or all of your costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. 4) Why is the cost of hooking into the water/sewer system so high? Who will pay for this? City Charges - To hook into City water/sewer property owners must pay a Trunk Utility Charge . This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefiting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menards, Rainbow, any other developer, or any homeowner. I have attached a copy of these charges to this memo. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Metropolitan Council and the City has no control over them. Cost to Run Utilities to Your Building - When the City installs utilities it places stubs to a property line. Running the utilities from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost of the building owner. 3 • 410 5) What is the time frame for hooking up to water/sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexations, is that the City will delay hookups for existing building owners until their septic fails or until they request it . 6) After annexation will building owners be required to update their buildings to current City codes every time they change tenants or modify their buildings? Will existing building owners be required to bring their buildings up to City code when they hookup to water/sewer? City Code - The City has currently adopted the 1994 version of the building code . It is possible that the Township has only adopted an earlier version of the State Building Code and that this is where the differences between City standards and Township standards have occurred. The City of Lake Elmo has adopted the 1994 building code so their standards would be the same as Oak Park Heights . Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and don' t remodel your building you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area in compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are required to bring the entire building up to current code. Hooking up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current building code standards. 7) If existing well/septic are phased out who makes up the cost to building owners? Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexations, is that the City will delay hookups for existing building owners until their septic fails or until they request hookup. A cost reimbursement could be part of this discussion. To be honest I think that with a delay in hooking up to City utilities it is not likely the City would reimburse you on costs for your well/septic. 4 111 8) Does the City have minimum requirements for sprinkling buildings and would it require building owners to retrofit their buildings with sprinkler systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. 9) If the Kern Center businesses become part of Oak Park Heights, what effect will this have on their existing business practices such as hours of operation, building additions, etc. ? What type of business will be allowed to locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - I have not yet received the copies I requested of the covenant restrictions on your properties . Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override those covenants . Based on our meeting of the 28th of July I do not know of any additional restrictions Oak Park Heights would place upon you. I am not familiar with any restrictions Lake Elmo might place upon you. We do not restrict the hours a business operates. For example, Wal-Mart will be going to a 24-hour operation this fall . We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. Building Additions - Building additions would be governed under the State Building Code . The City has currently adopted the 1994 version of the building code . New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses. I 've attached a list of allowable uses from the zoning code . The main restriction is that outside storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements . New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 5 411 • 10) Could Kern Center businesses continue using their own garbage contractors rather than being forced to use the City' s contractor? As noted in our meeting with you, the City' s garbage contract runs until the end of 1998, and until that time all businesses within the City limits must use Junker/United Waste . However, commercial users can negotiate their own rates with United Waste. If they are unsatisfied with those rates, they can appeal them to the City Council, which has final rate approval . 11) If Kern Center becomes part of Oak Park Heights will existing standards be changed? Would requirements for open space remain the same? Would any further subdivision of existing lots be allowed? Could existing businesses be constituted as a review board to approve any changes in the Kern Center area? Existing Standards & Open Space - As noted earlier once we receive copies of your existing covenants we will compare them to the standards in our zoning code . Subdivision of Existing Lots - As I described in our meeting, City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas. Under these standards a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which met the one acre minimum. As I also indicated to you in our meeting, it is difficult to meet the State stormwater standards, meet the City' s standards for parking and open space, and still construct a building of any size on a one acre parcel . The City Council would be happy to discuss this issue with you as part of the annexation process . Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of a review board in the Kern Center area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . As we also indicated, we would not grant that review board any kind of veto authority over future development, however, the Council will respect any covenant restrictions . 12) To date Kern Center businesses feel that Oak Park Heights has not been interested in their concerns. The City of Oak Park Heights has felt constrained in meeting with Kern Center businesses by the accusations we received from Baytown residents and Board members that Oak Park Heights was soliciting this annexation proposal and trying to sell people on being annexed. 6 • • 111 The City was responding to a proposal it had received from David Screaton and John Low. The City had already turned down a request for annexation which came only from David Screaton in the recent past . We were aware from Screaton and Low that they were having conversations with business owners in the Kern Center. We decided that since we were being accused of soliciting annexation and having some sort of secret plan for annexation that we would limit any informal contacts and conduct all of our annexation discussions at publicly noticed meetings . We are sorry if that gave you the impression you were being ignored or that we did not want to hear your concerns . We continue to be open to meeting with you formally or informally to discuss your concerns . 13) Kern Center businesses intend to make their decisions regarding annexation as a group and would like to review any agreements that are proposed as part of the annexation. All City agreements are public and the City would be happy to let Kern Center businesses review any of them. The City would be happy to form a group made up of City Councilmembers, Town Board members, and property owners such as yourselves to consider and hammer out the details on an orderly annexation agreement . We think an orderly annexation agreement between the City of Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township is the best way to reach a solution. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at City Hall, 439-4439 . 7 Bonestroo.Rosene,Anderlik and Associates.Inc. ffirmarive Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo • Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo.PE.• Joseph C.Anderlik.RE. •Marvin L.Sorvala.P.E.• Richard E.Turner.PE.• Glenn R.Cook.PE•Thomas E.Noyes.PE.•Robert G.Schunicht.PE.• Rosene Jerry A.Bourdon.P.E.•Rooerr W Rosene.PE.and Susan M.Eberlin.C.P.A..Senior Consultants Anderlik & Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford.PE.•Keith A.Gordon.PE.•Robert R.Pfefferle.PE.• Richard W.Foster.P.E.• David C. Loskota.P.E.•Robert C.Russek.A.I.A.• Mark A.Hanson.P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann.P.E. • Ted K.Field.PE.• Kenneth P Anderson.PE.•Mark R.Rolfs.P.E.• Associates Sidney P.Williamson.P.E..LS.• Robert F.Kotsm to Offices:Sc.Paul.Rochester.Willmar and St.Cloud.MN• Mequon.WI Engineers & Architects February 19, 1997 Mr. Michael Robertson City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 IE Re: Haase Comm/hid. Site 2 Q 1997 j 1, Our File No. 55-Gen I [J Dear Mr. Robertson: The following are the current area and/or connection charges, which would be collected as development occurs in the vicinity of the Haase property, which lies north of the future 58th Street: Item Charge Sanitary Sewer $2,310.00/Acre Waterworks $4,010.00/Acre Storm Sewer $5,080.00/ Acre Collector Roadway $5,300.00/Acre • The storm sewer area charge noted above is based on providing additional storm water ponding in the area. If you have any questions on the information contained in this letter, please do not hesitate to call me at 604-4833. Very truly yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES, INC. . Ciaad Cv Joseph C. Anderlik JCA:gs 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 ■ 612-636-4600 • i 401.29. B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 401.29.A. Purpose. The purpose of the B-1, Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. 401.29.B. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in a B-1 District: 1. Barber shops. } 2. Beauty parlors. 3. Essential services. 4. Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type). 5. Laundromat, self-service washing and drying. 6. Cellular telephone antennas located on a public structure, as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. 401.29.C. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses in a B-1 District: 1. None. '-t 401.29.D. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 District: 1. Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space of the principal use. 2. .Off-streetarkin p g is regulated by Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance, but not including semi-trailer trucks. 3. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 401.15.F of this Ordinance. } 29-1 • 401.30. B-2, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 401.30.A. Purpose. The purpose of the B-2, General Business District is to provide for high intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities. 401.30.6. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: 1. Any permitted use in the B-1 District. 2. Banks, savings institutions, credit unions and other financial institutions. 3. Business, commercial, or trade schools. 4. Clinics, for people only. 5. Day care - group nursery (within single occupancy freestanding building). ' 6. Government and public utility buildings. 7. Motels, motor hotels and hotels provided that the lot area contains not less than five hundred (500) square feet of lot area per unit. 8. Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns and off-sale liquor. 9. Retail sales. 10. Commercial service uses. 11. Commercial recreation. 12. Libraries. a; 13. Offices, business or professional, including ticket sales. 14. Optical laboratories. 15. Sexually oriented use - principal and accessory. 4.f tis 30-1 j'.I • • • • M 16. Theaters, excluding drive-in type of service. 401.30.C. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses in a B-2 District: L 1. None. 401.30.D. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 District: 1. All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-1 District. 2. Semi-Truck parking. 401.30.E. Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in a B-2 District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 401.03 of this Ordinance). 1. Drive-in and convenience food establishments provided that: a. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. b. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. d. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. e. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six (6) inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. f. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict L with through traffic movements, shall comply with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 30-2 Phone: (612)603-6757 An Equal Opportunity Employer .q > z- tG;. Sty Fax: (612)603-6762 -; Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 E F. Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul,Minnesota 55108 July 30, 1997 MMB Docket No. A-5821 Oak Park Heights Petition & City Resolution Under M.S. 414.031 John S. McDonald [5 � Lawson, Marshall, & ?I 1 McDonald P.A. AUG - 41997 3880 Laverne Avenue North r �' Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Mr. McDonald: The Municipal Board acknowledges receipt of the petition and city's resolution for annexation. A hearing will be scheduled between 30 and 60 days on this matter. Since a hearing is a very costly and lengthy procedure, we recommend that the city and township discuss the proposed annexation to determine if an agreement at the local level is possible. Please notify this office by August 13, 1997 on the status of your discussions. If you have any questions or need assistance, please contact our office. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director PDL:ry cc: Mike Robertson, City Administrator.7 Patricia St. Claire, Township Clerk • • CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 July 30, 1997 Mr. Will Zintl President ZINTL Inc. 5620 Memorial Avenue N. Stillwater,MN 55082 Dear Mr. Zintl: As promised, I am responding to the"Questions the Commercial Owners Have for Oak Park Heights and David Screaton". 1. TAXES? Freeze or increment increase. Also What affect would happen on all Business and Homeowners if and when NSP doesn't contribute to property tax budget? As shown on the draft Resolution presented at the joint meeting on Monday,July 28, 1997, the increment tax increase is as follows: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.035,for parcels annexed by this orderly annexation agreement, the initial urban tax rate in the year of annexation will be forty percent of the urban rate, with the percentage being increased 10 percent each year for six years to the full urban rate. Lake Elmo's 1997 Tax Rate is 22.27%. Forty percent of 22.27%is 9.07%. I have updated the Real Estate Taxes Comparison handout from our meeting two weeks ago that shows the increment increase for the property in the area proposed to be annexed. I cannot begin to calculate the impact that the loss of the King Plant Revenue would have on Oak Park Heights. 1 do know, however, that the Plant is 55%of Oak Park Heights'total market value and 55%of its total budget. 2. Who pay for the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers. 1 do not believe this pertains to Lake Elmo as it relates to the platted property(The Kern Center). Any juture development occurring on vacant unpiatted land is at the sole expense of the developer. The City of Lake Elmo does not bond for improvements for residential development. The only project the City of Lake Elmo has bonded for is the installation of sewer and water on the 180 acres within the Municipal Urban Service Area(MUSA)on 1-94 and County Road 13. This was done in response to a petition by the property owner, and 100%of the project cost is being assessed to the property owner. t� printed recyc:eC DaCer • • Mr. Will Zintl July 30, 1997 Page 2 3. Actual cost for water/sewer and who will pay for this? This does not apply to Lake Elmo. Other than specific areas on 1-94, the City has no intention or desire to bring municipal services into the City. If however, the City does proceed with an expansion of its Rural Center(the original "Old Village') and the adjacent property north of Highway 5, it will consider afree-standing, independent on-site treatment plant. The Metropolitan Council supports this type of plant because the "Old Village"is considered a "Rural Center." If this is done, it will have no impact on the area proposed for annexation. 4. Why$4000 for hook ups? (Only one stub per lot.) Who will pay for this? This does not apply to Lake Elmo. 5. Time frame on hooking up to water/sewer? This does not apply to Lake Elmo. However, it is my understanding that there is a time limit by which you must hook up to municipal services. 6. After hookup,are we required to update our buildings each time we change tenants to Oak Park Heights' codes? Lake Elmo applies the Universal Building Code and the State Building Code. Because of the newness of the buildings in the Kern Center, 1 would assume that all buildings meet or exceed the standards set forth in these Codes. 7. If existing well/septic phased out,who makes up cost? This does not apply to Lake Elmo, but I assume the cost would be born by the property owners unless Oak Park Heights is willing to cover these costs through its General Fund, which is still taxpayer money. 8. Building codes: Sprinkler system interior other update and costs. Lake Elmo does not require sprinklers. They did at one time require them, but the cost to the business owner was exorbitantly high and the City removed the requirement from its Code. However, several businesses have chosen to have their businesses sprinkled(Lake Elmo Bank, Tartan Park Clubhouse, and Davolis Building<on 1-94>) 9. If we become Oak Park Heights, what affect would this be on our business? Nature of businesses allowed in the park area? /will answer this question as if it specified becoming part of Lake Elmo. The first thing I would recommend is that the City meet with the Kern Center property owners and review the uses that are now permitted in your zoning district. You currently have an attractive, high-quality business park, and if you reviewed the current permitted uses,you may find some of the permitted uses are not compatible with what you have already established. If that would be the case, those uses should be removed so there is not a negative impact on the investment that you have already made. • • Mr. Will Zintl July 30, 1997 Page 3 Business hours? Business hours are determined by the business use. Most likely, the office uses work a 9-5 schedule, but if someone chose to work 24 hours a day, what impact would that have on the surrounding businesses? None that I can see. The recreational facility would most likely have later hours to accommodate their clientele. I can think of no business in Lake Elmo for which the City regulates hours of operation. The only exception is our City Parks, which close at 10:00 p.m. That regulation was put into place in an attempt to stop the drinking,partying, and vandalism that was occurring(and still is occurring but to a lesser degree) in our parks. Building Additions,etc. Building additions in Lake Elmo are handled in much the same way as new construction. Our Planning Commission and City Council Site and Plan Review which review setbacks, impervious surface coverage, etc.,for conformance with the City Code. 1 believe this is a standard practice in all communities. 10. TRASH: We would like to continue having our own trash haulers. (Please note: We did some checking on Commercial rubbish prices. Please see hand out.) Lake Elmo has always supported free enterprise, and has chosen to allow its residents and business owners to chose their own garbage hauler. The City does have a contract with TMT Recycling for its once-a-week curbside recycling. 11. If we become Oak Park Heights, will our standards inKern Center be changed? If this became Lake Elmo, the only change in the standards that now apply to the Kern Center would be if the property owners initiate a change in permitted uses, or other standards in your zoning district. That would require a cooperative study between the property owners and the City. We would like to propose the following items to maintain our standards in Kern Center and to preserve the open green areas that presently exist. a. All un-built lots remain as platted. No subdividing allowed. Lake Elmo would support the Kern Center, as it is now platted. Large lots with the landscaping and ponding amenities that now exist are paramount in attracting similar high- quality, low-impact commercial development. This is necessary, 1 believe, to protect the investment that many ofyou have already made with your businesses. • Mr. Will Zintl July 30, 1997 Page 4 b. A Kern Center Planning Review Board is established to approve any changes our area. c. Any and all concerns within our area would be addressed from and to our review board. I believe it is imperative that the Kern Center property owner's form an "Association"to accomplish what it has stated in b. and c. I have provided you with an outline of the guidelines used by one of our residential Homeowners Associations to give you an idea of what you could accomplish by forming an Association. Again, many ofyou have made substantial investments in your property, and I believe you have the right and obligation to maintain this quality of development to protect your investments. 12. To date,Oak Park Heights has onlybeen interested in our tax dollars and has not shown any respect to g us as Business people or our concerns. My personal opinion is that when we "public servants"elected or appointed, chose to ignore the fact that our function is to serve you the people, it is time to move on. 13. All agreements must be approved and adopted by our Review Board. See Item 12. I hope that I have answered the questions that you have asked, and if there are more, I hope you or any other property owner in the Kern Center will feel free to call me at any time. In closing, I will reiterate the point our Mayor stressed in his letter I read at last Monday's meeting which I feel represents the thoughts of the entire City Council as well as myself. He said, in part,"This letter should not be taken as an indication that I am interested in expanding the City of Lake Elmo. But I do support other adjacent communities in their attempts to defend their land use decisions in the face of (hostile)annexation threats by other Cities". Sincellyy, Mary Kueffner City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council • O ter : • % • . . . : 3440,14 • t+.r : . 0;1 yr • 3 • . :Ii . ILO . • . i :or, ►h!• . } Y�• • THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1997, ("Effective Date") between the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota ("City') and the Town of Baytown, Washington County, Minnesota ("Town'), and constitutes a '?olnt Resolution' between the City and Town authorized by Minnesota Statutes 11414.0325 providing for a procedure and a framework for orderly annexation of a part of the Town to the City. SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1.01 Certain land owners within the Town have petitioned the City and Town for orderly annexation of their property from the Town to the City. 1.02 The Town and the City are currently considering a plan for the eventual consolidation of the two political subdivisions. 1.03 Annexation of the subject property at this time would further the consolidation process. SECTION TWO ORDERLY ANNEXATION AREA 2.01 The legal description of the property which is the subject of this orderly annexation agreement Is: All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County. The Orderly Annexation Area is designated as in need of orderly annexation and.no consideration by the Minnesota Municipal Board is necessary, no alteration of the boundaries is appropriate, and all conditions of annexation have been provided for in this Resolution: the Minnesota Municipal Board may review and comment but shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Resolution, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this resolution. spa 20 -d Wd L£= TT L6-0£—�fll • • 2.02 The subject area is 235 acres in size, and has a population of 21. SECTION THREE REAL ESTATE TAXATION 3.01 attni.citaag..11ait.nitterentiaL. It is recognized that there is a significant difference between the City's tax capacity rate and the Town's tax capacity rate, and that a phase-in of the City tax rate would prevent a hardship to annexing properties, 3.02 Tax Rat Justin j_for Annexed Parcel L. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 414.035, for parcels annexed by this orderly annexation agreement, the initial urban tut site in the year of annexation will be forty percent (40%) of the urban rate, with the percentage being increased 10 percent (10%) each year for six (6) years to the full urban rate, 3.03 Tax Paymentso Town. During the term of this Agreement, taxes received by the City based upon the tax capacity generated from any area annexed in the year of annexation will be paid over to the Town and thereafter the amount to be paid to the Town will be reduced by twenty percent (20%) each year until the amount reaches zero (0), when taxes based upon the full tax capacity will remain with the City. Por the purpose of this section, any increase in tax capacity over the tax capacity generated in the year of annexation will remain with the City. 3.04 Year of Annexation, If the annexation becomes effective on or before August 1 of any year, the CIty may levy on the annexed area beginning with that year. If the annexation becomes effective after August 1 of any year, the Town may continue to levy on the annexed area for that year, and the City may not levy in the annexed area until the following year. SECTION FOUR MODIFICATION 4.01 This Agreement may be modified at any time by written agreement approved by both the City and the Town. SECTION FIVE GENERAL PROVISSIONS 5.01 If any provision of this agreement is declared invalid, for any reason, by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be 93599 _2. bO 'd Wd L2= TT L6-02-lnr 0/26l97 YON 17:16 FALL 612 4 550 CAS & F • X!'004 effected and the agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the agreement did not • contain the particular team or provision held to be invalid. CITY OP LAICE BLLMO TOWN OF BAYTOWN By: By: Wyn John, Its Mayor Ron Predlmve, Chairman of Its Board of Supervisors ATTEST: ATTEST: Mary Xueffner Patricia L. St. Claire Its CIerktAdministrator Its Town Clerk • 53909 -3- y se •d Wd L2 : TT L6-0£-1ff • • 'AUL PIONEER PRESS C 3D taires SUBURBS ung, I polka • Said, eyes '2g up '-- looms over proposal for I my r this - trip, Washington County annexation and is to par- JIM BROEDE STAFF WRITER year. "who are looking to get rich." Meanwhile, the debate continues Oak Park Heights Mayor Dave e my ' between officials of the two corn- Schaaf said there's no reason to go walk n Washington County, it's a clas- munities. to war over annexation, 'saying I. "I sic battle between the forces "Oak Park Heights has no they are willing to talk with Bay- s my wanting suburban growth and,the qualms about destroying our beau- town officials "to see if we can I like advocates for saving the rural en- tiful rural environs," Baytown work out an orderly annexation • virons. town clerk Pat St. Claire said. agreement." That might include 1- or Eight property owners in Bay- "We've lost more than 1,000 acres compensating Baytown for any turn town Township have asked a state to annexations (to Bayport and. tax revenues lost as a result of is or board to allow their 235 acres of Oak Park Heights) in the past 10 annexation. (ho- mostly cornfields to be annexed to years alone." Schaaf said it's pretty clear to the Oak Park Heights. That would That leaves the township pon- some people that cornfields aren't love- bring them public sewer and wa- Bering ways to save the remaining the highest and best use for the the ter and open the door to profitable 5,000 acres. land in Baytown. subdivided developments - such "We're exploring merger with "After all" he said, "it sits tank as 300 homes on lots as small as Lake Elmo," St. Claire said, "be- ,across the street from a $30 mil- l:His one-third acre. cause we have similar philoso- lion (Stillwater Area Senior) high ;are The township board is vehe- phies about staying semi-rural." school and a shopping complex irted mently opposed, preferring in- But concocting a merger takes that includes a Rainbow Foods r� his stead to retain the land southwest time, and that has Baytown offi- and a new bank." e in of Minnesota 5 and 36. That would cials worried. Paul mean abiding by current township "Oak Park Heights is looking Schaaf also sees a potential ben- zoning, which calls for no more for another quick land grab before efit to a commercial and industri- why than 21 new homes on 5-acre lots. we can achieve agreement with al park, at the north end of the ."My The Oak Park Heights City Lake Elmo," St. Claire said. "But property, that's only one-third de- iuch Council recently voted 4-1 to sup- we'll tell the Minnesota Municipal veloped. . lard port the property owners' annex- Board that a friendly merger "Those businesses are now ___ ation petition, meaning they would makes more sense than an adver- served by private wells and indi- Nick roll out the welcome mat for sarial annexation." vidual on-site septic tank sewage 'oth- them. St. Claire also said only half of treatment systems," he said. "But heir Now it's up to the Minnesota the property owners petitioning with annexation,there will be pub- heir Municipal Board to hold public for annexation live in Baytown. lic sewer and water. That should Cro- hearings and to decide the fate of "This is .an annexation being make it easier to attract more ner. the request, probably later this pushed by outsiders," she said, businesses to fill up the park." and • llich • Seniors dependingon donations the peo- • renis- toget a new Burnsville center ray_ ilav >: =the DON AHERN STAFF WRITER provements are what most of the new one is next door. The upstairs .eve • money will be used for, except of the building the center is now in $70,000 that the school district will be renovated and will house a ken The Burnsville Senior Center is will provide to fix the roof and new campus of the Burnsville 'ro_ better than halfway to its goal of make other exterior repairs. High School. The lower portions, ler- raising $370,000 for a new center, About $55,000 of the money that including the space the senior cen- ,._ , but all the rest of it has to ha ;., h.,n u...... .........a c_,..... _......,4.., a. w,._ ,...____1.,.. _.._..__----_,3 BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP 14949 30th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 PUBLIC NOTICE ORDERLY ANNEXATION The Baytown Board of Supervisors will consider a joint Resolution and t� Agreannent between the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown authorized by Minnesota Statutes 1414,0325 providing for a procedure and a framework for orderly annexation of a part of the Town to the City described as follows: All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Boulevard North, also known as State Highway 5, Washington County, Minnesota. Consideration of this Joint Resolution and Agreement will take place at Borytown's August 4, 1997 monthly meeting, 8:00 P.M., at the Civil Air Patrol hangar on the northeast coma of the Lake Elmo Airport, 3275 Manning Avenue North. The public is encouraged to attend Dated :bis.qday of __ 19 / 7 . • Signed 7t1d.44.ee• / C-(1444.. Patricia L. St. Claire, Clerk Z0 'd Wd 92: T T L6-0£-'lnr _ CITY C �, N" Iti- - OAK PARK HEIGHTS —0(-- 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 C o PY July 25, 1997 Jim Gelbmann, Executive Director State of Minnesota Board of Government Innovation 300 Centennial Office Building St . Paul, MN 55155 Dear Mr. Gelbmann: Thank you for your phone call informing me that Baytown Township has contacted your Board to discuss a possible merger between Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo. I am writing you this letter to reaffirm those points I discussed with you. 1) The City of Oak Park Heights received a petition from landowners in Baytown Township adjacent to the western boundary of Oak Park heights . The Oak Park Heights City Council passed a resolution of support for the annexation. That matter has been referred to the Minnesota Municipal Board, which will make the final decision about whether the annexation is allowed. 2) The City of Oak Park heights would strongly object, with all legal means necessary, to any merger proposal between Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo which excluded the City of Oak - Park Heights . 3) The City of Oak Park Heights agrees that it is in everyone ' s interests if Baytown Township, the City of Lake Elmo, and the City of Oak Park Heights sit down together to discuss dividing the township between the two cities in an orderly annexation agreement . Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, . , ,, - --Z ,.,--7 .... . ✓ ichael Robertson City Administrator cc : City Council City Attorney City of Lake Elmo . Baytown Township Tree City U.S.A. 1 411 • Enclosure 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97- C.27—,1„-Ra.— a. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROCKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414. 031 WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights is a city incorporated under the general laws of the State of Minnesota, and has more than 3 , 776 inhabitants and, the present territory included in the city limits contains 1, 679 acres; WHEREAS, there is adjacent to the City of Oak Park Heights a tract of land containing approximately 240 acres, of which more than 20% of the owners have petitioned the City of Oak Park Heights for annexation of said property to the City of Oak Park Heights; WHEREAS, the boundaries of said territory proposed for annexation are described as : All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County; WHEREAS, the names of all parties entitled to notice under section 414 . 09 are included in Exhibit "A" hereto attached; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and petitioning property owners recognize that the area continues to develop as an urban industrial/commercial area with the potential for commercial and 110 410 suburban residential development, and that the city of Oak Park Heights will need additional land in the near future to accommodate commercial, industrial, single family and multiple family development; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and the petitioning property owners contend that a municipal form of government will best protect the public health, safety, and welfare in that the City has capacity to provide municipal water and sanitary sewer service which are not currently provided by the Township. WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has its own police force adequately equipped to serve the subject area as opposed to the Township which now relies on the Washington County Sheriff' s Department for police protection; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights and petitioning property owners agree that the area would best be served under the jurisdiction of Oak Park Heights . The area, with its high visibility and access off of State Highways 36 and 5, is appropriate for mixed land use of commercial, light industrial, and single/multiple family development at urban standards; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights invited Baytown Township Officials to confer and negotiate with the City about the possibility of pursuing an orderly annexation to the benefit of both the Township and the City of Oak Park Heights affecting the property under consideration for annexation; and, 411 �► WHEREAS, it appears that Baytown Township is not interested in negotiating an orderly annexation of the subject property to address the interests of affected property owners of the Township and the City. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights that the boundaries of the City of Oak Park Heights, State of Minnesota, be extended so as to include and incorporate within the city limits of the City of Oak Park Heights the above described property, the same being a logical extension of the City of Oak Park Heights for the purposes of land use control, planning, providing municipal services, and assuring orderly development . NOW THEREFORE, IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Oak Park Heights hereby supports the petition of property owners seeking annexation of the affected lands as described above to the City of Oak Park Heights . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Oak Park Heights commits to continue to be willing to consider orderly annexation agreements and invites Baytown Township to join in an orderly annexation agreement as it affects the subject property and other lands within Baytown Township adjacent to Oak Park Heights municipal boarders . 411 • , , Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this o day of July, 1997 . i/// rd / iL.... David Schaaf Mayor ATTEST: 2 77 . /1/ i hael J ' tson City Ad istrator 4 6124395641 •GNUSON LAW OFFICE 104395641 P. 01 MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THF: o11s<11 OPYIck 13VILLNNti 333 NORTH MAIN STREET-SUITE#Z02P0.$OX 438•S'1ILLWA768,MN 55082 Tr,LWF1•rONE:(612)439-9464-TELE:coviI;R.(6121439-5641 DAVID T. MAGNUSON RICHARD D.AI,L.EN FACSIMILE COVER SHEET DATE: July 22, 1997 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 5 TO: Mike Robertson FAX NUMBER: 439-0574 FROM: David T. Magnuson, Baytown Township Attorney RE: Baytown Annexation SPECIAL REMARKS: If you did not receive all pages,please contact Dana at 612/439-9464. The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this fax in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. We will be responsible for postage costs. MAGNUSON LAW OFFICE 6124395641 P. 02 • • MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE Descry Orrice DUILL,IN<l 333 NOM II MAIN 5 rgcs r•UM?4202•P.Q.Dvx 438•S VILLwn!ESR,MN 55082 Tesi,errI4Ne (612)439-9464•Tee.Ecor wic(612)439-5641 DAVID T. MAGNUSON RICHARD D.AI..LEN • July 22, 1997 Mayor, City Council and Staff City of Oak Park Heights City Hall 14168 - 57"' Street North P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Re: Screaton Annexation Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: The Town Board of Supervisors of Baytown Township have asked that 1 write to the City of Oak Park Heights and outline the objections of the Town Board of Supervisors to the proposed annexation based upon what the Town perceives as the lack of adequate study with regard to the proposed annexation and the impacts both on the property owners involved in the annexation, the remaining Town and its ability to survive after the annexation and the impact on the City of Oak Park Heights, as well. The Town Board requests that the City answer these questions before proceeding with the enactment of proposed Resolution 97-07-26. 1. The Original Petition. The original Screaton Petition and the property owners signing in support of that petition were apparently led to believe that the Screaton interests would absorb core costs associated with the utility extensions and property owners who did not desire municipal services would not be obligated to connect to the system until they desired and as Screaton would carry these cost without interest for these property owners. The Town understands, however, that a Development Agreement has not been reached with Screaton regarding the financing of these improvements and the City, nevertheless,proposes to proceed with the utility extensions. _ �_ +_' '+ : + + ' ' o_ h• 'e • he o . • + • •e made aware that the representations of both the City and SSrt4D mightno longer hold • , e ► _ 'lifesmi _ t .ee_te,_d• s • _ • + I . + . 'e ; r ' , , e 'y would require almost immediate hook-up to available CityeDi es in order to comply with Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Sewer and Metropolitan Waste Commission regulations regarding sewer hook-up, MAGNUSON LAW OFFICE 6124395641 P. 03 r i City of Oak Park Heights Page 2 July 22, 1997 Further,the sewer study done for the annexation area does not outline with specific certainty all of the costs associated with the provision of utilities into the annexation area. The study deals only with core costs but does not estimate the total impact that assessments might have for the extension, not only of the core facilities,but also laterals and services including storm water facilities, streets and the like that will be associated with urban development. Further, there has been no Petition presented for the installation of improvements into the area pursuant to Minnesota Chapter 429. It should be of concern to the Council that it could be very difficult to collect assessments from owners who do not benefit, especially owners already served privately with on-site systems and wells. Further, what impact will there be on Oak Park Heights taxpayers if substantial portions of any improvement costs are carried and not collected except as hook-up charges? The Town Board, therefore, requests that the City carefully study the costs associated with the full extension of municipal services into the area, the impact on property owners who were lead to believe they would not have to hook-up,the impact upon Baytown property brought into the City and not requesting hook-ups but faced with assessments and, finally, the ability of the City to issue bonds associated with these improvements and plans for the repayment of the obligations out of general funds. 2. Consistency with County and Regional Plans. One stumbling block to the Oak Park Heights annexation of Kern Center and the Screaton property would be the consistency of the annexation with Metropolitan Council Plans and Policies. An annexation would require that the Comprehensive Plan be amended and, in order to provide sewer to the area,the Metropolitan Waste Water Commission would have to approve an expansion of the MUSA line (Metropolitan Urban Service Area). When considering the approval of a MUSA line expansion, the Metropolitan Council reviews whether the growth planned for the annexation area is within the population projections for the area contained in the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint of December 1996. Oak Park Heights currently has a population of about three thousand eight hundred (3,800)and four thousand two hundred(4,200) is projected for the year 2000 and five thousand four hundred (5,400) for the year 2010. Without the Kerns/Screaton annexation,the City of Oak Park Heights has one hundred forty(140)acres of residentially zoned property and if you assume three (3)houses per acre and 2.6 people per house, Oak Park Heights has room for one thousand ninety-two (1,092) additional people, more than enough room needed for expansion since, if all of the one hundred forty(140)acres were developed, it would exceed Metropolitan Council's Blueprint forecast for the year 2000. MAGNUSON LAW OFFICE 6124395641 P. 04 S • City of Oak Park Heights Page 3 July 22, 1997 It would make sense for Oak Park Heights to complete a Comprehensive Plan Amendment before they go ahead with this annexation. It would then be possible to forecast population growth with enough certainty to know whether projected growth plans fit within forecasted projections of the Metropolitan Council. 3. Present Pattern of Physical Development. The present pattern of physical development in the area dictates that the area west of Kern Center and the area south of 55th Street be developed into at least two and one-half(2%)acre lots. This would be consistent with the Blackwood Development directly across County Road 5, the Engstrom Development south of 50th Street and the developing portions of Lake Elmo to the west of the annexation area. To install as many as three hundred (300) single family homes south of 55th Street would be to "leap frog" the high school property and the other large lot development adjacent to the proposed annexation area. A new urban area would be isolated from the remainder of the City of Oak Park Heights and have no community of neighborhood. The result would be a hodgepodge of urban sprawl. The present pattern of physical development,therefore,does not follow the plans made by Oak Park Heights for the annexation area. 4. Pollution. At least one (1) Councilperson has suggested that theyhave a concern for p gg the environment and in order to avoid ground water contamination and pollution, urban services should be provided to the annexation area. It should be recognized by the City that the Baytown ground water contamination area has not been contaminated by wells and septic systems but, rather by the engine repair work done at the Lake Elmo Airport and the commercial elevator operated for some time south of the railroad tracks near Northbrook. Oak Park Heights, on the other hand, already has four(4)hot spots as shown on the annexation study, including pollution associated with the NSP fly ash site, a Junker's demolition dump,the Allen S. King Plant and the Jerry Clipper Machine Shop on Stillwater Boulevard. If the City of Oak Park Heights was truly concerned with the environment,they would clean-up pollution within the City first since the provision of municipal services into the annexation area would have no impact on Baytown ground water contamination problems. 5. Storm Water Problems. The annexation study does not address one (1)of the major issues that must be faced with regard to development in the annexation area. Most of the area properly drains into the Valley Branch Watershed. Urban development in that area,would only exacerbate flooding problems found downstream in Cloverdale and Lake MacDonald. Both lakes being completely land locked and without outlets. The annexation study does not mention the problem nor does it estimate the enormous costs associated with solving urban storm water problems that could be as high as five thousand and no/100 dollars($5,000.00) or more per acre, MAGNUSON LAW OFFICE 6124395641 P. 05 • • City of Oak Park Heights Page 4 July 22, 1997 6. Town Delivery of Sy'es. It does not appear that the City could offer any municipal services that would improve life in the annexation area. The Town and the City both have the same fire department. Both the City and Town contract for plowing and sanding of their streets from a local subcontractor. Baytown enjoys excellent police protection provided by the County Sheriff,based upon their proximity to the Washington County Government Center. Further,the Town of Baytown presently enjoys planning services provided by Washington County,has an active and informed Planning Commission,as well as contract services regarding planning,when required. Residents in the annexation area then would suffer a decline in representative government since they would be deprived of participation in planning activities. 7. Impact on the Town. The study concludes that the loss of the annexation area would not impact on the Town,however, no study was made with regard to the Baytown budget and the percentage of tax revenue in relation to the budget that would be lost from the annexation area, Actually,the Kern Center developed in low-impact commercial uses, consistent with Town zoning, would significantly benefit the Town and the loss of this tax revenue would have a serious impact on future Town finances. The Town is prepared to resist the annexation at the municipal board level and to present every possible defense in the proceedings. It would make sense that the City answer many of the outstanding questions before they proceed to a municipal board hearing in a setting that does not favor hasty decisions or conclusions drawn from studies that have not been adequately prepared. The Town respectfully requests that their concerns be addressed by the City Council before throwing down the gauntlet. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of the Town of Baytown, David T. Ma uson Baytown Township Attorney DTM/ds 6124304952 07/?,1/1997 13:16 612452 STEVE AND D•OLEY PAGE 01 Stephen and Debra Foley 4865 ,Normandy Court Baytown Township. Minnesota 66082 (612) 430..88.28 July 21, 1997 Oak Park Heights City Council 14168 North 57th Street VIA FAX Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 As chair of the Baytown Township Planning Commission, and a concerned citizen, I am writing to express my objection to the proposed annexation of part of Baytown by Oak Park Heights. Oak Park Heights is considering annexing 240 acres of Baytown Township at the request of a small number of Township property owners. This annexation is against the express wishes of the Baytown Board, the Township's residents, and the majority of the residents and business owners in the affected area. In addition, the annexation flies in the face of and is contrary to the County's recent Comprehensive Plan. Members of the County Board I have spoken with regarding this issue have indicated their disapproval of the proposed annexation. As a good neighbor, Oak Park Heights should consider the effect this annexation would have on its neighbors in the County. Going through with the annexation would deprive Baytown of its one small commercial area. This would financially harm all residents of the township A small number of property owners(only one an actual resident) support the annexation for the sole purpose of furthering their own economic gain at the expense of everyone else. These people are unhappy with the rules and ordinances established by the elected officials in the township. Oak Park Heights should not assist these people in their bald attempt to subvert the orderly democratic process. If the role of government is to look out for the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens, then this annexation is directly contrary to that principle. For Oak Park Heights to encourage or follow through with this land grab demonstrates an arrogance of power as well as disrespect for the citizens of the Township. Simply because Oak Park Heights may have the power to seize this area does not make it right to do so. The Township does not exist for the pleasure of the cities. Common decency and respect for others compels the conclusion that Oak Park Heights should deny this annexation request. This is not 1938, and Baytown is not Czechoslovakia. 07/21/1%997 13:16 6124304952 STEVE AND DEB FOLEY PAGE 02 • . • Stillwater Gazette July 21, 1997 Page Two Oak Park Heights' consultants say this annexation will benefit Oak Park Heights and the affected area. Their study says the city's residents' property taxes will go down. The same study shows that this"savings"is roughly equal to the increased taxes the Township's residents would pay. Why should Oak Park Heights be allowed to tax the Township? There should be no taxation without representation. There is also the very real possibility that Oak Park Heights' assumptions about the impact of the annexation on the city are wrong. The majority of independent studies done to evaluate the economic impact of increased urbanization conclude the net cost to the annexing city is negative. In other words, it costs more to provide the sewer, water, and other urban services to the area than the area can return in property taxes. This will cause all taxes for all existing residents of Oak Park Heights to go up. When this is coupled with the fact of the severe impact on Baytown's residents, it is even clearer that no good case for annexation can be made. Even if we assume Oak Park Heights' study of the effect on the city is correct, Oak Park Heights should look beyond its own narrow self-interest and consider the good of the entire community of which Oak Park Heights is a part. This community includes the Township, not just several of its property owners. Ultimately, the reasons given in support of this annexation, if followed now and in the future, would turn our beautiful community, including Oak Park Heights, into nothing but the asphalt covered urban blight so many of us wish to hold at bay. At some point the cities must just say "No"to further expansion in order to preserve our land for all of us, now and into the future. Sincerely, Debra Foley 1+ Chair, Baytown Planning Commission 06/06/97 09:43 ECKlili LAW FIRM 4 4390574 411\ NO.046 D02 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OARGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BET'T'Y SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, ANT) BERNARD W. MASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.031 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St . Paul, MN 55108 The Minnesota Municipal Board is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on the question of annexing certain property to the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The petitioner for annexation is : The City of ; or, The Township of ; or, X 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. There are 23 property owners in the area proposed for annexation. The number of owners who have signed this petition is 6 . The number of petitioners required by M.S . 414 .031 to commence a proceeding is 20$ of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows: 06/06/97 09:43 ECKB G LAW FIRM 4 4390574 NO.046 003 411 See attached Exhibit "A" . 1 . The petitioners have submitted a copy of this petition to the affected Township of Baytown on April 22, 1997 . 2 . The arearo osed for annexation abuts the cityon the p p city' s West boundary thereof, and none of it is presently a part of any incorporated city or in an area designated for orderly annexation. 3 . The total acreage of the area proposed for annexation is : 240 . 4 . The petitioners believe that all of this property is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. 5 . The reason for requesting the annexation is: The property needs extension of sewer and water services which cannot be provided by Baytown Township. 6 . Parties entitled to notice under Minnesota Statutes 414 .09 are : See attached Exhibit "B" . 7 . If this petition is by property owners, a copy of a resolution from the City of Oak Park Heights, the annexing municipality, supporting the annexation is attached hereto. 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBlli LAW FIRM 4 4390574 • NO.046 904 Dated: 4.<1.4.a. a?, /g471997. DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP David R. Screaton, Partner By Glt7Avc�'I J dith Screaton, Partner OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation By f, I-,. It6 Pt 5;a( 'if- ,../46, ett Smith LOW & ASSOCIATES NC. By I ' /2FM- SIL A.L.K. P�'TNERSHIP By Alr I Or Partner / rte,% 1 i derick Kem••er / alvin Brookman 06/@6/97 09:43 ECK 6 LAW FIRM 4 4390574 NO.046 005 410Dated: 5- -5"7 , 1997. .a--�--- ernard W. Nass Y4t/ 2i24a' Lo lla Nass 411 EXHIBIT "A" All that part of Section 6 , Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5 , Washington County, Minnesota. 411 111 EXHIBIT "B" TOWN OF BAYTOWN Patricia L. St . Claire, Clerk 14949 - 30th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 CITY OF LAKE ELMO Mary Kueffner, Administrator 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Pat Bantli, Clerk 13636 - 90th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 CITY OF STILLWATER Nile L. Kriesel, Administrator 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY James Schug, Administrator 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Brian McGinnis, Chairman 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 BAYTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION Dennis Trenda, Chairman 14105 North 45th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Kurt Johnson, Chairman 230 East Fifth Street St . Paul, Minnesota 55101 • 110 MEMO Date: August 1, 1997 To: Business Owners in Kern Center From: Mike Robertson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Re: Response to your 13 questions from meeting of July 28, 1997 This memo is intended to give you the best response possible to your questions from the meeting of July 28, 1997. We agreed in the meeting that it would take approximately three weeks to give you a full response . That was a response prepared by City staff, where all responses could be adequately checked against existing laws, and approved by the City Council at a Council meeting. On July 29, 1997, I received a call from Ray Kennedy asking that our response be given to you in three days because that was all the time you thought you had to make a decision, due to the possible orderly annexation of your area to the City of Lake Elmo. I have done the best I can to answer the questions in this short time frame without formal City Council approval . We would be happy to meet again with you to discuss this memo so that there are not any misunderstandings . QUESTIONS COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE FOR THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 1) What will happen with taxes? Can they be phased in over a period of time? What happens if NSP property taxes are reduced or eliminated? Property Taxes - Taxes are higher in Oak Park Heights than Baytown Township. Taxes are about the same in Oak Park Heights as in Lake Elmo. In 1996 the tax rate was 125 . 92 in Lake Elmo and was 124 . 50 in Oak Park Heights . The city' s portion of the tax rate is slightly lower in Lake Elmo than in Oak Park Heights, but Lake Elmo has a higher Special District tax rate than in Oak Park Heights . Special District rates cover the Mosquito Control District, Met Council, watersheds, and other special districts . If you become part of Lake Elmo your taxes will go up as much as if you became part of Oak Park Heights. You will have to decide which City' s services are best for you. The City of Oak Park Heights can offer the option of sewer and water service, which Lake Elmo cannot . 1 411 • Property Tax Phasing - The City Council has indicated its willingness in the past to consider phasing in taxes if it is legally allowed to do so. I know that phasing of taxes is not allowed under a contested annexation but is allowed under an orderly annexation agreement . Our Mayor has publicly indicated his willingness to support the same tax phasing language as that contained in the Baytown-Lake Elmo agreement . NSP Property Taxes - If the State Legislature reduces NSP' s personal property taxes we will all suffer. If this tax is eliminated, it is likely that the City will reduce services, such as garbage subsidies, to keep its tax rate competitive. The proposed legislation failed to pass during the last State Legislative session. The City has joined other communities affected by the proposed NSP tax reduction in a lobbying effort . Now NSP and the affected communities are working together to try to find a win-win solution. 2) Who pays for curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, and storm sewers? Curb & Gutter - The City' s current policy is not to reconstruct streets until they are beginning to fail . The typical life of a street ranges from 20-30 years . When streets are reconstructed, curb & gutter is required. City policy is that the benefiting landowners pay 25% of the cost for curb and gutter, 50% of the cost for streets, and the City pays 100% of the cost for storm sewers . When it ' s a new development, the developer pays for 100% of the cost for everything. Streetlights - It is not the City policy to require installation of streetlights in commercial areas. As an example, the City did not require streetlights to be installed when the Highway 36 frontage road was reconstructed this year. The installation of streetlights has typically been paid for by the developer. The City pays the cost of the electricity to run the streetlights, and pays for their maintenance . Sidewalks - If the property owners in Kern Center request a sidewalk, they would be expected to pay 100% of the cost . The City has never, to my knowledge, put a sidewalk in where property owners did not ask for it. If the City wants to put a sidewalk in, it will pay 100% of the cost . Storm Sewers - I do not have any information about the Kern Center storm sewer system. If it meets State standards, it probably meets City standards . If the Kern Center property became part of Oak Park Heights, we would have the City Engineer examine the storm sewer system. If the system was inadequate, the cost of improvements would have to be worked out with the 2 • ! City Council . If the recent rains have not revealed any problems, the system is probably adequate. If new development would cause storm water problems then that new development would have to pay for the improvements to the system. Street Reconstruction - According to the City Engineer' s report the streets in Kern Center do not have to be reconstructed as part of utility installation. There will be some patch of streets done at 100% City cost . When the City does have to reconstruct the streets in Kern Center (when they start failing) it is the City policy that the benefiting property owners pay 50% and the City pays 50% of cost . 3) What is the actual cost for water/sewer hookups and who will pay for this? Cost/Payment - The City will not extend water/sewer utilities to the Kern Center area unless property owners petition for them. The actual cost will not be known until the project is bid. The benefiting property owners will pay 100% of the cost . Any discussions those property owners have with David Screaton about him paying some or all of your costs are between the property owners and David Screaton. 4) Why is the cost of hooking into the water/sewer system so high? Who will pay for this? City Charges - To hook into City water/sewer property owners must pay a Trunk Utility Charge. This charge reflects the costs to the City to construct the entire water and sewer system and run large pipes out to your area. These charges have been established by the City Council for the entire City. All benefiting property owners pay these charges . You will not be paying any different charges than those paid by Menards, Rainbow, any other developer, or any homeowner. I have attached a copy of these charges to this memo. Metropolitan Council Charges - In addition to City trunk charges, you would also have to pay a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) , based on the type of usage and building square footage, and Water Availability Charge (WAC) to the Metropolitan Council . These rates are established by the Metropolitan Council and the City has no control over them. Cost to Run Utilities to Your Building - When the City installs utilities it places stubs to a property line . Running the utilities from the property line to the building is the responsibility and cost of the building owner. 3 • 110 5) What is the time frame for hooking up to water/sewer? Time Frame for Hookup - Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexations, is that the City will delay hookups for existing building owners until their septic fails or until they request it . 6) After annexation will building owners be required to update their buildings to current City codes every time they change tenants or modify their buildings? Will existing building owners be required to bring their buildings up to City code when they hookup to water/sewer? City Code - The City has currently adopted the 1994 version of the building code . It is possible that the Township has only adopted an earlier version of the State Building Code and that this is where the differences between City standards and Township standards have occurred. The City of Lake Elmo has adopted the 1994 building code so their standards would be the same as Oak Park Heights . Remodeling Buildings - If you change tenants and don' t remodel your building you do not have to do any updates . When remodeling areas of buildings, you are only required to bring the remodeled area in compliance with current codes . If you build an addition to your building, you are required to bring the entire building up to current code . Hooking up to Utilities - City policy is that hooking up to utilities will not force you to bring your buildings up to the current building code standards. 7) If existing well/septic are phased out who makes up the cost to building owners? Current City policy, as reflected in previous annexations, is that the City will delay hookups for existing building owners until their septic fails or until they request hookup. A cost reimbursement could be part of this discussion. To be honest I think that with a delay in hooking up to City utilities it is not likely the City would reimburse you on costs for your well/septic. 4 110 8) Does the City have minimum requirements for sprinkling buildings and would it require building owners to retrofit their buildings with sprinkler systems? When remodeling an area of a commercial building, you are not required to sprinkle the remodeled area. When putting on an addition to a commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. When constructing a new commercial building, you must sprinkle the entire building. 9) If the Kern Center businesses become part of Oak Park Heights, what effect will this have on their existing business practices such as hours of operation, building additions, etc.? What type of business will be allowed to locate in Kern Center? Business Practices - I have not yet received the copies I requested of the covenant restrictions on your properties. Covenants are between the land seller and land buyer, and the City cannot override those covenants. Based on our meeting of the 28th of July I do not know of any additional restrictions Oak Park Heights would place upon you. I am not familiar with any restrictions Lake Elmo might place upon you. We do not restrict the hours a business operates . For example, Wal-Mart will be going to a 24-hour operation this fall . We do have restrictions based on noise, so that construction and other noisy activities are limited to the hours of 7 : 00 a.m. to 10 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. Building Additions - Building additions would be governed under the State Building Code . The City has currently adopted the 1994 version of the building code . New Businesses - The Kern Center area is described in the City' s Comprehensive Plan as Commercial . All land that is annexed comes into the City zoned as 0-Open Space . The land would have to be rezoned to B-2 General Business . B-2 allows most types of commercial businesses. I 've attached a list of allowable uses from the zoning code. The main restriction is that outside storage must be screened. Existing businesses would be grandfathered in terms of zoning requirements. New developments are typically not rezoned until they have negotiated a development agreement with the City. 5 • 10) Could Kern Center businesses continue using their own garbage contractors rather than being forced to use the City' s contractor? As noted in our meeting with you, the City' s garbage contract runs until the end of 1998, and until that time all businesses within the City limits must use Junker/United Waste . However, commercial users can negotiate their own rates with United Waste . If they are unsatisfied with those rates, they can appeal them to the City Council, which has final rate approval . 11) If Kern Center becomes part of Oak Park Heights will existing standards be changed? Would requirements for open space remain the same? Would any further subdivision of existing lots be allowed? Could existing businesses be constituted as a review board to approve any changes in the Kern Center area? Existing Standards & Open Space - As noted earlier once we receive copies of your existing covenants we will compare them to the standards in our zoning code. Subdivision of Existing Lots - As I described in our meeting, City zoning code requires a minimum of one acre per building in commercial areas. Under these standards a parcel of two or more acres could be subdivided into parcels which met the one acre minimum. As I also indicated to you in our meeting, it is difficult to meet the State stormwater standards, meet the City' s standards for parking and open space, and still construct a building of any size on a one acre parcel . The City Council would be happy to discuss this issue with you as part of the annexation process . Review Board - As all City representatives noted in our meeting with you, we would be happy to work with any kind of a review board in the Kern Center area. The City is considering creating a Planning Commission and your proposed review board could be part of that . As we also indicated, we would not grant that review board any kind of veto authority over future development, however, the Council will respect any covenant restrictions. 12) To date Kern Center businesses feel that Oak Park Heights has not been interested in their concerns. The City of Oak Park Heights has felt constrained in meeting with Kern Center businesses by the accusations we received from Baytown residents and Board members that Oak Park Heights was soliciting this annexation proposal and trying to sell people on being annexed. 6 • The City was responding to a proposal it had received from David Screaton and John Low. The City had already turned down a request for annexation which came only from David Screaton in the recent past . We were aware from Screaton and Low that they were having conversations with business owners in the Kern Center. We decided that since we were being accused of soliciting annexation and having some sort of secret plan for annexation that we would limit any informal contacts and conduct all of our annexation discussions at publicly noticed meetings . We are sorry if that gave you the impression you were being ignored or that we did not want to hear your concerns . We continue to be open to meeting with you formally or informally to discuss your concerns. 13) Kern Center businesses intend to make their decisions regarding annexation as a group and would like to review any agreements that are proposed as part of the annexation. All City agreements are public and the City would be happy to let Kern Center businesses review any of them. The City would be happy to form a group made up of City Councilmembers, Town Board members, and property owners such as yourselves to consider and hammer out the details on an orderly annexation agreement . We think an orderly annexation agreement between the City of Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township is the best way to reach a solution. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at City Hall, 439-4439 . 7 Bonestroo,Roselle,Anderlik and Associates.IrAffirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestroo. Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo.PE.•Joseph C.An Prlik.RE.•Marvin L.Sorvala.P.E.• 4E1 Richard E.Turner.P.E.• Glenn R.Cook.PE.•Thomas E.Noyes.P.E.• Robert G.Schunicht,PE.• Rosene Jerry A.Bourdon,P.E.•Robert W Rosene,PE.and Susan M.Eberlin,C.P.A.,Senior Consultants Anderlik & Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford,PE.• Keith A.Goroon.P.E.•Robert R.Pfefferle,PE.• Richard V/.Foster,P.E.• David O.Loskota,PE.•Robert C.Russek.A.I,A.•Mark A.Hanson,P.E.• Michael 1'.Rautmann.P.E.• Ted K.Field,PE.• Kenneth P Anderson,PE.•Mark R.Rolls,P.E.• Associates Sidney P Williamson,PE.,L.S.•Robert F.Kotsmitn Offices:St.Paul.Rochester,Wiiimar and St.Cloud,MN•Mequon.WI Engineers &Architects February 19, 1997 Mr. Michael Robertson City of Oak Park Heights P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, lvLN 55082-2007 CM ° :• ' Re: Haase Comm/Ind. Site FEB 2 019971 Our File No. 55-Gen I Dear Mr. Robertson: The following are the current area and/or connection charges, which would be collected as development occurs in the vicinity of the Haase property, which lies north of the future 58th Street: Item Charge Sanitary Sewer $2,310.00/Acre Waterworks $4,010.00/Acre Storm Sewer $5,080.00/Acre Collector Roadway $5,300.00/Acre The storm sewer area charge noted above is based on providing additional storm water ponding in the area. If you have any questions on the information contained in this letter,please do not hesitate to call me at 604-4833. Very truly yours, • BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES, INC. 9.41,4, Cv Joseph C. Anderlik JCA:gs 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 • 612-636-4600 • 4111 401.29. B-1, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 401.29.A. Purpose. The purpose of the B-1, Neighborhood Business District is to provide for the establishment of local centers for convenient, limited office, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. These centers are to provide services and goods only for the surrounding neighborhoods and are not intended to draw customers from the entire community. 401.29.B. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in a B-1 District: 1. Barber shops. 2. Beauty parlors. 3. Essential services. 4. Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type). 5. Laundromat, self-service washing and drying. 6. Cellular telephone antennas located on a public structure, as regulated in Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance. 401.29.C. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses in a B-1 District: 1. None. 401.29.D. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-1 District: • 1. Commercial or business buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use but such use shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space of the principal use. 2. Off-street parking is regulated by Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance, but not including semi-trailer trucks. { 3. Off-street loading as regulated by Section 401.15.F of this Ordinance. 29-1 • • 401.30. B-2, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 401.30.A. Purpose. The purpose of the B-2, General Business District is to provide for high intensity, retail or service outlets which deal directly with the customer for whom the goods or services are furnished. The uses allowed in this district are to provide goods and services on a community market scale and located in areas which are well served by collector or arterial street facilities. 401.30.B. Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in a B-2 District: 1. Any permitted use in the B-1 District. 2. Banks, savings institutions, credit unions and other financial institutions. 3. Business, commercial, or trade schools. 4. Clinics, for people only. 5. Day care - group nursery (within single occupancy freestanding building). 6. Government and public utility buildings. aK 7. Motels, motor hotels and hotels provided that the lot area contains not less than five hundred (500) square feet of lot area per unit. 8. Restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns and off-sale liquor. 9. Retail sales. 10. Commercial service uses. 11. Commercial recreation. 12. Libraries. 13. Offices, business or professional, including ticket sales. 14. Optical laboratories. 15. Sexually oriented use - principal and accessory. 30-1 16. Theaters, excluding drive-in type of service. 401.30.C. Interim Uses. The following are interim uses in a B-2 District: Ct 1. None. 401.30.D. Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a B-2 District: 1. All permitted accessory uses as allowed in a B-1 District. 2. Semi-Truck parking. 401.30.E. Conditional Uses. The following are conditional uses in a B-2 District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 401.03 of this Ordinance). 1. Drive-in and convenience food establishments provided that: a. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. 1�- b. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. c. Each light standard island and all islands in the parking lot landscaped or covered. d. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 401.15.E. of this Ordinance. e. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six (6) inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. f. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict E with through traffic movements, shall comply with Section 401.15.F. of this Ordinance and shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. 30-2 L Bonestroo.Rosen,Anderlik and Associates,I `s an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Bonestro410 Principals:Otto G.Bonestroo,PE.•Joseph rlik,RE.• Marvin L.Sorvala.P.E.• Richard E.Turner,RE.•Glenn R.Cook,P.E.• R rt G.Schunicht,PE.• Jerry A.Bourdon,PE.• RoseneRobert W.Rosene,P.E.and Susan M.Eberlin,CPA.,Senior Consultants 1111 Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford,P.E.• Keith A.Gordon,PE.•Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.• Anderlik & Richard W.Foster,P.E.• David O.Loskota,PE.•Robert C.Russek,A.I.A.• Mark A.Hanson,P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann,PE.•Ted K.Field,P.E.• Kenneth P Anderson,RE.•Mark R.Rolls,P.E.• Associates Sidney P Williamson,RE.,R.S.• Robert F.Kotsmith J Offices:St.Paul,Rochester,Willmar and St.Cloud,MN• Milwaukee,WI Engineers & Architects July 16, 1997 Mr.Michael Robertson • City of Oak Park Heights JUL 1 71991 14168 N. 57th Street 12.) P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Re: West Highway 5 Utility Study Our File No. 55136 Dear Mr. Robertson: A preliminary report on the extension of public water and sewer to provide service to the land in Baytown Township lying west of Highway 5 was prepared to determine the feasibility and costs associated with this proposal. The report was dated March 10, 1997 and assumed that only the existing excess capacity in the Oak Park Heights sanitary sewer system would be utilized. It should be noted that with a couple of rather minor modifications in the Oak Park Heights system, additional sewer capacity could be provided so that all of the Baytown Township land lying west of Highway No. 5 could be allowed to develop to usual and customary urban density and uses with public sewer service. These modifications would include the replacement of the pumps and motors in the existing sewage pumping station and extension of the force main from the station 725 feet east where it would discharge into a larger trunk sanitary sewer. It is proposed that the modifications be undertaken only when or if the pumping station starts to reach its original design capacity. There will be some point in time when the pumps and motors will have to be replaced after their useful life with the increase in size being of little significance. The original report would seem to imply that there were capacity limitations that could not be overcome. We want to assure you that this is not the case and there should be no concern that the subject property can be developed to its highest and best use and that sanitary sewer capacity can be made available in a timely and economical manner. Very truly yours, BONESTROO,ROSENE,ANDERLIK&ASSOCIATES, INC. C-.):!,,aid& au-r...-0e--(--" Joseph C. Anderlik • 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 y 1 ,,,`CpG Scott L.Hovet,CAE . SHINGTON CO TY County Assessor 1 ASSESSOR'S OFFICE Dennis Montague,CMA GOVERNMENT CENTER Assistant Co.Assessor .-:,�►" s`� 14900 61st Street North,P.O.Box 6 • Stillwater,Minnesota 55082-0006 \Sno.pRosp,-- Office(612)430-6090 Facsimile Machine(612)430-6223 Sharoan Harp,CMA Assessment Administrator DATE: June 30, 1997 TO: Owners of Tax Exempt Properties - 3 1991 FROM: Scott L. Hovet, CAE ' ' County Assessor SUBJECT: 1998 Valuation of Exempt Properties Minnesota law requires that all exempt property be valued • once every six years. It is scheduled to be valued for January 2, 1998. Our office is now collecting data to perform this task and we ask your assistance. By July 31, 1997, please submit to our office as much of the following data that you have available: - amount of fire insurance carried on the property and the basis upon which that amount was selected any data you have would be very helpful about they physical characteristics of your site and improvements C ' including square footage, age, types of interior or exterior finish, ceiling height, bathrooms, etc. ' - a recent site plan or simple building plan (not a u`') complete set of building plans) would be very helpful. L\)- - any other information that may be helpful to us including any recent appraisals; yours or a realtor's opinion of the 't' value of the property, etc. Thank you in advance. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. The exempt valuation is used by the Minnesota Department of Revenue for various studies and in determining state aid for fire departments, bonding information, etc. It is not the basis for any property tax or service charge in lieu of tax, etc. Please call David Stepan, the Oak Park Heights Assessor at 430-6099 with the above information you may have to help us. • SLH/blk Printed on Recycled Paper AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER 30%Post Consumer Waste 1,7.41�) 411 Enclosure 9 MEMO Date: June 6, 1997 To: Mayor & Council From: Mike Robertson, City Administrator Re: Annexation Petition Update I have enclosed (Enclosure 9B) a petition from some Baytown residents in the proposed annexation area who are opposed to annexation. Mark and Scott will have an update on the annexation petition at the Council meeting. I Enclosure 9B i • We the undersigned wish to remain within the boundaries of Baytown Township. If annexation should occur, we as business owners and residents request that full disclosure be given by governing bodies of Baytown Township and Oak Park Heights concerning agreements and prior agreements and their potential affect on all Baytown property owners. Name Address Cij), .) uz. -rc '(slap .:svrv.civcxca..Jl. _ O 0 �l.0 SCO yr e..r�Oc.Ca-Q-"`'_ . � ' / G NI 9-e.....) .;,...40 0e. / 577515" wo e> 9 4 0-7 4 d • /AP sz, 3 . J Lx_ tet, --4- `�' g ,./ f , 4,- L , fk-D.V°-r Co . s-Poc, 71-.- 7 .-e--"4 "1- 1-- /1/1.- . / .. doa-Q. ` P j24.5.t, 5sT4 .-ii (Q , -4-r„..„...b, A_ N,N� MD inmv/44 � , tib el ?i-a-' /i S 7,5-6,04 to f' 575-7 IM-1-1L1/11(I ' /1-ia . ,„ ,,,,a e% 4e,---G June 3, 1997 ���1-� �� PROPERTY OWNERS IN PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA GEOCODE (PIN) OWNER 06-029-20- 120004 RADUENZ MOTOR MGMT 06-029-20- 120005 ROBER BRUCE TUCKNER 06-029-20- 120006 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 120007 CALVIN BOOKMAN 06-029-20- 120008 ARTHUR F RADUENZ , JR 06-029-20- 130001 JOHN LOW ASSOCIATES 06-029-20- 130002 ALK 06-029-20- 13O003 FREDRICK KEMPER 06-029-20- 210001 ROBERT BUBERL 06-029-20- 210002 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 210008 ROBERT BUBERL 06-029-20- 210004 SECURE MINISTORAGE 06-029-20- 210005 SECURE MINISTORAGE 06-029-20- 210006 SECURE MINISTORAGE 06-029-20- 220001 BERNARD NASS 06-029-20- 220002 RICHARD CLAUGHERTY 06-029-20- 220003 KENNETH HAUTH 06-029-20- 230001 BERNARD NASS 06-029-20- 230802 CAROL PALMQUIST 06-029-20- 230003 STEVEN ENGLE 06-029-20- 230004 ALVIN BERGMANN 06-029-20- 240004 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 240005 R.J . AMUSEMENTS 06-029-20- 240006 STILLWATER WEST LLC 06-029-20- 240007 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 240008 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 240009 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 240010 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 240011 W.A.T .E . ENTERPRISES 06-029-20- 240012 W .A.T .E. ENTERPRISES 06-029-20- 240013 VIOLET KERN 06-029-20- 310002 OAKGREEN FARM INC 06-829-20- 310003 BETTY SMITH 06-029-20- 320001 DAVID R SCREATON P/S 06-029-20- 330001 BETTY SMITH 06-029-20- 33O002 WALTER GLEASON 06-029-20- 340001 EVAN. LUTH. ST . JOHN'S CHUR N� � JUL-02-97 03 :01 AM P. 01 r • GREYSTONE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. LETTER Dr TRANSMITTAL 324 Main Street South The Grand Garage Building Suite 280 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (612) 430-2449 FAX- 430-2480 Date-711/97 To: Mr. Mark Vierling Janelle Johnson We are sending the following items: Attached_ Under Separate Cover FAX Copies ]ug Description 7/1/97 Ibis Pub MEL Belayen lilpntaatlon THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS UNDERLINED BELOW: A-FOR APPROVAL D-APPROVED AS SUBMITTEDG- APPROVED AS NOTED B-FOR YOUR USE B-AS REQUESTED -FOR RE W ANa COMMENT F-RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS Dear Mark /Janelle; I have enclosed what I hope you were expecting from me. All that I have in my files Concerns Kern Center. I'm sorry that I don't have more information on the properties outside of Kern Center, however if you require street addresses or complete legal let me know, Sincerely, Jo ow JUL-02-97 03 :01 AM P. 02 t 0 i ' r- 7 - T I I F — T lb calt3 81 CaCn a W At -W.. O cif " N pf tg "' 6i ti _?_.__-_..__...._...__.._,_..- __..._.... ........�___......., .�_�.... —..-..---�_. -...,�0 OoV C� 4+ a W N_ w O <C Oo V Cf V� W N ..__.. ; Iii t iiiii1 : 1 ill: glisissuggfggliiigiil 1 ,..,. 1 5 " 44 j W N N N N + # N N N N N N N N N N N �V r► rl,� � � i► W ,..i W ��� 1 / 11 / 18111111-+ . . , _ ....._,w!_......._I .* m g 7[ 0 * * 0 s r->411 s 4 m Ar z y, m m ti A -x A rn O > -4 c xi RI I ii7 i ri. A rn 2 m g- A A Ai g A, ;39 rn 7. mc m m R rim r rql "1 i 11 C 0 Fi" g 1 x 73 rte+ Z rr1 N y ..• O + m g 1 0 mm v = x Z �n (n ~ j z Cg's D aJ C27 N / R m rn n ISX ' IR 2 5► g IfJ]]1 [ ITi '1 qK " H sAi i 2 1: a s c ..„ .. rn u, *.vj Pi n C19 5 r- r0 r 5 5 "r r1 5 00r r- e"Ti- r r r r r r --.1.---5.-*- 0 0 0 0 0 6 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -'1 -I -1 -4 1 1 + -1 -y 1 - 1 •1 1 -/ -1 1 •1 -^1 y -. 1 1 rl CI ill A W N A 41 N C co a7 Cl) .b `V a7 Cl) .+ 41 N .. ....... ._...-., . ..._--._.-.._----.- ._--_-._...--.--�.-_....._-.-_.._.-_.--_._._-� -_....__-._..._ 1....-__f .-__— a) Wo ao 0o ao R P W w a aro oro ra) aro oro ary a 1 oru N Al N N N N N •+ z N N N N . g _ ? x66 � � gi - Am * gixi � 2iQ z rzE : z z z zgg zzEzzsnn 0 g m no om A rmrn mmmgliRM5r Z z gggg 6. .. .... ... ;,„Aut, 3.-. n . 0000 . . 188 m ''' h �4'+ �i a z '� m m z 0000635a 65 o L4 g4 1 112- 12221111. 1 44gxz 1 I z z Z z z A I-- F. pr, 0r, leo C SyV § 0- 0 N Ur VI Ncn •y' N f/0 z k , _ L 1 1 1 i JUN-04-1997 16:54 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02/09 • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Vierling FROM: Scott Richards DATE: 4 June 1997 RE: Oak Park Heights -Annexation of Land West of Highway 5 FILE NO: 796.04 - 97.12 As per your request, I have assembled information relating to the annexation of land west of Highway 5 including Kern Center, the property owned by David Screaton and surrounding acreage. A resolution of the annexing municipality under Minnesota Statute 414,03 requires that the resolution include the following: 1. The boundaries of the territory proposed for annexation. a, Joe Anderlik has a base map that includes the area boundaries. 2. Names of all parties entitled to notice under Section 414.09. a. The Township - Baytown Township. b. Any township or municipality abutting the affected territory - City of Lake Elmo, Stillwater Township. c. The County where the affected territory is situated - Washington County. d. Eachplanningagency which has jurisdiction over the affected area - 9 Y 1 Washington County Planning Department. 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE 61E-595-9636 FAX 51E-595-9637 J,UN-04-1997 16:55 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03/09 • • 3_ Reasons for requesting annexation. a. The City and property owners recognize that the area continues to develop as an urban commercial area with the potential for suburban residential development. The City of Oak Park Heights will need additional land in the near future to accommodate single family and multiple family development. b. The City and property owners contend that a municipal form of government will best protect the public health, safety and welfare in that the City provides municipal water and sewer service which are not currently provided by the Township and the City has its own police force adequately equipped to serve the subject area. The Township now relies on the Washington County Sheriffs Department for police protection. c. The City and property owners agree that the area would best be served under the jurisdiction of Oak Park Heights. The area, with its high visibility and access off of State Highways 36 and 5, is appropriate for mixed land use of commercial, light industrial, and single/multiple family development at urban standards. The area is a logical extension of the City of Oak Park Heights boundaries. An initial review of the criteria that the Municipal Board uses to make a determination on an annexation is provided below. A more thorough and complete review should be made before the actual hearing_ 1. Population. City/Township/Area Population 1970 1980 1990 1995 2010 2020 Oak Park Heights 1,257 2,591 3,486 3,776 5,150 6,500 Baytown Township 723 851 939 1,209 2,600 5,000 Annexation Area -- -- -- 21 -- -- • Population projections provided by Metropolitan Council 2 JUN-04-1997 16:55 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/09 • 2. Geography and Physical Features. a. Acreage_ Acreage Total Acreage in Oak Park Heights 1,679 Total Acreage in Baytown Township 5,825 Total Acreage in Subject Area 235 b. Topography. The northwestern portion of the subject area contains rolling terrain and trees with small wetlands which inhibits commercial or high density residential development. The eastern area adjacent to State Highway 5 is flat and open with few trees. The southwest portion of the area is slightly rolling and contains a portion of a large wetland complex. c. Soils. The Washington County Soils Survey indicates that the subject area contains primarily two types of soils which are well drained with moderate to poor permeability. The primary soil types are Antigo and Santiago. 3. Contiguity_ The subject area is contiguous to the City of Oak Park Heights along 3,890 feet of its westerly boundary. The subject area is contiguous to Baytown Township for 1,800 feet. 4. Planning and Transportation. a Existing Land Use. The northeastern portion of the subject area is dominated by Kern Center, a partially completed commercial and light industrial development. The northwestern corner of the site is sparsely developed with single family residences and is influenced by areas of severe topography and wetlands. To the south is St. Johannes Lutheran Church and Cemetery along State Highway 5, single family homes, a commercial business and undeveloped agricultural property. To the southwest is primarily agricultural land. The area within Oak Park Heights, adjacent to the subject area and north of 58th Street, is planned for commercial development. A shopping center development has been approved by Oak Park Heights for a portion of this area. South of 58th Street, the Stillwater Area High School is the existing, adjacent property. b. Zoning. Zoning administration for Baytown Township is provided by Washington County. Under the Washington County Zoning Ordinance, the Kern Center area is zoned for commercial uses and the remaining area to 3 JUN-04-1997 16;55 NRC 612 595 9837 P.05/89 • • the west and south is zoned rural residential with a density of one home per five acres. Upon annexation into the City of Oak Park Heights, the subject area would be zoned 0, Open Space, and subsequently, rezoned to higher intensity zoning classifications upon review of the appropriate land use designations by the City Council. The existing zoning for the developing shopping center is PUD, Planned Unit Development with B-2, General Business District as the underlying standard. The high school and surrounding areas that are not developed are zoned 0, Open Space Conservation District. c. Transportation. The subject area is currently served by State Highway 5 and Manning Avenue North, both with direct access to State Highway 36. A local street network has developed within Kern Center consisting of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North_ Additionally, 55th Street North connects Manning Avenue with State Highway 5. Development will generate the need for construction of collector and local street systems within the subject area. Local street patterns will be established with subdivision design. Collector street corridors will be identified as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment when the property is brought into the City. An extension of Manning Avenue to the south of 55th Street North is currently under study by the Washington County Highway Department. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is currently rebuilding the bridge intersection at State Highways 36 and 5. 5. Comprehensive Plans. a. Baytown Township. The Baytown Township Comprehensive Plan was updated by the Baytown Town Board in 1995. Central sanitary sewer service is not available in Baytown Township. All areas of the Township are reliant on on-site septic systems. According to the Baytown Township Plan, the subject area is proposed to include the Kern Center as a commercial land use and the remaining area as rural residential_ The purpose of rural residential the district is to promote lot sizes of one home per five acres, with possible clustering. b. Oak Park Heights. The Comprehensive Plan for Oak Park Heights was adopted in January of 1979 and amended in December of 1979, December of 1988, and September 1991. The City is currently in the process of a complete update of the Comprehensive Plan. Previous comprehensive planning has anticipated the eventual annexation of property to the west of State Highway 5_ Sewer facilities constructed within Oak Park Heights have been designed to accommodate service to the subject area. The current update of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates the annexation and extension 4 JUN-04-1997 16:56 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06/09 • • of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA)to include this site. The plan will propose the land use for the area as a mixture of commercial/light industrial, and low density and mid density residential land use. 6. Governmental Services. An analysis of governmental services is as follows: a. Police Service. Oak Park Heights provides police service through its own Police Department. The Police are headquartered in the Oak Park Heights City Hall. The department has four patrol'cars and a staff of ten which includes the Police Chief, Sergeant, and an investigator. Approximate response time to the subject site is three minutes. Travel distance to the subject site is approximately 1.5 miles. Baytown Township is served by the Washington County Sheriff. The Sheriff's Department is headquartered in the Washington County Government Center, located at 14900 North 61st Street, Stillwater. Travel distance from the government center to the subject site is approximately 2.5 miles. Due to the concentrated service area, the Oak Park Heights Police Department, with its staff and equipment, provide a fast response time to anywhere in the City. The Oak Park Heights Police will provide the fastest and best service for the subject site. b. Fire Service. Both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township are provided fire protection through contract with the City of Bayport Fire Department. The Bayport Fire Department is located next to City Hall, which is located at 225 Third Avenue South. The Fire Department consists of 24 volunteers. The department responds to calls with one tanker, two pumpers, and a pick up truck. Approximately arrival time from the station to the subject site is seven minutes. Travel distance from the Fire Department to the subject site is approximately 3.5 miles, c. Ambulance. Ambulance service for both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township is provided through the Lakeview Hospital located at 919 West Anderson in Stillwater. Travel distance from the hospital to the subject site is approximately 2.0 miles. The ambulance has two full time crews around the clock, each equipped with two paramedics for service to the area. A third ambulance crew is available on call. d. Road Maintenance. The City of Oak Park Heights has its own Public Works Department consisting of three full time individuals, however, most road maintenance and snow plowing is provided by a private contractor. The 5 JUN-04-1997 16:56 NAC 612 595 9837 P.07/09 • contractor has a staff of six people with three blades, one loader, a truck plow, and a tractor plow for snow removal. The City can provide faster response and more efficient road maintenance service than the Township. Any subdivision or commercial development in Oak Park Heights requires improved roads including curb and gutter. More comprehensive street standards result in less maintenance due to properly designed and engineered roads. Baytown Township is served by a private contractor for road maintenance and snow plowing. The contractor has a staff of five full time people and adequate snow clearing equipment. e. Sanitary Sewer and Water. Baytown Township does not provide sewer and water service. All development, including the existing commercial and residential properties in the subject area, are designed with on-site septic systems and wells. Oak Park Heights does provide sewer and water service and the infrastructure is available east of Highway 5 to serve the subject area. The City, through its consulting engineer Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates Inc., completed a report in March 1997 indicating the feasibility of providing municipal services to the subject area. The report, entitled preliminary Report on Water and Sewer ftgpsions West Highway No. 5 Study Area, provides the basic utility layout, capacity analysis, and cost allocation for the entire area. The study concluded that construction of sanitary sewer and water mains to serve the subject area is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in Oak Park Heights. Limitations in sanitary sewer capacity prevent extension of municipal services to the area lying west of Kern Center and north of 55th Street. Due to the development limitations in the area including wetlands and topography, the area may be better served at a low single family density with on-site systems, f. Parks. Baytown Township does not provide park facilities. The City of Oak Park Heights has an extensive park and trail system, providing both active and passive recreational facilities. The City is currently in the planning stages for a 25 acre park east of the subject area that will provide recreational fields, play structures and trails around the wetland complex. The City would make plans to extend its trail system across State Highway 5 at 58th Street to provide access to the City's park and trail system. 6 JUN-04-1997 16:57 NAC 612 595 9837 P.08/09 • • g. Administrative Services. The Town of Bayport does not have full time staff or a town hall with regular office hours. The City of Oak Park Heights has a full time administrator and two staff members, and a full time Building Official. The City Hall is located at 14168 57th Street North and the office hours are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. 7. Environmental. There does not currently exist any known environmental issues on the subject site. Provision of sanitary sewer service will allow for construction of commercial development in the Kern Center in a matter which better protects the environment as it relates to waste water disposal. (Add PCA/Minnesota Historical Society Information Here) 8. Service Provision by Oak Park Heights. As indicated, the City has planned for extension of water and sanitary sewer service to the subject area west of Highway 5. Additionally, the City Police, administrative, and public works are adequately staffed and equipped to accommodate the area proposed for annexation. The City will address these service issues in the Comprehensive Plan Update. 9. Fiscal Analysis. FISCAL DATA VALUES AND TAX RATES FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1997 Baytown Township Oak Park Heights Total Estimated Market Valuation 104,358,600 223,205,500 Net Tax Capacity 1,925,858 6,728,690 Total Bonded Indebtedness 0 2,215,000 Tax Rates: County 27.87 27.87 Local Units of Government District 1 5.60 22.27 District 2 5.60 2227 District 3 5.60 22.90 School District 61.76 61.76 Special School District .30 .30 7 JUN-04-1997 16:57 NAC 612 595 9837 P.09/09 • • • Baytown Township Oak Park Heights Watershed District 1 0 0 District 2 3.95 3.54 District 3 3.54 0 Other 4.81 5.32 Total Tax Rate District 1 100.33 117.51 District 2 104.28 121.06 District 3 103.87 118.14 10. Effect on CommunitieslSchaot Districts. The proposed annexation will not affect surrounding communities including Stillwater Township to the north across Highway 36, and the City of Lake Elmo to the west and south. Both the City of Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township are completely within Independent School District 834. Municipal boundary changes resulting from the annexation will not affect school district boundaries. 11 Adequacy of Town Government. 12. Governmental Service - Incorporation vs. Annexation. 13. Effect on Township. P 8 TOTAL P.09 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 4 4390574 NO.046 ?02 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, ANI) BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.031 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St . Paul, MN 55108 The Minnesota Municipal Board is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on the question of annexing certain property to the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The petitioner for annexation is: The City of ; or, The Township of ; or, X 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. There are 23 property owners in the area proposed for annexation. The number of owners who have signed this petition is 6 . The number of petitioners required by M.S. 414 .031 to commence a proceeding is 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows: 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 4 4390574 NO.046 P03 111 411 See attached Exhibit "A" . 1 . The petitioners have submitted a copy of this petition to the affected Township of Baytown on April 22, 1997 . 2 . The area proposed for annexation abuts the city on the city' s West boundary thereof, and none of it is presently a part of any incorporated city or in an area designated for orderly annexation. 3 . The total acreage of the area proposed for annexation is : 240 . 4 . The petitioners believe that all of this property is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. 5 . The reason for requesting the annexation is: The property needs extension of sewer and water services which cannot be provided by Baytown Township. 6 . Parties entitled to notice under Minnesota Statutes 414 . 09 are : See attached Exhibit "B" . 7 . If this petition is by property owners, a copy of a resolution from the City of Oak Park Heights, the annexing municipality, supporting the annexation is attached hereto. r 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBERG LAIC FIRM 4 4390574 NO.046 5104 I 110 . . , . : Dated: � .,G ./�g�1997. DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP Sy p._,/ F. David R. Screaton, Partner Sy etir7h .io er✓I J dith Screaton, Partner OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation By j).0%.1 fr ,0.,__I t e Peo.c,dle.►'f" ,..4014e ett Smith LOW & ASSOCIATES NC. By 41111Ir A.L.K. P,'TNERSHIP By _ .......7 . Tr Partner deriCk Kem er)' alvin Brookman 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 9 4390574 NO.046 1705 • •• • Dated: 5 -9'7 , 1997. /���?. �+ 2sL`� �--'°�.�� `Bernard W. Nass /4O-44,/ Lo h a Nass 0EVe6/97 09:43 ECKB LAW FIRM 4 4390574 k r X2 0• -7 l I 1'Oanni n /qUe , 11). 5S-6'la_ IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NABS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 .031 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St . Paul , MN 55108 The Minnesota Municipal Board is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on the question of annexing certain property to the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The petitioner for annexation is: The City of ; or, The Township of ; or, X 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. There are 23 property owners in the area proposed for annexation. The number of owners who have signed this petition is 6 . The number of petitioners required by M.S. 414 .031 to commence a proceeding is 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows : 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBo LAW FIRM d 4390574 N0.046 D03 See attached Exhibit "A" . 1 . The petitioners have submitted a copy of this petition to the affected Township of Baytown on April 22, 1997 . 2 . The area proposed for annexation abuts the city on the city' s West boundary thereof, and none of it is presently a part of any incorporated city or in an area designated for orderly annexation. 3 . The total acreage of the area proposed for annexation is: 240 . 4 . The petitioners believe that all of this property is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. 5 . The reason for requesting the annexation is: The property needs extension of sewer and water services which cannot be provided by Baytown Township. 6 . Parties entitled to notice under Minnesota Statutes 414 .09 are : See attached Exhibit "B" . 7 . If this petition is by property owners, a copy of a resolution from the City of Oak Park Heights, the annexing municipality, supporting the annexation is attached hereto. ' 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBbLAW FIRM 443,90574 NO.046 D04 • Dated: ‹IL a ,199.73.997 . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP By David R. Screaton, Partner J dith Screaton, Partner OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation By f'..J r Its PrvistdeAf 4061 ettvfSmith LOW & ASSOCIATES NC. ByAdlOr x : Pig. . A.L.K. P TNERSHIP By I Partner ---,:elvd4j4W i ick Kem etsib alvin /Brookman 06/06/97 09:43 ECKB LAW FIRM + 4390574 NO.046 005 • Dated: r- a -9'7 , 1997. 1 ��-. •2u�`. c��c--�--- 1-8ernard W. Nass .I 9204?t' Lo lla Nass ! • EXHIBIT "A" All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County, Minnesota. • 4 EXHIBIT "B" TOWN OF BAYTOWN Patricia L. St . Claire, Clerk 14949 - 30th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 • CITY OF LAKE ELMO Mary Kueffner, Administrator 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Pat Bantli, Clerk 13636 - 90th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 CITY OF STILLWATER Nile L. Kriesel, Administrator 216 North 4th ,Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY James Schug, Administrator 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Brian McGinnis, Chairman 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 BAYTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION Dennis Trenda, Chairman 14105 North 45th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Kurt Johnson, Chairman 230 East Fifth Street St . Paul, Minnesota 55101 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBERG LAW FIRM 4 4390574411 N0.046 002 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAXGREEN FARMS, INC. , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROOKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS, FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.031 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St . Paul, MN 55108 The Minnesota Municipal Board is hereby requested to hold a public hearing on the question of annexing certain property to the City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The petitioner for annexation is: The City of ; or, The Township of ; or, X 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. There are 23 property owners in the area proposed for annexation. The number of owners who have signed this petition is 6 . The number of petitioners required by M.S. 414 .031 to commence a proceeding is 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows : 06/06/97 09:43 EDI/VW FIRM 4 4390574 NO.046 003 110 See attached Exhibit "A" . 1 . The petitioners have submitted a copy of this petition to the affected Township of Baytown on April 22, 1997 . 2 . The area proposed for annexation abuts the city on the city' s West boundary thereof, and none of it is presently a part of any incorporated city or in an area designated for orderly annexation. 3 . The total acreage of the area proposed for annexation is : 240 . 4 . The petitioners believe that all of this property is or is about to become urban or suburban in character. 5 . The reason for requesting the annexation is: The property needs extension of sewer and water services which cannot be provided by Baytown Township. 6 . Parties entitled to notice under Minnesota Statutes 414 . 09 are : See attached Exhibit "B" . 7 . If this petition is by property owners, a copy of a resolution from the City of Oak Park Heights, the annexing municipality, supporting the annexation is attached hereto. 06/06/97 09:43 ECKB4 LAW FIRM a 4390574 NO.046 D04 Dated: cc' ,/59.71997. DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP By ,,r2../ .�.. David R. Screaton, Partner By dt'.l . E.Cv cP9 J dith Screaton, Partner OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. , a Minnesota Corporation By 7") r-- It$ Pees 4e..t "41 ett Smith LOW & ASSOCIATES NC. Age By I = ex. az . • A.L.K. P�'TNERSHIP BY - 1 I i" Partner / derick Kem er p alvin /Brookman 06/06/97 09:43 ECKBE LAW FIRM 4 4390574 • NO.046 D05 r • Dated: 5 _917 , 1997 . "8ernard W. Nass (1 920 La lla Nass • EXHIBIT "A" All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5, Washington County, Minnesota. • EXHIBIT "B" TOWN OF BAYTOWN Patricia L. St . Claire, Clerk 14949 - 30th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 CITY OF LAKE ELMO Mary Kueffner, Administrator 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 STILLWATER TOWNSHIP Pat Bantli, Clerk 13636 - 90th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 CITY OF STILLWATER Nile L. Kriesel, Administrator 216 North 4th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY James Schug, Administrator 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Brian McGinnis, Chairman 14900 - 61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 BAYTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION Dennis Trenda, Chairman 14105 North 45th Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Kurt Johnson, Chairman 230 East Fifth Street St . Paul, Minnesota 55101 I 612 595 9837 � • d -, JUN-04-1997 11:10 •NPC 612 9`_ 98-_,77 f'.01 02 w i Kt NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS A INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH ,All MEMORANDUM -Via Fax Transmission TO: Judy Hoist FROM: Madhulika Singh / Scott Richards DATE: 04 June 1997 RE: Oak Park Heights - Screaton and Kern Center Annexation FILE NO: 798.04 - 97.12 As per our telephone conversation I am faxingy_pu the property ID numbers of the parcels for which we requirehel3roperty value and tax capacity. The property listed below lie in Baytown Township. The County said that it would cost three dollars per parcel if they were to give this information to us. However, they also said that the city has this information. We would appreciate if you could provide this information at your earliest Thank you. Geocode No Value Tax Capacity 06-029-20-22-0001 . V-- ,� .', .0 ): e%/6, 6 06-029-20-22-0002 ''v I 4-4-101 (ao,cOO ,hi i. I ./ 10° Lf v (,( - 666a, Oki/ I b53, . 5- 0` .- 06 029-20-22-0003 -'rpw . -.2.,44x.)) ,meq/vo I rly' 4 --',boo, ,�,1tsL1100 3780 06-029-20-23-0001 441"0/ 15.f.X)U • . UI 500 .556 06-029-20-23-0002m v 14.,-100 S 134 , E 1114 S! e . ' `'J s LAA 6 ,,. r is05- 06-029-20-23-0003 1,0, u ) /t 4, 06-029-20-21-0001 ...t-;h1\1 / 'H d(..),-;)L)0 06-029-20-21-0002 3 0 0 51 �5 06-029-20-21-0003 6,, ' Lo P Up 06-029-20-21-0004 " 1,1v Q0 E yo v L'9' o /0 -f 0 06-029-20-21-0005 3O1000 ( >o ✓ tri,,,,;) )1 o 4-- 1 06-029-20-21-0006 2 U6(�° ,t- ii',) o),,,, 10;2-- 5775 22-5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD , SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK , MINNESOTA 554 16 PHONE e 12-595-9635 FAX 612-595-9337 JUN-04-1997 11: 11 NAC 612 597. 987 F.02%02 0 t-_ IBJ LRS C) J o ' t rrl v AD 6-- 06-029-20-24-0002 10 0 06-029-20-24-0003 A COO q')-. 0 06-02.9-20-24-0004 2 4, 300 moo?0 06-029-20-24-0005 6 4 ./ p,:,) , 0 ,z,), .362-747 06-029-20-23-0006 (Qty/j47U ,� 00+ j '�j 2.4' t i 06-029-20-24-0007 9(a,I )1) ' 14::'L 06-029-20-24-0008 911 1 o / 06-029-20-24-0009 ?'/40o 06-029-20-24-0010 CVO q 06-029-20-24-0011 _21j122.4_5248(o pc.) 2-5 830 06-029-20-24-0012 .57.7b 9 06-029-20-24-0013 PE I3oc, 9 06-029-20-12-0004 /1 )- G '� 2.4-i 2154 06-029-20-12-0005 _ e` 7o 0 , 7 1,- KoZ /',v/4- 06-029-20-12-0006 .1I () 0 ' 22-2j 06-029-20-12-0007 /(„1'% P- 0 -76D I 06-029-20-12-0008 A-4) C, 0 4.- 06-029-20.13-0001 ?A-VC() `"1 06-029-20-13-0002 P470 moi` -0 06-029-20-13-0003 9-6 z2 1 - 06-029-20-32-0001 y�' �; ¢ 3.'3p v .) 1-w,v l 2 5/4 � l 06029 20-32 0002 c''1 eoa ; ,lac)o 6,4- Soo a-00 ilill_e 00 06-029-20-33-0001 014?rob C,:t /.41,. ,.„ IL f, q�2- 06-029-20-33-0002 4? AUC=%' J I , cU 1 S In Z' 06-029-20-34-0001 Cc"U/4=Ou I 1 I ' L„,00 06-029-20-31-0003 44 b , F I r;0 , IE,C0 , ; r 2 TOTAL P.02 4111 MESSAGE CONF I RMIT I ON 06/04/97 14:30 SESSION NO.= 371 ID=CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS DATE TIME SIR-TIME DISTANT STATION ID MODE PAGES RESULT 06/04 14:28 01'13" 612 595 9837 ECM-S 03 OK 0000 III S We the undersigned wish to remain within the boundaries of Baytown Township. If annexation should occur, we as business ownersresidents request that full disclosure be and es q given by governing bodies of Baytown Township and Oak Park Heights concerning agreements and prior agreements and their potential affect on all Baytown property owners. Name Address aryt.,,t) LL- A- .t(9QD M.snv c 0..)...04..N-k.._ p-cvk di ::)Lok.(.0 '('t'\2 r oc ca.0__(: N- .. . a) ' / C N'S s6--95.- n,,gi-n6se,"9 41/6- 9-f-9 1101 (4-1 /7/ r 2Idg 7<//4 sz, j6--Nz=77/a/airt--6,, 757-c/c_.- , aiyi ,3,- 9,2p lea-Atecit,j LI- f 464'1- <- 4 . (f ii(-0 -- ( . __ , (,),.... , 0 .. / ‘. - / ' /7 ,,,,,/," _ .N\ \ •11/41f) 55 S- 2,04,...(2.. /4. - /,(2 6-s SP - 12458 55rd �� ' N) ► -4.ruxet,b,, ar, lilior a. z-,rx- irift,,A1/4/4 i4e6- *0 /Kir 77-,7�- /NfprN„vh // 9)4‘621/ . 1 .575-7 1741-4(-941 A v /lei. v S 7sa r. { Kms.<< June 3, 1997 ill 111 1 . PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA CALVIN BROOKMAN LOW & ASSOC. INC ( JOHN LOW) ALK PARTNERSHIPSHIP (JOHN LOW, KEVIN LACASSE) FREDRICK KEMPER CENTURY POWER (BRUCE TUCKNER) STILLWATER MOTOR COMPANY (DANIEL RADUENZ) W A T E ENTERPRISES, INC (WILL ZlNTL) STILLWATER WEST LLC (RAY KENNEDY) ROBERT BUBERL R J AMUSEMENTS , INC (JOE KOHOUT) SECURE MINI STORAGE LTD PTS VIOLET KERN BERNARD AND LOELLA NASS STEVE AND BARB EN8LE CAROLE PALMQUIST , BETTY SMITH OAKGREEN FARM INC (DAVE SCREATON) DAVID R SCREATON PARTNERSHIP (DAVE & JUDY SCREATON) RICHARD & SALLY CLAUGHERTY KENNETH & NANCY HAUTH ST JOHN' S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH WALTER & IONE GLEASON ALVIN & HELEN BERGMAN 411 III, , . , PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA CALVIN BROOKMAN LOW & ASSOC . INC ( JOHN LOW) ALK PARTNERSHlPSHIP (JOHN LOW, KEVIN LACASSE) FREDRICK KEMPER � CENTURY POWER (BRUCE TUCKNER) STlLLWATER MOTOR COMPANY ( DANIEL RADUENZ) W A T E ENTERPRISES , INC (WILL ZlNTL) STILLWATER WEST LLC ( RAY KENNEDY) ROBERT BUBERL R J AMUSEMENTS , INC (JOE KOHOUT) SECURE MINI STORAGE LTD PTS VIOLET KERN BERNARD AND LOELLA NASS STEVE •AND BARB ENGLE CAROLE PALMQUIST . BETTY SMITH . OAKGREEN FARM INC ( DAVE SCREATON) DAVID R SCREATON PARTNERSHIP (DAVE & JUDY SCREATON) RICHARD & SALLY CLAUGHERTY � KENNETH & NANCY HAUTH ST JOHN' S EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH WALTER & IONE GLEASON ALVIN & HELEN BERGMAN , , , , i , � CITY CIll d44-i.,. k� . :, OAK PARK HEIGHTS .-,- 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439•FAX 439-0574 ';ii ......1 rr5)V May 14, 1997 Baytown Town Board C/O Town Clerk Pat St . Clair 14949 North 30th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re : Annexation Petition for land lying in Section 6, Baytown Township Dear Pat : Thank you for the copy of Baytown resolution 597-01 communicating your thoughts on the annexation petition. Not withstanding your resolution, the City of Oak Park Heights would still like to meet _ with the Baytown Board to discuss and implement an orderly annexation agreement . We feel that this annexation petition is probably only the first of many we will be receiving in the next few years and that an orderly annexation agreement will reduce the stress and uncertainty that the Town Board and land owners will go through in the future. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. If you have any questions please give me a call . - - Sincerely, - - Y.,;a"" "7 .Z. • Michael Robertson City Administrator • cc : City Council City Attorney Tree City U.S.A. , 1 • 411 D MCMON/Ei ,i Baytown Township NI t 2 IIIR Washington County 1 .. Stillwater, MN 55082 - RESOLUTION 5-97- d WHEREAS, the subject area proposed for annexation into Oak Park Heights has been in Baytown Township for many years and its town government is capable of serving the needs of the area; WHEREAS, the Town of Baytown has in place zoning and subdivision ordinances and an approved comprehensive plan consistent with regional and local development guidelines set forth by the Metropolitan Council and Washington County ; WHEREAS, the annexing municipality of Oak Park Heights has no Metropolitan Council approved comprehensive plan in place that add esses land development patterns and uses in the proposed annexation area consistent with local and regional development goals and has failed to study the impacts of expansive commercial and residential development on surrounding communities, watersheds, road systems, and the school district ; WHEREAS, the Town of Baytown is actively exploring merger / consolidation options for municipal governance with the adjacent communities of Lake Elmo, Bayport, and West Lakeland Township ; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Baytown opposes the annexation of land in Section Six ( lying west of Highway 5 ) by the City of Oak Park Heights until all options for municipal governance for Baytown are explored and until the annexing municipality of Oak Park Heights has in place a Metropolitan Council approved comprehensive plan consistent with and compatible with local and regional development policy goals. -)/ ENACTED THIS 5-71 DAY OF 1g 9'1 ') / é/lA( Ronald J. ;rdkove, Chairman Baytown Board of Supervisors ATTEST: 1 4)-1 /• 9H2kL ib P. L. St. Claire, Clerk %.. , WWI TOWNSHIP ...:44•444404) .;' r'...-:-' BATTONN2a. , U4 U) X ...1 • .%. ...W., .I.'i i, \ ikzi4itif ini, 3, H 1 0 .........„ •' -1711 • 11 1 1 1 2 > 13 5 7,-) x \ \\ I I 1 * i Z : • 1 > . .-< M . _. 0 t k . ...--.., i.....: Z i 0 —I k.. i c.,.. • v) s ' - / \ 0u) ; (JI , — — -1 Tii ,,,,,, ITI m 2 Z "A ' • cm rn , u), ..... i c 0 -4 , --- --- . 11411111! -...! 5. C -"--' I, , \ 01 CI \ I 0 ,;„ - -< ri . • •—.— — ...1 -I__ 8 I ; I -I 0 81 I I oz i !Ash 1 4.• r: I III I \ 41 1 ill :. MP ...^•--- 5 I zw,,,. \ I T3 z oZ ,, I =I ,• K\O ' \\ , • I , 2 \ I I -' •7.1 I I Cot ',•:% I ' 1 2 _J_1 _._ — _._ ____r— _ 1_ . 4t>L_„_ _I ? . r R I I z 'e 42s, •■ I 4)- tri a ...." C . x, / 0 0>, I x I xi li a x ( 0 0 2 c:' i k " 1 tfloi 's n 116,1 • -1 I - I 11 \ .-•. 111/111111111"'. 18 1 1 0° r• g 0 1 ii ) 1 . IA' I L , ii a , ,,.., I I 1 a mg, I _ m 111 _ I 1111111111 tser ' i. 0x 1 gilliii*AVili 19..,.6111111111111111H11:10 0* Q 4, IllEtillibirttalm 1 r c-1---, ,.. ,. A SI 1 0 I 'I 1 1) I I 1 A.,,,, , 41 I rE -• /—— ' ' 14 rC4 rig ftt ilitt°111111111 :: A z6 v IS§ lillik- 1 e AI I ir*C4111110111O k SAYTCTNN • - • COY Of ONE MK HMOS * CA Iftikky.; ,.." .... i 7 g ; 0 //. '''', --4 T1 i ? 2 • rilliril. 4 -S. viz' —1 vi 3 ..., _ -P. I I min ililmill1.111M1Www.. 0 ! \ : .., \ . „..,••• \ / CM Or OM MN HEIGHTS -I-- — — — I— MI" _ .Q) II ,,,, 1 it.k 1 1 i TE,2.RIF 44) looneruirmi I 1 I , 6 i • ' ''" )i, I ) =It // I ,...1 //,, / -7.-- ....-. . ,3 I; ii 1 1 I m .. 1.• > :1 CO 1/ ' 1 : ''.% 1 .' I ; coo s I 1 Al j / I 2 0 I 0 n, alo 0 - /l__ . /._ +. _.../ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ / - I / : i s _. 1 -. I i---.." ,.• ,,, If ! I u) Os 0 - MIR \ I / . IIII '' • $ '', ..1 I11111 1 I 1 e • .,..s -- --_C� t1t t ._►., .• rte- +iu , . ! g iii.'• ,- _ ,- :AV' .•'alit 1 ii!i;,,, . \N ' � 'N.sty t y 1 I► of"sl 4.4i- Y , i: \ , � ;\,, • Intl ' ' , 'r+ .-.11..„. '•_ 14kS. 2..IE -�- f `t 1_ I , ,x. /- • -t t :' r a .. I `,r �, "s s 111/......, :`4 e ~j / " ey 4-7 4;-- ---- - _________0 -7i- 4 NN Cid /I,C\ �h ti is `" § ti . z. p za$ S ,. CPr I i v- s 1. - r, aII a 3 1' i 1- 1 .' 1g a-4R ' g n 7 s 8 :-lti' - I'm a �a>•t4 Y �r i 30! S �� 8 t; m� A O .y N+'i'Pm -C12 ii O,.=.: e' c 11 I°iE? 4l'"m 1 $ c 1 :3%I I � IIIIIIII g s I o • 0 Q§ �.i.. µ1.'l L IP I .Af,,' i� •J -p a:', Id, nes I. rpt I bil 111 ;Ji Iu, ' Id. III' L 11 Io Ill1Hl®III AN f 'a: : F14 II C C�N I _ I II IN'HI ; E i.- M11 Ij „ iai'+,1 II mil Ir 1 y min It + ml 1 MI is Is `l 1 IC HI h 61HNll m1111 I iw1I is u,,ryI,'i I III .'0 `N L 4111,; t'il ? 14 3I,i1 linal m fl�� E-. F; 111111 ibl , 1 lei ',,,f: - ill ', A i I. 711 r, RR'1EI.111 ,c — lyx1' 11 C aspRp$¢ I a R R {{]]y * VIZ a Y r P .. 8 m m 1: 1 g E. m _ #*�R$ I I I I I I I I I I R I R € 0 \ . li.I ■i r7.III MI 1 1 `i (MI 1 .1'RI ' ,L4 'A1 t 1 \ 1 _.14 i I ■ I !IL an mu ■I l'j,El ■I _■I. � 1■I i I •y i :ea 5 1 '•P E �6' m S ^ R x 2 8 v' °�4 3 1 a g' Y a $ 70t ea €"m 8 2? I i Nrr 8 0... YLi I Y zi. pry 7C0 tot I I I A I I I I R "' N f r a 6124306178 APR-25-97 08. 59 FROM:AUD R—TREASURER"S OFF.0 ID:81 06179 PAGE 1/1 W SHINGTON COUNTY Enclosure B R.H. STAFFORD, AUDITOR-TREASURER 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•P.O.BOX 6-STILLWATER.MINNESOTA 55082-0006 FAX(612)4306178 Finance- Land Vital Administration Elections Taxation Records Statistics 430-6181 430-6188 430-6175 430.6183 430-6200 TO: Mike Robertson — Oak Park Heights Fax: 439-0574 FROM: Karen Greeder DATE: April 25, 1997 HOMESTEAD TAX COMMERCIAL TAX CAP MV 150,000 MV 200,000 MV 500,000 MV 1,000,000 BAYTOWN 1,847,800 $2,288 $3,291 $25,445 $50,890 OAK PARK HEIGHTS 5,834,171 $2,679 $3,854 $27,768 $55,536 UCENSE CENTERS: Forest Lake 464-7500 - Stillwater 430-6176 • Woodbury 731-5780 Washington County does not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin.sex,religion,age and handicapped status in employment or the provision of services. • Enclosure H April 21 , 1997 CC� COM Mike Robertson, City Administrator --=I; {,I City of Oak Park Heights 14168 N. 57th StreetJ\ APR 2 41997 Oak Park Heights , MN 55082 J✓, j Dear Mike: Based on available information, I have decided that I cannot support the proposed annexation of any portion of Baytown Township into the City of Oak Park Heights for the following reasons : 1 . do not agree with OPH philosophy concerning land use and development . 2 . lack of definitive OPH plans for provision of police and fire protection with the addition of 166 new homes and commercial establishments in the proposed Screaton development. OPH does not have own fire department . 3 . uncertainties concerning sewer and water capabilities and costs . 4. increased property taxes . Thank you to you and the Oak Park City Council members for making the effort to sponsor the Annexation Workshop on April 17th. It was most helpful . Sincerely, T;) 6:1,:4412.12_ ZY Carol Palmquist 411 12202 55th Street North Baytown Township, MN 55082 cc : David Screaton Enclosure 9 L5@IR �..� )) ,641) v\v„,,, LAW OFFICES OF • )� Eci ber8, Lammers, J3ri� �s. VV oltl Ci V ierLi ) - • (((JJJ 1855 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater'• \�innesota 5508'2 nsan ,on L,le J Eel;her S D. OI_ James F. Lammers (612) -139-2878 Dd.-Id k. Snyder Robert G. 13riggs** FAX (612) :.1.39-2923 Marl: •1. \ erl n�* f'anl .\. W offi Gregory G. Galler♦ 0911-199W Kevin K. ShoeLcrt Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 *th<,I�f„d \,•.t <,I :\r6t.<,t„ & �l.•J .,t, Thomas .1. Weidner Neutral *C,•rtif„•d Re.i Estate Spe i„I,s, March 31, 1997 THE HONORABLE DAVID SCHAAF MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER 55TH ST • 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR JERRY TURNQUIST MS JANET ROBERT 14298 56TH STREET NORTH 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID BEAUDET 6400 LOOKOUT TRAIL NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 RE: Application by David Screaton for Annexation of Lands to the City of Oak Park Heights Dear Mayor and Council : You have requested that this office review the proposal of Mr. David Screaton to have his lands and those adjoining his to the north in Kern Center annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights and thereafter provided municipal water and sewer services . The proposal of Mr. Screaton raises a number of questions which are generally categorized into two areas : annexation and municipal improvements . Dealing with those questions in that order we report to the Council as follows : 1 . Annexation of Lands . Mr. Screaton appeared in front of the Council earlier in 1996 with regard to a proposal to annex his lands which are approximately 57 acres in size along Trunk Highway 5 which boarders the City of Oak Park Heights . Municipal approval for annexation by Ordinance is allowed in Minn. Stat . §414 . 033 if the lands involved that abut the City are 60 acres or less . Consequently, Mr. Screaton' s proposal at that time was technically permissible, however, upon review of the issues of • • MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Two March 31, 1997 servicing the Screaton land, it was determined that there was a need to bring utility service through other lands outside of the City of Oak Park Heights in order to provide services to the Screaton property. Consequently, the proposal to annex by Ordinance was declined by the City of Oak Park Heights . Minn. Stat . §414 . 031 subd. 1 allows annexation of unincorporated (township) property by municipalities . That statute provides for initiation of proceedings in one of four ways : "a . Resolution of the Annexing Municipality; b. Resolution of the township containing the area proposed for annexation; c . The petition of 20% of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever is less, in the area to be annexed; and, d. A resolution of the municipal council together with a resolution of the town board stating their desire to have the entire township annexed to the municipality. " It has always been the position of the City of Oak Park Heights to encourage township property owners to approach their township first before the City would entertain annexation requests . Even then, the City has preceded by Petitions from affected property owners before the municipal board, supported by approving resolutions of the City of Oak Park Heights . At the Council meeting as was held before the City on the 25th of March, Mr. Screaton indicated it was his intent to obtain the consent of the affected property owners, rather than simply proceeding by way of annexation initiated by the municipality. That express desire is consistent with the City' s past practice and policy of requiring property owner support for the annexation. Consequently, there is statutory authority for annexation of the Screaton and Kern Center lands either by way of property owner Petition or by way of municipal resolution initiating same. 2 . Municipal Utility Improvements . Mr. Screaton has prepared a proposal which involves his financing on behalf of his neighboring property owners of the costs of extending utility service to the area. What Mr. Screaton has proposed is that he would advance approximately $450, 000 . 00 of funds with which the City could utilize for purposes of extending services into the area, however, he requests that he be repaid back approximately MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Three March 31, 1997 $341, 000 . 00 of funds to be charged as hook-up fees to the properties that are benefited at such time that they would connect the City utilities . Apparently, Mr. Screaton is proposing that the City would act as a conduit for the receipt and collection of funds related to City utilities . Traditionally, municipalities will put in place utilities and recoup the cost either by direct payment from a developer and/or by way of assessment . The City of Oak Park Heights already has established a series of connection charges to our utilities in service areas where the City has put into place Trunk facilities and other infrastructure for which connection charges have been pledged to repay bonds . It is theoretically possible for a municipality to enter into an agreement to allow a developer to advance the costs of utility extension to an area not exclusively owned or controlled by the developer. Further, it is possible for the City to enter into limited agreements with regard to the return of capital to the developer as various users connect to the system and pay the charges with which to do so. There are obvious limitations with regard to the duration of the agreement as well as the practical limitations on the City' s ability to force other land owners to connect to the system so as to secure the return of capital to the developer. I am concerned with regard to the nature of the proposal from Mr. Screaton as it involves issues of planning and zoning, which the City can obviously not commit to as part of a proposal to annex lands . Planning and zoning issues are established by ordinance and by statute and can only be established following annexation and public hearing processes to afford those property owners affected, the opportunity to participate fully in the process without any prejudice or bias to the City establishing patterns and land use. Furthermore, the City could not place itself in the position of being a guarantor to a developer of a profit with regard to their particular development . In this particular instance, the proposed developer is going to expend significant capital beyond its own needs and benefits to bring water and sewer services to an area through adjoining lands . The profitability of that venture is a risk that must be exclusively born by the proposed developer and the City cannot and should not place itself in a position where the developer has an expectation of return of capital guaranteed over a period of time so as to make this risk and expenditure viable . • • MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Four March 31, 1997 It is theoretically possible for the City to enter into a development agreement with Mr. Screaton that would allow him to advance the total funds to the City of Oak Park Heights to extend utilities to his service area which, of course, benefits lands other than his own. The City, however, cannot guarantee the return of capital nor should the City be in a position to make any representation or expectation as to planning and zoning controls to be implemented upon property annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights now or in the future. In short, Mr. Screaton must be totally at his own risk that should he choose to advance funds for • the purposes of extending utilities to the City of Oak Park Heights, that he be well aware that he has every expectation and possibility that those funds would never be returned to him. Further, the City should not be in a position of having an indefinite development agreement extended whereby the City would be in perpetuity the collector of funds from people that would connect at some distant point in the future . The development agreement would have to be reasonably limited in time so that any connections beyond a given point in time would not be returned to the Screaton family. Further, the terms of the development agreement may not limit the City' s ability to assess benefited property owners for improvements to be put into place within the area to be annexed, should the City experience costs for doing so, which are over and above that which is projected or anticipated or involve improvements not funded by the developer. There are, of course, many variables which - are yet to be developed as it affects this particular proposal as well as the issues of the affected land owners that are most impacted by the proposed annexation. The contents of this letter deal with the conceptual issue and the theoretical possibility of the developer' s proposal to advance funds to the City of Oak Park Heights for purposes of serving his parcel and benefiting others adjacent to it . This letter shall not serve as a commitment from this office on any terms and provisions of a future development agreement which may be executed or negotiated between the City of Oak Park Heights and Mr. Screaton. Further, this letter shall not be interpreted to be construed as a recommendation from the Office of the City Attorney to the City Council that the proposal by the Developer is sound or reasonable or should be implemented by the City. There is ..f • MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Five March 31, 1997 simply not enough detail provided upon which any recommendation could be made at this time . Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp cc : Michael Robertson 411 410 AMENDED PROPOSAL FOR KERN CENTER/SCREATON (April 18, 1997) IN EXCHANGE FOR THE KERN CENTER AGREEING TO ANNEXATION TO OPH SCREATONS PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING: SCREATONS TO PAY $ 451 ,260 , WITH REPAYMENT OF $ 238,527.8 ( INTEREST FREE) AS HOOK-UPS OCCUR. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION IN KERN CENTER WILL USE CITY SEWER AND WATER . WATERWORKS AREA CHARGE OF $ 4010/AC COMMERCIAL WILL BE CHARGED UPON HOOKUP . THE RESIDENTIAL CHARGES FOR WATERWORKS ($2110/AC + $475/UNIT) AND SANITARY SEWER AREA CHARGE ($180/UNIT) TO BE PAID IN REGULAR MANNER. ZONING TO BE 2 ACRES COMMERCIAL ON NE CORNER , AND 47 ACRES RESIDENTIAL WITH 166 UNITS . ( 18 AC AT 6 UNITS/AC AND 29 AC AT 2 UNITS/AC) . PLAN INCLUDES ENTIRE 49 ACRES OF SCREATON LAND . COST ALLOCATION KERN CENTER SCREATON TOTALS LATERAL SANITARY SEWER approx 31/ft 3900 FT 120503 576 FT 17797 4476 ft 138300 LATERAL WATER MAIN approx 24/ft 3900 FT 94102 576 FT 13898 4476 FT 108000 LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN #1 55 ACRES @ 2310/AC 127050 49 ACRES @ 1590/AC 77910 ACREAGE COSTS 204960 TOTALS 341655 109605 451260 THE ASSESSMENT FIGURES FOR THE FIVE LOTS LISTED BELOW ARE PROPOSED TO BE PAID BY SCREATON WITH NO REPAYMENT 1ST ADDITION, BLOCK 1 , LOT 5, $ 19731 .8 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK 1 , LOT 3 , $ 19823. 1 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK 1 , LOT 4, $ 29773.7 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOT 5 , $ 17634. 1 2ND ADDITION, BLOCK 2, LOT 6 , $ 16164 .5 THE OFFER FOR THESE FIVE LOTS IS CONTINGENT ON ALL 5 LOT OWNERS AGREEING TO THE ANNEXATION 411 111 PROPOSAL FOR KERN CENTER/SCREATON IN EXCHANGE FOR THE KERN CENTER AGREEING TO ANNEXATION TO OPH SCREATONS PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING: SCREATONS TO PAY $ 451 ,260 , WITH REPAYMENT OF $ 341 , 665 ( INTEREST FREE) AS HOOK-UPS OCCUR. FUTURE CONSTRUCTION IN KERN CENTER WILL USE CITY SEWER AND WATER. WATERWORKS AREA CHARGE OF $ 4010/AC COMMERCIAL WILL BE CHARGED UPON HOOKUP . THE RESIDENTIAL CHARGES FOR WATERWORKS ($2110/AC + $475/UN1T) AND SANITARY SEWER AREA CHARGE ($180/UNIT) TO BE PAID IN REGULAR MANNER. ZONING TO BE 2 ACRES COMMERCIAL ON NE CORNER, AND 47 ACRES RESIDENTIAL WITH 166 UNITS. ( 18 AC AT 6 UNITS/AC AND 29 AC AT 2 UNITS/AC) . PLAN INCLUDES ENTIRE 49 ACRES OF SCREATON LAND. COST ALLOCATION KERN CENTER SCREATON TOTALS LATERAL SANITARY SEWER approx 31/ft 3900 FT 120503 576 FT 17797 4476 ft 138300 LATERAL WATER MAIN approx 24/ft 3900 FT 94102 576 FT 13898 4476 FT 108000 LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN #1 55 ACRES @ 2310/AC 127050 49 ACRES @ 1590/AC 77910 ACREAGE COSTS 204960 TOTALS 341655 109605 451260 - • a.� 9 Mi nesota Department of Transports fon Metropolitan Division Office Tel:779-5050 Oakdale Office- Fax:779-5170 3485 Hadley Avenue North i rOF1,1 Oakdale,Minnesota 55128 January 24, 1997 Ross or Dave Screaton 2474 Oakgreen No. Stillwater,MN 55082 Dear Mr. Screaton: Enclosed are Mn/DOT plan sheets which show the original construction of TH 5 and the planned reconstruction in 1997(State Project 8214-119). As we discussed by phone,we have determined that the original drainage pattern in the west ditch near 55th St. flowed to the north. We have modified our plan to reflect these findings and discussed with the Valley Branch Watershed District(Randy Peterson-Barr Eng.). Please contact me at 779-5050 if you have any questions or if I can be of further help. Sincerely, Jamie Hukriede Metro- Water Rcsoucrcs Engineering Project Manager An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY O • . •.,_ •• t OAK PA HEIGHTS • 14168 N. 57th Street• Bos 2007 • Oak P-ark Heights, NIN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 a► October 31, 1997 F MR RON FREDKOVE 4220 OSGOOD AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER MN 55082 RE: Annexation Issues/Municipal Board Document A-5821 Baytown Correspondence of October 24 , 1997 • Dear Ron: The City of Oak Park Heights believes that Mr. Screaton' s Petition -for Annexation will be acted on favorably by the Municipal - Board and the District Court . However, it continues to be the Council' s goal- to mitigate the impact of the annexation on_ the existing- businesses and residents through 'an orderly annexation agreement . . This agreement .will allow for incremental phasing in of . urban .property tax 'rates, . deferral_ .of -certain water and sewer connections and- -associated charges, -and creation of rural taxing' districts. That is why, as we stated at our council meeting of. 6/10/97, :we` wish for :these negotiations to end with an orderly • annexation agreement We - are open to proposals you may have for an orderly .annexation agreement. However, any agreement must be reached prior to the Municipal Board meeting on November 24 , 1997 . , In that regard, we invite your Board of Supervisor to meet ' with us on either Wednesday, Novembertuber 5th at 7 : 00 p.m. or Monday, Y, . -. • November 10th at 7: 00_ p .m. We regard the meeting as a public forum for elected officials to discuss the issues . The meeting could be . held at Oak Park City Hall, if your facility is not available . A mediator, could be obtained to facilitate the meeting. • Very ruly yours Air lr„ _ , Air • ;. David D. Schaaf _ Mayor (612) 439-MESIF • Tree City U.S.A. trn y • i <� • 4 Minnesota Department of Transportation l Metropolitan Division Office Tel:779-5050 Oakdale Office Fax 779-5170 3485 Hadley Avenue North '+ Toi Oakdale,Minnesota 55128 January 24, 1997 Ross or Dave Screaton 2474 Oakgreen No. Stillwater,MN 55082 Dear Mr. Screaton: Enclosed are Mn/DOT plan sheets which show the original construction of TH 5 and the planned reconstruction in 1997(State Project 8214-119). As we discussed by phone,we have determined that the original drainage pattern in the west ditch near 55th St. flowed to the north. We have modified our plan to reflect these findings and discussed with the Valley Branch Watershed District(Randy Peterson-Barr Eng.). Please contact me at 779-5050 if you have any questions or if I can be of further help. Sincerely, �w , Jamie Hukriede Metro- Water Rcsoucres Engineering Project Manager " ;_ An Equal Opportunity Employer • • / r. 4111 ///3 Barr Engineering Co. MEMORANDUM To: Valley Branch Managers From: Jon W. Lennander Subject: Oak Park Heights Annexation Date: November 10, 1997 At the request of the Managers I have reviewed the proposed Screaton/Kem Annexation plan for the portion of Baytown Township to be developed as a part of Oak Park Heights. It appears there will be some impact on the water levels in Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes and Goetschel Ponds resulting from this annexation, but it is not expected to increase the problems of these lakes beyond the current situation. However a large portion of the annexation area is presently drained to Browns Creek. I suspect there may a request to change this condition in the future. This change would be more difficult for the District to deal with. Attached is a plan of the drainage area for the annexation area (Figure 1). The hatched area is the annexation area, and the cross hatched area is the portion of Valley Branch which currently drains towards Browns Creek. Approximately 75 percent of the total annexation area (180 acres) is within Valley Branch Watershed District. The watershed contributing to Browns Creek is about 64 acres, approximately 63 acres drains towards Cloverdale Lake, and the remaining 53 acres drains to Goetschel Ponds. Currently the portion of the watershed diverted to Browns Creek consists of the Kern Center area (VBWD Permit 89-22). This is the commercial development on the west side of Highway 5 between Highway 36 and 55th Street. Most of the Kern Center is completed or under construction. Assuming drainage from this area is not redirected to Valley Branch, there will be no change resulting from the annexation of this portion of the watershed. The area west of Kern Center is formally in Browns Creek and will not impact the District. Approximately 113 of the annexation area is within the Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes watershed. This includes the area along Highway 5 between 50th Street and 55th Street. From the Annexation Study it appears this area will be primarily single family residential land use, medium • density residential land use, and the church property. Medium density is reported to be 6 units per acre and the single family areas to be 2.5 units per acre. This area is currently undeveloped and drains to Cloverdale Lake through culvert under Highway 5 near St. Johns Lutheran Church. There is a low area near this culvert, and it is uncertain how often this area discharges to Cloverdale under existing conditions. ' . • To: Valley Branch Managers From: Jon W. Lennander Subject: Oak Park Heights Annexation Date: November 10, 1997 Project: Page 2 The southwesterly portion of the annexation area currently drains to Goetschel Ponds. This area contains substantial wetland areas which are a part of the Goetschel Pond system. This area is proposed to be single family residential land use. Under existing land use this area is proposed and open space single family residential land use. The difference for the proposed annexation would primarily be the density of development. Stormwater Concerns Drainage from the Kern Center is directed to a large stormwater pond on the west side of the property. All drainage from this site is directed towards this pond, and then outlet to Browns Creek. A similar area appears to drain to this pond from the Browns Creek side of the site. It will be expensive and difficult to separate these areas at this time. The site drainage for the Kern Center was approved by the Browns Creek WMO while in existence (see attached letter). The formation of the Browns Creek Watershed District, and the concern of trout stream issues in the watershed, may bring the issue of drainage from this area before the Managers in the future. An annual hydrologic yield model was used to determine the impact of increasing the volume of runoff to Cloverdale/McDonald resulting from the annexation. Based on this model, it appears the water level in Cloverdale will become more variable, and possibly higher on occasions, but in general the problem in Cloverdale will not be worse than currently exists. Since this area will only impact McDonald when Cloverdale exceeds it's outlet elevation, the impact on McDonald is much less than for Cloverdale. Since there is no outlet from these lakes, any increase in runoff volume directed to this area will potentially increase the risk of flooding to the adjacent homeowners, but the actual difference in water level with, or without, the annexation is difficult to determine, and dependant on yearly variations in hydrologic conditions. The portion of the site draining to Goetschel Ponds will see much less of an impact from the annexation. The watershed contributing to Goetschel Pond is 2622 acres with an occasional, and planned future, additional drainage area of 1695 acres from the Sunnybrook area (4317 acres total). The additional runoff from the annexation area is expected to be less than 1 percent of the total runoff volume from the watershed, but cannot be calculated accurately by the simple methods used for this analysis. However, there is no current outlet from Goetschel Ponds, and any additional runoff to this area may increase the flooding risk around Goetschel Pond. • • To: Valley Branch Managers From: Jon W. Lennander Subject: Oak Park Heights Annexation Date: November 10, 1997 Project: Page 3 Water Quality Concerns The changes resulting from the annexation may also increase the impact on the future water quality of Cloverdale/McDonald. There is approximately a ten fold difference between low density residential land use and medium density land use in annual phosphorus loading from a watershed. Cloverdale and McDonald Lakes are classified as category III water bodies. Goetschel Ponds are classified as a category V water body, and will be impacted less by the development of the annexation area. If appropriate BMP's are included in the development of the annexation area, the impact of these areas will be minimized. Construction activities related to the annexation would be expected to have a significant impact on the water quality of these water bodies if appropriate protection is not provided during the work. Assuming the development of this area is completed consistent with the rules and regulations of the District, the designated water quality classification of each body should be protected. Recommendations • The District should begin negotiations with Browns Creek Watershed District to change the hydrologic boundaries of the District on a permanent basis. The District boundary should also be changed to reflect the actual area draining to Browns Creek in this area. • If possible, the area draining to Cloverdale/McDonald should be directed to Goetschel Pond. The impact of this area on Goetschel Ponds is less than would be observed in Cloverdale, and would not be expected to substantially change the conditions in Goetschel Ponds. It is assumed that an outlet from Goetschel Ponds will be completed before an outlet from Cloverdale/McDonald and further reduce the impact of this area. • The development many of the upper portions of the watershed will begin to take place. The construction of a permanent outlet system for the landlocked lakes in these areas will continue to be critical. Further development will increase the necessity for the outlet, and reduce the time to implement. The Managers should begin planning the construction of this outlet system. A plan for this outlet will be developed during 1998. • I • • Nom`' - GTL-1 c I ' - Q P Pq .., ..__N.---",....,.. ..%-.P.____ ,,,.. .__Noilh,.. .mr mormommomme...4 ___7. -=_.-.---- ----z-„, -410:4005..-- 1 7:33N GTL-? 1 366W ;‘1: . \ I .sfit Vt o" O GSL-9 I �/ - !.3 • I 11 2o !'� ,, CLV-8 I A / Z;:S 315 o .... , G� a �G.i1 Ix. r 36 Q \ / 1 7 19y o 6 `, I 'N` I G \ .::':.1::::::1.j.11 I l� CL v 'DALE f :\ ' ` eTL-7 CdETSC��L r 'e �9W ' /PONOS / m f% I 1 1 { Ci LV-s j swi ;1 vI 389W. ( / cTL-2 l _ ! CLV-1 ` k:':/:\ i CDOr L �CESCtr\! I q \••:---,-,...__./ \ILA : i 1?-5 of > 101N F�:� W /7.7:-\ re t�/ ` . . `\ I I.0 G C GTL- li391W &:( GTL-3 .V.,.::...:::-::: ::::.....::;...... / 1� rai-nfttlai t 1 � ` :� GTL-4 { 7 \) r---,/ i 1ST PC� 3= 1 "i:-.-":"--‘_ ` 0 `�v.>O ) m MCD-8 OWN-'7 C2 11 tu`' '- . O !I ♦A . i a o 4EL1 ► 1WN-12 Vto:7 I C V14 o J 199VS,S03 I I c, � I e0 h ST NI ..1,- ', 1 y`�� svDWN-1 Q s DWN-11 a l OWN-16 I DWN Co g1/SH�4 107P 145 E ( r. I DW;N-1 4 \' DWN-9 � fI 17 ! J 04 ice I C. z Q D\ 8 / '12.. a tLM-3 \ : �. % : DWN-7 Lake Elmo 1 o �� Airport • • W o \ DWN-5 \ z BAY- rN• .:.:...: Mil 1 ¢ b 8 0 1 DWN-18 \) -.1 V , , 30th \ I, / 4 Figure 1 0 2000 4000 SCREATON/KERN ANNEXATION AREA I I I Valley Branch Watershed District SCALE IN FEET • • L- Q r j� j1• 1,1 c'\I fr rY ..-- r -1V,I@EI3VILA100 i __, , • • w /_\ I J �� IF. _ • p •��7—\ • . • .. . • • 1":•, I I rt' )---1I\--:--.-t,-U 1 • N\Nc ' . - - . . 1 u j i I=--1 , .-ts \ V. - - - I I z ...15. _....4 icn + p I� 1 I l I ', 11 ro z I . I-. I TTI I- �.. ` . .v t�^ J J -I^�- l I t -l}`a I , l`11 I �' J �I i°��I s j` . _ • . _ 4 _. , . I , __, o Q1 • j_ i _` 1J d ! \ 1 h I o 0:, 1U } '4 \\ - •i //, c r. 1 q I 71 = 1 _. § I \1 1 Cts! / • 12 r'. ;p i r/ : O' _;. J1 i ( , al!, ! 1 t I W II 1 1 "� =_1 -1I `\ C7 f\. (!� • I I Il I-I I . '' ii • 1 w w i 1. [ . �Ii�( .. 1 1 � CI: tSi' e ,. IF: Iwr,� 1 :vS • z w 1 I ili . • 0 ///:// , .:,..... ,,:s-r„....:._ / t • !IT - ''.11: lir .. 0 , , , 0v . :. . , 4.), .. _...,... . , . , .,.,,, _II A . ,. . ..),...... -,,...... ...._. . . , .„. , ......„.....„....,__ :11 . , , , , ,. .. .. ,,,..., ,.. ,.. _,. m s i )-I ' :• aI 3 -->; 1 J U }� ,� �'1- i d Z MO U-1 1 I W w • w Cf) = tI.�— WAN ' :� W U) U I nry,.1?CI- I i I; 0 U) CL 't L_ 1_I 11 _ r., o II 1 1l` -I��� \ '�q\ i Z'�� \ It _ 'nmr®o�irsassazaseessiaras —.� lstssuszsammarvtyosaMt O EXHIBIT E I . t . • >! �/ 3 I JAI : ! \ 1 ' L.) i� a '-� _ Q Ic. Z1 37- - ^' C iii 1 I I I I _ \ - 1 � � t IIIIIj II 11 I J - t II v<-:', � � t g I _ i �j �' f q i t ts 0 s u !o 411 1 -, ) --4,- so !lig t _— .i'� �--..t :II F I b 3,o3 F ,it 1 I ..i .1\ 1 0 e1 j c N \ I 11 1 S :0;, 1 I 4 1 • li .1 i Fi I \ Ci ;; > : ; ' g v I I � 5ValISG1 ! I o i I t I 1 ❑ I Mr I I _ o - t I . t iTJij \ , t -, S --I_ _J ; 1 _- •. I s I1 ./ /:,,i,03 +.. - I ' jI \ Kt I o\I ffiI 1.�I I • .I I ♦\` r 1 o • IQ ' RIS`, 111 `J ' L �1 o L.7,1 �I o i A �' I J�1—., _1 ._,y I F I o 1 1� 1 1 • t �,r I I J i; ...: • q x a1 I "�- : - iz I v pi- ,.1 ditT" ,z,•::._ = _ t xI J\ ,o, ,,:,.....4...j.. .p3lI I �} f . u ..- I :A - .. 0 1 lIII� 1_ I s , • , ' iN I .ILL.' LLQ F- -l •iwt �PI i�I iWt I� I Ewit w z-Z W •\tH i I I ! 1 ,/� (IN (n cc 1;�� ezC PY-1IB1T H i WASHINGTON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT ppy1825 Curve Crest Blvd.,Room 101 11tr C O Stillwater,MN 55082 (612)439.6361 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS August 22 , 1989 Patricia L . St . Claire Clerk, Baytown Township 14949 30th Street North Stillwater , MN 55082 Dear Ms . St . Claire : On August 21 , 1989 , Tim Fredbo , Manager for the Washington County Soil and Water COnservation District , informed me about the proposed Kern Center Development . He was contacted by Bruce Folz , planner for the project , who informed him that Valley Branch Watershed District was not granting a permit until the Brown' s Creek Water Management Organization (BCWMO ) reviewed the proposed development . First of all , the BCWMO Water Management Plan has not been formally approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Therefore , the BCWMO does not have permitting authority at this time . However, after consulting with Mr. Fredbo , who has reviewed the revised drainage plan of 8-4-89 for the site , the plan is in conformance with Water Management Plan policies , so the BCWMO has no problems with it as proposed. Please feel free to call me at 439-3142 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, • David Truax Chairman, BCWMO cc : Stillwater Twp. Valley Branch Watershed District Bruce Folz Dennis O'Donnell Nile Kriesel , Sec . BCWMO Board AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • • s November 14, 1997 Mr. Screaton - This is a copy of the report on the study of the Oak Park Heights Annexation made by Jon Lennander, the engineer for Valley Branch Watershed District. I am unable to send you a copy of the tape made during the meeting. The minutes of the meeting will be available, though, after the managers approve them at the next meeting. I can send you a copy of the approved minutes at that time. Karen Schultz ,-; CITY Oil 674, 1,4e.; OAK PARK HEIGHTS ` (('-y�Lf 14168 N. 57th Street • Box 2007 •Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574 August 29, 1996 RC ,vEg Ms . Jane Harper Office of Administration Washington County Government Center 14900 61st St . N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Jane : At their August 20 , 1996 meeting, the Oak Park Heights City Council reviewed the Washington County Comprehensive Plan and provided the following comments : 1 . The Generalized Land Use Plan, Figure LU-6 , does not designate areas within Oak Park Heights such as the Minnesota • Correctional Facility or the Stillwater Area High School as public areas even though they are significant land users . The City Council suggested that public land uses -be added to the Generalized Land Use Plan. 2 . The City, Council felt that areas to thesouth. of Oak Park - Heights and west of Bayport on ' the Generalized Land Use Plan Bayport be designated as transition areas The Comprehensive Plan draft and the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan, currently being drafted, will both designate these areas for future suburban housing. • r . 3 . -The City Council noted that improvements for Osgood and Oakgreen Avenues south of Highway 36 are not designated on the - Short Range Improvements 199.5_1999 Capital Improvement Program, ra m , as shown in Figure T-16 . The City Council believes that the improvements for these two roadways are critically important and should be programmed for at least right-of-way acquisition and possibly construction before 1999 . 4 . The description of Oak Park Heights found on page A-13 was incorrect in that it stated that the City was almost fully developed_. In fact, most of the 392 acres annexed in 1991 to the City of Oak Park Heights hts from Baytown Township has not been . developed. The description should also indicate the correct name for the "State Prison" as the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Oak Park Heights . Tree City U.S.A. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS jr;` ' 7T1 , , A MINNESOTA STAR CITY December 1, 1995 Ms . Pat St . Claire, Baytown Township Clerk 14949 30th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re : Baytown Comprehensive Plan Update Dear Pat : After further review of Baytown' s proposed Comprehensive Plan, The City Council of Oak Park Heights requests that the following concerns be specifically addressed. Though we have requested that Baytown comment on the potential for annexation in general, there are two areas we would specifically request comments on. one area is the Screaton land west of County Road 5 . We have already received a renewed request from the Screatons for annexation. The second area is the DNR WMA just south of the City limits . Our residents continue to express concerns about discharge of weapons for hunting in this area. The second concern we would like addressed is how Baytown proposes to satisfy the recreational needs of its residents . Again, we congratulate you on the completion of your Comprehensive Plan update. The City of Oak Park Ne.i.ghts will be beginning its Comprehensive Plan update in 196 , and we will be using your plan as one of many sources of information for our plan. Sincerely, G Michael Ro.ertson City Administrator cc : City Council 14168 North 57th Street • Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082-2007 Phone! 612-439-4439 • Fax: 612-439-0574 20'd 2,286 SGS ZI9 Jorl Th:91 L66I-b2-nON z hlU mCya '' � s .n2.' a.2 .,-,,3 no 3 mg Ps a=� '$ "; om ' $ ofi=o m o O T✓ cn x Qae� c: •vn o v ag ` po; rF„ .�o8'� II" �� gi4 ;.1.= • a Ooap°i : m... 1 -- c o•' o a , `a'c.A0ga , n5-c3.<5.1), 0 • we a 5-► E,g � . .ys � CDu1g� yce " uies • cdp, f' g. g 2 = .- -, - CD ED -° ° cm oo� ma� O �* � a �.. -am CyyC !I : j !jilii CTn ' a•B . cr QC Vm m C �% 0 `rti9C,2.= 1 ,,,11.....f.,2.= 1 ,,,11.....f.,,.1 ° �y ¢yy " o u 7 : � � m (—I- ycoAG•mE - P+ gy5'CrP.- R; tv O 0g "� ,- $"' o g a,c ocr.A a OA7 � Z y g`cCy u a 0Fp- O ,m R zo `° agSEr � r. oc�z � o � a rn ��-*� - e� cp • to vl 0,0 5. rn 04 0:10- 4. J,EP sug � ° n.aa ° eo � a ;}mmy $ 2,E•O, . -1aa , mw c 1Z d W e,-.-.0Oa •C <o0npsA' a. �� . .aH�igc.-Crmn� •�` y'� o cAco O 4:),..,_.t...,-.4-.. aU sr .11 5 - ua DJ r Ir 'Ima s. i a:4. u av m �g 2cn 1o � g- Q n iqaa p Y rnPa " msu n7 , a 7o m`4 ='''' - I Ya 'iy ' mwt•y � i o ° r � � ate is.r' cg ' 'a t, IA m.o el, POi .o . x s 5.� a � � : fiygt� � mcQb = � 9,. ..„•pQc �'n yc Q. 74 p. a- ° � ao.� aG0y atr7 (in (n}I i • ‘iili l'aw " a ..% 8x2catim O mfD -t„ � tia+ sua ,.,."O O ma'pO N.. wv4w �,.. � oa=et . 0. 0. $ m08 b. w � .a � co ' . - a tro� ' crv, a o .sav oVoy ,OCb ccy ° » 0�.c w coA. O O aq . e.. = • co a tv, Millilli Ilk 11 p y�p R r�`d. .y v7 O SPD 4 ,may A3 '*ti, A V !'r•co a r Lam”m d'C•D ea n'O ..'y y • � ' Y^� ;�: X 4, • m o„it, O .r'� �su N�pp 0 cc0o "O'f i-+s�jj � c�+ cis •43 E i F s-v Er, g .-%5 ,7)a 4-5-..,,:, ass . ..5.�n GLf�D .O..m t� .�•O }Y O OA g m �O. 7 ''..1 C::) O ° g'&32' 41- SID ata j :111 P;:!::::: ' ia .4 124 gr t. O si LjL5 �n" Ema pp,;. ;4;43 124 r Com � '70rrD � . p, ` t • S.41,z.g- i a - ri1IIt1IIfl*! n S7 44. - , ` i ern `4 °SaeAo � � y ° � yQ. '' � y rpo M. , ".'y ° O l0-F (�Jmm�±±� s'..'Vi (� Al .7 f3.y e•►�Y " 3a, k h {' e•► N• Vv1� H terra .,.�po v- as .m," "'• emasu C42 pc, m • m8 o8 �ssO' „ <. m K Cr ,� SU �rOyN W O y�Oq O 1 w7yao � y O e+ Gly �� CD �O r y+ .4,,;, IA � C� ��t'J f�D y �O • Al (�D ' a A� � gggo ti ... . .. � } � } o 112 132 ;E qt3CA D r �ay} �a f ' 'I*,,',:,„,--. *11,-%,..,-, , '4°- fa m m0µ,pp �C te OCa ,-3 3n OD. V) 7o0i °fn fp 4.-.-174.-.-17,, � a � pCp 's ram *§ ,_Zh -'. ~� . 0A "� eN2N,„� ;_ � ��� N - n . P. '.'84 .� �,nm'rrms-r ° (7,•-•w '4 E. :Ov a.s : p O • tD +; Ea'', 0, �m , Q- ` � - m 0i Ofv ,n Or fJ.cm �g 0 . raC �O A :74: m -to � rW � yEapao: 'xiqi tsh i 0--0 o -cr, = = = 5' 1". 6 31- ODm + amv . <. 0 0 v3mmn, - D1, -(4) CD s` itie te3WNFNc=N p r, ah� ° cNNo3roaSm . m o° �aoo MEMO Scott Richards Date: 6 November 1997 To: Judy Holst Re: Oak Park Heights - Annexation (798.04-97-13) For distribution to the Mayor and City Council . Please include the colored Maps 7 and 8 in each copy. I have already sent a copy to Mark Vierling and Jerry Turnquist. This will be discussed at their closed session and is not for the regular Council agenda. NOV - 71991 • Enclosure 19 CITY CO • OAK PARK HEIGHTS .14 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574 OAK PARK HEIGHTS - PROJECTED GROWTH STATEMENT As a means of addressing and accommodating future growth and development of Oak Park Heights, consideration has been given by the City Council to annexation of portions of Baytown Township. As a result of these annexation discussions, the City of Oak Park Heights sees a need to grow and accommodate the following: 1. Replace housing removed as part of the Minnesota Department of Transportation St. Croix Bridge project. 2. Responsibility to provide an urban housing setting for people of all income groups and all age groups as follows: a. Provide and maintain a balance in the types and quantities of housing units available throughout the City, emphasizing larger single family units/lots, low to medium density multiple family and senior housing development to balance with existing residential development. b. Provide sufficient housing options to meet the needs of all segments of the population, including a high quality, affordable life cycle residential environment throughout the City. 3. Need to complete the urban commercial/industrial development along Highway 36 to Manning Avenue. In conjunction with that development provide public improvements such as streets, utilities, and emergency protection. Provisions for Growth Five areas have been identified by the City Council as having priority for current and future City annexation. 1. Kern Center Annexation Area. A petition has been submitted by property owners within an area west of Oak Park Heights and south of State Highway 36 for annexation of their property from Baytown Township to the City of Oak Park Heights (Map 1). The purpose of the request is to serve the area with municipal services such as sewer and water to support urban development densities. Tree City U.S.A. i i ► The City plans for a continuation of the commercial/light industrial development within the arealatted as "Kern Center". The northwest corner of the subject site P would be planned for single family homes on large estate type lots. Seventeen acres of mid density (six units per acre) is planned on that area south of Kern Center. The remaining area south of 55th Street is planned for approximately 60 acres of low density single family residential development of between two to two one-half unitsa p r acre (Map 2). ► This area provides a logical extension and expansion of Oak Park Heights for residential and commercial development. The City's Comprehensive Plan has anticipated the eventual annexation of this property. ► Sewer facilities constructed within Oak Park Heights have been designed to accommodate service to the subject area. Therefore, capacity does currently exist to serve the site. ► Based upon recent trends in housing development within Oak Park Heights, there is a demand for housing in the area. Population and household forecasts have been projected by the Metropolitan Council and our office, and each estimates over 500 new housing units by the year 2010. The City of Oak Park Heights is running out of developable land for residential development, therefore, in order to keep up with the demand, annexation must be considered. 2. Island of Baytown Township. These properties (all single family residential) are surrounded by the City of Oak Park Heights on all sides, and are located on Oakgreen Avenue, south of Highway 36 (Maps 3a and 3b). These homes are not served by municipal utilities. ► The City would like to annex this small area prior to the year 2000. ► If the adjacent property to the west (Haase property) develops, 58th Street will be improved to Oakgreen Avenue. As such, Oakgreen will need to be upgraded and utilities will be extended by the subject homes. If the County does not improve Oakgreen, the City may have to take the leadership role to accomplish this roadway and utility improvement project. ► Per a 1997 amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the future land use designated for the subject properties located north of 58th Street and west of Oakgreen is Business/Warehousing. This land use is expected to be a continuation of this type of development from Norell Avenue to Oakgreen Avenue (Haase property) (Map 4). 2 • i ► The land use for the potential annexation properties east of Oakgreen are likely to continue as single family residential. The adjacent land uses in the area are low density residential to the east and south, and public open space to the north. ► Single family residential will remain the preferred land use south of 58th Street on both sides of Oakgreen Avenue. 3. DNR Property. The DNR property is located south of Brekke Park and west of Osgood Avenue (Map 5). ► This area provides a buffer to the prison. ► The City Council has previously indicated it was interested in annexing this property to hold the environmentally sensitive area as open space and to develop portions of the land as low density residential development in the distant future. ► The City has capacity to serve the area with sewer and water utilities. 4. Kiefer Property. This property is located between River Hills and Baytown Woods 3rd on Oakgreen Avenue (Map 6). ► The Council is interested in annexation of this land south of River Hills between the City boundary and Baytown Woods 3rd Addition. ► This land should be designated as low density residential. ► The property owners are not interested in developing their land at the current time, however, the City would like to be prepared for the future possibility. ► The City has the capacity to serve the area with sewer and water utilities. 5. Baytown Township. The City expects to expand the Oak Park Heights boundaries into Baytown Township to include the land west of Stagecoach Trail (County Road 21), north of 30th Street, and east of Neal Avenue North and Northbrook Boulevard (Map 7). Annexation areas do not include the Lake Elmo Airport and the land west of Northbrook Boulevard around the Cloverdale Lake and McDonald Lake areas. ► The likely land uses in this area will likely be residential, with some smaller commercial nodes. 3 • • ► There is adequate capacity in the current sanitary sewer system to serve up to 1,000 acres of new development (6,000 people). The above described annexation area consists of over 2,000 acres, therefore, the existing system can serve roughly half of the annexation area. ► Long range planning for the entire area will require an upgrade of the existing sewer system to serve additional development. ► The Metropolitan Council has set aside only a portion of the area Oak Park Heights has interest in as Urban Reserve (2040 sewer service area). The remaining area is shown as Permanent Rural Area (Map 8). ► The City of Bayport's Comprehensive Plan claims portions of this area for future City expansion of its urban residential area (Map 9). ► The Cities of Bayport and Oak Park Heights will have to settle their similar claims on City expansion. 4 • • i _, ' I -1— — — t �� I i rl— — .4�\� Q , r � a 1! ; ! hc IT 4‘ I _11 V 1 1 L-1 ` 2 CO i 1 1 I lit F•'; e (--c P 0 1 -1 3 S ;.; 1 3 I � 4 1 ^ I I i ,r ia - oo c, J I 1110111% 1 iii aI a 1 ffiL,„Ira_ele." 1 i iiiia• wor., , ; r 1 ___ alfillitUlla gig i 1,-, i ---. 1) ' % I-c ."--j__.....) 1 IOWA I 04.4411 will EL WI I , !.1g 1 I 1 , I I10 ��r N ` • I 1 S 9 1 J I t,ll go $ I g I j . . o 13 a x ¢ I /,) e I 'x I I 13 , o I = . /, s I N 4,z,,,,, %00:4 i o^ • i / / I CC i i r) 3 a (IC ;� m<Pli Hm I to = 1N g WI I IN —Jf. LL a z1 I Ea 3•O k .P `1 i O : x I H `I H 8 I 1 Y ! 1 V z Qts..., new , J --L.. . - - - -' - --, \-NI - - - --4-„ , 1 :. 0. ._ ..4 4 r —"3f � IZ1 n � 1 # -1,-\:- QO I 3I .4' Abb � Y 11 I I ` • _ s Yq 114 %.i u Ornillitei Q b - - - - -'-' COW o * 2 a I I I � CO Q 111 ?U% 1 Q te \. linommarair ■■ OW13 3)It/1 a O MAP 1 • • • Wa o� v Ji' . a 0 ; wW H I'. gu (1a ` - i '- - - I ii` r� ` L. fi. cer I� , 1 Va • ... \ ,...,..../ . 3% oa I z ..Ili t i _i I"? 01 1 ,`J, I o r zis) ,i- alli , - I `1 1 44 44 -..- -. .--. ' - - -'-- -. 21111106111101 ! 1 I IP% 1 I Hieleo. I i-n- 12 i 0147.410.e...._ , 1 , . .., 1 -- - . • „,„ ,wth..1.1,,, .1f4 . a i .niii, 1 cl._ r:::J _______J__,) KJ g . .41.-wArii. No ii_-, 1 -. teallialla . • \._ - 11111.11P IL 0 1 I ' , m e I W I tc11 o I I I ,I`I II 1� c v I / 11 a 1 = o t / t I i I 0 1 1 ` $ 1 _ • I �u i — s\ 1 � I 1 0� I / (1. I '''4•90 10 1 \ rl �/ I /II �y0 a I S -1 J I /'/ I - - Ic-c-....•' 4t„so,loils 2 111 2 1°10 u LO 4 J ? I lk I _ g Q WI\ 11 WI J �I i rl1 a16.100.—N1111,1441i\e..% YI c 1 it . l S I " / t I $I '�,, 511`�3i I 0 Z�,. I I ,� I 3.y \ , . , r ■' 1 0 N \'r,3",,,rN \ ill i lb i -a- ~ - }I- F I i ° 1 aos 1 f � a_ IIWIW 3. I1aLL.IO I J; Z, 01.. O� 1 `t W W I- 17- Ch ti Z�W } 1 `, i li J S 5............. r��• Q I • II Z N / ■ I Is W �, \ O 0 O MAP 2 0 . i u_8 N 1 Illi///t�1�111� E �+ H Q O C^■ CIE rr s _, i CI v=i i� L ,=II/s�� ♦ CD Milk J a (u.; O ` -,� !that 4. t� D J J _J V' 0 ,1-NI Nom.. , top- ac CL. .pts aWc re. v. \ i�-s•z / Y �►• Y _ 3 c ec x ..az 2.'� S d C o O O t- o A\ i.-.i i ♦ _"i ♦ a".- ►� v� c' p yr Y/ ■ ■.a� r a iiii Vt.S"2 --' Z .i!!I is ie�Isur Ii . v. ; 1 . C II:IF *fill� I . W I 11111111i11111111•o::ti41■, v W ' (� 1 .�r� IF, .D1.1111.1111111 I.II: ,r� 11111111 ... I I / ' •41► .c�_�%elle n ii11111 a I I I I '`�.q �1■...rn d11111;� � , 3. '+11► 1 ung� .■. _. � et! e. E 40 /• �/Ulna,. ig, -Psi ,•,. j -4C 4 r,,alliiiii isigtiti icill L-, _ ,I, ... .. . „ail 1ga vt,:es, btsi . , ._ .1... ...... .„ Ihn z p�/1111 , �, ',i L. _ ;i 1 r MM ,_, li a .4:t J V' C7 w r,.■rte Cr. r, Y Z Z �� r p a ' urs C3 rig • Q •. Y. - 6 O W -® a �. p ,..,= oar ..� 3 6d ..T.4 J M W 'OW 411100 * J ,u a V"f 3 z mg • ���jUll��" tb•v'41111I, , 1 Ii w # , ~ ill J J iw r L.; \ J. ‘N _ Iiii anal F. s. r Z3o z 41111,041 , W p O NI u W 3. "V, o Q 0 o x,6�c a W gz~'i= 3 al moo= O c 2 8 V .... Z MAP 3A 1 .\ EASEMENT 410 6 • 11.... .a.simammiti: 8 9 . t1• _ it IV 10 , t ---...t !11 %' 52 I 17 3 -- 3 Mrc2 rf 4 . 2300 OAK PARK HEIGHTS � � ri5 ,i01- 14 ,m HAYTOWNEr. lam ry IR l I1 o "" Z la C -:)• -- W . /III' A 6 7 0 3 a 3S 6-tH3 7TR3839 �O at �5SEET 1H4 ion c; w 12 ii 10 32 3: 30 29 28 27 26 tz L., Y 13 14 1VI, ..,• 4 S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55T, S1 REET N. 3 I 4 1 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 12 13 14 2500 z 7 MAP 3B T T .— • IIIANNING DISTRICT 15 Proposed Land Use Plan HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL I\/\.I PARK SEARCH AREA WPC BUSINESS/WAREHOUSING BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP This pop a br phming purposes poly and sfiwld retie utilized when eaa SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL -••-••- CITY LIMITS mnsYRSKr6iRRquRd. / J MID/HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL o' 400 HO' 6 STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 36 AP\ Igib:,,m* 11 OW- MIA Me I dieC ���� MAP 4 SOURCE: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS,INC. I —-- — — -- --— — — — — — - .• ,____________ . . ... . __.. . „..... .... ... ...... ... .. . .. . .. . . . sc T 0 N 4 . . _...___ ,... . , . .__ __L_LI:ik_____) , .7. •., ' -*,-" i. ' ''.:-: ' 'j, ' ; ' - ' I 1 . 1 " ' i - ': -• , . .• . s-`''''. i_ __ _.1 ---NplaFJ1EIGIITS: 1 ; ••. i !)_.) ... . „ .. . ., . !I, ..,... ...,.!!!!I tiM•Y•tD1.‘,NA , IIREKKE PARK 1 . ..-- .„.,\. ,,0- ......„., ... 1,11 .. - •'• • • , ‘ .• , .. NMI Ima 1 1" 1 , . I . • !lb 1 i I • 4 4I 41. 1 ' 4.'S',,, ! ' . 1 . 1 . f . til • . I . Ii : s ‘• . I— ...41 ii 1013111DV:ION • 2,.E, ; • 1 ., n 1 n ' u 1 " ilco mi.lit'opino j 1 1 ‘ •..• •, ;s...., .,•• ; ___.Z ... . • ..,:.:..._ _...,- l• ,......_ , 1 : : !,.I ..1 i ' • ' ! i . uJ ;-.. .. . ,!...,,-.: ; .,,!, • f I....J.:it- W..4%1.4,...., —v..'-.'""1. ;*.',:.:-i•'.''.:'4'1'‘t..'....iI-...111 1-"."-1I-111::'—.7.*!...'''-—1;,-,"-"—...1!"i1:-•"'-.--F'4i.V,.., C...i.•..'•.—":.4::. . 1 •:••. .• .,....--..— uj !I . i . - . iTTI ; 1I .......... ...._ .•..._ _ t...-.: ..-! • i .1'''''' s?' ' ''-'4' ("""r"I'''1 -!• 1 '.7":.‘). ‘.2.'.. 1, ..:!.. : • • ,..: ;,1. OAK PARK HEIGHTS I ::: .......i...:._.2,.......:......1...i....., ,.,....k),„...: ;I i•-:.::_.,...-..:.. . zn_ 1 .. is „,::, ; ,„!.. l' ..,'„ ... s J-• • : •: • ,,..m.....:1.....:..;: . • • ii •-- .--- : .• •: I.--: it ,,..:: I .4.. ; ,....: •-•••• DNR PROPERTY , ; .. .... 11n.l. on•no 1 1. 1 • i .1 . ...............•n . Lli IlieS NO 70 ; of,r.• \ IU \O 7U i ,....,• ,,. . / cz,v- 4 1 "—-- , •,... ' . Z i — I -•. ', ''''" ; li.1 ii .... .•,,-..:7°- ___......- > /•//, ,„. I i ; 7' ....... i i 0 ./••••/r: -, 1 . . ,. 0 • / ..., , . -•• ........-I . 0 • ; (..1 .., , . 1 0 • . : • . _._ . i.. .• • . . . . . -..! . ..7.• i • . • -.i' ;.. • ,. . • ..., • , •- ,..,•- ,, - ., 1 •• . , . i • . 1 . . ...• . . . . .. . ... . . . . . : • , . • .-- - I • 1,, •—, .;;•-.. ;;:••••..; f.,....4,,) 1 I • 1 .. ... it, ,:••I•.. 1. 1 ..,, c •,1...•.-,..,..:1;,',-••••;,•,:---,-,.,.-,_•.n. • ••,.- Ii,.„. . .••-•,I, .. . - I "., "•: L- • : 1- i ' • - 4:.,—'ark.-7.:.-A ... ...., ... .;7 '''• I ' i ! . .•• ' • ' I I !'-'!.:•:;:;!.... V, I'. ''''''' •,,.. i • I 1 • ,. .5 • 1 • i 1 . • • ., , . -1---••• - :,' .:77. 1 ! - 4...2 :./- " •-- .-. ' .... , . '. t • i t; ..,. 1 i...7: ,_ • ,;:.•: . .... . I -, _ _:.• t . . oi ) \ 1: 1 BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP ... i; ...., ;i• ' • ...1 ti .., , , i •- i • Ai; :: i . i ..;7:: - 1 • If' • 1 1 ' I :!,,. '' • 'il I ' .i,i.,f .:. I 1 •••••• -•.•• . . .... ..... ._.! I .. ' :' ;1;1 • I • I. . , . , .•••• ...1 I - •-- • . .. . r. . • • • !,:.: . • . ,•,„•:_.......„_,: . , , - 1 , , ,- :L. . - - , - - ' •-,.--.:-.......;....:...........,...,,..i...,,,,....... , ! , ..,..-- ---- ------ 1.............:;. 1 ,......._ , .1. . • 't ) I - •,•,1:•' ,,,-: ; i • !_.-• • 1 10 .; ..._ .• F. " . 1 - -'• . ..----\-'.. - . . . I: i . -... . s. — ' \A • 1 1 ... -- i- ''..,....• ;•.--I''\'' -,.\::;< 1.\‘' ' ,; \tt, I 11•,,-„' :,.., ...---.. ‘ . 1 i .. :,! 0. .' •.9, ' /::...:. •' 1 1 1 •' ' , . ..›.... ..•. • 1 ' e e I.." •-, i 1 •' . j ,.."-r7',:,,,......... .......... ."".",..• ....., " I •.,,, ''••••.•.. - "....,,,, . . • - .. . .•• - -. • i ,...• .....••• ; N 0.,,1 ••i': . • 1 i i P I. ..._ •• .. .... .....,...... ,. . I i •.•. ' ' "......:... I • i i ' . .• 01: 1 • • • V.•.. Ai I . . . • ..., . lif;1 , . .., ... _ , — ••• • ii;I . ,. ,•.• ,,, . •I:i-,., .. , . . • . i ! •••••• a\ • MI..40.06 I.;.. I fi a..i 1.0.••••• • ..• .. . .1 . '. '. .• i''' / / I i i. . , i .i , ..4 , i 1- ; , . • 14...1 'j ' I. i : .• '.7.7...:,. -7:.: : ': r•••• •'''''''''re:\ ...••• • . ---- • i QUARTER QUARTER INDEX . n.: 21 . 12 : II MOI IACA.203 II.C1 7)413 DRAWING IS INNE E SUll 04 A CO3.1 , DE OF LANG RECORDS AS THEY AIPEAR TN VAA, 23 1..24 .33 : 34 INE DRAWING SITOUED REUSED fOR REFER: "^-. •-•:: --".. —:: ::::.` • .1Aninialu. anmitimil.glianle..71' WASHINGTON COUNTY IS NOT NSittEl I COUNTY SURVEYOR'S OFFICE i-- . .. . ... 32 ' 31 42 II H. ... MAP 4WORMATION WAREN My • 'GOVERNMENT CENTER num Lus=:.......i.:41.4:::r;Aussoss.s ttsus TOREN . 33 . 3d Al 44 DATE PRIMO:August 24. 1g OTA SE0g2•0206 . ._ , .. .. .. . . . .. .. . , . . . ' • ' • . • . 1:1 C31 I I • I I aa Tyah St ao, a •Z y ., ii ' , a. �oa;T. dd yyl 77 r2i,^l ,��a\ �S iLn' , pK ' .. +y'x'���aY Yn=m C g q-� l • _ I . , . , " , _ ,.., , • • a m II j • I ' !. II j _ • - '‘'' - , : • . ' ..... rill1=1"....11. le Z alb . O I iQi q^ m ¢g _ 'S � Tia, Ir. r. R - C) : M cn B ! . t _ .._ - ...- _4 ' - 0 • e 73 H - Gg/, \c _ , i s ; 0 Y . = Z m • I tin ti . . CO .i - N .� Is; ` C � •..` • r 00 A - • , • , . . . 4, •'\.,' 1r , ' 1 •• ''. if; -1 0r • - ZSSaa1 Z°ov, � '� � 1 t.'61 sr* r fi i 0 00 .a i `b i!i - 1,',.--"^, s -N:77 I -..1. _ O • • I .-Z'-'• _I-E` ' i,....• , • ; 1 e v O <C I I \\.\\\ a 0 , V ''',I2�ti 0 YIITTTT \ .. t a "'gal;,--:2 `\ 1— -- y Vxo70 ••�x+._ ; _ r. til _ - y „ -L., ,Ct17) 'N 1 toxo -- _ ^ O' x '0 "-1 N' oT i I O <• N . 0' L dt/W 11o -. ,' ' '., \4,..., c.M Z ill i NEWEL E.E.N. a I IuZ \ 1(_. :) C , " 0Z Gd �' S, 1 3.F- . \ x O il W ,�` I ml x rEAE AYE N ll l vE. ! O ,1! Z /soy ." 11 Pi o x ...ET D. ',ale ,� F WIryRN6Tq. t/�I 111 NAKo, s f Tom , `` �I 411 'Al] _ NOVAR AVE. N. . 8 i y ' vGv.K AYE. i NCRT,nESTEM, p • i p I 6 Ii OAKG{EEN AVE N q, ., �� ;I.� tMWSTRI4 ft, T" [MAGMA All 1 il' p� 1 uPP� �l:, AAE .:r OASES ®..DORM. AYE _ �• .. :,\ OOE'"P ryF� ,,i. j LL ,,,v _ z m .Y .VE..f. i;, 'F.,. .{\\S 4 MAMAS YEN y.. Ds co QD,., •^ ,IDERGE OR. K m Ot ENE N. 0... AYE. k �;;� • : 1 F° : \ - 1.1 OREN AK. OIiVAV. OSGOOD AK. O$fA00 .--(...:7), A _i A ON • • i i N= f IuxeunC A ve _ zCIR:N.. IvA... • R.NW AVL OOZARK AVE N. ' II T. 3 x PJ I ""� .,:; Xoc:-,1 Q ` PE:lEP z V 1 E — GE^' a) e PENRose®®ori®®�011.' ' • IQl � rtrue. „,x3,2 �r Am ST. ' • lE.A� e ,4f7 4 Md i,n r'rt �$i GEE,� 'PICKETT A R ii F-1----1 Ern ST, '$ ��b ■®'"w S', MIMESIS( y- E, ulmESOTA s ME `:I M�� ^5 y A i l..Jll.....JJJ V Y LAKESIDE...ON. -(3. •_00A1000- // ' ' f x RiYe�-�G?'ON 8 dVW •e,._,, .... ,, I i Z ,,,.-,:-...,..,::„ R 0,12 ‘pi'' I 1. ‘...0 ‘....0 cci (1) lErt, tat, 8. .'c (14o C Po o > (pp (cpn �. n e. v, ' i 2 1 ,Pd > 1 N CDih Ph 4° 4—' ' '' IIIII)y i *moi ., s., ;3 1,—,2 Po o z l _t t� '•T. 'moi } Zni _44. 4 S-1 N Ii.Yi�. z'� r ‘:.' :* g' ot 4 i c ti f i�• AD i 14 .,,,,..9. . g ,...i. .,.. :, ....,..,:,. .-:::::,,. .. 4 pPm e 1 iet 01 .: tu. rl.' f'D ›' • L IL 1 r my . . . . . .• , , . 1, , ,t, : ,_ .N L� asci) .._,0 :,..::::::„. ,_________ f; fml :oatill M 1 � Q ......:,,,...7._ .• .. ,...,. .. . . , ,:....,.., A 7 m � ♦4.i •• k.j•` r 1.."...._( .r• mem NI .....■r r 111111 ._«......; ' 3 2 _ ., r--- . r.. - '''67 dismal l� liglior41p-44.11ragaIiiirso-air z_ � 11111141.. Z � 3 6 + 0 0 . • 0 Figure 27 •,,. OA X PAR}( HEIGHTS ' It 1:31! 14 A •..4: / / .. Air • ;r9/12V/ . ez 4, litif . • • . • . • YEARIAA)2. 2010 • /1,0 / MUSA .r fi' wr Acres EXISTING V • • • • • • • 38;04 • • • • • • • •7. MUSAV • le • • • • • • • r 4001° " • • • • " • 4." •.•.‹.1:----<• • • • • • • ' --•••• . . . . . ... ___ .0.r1"-• " • • • •-,•••••-... . . . .-N • or . • 1q98 1/11 / .• / . . . . . ... 71 .1.4Ter•1 A /1" • ii 01.011;•••ei, / • SS 1 • • • • • • • • • • TRANS1710N ARRA• • . * • . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • . . . . .I„ . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • / . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •I 0 4.4. •• \.\. I .\ N. . I .\: • .\\:\ I \\:\ - ..., I k ,...,1 .0. .R.''• \\ • %! • Includes 27 acres fit park land and 31 acre4 •f undavalopabla land 1 \ \\\ I,SGEND _ • • • URBAN EXPANSIoN/ rxirting MUSH F3 YEAR 2000 MUSA r ...Li YEAR 2010 kUSA (TZI YEAR 2020 MUrSA .• • • • 1_ _ . TRANSITION ARIA Moto. 1166 farea salsolottam•kayo boon dartvoll fr Uwe lasmi pc..14.41.ft wia,mot 1.1.• 11C11.4 6.r...e• vs•ia. MUSA EXPANSION IMEMMMEIMMEIMMINEEMBEP Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Pr•14.4. Pfra.64.-.64-1 --- C 0 MP RE HE NSIVE PLAN 611.• Nue.IITYT11.1.111\14-1 1,..44 a/1111M MAP 9 City of Bayport, Minnesota 1.....,.........„ _ 1.,....4 13... / 1111,1•• 2474 Ciak:gr'een Avenue North Stillwater , MN 55082 September 25, 1997wi ` \\ SEP 2 9 1997 CITY i kF LAKE ELMO i -- 3800 LAVERNE AVENUE N LAKE ELMO, MN 55042 Attn : Mayor l,•1yn John , and Mary ueffner , City Administrator RE : ANNEXATION iN OiF 235 ACRES OF BAYTOWN LAND Dear Mayor Wrn John , As owners of some acreage in the annexation area, we bel i eve that sewer and water best serves this urbanized area, and we wi 1 1 pursue all legal options to ensure that outcome . In the event that the orderly annexation between the City of Lake Elmo a.n d Baytown Township is implemented, w e will seek detachment from Lake Elmo and annexation to Oak Park Heights . Lie petitioned for annexation to Oak Park Heights because we felt that .sewer and water fa.c i 1 i t i ess are the environmentally responsible way to develop in that area. This agrees with Metropolitan Council ' s Regional Blueprint Plan . We are most impressed with the blend of commercial and residential development that is now occurring i ri Oak "Park. Heights, and envision something similar in the annexation area . c Sincerely . inncere1 . S 08z 'ccQ "( Judith :_,c a•t o n £J -� ��// David R. creator. ccs to: Wla.:yor Dave Schaaf , Oak Park Heights Pat St . Claire , Baytown Township Clerk Scott McDonald ,d , L.awsson , i'"1arshal 1 , McDonald & Gal ctwi tz , F .H . + ' Page 3 - City Co cil Minutes 07/22/97 • There was also considerable discussion about what kind of requirements the City should establish for the outside storage of recreational vehicles and boats . Council debated how far back from the curb or the property line such items should be stored. Council was in consensus to set a (7) seven foot setback from the curb for recreational vehicles. Richards was directed to prepare a more thorough definition of the types of equipment that Council wished to regulate . Council reviewed the proposal regarding a requirement that all new construction homes have a covered two car garage. Staff indicated that this was proposed to prevent a homeowner from not having enough room to park all their cars . Council agreed with this change . Richards noted that he changed language in the ordinance to allow for Home Occupation Permits in a detached accessory garage through a Special Home Occupation License . This would give the Council flexibility in issuing a permit which would allow home occupations in a dwelling other than the primary building. Richards explained recent changes to State laws regarding manufactured housing. He said that a city is required to have a portion of its land available for that use . Richards noted that Oak Park Heights has adequate standards to provide that any manufactured housing is of sufficient quality to ensure that it will fit in with the other housing in Oak Park Heights . City Attorney Vierling was directed to draft a notice of a city moratorium regarding manufactured housing in order to allow the Council to review and change the city ordinance to bring it in compliance with State law. Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Swenson, moved at 8 : 30 p.m. to continue the public hearing to the next Council meeting. Carried 5-0 . Unfinished Business: Annexation Report - City Planner Richards presented the revised report to the Council . He outlined the major points to the Council . (1) Oak Park Heights has not initiated the annexation petition; it is responding to a request by over 20% of the landowners of said property to annex the land into Oak Park Heights. (2) Oak Park Heights is a logical city to support this kind of development, being the nearest City that can provide urban level services . (3) The soil of said property is not ideal for septic systems, therefore utility access is logical, which Oak Park Heights can provide . • . , 4 Page 4 - City Council Minutes 07/22/97 (4) The tax impact on the areas remaining in Baytown Township would not be significant, according to Richards . Richards noted that Oak Park Heights does not make the final decision as to whether this portion of Baytown Township will be annexed into Oak Park Heights . That decision is made by the State Municipal Board. City Attorney Vierling reviewed the annexation process, indicating that a contested annexation such as this will take several months to come to a resolution by the Municipal Board. City Engineer Anderlik stated that sewer and water services could be provided to the proposed annexation area at costs similar to other suburban areas in the Twin Cities . Anderlik noted that the properties being annexed will be charged connection fees for sewer and water utilities, therefore there will be no additional charge to current City residents and businesses . Administrator Robertson noted that he had received a letter from Baytown Planning Commission Chair Debra Foley objecting to the proposed annexation on Monday which had been passed on to the Council . He also indicated that he had received a letter from the Magnuson Law Firm, the Township' s attorney Tuesday afternoon expressing Baytown Township' s objection to the annexation and that the City Council had not had a chance to review that letter before the Council meeting. Resolution 97-07-26 , A Resolution Supporting the Proposed Annexation - Councilmember Robert, seconded by Beaudet, moved to adopt Resolution 97-07-26 . Carried 4-1, Councilmember Swenson voting against . New Business: A • i.n • m.11 i i- •nf-r-n - - B d• - in• In •rm. •n - Council noted receipt of the requested information from Administrator Robertson. Councilmember Turnquist said that he would not be attending the conference because the meeting with NSP was that day and he thought that was a more important issue. Party in the Park Update - Administrative Intern Mesko updated the Council on the Party in the Park to be held on Sunday, August 10 from 1-3 p.m. at Brekke Park. There was discussion about what type of prizes would be given away and what type of activities would be held. Council directed Mesko to distribute fliers to local businesses the week before the party to spread the word. The Council also decided to table the issue of renaming Swager Park until after the park improvements have been made. 4 ///3 h Barr Engineering Co. /tom MEMORANDUM To: Valley Branch Managers From: Jon W. Lennander Subject: Oak Park Heights Annexation Date: November 10, 1997 At the request of the Managers I have reviewed the proposed Screaton/Kern Annexation plan for the portion of Baytown Township to be developed as a part of Oak Park Heights. It appears there will be some impact on the water levels in Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes and Goetschel Ponds resulting from this annexation, but it is not expected to increase the problems of these lakes beyond the current situation. However a large portion of the annexation area is presently drained to Browns Creek. I suspect there may a request to change this condition in the future. This change would be more difficult for the District to deal with. Attached is a plan of the drainage area for the annexation area (Figure 1). The hatched area is the annexation area, and the cross hatched area is the portion of Valley Branch which currently drains towards Browns Creek. Approximately 75 percent of the total annexation area (180 acres) is within Valley Branch Watershed District. The watershed contributing to Browns Creek is about 64 acres, approximately 63 acres drains towards Cloverdale Lake, and the remaining 53 acres drains to Goetschel Ponds. Currently the portion of the watershed diverted to Browns Creek consists of the Kern Center area (VBWD Permit 89-22). This is the commercial development on the west side of Highway 5 between Highway 36 and 55th Street. Most of the Kern Center is completed or under construction. Assuming drainage from this area is not redirected to Valley Branch, there will be no change resulting from the annexation of this portion of the watershed. The area west of Kern Center is formally in Browns Creek and will not impact the District. Approximately 1/3 of the annexation area is within the Cloverdale/McDonald Lakes watershed. This includes the area along Highway 5 between 50th Street and 55th Street. From the Annexation Study it appears this area will be primarily single family residential land use, medium • density residential land use, and the church property. Medium density is reported to be 6 units per acre and the single family areas to be 2.5 units per acre. This area is currently undeveloped and drains to Cloverdale Lake through h culvert underHighwayt g 5 near S . Johns Lutheran Church. There is a low area near this culvert, and it is uncertain how often this area discharges to Cloverdale under existing conditions. • • To: Valley Branch Managers From: Jon W.Lennander Subject: Oak Park Heights Annexation Date: November 10, 1997 Project: Page 2 The southwesterly portion of the annexation area currently drains to Goetschel Ponds. This area contains substantial wetland areas which are a part of the Goetschel Pond system. This area is proposed to be single family residential land use. Under existing land use this area is proposed and open space single family residential land use. The difference for the proposed annexation would primarily be the density of development. Stormwater Concerns Drainage from the Kern Center is directed to a large stormwater pond on the west side of the property. All drainage from this site is directed towards this pond, and then outlet to Browns Creek. A similar area appears to drain to this pond from the Browns Creek side of the site. It will be expensive and difficult to separate these areas at this time. The site drainage for the Kern Center was approved by the Browns Creek WMO while in existence (see attached letter). The formation of the Browns Creek Watershed District, and the concern of trout stream issues in the watershed, may bring the issue of drainage from this area before the Managers in the future. An annual hydrologic yield model was used to determine the impact of increasing the volume of runoff to CloverdalefMcDonald resulting from the annexation. Based on this model, it appears the water level in Cloverdale will become more variable, and possibly higher on occasions, but in general the problem in Cloverdale will not be worse than currently exists. Since this area will only impact McDonald when Cloverdale exceeds it's outlet elevation, the impact on McDonald is much less than for Cloverdale. Since there is no outlet from these lakes, any increase in runoff volume directed to this area will potentially increase the risk of flooding to the adjacent homeowners, but the actual difference in water level with, or without, the annexation is difficult to determine, and dependant on yearly variations in hydrologic conditions. The portion of the site draining to Goetschel Ponds will see much less of an impact from the annexation. The watershed contributing to Goetschel Pond is 2622 acres with an occasional, and planned future, additional drainage area of 1695 acres from the Sunnybrook area(4317 acres total). The additional runoff from the annexation area is expected to be less than 1 percent of the total runoff volume from the watershed, but cannot be calculated accurately by the simple methods used for this analysis. However, there is no current outlet from Goetschel Ponds, and any additional runoff to this area may increase the flooding risk around Goetschel Pond. • ,• • • To: Valley Branch Managers From: Jon W. Lennander Subject: Oak Park Heights Annexation Date: November 10, 1997 Project: Page 3 Water Quality Concerns The changes resulting from the annexation may also increase the impact on the future water quality of Cloverdale/McDonald. There is approximately a ten fold difference between low density residential land use and medium density land use in annual phosphorus loading from a watershed. Cloverdale and McDonald Lakes are classified as category III water bodies. Goetschel Ponds are classified as a category V water body, and will be impacted less by the development of the annexation area. If appropriate BMP's are included in the development of the annexation area, the impact of these areas will be minimized. Construction activities related to the annexation would be expected to have a significant impact on the water quality of these water bodies if appropriate protection is not provided during the work. Assuming the development of this area is completed consistent with the rules and regulations of the District, the designated water quality classification of each body should be protected. Recommendations • The District should begin negotiations with Browns Creek Watershed District to change the hydrologic boundaries of the District on a permanent basis. The District boundary should also be changed to reflect the actual area draining to Browns Creek in this area. • If possible, the area draining to Cloverdale/McDonald should be directed to Goetschel Pond. The impact of this area on Goetschel Ponds is less than would be observed in Cloverdale, and would not be expected to substantially change the conditions in Goetschel Ponds. It is assumed that an outlet from Goetschel Ponds will be completed before an outlet from Cloverdale!McDonald and further reduce the impact of this area. • The development many of the upper portions of the watershed will begin to take place. The construction of a permanent outlet system for the landlocked lakes in these areas will continue to be critical. Further development will increase the necessity for the outlet, and reduce the time to implement. The Managers should begin planning the construction of this outlet system. A plan for this outlet will be developed during 1998. _ - • I V: GTL-1 O G L- .2 n 1 0 4 IT I = q E _..�Y L f . �ppy,,�,#1 i 30H / �� :��.••_r ]613: / 4••••w GTL- 1 3 .,, , `` / 1 ,%/ '44 t` tte _ r!v-9 . litler 2 D .1111110(4)Li Q, r� c i : 11 C) �' GT_-8 �_�_� MC di Q t Z S^s 315 0000 e• -oir GLL 10.°, MOP 1 36 C7 • • 1 a /yam CLO DALE f d ` ' I • �� C TL-7 GdErSCHELV r'\ I 1.SCE `-�; /� �9W .� /f.ONOS ;: rixf c; ! ) CLV-5 9W •:0"::. I i 1 : \ CLV-i �. %CJC;>,. yG-L-2 G E` SC\L ! '" .:. 1pW)e LAK:O i 389W _ r0''OSA s.:::.:::::.:-.::::::....:':::::::::::::::::::.:::.::::::.:Z 4` \\ i:� o ' (/ h391W / �i. r— .. GTL- r� i }�1GTL-3 :.il �1 CTL-4\ .{^� l..r�'-�� � ✓ 71 , 1: " PCS. ;3c 1 � t 388W ,;r' i 1 .i cn cn ;:r'r ) 1 MCD-8 �J c \ I \\l I 13;-. �I ALL�� T ',WN-12 I CEJ-3 o i���, E L1� . JI DWN 3 C V G c 199., pe 5.503 I I R .o h ST_ N. r 9tt'- J IFP 5```)".. DWN-10 \ i m 't:1: I DWN-1 1 Q to :s..:.- DWN-16 N SH�4: !� • "c f' g / s • � , C. . i 107P Nv 1 DWN-1 4 E E: F`� 17 , DWN-9 lli C ;; v z 1 _i::;,.:.>.<.,, 1 d.. i 0 r.) : D"/N-7 \ /' Lake Elmo ``' O • ��\ Airport F } W�i O o \ 2 BAA f'.:::.::::;;;.:.:.1 „ DWN-5 \ < O DWN-18 � 1 ST. 1 30th \ A• \\\ \\\ �\ ..\\..4., \\� 4 Figure 1 0 2000 4000 SCREATON/KERN ANNEXATION AREA I I I Valley Branch Watershed District SCALE IN FEET • • • • • Iiri r ivi@ 33W r`VOo W r• } �� • % • W /—, I ,J �/ 7F• — of 1 • �\ ) \ - `I J • i 1 I 1 —'S =J . 1 N { I I i Ill • L1 I c : :,..I _, 10114 - 5 • I s \,...cr) : 1 . ,: 1r,..1,, ,.. .,i,i•-y---. ..\I FM + i :. = 1 O i 1 1 , ' I (`iY1 \ 1 I J 1 .• 7 e I ! 1 -\ 1 ; { \ o I— c i v.: --., 0,...1_-, \ j '7 .. z. :\ -o 4 '"..i `1.4 e.. I I \ .tri Cei • i ••,. ZU a it , ) I _ W_Q o C3= _ _ _ _ Cn •t I • to Cn 1 e• ZI : . v CV 1 I '�� _ C 3 IU \ o Ze I i a ! L I l.._— A /a �� ( W LJ �S I�x �. J N o I((W......�` r ill —y- -'z�L — — i - e;— : - -_—VIII_ - - 1 4i- / - ....!., • - ....::-1, ......„ t 9,.. * -. 1 / 1 241,..i, � .. I 1 '— o o1r b''.i 1/ i - = '� a I11 I I S 7- QI ., U Q ,_ .f Q< F— 'O �— • I1I , it 11= 0�Z • -1 II F.Q a—tC]N tl W (s�.t i r—__— 11 cl)W W Z(..DL _ U OU) C -- :.P — _ .... ... . a . n f_T,sly >.mmrac r C• EXHIBIT E • ... • • • • Lf O ..s w 1—\\ ,, [ 1.c.. 1;;-' 15,>(7-- z z V.! z i • I•.// .1 t'V a_ 7-i, ''.., 15. j4 I •` f t� �4 -� `\_.i �/ T, l� C 1 I I I - \ L� ---- I--; ! V 1 1 ! c j \ -. S.i • II; 1 fz / � ' 1—� U fir, ___-_I 1 ,I � � i-4. 1 ,, l II I 'r ~ _ - 1 II V.s‘..1 t I \ I '1 0 '..2.— L I -- r.,Ii._ Bio :' ti I o *_� I o I 1 5 l I I� .lam I G F _ 1 `% I \ 1 '\ I ITk II I " \01 7 i i ok t o I 6 -, I 1 :0;1 22 1<� 1 V= 1 I 8 I o i o d : i I 1 J I $ �, 1 'S = 'i I o I Z� - I I o i \�7 l . \ M I � . a r 1 1 iro y• f t r � 4 I 3 Y J • V i/�11 Iv t• I ' 3 1 ' \ ,/1 1 1 -7... _ I 1 i�1 I \;, 602 IQ RIeHr- CII I L I --IE - sl I 1 e / 5 :1 ) I, r. I i _ 1 • I 'Yr 1 I o _ J f I 1 11 u - 1 1 ,. •- --- - - - - Ir - - - - - if �1 1 1� g F____,,) _ Com='Jo 1:1 ti:`�a^1 �� % I _, . oa w ., x 1 ,`` )• •.,.., 2 w "`•<-44......j -.2:-_ .-J Q YYIil I - - w W • amu:. I t a— • li'L >-I / O Z • l I - 11 I2 tQ LL1= I . J ~ I1 IQ Q►'I t �} _.1 I- >� , 11 ILL \ I l�IJIM 0 1 I LQi Z IcD — _ II I II 1�1_iU) J 1 -- ) `` --- w w Z— I 0 ICO II 1I ` III , 71 \ ..-n„, Sor oarraow7J us+ . s Yp V YR1BIT H • WASHINGTON SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 11Pir 1825 Curve Crest Blvd..Room 101 Mb, C D Stillwater,MN 55082 .r (612)439-6361 MINNESOTA SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS August 22 , 1989 Patricia L . St . Claire Clerk, Baytown Township 14949 30th Street North Stillwater , MN 55082 Dear Ms . St. Claire: On August 21 , 1989 , Tim Fredbo , Manager for the Washington County Soil and Water COnservation District , informed me about the proposed Kern Center Development . He was contacted by Bruce Folz , planner for the project , who informed him that Valley Branch Watershed District was not granting a permit until the Brown' s Creek Water Management Organization (BCWMO ) reviewed the proposed development . First of all , the BCWMO Water Management Plan has not been formally approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources . Therefore , the BCWMO does not have permitting authority at this time . However, after consulting with Mr. Fredbo , who has reviewed the revised drainage plan of 8-4-89 for the site , the plan is in conformance with Water Management Plan policies , so the BCWMO has no problems with it as proposed . Please feel free to call me at 439-3142 if you have any questions regarding this matter . Sincerely, • David Truax Chairman, BCWMO cc : Stillwater Twp. Valley Branch Watershed District Bruce Folz Dennis O'Donnell Nile Kriesel , Sec . BCWMO Board AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER November 14, 1997 Mr. Screaton - This is a copy of the report on the study of the Oak Park Heights Annexation made by Jon Lennander, the engineer for Valley Branch Watershed District. I am unable to send you a copy of the tape made during the meeting. The minutes of the meeting will be available, though, after the managers approve them at the next meeting. I can send you a copy of the approved minutes at that time. Karen Schultz n C ki.c�.�u�. Li I I 1f ti CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS w ' Screaton /Kern Annexation Study I '.- : 410 ... .,:41,0..- ,,. Analysis and Conclusions I ' ii.::, Iii Nr,Lizi.:4 July 1997 r 1 . .. `;; ee;; :; rnW:UT o .„, 1 .K4. ''�(N : •::. Fs:ATER I NIS ::I:;:; ORO+, w�ar+an ".Z.V.*:'.7:t: __•_ . 1 nognon i -'; :i• :::•:•.;1,.:::: ::::y;4 _ MACKEY NEST 1 _ 4EN4ROS r- a 1i, i lop taiiirit- ::::11•:::•::is i:::':i:::•: ihitAlkb I SENOR HIGH SCHOOL ins .4 101 \ i . III1f .. ' ! •iY.fi;< ii: . , , fr II' I NE91 £ 41011iptIMMI:::,::::::....:•:•:.:•:.:.:•:.:•::.:•:...: i'401141rld 'Mgr ',i.;..".!.:.":.:,,...:!.:::::::.::::::::!,,,,,,,,:::.:::.,,:::.::,,.;:ivi, __,,delqp, . , iiiiii . , illy c-,41,_ „.:.::.,:,::::::::::::::::.::.:,:,::.:„:,,,:,:,:,:, i ,....:( ......,„,... . 4,,„.._ 101.0.,,, , silo ik ....dila :, • tillitivh.*IF iliP il Illei*li -,,. , AIIIIIR Niii;. - 41 It I ::.::.::.::.,,,,..„,,,:::„...,,::.:,:,:,:....r /Haw ,.....„.. .. ... r,.....„,.....,. 1 r . _ ,,,,. = , u NNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS 1 ING COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH I I ITable of Contents ' I. Introduction . 1 II. Scope of Review 3 III. Major Findings 5 IV. Factual Summary 7 IA. Population 7 B. Geography and Physical Features 7 C. Contiguity 8 I D. Existing Land Use and Transportation 8 E. Land Use Controls and Planning 8 I F. Governmental Services 10 G. Environmental 12 H. Service Provision by Oak Park Heights 13 ' I. Fiscal Analysis 13 J. Effect on Communities/School Districts 15 K. Adequacy of Town Government 15 I L. Governmental Service-Incorporation vs. Annexation 16 M. Effect on Township 16 IV. Land Absorption 17 A. Land Supply 17 IB. Land Demand 17 C. Comparison of Supply and Demand 19 IVI. Analysis and Conclusions 20 IList of Exhibits: ' Exhibit A Subject Area Base Map Exhibit B Topography Exhibit C Soils I Exhibit D Contiguity Exhibit E Existing Land Use Exhibit F Baytown Comprehensive Plan I Exhibit G Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study • ' Table of Contents Exhibit H Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan - Subject Area Proposed Land Use Exhibit I Oak Park Heights Zoning Exhibit J Governmental Service Locations Exhibit K Preliminary Report on Water and Sewer Extensions Exhibit L City Parks and Trails Exhibit M Pollution - MPCA Report Exhibit N Fiscal Analysis Exhibit 0 Real Estate Taxes 1 1 I Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study L Introduction Property owners within an area west of the City of Oak Park Heights, south of State Highway 36, and north and east of the City of Lake Elmo have petitioned for annexation of their property from Baytown Township to the City of Oak Park Heights. Simultaneously, the City has passed its own Resolution # supporting the annexation. Of the 23 property owners in the area, six have signed a petition for annexation, with the others declining. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 414.031, Subdivision 1.(c) allow for the initiation of an annexation petition if 20 percent of the property owners or 100 111 property owners, whichever is less, request to be annexed. With approximately one-third of the property owners petitioning, this annexation request complies with Section 414.031, Subdivision 1.(c). The actual area owned by the petitioning owners constitutes over three- quarters of the property included in the annexation area. The subject annexation area is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 36 and State Highway 5, and consists of 235 acres (Exhibit A). The area is primarily bordered by the City of Lake Elmo, Oak Park Heights, Stillwater Township, and ' the City of Stillwater. Only a small segment (1,800 feet) of the annexation area is bordered by Baytown Township. The property owners have petitioned and the City has resolved that the area surrounding the annexation area is quickly becoming urban. Much of the ' existing development within the subject area includes commercial/industrial projects that are urban in character. The property owners and the City are requesting the annexation so that the areas can be served with municipal services, in particular sewer and water, to ' support urban development densities and to prevent potential environmental issues with on-site sewer and well systems. In order for the site to be served with municipal services, it must be annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights. ' The Cityand the property owners offer the followingreasons for requesting the annexation p p Y ' of the subject area: 1. The City and property owners recognize that the area continues to develop as an ' urban commercial area with the potential for suburban residential development. The City of Oak Park Heights will need additional land in the near future to accommodate single family and multiple family development. ' 2. The City and property owners contend that a municipal form of government will best protect the public health, safety and welfare in that the City provides municipal ' water and sewer service which are not currently provided by the Township and the City has its own police force adequately equipped to serve the subject area. The Township now relies on the Washington County Sheriff's Department for police 1 protection. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 1 U I. Introduction 3. The City and property owners agree that the area would best be served under the jurisdiction of Oak Park Heights. The area, with its high visibility and access off of ' State Highways 36 and 5, is appropriate for mixed land use of commercial, light industrial, and single/multiple family development at urban standards. The area is a logical extension of the City of Oak Park Heights boundaries. I 1 1 Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 2 II. Scope of Review Under Chapter 414 of Minnesota Statutes, a proceeding for the annexation of unincorporated property abutting a municipality may be initiated by submitting to the executive director and the affected township one of the following: a. A resolution of the annexation municipality; b. A resolution of the township containing the area proposed for annexation; c. A petition of 20 percent of the property owners or 100 property owners, whichever ' d. is less, in the area to be annexed; A resolution of the municipal council together with a resolution of the township board stating their desire to have the entire township annexed to the municipality. The criteria used by the Minnesota Municipal Board in considering the submitted annexation and resolution is specified in Section 414.031, Subdivision 4. These criteria ' area as follows: Subd. 4. Board's Order. In arriving at its decision, the Board shall consider the following factors: a. Present population, past population growth and projected population of the property proposed for annexation and the annexing municipality; b. Quantity of land within the property proposed for annexation and the annexing ' municipality; and natural terrain including general topography, major watersheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers, lakes and major bluffs; c. Degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation; d. Present pattern of physical development of the property proposed for annexation and the annexing municipality including residential, industrial, commercial, ' agricultural and institutional land uses; the present transportation network and potential transportation issues, including proposed highway development; e. Land use controls and planning presently being utilized in the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation, including Comprehensive Plans for development in the area and plans and policies of the Metropolitan Council. If there is an inconsistency between the proposed development and the land use planning ordinance in force, the reason for the inconsistency; Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 1 3 II. Scope of Review ' P f. Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation, including water and sewer service, fire rating and ' protection, police protection, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational facilities; g. Existing or potential problems of environmental pollution and the need for additional services to resolve these problems; h. Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the property proposed for annexation; Fiscal data of the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness, and the local tax rates of the county, school district, and township; j. Relationship and effect of the proposed annexation on communities adjacent to the area and on school districts within and adjacent to the area; k. Adequacy of town government to deliver services to the property proposed for ' annexation; I. Analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through ' incorporation or annexation to an adjacent municipality; and m. If only a part of a township is annexed, the ability of the remainder of the township to continue or the feasibility of it being incorporated separately or being annexed • to another municipality. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 1 4 III. Major Findings The text of this report, which provides documentation and analysis, follows in order the evaluation criteria specified by Minnesota Statutes for the annexation of unincorporated ' property to a municipality. This format has been utilized to insure complete and comprehensive coverage of all topics which are required to be part of the Municipal Board's decision. This approach does not, however, provide a focused presentation which ' emphasizes primary concerns and findings. As a consequence, this lead section of the report provides an executive summary of major findings organized in a more direct fashion responding specifically to the reasons why the subject area should become a part of Oak ' Park Heights. The detailed factual documentation and evaluation of based data leading to these findings is provided in subsequent sections. ' 1. Annexation of the property is made necessary by the actions of the property owners requesting that municipal services be brought to the site to support urban ' development. This request has not been initiated but is supported by the City of Oak Park Heights. ' 2. Annexation of the property will not greatly affect the demographics of Baytown Township. The area is currently developed with nine households, and a total of 21 people. 3. The loss of the subject area property will not be a significant loss to the Baytown Township tax base. ' 4. Based upon historical development trends, the City anticipates an actual land demand in excess of the net vacant land supply within the existing City limits. ' Annexationof the area willprovide for a natural extension of the Cityto the 5. subject ' west and south providing a contiguous border with the City of Lake Elmo and the developed portions of Baytown Township to the east. 6. The City has done initial planning studies in this area, is prepared to extend utilities, and will develop the internal transportation network to serve this area. ' 7. Annexation of the subject area into the City is consistent with the land use objectives of the City of Oak Park Heights. ' 8. Governmental services for the subject area can be more effectively served by Oak Park Heights in that the City provides a more comprehensive level of service with full time staff, community facilities, equipment and infrastructure. Only Oak Park ' Heights can provide the sewer and water services requested by the property owners for development of the area. 1 Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study ' 5 III. Major Findings 9. Annexation of the property to Oak Park Heights will not negatively affect the natural features of the site. Provisions for sewer and water and engineered storm water ' drainage structures will actually enhance the area for development. Without City utility service, development in this area may actually be detrimental to the natural environment. Due to the issues of groundwater pollution in Baytown Township, ' existing and future residents in the subject area would be better served by municipal water supplies. 10. The financial implications of the annexation will have a negligible effect on Baytown Township and would benefit Oak Park Heights. ' 11. The annexation will have no effect on communities adjacent to the subject area (Lake Elmo, Stillwater Township, and City of Stillwater) and no immediate effect on School District 834. The boundaries of the School District will not be affected by this annexation. 1 I Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study U6 IV. Factual Summary A. Population. The past, present and projected populations for the City of Oak Park Heights, Baytown Township, and the annexation area are as follows: STUDY AREA POPULATION City/Township/Area Population 1970 _ 1980 1990 1995 1997 2010 2020 Oak Park Heights 1,257 2,591 3,486 3,776 4,001 5,555* 6,600* ' Baytown Township 723 851 939 1,209 -- 2,600 5,000 Annexation Area -- -- -- -- 21 600** 675** I Source: U.S.Census and Metropolitan Council * City of Oak Park Heights Projections ** Assumes Annexation to Oak Park Heights B. Geography and Physical Features. ' 1. Acreage. STUDY AREA ACREAGE Total Acreage in Oak Park Heights 1,679 ' Total Acreage in Baytown Township 5,825 Total Acreage in Subject Area 235 Source: Northwest Associated Consultants,Inc. 2. Topography. The northwestern portion of the subject area contains rolling terrain and trees with small wetlands which inhibits commercial or high ' density residential development (Exhibit B). The eastern area adjacent to State Highway 5 is flat and open with few trees. The southwest portion of ' the area is slightly rolling and contains a portion of a large wetland complex. 3. Soils. The Washington County Soils Survey indicates that the subject area ' contains primarily two types of soils which are well drained with moderate to poor permeability (Exhibit C). The primary soil types are Antigo and Hayden. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 7 IV. Factual Summary C. Contiguity. The area is contiguous to the Cityof Oak Park Heights along subject9 g 3,890 feet of its westerly boundary (Exhibit D). The subject area is contiguous to • Baytown Township for 1,800 feet. D. Existing Land Use and Transportation. 1. ExistingLand Use. The northeasternportion of the subject area is • J dominated by Kern Center, a partially completed commercial and light industrial development (Exhibit E). The northwestern corner of the site is sparsely developed with single family residences and is influenced by areas of severe topography and wetlands. To the south is St. John's Lutheran Church and Cemetery along State Highway 5, single family homes, a commercial business and undeveloped agricultural property. To the southwest is primarily agricultural land. The area within Oak Park Heights, adjacent to the subject area and north of 58th Street, is planned for commercial development. A shopping center development has been approved by Oak Park Heights for a portion of this area. South of 58th Street, the Stillwater Area High School is the existing, 1 adjacent property. 2. Transportation. The subject area is currently served by State Highway 5 ' and Manning Avenue North, both with direct access to State Highway 36 (Exhibit A). A local street network has developed within Kern Center consisting of Memorial Avenue North and 58th Street North. Additionally, 55th Street North connects Manning Avenue with State Highway 5. Development will generate the need for construction of collector and local ' street systems within the subject area. Local street patterns will be established with subdivision approval. Collector street corridors will be identified as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment when the property ' is brought into the City. An extension of Manning Avenue to the south of 55th Street North is currently under study by the Washington County Highway Department. The Minnesota Department of Transportation is currently rebuilding the bridge intersection at State Highways 36 and 5. E. Land Use Controls and Planning. 1. Comprehensive Plans. ' a. Baytown Township. The Baytown Township Comprehensive Plan was updated by the Baytown Town Board in 1995. Central sanitary sewer service is not available in Baytown Township. All areas of the Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 1 8 IV. Factual Summary Township are reliant on on-site septic systems. According to the Baytown Township Plan, the subject area is proposed to include the Kern Center as a commercial land use and the remaining area as rural residential (Exhibit F). The purpose of rural residential the district is to promote lot sizes of one home per five acres, with possible clustering. b. Oak Park Heights. The Comprehensive Plan for Oak Park Heights was adopted in January of 1979 and amended in December of 1979, December of 1988, and September 1991 (Exhibit G). The City is currently in the process of a complete update of the Comprehensive Plan. Previous comprehensive planning has anticipated the eventual annexation of property to the west of State Highway 5. Sewer facilities constructed within Oak Park Heights have been designed to accommodate service to the subject area. The current update of the Comprehensive Plan anticipates the annexation and extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) to include this site. The plan proposes the land use for the area as a mixture of commercial/light industrial, and low density and mid density residential land use. The City's plans for a continuation of the commercial/light industrial development within the area platted as Kern Center (Exhibit H). The northeast corner of the subject site would not be planned for water and sanitary sewer service. Any further development would be single family homes on large estate-type lots with individual wells and on- site sewage systems. Seventeen acres of mid density (six units per acre) is planned on that area south of Kern Center. The remaining 111 area south of 55th Street is planned for approximately 60 acres of low density single family residential development of between two to two and one-half units per acre. 2. Zoning. Zoning administration for Baytown Township is provided by Washington County. Under the Washington County Zoning Ordinance, the Kern Center area is zoned for commercial uses and the remaining area to the west and south is zoned rural residential with a density of one home per five acres. Upon annexation into the City of Oak Park Heights, the subject area would be zoned 0, Open Space, and subsequently, rezoned to higher intensity zoning classifications upon review of the appropriate land use designations by the City Council (Exhibit I). The existing zoning for the developing shopping center is PUD, Planned Unit Development with B-2, General Business District as the underlying standard. The high school and Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kem Annexation Study 9 ' IV. Factual Summary surrounding areas that are not developed are zoned 0, Open Space Conservation District. ' F. Governmental Services. An analysis of governmental services is as follows: ' 1. Police Service. Oak Park Heights provides police service through its own Police Department. The Police are headquartered in the Oak Park Heights ' City Hall at 14168 57th Street North (Exhibit J). The department has four patrol cars and a staff of ten which includes the Police Chief, Sergeant, and an investigator. Approximate response time to the subject site is three • minutes. Travel distance to the subject site is approximately 1.5 miles. Baytown Township is served by the Washington County Sheriff. The ' Sheriff's Department is headquartered in the Washington County Government Center, located at 14900 North 61st Street, Stillwater. Travel distance from the government center to the subject site is approximately 2.5 Imiles. Due to the concentrated service area, the Oak Park Heights Police Department, with its staff and equipment, provide a fast response time to anywhere in the City. The Oak Park Heights Police will provide the fastest and best service for the subject site. I2. Fire Service. Both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township are provided fire protection through contract with the City of Bayport Fire Department. The Bayport Fire Department is located next to City Hall, which is located at 225 Third Avenue South. The Fire Department consists of 24 volunteers. ' The department responds to calls with one tanker, two pumpers, and a pick up truck. Approximately arrival time from the station to the subject site is seven minutes. Travel distance from the Fire Department to the subject site ' is approximately 3.5 miles. Upon annexation to Oak Park Heights, the subject area will be served with water for domestic and fire protection purposes. The addition of hydrants will significantly improve the level of fire service and protection of property within the subject area. This is especially critical for a developing ' commercial and light industrial area. The increased level of fire protection will likely lower the fire rating of the subject area from "9" to "6", consistent with the existing City of Oak Park Heights. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study ' 10 111 IV. Factual Summary ' 3. Ambulance. Ambulance service for both Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township is provided through the Lakeview Hospital located at 919 West Anderson in Stillwater. Travel distance from the hospital to the subject site is approximately 2.0 miles. The ambulance has two full time crews around the clock, each equipped with two paramedics for service to the area. A ' third ambulance crew is available on call. ' 4. Road Maintenance. The City of Oak Park Heights has its own Public Works Department consisting of three full time individuals, however, most road maintenance and snow plowing is provided by a private contractor. The contractor has a staff of six people with three blades, one loader, a truck plow, and a tractor plow for snow removal. The City can provide faster response and more efficient road maintenance service than the Township. Any subdivision or commercial development in Oak Park Heights requires improved roads including curb and gutter. More comprehensive street ' standards result in less maintenance due to properly designed and engineered roads. Baytown Township is served by a private contractor for road maintenance and snow plowing. The contractor has a staff of five full time people and adequate snow clearing equipment. ' 5. SanitarySewer and Water. Baytown Townshipdoes not provide sewer and Yt water service. All development, including the existing commercial and ' residential properties in the subject area, are designed with on-site septic systems and wells. Oak Park Heights does provide sewer and water service and the infrastructure is available east of Highway 5 to serve the subject area. The ' City, through its consulting engineer Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates Inc., completed a report in March 1997 indicating the feasibility of providing municipal services to the subject area. The report, entitled ' Preliminary Report on Water and Sewer Extensions West Highway No. 5 Study Area, provides the basic utility layout, capacity analysis, and cost allocation for the entire area (Exhibit K). The study concluded that ' construction of sanitary sewer and water mains to serve the subject area is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in Oak Park Heights. 1 Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 11 IV. Factual Summary 6. Parks. Baytown Township does not provide park facilities. The City of Oak Park Heights has an extensive park and trail system, providing both active and passive recreational facilities. The City is currently in the planning stages for a 25 acre park east of the subject area that will provide recreational fields, play structures and trails around the wetland complex. The City would make plans to extend its trail system across State Highway 5 at 58th Street (Exhibit L) to provide access to the City's park and trail system. 7. Administrative Services. The Town of Baytown does not have full time staff or a town hall with regular office hours. The City of Oak Park Heights has a full time administrator and two staff members, and a full time Building Official. The City Hall is located at 14168 57th Street North and the office hours are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. G. Environmental. 1. Pollution. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that there are no identified dump sites or contaminated ground or water sites in the subject area. Contamination has been found across Highway 5 at a site identified as the Jerry Clipper Machine Shop. The site is classified for a voluntary investigation and clean up program and is not regarded as causing any serious environmental concern. A large area of the Township, approximately one-half mile to the south and east of the subject site (Exhibit M) has ground water contamination. The site is located on the National Priorities List (NPL) which is a national listing of hazardous waste sites which represent significant threat to public health or the environment and are priorities for remedial action. This list is also known as the Federal Superfund List. Within the ground water contamination site, over 70 water supply wells (residential and business) in Baytown Township, West Lakeland Township and Bayport show volatile organic hydrocarbon concentrates from trace levels to above the Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH) health risk limits. The list of contaminants include: 1,1,2- trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2,2,2-tetrachloroethylene, and cis 1,2-dichloncethylene. Probable sources for the contaminants include the Lake Elmo Airport and a former grain storage area. Although the contamination has not been found in wells in the study y area, the close proximity of this contaminant raises the question of safety by allowing additional wells within the subject area. Considering the large area within the ground water contamination site, the possibility of that area expanding with time must be considered. If the subject area is annexed and Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 12 IV. Factual Summary served by the water and sanitary sewer systems of Oak Park Heights, there will be no issue with the environmental and safety concerns for existing or potential subject area residents or employees of businesses in the area. 2. Historical. The Washington County Historical Society indicated that there Iare old farmstead buildings and St. John's German Lutheran Church within the subject area. None of the structures are listed on the National Historical • Register. A group of individuals is in the process of making application for National Register status for the church site. The State Historical Society confirmed that there was no other historically significant buildings, areas, or monuments in the study area. H. Service Provision by Oak Park Heights. As indicated, the City has planned for extension of water and sanitary sewer service to the subject area west of Highway 5. In 1991, the City of Oak Park Heights initiated the installation of sanitary sewer east of Highway 5 in 1993 to service a portion of the area that had been annexed previously. Capacity was planned at that time for the system to provide sewer service to Kern Center west of Highway 5. When sewer and water lines were extended to the Stillwater Area High School along now existing 58th Street, limited capacity was available in the sanitary sewer main to service additional property west of Highway 5. A water main exists in 58th Street with sufficient capacity to serve the study area. The system could provide full domestic as well as fire protection service for the study area. Police, public works and administrative departments of the City of Oak Park Heights are adequately staffed and equipped to accommodate the area proposed for annexation. Addition of this area to the City of Oak Park Heights service territory is a natural extension of the existing routes and area covered by the City. Fiscal Analysis. A comparison of payable 1997 valuation and taxes as well as bonded indebtedness is found in the table below. The second table indicates the subject area's total valuation and tax capacity payable for 1997. A study indicating the effect of annexation of the Township property before and after annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights is found as Exhibit I. Additionally, a comparison of the local portion of real estate taxes for the subject area properties is found as Exhibit 0. 111 The information found in Exhibit N indicates the effect of the annexation on the Township and City. The change in tax capacity for the Township would be a 7.8 percent decrease after the subject area is annexed to Oak Park Heights. To the City of Oak Park Heights, it would be a 2.4 percent increase. In both cases, the change to the tax capacity and tax rates is negligible, especially for the City. I Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study • 13 I IV. Factual Summary Further calculations indicate that for a $100,000 home after annexation, there would be an increase in payable 1997 property taxes of $6.14 to the Township I homeowner and a decrease in taxes of $6.94 to the homeowner in Oak Park Heights. A $200,000 home after annexation would experience an increase in payable 1997 property taxes of$12.26 to the Township homeowner and a decrease Iof $13.87 to a homeowner in Oak Park Heights. An owner of a business in the Township with a value of $150,000.00 would see an increase in payable 1997 property taxes of $25.39 and a decrease to the business owner of $28.73 in Oak IPark Heights. Exhibit 0 indicates the change in the local portion (not including Washington County and School District 834) of real estate taxes for the subject area. The exhibit shows that taxes will increase for properties in the subject area upon ' annexation to Oak Park Heights. The increase in taxes would be justified considering the significant increase in level of services to residents and business owners. I FISCAL DATA IVALUES AND TAX RATES FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1997 Baytown Township Oak Park Heights Total Estimated Market Valuation 104,358,600 223,205,500 Net Tax Capacity 1,925,858 6,728,690 ITotal Bonded Indebtedness 0 2,215,000 Tax Rates: ICounty 27.87 27.87 Local Units of Government District 1 5.60 22.27 District 2 5.60 22.27 _ District 3 5.60 22.90 ISchool District 61.76 61.76 Special School District .30 .30 IWatershed District 1 0 0 I District 2 3.95 3.54 District 3 3.54 0 Other 4.81 5.32 I Screaton/Kern Annexation Oak Park Heights Study 1 8 14 IV. Factual Summary Baytown Township Oak Park Heights ' Total Tax Rate District 1 100.33 117.51 District 2 104.28 121.06 District 3 103.87 118.14 Source: Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Taxation Division SUBJECT AREA MARKET VALUE, TAX CAPACITY AND BONDED INDEBTEDNESS ' Baytown Township Oak Park Heights Total Estimated Market Value 104,358,600 223,205,500 Net Tax Capacity 1,925,858 6,728,690 Total Bonded Indebtedness 0 _ 2,215,000 Source: Washington County Auditor-Treasurer Taxation Division J. Effect on Communities/School Districts. The proposed annexation will not affect surrounding communities including Stillwater Township and the City of Stillwater to the north across Highway 36, and the City of Lake Elmo to the west and I south. Both the City of Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township are completely within Independent School District 834. Municipal boundary changes resulting from the annexation will not affect school district boundaries. I K. Adequacy of Town Government. As indicated in the review of Governmental Services (Section F), the City of Oak Park Heights is better staffed and equipped ' than Baytown Township to serve the subject area for the following reasons: 1. Response time for the City Police Department is shorter than the ' Washington County Sheriff. 2. The provision of municipal water service and hydrants to the subject area will improve the level of fire service and protection of property. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 15 IV. Factual Summary 3. Road maintenance can be more effectively provided with a faster response through the City of Oak Park Heights. The annexation of 58th Street from ' Oak Park Heights to the subject area provides a natural connection for maintenance crews to access the local street network in the subject area. 1 4. Baytown Township does not provide park facilities. The City of Oak Park Heights provides an extensive system of parks and trails and will provide trail connections to the subject area if it is annexed. i 5. The City of Oak Park Heights has a full time administrative staff and regular ' office hours to respond to residents comments and concerns. Baytown does not have a full time staff or a town hall with regular office hours. ' 6. Baytown Township or any of the surrounding communities cannot provide water or sanitary sewer service to the subject area. The City of Oak Park Heights can provide the services and has added service capacity into existing water and sewer mains to provide at least partial service to the subject area. L. Governmental Service - Incorporation vs. Annexation. The necessary governmental services can best be provided by the annexation of the subject area to the City of Oak Park Heights. The City has the infrastructure, staff and ' equipment to provide a high quality of service to the subject area immediately. If the Township were to incorporate, it would be years before a Police Department, Public Works Department, and Administrative staff could be established to provide a level of service equal to what Oak Park Heights can provide now. With no sanitary sewer or water utility service currently, it is unlikely that the Township would ever be able to develop a system and provide it to this area as cost effectively as the City of Oak Park Heights. ' M. Effect on Township. If the subject area is annexed, Baytown Township will be able to continue operation much as it is now. The change in tax capacity would be a 7.8 percent decrease after the subject area is annexed to Oak Park Heights. Additionally, the Township will see a savings in costs after the area is annexed. As indicated in the Fiscal Analysis (Section I), the overall impact to Township taxpayers is negligible. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 1 16 V. Land Absorption The following analysis provides an inventory of vacant developable land for the City and the subject area. This land supply is then compared with historical growth trends and 1 assumptions of future growth to outline anticipated land absorption for Oak Park Heights. A. Land Supply. Using information from the Comprehensive Plan Update Inventory (1997), the following table was prepared to illustrate the total amount of net developable land existing in the City, and in the area proposed for annexation. 1 1997 VACANT LAND SUPPLY ' City Annexation Area Total Gross Acres 1,679 235 ' Vacant Land: Residential 145 98 ' Commercial 98/74* 68 ' Industrial 39 Vacant Land 297 acres 166 acres Total Uncommitted Vacant Land 273 acres 166 acres ' Source: Northwest Associated Consultants,Inc. * Of commercial vacant land, approximately 24 acres are committed for ' development. ' B. Land Demand. The growth and population projections discussed previously provide a foundation for projecting land use demand for the next 25 years. This demand will represent the future growth of Oak Park Heights in terms of residential, ' commercial, and public land use. Because there is limited vacant land available for industrial uses, it is calculated in the future land demand with the commercial land ' use category. Growth projections for commercial land use is expected to increase at a much ' higher level than in the past due to existing land availability for commercial uses along and near Highway 36, and businesses that have inquired about developing within the City of Oak Park Heights. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 1 17 ii IIII V. Land Absorption ' Again, it must be noted that these projections may be influenced by trends beyond the City's control, such as regional growth trends and mortgage rates. In I consideration of this, the projections contain an inherent degree of uncertainty. However, given the function of the Comprehensive Plan to establish a basic framework for accommodating future growth, the projections which follow provide Ithe necessary structure, if given reasonable flexibility. Land absorption rates (the conversion of rural/vacant land to an urban use) were Ideveloped for residential and public uses and a determination was made on how these uses would impact the vacant/rural areas of the City. The table below shows I land demand in acres based upon a projected continued strong growth for the economy and Oak Park Heights. ILAND DEMAND IN ACRES (STRONG GROWTH) Based Upon Residential Residential Commercial Public Streets Park Total I "Strong" Single Multiple (3) Growth Family(1) Family (2) Scenario 1 1997-2000 38 17 60 8 17 8 148 2000-2010 126 34 80 18 36 18 312 I2010-2020 126 34 60 18 36 18 312 Source: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. I (1) Based on one (1) lot per 12,500 square feet (2) Based on one (1) unit per 5,000 square feet (3) Based on one (1) lot per five (5) acres and allowances for large lot developments. LAND NECESSARY (IN ACRES) FOR "STRONG" IGROWTH DEVELOPMENT 1997 - 2000 148 2000 - 2010 312 2010 - 2020 312 I1995 -2020 772 Five Year"Overage" 928 I Source: City of Oak Park Heights Permit Data U.S. Census 1990 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. I Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study I18 V. Land Absorption While residential development is currently the most predominant urban land use within the community, the City is experiencing an increase in commercial development and is expected to see limited light industrial development. This trend is anticipated to continue for the remainder of the decade and into the next century. ' Using the building permit data, the population and household projections developed earlier in this section, and the existing breakdown of housing unit type, the future absorption of residential and commercial land may be calculated. As with the ' population and household projections, both slow and strong demand projections were calculated. Under the slow growth scenario, it is projected that the City can I anticipate a residential and commercial land absorption of between 533 and 639 acres by the year 2020. These projections include land necessary for public buildings/facilities, streets and parks. This calculation is based upon the amount of land necessary to accommodate and provide services for the projected growth (30 percent). The anticipated residential land demand with overage for the strong growth scenario is between 772 and 928 acres. uand Demand. Based upon historical development C. Comparison of Supply trends m p for Oak Park Heights, the limited vacant land supply existing in the City will not accommodate growth much past the turn of the century. In fact, the supply of vacant mid/high density residential land is currently less than six acres, which provides developers limited choices for development of this housing option. While single family residential, commercial and industrial land is available, the surplus or overage, considering the rate of growth represents a limited supply of vacant land. These limited land supplies will serve to suppress continued development in Oak Park Heights unless additional land is annexed. During the decade between 2000 and 2010, if the City does not add additional territory, the actual land demand in excess of the net vacant land supply will be 187 acres. With a five year "overage" ' added, the land deficit would be 280 acres. It is expected that with current land demands, that the supply of vacant land within the current City boundaries will be almost completely developed very early in the next decade. 1 1 Screaton/Kern Annexation Oak Park Heights Study 19 VI. Analysis and Conclusions review of the factual summaryin comparison to the criteria as A specified in Section p 414.031, Subdivision 4 of Minnesota Statutes is as follows. A. Population. The proposed annexation will not have an effect on numbers of people in Baytown Township but will have long term implications for Oak Park Heights. The extension of municipal services into the subject area will create immediate demand for residential and commercial property, increasing the population and numbers of households consistent with City and Metropolitan Council projections for the next century.J B. Geography and Physical Features. Except for the Kern Center, of the area is mostly undeveloped at this time. Some of the area is limited for development by wetlands, topography, and soil conditions because of poorly drained soils that are not conducive to individual septic systems. C. Contiguity. The annexation of the subject area into Oak Park Heights provides a logical westerly and southerly extension of the City boundaries to the City of Lake Elmo. The City is must more contiguous to the subject area than the Township, allowing for the City to more easily provide services. The transportation systems within the City and subject area have been aligned to provide connections between the two areas. D. Land Use and Transportation. The existing land use and potential for development within the subject area is consistent with current residential and commercial growth occurring in Oak Park Heights. The subject area's visibility and access off of State Highways 36 and 5 support the need for municipal services and urban densities for development. The collector roadway connection has already I been developed between the subject area and the City. E. Land Use Controls and Planning. The City has planned for the eventual annexation of the subject area and made provisions for capacity in designing municipal utility systems to serve the area. The City's plans call for the development of a mixture of low and mid density residential and commercial/light industrial uses that are consistent with existing City and surrounding area development. Historical development trends for the City of Oak Park Heights include an actual land demand in excess of the net vacant land supply of 187 acres in the next five to ten years. With overage, that demand increases to 280 acres. F. Governmental Services. Sanitary sewer and water services can only be provided Ito the subject site by the City of Oak Park Heights. The City can provide utility services, police coverage, parks and administrative services more effectively than Baytown Township. The City of Oak Park Heights is better equipped and staffed Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study 20 VI. Analysis and Conclusions and will overall provide a superior service to existing and future residents and business owners in the subject area. I G. Environmental. Annexation of the subject area into the Cityof Oak Park Heights will not adversely impact the physical environment of the property. Municipal water ' service will provide a safe source of drinking water for the area. The occurrence of a large area within the Township of ground water contamination near the subject I site raises questions as to the safety of allowing continued development on individual well systems within the subject area. H. Service Provision. The City has planned for the extension of sewer and water have been programmed to connect with utilities, transportation improvementsp g Township systems, and the City has determined that police, public works and I administrative departments are adequately staffed and equipped to accommodate the area proposed for annexation. I I. Fiscal. A review of pay 1997 values and rates for the subject area indicates that the annexation will have only a minor impact overall to the Township and citizens of Baytown Township. Although local taxes within the subject area will increase, ' the property owners will have access to services that are not being provided by the Township. With development, the area will provide additional tax base to the City • of Oak Park Heights and improve the City's ability to provide service to its residents. J. Effect on Communities/School Districts. The proposed annexation will not affect surrounding communities including Stillwater Township, the City of Stillwater, the City of Lake Elmo, and School District 834. ' K. Adequacy of Town Government. The City of Oak Park Heights provides a significantly higher level of service provision than Baytown Township. The health, safety and welfare of residents and commercial interests are better served through the annexation and inclusion of this area into the City of Oak Park Heights. L. Governmental Service - Incorporation vs. Annexation. Service provision to the subject area can be effectively provided by the City of Oak Park Heights upon annexation. If the Township were to incorporate, it would be years before a comparable level of service could be provided for police, public works, or ' administrative services. Sanitary sewer and water service would likely never be provided by the Township at the same cost level as what can be provided by Oak ' Park Heights. Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study ' 21 VI. Analysis and Conclusions M. Effect on Township. The subject area is equal to 7.8 percent of Ba town's payable 1997 total tax capacity. The Township will be able to continue operation ' much as it is now after the annexation. The Township should see a reduction in overall service costs after the annexation because it will have less area under its jurisdiction. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oak Park Heights Screaton/Kern Annexation Study ' 22 I J gj QII N6w44 ! ig M -j'(1\'I: .,_ 0 5itt8 W§ il I In 1 Ill' .1 % 1 I z 4 11 i ¢ ' O U I I_-1 I l'I �o iii zs I� �? 1 l �,", o a { i , o __ -.v-- . _ - = 1'I �i � I I IIIPM §I is- .'01■ r z 1 I j fir,ti ��eV i 1pi a. 1mg MI'‘04411111111 El n :: s, 'I. ll i WI --6146 I I I 1 , s ,,,: i. t.,.; LT . I ^ 1 1 N I 1 I .1 o 11 I 1 so a 1 1 b' b0 I I' o , I' v e 1 n $ / ID a I f = I O xg / / 0 Ig � iiiNir � m I - o I s R . / 1 a__ ` �e � Y rJ Z .. — — z I 1 H ♦ -♦V I I !A :I I ix- m W I a I 1 Q 5 =' W1 I 0 =1 0 11 2 a N.,,,,,,, W O ` I ,I 0 J I 9 WI .4e#/'\ p II NII1,1- w 1tm _ JA1Nu1 II ._ - a 11 - - - 1 . . 414 ( 1 \ ' a. "Q -I 3i 'f', Ifl-L-5 ti. ' f7 Odd + I i W "o� °Nr I r�#fr, c . IJQ 1 I �3f3 ej ------111 ' Q. 14/1, _:....:___. J I or ,1 Y/AH IH V I\ .... _......_ S I _-� / N I Z 1 i W O . 2 yl 1 t ...1,; W 1 I m> a I w 111 I r� `� 1..1 r.1` • ` J cs OW13 3V1 `i' 0 O 1 EXHIBIT A I a WoIn 6 g rt�i q �� IP ..g.4 NI o ; o v o _ r ah I+I � \� 0. Zoui, Illo — E....4 c54 I i r" i \ I". \ j I __, Jo ,, s,.. , _, h g p.1r 1Z. I i g 0 o i. .- / 3i de . 3 g t - _.,- I 1 ` i : rpIf ng- WOW 40 Ira 6 - I lir% II it v x I _ i 1 um. 1y iit. ,\0:„.71„:„.31114714.t. busrld 11,, ig J I _ 004, Mil 11.1i'L ‘6*-65k..d)i -- - a o I I I I .: m o I I W I +'I' I s o Jo 'l ll -z W I I I F likii 1 c. I 1 ;� I i•a I ' � g o /' I' ,i 4 I 4 I = I "^^ ' �� s o ` / r HJ § 1 n -r \\ d �S I Q ' I /100 " w I , = I I-1 I z d rc1 e poir:iitri.: 5 WI a Nt-f.,,,,, uec w� Wi z IN.: J: i I W I ?. I 1 `$ t x I cy •, 1; �iiii ��1 •1G + il rH31H3� it1 (ii` Hsi JAlp . f, J �- Y 441111111711111114441111bi.*"411 Oat. II ' ; I II i I I f li a� II I I I 1 \ NIM tell All � � I I I , I : ,..........., by II I °.-.., Nt I 1I1, 1�per-mis ... . ,) il .44 t3 p I EXHIBIT B I raj II C3 9ii o w u, � jj ,ae \ — — I /� :. <e /)( Int ` 4 -3 Z.tca. Z A & '1 ,, _is : E. IrMI 4;''t I I \..) 11‘9,sio N a I I 1-_J i III \ 3 ,, � ( ti f s I ,/;-,"--, le 3 i 4 I 0 __i . . ilk 0 sow .10• �!Vd 1 1 I I 14.010a111 1 J 1 �* ,0 ,,z isit .� f s . 1111.111111111Pn - I i m Qo I I N^ 1 I �: 3 g 1 I I I I \ �� 1 o I I I;� 150 1 .i 1 ° I Z I m IT 5 I src g 3 I / IS a n o o Y / I, < % I r .. _ m I o r / 1I I S o I • / I ""tip o 1 J` \„ :._/ 1 IV*, W Iow , cya i I.I l A4116\ 1 C0 `I I. W xl I"I ;; 1 r , ?as 5 1 J:`i II bilir.pm ko, — — • w I l I s 1 x H 1 i ipp. tiAN\ ''`t,: � ��I I `� '� ' g 'r., r vj - I m ;«itt oyt I 3 i„44 €' I N 94.4.''''' ...„..:„.44' V [:::::.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:„. ttil ... �:.:.. I `3� gay I ” C I V .......ETV .I ::j ::::::x:i:, z u 11 I 0 O I ° N "' Itix1'N.:iii: ::: ::(( ; , ':'tttt ^C^,, . ;.{ �:::;;: ii::: V CO a i::::;: ;':::>'-i::i::::::::: : :' : s�' :::::I: is :::::::A: ::::::::::::::::::::•:-... ' CO C I c:::: : % =. ,. q:::: :.'>:>. :: ? . ;1£ °4•,.m �t ..... .. .. ... . Or 0 O EXHIBIT C I . 'ts • - ..; o 0 1.-- gr; .... ' ,,.. 7-'•- - X -- 0 D ).{ C.) --rir"..'......."... " Z Z V (--\ / I ill.) A.• < 2 .'" \..) ., -----!-- --f f- --- ._._71_-_-.....-.- :,. i•C I ill 1 ; 0 ---. =..-. z.... I I ' i 81 1 , , , . ....... , ----- ---- 11111iSvII-11 ii 111011111 ?,z! i Q I 1 I ,, L ) -- Iii ricr.4111 n,,— 4v.r.44,11un 2 A.4-wiall111/ al ' Tiltialimitt - - . , rf- c,.;,? ! , I 1 2 I 13 i.-4.'Mill ' i d 9 C.3 V. = 9 5 e . ..., b , 1 . . % ,... t: ct t, i 8 /all I ,;!; ..lb;. ; • ••-•- ;; ; . •,.... ;;4111ripi 5 2' VI W ••••••.,„. _g ..___, ,,. ,_:__ _ _ _ -•- ,,)• - ,.. I ... - , .„..... .• 3 11141p 1h..* ''.• ': 44' ;97-1/....'iTQ' 11g111;1..11/1.fr.4,*111:-.:^s::.....,,.),,./,":?°I. I ' 2 ' ',... I .'‘..%;:vv• gi •.?:**4 44,, e Q 1 ! i 'z'i m 3 ;1 I 6 _ - Mt CDCU -4--- z _..." -4. ' 4, .„,:.4.k•.,i,ok,_ , 1 .--.,..‘ . t4 '4.. I = CD Ili .4 1 1/4/4' ' `//416914•e -9 9 4__... 0 I :E 4 '..' . ‘.4111 1 S I •,,,,,,,..1 I % 1 I l'•h ---.---H 1, 8 ...., 1 I IL, c\ cu -.. .... ....„,C.) IILIBINMINUM 1 ,4. ..... r.-`14 \ I) iliollff...'s \ ••: simstationly. •.i!!.!!.:i: .•.•.•.• ••?d Zi z-. -tt cs 0 I EXHIBIT D Wl= 1,1 q6 Yo u i - .. _ _ OZI v < Er \ --/r1 ts\.1..,) J.-31 „Asti .n '" I I Q N LLL i III W i N F ..z...., 1 � i Z m a ' 11 al I J11 / �� 1 cc 1.W o �fF" z - I 111 1 1 1 1111Myr ILI r I �SO �! 0 1 • . ..., i..= 'A' : k lir lAt N IiRi�.�Li ���I ',pyo I w�, I I� a:���./�� PIi,4, .t 1 I \ I 3 - iff- g i_1 I I 1 j s� - I. I N o i o i ,•1,, '; 5 1 r= 1 1 I' I n 1 i illi. 12 �1 s 10 1 /_:,./ g I W p ; Ireir_77 i 1 s N 1 z N1 Soll* F. 1 5 =I 1 pl 1 \6(.5 1 i =I J t i talogi t I I rcl aQ 41 I�I kJ cil Q rr z l LL Z1 1w/NI J C 1 4 _ WI AIM ' 1 - � 1Z N _ _ rk IIi � I� pr t� p C7 I I $ 1 ",L 1 •s°"r I -' ?5 ' I I °• of b3 I Yzry 1 f"�•• [ 111111111111:71 —JI ''3i3� 3`Y3yI 1 � MS'I 1 • F .t411:".- -11111."-----"gi i,i_ I . I 2 a . I \._•I. a Q a Fa LLI8 �� 1 ii a T W 1 �1 U)JWG I ZLJJ�s y 11 42. il Ii 1I I i 1 7 10<:7:1...,__''.,,,, \\- '4=1 uur�l�fii ■ cs 0 O I EXHIBIT E I a 0 m 1 g w • • Q Z iw Lt3Nqs2 u nom mine : : .0.. • si 1 ipp EC .. ..,..,. ::,..,., „ I.v —:f•f•+•f•+ -...,ar= ,, . . ..,.-) .. 7Ai f• r %::*. ., .,, t� .s..ant= a) `{1 1\1 1. KKKIII r1rr+,f Stagecoach Fad t' ,"...V.�+��V rL: '''' '-jyy����� al 1 Q ,w • ..7...4%.7.:7:.::::::!::. r•�-•�\ +.i+�+t?� ftft+•WR a U) /�1� i Q •.•••000000• ti ?1rti::.;,.. �`"1r, \Y W: l 000000000..1::x•?: 'i:+' "% �'•?" n, I ,I— •00000000. {difti:i.'• �� •r ir1 ,' ` W J 0000000 , r;:+ Q�r1 " ,' !+ L Ur ;w 00000• ;+ ;, 0000 f::•s:' f. •C Q • iri�•.t i:i r\�. r..fir .•.•. Rt a_. •Filtivilici:„. :1: ..;•�:�:1•i••. • �VOsgood Avenue N .yt •};t•;t � • ''•ti:1 :'.•i• 'I ,:' O • ,............)%410%;:5:::;;..5.7..5. / 1�+ 1 .SII . . . . . . . . . . .a4S"s��r \ f fA l •J . . . 1 �- 1 ;iii - Z 01:i iii \ •1�1- -{i11. tope 'z "" .: ' tit -..... ,,,., .'�hh °:. �..:;;:::: fee';=:1: �. ..._ --11---Nt 1 = ost\`� �; Q begin ii tra rrr • C fl== .. r��:. �5 r.:5 cc 7-- ---- a, `:`i 111if 1. Iii: { :1ti 1 1", ,:;":,',..'......:...,..'::.....!,Atiklegs:::::.,......11;...,.rizz!..:0%....,,--,J.,(1.7.,..14-w—. 11. I .;. 5,-16/;',:.1,*g*,:'• Ill :::5 •355.,:i ;. i',,ktulx.IN, \ Ira -11- "'' ilattegi I.c k.•':e:.-gi.: 1: 0.6,04N = = CD I 0'14'V.:' (') .tar :.r;:.;.;..� 1 [].. e to 0 MIE Om vi 1 ► •:,1111., PaPil . INN M tifirti ti,,J • I. a �" ilitiV �,�%/ % /� O 41..7.:::":1::•: .:::r.: •r. f� II • 1 1 ,t,.. .,„,,,,,...,:... •;b s� ,,,,, - ir ....,tip ,..„..,-.,.......61,..,.....:::::,%„, ..,, ,„,..;:•--.,; \ •'1.�µ W ¢ •• / t•r~i ' „ Q A • cv, 0 • ,_ i.3 -2,..r . -4,,,e-- mmogvi, ', ',. .t. 'itkl II/ pp�jj. nY � LL 1— j Str 1• Lc i .= G 7i/A' J lit e , .' ;d--b: t�t>/ `.� RY$ Q w k Er. ;'? 51 //t/ w 1� O O'a -diiNais�a Adana ro / Q v U '� . 0 f,:; i4 0 EXHIBIT F I mmw iQ WON 3 u I'. s $6 � 6.4 0 8 Zi c4 z • -I 4 LI C:" ® \\\ -) ...::::::::.ii:::iiiiiiiiiii::liiiiiiii::::::::::::iTiii,„iiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigi'.. (:::, lil � ` Z 4: %it 1 O :j •:ii:k e I e L4 1 t g1 ,, Q s° y i. : i Q 0 fiI : 1 ...;.,MA It ig S :two\. 2x 'rlF x. I (jvA�: �Z4v.�ti<'o S 3i# `.,,;ps `:' .. .... .... .............. "' \ i.a'. :L:•:vi:i-:?{<: ;?.y{•}:•:: •)::. :.};::.; • ____�__ • *,k,.4,,,,,,,,,, ii :,,• .: ,,,„ „Iii, .., ,,: 'NZ kh,';1."):::••••11,.:',.",!t':„.,::::iti, Ci, ,i.lie,,,N , ,.!!!!.....:!,:,!,. m „:,• 1 „,.. .„wi:.: 4:Air,: ::,• ... • I ..,kt,s Iti,N ip. 1 Ei S II+' 4t"1'JIJIilhIIIIIOO! Y 1911 1:4. U O X C1.�':YI111, ,�I Y 1 44 • _ z rt. 2 ‘"1.q,4... • _ 2 N s - . I IImin • o IZifa- 0 O I EXHIBIT G I lu W a 0m . �� q 0, — r — — — � zz HI k Wmoi ' 'h I !1 ; ? .sI\ I�• JJ a .I -. r i ii I / s1 . p g a L1 I :\ •\...i �o or e1154- ft m 04 . , , I I i aJ r� r J !ice _I I !€1 'IE C o li 'L' �,I of I n 03 I <1 , , I ,,z, 4, , __________,_.,_;,_, ilipok magi.looms. 'i. I2 I 2 Will koi le;-_,:id g - 1 ligofta, `gi fir,> --...116.•i�� a " dr. y`0 II - r J— ° .11 .1/ I 111.11.1111 W 1 mot-'-- - „, .,„ ,, , ...._ ! W I (11j I I • , m v 5 W 1r1 ,o 1 1 III 68 n , i, s , ,. .6 ,/ . _ , „. 1 , , ,, . n i 0 ,.//,' • bw ,g 3 )" ,i { . , ,,, ,..„ ti00410, y Ter-r III It � II OP ZI 1 a Q . K ,J , 1� IlltillI \ _� X w I fi 5 I Z war . I I iml _ J u I i -- - - - I r • 0 W 21 ! 11 1 •f°'•I J Hr�fa3. Z ' D . I 1 1 0 _ t� ' NZ d3r JJ I '�d'�-Y 0 F". ] I I a\ I a as ir -,.--_-q I it: ��-+..i., v ti_ 444„i >- f_ I t —O ...._:: LQL .t Ca1 i + 3 a H I Lu . CACC IN \ ••\• Vii, ,no,"-s'III .. Z cr CS nwdllaoommanllIllmmmtgle' cL O O I EXHIBIT H 1191HX3 I 0 3 A = Pii^ I a 3 0 NOM fpr' A 1:0)46"..:::::i...!::.:-.. • '..,,,,,-..,1. ., v T Ii m - I` Al a i II Lill 111 ® :,,.:Nir g .� el P.:F. miuunn� z a II,.,a �h*�melt I „, _[ mnr`I! 1D®C ' \I,_ , , _ I 0 1 O il ------.__ . boss-li...„(... , . .,.___,---- 111 ., . „, I4:. - ,-,-, 'i=, ,,' ::: t. , , , , >1 g , n FR5 4. p0 Z O 1 p9 ..„ A T Z �sI Z A yQ O _.yy O r 0 L m r 1181HX3 I qb \P , ar z Cn r-1..-. v _ C `\ c G.�� rn `co1 ! "; I a !� D q Tc. w a r+ xu.INE.x. Ave.0 P rd )63 PV x..I.x„E.r. F�� s a I~ wME,On b VY ] x it, . __.c.,„, i NI V3 mom •v E. x. ? X F •u AVE. ^ ocolovESVEPn • orncxcex�ve ? . .,51 ' •.... @b. 5 1 M I[IipRMK w, I moanJR o.EEi QQ ..� h oo,'' yQ x .va x • Rf r, OYN.an A iiFwS...... P.A I ox.n.O� �.� "Ywa rcw� I�. .5.0„A,3 rail_ t' •`o �FOin�H.�II 05E000 aH. A�� • I O Oi.N.AK.O. —1 �t�-L] I s X X : .y � _T \ Eats 3 3 kdirr. �4 ' • MJMaSi®®WM. - W yi'rt1 ,._ -� ,ar" p D< .�`. m -12 ,'o 1 Z o �, F� 9 I XX ''_ tiII li \ �, F xi "4 / fli ��} 8 / h p • '"• .�. ._• —_'�__1s " W --'W * TI sg �n�x '�. G i=-.------ m c Bonestroo,Rosene,Anderlik and Associates,Inc.is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Fmph.1 ,1 BonestrooPrincipals:Otto G.Bonestroo,PE.• Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E.• Marvin L.Sorvala,P.E.• Richard E.Turner,PF.• Glenn R.Cook,PE.• Thomas E.Noyes,P.E.• Robert G.Schunicht,PE.• RoseneJerry A.Bourdon,PE •Robert W.Rosene.PE.and Susan M.Eberlin.C.PA.Senior Consultants Associate Principals:Howard A.Sanford.PE.• Keith A.Gordon.PE.• Robert R.Pfefferle,P.E.• Anderlik & Richard W.Foster,PE.• David O.Loskota.PE.•Robert C.Russek,A.I.A.• Mark A.Hanson,P.E.• Michael T.Rautmann,PE.• Ted K.Ficld,PE.• Kenneth P.Anderson,PE.• Mark R.Rolls,PE.• I {r Associates Sidney P.Williamson.PE,L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices:St.Paul,Rochester,Willmar and St.Cloud,MN• Mequon,WI Engineers & Architects ‘----=-0 19:51,-J9,20 w5..� L I `mi- /4-,fir-' PRELIMINARY REPORT ON WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS WEST HIGHWAY NO. 5 STUDY AREA I FILE NO. 55136 OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA March 10, 1997 I Introduction The City of Oak Park Heights has been requested to study the feasibility of extending public water and sewer service to an undeveloped parcel lying west of Highway No. 5 and south I of 55th Street known as the Screaton property. The request also included a potential Ryder bus Iterminal which may be located in the Kern Center also lying west of Highway No 5. Rather than a random study or individual parcels, it is appropriate to investigate the Ifeasibility and/or limitations of serving all of that portion of Baytown Township lying west of Highway No. 5. Therefore, this study does include the basic utility layout, capacity analysis, and Icost allocation for the entire area as outlined on Figure 1. IRequired Improvements A 12-inch diameter water main exists on 58th Street approximately 500 feet east of IHighway 5. This main has sufficient capacity to serve the study area and can be extended westerly by jacking under the highway and then terminated at Memorial Avenue. The water ' main would then continue with an 8-inch diameter pipe along Memorial Avenue to 55th Street. All other mains to serve development that occurs would be six inches in diameter all equipped Iwith the necessary valves and hydrants for operation, control, and fire protection. At some future date, considerations could he given to providing a looped system in the vicinity of Highway 36, Iwhich is about the only opportunity available for looping. I _--- I - EXHIBIT K 2335 West Highway 36 m St. Paul, MN 55113-3898 • 612-636-4600 Ver little of the studyarea can be served by gravity to the existing sewer main on 58`h Y Street. Therefore, it is proposed that all sewage generated and collected be pumped to the existing sewer. It would be possible to direct all sewage to a single pumping station located near the wetland at the southwest corner of the Screaton property as shown on Figure 1. However, because this would represent a large capital commitment to initiate a sewer system in this area, it is proposed that two pumping facilities be considered. This recommendation will also be driven by capacity limitations which will be discussed in a subsequent section of this report. ' It is proposed that a sewage pumping station be constructed at the southwest corner of Highway No. 5 and 55th Street with discharge through a force main parallel to Highway 5 and then along 58th Street to the existing sewer main. This facility could serve the Kern Center and all of the upland portion of the Screaton parcel plus the church and other structures along ' Highway 5. If development of the low land around the wetland in the southwest corner of the study area and/or the residential land west of the Kern Center would occur, a second small lift ' station would be required with discharge to the 55th Street system. Land Use and Sewage Flow The study area contains the Kern Center which has a variety of uses but for the most part are low wastewater generators because of the on-site disposal systems. This type of land use, which would include the proposed Ryder facility, should be encouraged. If public sewer service • is provided to the area, the new land uses must be monitored to assure that the flow assumptions are not exceeded. tThe land west of the Kern Center is separated from the industrial-type land use by wetlands and a large ravine. This land is heavily wooded and has many hills and depressions and ' wetlands. Because of these topographic features, existing homes, and parcel boundaries, the land use will probably always be very low density, single-family residential. ' For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the land south of 55th Street would be residential with approximately 17 acres immediately south of the Kern Center being medium density with 6 units per acre. The balance of the land to 50`h Street would be low-density, single- family residential development. 1 2 I If public utilities are provided to the area and the land is developed with the uses Idescribed above, the sewage flow that would be generated is shown in the following tabulation: I Location Area Flow Rate Average Flow Kern Center 90.0 ac 500 gal/ac/day 45,000 gpd INW Residential 58.0 ac 1.5 unit/ac @ 240 gpupd 20,880 gpd Screaton MD 17.0 ac 6 unit/ac @ 200 gpupd 20,400 gpd Screaton LD 32.0 ac 2 unit/ac @ 240 gpupd 15,360 gpd Church Site 2.7 ac 1 unit/ac @ 240 gpupd 650 gpd IExisting Site 4.2 ac 1 unit/ac @ 240 gpupd 1,010 gpd Corner Site 1.0 ac 1 unit/ac @ 240 gpupd 240 gpd ISouth LD 30.1 ac 2.5 unit/ac @ 240 gpupd 18,060 gpd Totals 235.0 ac 121,600 gpd I 1 It should be noted that the average capacity available in the 8-inch diameter sewer on 58th IStreet is 125,000 gallons per day. Currently, this sewer receives flow from the Senior High School which has an average daily flow of 45,000 gallons. Obviously, it is not possible to serve all of the study area west of Highway No. 5. The next step in the study process is to determine where and how much excess capacity is available in the existing sewer system. Then it will be • necessary to determine development alternatives for the study area. IExisting Sewer System Analysis In 1991, the City of Oak Park Heights initiated the installation of sanitary sewer to serve ia portion of the area which had been recently annexed. The initial project provided water and sewer service to the existing business sites along the Highway 36 south frontage road at IWashington Avenue. This project included the installation of a sewage pumping station which would ultimately serve the proposed senior high school and other developments which would Ioccur in Oak Park Heights east of Highway 5. Some additional capacity was included in the system to provide some service to the industrial park site west of Highway No. 5 known as the ' Kern Center. In 1993, water and sewer lines were extended to the Stillwater Area Senior High School along the alignment of the now existing 58th Street. These mains were terminated on 58`n 1 R3 Street approximately 500 feet east of Highway No. 5. Again, limited capacity was available in the sanitary sewer main for service to additional property west of Highway 5. I An analysis has been made of the various components of the sewer system to predict Y P Iprobable flows from the City of Oak Park Heights to determine capacity availability for an expanded service area. This analysis is contained in Appendix A which is attached to this report. I The analysis shows that there is only 45,000 gallons of average daily flow available in the existing sanitary sewer on 58th Street if it is utilized by the property now referred to as the IRainbow site or Brackey West Addition and the Stillwater Ford property. However, an average daily flow of 80,000 gallons per day could be accommodated if the developing area were served I from the east. The analysis shows that approximately 80,000 gallons per day of average flow is also available in the 12-inch diameter trunk line and the sewage pumping station. The available I capacity in the pumping station assumes that approximately 75 lots on the Haase property west of River Hills will be served through the River Hills system to fully utilize the existing pumping I station in Swager Brothers 9th Addition. A cost analysis contained in a subsequent section of this report shows that there is almost I no additional cost involved in serving the Rainbow and Ford areas to the east to make available 80,000 gallons per day of average flows for the study area. I Land Use Restrictions Because of existing capacity limitations, all of the study area cannot be provided with sanitary sewer service. With all of the physical constraints that exist with the property west of the Kern Center, it is reasonable to assume that this land may never be served with sanitary sewer. Any further development in the area would be single-family homes on large estate-type lots with individual wells and on-site sewage systems. Therefore, it is recommended that no sanitary sewer capacity be reserved for this property. IUtilizing the density and sewage flow restrictions outlined in this report it would be possible to serve all of the Screaton property and Kern Center with public utilities. As an Ialternative, all of the residential land between 50th Street and 55th Street can be served plus 55 percent of Kern Center. Other alternatives are probably not practical because of the need for a I second lift station which will be required to go beyond the Screaton uplands. I 4 I I Cost Estimates IDetailed cost estimates have been prepared for the construction of public utilities to generally serve the study area and are included as Appendix B of this report. All costs are based on unit prices anticipated for the 1997 construction season and include a 25 percent allowance for engineering, administrative fees, and financing. No costs are included for capitalized interest Iduring the construction period and before assessments are levied. A summary of costs for the first phase of service is shown below. I Item Estimated Cost ISanitary Sewer $138,300.00 Lift Station and Force Main 160,200.00 IWater Main 108,000.00 Trunk Water Main 74.400.00 ITOTAL PROJECT COST $480,900.00 IAdditional costs to those shown above will be incurred for service lines and any internal systems required for the residential development south of 55`h Street. If the additional residential Iland to 50th Street is to be served with sanitary sewer, another lift station with related force main • will have to be constructed at an estimated cost of$99,700.00 IService to the study area is predicated on providing sanitary sewer service for the Rainbow and Stillwater Ford properties to the east rather than by connection to the existing Isewer on 58th Street. Any additional cost to make this capacity available should also be borne by the study area. Detailed cost estimates have also been prepared for these design alternatives and are shown in Appendix C. A summary of the results of this cost comparison is shown in the following tabulation. I Original Design IBrackey Addition $49,700.00 Brackey West Addition 61,100.00 I Total Estimated Cost $110,800.00 I 1 5 Alternative Design Brackey Addition $53,400.00 Brackey West Addition 64,400.00 Total Estimated Cost $115,800.00 The tabulation shows that an estimated $5,000.00 of additional cost will be incurred to provide capacity in the 58`h Street sanitary sewer for the study area. This cost must be added to the area west of Highway No. 5 and credited to the area east of Highway No. 5. Cost Allocation The public improvements described above with costs shown in Appendix B provide direct lateral benefit to the Kern Center lying south of 58th Street and provide trunk sanitary sewer and trunk water service to this 55 acres of the Kern Center plus are additional 32 acres of the Screaton site. If the second lift station and force main is constructed, it would serve an additional 55 acres of low-density residential property to 50th Street. ' For the purposes of this report, it is recommended that all lateral benefit be assigned to the abutting parcels on a front-footage basis and all trunk facilities be assigned to the property ' served on an area basis. This allocation of cost is shown in the following computations. Item Computation Allocation Lateral Sanitary Sewer $138,300.00_4,476 ft. = $31.00/front foot ILateral Water Main $108,000.00_4,476 ft. = $24.00/front foot Lift Station &Force Main #1 $160,200.00_ 87 acres = $1,840.00/acre Lift Station & Force Main #2 $ 99,700.00_ 55 acres = $1,815.00/acre Capacity Reservation $ 5,000.00- 142 acres = $35.00/ acre P Y If the sanitary sewer area charge is established at $1,900.00 per acre, the assessments for the first phase of development would be identical to the estimated cost. At the present time, the sanitary sewer area charge in the City of Oak Park Heights is $2,310.00 per acre for commercial/industrial land and $1,590.00 per acre for residential property plus $180.00 per ' developed dwelling unit. The current rates will generate slightly more revenue than the estimated expenditure. However, to maintain uniformity throughout the City, the current rates 6 I are recommended with any surplus revenue to be used for future capital improvements or I maintenance expenses. It is further recommended that the existing waterworks area charge also be applied to the I study to assure payment of its proportional share of the trunk water mains, wells, and storage facilities. This charge is $4,010.00 per acre for commercial/industrial land and $2,110.00 per ' acre for residential land plus $475.00 for each dwelling unit connected to the system. The front footage charge for lateral sanitary sewer and water mains derived above is very Itypical of costs and charges being experienced in other developments in the City of Oak Park Heights. I Conclusions and Recommendations IAs a result of the study undertaken, it can be concluded that construction of sanitary sewer and water main to serve a portion of that part of Baytown Township which is west of IHighway No. 5, is feasible with costs being similar to other developing areas in the City of Oak Park Heights. It is further concluded that limitations in sanitary sewer capacity prevent Iextension of municipal services to the area lying west of Kern Center and north of 55th Street. This limitation will also require careful control over residential land use densities and type of uses allowed in the Kern Center so as not to overload existing downstream facilities. To maximize the utilization of all existing components of the sanitary sewer system, 75 additional • I single-family lots should be served through the River Hills system, and the developing area in the vicinity of the Rainbow Foods site must be served with a main which directs flow away from Ithe 58th Street sewer. The project is necessary to allow for development to occur west of Highway No. 5 to Inormal urban densities. It will also allow for the continuation of development in the Kern Center in a manner which better protects the environment as it relates to wastewater disposal. Because Iof the proximity of the existing utilities and other public facilities which are in place, the improvements are cost effective. IIt is recommended that this report be used as a guide for the layout and design of the public improvements to provide public utilities to serve that part of Baytown Township lying west of Highway No. 5. It is also recommended that the cost allocation method by adopted if the I improvements are to proceed. 1 7 I p Copies of this report should be distributed to the various property owners in the study I area so that they can evaluate the cost and desirability of having public utilities extended into the area for future development activities and ultimate replacement of on-site systems. I I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my ' direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the I laws of the State of Minnesota. 9 ._ 0_ amIldi_l Joseph C. Anderlik I . Date: March 11, 1997 Registration No. 6971 I I I I I I 1I I 1 . 1 8 I APPENDIX A I Oak Park Heights, Minnesota Available Capability ICapacity Restrictions 58th Street Sanitary Sewer IMaximum Capacity—8" @ 0.40% =500,000 gpd IProbable Flows: Rainbow Area 29.5 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 29,500 gpd I Stillwater Ford 12.0 acres @ 500 gpapd 6,000 gpd Senior High School 45,000 gpd Average Daily Flow 80,500 gpd IMaximum Average Pipe Capacity 500,000 gpd 125,000 gpd Probable Flow 322,000 gpd 80.500 gpd Average Capacity 178,000 gpd 44,500 gpd I60t Street Sanitary Sewer iMaximum Capacity— 12" @ 0.16% =900,000 gpd Probable Flows: • I Rainbow Area 29.5 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 29,500 gpd Stillwater Ford 12.0 acres @ 500 gpapd 6,000 gpd Senior High School 45,000 gpd I Menards 12.0 acres @ 500 gpapd 6,000 gpd Brackey West 22.0 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 22,000 gpd Brackey East 28.0 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 28,000 gpd I Autumn Ridge 77 lots @ 240 gpupd 18,500 gpd Haase South 75 lots @ 240 gpupd 18,000 gpd Average Daily Flow 173,000 gpd I Maximum Avera e I Pipe Capacity 900,000 gpd 250,000 gpd Probable Flow 622,800 gpd 173,000 gpd Average Capacity 277,200 gpd 77,000 gpd 1 IKreuger Lift Station Maximum Capacity =700 gpm= 1,008,000 gpd I Probable Flows: Rainbow Area 29.5 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 29,500 gpd Stillwater Ford 12.0 acres @ 500 gpapd 6,000 gpd Senior High School 45,000 gpd Menards 12.0 acres @ 500 gpapd 6,000 gpd Brackey West 22.0 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 22,000 gpd i Brackey East 28.0 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 28,000 gpd Autumn Ridge 77 lots @ 240 gpupd 18,500 gpd Haase South 75 lots @ 240 gpupd 18,000 gpd ' Walmart Area 27.5 acres @ 500 gpapd 13,800 gpd Haase North 22.0 acres @ 1,000 gpapd 22.000 gpd Average Daily Flow 208,000 gpd Maximum Avera e 1 008000 gpd 288 000 gpd ' Pipe Capacity Probable Flow 793,000 gpd 208,800 gpd Average Capacity 215,000 gpd 79,200 gpd 58th Street Sanitary Sewer I Maximum Capacity— 8" @ 0.40% = 500,000 gpd I Probable Flows—Divert Brackey West Senior High School 45,000 gpd Average Daily Flow 45,000 gpd Maximum Average Pipe Capacity 500,000 gpd 125,000 gpd Probable Flow 180,000 gpd 45,000 gpd Average Capacity 320,000 gpd 80,000 gpd II APPENDIX B I Highway 5 West Utility Study Cost Estimates ISanitary Sewer IMemorial Avenue 1,175 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 10' — 12' deep in p1. @ 16.00 $18,800.00 I125 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 12' — 14' deep in pl. @ 18.00 2,250.00 65 Lin. ft. 8"P.V.C., SDR-26, 12' — 14' deep in pl. @ 20.00 1,300.00 I140 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 14' — 16' deep in pl. @ 22.00 3,080.00 140 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 16' — 18' deep in pl. @ 24.00 3,360.00 I 180 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 18' —20' deep in p1. @ 26.00 4,680.00 210 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 20' —22' deep in pl. @ 28.00 5,880.00 6 Each Std. 4' diam. MH, 8' deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00 7,200.00 I24 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 100.00 2,400.00 13 Each 8" x 4" P.V.C., SDR-35 wye branch in pl. @ 50.00 650.00 I 6 Each 8" x 4' P.V.C., SDR-26 wye branch in pl. @ 60.00 360.00 38 Lin. ft. 4" P.V.C. Schedule 40 rider in pl. @ 15.00 570.00 2,025 Lin. ft. Television inspection of 8" sewer @ 1.00 2,025.00 I2,000 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl, 6" thick in pl. @ 2.00 4,000.00 80 Lin. ft. Remove and replace driveway culvert @ 10.00 80.00 I2 Each Patch existing driveways @ 750.00 1,500.00 Lump Sum Clear & grub trees 1,000.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 3,800 Sq. yd. Sodding of drainage ditch @ 2.50 9,500.00 2 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 4,800.00 I400 Lin. ft. Hay bale diversion in pl. @ 3.00 1,200.00 Estimated Construction Cost $75,355.00 I 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 18,845.00 TOTAL MEMORIAL AVE. SAN. SEWER $94,200.00 I I • 1 I 55th Street-Memorial to Lift Station ' 25 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 18' -20' deep in p1. @ 26.00 $650.00 560 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 20' -22' deep in pl. @ 28.00 15,680.00 3 Each Std. 4' diam. MH, 8' deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,700 3,600.00 I40 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 100.00 4,000.00 1 Each 8" x 4" P.V.C., SDR-26 wye branch in pl. @ 60.00 60.00 10 Lin. ft. 4" P.V.C., Schedule 40 riser in p1. @ 15.00 150.00 I 575 Lin. ft. Television inspection of 8" sewer @ 1.00 575.00 600 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl., 6" thick in pl. @ 2.00 1,200.00 I500 Cu. yd Core excavation @ 4.50 2,250.00 900 Ton Class 5 gravel base in pl. @ 6.00 5,400.00 I0.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 1,200.00 Lump Sum Clearing & grubbing 500.00 I Estimated Construction Cost $35,265.00 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 8,835.00 TOTAL 55TH ST. SANITARY SEWER (EAST) $44,100.00 1 I Lift Station and Force Main No. 1 1 Each 200 GPM duplex submersible lift sta. in p1. @ 80,000.00 $80,000.00 I 2,240 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 1' cover in p1. @ 13.00 29,120.00 80 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P.,jacked in pl. w/24" carrier @ 150.00 12,000.00 325 Lbs. D.I. fittings in p1. @ 1.00 325.00 I1 Each Cut-in to existing manhole @ 200.00 200.00 Lump Sum Driveway patching at cut-in 500.00 I 2.5 Acres Seeding w/ mulch anchored in p1. @ 2,400.00 6,000.00 Estimated Construction Cost $128,145.00 I 25% Engr.,Fiscal, & Admin. 32,055.00 TOTAL LIFT STATION & FORCE MAIN $160,200.00 I Lift Station and Force Main No. 2 I 1 Each 100 GPM duplex submersible lift sta. in pl. @ 70,000.00 $70,000.00 950 Lin. ft. 4" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 1/2' cover in pl. @ 10.00 9,500.00 225 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 225.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $79,725.00 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 19,975.00 • I TOTAL LIFT STATION & FORCE MAIN $99,700.00 11 I I Water Main I58th Street 1,345 Lin. ft. 12" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 '/' cover in pl. @ 25.00 $33,625.00 I80 Lin. ft. 12"D.I.P.,jacked w/24" carrier in pl. @ 160.00 12,800.00 40 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 '/z' cover in pl. @ 17.00 680.00 I 30 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 '/z'cover in p1. @ 13.00 390.00 1 Each 12"butterfly valve and box in pl. @ 1,000.00 1,000.00 1 Each 8" gate valve and box in pl. @ 600.00 600.00 1 Each 6" gate valve and box in pl. @ 400.00 400.00 1 Each 5" valve hydrant in pl. @ 1,200.00 1,200.00 I 2,350 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 2,350.00 1 Each Cut-in to existing 12"D.I.P @ 500.00 500.00 I 1,400 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl., 6" thick in pl. @ 1.00 1,400.00 Lump Sum Patch Memorial Avenue crossing 1,000.00 1.5 Acres Seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 3,600.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $59,545.00 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 14,855.00 ITOTAL 58"STREET WATER MAIN $74,400.00 Memorial Avenue • 2,220 Lin. ft. 8" D.I.P., class 52, 7 ' ' cover in pl. @ 17.00 $37,740.00 1 70 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52, 7 1/2' cover in pl. @ 13.00 910.00 2 Each 8" gate valve and box in pl. @ 600.00 1,200.00 I 6 Each 6" gate valve and box in pl. @ 400.00 2,400.00 5 Each 5" valve hydrant in p1. @ 1,200.0 6,000.00 2,690 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 2,690.00 I2,300 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl., 6" thick in pl. @ 1.00 2,300.00 120 Lin. ft. Remove and replace driveway culverts @ 10.00 1,200.00 I 3 Each Patch existing driveways @ 750.00 2,250.00 Lump Sum Cross end of existing triple culvert 1,000.00 3,800 Sq. yd. Sodding of drainage ditch 2 2.50 9,500.00 I1.5 Acres Seeding w/ mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 3,600.00 400 Lin. ft. Hay bale diversion in pl. @ 3.00 1.200.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $71,990.00 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 18,010.00 ITOTAL MEMORIAL AVE. WATER MAIN $90,000.00 55th Street—Memorial to Lift Station 680 Lin. ft. 6" D.I.P., Class 52,7 '/s' cover in pl. @ 13.00 $8,840.00 4 Each 6" gate valve and box in p1. @ 400.00 1,600.00 2 Each 5" valve hydrant in p1. @ 1,200.00 2,400.00 865 Lbs. D.I. fittings in pl. @ 1.00 865.00 700 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl., 6" thick in pl. @ 1.00 700.00 ' Estimated Construction Cost $14,405.00 25% Engr.,Fiscal, & Admin. 3,595.00 TOTAL 55TH ST.WATER MAIN (EAST) $18,000.00 1 i i 1 1 I 1 APPENDIX C Oak Park Heights Capacity Allocation I Alternate Design Costs Brackey yAddition 150 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 0' —8' deep in pl. @ 14.00 $2,100.00 I 280 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 8' — 10' deep in p1. @ 15.00 4,200.00 390 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 10' — 12' deep in pl. @ 16.00 6,240.00 I 260 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 12' — 14' deep in p1. @ 18.00 4,680.00 535 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 14' — 16' deep in pl. @ 20.00 10,700.00 7 Each Std. 4' diam. MH, 8' deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00 8,400.00 I34 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 100.00 3,400.00 Estimated Construction Cost $39,720.00 I 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 9,980.00 TOTAL BRACKEY ADDITION $49,700.00 I Bracket/ Addition— Alternate Design I150 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 0' — 8' deep in pl. @ 14.00 $2,100.00 275 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 8' — 10' deep in pl. @ 15.00 4,125.00 I 330 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 10' — 12' deep in pl. @ 16.00 5,280.00 60 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 12' — 14' deep in pl. @ 18.00 1,080.00 5 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 8' — 10' deep in pl. @ 17.00 85.00 I10 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 10' — 12' deep in p1. @ 18.00 180.00 10 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 12' — 14' deep in pl. @ 20.00 200.00 I 90 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 14' — 16' deep in pl. @ 22.00 1,980.00 180 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 16' — 18' deep in pl. @ 24.00 4,320.00 505 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 18' —20' deep in pl. @ 26.00 13,130.00 6 Each Std. 8' diam. MH, 8' deep w/cstg in p1. @ 1,200.00 7,200.00 35 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 100.00 3,500.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $43,180.00 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 10.220.00 TOTAL BRACKEY ADDITION—ALT. $53,400.00 I I I I Brackey West Addition I 1,275 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 10' — 12' deep in p1. @ 16.00 $20,400.00 7 Each Std. 4' diam. MH, 8' deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00 8,400.00 18 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 100.00 1,800.00 1 I 135 Lin. ft. 6" P.V.C., Schedule 40, variable depth @ 20.00 2,700.00 60 Lin. ft. 6" P.V.C.,jacked w/ 18"carrier in pl. @ 140.00 8,400.00 I 1 Each Cut-in to existing manhole @ 2,000.00 2,000.00 1 Each Connect to existing 8"stub 2 200.00 200.00 I Lump Sum Surface patch at sewer connection 500.00 1,510 Lin. ft. Television inspection of sewer @ 1.00 1,510.00 1,500 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl.,6"thick in pl. @ 2.00 3,000.00 IEstimated Construction Cost $48,910.00 25%Engr.,Fiscal,&Admin. 12,190.00 ITOTAL BRACKEY WEST ADDITION $61,100.00 IBrackey West Addition —Alternate Design 170 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 8' — 10' deep in pl. @ 15.00 $2,550.00 1 I 220 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 10' — 12' deep in pl. @ 16.00 3,520.00 240 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 12' — 14' deep in pl. @ 18.00 4,320.00 I 175 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-35, 14' — 16' deep in pl. @ 20.00 3,500.00 135 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 14' — 16' deep in pl. @ 22.00 2,970.00 465 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 16' — 18' deep in pl. @ 24.00 11,160.00 III200 Lin. ft. 8" P.V.C., SDR-26, 18' —20' deep in pl. @ 26.00 5,200.00 6 Each Std. 4' diam. MH, 8' deep w/cstg in pl. @ 1,200.00 7,200.00 I 31 Lin. ft. Manhole depth greater than 8' deep @ 100.00 3,100.00 1 Each 8" x 6" P.V.C., SDR-26 wye branch in p1. @ 80.00 80.00 1,725 Lin. ft. Television inspection of sewer @ 1.00 1,725.00 I1,700 Lin. ft. Improved pipe fdn mtl., 6" thick in pl. @ 2.00 3,400.00 0.5 Acre Add'l seeding w/mulch anchored in pl. @ 2,400.00 1,200.00 1 Estimated Construction Cost $49,925.00 25% Engr., Fiscal, & Admin. 12.475.00 iTOTAL BRACKEY WEST ADDITION—ALT. $62,400.00 112 !— 0 = mcl- o .03 !1 I t ?13 -7/2 F+ -; af/-- - - - - oo� % I S I f 1. �v 30° ... , . ,_ O _, °0 — J I •' 1 N ' No l I n I I % ./ fid I n1 I ( ..s • ./1 r4)„,, M I \I I —`,~ ! fill:`i -1- - - -I ;\•. I is .% 1 5�•\ � �z N L�= z O I moi= ' IXN W , Yt 1a Miff In f! o I ,\ /s � o 04 op `.F I I ti t laI' I II .. a .'ONF � I I I I - = ri,iimila wird— de I IR G. !.1 A , 41.1111P-41 \ 00 11121 6Y v_yormakt A P. I :.....J_JI ) 'lT•�a11I PHI G I �S I = 1 1 • , -.1 1 i O N g i) f `s z IFl 13 n I '" 1 O N I h / 3 1) i Z ..1 ' Y I Ili I v) X Q I = m � /I . ,,,.. . I / W Iis I / -44440 - ,b` -8 -z - - - -I- I s J — L ��11111011111N ' o1§ ¢w 1 I 24. ' I� _ o .II \ zy. I _ 1. WI .l,y�_ 1 lett ;I I wl I I u W}.'y I 121 - 1 W O ' • � I I i Y I o e07 1I 1 1 --1÷1 I g 1 ..z . �1 - J9 1000.. 1 .' ti,, I Y9 • 416' • S a/Ii \�~ gg N g 41,4 I 1 • r 23143. , v~¢i^ "`w # I m Y I I I JZ ir --------- ~O W j F H Z Q r = cri O y _ L • /. a.L.Li =K 2 z 1 cd¢ O Z C7 iI . "1 I f\; a3 a W Q I I:I I �� u. N N g ce C� < I I 1 :\ __ -0�—� d Q 2 II i J :p Y N I 1 , y Q W 1 1ltIHx3I Z o III0 F;,' o oI 4— 3; Oil* > 0 = I-4-I oaf > „ hi,„, II gam . ,4....,, .tI c‘i„.44,. ......grov; .„,,,,, ,.:./ 1 :, ,...#,, _ _,_ ,. ... • :C.' itiPr „ r., ,, i `8,-' e ....... \. . s. .�I►.•i X m I$iScl 3.0 = 3 4 k L., 4 © ,L4r4 i `� i I 0. 3 N -. fr� z z o Mill 91 IM'1IMil 1I� _ f ! r.I Eli 4-4 no Nei lilmilliriA• 4-, r m m/133111144.41M41 PH m .., . ... k __ Er glinliirk I11111 ��.g gq•3..../ ,,, i ! rr ate. ►Al m — MOW 1 1 1 1 I 1 •' 1�::r.■n unu1n1 , 'r n ! I.imp •����uunu�,. • • • n■Vp l.■-■1 I too s�I� I■ ■ .u.lr. 0 0 0 0 o x x • • SII � ��� �.. ■t s v -0 v -o -1 =i ilt.:IN- __,,,_) ♦ . ,�., .r 7��� 0 0 0 0 o ZS 13 1 GI s ♦-- ♦ ♦ mi IN •,•. ••� --1 •< z z rn o c?” ♦ r.- }--_ice• n m Q I� a ! .t.1.. .- z o 0, ` I 11...:._': _ = o -o —I -I ♦ I 'NM!Lk I p a �o 0. 0. m I • r , 34,111 W c a a m a N y y Ai SIB aral ...111111 murs col it b 3m O a� �i��6�=mu-1. mil c o �_ Rt p i C!1:1 /�,��II�� o S. o w iy< HO 5' %IIII a Iilll I `^ '`3 711 - zo m I 1 • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permanent List of Priorities June 1996 Site Name: Baytown Township Ground Water Contamination I Location: Baytown Township,ship,Washington County IPriority: Minnesota List of Priorities Classification I B: Response Actions Completed and Operation and Maintenance/Long-Term Monitoring Ongoing C: Response Action Design and Implementation D: Remedial Investigation,Feasibility Study National Priority List: Yes Score: 38 I Site Description: Over 70 water supply wells (residential and business)in Baytown Township,West Lakeland Township and IBayport show volatile organic hydrocarbon concentrations from trace levels to above the Minnesota Department of Health's (MDH)Health Risk Limits. The list of contaminants include: 1,1,2-trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorethylene and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene. IProbable sources for the contaminants include the Lake Elmo Airport and a former grain storage area. Assigned Staff: MPCU I Project Manager Allen Dotson Technical Analyst Eric Dott On-Site Inspector • I Attorney General Jocelyn Olson/Bill Hefner Actions Taken to Date: I — Over 150 residential and airport hangar wells have been sampled p d by MDH and others. — Requests For Information issued. ' — A Limited Remedial Investigation began June 1988 at and around the Lake Elmo Airport. — Responsible Party search ongoing. — Request for Response Action issued to Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), August 27, 1991. I — Proposed for NPL as Lake Elmo Airport Ground Water Contamination Site on October 14, 1992. — Final NPL with HRS II score of 35.62 as Baytown Township Ground Water Plume,December 16, 1994. IActions Needed- . I - Complete Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. — Meet with responsible parties. I - Conduct any necessary additional site characterization and feasibility study activities. — Design and implement Response Actions. I EXHIBIT M DO -4 73 d c �.o g O v PO a V tn tJ b0 4) Z.<„� a 0,,%” lj Q� A. CM g -� tt.�t • �� i Ch CLI t3 Z x :V lex„ i 'Ne.1,4 I � 11' 'f,,,,. 4, :,'",1„°,.,,t• tp, yF�wyna:r,P.kek ,h,`�t._,. l�Y'y.• '•�p' r. • • •.$•.'::.•..,'�H11yS, ly��5 Zr aya„� . a.`�M, ;ih i� M1i 4.nwy�� ,'G,” `4y.4• 41 •.' `+1: M�!yy�1 4",'�;�e1 '"v� '"�;�,A•�q.'4,?• ?;'�+N' '��)f iv,+t ,. �.,, .... ' „,,,,,,,+y, ,..k ,„ ,i,,„, t, Me c` ', , i _r 1.1" ",1 ri--!4--i'11__ .,,.,•rr.'l '_- I- •.1 .... ..,. •. ..,__. f w..l...,, - 'tom + i. i ,lI {ty' r GFF� D r- 1.. - �:. " ..... V: \ \ �.. 1' Y ,,ti�' '", ::vr I 5 w a", I I 2 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) -The I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) database of potential or actual hazardous waste sites nationwide. These sites are candidates for addition to the federal and state Superfund list. The database is updated periodically as new sites are discovered. I11 No Further Remedial Action Planned(NFRAP) -These sites were removed from CERCLIS by the EPA. These sites are no longer considered a federal concern. Investigatory work at these sites is now funded through state Idollars rather than through federal funds. 1 National Priorities List(NPL) -A national listing of hazardous waste sites which represent a significant threat Ito public health or the environment and are priorities for remedial action. Also known as the federal Superfund list. The NPL is updated on an annual basis. I 3 Permanent List of Priorities (PLP) -A state listing of verified hazardous waste sites which represent a threat to public health or the environment and are priorities for cleanup. The PLP is updated annually. I10 DPLP-Sites delisted from the Permanent List of Priorities by the MPCA. 6 RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (RCRA TSD) -A listing of facilities which have received or in the process of being issued a permit for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. The most Iare common permit is for storage and is required for facilities which store their hazardous waste on-site for longer than 90 days. This list is updated semiannually. I 4 Hazardous Waste Generator/Investigation and Cleanup List(HWIC) -A list of sites that are currently in some stage of investigation and/or cleanup. ' 5 List ofPermitted Solid Waste Facilities (SW PERM) -A listing of those facilities or areas in the state which have been issued permits for solid waste handling or disposal. This list is updated periodically as new sites are issued permits. 7 1980+Metropolitan Area Waste Disposal Sire Inventory (METRO) -U.S.Geological Survey topographic maps and Hudson's Street Maps which show the location of abandoned dumps, demolition sites, tree disposal sites, fly I ash sites,foundry sand and slag sites, surface impoundments, and other dumps. Most of these sites were discovered prior to the creation of the MPCA, and detailed information about them is generally not available. I 8 1980 Statewide Outstate Dump Inventory(ODI) -Lists and maps which show the location of municipal waste disposal facilities, industrial surface impoundments, and closed municipal dump sites. This inventory was conducted and compiled in 1980; detailed information regarding the status of these sites is not available. I9 Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program (VIC) -A list of properties at which a voluntary investigation has been or is being conducted, with MPCA staff providing technical review of the investigation and any ' necessary remedial activities. A number of properties on this list have been investigated and cleaned up or found to not require any cleanup work. I 12 Closed Landfill Sites Undergoing Cleanup (LCP). • 13 Other-A list of sites where there is potential for ground water contamination. These sites do not meet the 1 qualifications to be included in the above lists. The numbers in brackets correspond with the bracketed numbers on the map. Attached is a definition �P P Sheet. The numbers in parens at the end of each site correspond with the Numbers on the definition sheet. ' LIST OF SITES; [414] Baytown Township Ground Water Contamination, Section 18, T27N,R2OW,Baytown Township(1,2,3) ' 873 NSP FlyAsh-A.S.King#1 (SW-53), ofCo rd 21 andthe56thSt [ ] g south No intersection, Oak Park Heights (5,7) ' [1097] NSP Fly Ash-A.S.King#2(SW-54),south of Hwy 36,east of Peabody Avenue North,Oak Park Heights (5,7,9) [876) Bayport/Prison dump,east of Co Rd 21,approximately the 4000 block,Bayport(9) ' [630] Bayport dump Site,each of Co Rd 121,approximately the 4000 block,Bayport(9) [877] Bayport dump,approximately 1/4 mile so of 4th Av,on the east side of Minnesota St,Bayport(7) 1 [875] Junkers Demolition Dump,west side of Co Rd 21,west of the Stillwater Prison,Oak Park Hts.(7,9) [874] NSP King Plant, Surface Impoundment site,east approximately 1/4 mile from the Hwy 94&56th St No intersection, Oak Park Hts.(7) [136] St.Croix Manufacturing Co., 122,2nd Av So,Bayport(11) ' [3508] Bayport Public Works Facility,Main St&2nd Av So,Bayport(9) [3509] 345 Main St Site,345 Main Street,Bayport(9) [3368) Jerry Clipper Machine Shop,5449 Stillwater Blvd.,Stillwater(9) ' [189] Minnesota correctional Facility Old South Farm Dump,approximately, 1 3/4 miles south on Co Rd 21 the the Co Rd 21 &Hwy 95 intersection,Stillwater(11) I 1 • i I IEXHIBIT N PROPERTY TAX COMPARISON 1 BASED ON PAYABLE 1997 LEVY 1 Market Value Tax Capacity Subject Area $5,892,200 $145,517 I Effect of Annexation to Local Tax Rate Based Upon 1997 Levy 1 Tax Capacity Tax Rate I Baytown Township (Before) $1,847,800 5.598% Baytown Township (After) $1,702,283 6.077% Oak Park Heights (Before) $5,834,171 22.270% Oak Park Heights (After) $5,979,688 21.728% ITax Total Capacity Local Tax Difference Percent I Resultant Tax $100,000 Homesteaded Dwelling Baytown Township (Before) $1,280 $ 71.65 I Baytown Township (After) $1,280 $ 77.79 + $ 6.14 + 8.6% Oak Park Heights (Before) $1,280 $ 285.06 Oak Park Heights (After) $1,280 $ 278.12 - $ 6.94 - 2.5% IResultant Tax $150,000 Homesteaded Dwelling Baytown Township (Before) $2,280 $ 127.63 I Baytown Township (After) $2,280 $ 138.56 + $10.93 + 8.6% Oak Park Heights (Before) $2,280 $ 507.76 Oak Park Heights (After) $2,280 $ 475.40 - $12.36 - 2.5% 1 Resultant Tax $200,000 Homesteaded Dwelling I Baytown Township (Before) $2,560 $ 143.31 Baytown Township (After) $2,560 $ 155.57 + $12.26 + 8.6% Oak Park Heights (Before) $2,560 $ 570.11 IOak Park Heights (After) $2,560 $ 556.24 - $13.87 - 2.5% Resultant Tax $150,000 Commercial I Baytown Township (Before) $5,300 $ 296.69 Baytown Township (After) $5,300 $ 322.08 + $25.39 + 8.6% Oak Park Heights (Before) $5,300 $1,180.31 I Oak Park Heights (After) $5,300 $1,151.54 - .$28.73 - 2.5% i Note: Examples represent property not directly impacted by annexation. Source: Washington County Auditor Treasurer- Taxation Division I Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. EXHIBIT N I EXHIBIT 0 REAL ESTATE TAXES ICOMPARISON OF LOCAL PORTION OF REAL ESTATE TAXES IN BAYTOWN TOWNSHIP 0 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS I wigs % . 222711% OWNER GEO.CODE `97 MKT. VALUE RAYTOWN TAXES OAK PARK TAXES ICOSAERC1AL' Bubert 06-029-20-21-0003 $ 144,800 $ 283.31 $ 1127.08 Buberl 06-029-20-21-0001 80,500 67.62 269.02 I S1111. Motors 06-029-20-12-0004 886.800 2194.02 8728.28 SIMM. Motors 06-029-20-12-0008 150,000 386.26 1536.63 ICentury Power 06-029-20-12-0005 317,700 818.09 3254.53 Kern,V. 06-029-20-12-0006 91,800 236.40 940.46 I Kern,V. 06-029-20-21-0002 81,200 209.08 831.78 Brookman 06-029-20-12-0007 163,500 421.02 1674.92 I Kohout 06-029-20-24-0005 155,000 309.56 1231.53 Kennedy 06-029-20-24-0006 850.500 2100.53 835637 IKemper 06-029-20-13-0002 25.000 64.37 256.10 Kemper 06-029-20-13-0003 25,000 64.37 256.10 I W.A.T.E-ZIntl 06-029-20-24-0011 596,300 1445.96 5752.34 RESIDENTIAL' ' Smith,B. 06-029-20-33-0001 22.400 (Green Acres( 5.65 22.49 Smith,B. 06-029-20-31-0003 158,600 123.49 491.27 ' Screaton 06-029-20-32-0001 35.500 ( Green Acres) 29.83 118.69 Oakgreen Farms 06-029-20-32-0002 30,200 ( Green Acres) 35.04 139.41 St.John's Ch. 06-029-20-34-0001 Exempt IGleason 06-029-20-33-0002 114,900 88.33 351.42 I Nass 06-029-20-22-0001 53,200 86.43 343.84 Nass 06-029-20-23-0001 216,200 201.75 802.61 Palmquist 06-029-20-23-0003 188,400 170.62 678.78 II-tauth 06-029-20-22-0003 233,900 221.56 881.44 • I Engle 06-029-20-23-0003 184,000 166.64 658 23 Clougherty 06-029-20-22-0002 208,900 193.57 770.09 I Note: Washington County and School District 834 taxes are not included in above numbers. I Source:Washington County Auditor-Treasurer-Taxation Division EXHIBIT 0 ‘01-L 1. - z- 'E.6pcvy 6 ri-&.„. = y c-6;A,a-a —61 (2&--,,,-t3cAl -(\,Z ----- � YlotorrZ4., -77) YALou S -- . C'cn-iz — 5 %3 A/"9-(--ie -411/e72-c2--v /3-7'q71 01)_. , ha\ u(\c''' ' ogP (}0 .a9 09/02/98 14:21 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.987 P01 LAW OFFICES OF • Eok.berg. Lammers, Briggs. Wolff & V .ening. P.L.L.P. 1835 Noribwesicrn gvcnuc r r Lyle .�. Ec1 rq Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 David h. Snyder .la Moe )'. Lammers (651) 450-2878 Crush 1 iletiClr* i liohcrt G, Sri ssr a n l A. Walls 89 FAX (i 51 43�J 2...23 1 au ,Marl( J. Vie Aug* ( ) • s (l944-1996) G• regory G. Gallen* COVER SHEET - FACSIMILE TRANSMISSIO ral.liud Aeelral Arbilratar f�Medialer ,1,,60@a5 J. Weidner* er* •QdaI 1 c4 Nr6!•Irdl,rbieralur Susan D. Olson. 61'er�i(i.d Roel!:slate$pcaalial • �Qral;Ged terlral Ardiaiur DATE: September 2. 1998 Please deliver the following page (s) to: FAX NO : 439-0574 NAME: Melanie FROM: Mark J. Vierling / Sandy TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 2 , INCLUDING COVER SHEET. • The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidential information from Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. This information is intended solely for use by the • individual or entity named as the recipient hereof . If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. Violation of this confidentiality notice could constitute a basis for a claim for damages against the violation. If you received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (612) 439- 2878 . IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US • BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (612) 439-2878 • COMMENTS: TQM, As a matter of professional courtesy I do not have a problem with Banniaan having access to the OPHISCREATON annexation file as it may help them with the MMB or dealing with Lake Elmo to set the issue . Your feelings???? * * * * * * * * * * * HARD COPY WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL . 1 09/02/98 14:21 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.987 D02 Bannigan &Ke11yPA. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1750 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER 445 MINNESOTA SKEET SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101.2132 (651,1 21A3781 SHAREHOLDERS: FAX(651)213-8019 JOHN P.BANMGAN,JR. PATRICK J.KELLY JANET M WILEBSKI September 1, 1998 ASSOCIATES: SONG LO FAWCETT STEPHEN KELLY SIA LO OP COUNSEL: • JOHN(JACK)F.P. NER . • Mr:-Mark .Vierling— • - . _ -_. - -- -----^ - . . Eckberg,Lammers,Briggs, Wolff&Vierling 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater,MN 55082 RE: Our client,John W Arkell Dear Mr, Vierling: This is by way of a follow-up to Our telephone conference of Monday, August 31, 1998. As the attorney for the City of Oak Park Heights,I called you to gain information concerning the recent annexation of certainro erties west of state trunk highway P P gh y 5 from Bay Township. I also inquired as to the background of the annexation of certainro Pty from BayTown via Lake Elmo P contemporaneous with the above-referenced matter. You indicated that your office maintained a full and complete file on this annexation. The purpose of this letter is to set up an appointment with you or your paralegal at which time I could peruse the annexation file and arrange to have copies made of the public record which would advance our client's interest and so-called Screaton property. That would certainly save our client and our office time and money in running to the Courthouse and to other venues tCc asseinlild chis record. - - - Thankou for tellingme about t,l1e$17,000.00 bill that Mr. Screaton ran up with the City for engineering and other expert witness costs in that annexation. I am certain that my client will be more than interested in knowing about this especially since it may affect any future dealings he may wish to have with the City and its staff. Sincerely, • ..!••KELLY, P.A. ViOsidoei,1 • igan JB/bmv C: John W. Arkell ID • Baytown Township Washington County Stillwater, MN 55082 [ N7 pis----- (612) 439-8879 November 5, 1997 ,_ — 6 1997 CITY OF Mayor David Schaaf OAK PARK HEIGHTS City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North Oak Park Heights, MN 5508201/j, Dear Mayor Schaaf: The Town Board has acknowledged receipt of your October 31st letter inviting Baytown to meet with Oak Park to have continued discussions regarding the Screaton annexation petition. Your positive response, shortly after Attorney Vierling's letter refusing our November 3rd invitation, was indeed a surprise, but a sign that Oak Park perhaps realizes that resolution of this issue will require compromise, and a leap in leadership and community conduct on everyone's part. Baytown has always been interested in a respectful discussion that takes a broad range of individual and business concerns into account, and one that considers the large community picture, development impacts, and equity for a IL those affected in and around the proposed annexation area. Oak Park's indication that negotiations may finally be possible from their city is welcomed. Baytown and Lake Elmo will conduct a joint meeting on Monday, November 10th, to discuss our cooperative efforts to date, and Baytown and Lake Elmo invite all three communities to meet on Monday, November 17, 7:00 P.M., at the Lake Elmo City Hall, to determine common ground and a format if necessary, for possible resolution of the issues. These meetings will be open to the public. On Behalf of the Board of Supervisors, /)4 && t Patricia L. St. Claire Clerk cc: Ms. Christine Scotillo, Executive Director- MMB Ms. Judith Screaton , Petitioner Ms. Mary Kueffner, City of Lake Elmo CITY O OAK!----- PA K HEIGHTS j 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 -Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 vk4t vJ October 31, 1997 MR RON FREDKOVE 4220 OSGOOD AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER MN 55082 RE: Annexation Issues/Municipal Board Document A-5821 Baytown Correspondence of October 24, 1997 Dear Ron: The City of Oak Park Heights believes that Mr. Screaton' s Petition for Annexation will be acted on favorably by the Municipal Board and the District Court . However, it continues to be the Council' s goal to mitigate the impact of the annexation on_ the existing businesses and residents through an orderly annexation - agreement . . This agreement will allow for incremental phasing in of - urban property tax rates, deferral of -certain water and sewer connections and associated charges, -and creation of rural taxing - districts. -- That is why, as we stated at our council meeting of 6/10/97, , we wish for these negotiations to end with an orderly annexation .agreement We are open to proposals you may have for . an orderly prior annexation agreement . However, anyagreement must be reached � ' g g to the Municipal Board meeting on November 24 , 1997 . In that regard, we invite your Board of Supervisor to meet with us on either Wednesday, November 5th at 7 : 00 p.m. or Monday, November 10th at 7 : 00 p.m. We regard the meeting as a public forum for elected officials to discuss the issues . The meeting could be held at Oak Park City Hall, if your facility is not available . A mediator, could be obtained to facilitate the meeting. Very 'uly yours It David D. Schaaf Mayor (612) 439- �1So/ Tree City U.S.A. • III !f ti LAW OFFICES OF �� T��; l `�J \v/— Lelcberg. Lammers, Briggs. Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L . QG U L`1` i' '�, ' 1535 _\Orthwcsicrn A en j( Lyle i Stillwater. 'lznncsota 33082 c c 1l.cic.x� Susan D. Olson James F. La' r ci ( iT 3 1 1997 (612) 150-28/8 lurid K. Snyder 1 Zohcrt G. it•i�tg.-.:,♦ FAX (61_>) _1.>t,_923 Y Mari( .I. V't, rl,nc Paul A. Wolff CITY OF Gregory G. "Her* OAK PARK HEIGHTS 0944-1996) i,itornas •1. ci.uer* Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 *Q...I;l';ed \e.tral .\r6;tralnr& Mcd,atrrr *Qualified Neutral .\rh;trator *f erl;fled Real Estate Speetal;.ct October 29, 1997 • MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 225 BANDANA SQUARE 1021 BANDANA BLVD E ST PAUL MN 55108 RE: City of Oak Park Heights Annexation Petition for portion of Baytown Township Municipal Board Docket No. A-5821 Dear Ms . Scotillo: For an addition to your file in this matter I am forwarding a Consent and Petition to Join the Petition of David R. Screaton • Partnership, Oakgreen Farms, et al as it affects the above- referenced matter. This consent and joinder to the Petition comes from the property owner of Lot 2, Block 1, Kern Center being Ms. Stacey Jo Thompson, Oak Park LLC. Yours very truly, 2) Mark J. Vierling MJVjsmp cc: Ms . Judy Hoist Mayor David D. Schaaf Mr. Jerome Filla Mr. David Magnuson M i CONSENT AND PETITION TO JOIN THE PETITION OF . . . DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP, OAKGREEN FARMS, INC . , A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, BETTY SMITH, LOW & ASSOCIATES, INC. , A.L.K. PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK KEMPER, CALVIN J. BROCKMAN, AND BERNARD W. NASS AND LOELLA NASS FOR ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. §414 .031 TO : Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 , Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East .St . Paul, MN 55108 ; and, City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North P . 0. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • The undersigned owners of real property located at Z. (address) and legally described as : Lar 2 , Lod, r re-.N cNrrz S G 4-es N a M, nas - r e i (legal description and PIN) doe hereby join in the Petition of David R. Screaton partnership et al seeking annexation of unincorporated lands to the City of Oak Park Heights . Dated: /0/0' BY:�____ ra r� PA 7c CITY O • .tel: v -_�- II - . . - OAK PATK HEIGHTS • ,:F .04i% 14168 N. 57th Street.Box 2007. Oak Perk Heights, NLN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 • FAX 439-0574 d► October 31, 1997 MR RON FREDKOVE • 4220 OSGOOD AVENUE NORTH STILLWATER MN 55082 RE : Annexation Issues/Municipal Board Document A-5821 • Baytown Correspondence of October 24 , 1997 ' Dear Ron: • The City of Oak Park Heights believes that Mr. Screaton' s • Petition -for Annexation will be acted on favorably by the Municipal . - Board and the District Court . However, it continues to be the - Council' s goal- oto mitigate the impact of the annexation on_ the existing- businesses and residents through an orderly annexation .agreement . . -This agreement will allow for incremental phasing in of - ,. -urban .property tax :rates, - deferral- of -certain water and sewer - .J. - connections and- -associated charges, *.-and creation of rural taxing - =.-'districts -,That is why, as we stated at our council meeting of. 6/10/97, we wish .for :these -negotiations to end with an orderly annexation-'.agreement - - We are open to proposals you may have for . an orderly - .annexation agreement However, any agreement must be reached prior . - - _ .to the Municipal Board meeting on November 24 , 1997 . j In that regard, we invite your Board of Supervisor to meet " with us on either Wednesday, November 5th at 7 : 00 p.m. or Monday, . November 10th at 7 :00 p.m. We regard the meeting as a public forum _ '' for elected officials to discuss the issues . The meeting could be held at Oak Park City Hall, if your facility is not available . A mediator, could be obtained to facilitate the meeting. Very ruly yours Air /A,' , r ( _ David D. Schaaf Mayor - (612) 439- ..5-0/ - ;t Tree City U.S.A. 11/04/97 17:15ECKBERG LAW 4350574 N0.002 D03 _ c • _ . - LAKE ELE FAX NO. 6 77 9615 P. 2 • Enclosure 11 Cif,OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777 5510 3600 Laverne Avenue North/Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042 October 24, 1997 Christine Scottilo Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St. Paul, MN 55108 Re: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Dear Ms. Scouil0: Thank you for taking the time to explain to me the action of the Municipal Board as it relates to the hearing date for the above reference petition for annexation. On behalf of the City of Lake Elmo, I esctfully ask your atskyton has�ssued hes an $roil of the hearing scheduled for November24th,until after Judge)�or order on the Orderly Annexation Agreementtaken by between Lake oard lacking a formal request Baytown. ( certainly understand the action for an extension, and can only surmise that the City of Lake Elmo made assumptions that perhaps we shouldn't have. I believe there may be meta in extending this hearing1be expending financia All re ounces in communities, as well as the residents involvedbut at least we will have preparation fur this hearing. That may be the end result anyway, Judge Poritsky's decision v one way or another prior to expending these funds. There is another issue that just came up that 1 feel also strongly supports an extension of ershe District WD) the hearing. Last Thursday evening the Valley Branch thet subjects,property B regards to commissioned a study of the impact of development stormwater run-off and the impacts of development evelo development asaWatershed. The proposed by Oak Park y will analyze the impact of high density urban p Heights vctsus that proposed by the City of Lake Elmo on two landlocked areas just downstream from the subject area. iThese act as the result of the construction uM D onalof tic new Lake" already are suffering a negateimpact Stillwater Area High School. C a1 ',Hotel on recyu.d Douer 11/04/97 17:15 ECKBERG LAW ) 4390574 N0.002 D04 �1L1v- -y- ;� `�;(•.i. _JR FAX NO. 61 - ill yh}5 P. 3 r Christine Scotillo Minnesota Municipal Board October 24, 1997 Page 2 I might add that neither the City of Lake Elmo nor Baytown requested this study. It Ii appears to he the result of the VBWD's ongoing efforts to deal with the problems that I currently exist in"Cloverdale" and"McDonald Lake". The results of this study,which is scheduled to be completed by November 13,1997, may provide a negotiating tool that apparently does not exist at this time for any of the communities or the property owners involved. However, everyone involved will need some time to analyze the findings of VBWD. There is one other issue that I feel should be clarified; one which has been misrepresented by many including the Metropolitan Council, the City of Oak Park Heights and most of the newspapers that have covered this issue. ' This 235-acre orderly annexation is the third orderly annexation between the City of Lake Elmo and the Town of Baytown, and is contiguous to the previous two. While the City could have annexed the property described in the first and second petition by ordinance, the City has strong feelings against annexations without approval of both communities involved. Therefore, our Mayor attended a Baytown meeting and asked the Board for approval of the annexation requested /malter nce 8 and onGladys y et chef. The :' Upon receiving this approval, Lake Elmo adopted second Orderly Annexation petitioned by Robert Engstrom and Glen Houle was adopted by Ordinance 9710 on June 28th, 1997. Again, Baytown approved this annexation, and that approval is referenced in the ordinance. ; When our Mayor attended the •6aytotivn meeting in 1994 to ask permission for the annexation, he also offered the suggestion of consolidation discussions between our two communities. The Baytown minutes reflect this comment. This suggestion was precipitated by the somewhat negative newspaper coverage of the consolidation studies ,� between Oak Park Heights, Bayport and Baytown, a study from which Baytown eventually witltdtew. Although the Board at this meeting took no action,the Baytown Clerk and I continued to discuss the issue in general terms whenever a Baytown resident would call me asking if annexation to Lake Elmo was a possibility in lieu of annexation to Oak Park Heights. When we became aware of the Minnesota Board of Innovation and Cooperation, I • contacted its Executive Director, James Gelbmann for some general information about its process. '1 hat was a Rule over a year ago. Earlier this year,l again contacted Mc. Gclbmanit for more specific information about the process because we the were preparing for make a recommendation to our respective elected officials regarding y process consolidationhowever, prior to our consolidation study agreement, Baytown made a concerted effort with all of its adjacent communities to investigate all of its options. Baytown's dcciaion, following these efforts, was to proceed with the study for a 9 11/04/97 17:15 ECKBERG LAID 4 4390574 N0.002 P05 NOV4-97 ? F ! l �.�:_ E!MO FAX NO. 1;077 9615 P. 4 Christine Scotillo Minnesota Municipal Board October 24, 1997 Page 3 consolidation with the City of Lake Elmo and did so through a joint resolution adopted August 4, 1997. Baytown did, however, adopted a Resolution of Intent to Enter Into the Consolidation Study Process With the City of Lake Elmo on July 28, 1997. Just a week earlier, Oak Park Heights accepted the petition for annexation from the Screaton's. l might add that the City of Oak Park Heights denied previous efforts by the Screaton family for annexation. Additionally,the Screaton's request to Washington County to designate the subject property as"Urban" in the County's newly adopted comprehensive plan was also denied. It has never been the intention of the City of Lake Elmo to have any conflict with the City of Oak Park Heights. Our dealings in the past have been only with Baytown Township, yet many have perceived this to be a Lake Eltno/Oak Park Heights dispute. We proceeded with the Orderly. Annexation only to maintain the status quo until the study for consolidation could be completed. It always has been the intent of both Lake Elmo and Baytown that this 235 acres be included as part of a much larger study of the entire Township and the City of Lake Elmo. We have met twice with residents from Baytown and Lake Elmo, and the study is well under way. I' Hopefully. I have given you additional background that may not have had available to you. Please iwnsider this background information when making a decision on our request for an extension of the hearing scheduled for November 24. Please call me if you have any questions. • 'Sincerely. ` ' r C et 2!.<---- Mary Kueftner ' City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council Baytown Board of Supervisors Jerry Fills.City Attorney, Lake Elmo David Magnuson, Baytown Attorney Patricia St. Claire, Baytown Clerk 1C( fr 4,0 .7r'vrlr.4) 5CaE4-1 Enclosures 1 3u P.01vso -Va 11-1U-97 U1 :35 PM PPOM JANET ROBERT, ATTY. TO 612 351 0857 POl • Revise as you see fit. Dear(Individual Property Owner) At our City Council workshop meeting on April 17, 1997, many of your issues relating to annexation were addressed. This meeting was followed up by written answers to questions submitted to us. The City Council of Oak Park Heights would like to revisit all issues regarding annexation one more time before meeting with Baytown Township and the City of Lake Elmo on November 17, 1997, at Lake Elmo City Hall. The City of Oak Park Heights has been on record since the June 3, 1997, meeting with Baytown Township to mitigate the impact of city taxes and assessments on your property. The deadline for negotiating an orderly annexation agreement is prior to the Municipal Board issuing a ruling on the Screaton Annexation Petition. Based on the advice of the City's attorney, the Council believes the Municipal Board will grant the Screaton Petition for annexation to Oak Park Heights. Since May of this year, the Council has repeatedly requested meetings with Baytown Township to negotiate an orderly annexation agreement. Unfortunately, our offers have been refused. A final meeting called at our request is scheduled for Monday November 17, at 7:00 p.m, which gives Baytown one week to work out an agreement before the Municipal Board Hearing on November 24, 1997. We would like to invite you to a meeting at to discuss the possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement. Due t$, short time frame,we invite you to meet / on Thursday,November 13, 1997, at� �p.m. at Oak P: ei:i 'M . > �t°L Enclosed is a new draft of the written answers to questions which have been '-'16-`). posed to us during the process. These answers deal with existing City policy and I 'r;0 pW possible terms of an orderly annexation agreement. Please come with your questions and comments. Very truly yours, /11111.-t- 414-7.10,42 .2r 3 l� 02itSt-to,�.S Ther 61-x3 i ; 3v it-/ • MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NORTH MAIN STREET•SUITE#202•P.O.Box 438•STILLWATER,MN 55082 TELEPHONE:(612)439-9464•TELECOPIER:(612)439-5641 DAVID T.MAGNUSON RICHARD D.ALLEN October 24, 1997 Ms. Christine M. Scotillo OCIZ71997 Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 Re: Oak Park Heights Annexation for Petition to Annex a Portion of Baytown Township Municipal Board Docket#A-5821 Dear Christine: As I mentioned in our recent telephone conversation, the Town of Baytown is surprised that a contested hearing date has been set for the Oak Park Heights Petition on the 24th of November, 1997. We would like to ask that the Municipal Board consider continuing the hearing date for the following reasons: 1. The Town Board does not meet until the 3rd of November, 1997. That is the earliest date they could consider requesting proposals or actually retaining expert witnesses for testimony at the hearing. They must hire, at the very least, a planner and a professional engineer who can investigate matters on the Town's behalf and prepare themselves for a contested hearing. I don't see that the time between November 3rd and November 24th be enough,not only to retain the experts,but to allow them an opportunity to prepare. 2. Further, an invitation will be sent to officials from the City of Oak Park Heights to attend the Town Board's November 3rd meeting. The purpose for asking their attendance is to once again review the potential for a mediated settlement of these annexation issues since we all know it would be to everybody's benefit to seek a solution that does not involve a contested hearing. If at the November 3rd meeting the possibility of further meetings seem fruitful, the time between November 3rd and the 24th is not enough for them to exhaust their discussions especially if they must concentrate their efforts on the preparation for a contested hearing. ti ! * . • Ms. Christine M. Scotillo Page 2 October 24, 1997 3. Lastly, it does not seem wise to set a contested hearing before Judge Poritsky issues an order with regard to the priority of the Orderly Annexation Agreement. I know you are convinced that Poritsky will allow you to hear these matters in your discretion but,there remains the possibility that he will agree with Lake Elmo and Baytown and direct the Municipal Board to order the property annexed to Lake Elmo. Even the remote chance that Judge Poritsky might do this should preclude a hearing being set at a time before he issues an order. Please bring this request to the attention of the Municipal Board at the earliest possible time. Respectfully submitted, David T. Mar_ uson Baytown Town Attorney DTM/ds cc: Patricia St. Claire, Town Clerk Baytown Board of Supervisors Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Administrator Jerry Filla, Lake Elmo City Attorney Mike Robinson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Mark Vierling, Oak Park Heights City Attorney LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Fekl,erg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson James P, Lammers (612) 439-2878 David K. Snyder RobertG. Briggs** FAX (G12) 439-2923 Mark J. Vierling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gaiter* Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 (1944-1990) Thomas J. Weidner* *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator&Mediator ♦Qualif,ed Neutral Arbitrator October 14 , 1997 *Certified Heal Estate Specialist MR MICHAEL J ROBERTSON CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 57TH STREET NORTH P 0 BOX 2007 OAK PARK HEIGHTS MN 55082 RE: Municipal Board Hearings Scheduling Dear Mr. Robertson: I attended the conference that was held between the members of the Municipal Board on the 14th of October, 1997 . The Municipal Board has set November 24 , 1997 at 10 :00 o' clock a.m. as the time for the first hearing on the Oak Park/Baytown Annexation. In this regard, I request from your office the following assistance: 1 . Please make sure that the Council Chambers are ready and prepared that day to accompany the Municipal Board members and other persons that would be attending that hearing. 2 . I would appreciate it if you would contact internal staff with regard to the nature of the Stipulation which is attached to this correspondence to ask for their input to assure its correctness in terms of data. 3 . Internal staff consisting of the Building Inspector, the Chief of Police, the Director of Public Works and, of course, your office should be prepared to testify and therefore be available on that date . We will be in touch with you with regard to this matter in the upcoming weeks to prepare your staff further in this matter. Obviously, your presence will also be required. 111 MR MICHAEL J ROBERTSON Page Two October 14, 1997 I am making direct contact with professional staff to advise them of their need to be present at that hearing, particularly the Planner and the Engineer. Should you have any questions in the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours vee t • y, M.rk J. Vierling MJV/smp Enclosure cc : Mr. Scott Richards Mr. Joseph Anderlik • • i LAW OFFICES OF Eekherg. Lammers, Briggs. Wolff Vierling. p.L.L .1 1855 Northwestern Avenue Lyle •). I;elAer` Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susan I)c\Jlson James F. Lammers ((312) :$59-2878 David K. Snyder RoIert G. Briggs** FAX (612) .:L30-2923 Marl, J. Vierlcng* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gallcr• (19.11-19911) 1'110 oas �/eid nor* Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 *0 I F e I\rutrnl :\r6clral.>r Fs �lyd,at,.r 1 N .S. W •Qunlilic•d N utral :\rlritralor *(ertifted Beal Estate Spec•iel.a October 28, 1997 • MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OCT 2 9 1991 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 225 BANDANA SQUARE 1021 BANDANA BLVD E ST PAUL MN 55108 RE: City of Oak Park Heights Annexation Petition for portion of Baytown Township Municipal Board Docket No. A-5821 Dear Ms . Scotillo: I am in receipt of a copy of correspondence directed to you by Mr. David T. Magnuson dated October 24, 1997. On behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights, I would ask that you convey to the members of the Municipal Board, if requested, the City of Oak Park Heights' , position that they do not consent to a continuation of this hearing at this time. • Neither of the three (3) points referenced by Mr. Magnuson on behalf of his client appear to me to bear merit with regard to the issue of requesting a continuance . The fact that the town has not hired experts to testify for purposes of the upcoming hearings, is a matter of township delay. This matter has been pending since July and they certainly have had ample time with which to do so. Secondly, the reference to an invitation to be extended to the City of Oak Park Heights to attend a regular Town Board Meeting on November 3, 1997 does not comply with the provisions of a consensus • that was reached between the communities to exchange written proposals with regard to the positions of the relative communities on the issues of annexation prior to rescheduling of any hearings or meetings . Moreover, I understand November 3rd is their regular • 410 • MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO Page Two October 28, 1997 Township Board Meeting which is obviously not an appropriate place to conduct negotiations or discussions for a number of reasons. Third, as the Municipal Board is aware, it is not wise to delay this matter given the existing different District Court proceedings as Judge Poritsky indicated that it would be quite some time before he would come out with a determination with regard to the legal issue presented by Lake Elmo and Baytown and their efforts against the Municipal Board. Lake Elmo and Baytown could • have requested an expedited hearing on that particular matter and they did not . Consequently, the consequences of that Order when and if it comes down will, of course, be born by all parties. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp cc: Mr. Michael Robertson Mayor David D. Schaaf Mr. Jerome Filla Mr. David Magnuson 110 Page 5 - City Cou it Minutes 09/23/97 City Engineer Anderlik noted that the developer did not always contact the City Engineer ' s office when constructing the streets in East Oaks, and so he could not guarantee to the City that the streets were constructed according to City standards . Anderlik said that he would not recommend that the City take possession of the East Oaks streets . Administrator Robertson stated that he agreed with the City Engineer' s and City Planner' s recommendations . Councilmember Robert said that she felt the City should take over the streets after securing certain concessions from the homeowners ' association. Councilmember Swenson said that he felt he had enough information to make a decision and that the City should not spend any more money on consultants for this issue. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by Beaudet, moved to not take over the streets at East Oaks and direct staff to send a letter to East Oaks with the reasons why the City would not be doing so. Carried 5-0 . Annexation Update - Mayor Schaaf reported that the Met Council Community Development Committee met on Monday, September 15 and recommended to the Met Council that they testify in support of the annexation of the Screaton/Kern Center land to Oak Park Heights . City Attorney Vierling recommended that the City join in the lawsuit filed against the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB) by Lake Elmo and Baytown. Councilmember Turnquist, seconded by Robert, moved to have Oak Park Heights join in the lawsuit as a necessary and indispensable party on behalf of the MMB. Carried 5-0 . New Business: Resolution 97-09-35 - A Resolution Receiving Bids and Awarding Contr ct on Brackey West/Stillwater Ford Utility Improvements of 1997 - City Engineer Anderlik said that the bids for the project were opened on Tuesday, September 11, 1997 and the lowest bid was for $340, 907 . 98 from Richard Knutson Construction. Anderlik then recommended that the City approve the bid and award the project to Richard Knutson Construction. Councilmember Beaudet, seconded by Swenson, moved to approve Resolution 97-09-35, awarding utility improvements to Richard Knutson Construction. Carried 5- 0 . Resolution 97-09-36 - A Resolution Agreeing to Provide M_ ' -n- ce • . 1- ri • En-r• • he -w H' •hw- -n. Highway 36 Traff ' c Signals - City Engineer Anderlik said that this was a standard agreement requiring the City will pay for half of electricity use by two traffic lights and for half of the maintenance. Anderlik noted that MNDOT would perform the maintenance and bill the City. • • A-5821 Oak Park Heights OCT 2 0 BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Lea De Souza Speeter Vice Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair Myra Peterson Ex-Officio Member Dave Engstrom Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE CITY ) NOTICE OF CONTINUED OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO ) HEARING MINNESOTA STATUTES 414 ) Notice is hereby given that a continued hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above-entitled matter. The continued hearing will be held on the 24th day of November, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Oak Park Heights City Hall commencing at 10:00. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally and to submit written data, statements or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board. [The Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000.] The property proposed for annexation is described as follows: All that part of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Boulevard also known as State Highway 5, • -2- Washington County, Minnesota. After all testimony is complete and the record is closed, the Board will meet from time to time to deliberate, approve and issue its findings and order. Persons desiring to be present at such meetings or conference call meetings should contact the Board Office. For special accommodations, please contact the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Boulevard East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108, (612) 603-6757; or Greater Minnesota TDD 1-800-627-3529. Dated this 17th day of October, 1997. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 .4 ;),a7,1e-: ,b/ 0/ Patricia D. Lundy / Assistant Director • • Enclosure H An Equal Opportunity Employer f%d°r , Phone: (612)603-6757 s#%;1111111;.: ;',3Y Fax: (612)603-6762 e — Twin Cities TDD:(612)297-5353 �._ Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square OCT 1 6 1997 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul,Minnesota 55108 October 14, 1997 The Honorable Dave Schaaf The Honorable Wyn John Mayor of the City of Oak Park Heights Mayor of the City of Lake Elmo P. 0. Box 2007 3800 Laverne Avenue, North Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-2007 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Ronald Fredkove, Chair Baytown Town Board 4220 Osgood Avenue, North Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: A-5821 Oak Park Heights/Baytown Twp (Petition/City Resolution; 240 acres) OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Twp (Joint Agreement; 235 acres) Gentlemen: On October 14, 1997, the Municipal Board held a meeting via conference call and unanimously voted to continue to table consideration of the OA-497/OA-497-1 Lake Elmo/Baytown Township matter until its December 5, 1997 meeting for review again at that time. The A-5821 Oak Park Heights continued hearing has been scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on November 24, 1997. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, crjlliCIPAL QOARD Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director CMS:sjh cc: John Scott McDonald, Attorney at Law (Petitioners A-5821) Mark Vierling, Attorney at Law (City of Oak Park Heights) David Magnuson, Attorney at Law (Baytown Township) Jerry Filla, Attorney (City of Lake Elmo) Mark Thompson, Met Council Deputy General Council Dennis O'Donnell, Washington County Health, Education & Land Mgmt. Dept. Mike Robertson, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Mary Kueffner, Lake Elmo City Administrator Patricia St. Claire, Baytown Township Clerk • • STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. C9-97-8893 City of Lake Elmo, a Case Type : Other - Mandamus Minnesota municipal corporation, and the Town of Baytown, a Minnesota Township, Petitioners, vs . ANSWER IN INTERVENTION BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK The Minnesota Municipal HEIGES Board, Respondent, and City of Oak Park Heights, a statutory City and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota Applicant for Intervention, and David R. Screaton Partnership; Oakgreen Farms, Inc. ; Low & Associates, Inc . ; A.L.K. Partnership; Frederick Kemper; Calvin J. Brookman; Bernard and Loella Nass, Applicants for Intervention. TO: THE CITY OF LAKE ELMO AND ITS COUNSEL, JEROME FILLA, 300 MIDWEST FEDERAL BUILDING, 50 EAST FIFTH STREET, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101; THE TOWN OF BAYTOWN AND ITS COUNSEL, DAVID T. MAGNUSON, 333 NORTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 202, P.O. BOX 438, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082; THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ITS COUNSEL, KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR, ATTORNEY GENERAL' S OFFICE, 525 PARK, SUITE 200 , SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 . • • Comes now the City of Oak Park Heights, a statutory City and Municipal corporation and for its Answer to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus served on behalf of the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township, states and alleges as follows : I. Except as is hereinafter admitted or otherwise qualified, each and every allegation within said Petition is denied. II. That this answering Respondent admits the content of the following paragraphs 1, 2, 3 , 4, 5 and 6 . III. That this answering Respondent is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within paragraphs 7 and 9 and thereby denies same putting Petitioners to the strict proof thereof . IV. With regard to the allegations contained within paragraph 8 of the aforementioned Petition, this answering Respondent hereby denies that the Board' s sole function is to approve every resolution submitted under Minn. Stat . §414 . 0325 (1) . The law controlling this matter is not governed exclusively by Minn. Stat . 2 • • §414 . 0325 (1) , and an examination of existing law demonstrates that when the Board receives competing petitions for the same parcel of land, it has the authority to use its discretion. V. That with regard to the allegations contained within paragraph 10 of the aforementioned Petition, this answering Respondent hereby denies the truth of the allegation that no comments were received by either Lake Elmo or Baytown within the thirty (30) day period. Petitioners were fully informed and aware of the competing petition and supporting resolution for the same area which was filed with the Board prior to Petitioner' s joint resolution. Furthermore, Petitioners were informed of the Board' s decision to table the Petitioner' s orderly annexation agreement and to grant a hearing on Respondent' s petition for annexation of the same area on August 15, 1997 at the Board's meeting. This answering Respondent admits the remaining allegations of paragraph 10 . VI. The contents of paragraph 11 are hereby denied. The statutory language of §414 . 0325 (1) does not mandate the Board' s approval in this matter for the reasons stated in paragraph IV of this Answer. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Oak Park Heights requests the following relief : 3 i 1 . For an Order of the Court dismissing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as well as an Order Quashing the Alternative Writ of Mandamus . 2 . The City further requests that it be awarded its reasonable attorneys fees, court costs and disbursements incurred within these proceedings . 3 . For such other and further relief as to the Court is just and equitable in the premises . Dated: f- Z' , 1997 ECKBERG, L• v ERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VI'RLING, P.L. . By: Mark 3 . Vierling #11 Attorneys for City of Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439-2878 4 • • VERIFICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) JUDY HOLST, being first duly sworn upon oath deposes and says that she is the Deputy Clerk for the City of Oak Park Heights, one of the Respondents in the above-entitled action, and that he has read the foregoing Answer in Intervention of the City of Oak Park Heights and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true and correct, except as to those matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes them to be true. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS /7/40-ed. JUc421gZT Deputy Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4 ''}� ` day of caF;LIT), 1 , 1997 . _ ` ,n Notary Public JUUll A.HULTMAN NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA WASHINGTON COUNTY My Commission Expires 1-81.2000 5 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Pursuant to Minn. Stat . §549 . 211, the party or parties represented by the undersigned attorneys acknowledge (s) that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties for actions in bad faith; the assertion of a claim or a defense that is frivolous and that is costly to the other party; the assertion of an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass; or the commission of a fraud upon the Court . Dated: ? - , 1997 ECKBERG, L` $"ERS, BRIGGS WOLFF & V. RLING, . . P . By: Mar J. Vierling (No. 11 s Att.rneys for City of Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439-2878 6 612 439 2923 10/04/97 14:38 EC Kir LAW -* 4390574 NQ.001 D01 • . Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL BY_FACSIMILE AND MAIL October 2, 1997 Christine Scotillo, Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225,Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Annexation of Certain Land to the City of Oak Park Heights Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 MMB Docket No. A-5821 Dear Ms. Scotillo: This is to advise you that the Metropolitan Council has determined to enter the referenced proceeding as a party. This action is being taken because the Council has an interest that development of the subject land be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy which shows this area as being urbanized in the future. Regional and local public investments in the area support such future urbanization and the Council is concerned that annexation be carried out in a manner that can most readily provide urban services to the subject land. Enclosed is the Municipal Board's appearance form for this proceeding filled out for the Council. By copy of this letter, this form is also being provided to representatives of the other parties to, or persons interested in, this proceeding. I understand from discussions with you, that because of the nature of the proceedings the Council cannot become a party to the competing annexation in the Joint Resolution of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township, MMB Docket No. OA-497. However,the Council would appreciate receiving notice of hearings, meetings, or other proceedings regarding that matter. Please direct future correspondence regarding this matter to the attention of this office. Sincerely, Mark D. Thompson 1 Deputy General Counsel cc: John S. McDonald,Esq. (Attorney for Petitioners) Mark Vierling, Esq. (Attorney for Oak Park Heights) David Magnuson, Esq. (Attorney for Baytown Township) Jerry Filla, Esq. (Attorney for Lake Elmo) 230 East Fifth `hc.0 St. rant.Minnesota c o ��101•]834 ($11)lJ 1 8359 Fax 2g 1-6550 TDD/TTY..H 1-0304 Metro Info Line 220•37N0 Al Cowl(Opportunity.finU>IOUv 10/04/97 14:38 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.001 t02 • MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St.Paul,Minnesota 55106 Phone: (612)603-6757 Fax: (612)6036762 Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 Greater MN TDD: 1400-627-3529 Municipal Board Rule 6000.0100, Subp. 2 defines "parties" to include petitioners specifically named in the pleadings. The term also includes other persons who file at the hearing an appearance form provided by the board and enter an appearance at the hearing. To be considered parties, persons who fill out the appearance form must establish that they are residents or taxpayers in the incorporation, annexation, consolidation, or detachment area, or that by the outcome of the proceedings they will be bound and affected either favorably or adversely by an interest particular to these persons ass distinguished from an interest common to the public or other taxpayers in general. I am filing this appearance form to be considered a party in the above-entitled matter before the Municipal Board. I hereby establish: I am a resident; or I am a taxpayer in the incorporation,annexation,consolidation, or detachment area; or X by the outcome of this proceeding, I will be bound and affected either favorably or adversely by an interest to me which is distinguished from the interest,common to the public or other taxpayers in general described as follows: The Council has an interest that development of the subject land be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy which shows this area as being urbanized in the future. Regional and local public investments in the area sujsport such future urbanization and the Council is concerned that annexation be carried out in a manner that can most readily provide urban services to the subject land. PLACE N/A __ DATE N/A DOCKET NO. A-5821 IN TICE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TAM CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA.STAT1JTE.S 414. NAME (PRINT CLEARLY) METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ADDRESS Mears Park Centre;230 East Fifth Street _ CITY St. Paul,MN ZIP 55101 PHONE (012) 602-1000 You are not legally required to provide this data,but the Municipal Board cannot notify you of meetings without this information. The data on this form will be available to persons who inspect the file related to this proceeding. 12/96 • • LAW OFFICES OF if Eckberg, Lammers. Briggs, Wolff & Vierlin . P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle .1. Eelz6era Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 Susan D. Olson .lames F. Lammers (G12) 439-2878 David K. Snyder lRol,er1 G. Briggs** F:\\ (G 12) 439-21)')3 Marl, .1. Vierling* Paul A. Wolff Gregory G. Gallcr• Direct Dial (612) 351-2118 (19.1.1-1996) Thomas Weidner* *Qual;1iod Neutral Arbitrator a ,ted.ator •Qualir.ed Neutral Arbitrator September 25, 1997 *Certifier!treat Estate Specialist MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARDr 225 BANDANA SQUARE �� 1021 BANDANA BLVD E ST PAUL MN 55108 RE: City of Lake Elmo and Town of Baytown Township v. The Municipal Board City of Oak Park Heights as Intervenors Dear Ms . Scotillo: Despite requests by me to both communities to participate in mediation sessions as directed by the Municipal Board, it does not appear to me that either Baytown or Lake Elmo are willing to do so. . I enclose a copy of an article appearing within the Stillwater Evening Gazette dated September 23, 1997, where the Mayor of Lake Elmo is quoted as indicating "this is an issue for the Court and until the Municipal Board makes a ruling, neither Lake Elmo nor Baytown has reason to meet with Oak Park Heights . " A copy of the article is provided for your file in this matter. Consequently, despite our repeated requests to both communities to participate, it is my impression that they will not do so. Given the action that has been filed in the District Court, which the City of Oak Park Heights is now moving to intervene in, the issue of scheduling Municipal Board hearings will, of course, have to be addressed in the very near future . I would suggest perhaps a conference call on that issue in the near future on or after the 13th of October, the date that coincides with projected conclusion of the mediation sessions that I \ • MS CHRISTINE SCOTILLO Page Two September 25, 1997 were not cooperated in (despite the Order by the Municipal Board) as well as the return on the Alternate Writ scheduled to occur that morning in District Court . Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/smp cc: Mr. Michael Robertson Mayor David D. Schaaf Mr. Jerome Filla Mr. David Magnuson Mr. Kenneth Raschke Mr. J. Scott McDonald 'G C C ini27 111 I.L' a 3 IP cl. Ki '. = ''. ft . °' .1 C:2"4 (11) = ink. ..-..;;;:mi?0 .1. • ies 17 ZKE , a 0 0 co , f, ''z r :r ti+iE i Y y ,z „x' ,�t aw'fq- ; 'f 03 RE- Yy. ? < i k' 3 0 < 0 -,,,,,.--:- ---7,,,' .... .-4:4,::- . -1,r...- • ,-:_,-,,,,:-. ,-7",‘'-:',''''-,'..,..---.4.t. . -',',' ...,#,C �D tD al'�` ,' •)„,i,„:!--;:z.-,2, s \ . F V • r • _,:.::.: ■ ll 9 it"�M zS t• • "sl 1 �, v.1, ., \Y '-.---1:.::- ydy� • (+' • ... ,�`j9K $" :+ �""� • rte..■ •. u V. _ .... � ry ; t,.:."":::".::.$ • .gip i. = •Ca - - ft) - .- . .-.1 ern" a) _ 3 f j-,..:,-., r4 i p : (—cam • .. ,Q C .; as �[a:r £ " ,�.,�, ',.t fir•.. .. �-�` ` O LT -::'1';',,,:t.,..;-...,, fig' { a� ��.� c. �� � - r� ' ¢ \V . ,, rg ' .:*:::,40-'.i - '- _ _ ➢� y5 s<i.. '' i - ? $16..... .140.-.,--, 0 .. ,,..:A.44, .,...! may` .a."` {' 6 .:,,,...,.,.:.,., $¢F� .r x ; - . ,..;-:„••••;-_-, 'l ; •""A: �$'ttet'fi v' -• SSrrr �/� 7f..�.;s' �_ ... • rk.t;* *- �# `g> e� ' - - cp 1.isn' >� ems` >� ,wry e s� .p " sem- a�`; y•� fg03 - .r.� • " • erg r f . {•, ••:i:i ..-: . \ • C 0 • r .co, *ri F S r.46 • xrti � : :. -- � .,,P G.O tv.eq . iljg tom ; c� ,�;, fru• C o s �-�, : .3 - - :h....'>� ; 2 O r C - "� ..� _. n z 'A v ea � � �� ��� o � � •� a: : ""' _oaf mo .O �rU�. � • )10 HLC7: "! iii/+ ..• o (II , y • ..r. .:.:;.:..r........:.:..: • 114 } 4, Aik 'v.Yfl:• .vi?{?•:{.{ w- v.v. : J4 :.•:STAAh . '::>J'}:}:•vti:{:i\• 4444 ::i:: :'- ii'Kl}:' {Si4{ JL • •v}.::{f•ii::'. :{s vr . H. .:• vyF O ,{ n:} % - ti : xM� O ::� Jam::::,{{r;.{Yv.}vw. wi }nn � \ ? 4` p:Kis -rvv.r :� ,.2 : N. :.. : : . .. J. :...};7� Yl % ,..::.:::4x :wvv} . ...n . •...v•.•v..:.:.:. t. G {.$t{ / > yw ,M Y' : {::Pv::� : . :A . vmnGxn:::..? nn.}5nvr...:xh^ v. vD ` n i.} wnFn�A#.nvnx}.x } . . k...!nv>.. . ,.y to Q1.-- . Lake Eshould � �� � � �� � � Yr 4b F ' Y „2,,,,;..:,r,...-,..„-",....- Annex ",et r� hts to Baytowncourt says „ ,,,,_•,,•.,,,.,:.:,,,•,.:,,...„....„„,,,, ..„....:.„:,:..,.,,-..,•:,,,,,,.„.„...„,.,,,,...;:...,. „...,....„,.:, :7,,,..4,,,,,,:e.",?,t;„.1:.,-.;,.-:1•17, .. .. , . ' Municipal Board must ex • plain delay to 2 judge; community meetings still not set • ♦ ' • By BILL COLEMAN the order is ministerial,not discretion- b Staff Writer ary in nature,',the court order reads. t ST. PAUL—A wrinkle in Lake The Municipal Board holds ' .. to ; � . p ods the . .t 3., Elmo and Baytown Township's plans power to alter municipal boundaries, i • . to merge may explain why the two and recently directed each city to host a ' municipalities have yet to meet with a meeting on the controversial issue. -- $,” Oat i. <; Oak Park Heights' city leaders con- However, Lake Elmo and Baytown " �y " r its corning the future of 235 acres in the have yet to agree to a meeting because * . : . # northwestern corner of the township. they were holding a wild-card of sort. �� f The wrinkle is a court order by a According to recent statements by ;" a ;� „ ;"�F Ramsey County judge demanding the Lake Elmo s mayor,Wyn John, this , ` _ .f 1 :l state's Municipal Board issue annex- is anissue for the court and until the . '� ', , anon rights to Lake Elmo. Municipal Board makes aruling nei- '�' a �„ s 2, " Ramsey County court records, then Lake Elmo nor Baytown has rea- , ;, ' dated Sept. 11,cite a Minnesota stat- son to meet with Oak Park Heights. i �" "' ute that requires the Municipal Board However,the Municipal Board and ��fil, `:r r` issue an order of annexation within its lawyers will have the o muni '# ,.►- r � " ': w'Y ppo tunny 1 �'. y�. 30 days of the joint request sent by at a Monday,Oct 13,meeting Ovcon- �, _ , .I( Lake Elmo and Baytown on Aug.6. vince the court why it should not be „:•r ' ' That date is now past due. �, 'f �` r - .fi . ` . ," r�i. "The board's obligation to issue (See Annexation,page 10) i x • . r_ /r • - ---.-- - ' f Search for St. �o�x Zebra .0 ' � mussels set for Octobe , _. .. ,...:':.-4 V. ,,,,„..r By BEVERLY SKOGLUND the 15 miles included in the St Croix . '" p & :: ; Gazette Correspondent River drawdown from Taylors Falls .,... . A major water drawdown for the Dam to Nevers Dam. t r.„:„ :„...„:„., St. Croix River will begin Sept 29. '"The early detection of zebra mus- :Ii" :''',::::-,:',1f1".-444.`x S farting that day,the river will below- cels is a must to protect the St.Croix," r t ered six inches a day to facilitate a said Jennings. �� major search for zebra mussels north Besides the zebra mussels found of the Taylors Falls Dam to Nevem on the sampler north of the Taylors �3 � Dam Falls dam in July of this year, one ` Sue Jennings, St. Croix National zebra mussel was found on a sampler �� � t � Scenic Riverway Resource Manage- two years ago in Stillwater. Two ze- x menu Specialist, said that 40 zebra bra.mussels were discovered when a:- - � -'`" '• - , ,,,, a mussels were discovered north of the natve clams and mussels were moved Taylors Falls Dam overon a sampler, Sci- for the possible new bridge in the weeding flowers enlists from all the country as Stillwater Area well as Stillwater Area School stu- Samplers are layers of dark dents will participate in an intensive plexiglass, approximately 10 inches Joetle Nielsen of Balsam Lake weeds rudbeccia alo search for zebra mussels on October square,stacked about one inch apart Parking Lot across South Fourth Street from the • 1. Page 10 i S titttnater orbening sgaette Ulven Fha Annexation Baytown petition, and the board . - (Continued from page 1) usually makes its decisions in the (Continued from page 1) , a required to abide by the statute. order that they're received." (Leslie) on the other side of it tookt though there may be A petition was originally filed By state-statute, the Municipal away a lot of my fears.Ten days af-v tion.Riley's bilirubin i. by a portion of Baytown Township Board may also show cause by fil- ter her surgery,I went in." t from a high of 24 to tl residents,in the 235 acres in ques- inga memorandum explaining Riley, roven to be a v "a great sign.of bile floe whohas P 8 itsery�. tion,requesting annexation bythe position. easy-going youngster, requires s what Riley wasn't able q g g Pe•�..,. city of Oak Park Heights.The peti- The Oak Park Heights annex- cial formulas and will need to take'; "The nurses seem t tioners,'want city sewer and water ation petition recently received sup- anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his' ... Y is heading down service so the area is more welcome port from the Metropolitan Coun- life.Two previous surgeries were per-'; Ms dad said, noting tt to development. The Baytown til CommunityDevelopment Com- formed in attempting to mitigate thee. hemorrhage or clotting Township Board of Directors, in mince.The committee found Oak disorder. . Ulven refers to as"a g g. opposition to the annexation,con- Park Heights'annexation plans for StillwaterMayorJay Kimble pro-u Considering that he tatted Lake Elmo to see what they urban development in line with its claimed Thursday,May 29, 1997,to k smaller children to ha might do,together:, regional growth strategy and con- be Riley Croix Ulven Day in the ity tion,Ulven said,his yo According to Pat Lundy, the siders the Municipal Board's deci- of Stillwater and urged all its citizens.. .in very well,indeed. Municipal Board's Assistant Ex- sign on the matter of regional in- .;to support Riley. A benefit account. "Thi is no siwhich gn o • ecutive Director, the Municipal terest. Lake Elmo's more conser- was set up atFirstar Bank,and Craig rx oiHe started eatin Board has been in this situation , vative development plans are saidThtusdayafternoonthatthefam- before and will most likely make deemed intended to prevent urban- ily has no money worries,thanks to.k:He's at the top of his c1:• the Oct. 13 meeting. ization and therefore against its the generosity of the community and, ` Jaundiced prior to t "This is somethin• g that happens growth strategy. the help the extended families. i Riley s col returned • from time to time," said Lundy. Since 1983,the Community De- The Ulvens are still at the hospi- diately afterward, Ulti "It's now happened once again,but velopment Committee has pro- tat recovering.Rileyis hookedhas to an : have a pink baby!" as far as I know, the (Municipal) vided the Municipal Board with N machine on wheels,and blood . a foe-year Board has never been forced to reviews and recommendations on work taken every day around 5 a m '. tarring the u,edicatipe ons make its decision.In this case,the various issues.The recommenda- By 8 a.m. the doctors make the' have a normal life, ac. Oak Park Heights petition was re- dons are only for consideration and rounds and check the numbers. it father.Right now he's ceived prior to the Lake Elmo- hold no authority. • • According to Craig Ulven, there medications a day and r is no sign of rejection,though it looks tion drugs.It's a questi Mussels Students tO aid in search. of St. Crc (Continued from page 1) . . .,.. They are checked every two weeks. biological impact by changing the greater threat is the loss of protection ::"to jet skis to large boats Although the St.Croix has not had ecological function of the present eco- for the wild and scenic St. Croix r Jennings. . a drastic impact with zebra mussels logical system. Riven If the zebra mussels make sig:f„._`- . "The pristine quality • to date,concern has been expressed ,"Right now the St. Croix has 38 nificant infestation in the St. Croix:1 St. Croix would be los. . if they should invade.Jennings said: . species of native freshwater mussels. the two bordering states,Minnesota said. "They have no predator in the St. Many are a rapidly declining group and Wisconsin, and/or the federal ' For further informatf Croix and they are tough and survive in the country. The St.Croix contains government could decline to partici- . the St. Croix River Dr out of the water. Humid air can keep one endangered species and 17 of the pate in continuing protection of the. Zebra Mussel search on C • them alive on boats, trailers, weeds 40 clams and mussels are at risk in river. Once protection is withdrawn, 15,please call Susan Je- and can be transported from area to the St.Croix." the river could be open to any and all 483-3284, extension 6- area. Zebra mussels have a major For lovers of the St. Croix, the river traffic...traffic including barges Jennings at sue,jenning .- CruiseOrie Travel service providedfrom he (Continued from page 8) . growth period. fejent,destinations. ,ing.I think that's what's expected of .people's questions ans "It's also appealing tome to be on . She asked that readers keep an eye me." honest level. the downside of a bell curve, so to on the paper,because very soon she'll She noted that it's estimated that ,. Don Brandt,we shoal; speak,"she remarked. be announcing a"very special interest only 7 percent of those with discretion- Brandt,is an emergent.. In this new endeavor, she said, cruise that will revolve around golf." •ary dollars have cruised."That means 'the cities. The Brand, she's able to put the people and orga- While no one can know everything 93 percent are missing a great vaca- 'daughter,Mollie,with tt nizational skills she developed in nurs- about the whole world, the Brandts : tion value,"she said. She's a junior at Stillwat. ing and the teaching skills from con- have traveled Europe,Alaska,Tahiti, "I realize this is a residential area, 'School. They also bav ducting seminars to use in something Hawaii,Costa Rica,and the Caribbean. and I won't infringe on that,"she said, -children,all in their 20s. she truly enjoys.And it's proving lu- And she has personally sailed on or "but I certainly do believe in the value They moved to Stilly, crative,too. inspected 22 different cruise ships. of service,whether it be brochure de- ago and "just love it," i• "I sold six cruises in one month, "I want to be really knowledge- livery or hosting a home-based cruise Don Brandtis onthe hn., 'SEP-17 97 10:58 FROM: TO:612 439 0574 PAGE:02 • Enclosure 13A Metropolitan Council Meeting of September 25, 1997 Business Item: C-3 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth Street, St.Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 602-1359 TTY 612 602-1904 REP ►QST QETHE COMNIUN1TY DF VEL,OPMENT COMMIiTTEE DATE: September 16, 1997 TO: Metropolitan Council SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation of 235 Acres of Baytown Twp. by Oak Park Heights or Lake Elmo Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 16589-1 & 16592-1 Metropolitan Council District 12 MMB Reference No. A-5821 Oak Park Heights; OA-497 Lake Elmo/Baytown Joint Agreement; OA-497-1 Lake Elmo SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: • ' '`; • Committee heard a presentation from staff and testimony from land owners,:and•representatives of Baytown Township and the cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo. FollowingCommittee discussion, staff was directed to revise the recommendation to reflect the sense of the Committee. . discussion that recent regional and local public investments in the area support future 1.rbanization;and the conclusion that Oak Park Heights appears to be the city that can most readily provide urban services to the 235-acre annexation area. The following recommendation is arevision of the original language contained in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Council authorize staff to take the necessary steps to enter as a party into the Minnesota Municipal Board's proceedings on the conflicting annexation proposals by,the cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo pertaining to 235 acres of land located in the northwest corner of Baytown Township;to provide testimony on the Council's Regional Growth Strategy which shows this area as being urbanized in the future and on recent regional and local public investments made in the area in support of its future urbanization and to provide testimony in opposition to proposals that support long-term permanent rural use of the area; and That the Council notify all parties identified in the Board's Certificate of Mailing of the Council's intent to enter the proceedings as a party. Submitted by; Martha M. Head Charles Ballentine Chair Acting Director 'SEP 17 97 10:58 FROM: T 18 439 0574 PAGE:03 Meeting of the Community Development Committee of September 15, 1997 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 FAX(612)291-6464 TDD(612)291-0904 DATE: September 9, 1997 TO: Chair and Members of the Community Development Committee FROM: James Uttley,Principal Reviewer, Office of Local Assistance 602-1361 SUBJECT: Proposed Annexation of 235 Acres of Baytown Township by Oak Park Heights Metropolitan Council District 12 Referral File No, 16589-1 MMB Reference No.A-5821 Oak Park Heights BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Municipal Board has before it two proceedings,taving to do with'annexation of 235 acres in Baytown. First, one-third of the property owners of an area of 235 acres of land•located,in the northwestern corner of Baytown Township, in Washington County,have petitioned the Minnesota Municipal Board(MMB) for annexation to the city of Oak Park Heights. The city'of Oak Park Heights has agreed to the annexation. Baytown Township has entered the proceedings as a party to contest the.annexation.•The' • city of Lake Elmo has also entered the proceedings as a party to contest'the annexation., The,MMB set September 17th as the date for the hearing on the annexation petition. Under MMB,rules, there is a 60 day period after filing when the MMB orders the parties to meet,confer and try to reach an agreement on the matter so that a contested case hearing can be avoided if possible. The meet and confer period ends on October 13, 1997. The annexation hearing, originally set for September 17, 1997, is expected to he continued to allow the discussion to proceed. There are three parties meeting at the present time on this matter: the cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo,and Baytown Township. Second, in a separate proceeding,the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township have filed an orderly annexation agreement with the MMB for the same area. It calls for the 235 acres to be annexed at a future, unspecified date to the city of Lake Elmo; and,advises the MMB that Lake Elmo and Baytown are exploring the possibility of future consolidation. The orderly annexation proceeding was tabled by the Board for 60 days until October 14, 1997, on which date the MMB will again consider the orderly annexation. COUNCIL'S AGREEMENT WITH THE MMB: The Metropolitan Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)with the MMB in 1983 in which the Council agreed to provide for the MMB hearing record certain types of information, including Council reviews and recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments affecting the issue before the Board. The MOU also provides that the Council may choose to enter as a party into the BSEP-17 97 10:58 FROM: • T012 439 0574 PAGE:04 proceeding in those instances where no proposed comprehensive plan amendment has been submitted to the Council or the Council review has not been completed prior to the Board hearing and the proceeding involves a potential impact on metropolitan systems or a major plan inconsistency. The Council has not received any plan amendment from the city of Oak Park Heights or Baytown Township regarding the proposed annexation. On June 19, 1997, the Committee of the Whole discussed the Council's working relationship with the MMB and reaffirmed its interest in participating in the MMB process and in entering as a party in cases where the Council has a strong regional interest that needs to be considered by the MMB in making its decision. The Committee defined a"regional interest"as actions affecting the Council's ability to carry out its regional growth strategy, actions having a potential impact on a regional system and actions affecting the delivery of cost-effective services, regional and local. At its meeting on June 29, 1997,the Council affirmed the Committee position. ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: The proposed annexation of the area by Oak Park Heights and its eventual urbanization is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and the Council's regional system plans. No adverse impacts on regional systems are anticipated from such an annexation or future urbanization. The principal issue is not the proposed annexation by Oak Park Heights, but the potential negative impact of the alternatives. Lake Elmo and Baytown Township propose that the area be annexed in the future to Lake Elmo,and have begun discussions towards eventual consolidation. Regional Growth Strategy The Council's regional growth strategy map shows this area Of Baytown Township as'"urban reserve" ' • for the urban center made,up of the cities of Stillwater,Oak.Park,Heightsand Bayport.'All of these cities ' are constrained by the presence of the St. Croix River and the state boundary from expanding eastward. If further urbanization is to occur in support of the Council's Regional Growth Strategy that growth will have to extend to the north, south and west. The area proposed for annexation is in the northwest corner of Baytown Township. It is bounded on the north by Tl-I 36,on the east by TH 5,on the west by the city of Lake Elmo and a town toad, and on the south by 50th Street North. Baytown Township's comprehensive plan shows about one-third of the area as commercial(along TH 5)and the remainder as rural residential(5 acre lots). There is considerable commercial development in the area. It includes an automobile dealership,a parts dealer,several office buildings,a clinic,and a miniature-golf course. The remainder of the area is used for active farming and farm residences. The adjacent area of Lake Elmo is shown in the Regional Growth Strategy as permanent rural,and is planned as rural residential by the city. Expansion of the city of Lake Elmo into the proposed annexation area appears intended to prevent urbanization. as the city will be unable to provide the area with urban services. The adjacent area of Baytown Township immediately south of the subject property is shown as permanent rural in the Regional Growth Strategy and is planned and partially developed as single family estates on 2 1/2 acres lots and as rural residential on 5 acres lots. The remainder of the township (approximately the eastern two-thirds)which is adjacent to the cities of Oak Park Heights and Bayport is shown as urban reserve in the Regional Growth Strategy,but planned by the Township as a mixture of 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots. 4SEP-17 97 10:59 FROM: • 162 439 0574 PAGE:05 The Council's principal concern is not the annexation and future urbanization of the area by Oak Park Heights, but the possibility that the area might be prevented from being urbanized by actions of the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township. Regional Systems The proposed annexation area is not considered likely to impact the regional aviation system or the regional recreation openspacesystem. There are no airports, regional parks, park reserves or trails in the y immediate vicinity, although the Lake Elmo airport is actually located in Baytown Township approximately three miles south of the subject property, and Lake Elmo Regional Park is located approximately three miles to the southwest. The Council's Transportation Policy Plan(TPP) identifies TH 36 as a principal arterial and TH 5 as an A-minor arterial in the regional highway system. A new grade-separated interchange is under construction at the intersection of TH 36 and TH 5, The proposed annexation area has superior access to the regional highway system and there appears to be adequate capacity to service the annexation area if it is urbanized. Urban development of the site is not expected to adversely impact the regional highway system,although direct property access to either highway will be constrained by MnDOT. The city of Oak Park Heights has a municipal sewer system which flows to the Council's wastewater treatment plant(WWTP) in Oak Park Heights. This WWTP was recently upgraded and has capacity to service the proposed annexation area. Urban developmentof the site is not expected to adversely impact the Metropolitan Disposal System. CONCLUSIONS: •• The proposed annexation of 235 acres of Baytown Township by Oak Park,Heights will allow future urbanizationof the area consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy: • There are no adverse regional system impacts foreseen frdm%such an annexation and there appears to be adequate regional system capacity to support urban services to the area of proposed annexation. • The proposed alternative future annexation of the same area via an orderly annexation agreement between the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township appears intended to prevent urbanization of the subject area which is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy- RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Council authorize staff to take the necessary step to enter as a party into the Minnesota Municipal Board's proceeding on the annexation of 235 acres of Baytown Township by the city of Oak Park Heights, providing testimony in support of that annexation and regarding the adverse effect of the via Orderly Annexation Agreement between the city of Lake proposed annexation of the subject property Elmo and Baytown Township; and That the Council notify all parties identified in the Board's Certificate of Mailing of the Council's intent to enter the proceeding as a party. v:\tibr \commundv\referral\rcporetilmmbl7.doc 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.004 P03 • • LAW OFFICES or � c-kbe r . La,nmcrs , 8gs. W014E & V,crl,n . P.L.L.1'. IH35 Nrrulilwvhlcr'rr Avl:nur: I'.clrkerq Shilwa(c(-. Mlnne wI 55082 }on I) 01A. •Iamcs ( (,ownIcr. (U(2) 4341-2878 Dark{ K. Snyder Itrrbc)r� G. lir.ggxr1:.. 1-AX ((112) 439-29`2.31 , A Mai a .1 Vle,Itage . wnirr Greg„,— C, (.,Tier♦ 1 (It 11-19(1(3) LOM.,sl I Wc.rl„c:+ Direct Dial (612) 351-21`18 1(1 u.,l.l..'ll Neolral ArLrirelnr2! McU,aior .(hal:r„J Nk-ol.-..1 A,_6.1..r,.,. October 2, 1997 �c .,..,cJ kcal I_rra tc Sr ru:,1:»1 THE HONORABLE DAVID SCHAAF MR MARK SWENSON MAYOR OF CITY OF OAK PARK HTS 14846 UPPER 55TH ST 6201 ST CROIX TRAIL N #121 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR JERRY TURNQUIST MS JANET ROBERT 14298 56TH STREET NORTH 6216 N LOOKOUT TRAIL OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 MR DAVID BEAUDET 6400 LOOKOUT TRAIL NORTH OAK PARK HTS MN 55082 RE : Screaton Annexation Matter Dear Mayor and Council . I am in receipt of a copy of a letter forwarded to Mayor Schaaf on behalf of the Oak Park City Council dated October 1 , 1997 signed by Mr. Ronald Fredkove on behalf of Baytown and Mayor Wyn John on behalf of the City of Lake Elmo. I know the City is interested in having meetings with Baytown and Lake Elmo that to date have not been permitted by those communities . Unfortunately, the invitation that has been extended to you indicates that both of those communities propose that the meeting "will be an executive session” for City Council members and legal counsel . The issues presented are squarely in place with regard to the State Open Meeting Law. I enclose for you a copy of a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court and State by Archabal v. County of Hennepin, 505 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 1993) which only allows a public body to enter into a closed settlement conference if it is, in fact, provided for by a District Court Order which meets the specific guidelines of that case . Consequently, it is my opinion that despite the invitation, the City of Oak Park Heights, through its City Council, should not attend the meeting if the Cities of Lake Elmo and Baytown which proposes to exclude the public and/or 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.004 PO4 MAYOR AND COUNCIL Page Two October 2, 1997 the press from that meeting, since to do so would result in an Open Meeting Law violation for each and every public official that so attends . I would suggest that an invitation be rendered to Baytown and Lake Elmo to meet , however, in an open and public session. The communities can meet through their representatives and have discussions and exclude public debate, questions or comments and still comply with the Open Meeting Law. If the communities are uncomfortable doing this, it may be more appropriate to raise the topic with the District Court at the hearings that are scheduled to be heard in the Ramsey County proceedi s = •} the 13th of this month. You ': ve truly, riA ark J. Vier" MJV/smp cc : David Magnuson Jerome Filla 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.004 1205 w t rt 294 Minn. 505 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES • settlement conferees nces white chwwil not be sub- STATE of Minnesota by Nina ARCHA- feet to a�ication of_ape.Lmeeting law: HAL, Director of Minnesota Historical .S.A. $4 471.706, 471-705, Subtle. 1, 2. ' Society and State Historic Preservation i ' Office, Respondent, 2. Pretrial Procedure ¢=741. 742.1 < i v Ordering of settlement conferences is i intrinsic part of court's authority and histori- The COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, De• cal and constitutional function of deciding fendant and Third•Party Plain• eases,although court should order settlement tiff, Petitioner, Appellant, conferences only when it is practical necessi- I v. ty in performing judicial function of deciding COWLES MEDIA CORPORATION, cases,and court must narrowly and carefully 1 et at., Intervenors, Respondents. limit scope of those conferences. I STAR TRIBUNE, A DIVISION OF 3. Administrative Law and Procedure 1 COWLES MEDIA CORPORATION, 4e .12-1Respondent, Constitutional Law Ve52 1, V. If court in exercise of its inherent judi- CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, Third-Party dal power, orders litigating public body into Defendant, Petitioner, Appellant. closed settlement conference as practical ne- No. C8'93-932. cessity in deciding case and if court carefully and narrvwi 'mits scopeof conference to i• Supreme Court of Minnesota. issues involved in litgtion, application o , • Aug. 20, 1993. o rift m etin law would violate se oration of powers under State Constitution. Laws • ;; -on, c. 592, § 4; 50 M.S-.A;Rules of Evid., n Third party to action between city and Rule 408 comment; M.S.A. Const. Art. 3. i , county involving proposed development of $ 1. historical site sought order vacating court i • AdministrativeLaw and Procedure 4. Adminietr tr 1 instruction that city and county engaged in x12-1 4. closed settlement conference. The District �; 4 Court, Hennepin County, denied motion to Pretrial Procedure $741 I vacate order. Appeal was taken. The Court Proposed meeting between county and of Appeals vacated order, and appeal was city to determine if settlement could be y: . , SIV ' taken. The Supreme Court, Wahl, J., held reached with regard to development of his that: (1)court had inherent judicial power to site was not "settlement conference" p+ torical �, order public bodies in litigation to old closed and thus requirements of open meeting law li ���,, ,settlement conference an con erence or- would apply; not all parties to litigation were 1 U‘)'Y' dered under that ower would not a subject included in conference so that proposed to open meeting law, and (2) meeting e- meeting could not have resulted in resolution 1i tween city and county at which no resolution or settlement. M.S.A. $ 471.705. could be had was not"settlement conference" so that requirements of open meeting law did Syllables by the Court .i apply. Affirmed. A court has jrilieit udicial power to order pu is bodies in litigation into close 4 t onf r nce9 reC u n e 3 settlemen c e e g Pp 1. Administrative Law and Procedure p cation of t e Pen eeturg aw u :� I pe12=1 the facts and circumstances of this case a ;c Pretrial Procedure F�742.1 orders meeting was nota settlement confer- ,. I Dort has inherent judicial o r to or• encs an ere urremen o e en Meet- de_r_Rublic be es in igatioa into closed ing Law apply. 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW -4 4390574 N0.004 006 I , S STATE BY ARCHABAL v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Minn. 295 Cite os os N.W.2d 294 (Mien. 1997) 'hick will not be sub- Michael 0. Freeman. Hennepin County Historic Preservation Officer, instituted an open meeting law. Atty.. Mark V. Chapin. Asst. County Atty., action pursuant to the Minnesota Environ- '05, subds. 1, 2. ~Minneapolis. for Hennepin County. mental Rights Act (MERA) to temporarily x741, 742.1 Robert J. Alfton, Minneapolis City Atty., and permanently enjoin the County from de- James A. Moore, Asst. City Atty., Minne- stroying or altering the Armory building. lent conferences is apolis, for Minneapolis. The district court entered a temporary re- uthority and histori- straining order enjoining the County from unction of deciding Patricia H. Longstaff, Minneapolis, for destroying the Armory. uld order settlement Star Tribune. is practical necessi- Carla Heyl, Shoreview, for umicus curiae, On March 29, 1991, the district court or function of deciding League of Minnesota Cities. dered the County to implead the City of rrowly and carefully Minneapolis as an indispensable party be- ferences. Heard, considered and decided by the cause of zoning and planning conflicts with court en bane, the County's proposed use of the Armory • and Proceduresite. The court also appointed a special mas- S ' WrLHL, •Justice. ter and counsel for the special master to 52 The Hennepin County District Court b assist the court, the parties, and "John Q. 6 orderiof its inherent Judi- orad May 11. 1992, and May 15, Public in determining as expeditiously as ng public body into 1992, authorized a closed settlement ender- possible whether the Minneapolis Armory ence between appellants, County of Henna- site can be used fora public safety facility." nee as practical rte pin /Count}) and City of Minneapnlis (City), The court later grunted the motion for inter- ' rid if court rent allycare vention of Cowles Media >e of conference to in the underlying Company and Lu- ng core of State bp Airhabal v. Cortort' euN. of Hvehin, 495 W.•2d 416 theran Brotherhood, owners of real estate tion, application of adjacent to the Armor site, who were eon- n orate separation of (Minn.1993) (the Armory lawsuit), then on y' onstitution. Laws court. Star Tribune,a division cerned that possible rezoning and construe- appeal to this of Cowles Media Company, challenged these tion of a jail on the Armory site would affect ..A, Rules of Evid., the development of their property. S.A_ Const. Art_ $, orders by petitioning for a writ of prohibi- pp party. A num- tion. The court of appeals granted the peti- tion bar of settlement efforts by the special mas- tion for the writ and vacated the May 11, ter were unavailing, including a court or- and Procedure 1992. and May 15. 1992, orders. The issue dered settlement conference the first day of before this court, on appeal by the County trial. and City,' is whether the court-ordered ?711The Armory lawsuit was tried in Novem- closed settlement conference between public bar 1991, with judgment entered for the stween county and bodies which are opposing parties in a law- County on January 21. 199.3_ This court ttlement could be suit is excepted from the requirements of the granted accelerated review of the appeal on levelopment of his- Open Meeting Law, Minn.Stat. i 471.705 April 13, 1902. Minn.R.Civ.A P. 118. Cement conference" (1992). pp' open meeting law erre r, me r errs o e city council an This litigation had its genesis in the com- the City's mayor, meeting with members of is to litigation were pelling need of Hennepin County for a new the county board and representatives of the so that proposed public safety facility and the plans of the district court in the Criminal Justice Coordi- suited in resolution County to demolish the National Guard Ar- nating Committee, concluded that a meeting 471.705. mon- building and construct the new jail on of the council and the board facilitated by that site. In July 1989, the Military Depart- Chief Judge Roberta Levy might lead to a e Corvert merit of Veterans Affairs. which sold the settlement of the case. Chief Judge Levy judicial power to Armory to the County, and the County asked members of'the city council and their /gallon into closed brought a declaratory judgment action attorneys and members of the county board ecluding the appli- against the City of Minneapolis to determine and their attorneys to attend a meeting in ig Law, but, under the Validity of the City's heritage preserve- her office at 2:00 p.m. on May 13, 1992, to sof this case, the tion designation for the Armory. In Septem- determine if there were any settlement ap- settlement confer- tier 1990, Nina Ar'chabal, director of' the tions that had not been discussed at the of the Open Meet- Minnesota Historical Society and the State official .re-trial settlement conference. r• The State of Minnesota and Cowles Media, et al.. are not participating in this appeal. `a 'ii_ ' 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.004 D07 .1 -z 296 Minn. 505 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, Zd SERIES In an ex parte proceeding, attorneys for such meetings are "permitted by the actor- ; the County and City asked Judge Steven ney-client privilege." As to jurisdiction. the Lange.who had tried the Armory lawsuit,to trial court stated that it had specifically re- except the meeting from the requirements of tamed limited jurisdiction of the case to su- the Open Meeting Law,Minn.Stat. $ 471.706 pervise the demolition of the Armory and (1992), if the statute applied. Counsel for concluded that it has inherent limited author- the County informed the court that Judge ity to supervise ongoing settlement discus- Levy would be aetint as a "private person, sions, notwithstanding the appeal of a case, at the meetin:. The tria court, w i e no when such discussions are in the "public in- convinced that the proposed settlement con- terest." The purpose of the ordered meeting Terence was subject to the provisions of the was, in the trial court's words, "to see if • Open Meeting Law, found that closure of the there's a way out of this very, very compli- proposed conference to the public and the rated issue of where to venue—where to site remaining parties z would provide an environ- this public safety facility." The court denied /�yt`� merit conducive to settlement discussion be the motion to vacate the May 11. 1992,order, tt Lf be- tween the City and County which would be in but stayed that order to give the Star Trib- i �- tl, 1 the public interest The court, by order une an opportunity to seek review. 1 N, dated May 11. 1992, specifically excepted the Ok proposed settlement conference and any sub, The court of appeals concluded that the sequent conferences of which the court had Open Meeting Law applied to the proposed I notice from the requirements of the Open meeting since all members of the county Meeting Law "because the meetings involve board were expected to attend to discuss ' sensitive settlement i$cUsaiO 0 on-going official business. The court of appeals con- t iftigation between public bodies an may lm- sidered Minireupotir Star A Tribune Co. a i plicate the attorney-client privilege." The Housing & Redevelopment Algth., 310 Minn. t order req'uu•ed that air excepted conferences 313 251 N.W.-'d 620 (1976) on which the be conducted under the auspices of the ape• County and City re ec. ut determined that ! tial master. the proposed settlement conference could not The Star Tribune immediately moved for be excepted under the attorney-client privi- an order vacating the May 11 order. At a I ege because its purpose was not to obtain a hearing on the morning of May 13. 1992,held 'egal advice from counsel and because there in response to the emergency request, coun- would be no need for absolute confidentiality '' sel for the Star Tribune questioned the juris- from opposing parties since both parties 'ir . ' diction of the court to issue such an order \vould attend the conference. The court of while the case was on appeal to the state appeals then granted the Star Tribune's peti- r ' supreme court and, beyond that, inv d the h•n for a writ of prohibition ager finding rz .pen Meeting Law because a quorum of the t t the trial court had identified no other i coun a wow pre en a e c used bis for an exception to the Open Meeting e e. - - ounse or t e L.w and that the City had failed to establis ' aown tin orae the trial court that t at a settlement conference held after Q.; • more than a quorum of the county board and 'ecision on the merits outside the present i. less than a quorum of the city council of the trial judge could preserve and improv ' planned to attend the meeting with Judge the fundamental 'udietal function of deciding Levy that afternoon. The trial court con- cases. Clerk of Coati's Cornpeusettuu for eluded that a meeting of a quorum of the yon County v. Lyon County Comm'rs, 30S _ ' county board is a "meeting" as defined by Minn. 172, 180, 241 N.W.2d 781, 786 (1976). e Minn.Stat. $ 471.705, while a meeting of less This court accepted review- than a quorum of the city council is not, and that the Open Meeting Law does not specifi- Our subsequent decision in the Armory cally authorize public bodies to hold meetings lawsuit, holding that the County may not t to discuss pending litigation except when destroy the Armory to construct a public 2. Lutheran Brotherhood.Cowles Media.and the tics to be excluded from the closed settlement State Historic Preservation Office were the par. conference. 47. 4 -,K:, 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW 8 4390574 NO.004 D08 imi onimummilim I. 1 . STATE BY ARCHABAL v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Minn. 2J7 CU.a.503 N.wsd 294 (Munn. 11v3) tted by the attar- safety facility on the site, raises the question public to become fully informed concerning A jurisdiction, the of whether the issue presented by this appeal * • • decisions or to detect improper influ- ad specifically re- has been rendered moot. See lsaak Walton ences;' (2) 'to assure the public's right to be of the case to su• League v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, informed; and (3) 'to afford the public an the Armory and 312 Minn. 587, 589, 252 N.W.2d 852, 854 opportunity to present its views to the(public !nt limited author- (1977). The County and the City argue body).'" St. Mad Newspapers, Inc. a Dia- settlement discus- strenuously that, regardless of the outcome trice 74_' Co,nont,tity Schs.. 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 appeal of a case, of the Armory lawsuit. "(she application of (Minn.1983) (citations omitted). Since the in the "public in- the Open Meeting Law,Minn.Stat.f 471.105, statute was "enacted for the public benefit," to court ordered settlement discussions be-e ordered meetingthe Open Meeting Law is construed in favor words, "to see if ttiveen litigating political subdivisions of the of public access. id. The few exceptions very, very compli- state is an issue of great public importance that exist are carefully restrained to avoid rue --where to site which is likely to arise again."2 We are abuse. See Minnesota SalmAsa'n v. Ben- The court denied persuaded that here, as in Northwest P+4611- nett, 321 N.W.2d 395 (Minn.1982) (labor ne- ay 11, 1992, order, catio„e, inc. v. Anderson, 259 N.W.2d 254 gotiation strategies); Autraudale Advocate v. we the Star Ttib (Minn,1977), the matter is not moot because City of Am/midair, 43.5 N.W2d 24 (1989) k review. it is "one 'capable of repetition, yet evading (private data under Data Practices Act); review • • •'" Id. at 257. oncluded that the Mi,n+e(+pa(is Strut•S: 1-ratline Co. v. Xa+iying se Re d to the proposed (1) The issue the parties ask us to deter• decelup+++l',�t .4+rfJ+., 310 Minn. 413. 251 a9 of the county mine is whethe) a court ordered closed set N.W.2d 620 (1976) (attorney-client privilege). dement conference between two public bod- ies to discussOn appeal to this court,neitherthe County which are opposing parties in a lawsuit on rt of appeals can- nor the City tuttlre that any of these excep- d Tribune Co. v. appeal from a judgment on the merits is bons, including the attorney-client rivile e," t Ana, 3tO Minn. excepted from the requirements of the Open app les. R.tther, the ToUntir urges us to 76), on which the lVieeting Law, Minn.Stat. $ 471.7Q5 (1992!• create a new exeep ton a e statute based tt determined that The Open Meeting Lawrequires that on pu tc po icy' :rvonng se ement con er- inference could not meetings of public bodies be open to the nces. a ounty cites authority for the :orney-client penal public. The statute provides, in pertinent proposition that the settlement of litigation, was not to obtain part: especially between public entities, is an im- and because there Except as otherwise expressly provided by portant public policy'and cites,as support in lute confidentiality statute, all meetings, including executive this particular matter, Act of April 28, 1990, ince both parties sessions, of any state agency, board, corn- eh. 592. a 4. 1990 Minn.Latvs 2322, 2324 ice. The court of mission or department when required or which requires the City and County to meet ;tar Tribune's peti- permitted by law to transact public busi- as part of a planning process for the new jail ition after finding ness in a meeting, and the governing body to avoid litigation over the siting of the facili- dentified no other of any • • * county. city, town, or other ty, The County also argues that a judicially the Open Meeting public body ' ' ' shall be open to the sanctioned settlement conference falls within i failed to establish public • • •. the inherent powers of the judiciary which snce held after a Minn.Stat. f 471.705, subd. 1 (1992). The cannot be compromised by legislative action, tside the presence purpose of the statute is threefold: "(1) 'to The City acknowledges a conflict between :serve and improve prohibit actions being taken at a secret meet- the Open Meeting Law and the inherent ,unction of deciding ing where it is impossible for the interested power of the judiciary,but contends that the Compensation for 3. The Cite•notes that the question of the scope of Law, along ulth forfctturc of office for three tutp Comm rs, 308 a district court's power In this regard arises violations). zd 781, 786 (1976). regularly in the state but that in most cases an interlocutory appeal of a court order is too time W. CDn9Lming and expensive to pursue. Amicus 4. See Cheyenne River Slow Tribe v. United States, Curiae League of Minnesota Cities advises the 806 F.2d 1046. 1030 (Fed.Cir.t9861: see also in in the Armory court that public officials in the stare arc genu• Minn•R.Evid. 308 committee comment('The in- County may not incly uncertain of their rights and obligations creased protection is justified to the extent that it under the Open Meeting Law in the contest of will encourage frank and free discussion to cam- construct a public litigation. See Minn.Stat. § 471.705. subd. 2 promise negotiations and avoid the necessity for ;hc closed Settlement (1992) (a civil penalty can be imposed upon parties to speak in terms of hypothetleals."). elected officials for violation attic Open Mooting A , 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW .4 4390574 N0.004 D09 .` , ( 298 Minn. 605 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES district court properly exercised its inherent branch of government."' Clerk of Caurt'v i power in this case. The Star Tribune, in Compensation for Lyon County. 308 Minn. I ; opposition. argues that the legislature has at 180, 241 N.W.2d at 786. Such power I I the power to require that meetings be open "comprehends all authority necessary to pre- to the public and that, even if the proposed serve and improve the fundamental judicial meeting is a judicial function, the trial court function of deciding cases • • • [and) ' • • cannot deny public access absent a strong is available to courts on an levels to be used showing of a compelling government interest. consistent with respective jurisdictions and In Minneapolis Star d Tribune Ca v. Nfunctions." Id "The courts must confine themselves to their historical and constitu- ouaing & Redevelopment Auth., where we tional function of deciding cases. It is in the recognised the attorney-client exception to context of this function that inherent judicial the Open Meeting Law,we were dealing with power is necessary and it is in the context of situations where public policy dictates the this function that it must be exercised." Id. need for"absolute confidentiality" between a at 18Z, 241 N.W2d at 787. "The test is not - public body and its attorney. 810 Minn. at 324,261 N.W.2d at 626. There we concluded relative needs or judicial wants,but practical that, where members of the HRA were in- necessity in performing the judicial function." volved in active and immediate litigation in Id. at 181, 241 N.W.2d at 786- their capacity as members of a public agency. absolute confidentiality was required because 12,31 The courts of tu _ i statuvee 1► the "(tlhe advisory meetings with the attorney inherent'udicialower to order closed settle- were necessary to perhaps attain a settle- mens conferences even though public Wiles • meet ultimately beneficial to the agency a pat les to tTie litigation. The OFF- f • • * and the general public." Id at 323. ing o 3ettlemeint con arenas is an intrinsic 1 r 251 N.W.2d at 625. While we recognized and part of the court's authority and historical applied the exception under those circum- and constitutional function of deciding cases stances,we made clear we would not tolerate because such conferences facilitate resolution 1 its application as a barrier against public of disputes, conserve judicial resources, and access to public affairs. Id at 324, 261 allow parties to avoid the burden and ex- N.W.2d at 626. In the case before us, the pease of protracted litigation. ourts s ouf• trial judge has exercised inherent judicial .rder sett ement conferences, however, only : power to help resolve another dispute. Th- . lien it is a practical necessity in performing question here is whether this e;cerci9e of_ the judicial function of deciding cases. and inherent judicial power, invoking as it does they must carefully and narrowly limit the - e cons oil ani• e. separation 0 scope of such conferences. Where a court.in 0) i ,j powers, prec u.es d e .pp ica ton o _ e the exercise of its inherent judicial power, J!I � pen eetrng aw if die court appropriatelyorders a litigating public body into a closed " �'exercised its inherent judicial power. The settlement conference as a practical necessity answer is ye in deciding the case and carefully and nar- According to the principles we set out in rowly limits the scope of the conference to courts have inherent judicial the issues involved in the litigation, applica- 6 Lyon Count y. ' power which "grows out of express and 1w- tion of the Open Meeting Law would violate plied constitutional provisions mandating a the separation of powers under Article III, separation of powers and a viable judicial Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution. s. "The powers of government shall be divided 6. Regarding inherent judicial power. In In re ' into three distinct departments: legislative,exec- Gre:0411'5g. I119 Minn,51,55.248 N.W-735.737 olive and judicial. No person or persons belong. (1933).we said."The judicial power of this court ing to or constituting one of these departments has its origin in the constitution: but when the Court came into existence it come with inherent shall exercise any of the powers properly belong po,vers. Such power Is thc tight to protect itself. belong- ing to either of thc others except in the instances to enable it to administer justict: whether any f expressly provided in this constitution." Minn. previous form of remedy has been granted or Const- an. III. 9 I. not." t 1.-_ lot 10/02/97 15:06 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.004 D10 IIIIIIIIII,IllIlIllIllIllIlIllillIllIll 3 T SKEEN v. STATE Minn. 299 �� Cllrk of Court's Clause N.W.2d 245 Milne. iss3i County, 308 Minn. [41 Turning to the case at bar,we cannot find, on the record before us, that the trial Sheridan SKEEN, et al., Respondents, 786. Such power court appropriately exercised its inherent ju- ty necessary to pre- theinl power in ordering the closed meeting V. undamental judicial between these two public bodies which are STATE of Minnesota, et al., Appellants e • • • (and) ' • * opposing parties in the underlying lawsuit. , .9 all levels to be used y g tCS-s.-67z) Respondents (CT-92- J. r9 label this m etin a settlement conference 678) to jurisdictions and kv DK is a misnomer. To begin with, not o tarts must confine cJV parties to the litigation were Included in the and orical and constitu- closed conference. Consequently, the pro- cases. It is in the posed meeting between the County and City Virginia Independent School District No. 700, et al, intervenors, Jtespon tat inherent judicial old " a r solution678) (C5- is in the context of settlement of the underlying lawsuit. Nor 9"�'7) Appellants tC7-92-678). be exercised." fidwas a proposed closed con crenae o ava dNos. Cs-92-677, C7-92-678. 7. "The test is not trial of the lawsuit,a well-recognized purpose Zi wants, but practical of settlement conferences, because the order Supreme Court of Minnesota. to judicial function." was made after a trial on the merits while Aug. 20, 1993. it 786. the underlying case was on appeal to this coutt.1 Finally, the o e of the proposed :his state have the settlement conference was not narrowly School districts and parents brought ac- orderclosed settle- by to focus on the specific issues raised tion challenging constitutionality of state's the under! ' tough public bodies ying lawsuit. The issue of education finance system, and higher tax gallon_ The order- "where to site this public safety facility"was base school districts intervened as defen- noes is an intrinsic broader than the issue of whether the Ar- dents. The District Court, Wright County. may and historical mory building site could be used for the 'Gary Meyer, J., declared that referendum n of deciding cases public safet ' ' • e trva court must facilitate resolution ensure that a closed settlement conference levy' debt ones service levy and supplemental rev- between public bodies is for thepurpose of enuens components of finance system were al- icial resources, and constitutional. State and intervenors appeal- ie burden and ex- be the underlying litigation and not ed separately. The Court of Appeals consoli- ion. Courts should be used as a vehicle to avoid the Open Meet doted appeals and certified matter to Su- ices,ion. however, only ing Law by discussing, in private, issues preme Court. Accepting certification, the ssity in performing which properly belong in the public arena. Supreme Court, en bane, Keith, C.J., held leciding cases. and A court has inhalant judicial power to that. (1)supplemental revenue and debt ser narrowly limit the order public bodies in litigation into closed vice levy funding provisions were adequately Where a court,in settlement conferences constitutionally pre- addressed by legislature and any disparities an judicial power, chiding the application of the Open Meeting did not violate State Constitution; (2) Mil- body into a closed taw, but, under the facts and circumstances cation financing system.particularly referen- practical necessity of this case, the ordered meeting was not a dum levy statute, did not violate education carefully and nor settlement conference and the requirements clause of State Constitution, requiring gener- of the Open Meeting Law apply. We affirm al and uniform system of public schools; (3) the conference to the order of the court of appeals. education is fundamental right under State litigation, applies Constitution; but (4) education finance sys- Law would violate Affirmed. under Article Iii, tem,including referendum levy statute,satis- ta Constitution, feed that fundamental right. Is 0 I+tt.swam mem Reversed. ;isl power, in lit re 5. 248 N.W.735, 731 Tomljanovich, J., filed specially concur- al power of this court pecial�' ;urian; but when the ring opinion. E came with inherent 7. This Is not to say that in all instances the court ciently limited settlement conference. Rather, it right to protect itself. cannot exercise its inherent power to order a Is to say that whether a settlement conference is justice whether any I closed settlement conference after trial. Nor is it ordered before,during,or after trial is a factor to hes been granted or to say that in this instance the trial court lacked be considered in determining the appropriate- Jurisdiction to order a properly constituted,suffi• Hess of the exercise of inherent judicial power. n' w }l S • CITY OF LAKE ELMO City of Lake Elmo 777-5510 3800 Laverne Avenue North/Lake Elmo,Minnesota 55042 October 1, 1997 + OCT - 21991 ut L ) Mayor David Schaff Oak Park Heights City Council 14168 57th Street North Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Oak Park Heights City Council: On September 30, 1997, the Lake Elmo City Council and the Baytown Board of Supervisors met in Executive Session to discuss the status of the Municipal Board litigation. Both of the governing bodies unanimously agreed to meet with the Oak Park Heights City Council. You are invited to attend a meeting,which will be held on October 8, 1997,at 5:00 p.m. in the Lake Elmo City Hall. The meeting will be an Executive Session for City Council Members, Town Board Members and their respective legal counsel. The purpose of the meeting will be to explore alternatives to the pending litigation. If alternative solutions seem feasible,dates for future meetings and the meeting process itself would also be discussed. We feel strongly that all elected officials of the three communities should attend this first meeting. We hope the meeting will be the beginning of a meaningful dialogue between the parties. Very truly yours, • i a 7)-2 Mayor yn John 'onald Fredkove City of Lake Elmo Baytown Township Supervisor WJ.RF/cy t' printed on recycled paper OCT-01 97 15:08 FROM: TO:4393639 PAGE:01 • • Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future fax transmittal __ _ way I 1997 Date: September 30,1997 — f To: Mary Kueffner,City Administrator,City of Lake Elmo f Mike Robertson,City Admin.,City of Oak Park Heights From: James P. Ottley, AICP,Office of Local Assistance 602-1361/FAX 602-1442 Subject: Annexation Proposal of 240 Acres of Baytown Township by Oak Park Heights p Orderly Annexation of 240 Acres of Baytown Township by Lake Elmo Metropolitan Council District 12 Referral File No. 16589-1 MMB Reference No.A-5821 Referral File No. 16592-1 MMB Reference No.OA-497-1 This cover memo is followed by 6 pages. Attached for your review is a draft copy of a letter from Council Deputy General Counsel Mark • to become a partyto the Thompson to the MMB which will be sent tomorrow along with the petition Oak Park Heights/Baytown own Annexation matter. tgh tsBa yt Attached for your review,comment,correction and/or approval is a draft Memorandum of Understanding requesting the MMB to continue the hearing of the Oak Park Heights/Baytown Annexation matter for six months,and to table the MMB consideration of the Lake Elmo/Baytown Orderly Annexation for six months. After further consideration,Dick Thompson and I would like to add Bayport and Washington County to the planning group. byThursday,Please review the attached and let me have your thoughts Thursdy. October 2,if possible. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Sincerely,Jim Ottley 602-1361 fax 602-1442 hAlibrarylcommundvlreterrallformslfaxmemu.doc OCT-01 97 15:08 FROM: • TC:4393639 PAGE:02 itMetropolitan Council - J'FT Working for the Region, Planning for the Future OFFICE OF GENERAL-COUNSEL September 30, 1997 Christine Scotillo,Executive Director Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225,Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St.Paul,MN 55108 City ofQakPark of Certain Land to the C ty Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Annexation Heights Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 MMB Docket No. A-5821 Dear Ms. Scotillo: This is to advise you that the Metropolitan Council has determined to enter the referenced proceeding as a party. This action is being taken because the Council has an interest that development of the subject land Regional Growth Strategy which shows this area as being urbanized in with the Council'sg be consistent �such future urbanization and the public investments in the area support e . Regional and local the I'utur gprovide urban Council is concerned that annexation be carried out in a manner that can most readily services to the subject land. Enclosed is the Municipal Board's appearance form for this proceeding filled out for the Council. By copy of this letter, this form is also being provided to representatives of the other parties to,or persons interested in, this proceeding. I understand from discussions with you,that because of the nature of the proceedings the Council cannot become a party to the competing annexation in the Joint Resolution of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township,MMB Docket No. OA-497. However,the Council would appreciate receiving notice of hearings,meetings,or other proceedings regarding that matter. Please direct future correspondence regarding this matter to the attention of this office. Sincerely, Mark D_ Thompson Deputy General Counsel cc: John S. McDonald,Esq. (Attorney for Petitioners) Mark Vierling,Esq. (Attorney for Oak Park Heights) David Magnuson,Esq. (Attorney for Baytown Township) Jerry Villa,Esq.(Attorney for Lake Elmo) 230 EastFirth hfF Street 51-Paul.Minneiata 55101-1634 (6121 291-6359 Floe 291-6550 117D/TTY 291-0804 Metro Info Ltne 229.3780 An E4u.1t Opportunity 6nt7WOW' OCT-01 97 15:08 FROM: 70:4393639 PAGE:03 • Arr MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD( Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St.Paul,Minnesota 55106 Phone: (612)603-6757 Fax: (612)6036762 Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 Greater MN TDD: 1400-627-3529 in the Municipal Board Rule 6000.0100, Subpho definesflat the hearing an appearance form provided byes" to include petitioners specifically the board anden pleadings. The term also includes other persons w appearance at the hearing. To be considered parties,persons who fill out the appearance form must establish that they are residents or taxpayers in the incorporation, annexation, consolidation,or detachment area, or that by the outcome of the proceedings they will be bound and affected either favorably or adversely by an interest particular to these persons ass distinguished from an interest common to the public or other taxpayers in general. I am filing this appearance form to be considered a party in the above-entitled matter before the Municipal Board. I hereby establish: I am a resident;or I am a taxpayer in the incorporation,annexation,consolidation,or detachment area;or X by the outcome of this proceeding,I will be bound and affected either favorably or adversely by an interest to me which is distinguished from the interest,common to the public or other taxpayers in general described as follows: i ne Council has an intere t that develomnent of the subject land be consist with the Council's Re ional Growth State which shows this area as being urbanized in the future. Re .onal and local public investments in the area su.•ort such future ur•anization and the Council is c• cerned t at annexa•.1 be carried out i a ann , that can most readil • ovide urban services .• the sub.eet land. PLACE N/A PATE _ N1A— DOCKET NO. A-5821 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND a U OF +AK 'ARK '1' S ' VA TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414. NAME(PRINT CLEARLY) METROPOLITAN C a UNC ADDRESS Mears Park Centre:230 East Fifth Street CITY St.Paul.MN ZIP 55101 _PHONE (6121 602-1000 You are not legally required to provide this data,but the Municipal Board cannot notify you of meetings without this information. The data on this form will be available to persons who inspect the file related to this proceeding. 12/96 OCT-01 97 15:08 FROM: TO:4393639 PAGE:04 • MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This agreement is made and entered into by and between the Metropolitan Council(referred to in this agreement as"Council"),the Township of Baytown(referred to in this agreement as"Baytown"),the City of Oak Park Heights(referred to in this agreement as"Oak Park Heights"),and the City of Lake Elmo(referred to in this agreement as "Lake Elmo"),each acting by and through its duly authorized officer(s). THE ABOVE-NAMED PARTIES hereby agree as follows: Section 1. RECITALS. I.01. On July 29, 1997,certain landowners owning land within the following described property(the"Described Property"): . All that part of Section 6,Township 29 North,Range 20 West lying westerly of the centerline of Stillwater Blvd. also known as State Highway 5,Washington County,Minnesota, submitted a petition to the Minnesota Municipal Board(referred to in this agreement as "MMB") for annexation of the Described Property to Oak Park Heights. The landowners submitting such petition are referred to in this agreement as the"Petitioners." This proceeding has been assigned MMB Docket No. A-5821 and is currently pending before the MMB. 1.02. On August 6, 1997,Lake Elmo and Baytown submitted a Joint Resolution and Agreement to the MMB for consideration. This Joint Resolution and Agreement designates the same Described Property in section 1.01 for annexation to Lake Elmo. This proceeding has been assigned MMB Docket No. OA-497 and is currently pending before the MMB. 1.03. The two proceedings described in sections 1.01 and 1.02 are inconsistent. On August 15, 1997,the MMB ordered a 60 day discussion period between the parties to the two proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes§414.0325, subdivision 1. 1.04. On ,Lake Elmo filed a petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Minnesota Court of Appeals asking the court to order the MMB to approve the proposed annexation in Docket No.OA-497 in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes §414.0325, subdivision 1. This action is referred to in this agreement as the"Mandamus Action." 1.05. On , the Metropolitan Council entered its appearance as a party in Docket No. A-5821 in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, §473.129,subdivision 5. The Council has an interest that development of the Described Property be consistent with the Council's Regional Growth Strategy which shows this DCT-01 97 15:08 FROM: • TO 3639 PAGE:05 • area as being urbanized in the future. Regional and local public investments in the area support such future urbanization and the Council is concerned that annexation be carried out in a manner that can most readily provide urban services to the Described Property. 1.06. The parties to this agreement desire to postpone action on the existi:gg actions relating to the Described Property for a period of approximately six montlyn order to seek an amicable resolution of the matter. Section 2. SUSPENSION OF EXISTING PROCEEDINGS. 2.01. Promptly upon execution of this agreement by all parties,the parties will jointly request the MMB in writing: a. to continue the hearing on Docket No.A-5821 until not earlier than April 30, 1998; and b. to table consideration of Docket No. OA-497 until not earlier than April 30, 1998. Both requests will be contingent upon dismissal of the Mandamus Action as provided for in section 2.02 of this agreement. 2.02.Promptly upon execution of this agreement by all parties,Lake Elmo and Baytown will take action to dismiss,without prejudice,the Mandamus Action. 2.03. If the MMB does not take action on Docket Nos. A-5821 and OA-497 consistent with the request of the parties,or if the Mandamus Action is not dismissed by the court.this agreement will terminate and be null and void. Section 3. POINT DISCUSSIONS. 3.01_ During the period from execution of this agreement until April 30, 1998, the parties agree to meet on a regular basis in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the proceedings described above. Specifically,the parties agree to work together in an attempt to reach agreement on a method to accommodate the regional growth strategy with regard to the Described Property. 3.02. A representative or representatives of the Petitioners will be invited to participate in the joint discussions. In addition,a representative or representatives of landowners in the Described Property who are not Petitioners will also be invited to participate in the joint discussions. 3.03. The parties also recognize that it may be advantageous to include discussion of the relationship of development in the Described Property to development in the City of Stillwater and Stillwater Township in these discussions. In such case,the parties may invite those entities to participate in the discussions. OCT-01 97 15:09 FROM: • TO 3639 PACaE:06 • 3.04. The following individuals,or such other peen as may be later designated by each of the parties. is designated as the principal liaison for each party responsible for coordinating the joint discussions provided for in this agreement: For the Council: --- For Baytown: For Oak Park Heights: For Lake Elmo: _Section 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. Each party to this agreement acknowledges and agrees that the other parties,by entering into this agreement.do not waive or forfeit any statutory rights or obligations such parties may have with regard to planning.annexation.or other matters related to the Described Property. All such rights are expressly reserved by each party. Section 5. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. 5.01. Unless terminated earlier as provided by this agreement,this agreement will be effective upon execution by all parties and will terminate on April 30, 1998 except that the Reservation of Rights in Section 4 will continue to be effective after termination of this agreement. 5.02. This agreement will terminate upon written notice by any party to the other patties indicating that said party believes no further discussions will be useful in resolving the issues addressed by this agreement. 5.03. This agreement will also terminate in the case of any of the following events: a. If either MMB Docket No.A-5821 or OA-497 is reactivated prior to April 30, 1998 either through action of the MMB,by action of one or more of the parties,or by action of a third party;or b. If the Mandamus Action,or any action with similar purpose,is reactivated by the court,by action of one or more of the parties,or by action of a third party. • 5.04. If the parties reach a mutually agreeable resolution of the issues raised by the existing actions,they will jointly inform the MMB of the proposed resolution of the matter. If the parties do not reach such a mutually agreeable resolution of the issues by April 30, 1998 or if the agreement is terminated earlier in accordance with this Section 5, the Council will inform the MMB in writing that the parties have been unable to resolve OCT-01 97 15:09 FROM: To:4393639 PACE:07 the matters at issue and request that the MMB continue forward with the proceedings before it. Section 6. AMENDMENT. The terms of this agreement may be changed only by the mutual agreement of the parties. Such changes will be effective only upon the execution of written amendments signed by duly authorized officers of the parties to this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers)on the dates set forth below: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Date: By: - Title: TOWNSHIP OF BAYTOWN Date: By: Title: - CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Date: By: - Title: CITY OF LAKE ELMO Date: By: Title: • • LAWSON, MARSHALL, MCDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. LAWYERS RAYMOND O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH JOHN SCOTT McDONALD LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH TELEPHONE: (612) 777-6960 OF COUNSEL ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (612) 777-8937 RODERICK A. LAWSON September 30, 1997 Ms. Mary Kueffner C 0 py Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Judith Screaton and David R. Screaton Dear Ms. Kueffner: As attorney for the Screatons on matters relating to the proposed annexation of their property in Baytown Township to an adjoining community, I am responding to your letter to Judith Screaton and David R. Screaton dated September 26, 1997. The Screatons' interest in having their property annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights is based on their belief that Oak Park Heights is best able to serve the property with needed municipal services. It has been very disappointing to the Screatons that the municipalities involved in this matter have not been able to get together, even after being ordered to do so by the Municipal Board, and discuss the various options relating to the property. It does seem to us that the issues relating to this property could best be worked out by a meeting of all the involved parties rather than a meeting of just Lake Elmo and Screatons. However, • despite the fact that Screatons believe the issue would be best addressed by a joint meeting, they would still be willing to meet with you to discuss the City of Lake Elmo's plans for the property should the property be annexed to the City of Lake Elmo. If you are interested in hosting such a meeting and having the Screatons and me present, please let me know and we will try to make arrangements as quickly as possible. Sincerely, John S. McDonald OCT - 21997 JSM:mas j- )1 cc: Ms. Judith Screaton Mr. David R. Screaton Oak Park Heights City Administrator • • An Invitation to All Lake Elmo/Baytown Residents... Lake Elmo and the Baytown have entered into an agreement to study the feasibility of merging into one unit of government. Finding a tool that would allow Lake Elmo and Baytown the opportunity to study a consolidation, with full participation of residents from both communities,has been made available through the Minnesota Board of Innovation and Cooperation. Not only is public participation an important issue to both communities,more important, is that the ultimate decision to consolidate is decided upon by a referendum vote of the residents of both conun amities. • Lake Elmo/Baytown Community Workshop Thursday, September 25, 1997 7:00 PM Oak-Land Junior High School 820 Manning Avenue N., Lake Elmo, MN Both communities are hoping for a good turnout at this meeting as well as volunteers willing to assist with the study of this proposed consolidation. Annexation Update... All of Baytown is proposed to be included in this study. However,Oak Park Heights accepted a petition from some property owners on the West Side of Highway 5 for annexation to Oak Park Heights. If approved,this annexation would permit the urbanization(municipal sewer and water) adjacent to incompatible land uses in Lake Elmo;The Fields of St. Croix and Tamarack Farms, as well as in Baytown;Cloverdale and Black Wood. Because of the desire to study the possibility of a consolidation,Lake Elmo and Baytown thought this action to be inappropriate. Therefore,in an effort to maintain the status quo until this study is completed,Lake Elmo and Baytown filed an orderly annexation petition for same 235 acres. Both the petition from the property owners and the orderly annexation petition are now before the Minnesota Municipal Board. State law requires that the Municipal Board approve an orderly annexation within thirty days from its receipt. However,because the petition from Oak Park Heights was received prior to the orderly annexation petition,the Municipal Board has taken the position that the three communities: Oak Park Lake Elmo aid the Town of Baytown must meet three times and attempt to resolve the conflict. Lake Elmo and Baytown disagree with the position taken by the Municipal Board,and filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in an attempt to force the Municipal Board to respond to the orderly annexation request. , Lake Elmo elected officials feel that it is important that its residents know that City funds are being spent in an attempt to delay the potential annexation to Oak Park Heights,and ultimate urbanization of this 235 acres,until the consolidation study is completed. The Council will be seeking comment on this strategy at the Joint Community Meeting. i"'r ( I n i 4" • 3DI,LON 9N1133W DI'Iflfld Qv31I aSValti - .LAIV.L1I0dh1II • ZtOSS VIOSHANIIAI `owIa 3XV1 . 2I3MIO1SnD rIVISOd eros NM`oiilrli riv7 61 'ON 1.11C1241• ZI'OSS NW`oWta 3 f mva aav,L�ds'n ayvn Milli •N anaany au.tantn 008£ • 01/%113 3}IVI AO A.LIJ _ Stillwater Orderly Annexation Area"L- Highway 36 _ �,r.� r .,.—„..,..� . - ——-- r. ,;— . . Ferrer trotter"'T ---r„'ss ( - _. sdihnrer Area Tree Fum _ -- %.. HO Scheel .g icer.Omer a.sw..Park Oak Park Heights 3 0 . w. Cloverdale ..,1:1.,'...1 Lake Elmo Y y M._ �: J _ + ,ate: K•:t'`” — a. -�^� Bayport ' , \ 1T .i4 ;r .: , Baytown _ 1 ; I it F �as c+ -- . cic s (Study Area Outlined in Heavy Black) r 30th Street -12 97 09:17 FROM: • TO: 50574 PACaE:01 MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMIT-or- , Chair" Charles ,v..•mason.43',i- Kevin Howe,454-6534 Vice Chair Rick Packer,835-4981 Bill Schreiber,296-3306 Julius Smith,831-1788 Barbara Butts Williams,310.8349 Jim Wychor,7844753 Monday, September 15, 1997 Council Chambers SII 12 -2 p.m. TENTATIVE AGENDA 12:00 p.m. I. CALL.TO ORDER !l. APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Minutes:Sept.2,1997(Karen Patraw 802-1456) IV. BUSINESS A. Consent Action List-None / ` B. Action List 12:05 1. Public Hearing Findings/Recommendations to Adopt Amendment to Recreation Open Space Development Guido/Policy Plan Regarding Regional Recreation Open Space Capital Improvement Program 1998-2003(Arne Steflerud, 602-1350) 1220 2. City of Hugo Comprehensive Plan Update,Referral File 16249-1 &2 (Jim Ottley, 602-1361) 12:40 3. Proposed Annexation of 235 Acres of Baytown Twp.by Oak Park He'!hts,Referral File 16589-1 (Jim Utley, 602-1361) 1:00 4. Local Planning Assistance Grant and Loan Program(Richard Thompson, 602-1457)' V. OTHER AUSiNES --None VI. EEPRMATION 120 A. Metropolitan Radio Board Update(Pat Pahi,602-1392)' 1:35 B. Implications of Charter Amendments in City of Ramsey on Council Policies (Richard Thompson, 602-1457;Jay Lindgren,602-1723)' 2:00 I. ADJOURNMENT Martha Head,Chair `No document mailed "Same Week to Council "'NOTE PERMANENT ROOM CHANGE Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth Street,St.Paul.Minnesota 55101.1534 612 602-1000,TDO 291-0904 2 97 09:17 FROM: TO:94390574 PAGE:02 t • • Meeting of the Community Development Committee of September 15, 1997 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre,230 East Fifth Street, St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612)291-6359 FAX(612)291-6464 TDD(612)291-0904 DATE: September 9, 1997 TO: Chair and Members of the Community Development Committee FROM: James Utley,Principal Reviewer,Office of Local Assistance 602-1361 SITBJECT: Proposed Annexation of 235 Acres of Baytown Township by Oak Park Heights Metropolitan Council District 12 Referral File No. 16589-1 MMB Reference No.A-5821 Oak Park Heights BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Municipal Board has before it two proceedings having to do with annexation of 235 acres in Baytown. • First,one-third of the property owners of an area of 235 acres of land located in the northwestetn corner of Baytown Township,in Washington County,have petitioned the Minnesota Municipal Board(MMB) for annexation to the city of Oak Park Heights. The city of Oak Park Heights has agreed to the annexation. Baytown Township has entered the proceedings as a party to contest the annexation. The city of Lake Elmo has also entered the proceedings as a party to contest the annexation. The MMB set September 17th as the date for the hearing on the annexation petition. Under MMB rules,there is a 60 day period after filing when the MMB orders the parties to meet,confer and try to reach an agreement on the matter so that a contested case hearing can be avoided if possible. The meet and confer period ends on October 13, 1997. The annexation hearing,originally set for September 17, 1997,is expected to be continued to allow the discussion to proceed. There are three parties meeting at the present time on this matter the cities of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo,and Baytown Township. Second,in a separate proceeding,the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township have filed an orderly annexation agreement with the MMB for the same area. It calls for the 235 acres to be annexed at a , cified date to the city of Lake Elmo; and, advises the MMB that Lake Elmo and Baytown are exploring the possibility of future consolidation. The orderly annexation proceeding was tabled by the Board for 60 days until October 14, 1997,on which date the MMB will again consider the orderly annexation. COUNCIL'S AGREEMENT WITH THE MMB: The Metropolitan Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)with the MMB in 1983 in which the Council agreed to provide for the MMB hearing record certain types of information, including Council reviews and recommendations on comprehensive plan amendments affecting the issue before the Board. The MOU also provides that the Council may choose to enter as a party into the proceeding in those instances where no proposed comprehensive plan amendment has been submitted to the Council or the Council review has not been completed prior to the Board hearing and the proceeding involves a potential impact on metropolitan systems or a major plan inconsistency. The Council has not received any plan amendment from the city of Oak Park Heights or Baytown Township regarding the proposed annexation. ifaitz 7 09:18 FROM: 410 TO• 90574 PAGE:03 On June 19, 1997,the Committee of the Whole discussed the Council's working relationship with the MMB and reaffirmed its interest in participating in the MMB process and in entering as a party in cases where the Council has a strong regional interest that needs to be considered by the MMB in making its decision. The Committee defined a"regional interest"as actions affecting the Council's ability to carry out its regional growth strategy,actions having a potential impact on a regional system and actions affecting the delivery of cost-effective services, regional and local. At its meeting on June 29, 1997,the Council affirmed the Committee position. ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION: The proposed annexation of the area by Oak Park Heights and its eventual urbanization is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and the Council's regional system plans. No adverse impacts on regional systems are anticipated from such an annexation or future urbanization. The principal issue is not the proposed annexation by Oak Park Heights,but the potential negative impact of the alternatives. Lake Elmo and Baytown Township propose that the area be annexed in the future to Lake Elmo,and have begun discussions towards eventual consolidation. Regional Growth Strategy The Council's regional$ growth strategy map shows this area of Baytown Township as `urban reserve" for the urban center made up of the cities of Stillwater,Oak Park Heights and Bayport All of these cities are constrained by the presence of the St. Croix River and the state boundary from expanding eastward. If further urbanization is to occur in support of the Council's Regional Growth Strategy that growth will have to extend to the north,south and west. The area proposed for annexation is in the northwest corner of Baytown Township. It is bounded on the north by TH 36,on the east by TH 5,on the west by the city of Lake Elmo and a town road,and on the south by 50th Street North_ Baytown Township's comprehensive plan shows about one-third of the area as commercial(along TH 5)and the remainder as rural residential(5 acre lots). There is considerable commercial development in the area- It includes an automobile dealership,a parts dealer,several office buildings,a clinic, and a miniature-golf course. The remainder of the area is used for active farming and farm residences. The adjacent area of Lake Elmo is shown in the Regional Growth Strategy as permanent rural,and is planned as rural residential by the city. Expansion of the city of Lake Elmo into the proposed annexation area appears intended to prevent urbanization,as the city will be unable to provide the area with urban services. The adjacent area of Baytown Township immediately south of the subject property is shown as permanent rural in the Regional Growth Strategy and is planned and partially developed as single family estates on 2 1/2 acres lots and as rural residential on 5 acres lots. The remainder of the township (approximately the eastern two-thirds)which is adjacent to the cities of Oak Park Heights and Bayport is shown as urban reserve in the Regional Growth Strategy,but planned by the Township as a mixture of 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots- The Council's principal concern is not the annexation and future urbanization of the area by Oak Park Heights,but the possibility that the area might be prevented from being urbanized by actions of the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township. Regional Systems The proposed annexation area is not considered likely to impact the regional aviation system or the regional recreation open space system. There are no airports,regional parks,park reserves or trails in the 2 SEP:12 97 09:18 FROM: TO: 90574 PAGE:04 • immediate vicinity, although the Lake Elmo airport is actually located in Baytown Township approximately three miles south of the subject property,and Lake Elmo Regional Park is located approximately three miles to the southwest. The Council's Transportation Policy Plan(TPP) identifies TH 36 as a principal arterial and TH 5 as an A-minor arterial in the regional highway system. A new grade-separated interchange is under construction at the intersection of TH 36 and TH 5. The proposed annexation area has superior access to the regional highway system and there appears to be adequate capacity to service the annexation area if it is urbanized. Urban development of the site is not expected to adversely impact the regional highway system,although direct property access to either highway will be constrained by MnDOT. The city of Oak Park Heights has a municipal sewer system which flows to the Council's wastewater treatment plant(WWTP) in Oak Park Heights. This WWII'was recently upgraded and has capacity to service the proposed annexation area. Urban development of the site is not expected to adversely impact the Metropolitan Disposal System. CONCLUSIONS: • The proposed annexation of 235 acres of Baytown Township by Oak Park Heights will allow future urbanization of the area consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. • • There are no adverse regional system impacts foreseen from such an annexation and there appears to be adequate regional system capacity to support urban services to the area of proposed annexation. • The proposed alternative future annexation of the same area via an orderly annexation agreement between the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township appears intended to prevent urbanization of the subject area which is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Council authorize staff to take the necessary step to enter as a party into the Minnesota Municipal Board's proceeding on the annexation of 235 acres of Baytown Township by the city of Oak Park Heights,providing testimony in support of that annexation and regarding the adverse effect of the proposed annexation of the subject property via Orderly Annexation Agreement between the city of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township;and That the Council notify all parties identified in the Board's Certificate of Mailing of the Council's intent to enter the proceeding as a party. v:Uibn y\commundAreferrakeportAmmb17.doc • 3 r ,SEP.-12 97 09:18 FROM: TO• 390574 PAGE:05 • /OMB JUL 2 a 1997 .� - ,tIP CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS -^,-;.:777••40." " _ Screato n / Kern Annexation Study.. , :, - - Analysis and Conclusions • 72 July 1997 S:••::, ,;:. .• 1. K'.iw Y+l.�h"ry Yi: ►7up1 / 1flr [ 1( /� •3, _;,"4:'S"� .Y��— ':Fri— •R/--.-;,•Y��� ! —`�--,_. i ..��.rl T'4 wow '......-••••••27 � EAS '�xF,L•'• :.{•''tr $.. i.roti�•.[... 1 ` rt . (• =�IAC/ }{v ::::.%:-.";.•,,...:,,, • ,:.=. 6•:., mow mom. - ." :4.4.,....",;`,3ef?S'e<:........40*.i.i:ifeC.:•..;:".'... *:::."'W: .... ....,7.1,0 E.fry,,..." A:...g:,K-,?-i.f.?:it,,,n::,-7-V.•'.--.:--...';:i:,:;44, *.f.Of • i a e, .,..„.,,,„•::.,.:,..4§,..,...,. •..:... ...,,. ..). - ,.,..,....J.,..,.. . , ......,30■1.1. IG, I 4C17,4.7 y..„.• • .. . ,,. __ r' y s?1,7'�g V. 7.`.1,...7:h � ' 1 OF 00 g 10t610.Sn1 :.r . ..Y:: . ••fry,,i: 'BSc 1 :F :.f::i..[';''':r.k:j• 9?,jwx�:'!. n 1 1 . I 11 ✓ 1M iA dIMP ilitite I. .,,:,. . }.._... / j/''-If.� .ArpMuP.Q _ 1---- _ _ -_•_�- I. - Agit ...:.:„.............„:„...„3:,•••••••:•:•. r M•.•' " �� ,4 . jos, ., r0 r • ;t: :� r l I 5 ;rf SJ 44 r. alailbsielligiliMallEMMININI IIIIMMINUMEmmisimmiumor NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED. CONSULTANTS N Ai` COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKEtT RE5MARCH W HINGTON CO TY Mary McGlothlin 1 Director DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT Rose Green / � AND LAND MANAGEMENT Office Manager '",� ?' GOVERNMENT CENTER / 14900 61ST STREET NORTH,P.O.BOX 3803•STILLWATER,MN 55082-3803 Office(612)430-6655 • TDD(612)439-3220 • Facsimile Machine(612)430-6730 y ti � SEP ! 01997 \I L September 8, 1997 Mike Robertson I City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th St. N. Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 Dear Mr. Robertson: I am writing to clarify that the townships in Washington County, except Forest Lake Township, are not affected by, nor do they pay sewer availability charges to the Metropolitan Sewer commission, as neither sewer or water is available to them. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 430-6661. Sincerely, ,aege.t...1 Allan R. Goodman i Building Official ARG/djc ,114[I * � , EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION • ,p Printed on Recycled Paper ia IV 30%Post Consumer Waste •Rw.,,,• VSHINGTON COmNTY ETON James R.Schug ti _ef.7.7N 1 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION County Administrator GOVERNMENT CENTER Virginia Erdahi 14900 61ST STREET NORTH•STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082-0006 Deputy Administrator \ %°anrr rnoepE ��5, 612-430-6000 Facsimile Machine 612-430-6017 September 4, 1997 rg f ' SEP - 81997 Patricia D. Lundy, Assistant Director State Municipal Board 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 Dear Ms. Lundy: RE: Appointment of County Commissioners - A-5821 Oak Park Heights At its meeting of September 2, 1997, the Washington County Board of Commissioners appointed County Board Chair Myra Peterson and Commissioner Dave Engstrom to serve on the Municipal Board Hearing of the petition by the City of Oak Park Heights to annex certain parts of Baytown Township. Neither of these two appointees represent districts which contain any of the affected territory. The information you requested is as follows: Commissioner Myra Peterson Commissioner Dave Engstrom 8284 Indian Boulevard 14805 45th Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016-2021 Afton, MN 55016-2021 Telephone No.: 458-0923 Telephone No.: 430-6215 Fax: 458-5474 Fax: 436-5386 Neither Commissioner Peterson nor Commissioner Engstrom will be able to attend the September 17 hearing. However, since your letter indicated that the hearing will be opened only to take jurisdiction and will be immediately continued to a later date, this did not seem to be a problem. Commissioners Peterson and Engstrom can be contacted directly to arrange the time for the next hearing. • nm«a an ftwided Pepsi EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 1�y e�