Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kern Center Annexation Issues
•h t Oak Park Heights • Request for Council Action Meeting Date December 11, 2001 Agenda Item Title Kern Center Annexation Charges Time Required 5 Minutes Agenda Placement New Business Originating Department/Requestor Finance-Judy Ho1st, Deputy Clerk/Finance Director Requester's Signature ge 61,, /4 f Action Requested Approve transfer of remaining Kern Center Annexation charges in the amount of$19,460.04 to General Fund legal, planning and engineering and close account. Background/Justification (Please indicate any previous action, financial implications including budget information and recommendations). See attached memo. • • City of Oak Park Heights Memo } December 6, 2001 To: Mayor and Council From: Judy Holst,Deputy Clerk/Finance Director Re: Kern Center System Charge for Annexation Costs In 1996 the City received a request for annexation of certain property in Baytown Township. The principal property requesting annexation was the Screaton property and the property in the Kern Center owned by John Low. There were also additional residential properties considered in the annexation. The Kern Center was annexed into the City in 1998. The Screaton property and additional residential properties remain in either Baytown Township or City of Lake Elmo. In the course of the annexation • proceedings,the City accumulated approximately$39,000 in legal,planning, and engineering fees. A systems charge for the west end annexation was approved on August 24, 1998. The charge was to be$150 per acre. Mr. Screaton paid his portion of the fees (approximately$17,000). Mr. Low paid for 7 parcels in the Kern Center($2,670). There has been no collection of fees since Mr. Low paid for his 7 parcels. I do not have a written document regarding which parcels are to be charged or the means for collecting the systems charge. The City Attorney has advised me that we can not legally charge the remaining parcels for the systems charge, as we do not have legal authority to collect the charge. We are currently carrying $19,460.04 as a payable in the Developer Accounts Fund for the Kern Center annexation costs from 1996/97. I recommend the City transfer the charges to General Fund legal,planning, and engineering and close this account. Legal Fees $6,688.31 Planner Fees $6,180.94 Engineering Fees $6,590.79 • \" `' c �`�3�cS LL,A33 a` �° City Council Minutes- 08/25/98 - 3 *(B) Approve City Council Minutes -August 11, 1998,from the Consent Agenda: Council member Turnquist stated page 5, item V-A(Public Hearing: City Hall access to Oakgreen Avenue and traffic analysis)vote should read Carried 4-01. Swenson opposed. Council member Beaudet, seconded by Turnquist,moved to approve the City Council Minutes -August 11, 1998, as amended. Carried 5-0. V. public Hearings: None VI. New Business: A. Schedule 1998 Truth in Taxation Dates for 1999 budget Council member Turnquist, seconded by Swenson,moved to schedule the initial City "Truth-in-Taxation"meeting dates for Tuesday, December 8, 1998, with a possible continuation date of Tuesday,December 15, 1998. Carried 5-0. Council member Tumquist, seconded by Swenson,moved to schedule the final Budget Hearing and adoption date for September 8, 1998. Carried 5-0. Administrator Melena reviewed the Executive Summary. Melena stated that copies of the Executive Summary would be available at the City Hall for the public. Melena further stated the full Preliminary Budget would be available for the public to view at City Hall and that the Budget, once adopted,would be available for viewing at City Hall and other public facilities(i.e. library). B. Systems charge for west end annexation Council received revised memo on systems charge for west end annexation. Administrator Melena stated that the total costs of the annexation were approximately $45,000 and there was approximately 300 acres involved. Therefore, staff recommendation was that the systems charge for the west end annexation would be $150 per acre. Council member Robert, seconded by Beaudet,moved to approve the $150 per acre systems charge. Carried 5-0. C. Kennel Permit request for Deanne Crosby, 13733 60th Street North Joy Linder,Pond View Condominiums, stated that her dog was attacked by Ms. Crosby's three dogs approximately one month ago. Ms. Linder would like to see Ms. Crosby's dogs physically restrained. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 FAX 439-0574 MEMO To: Mayor and Council \ 1 From: Thomas M. Melena '•►.,v Subject: System's Charge for West End Annexation Date: August 24, 1998 During the annexation process there were certain bills that were incurred by the City with the understanding that the people benefiting from the annexation would pay for the services. After everything is said and done, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what was agreed upon between the parties. As a result, we have $39,000 in outstanding charges that the City has paid and is now carrying. We are looking for a way to recoup these costs from the parties involved. With this in mind, I suggest we put together a System's Charge and have those charges held by the City to be levied against the property owners as they request either development services or annexation/incorporation into the City of Oak Park Heights. To help set up this System's Charge there are some basic assumptions I think we can use which are as follows: 1) Initially,there were approximately 300 acres that were anticipated for annexation; 2) There was a total cost of about$45,000 on all analysis and fees which we thought would be covered by the participants; 3) That would give us a cost of approximately $150 per acre. The Screaton and Smith property appears to be approximately 70 acres and 50 acres respectfully or about 120 acres. If we were to multiply that 120 acres by the $150 per acre, we would have approximately $18,000 with the charges against those properties. We already have a verbal agreement from Mr. Screaton that he would pay the $17,000 that we currently have b illed him if he annexes his property to the City. It would further appear that the Nass North property is approximately 20 acres in size;the Buberl property is approximately 40 acres; the other Nass property,to include the Claugherty,the Engle, the Palmquist, and the Bergmann property is approximately 60 acres in size; and last but not least, the undeveloped porperty in the Kern Center appear to be approximately 60 acres in size. Again,based on the $1.50 per square foot,you would see the property we have labeled Nass North would need to pay approximately $3,000, the properties for the Buberl area another Tree City U.S.A. Mayor and Council Page 2 August 24, 1998 $6,000, the other properties in the middle area,that being the Bergmann,Palmquist,Engle, Nass, and Claugherty properties to,pay approximately $9,000, and, last but not least,the Kern Center property at approximately $9,000. If this is totaled up with$17,000 for the Screaton and Smith property, reimbursement would be approximately $44,000. We should first realize that there are certain properties that will probably never be annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights. Very specifically,the Nass "other"properties,that being the Engle, Palmquist, Bergman properties,will probably not ask for annexation or detachment and attachment to the City of Oak Park Heights in the foreseeable future. However, it would appear that a good $35,000 of the fees are recoverable if we can put in some type of a System's Charge. This charge would mean that the City would carry these costs in a fund and as the fees come in and these charges are paid off, it would reduce the fund balance that we would be carrying on this project. This may be an agreeable compromise for all concerned. I believe that Mr. Screaton and his associates would be amenable to knowing that they owe just$17,000. We may even want to make an offer to indicate that if it is paid now, within 30 days, it is $17,000, if not it will be at the rate of$150 per acre. This would increase his costs to $18,000. Additionally,this may be a way to make sure that the rest of the property is fairly charged for the costs for this annexation which, I point out,was not initiated by the City. However, the City indicated that they would support the annexation, but, as we thought we had an agreement,that the people initiating and pushing for the annexation would pay these fees. Again, we are hopeful that this is a compromise solution that is logical and will work for all parties involved. If you have thoughts,questions,or ways to modify this,please feel free to contact me. Thomas M. Melena '', r > �` " CITY O F ENCLOSURE �o ice, . . - - : OAK PARK HEIGHTS 40A65, ' ,-4-,., 14168 N. 57th Street •Box 2007 • Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 • Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 MEMO To: Mayor and Council From: Thomas M. Melena __ NtNV..-„,.. '`--- _ Subject: System's Charge for West End Annexation Date: August 20, 1998 During the annexation process there were certain bills that were incurred by the City with the understanding that the people benefiting from the annexation would pay for the services. After everything is said and done, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what was agreed upon between the parties. As a result, we have $39,000 in outstanding charges that the City has paid and is now carrying. We are looking for a way to recoup these costs from the parties involved. With this in mind. I suggest we put together a System's Charge and have those charges held by the City to be levied against the property owners as they request either development services or annexation/incorporation into the City of Oak Park Heights. To help set up this System's Charge there are some basic assumptions I think we can use which are as follows: 1) Initially, there were approximately 300 acres that were anticipated for annexation; 2) There was a total cost of about $45,000 on all analysis and fees which we thought would be covered by the participants; 3) That would give us a cost of approximately $150 per acre. The Screaton and Smith property appears to be approximately 70 acres and 50 acres respectfully or about 120 acres. If we were to multiply that 120 acres by the $150 per acre, we would have approximately $18.000 with the charges against those properties. We already have a verbal agreement from Mr. Screaton that he would pay the $17,000 that we currently have billed him if he annexes his property to the City. It would further appear that the Nass North property is approximately 20 acres in size: the Buveau property is approximately 40 acres; the other Nass property, to include the Claugherty, the Engle. the Plumquist, and the Burgman property is approximately 60 acres in size; and last but not least, the undeveloped porperty in the Kern Center appear to be approximately 60 acres in size. Again, based on the $1.50 per square foot, you would see the property we have labeled Nass North would need to pay approximately $3,000. the properties for the Buberal area another S Tree City U.S.A. Mayor and Council Page 2 August 20, 1998 $6.000, the other properties in the middle area. that being the Bergman, Plumquist, Ingle, Nass, and Claugherty properties to, pay approximately $9,000. and, last but not least, the Kern Center property at approximately $9,000. If this is totaled up with $17,000 for the Screaton and Smith property. reimbursement would be approximately $44,000. We should first realize that there are certain properties that will probably never be annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights. Very specifically, the Nass "other"properties, that being the Ingle, Plumquist, Bergman properties. will probably not ask for annexation or detachment and attachment to the City of Oak Park Heights in the foreseeable future. However, it would appear that a good $35.000 of the fees are recoverable if we can put in some type of a System's Charge. This charge would mean that the City would carry these costs in a fund and as the fees come in and these charges are paid off, it would reduce the fund balance that we would be carrying on this project. This may be an agreeable compromise for all concerned. I believe that Mr. Screaton and his associates would be amenable to knowing that they owe just $17.000. We may even want to make an offer to indicate that if it is paid now, within 30 days, it is $17,000, if not it will be at the rate of$150 per acre. This would increase his costs to $18,000. Additionally, this may be a way to make sure that the rest of the property is fairly charged for the costs for this annexation which. I point out. was not initiated by the City. However, the City indicated that they would support the annexation, but, as we thought we had an agreement, that the people • initiating and pushing for the annexation would pay these fees. Again, we are hopefiil that this is a compromise solution that is logical and will work for all parties involved. If you have thoughts, questions, or ways to modify this, please feel free to contact me. Thomas M. Melena • August 18, 1998 Re: Annexation Costs - Dave Screaton and John Low Dave Screaton Annexation Costs Legal Fees $7,899.79 Engineering Fees $10,695.32 Planner Fees $7,999.30 Total Costs $26,594.41 Less: Engineer Study Paid by City $(4,409.00) Screaton Payments $(5.208.52) Total Amount due City $16,976.89 John Low Annexation Costs Legal Fees $6,688.31 Engineering Fees $6,590.79 Planner Fees $8.713.05 Total Amount due City $21,992.15 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street• Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 FAX 439-0574 MEMO TO: City Files, Mayor & Council, David Screaton& John Low FROM: Tom Melena, City Administrator DATE: Ap ril 13, 1998 SUBJECT: West End Annexation Fees The purpose of this memo is to place in written form the understanding of all parties as to the responsibility for the fees related to the west end annexation. The time covered for these fees are from the first discussion of the issue in the Summer of 1996 to March 1, 1998. Said fees would be for professional consulting for engineering, planning and legal services. The current amount of fees for those services is $38,969.04. It is suggested that these fees be allocated to all properties to be annexed on a cost per acre basis. This charge would be added to the total special assessment for the sewer and water project. However; it is further understood,that if the affected property owners object,then that amount will be accepted by and be the responsibility of the single largest property owner in the project area, Greystone Development. In addition, it is understood that with the preliminary ruling of the Municipal Board,the Screaton property has be removed for annexation. If this property becomes part of the City of Oak Park Heights within five years (60 months) from March 1, 1998 (March 1, 2003),then they will participate to the same extent for an adjusted service charge for this annexation. This charge would include all former acreage plus the Screaton acreage divided into the total bill of approximately $39,000.00. /obi) -1 9 9,2 /S Tree City U.S.A. CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ' 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 MEMO TO: City Files, Mayor& Council, David Screaton& John Low FROM: Tom Melena, City Administrator DATE: April 13, 1998 SUBJECT: West End Annexation Fees The purpose of this memo is to place in written form the understanding of all parties as to the responsibility for the fees related to the west end annexation. The time covered for these fees are from the first discussion of the issue in the Summer of 1996 to March 1, 1998. Said fees would be for professional consulting for engineering,planning and legal services. The current amount of fees for those services is $38,969.04. It is suggested that these fees be allocated to all properties to be annexed on a cost per acre basis. This charge would be added to the total special assessment for the sewer and water project. However; it is further understood,that if the affected property owners object,then that amount will be accepted by and be the responsibility of the single largest property owner in the project area, Greystone Development. In addition, it is understood that with the preliminary ruling of the Municipal Board,the Screaton property has be removed for annexation. If this property becomes part of the City of Oak Park Heights within five years(60 months)from March 1, 1998 (March 1, 2003),then they will participate to the same extent for an adjusted service charge for this annexation. This charge would include all former acreage plus the Screaton acreage divided into the total bill of approximately $39,000.00. Tree City U.S.A. oft 11 a) C 4 r 17' Y A'7" /Psi 0 19 q p. F CITY OF LAKE ELMO `-- ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE PLACING A DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM ON NEWLY ANNEXED PROPERTY LOCATED WESTERLY OF AND SOUTHERLY OF THE KERN CENTER. THE LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS : 1. 0 Re itais . A. On 7/29/97, various property owners petitioned ( "Property Owner Petition" ) the Municipal Board of the State of Minnesota ("Municipal Board" ) to annex the following described property located in Baytown Township ("Baytown" ) to the City of Oak Park Heights ("Oak Park Heights") : All that part of Section 6 , Township 29 North, Range 20 West, lying westerly of the center line of Stillwater Blvd. , also known as State Highway 5, Washington County, Minnesota ("Section 6 - Highway 5 Parcel" ) . B. The Property Owner Petition is contained in Municipal Board File No. .A-5821 . C. On 8/6/97, Baytown and the City of Lake Elmo ("Lake Elmo") filed a joint resolution ("Joint Resolution") with the Municipal Board indicating that Baytown and Lake Elmo had agreed that the Section 6 Highway 5 Parcel would be annexed to Lake Elmo. D. The Joint Resolution is contained in Municipal Board File No . OA-497-1 . E. The Municipal Board determined to hear the Property Owner Petition and tabled its review of the Joint Resolution. F. At the conclusion of its hearing and deliberation on the Property Owner Petition, the Municipal Board ordered that the following portion of the Section 6 - Highway 5 Parcel be annexed to Oak Park Heights : All that P art of Section 6, Township 29 North, Range 20 West, platted as Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition, including adjacent rights-of-way ("Oak Park Heights Annexation Area") . • 1 . - - --� �.�r.rr• . . r , li l'1T 1\Jr1fYVf7 r^T•?T __QC J T'Qfl 1 G. The Board then continued its review of the Joint Resolution which had been tabled, completed its review and advised Baytown and Lake Elmo that the following portion of the Section 6 - Highway 5 Parcel would be annexed to Lake Elmo : All that part of Section 6 , Township 29 North, Range 20 West, lying westerly of the center line of Stillwater Blvd. , also known as State Highway 5, Washington County; except that part platted as Kern Center and Kern Center 2nd Addition including adjacent rights-of-way ( "Lake Elmo Annexation Area" ) . H. Both the Order relating to the Oak Park Heights Annexation Area and the Order relating to the Lake Elmo Annexation Area were effective 4/17/98 . I . Lake Elmo will be undertaking planning and land use studies to determine how to amend and/or extend its Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations to include development of the Lake Elmo Annexation Area. J. In order to allow the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations to be reviewed, revised, and adopted before development applications are received, the Lake Elmo City Council has determined that a development moratorium would be appropriate. 2 . 0 Development Moratorium. The Lake Elmo City Council hereby adopts a development moratorium applicable to all of the property located in the Lake Elmo Annexation Area. The development moratorium will commence on the effective date of this ordinance and will continue for nine months thereafter unless otherwise terminated or extended by action of the Lake Elmo City Council . During the development moratorium: A. No property shall be platted or otherwise subdivided. B. New structures shall not be constructed. C. Exterior structural modifications shall not be made to an existing structure which cause the building height and setback standards to exceed those in the RR Zoning District in the City of Lake Elmo. D. Exterior storage areas shall not be increased. E. Exterior maintenn'-e shall be allowed. 2 S00d t86'ON 00SbTLL F II Q13Id>100da 5T:ZT 86/2,T/90 A . ( s _' 3 . 0 nforcemept. The City of Lake Elmo may enforce any provision of this ordinance by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. { ` 4 . 0 Separabi,lity. Every section, provision, or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision P.: or part of this ordinance. If any section, provision or part of { this ordinance is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall not invalidate any other section, provision or part of this ordinance . 5 r Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective the day i following its publication or on the day following the publication 1, of an Ordinance Summary approved by the Lake Elmo City Council . r AdoDt&on Date. Passed by the Lake Elmo City Council on the day of May, 1998 . . E Wyn John, Mayor ATTEST: r f-, ,. Mary Kueffner City Administrator c Publication Date. Published on the day of 4 1998 . b/ord/karn.ord May 20, 1998 3 04/17/98 17:09 ECKBERG LAW a 4390574 NO.798 001 LAW OFFICES OF Eo1cber8, Lammers, Briggs, Won! C Vierling. p.L.L.?. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Ly(e J. EcItLer8 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 David . Snyder • James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Ureab Piletich* Robert 6. Br; mot. 88 FAX (e12) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolf( Marl,J. VieriZng* Gregory G. Geller* 0944-1990 1110 md6 J. waidner* yQualifted Neatro1 AAil,•lor6 Pkedhata,r Susan D, Olsen COVER SHEET - FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION '�"ct:(:ed Kaetra►arb:tr.tur •Cierd(iedReal�atats 5pcoiatint DATE: April 17, 1998 Please deliver the following page (s) to: FAX NO: NAME: Mayor, Councilpersons and Staff FROM: Mark J. Vierling / Sandy TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES 1 , 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: I am informed, that after a debate among members of the municipal, board that indicated a 2-2 deadlock to reopen the hearings and a end the le•al descri• io member Hu.it•ren chap•ed his v. - an• the Board summilarily accented the first draft of the Order. As such the order will provide the Kern Center to OPH * * * * * * * * * * * HARD COPY WILL (NOT) FOLLOW BY MAIL An Equal Opportunity Employer � — Phone: (612)603-6757 :=• Fax: (612)603-6762 " '`. Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 C∎,-, Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 Vii:...:.+•'• . STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD ') Suite 225 Bandana Square 13 1021 Bandana Boulevard East ' St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 �J MEMORANDUM TO: Interested Parties FROM: Starlene J. Holman, Office Services DATE : April 8, 1998 SUBJECT: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Please be advised that on April 17, 1998 the Municipal Board will hold a meeting regarding the above-entitled matter at 10:00 a.m. 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. The Municipal Board will: 1)clarify its preliminary decision as it relates to the issue of property included in the commercial area of the subject area; and 2)determine whether it will consider the motion for Request For Additional Hearing pursuant to Minn. Rule 6000.3000 as filed by Mr. McDonald. That determination will be based upon the motion and any written responses by counsel only. No oral arguments will be heard on April 17th. 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 TYY 1-800-627-3529. sjh LAW OFFICES OF Ecicberg. Lammers. Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Eck6erg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 David K. Snyder James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Brosh Piletich* Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Mark J. Vierlingit (1944-1996} Gregory G. Galler+ Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 *Qralifmci Nertral Ar6itratorf!Mediator Thomas J. Weidner* *Qualified Neutral Ar6itrstor Susan D. Olson April 13, 1998 *CertifieI Real Estate Specialist lEt@MOW[E ,h Ms . Christine Scotillo D \ Executive Director APR 1 41998 C Minnesota Municipal Board iV 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St . Paul , Minnesota 551083 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown/Lake Elmo Proceedings Motion to Re-open Proceedings Dear Ms . Scotillo: I am in receipt of your memorandum to the parties dated April 8, 1998 . I appreciate the position that the Municipal Board will be taking in this matter not accepting any testimony or arguments inasmuch as the City of Oak Park Heights and its staff is incapable of attending this hearing on April 17 . For your records, please note that the City of Oak Park Heights supports the motion brought by Mr. John Scott McDonald on behalf of his client, David Screaton, to re-open these proceedings . It appears to us from the conversations that we were allowed to overhear from the members of the Municipal Board that the property that would otherwise be remaining in Baytown Township and presumably assigned to Lake Elmo if the orderly annexation proceeding goes forward would nonetheless be restricted by the regulations of the Metropolitan Council' s Regional Growth Strategy and Blueprint and therefore require that that property be developed one home per 40 acres or otherwise held not to be developed at all until such time as the urban district within the City of Oak Park Heights was, in fact, extended to take in this area at some later date . Even if the Screaton property were to be annexed to the City of Lake Elmo or remain in Baytown Township, it would not be Ms . Christine Scotillo April 13 , 1998 Page 2 to 5 acre residential development available for the traditional 2}� t p ment implemented by Baytown Township nor would it be available for cluster developments as advocated by Lake Elmo given the existence of the Metropolitan Council' s Regional Growth Strategy and •,.,. Blueprint and the enforcement of that plan by the Metropolitan Council . Consequently, the effect of leaving that property in Baytown Township is simply to hold that property in reserve until such time as it becomes available for urbanization within the City of Oak Park Heights at a future date. Please pass our comments along to the members of the Board for their consideration at the meeting on the 17th. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc : David Magnuson Jerome Filla J. Scott McDonald Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel Thomas Melena, Oak Park Heights City Administrator Memorandum To: TOM MELENA,CITY ADMINISTRATOR,OPH From: David R. Screaton Date: 04/07/98 Re: OAK PARK/BAYTOWN ANNEXATION We ask for your support in our motion to reconvene the annexation hearings, due to major new developments since the November hearings that have rendered the Municipal Board decision on our land to be inappropriate. The motion and supporting documents are attached. We also request that Oak Park ask the Metropolitan Council to support our position more strongly. It is important that they change their previous recommendation that"the area be sewered"to a recommendation that"the area be sewered by Oak Park Heights", since Oak Park is clearly the only city that can do so. Sincerely, David R. Screaton \\\L I • 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 Aril3 1998 p, 3, 199 • 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 herewith is a Motion regarding reopening the evidentiary hearing in this matter to accept new evidence. We request the opportunity to have oral argument on this motion. The motion is being served on all other parties. John S. McDonald • cc: Jean Matross Jerry Filla Mark Vierling David Magnuson A-5821/Oak Park BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Paul B. Double Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair David Engstrom Ex-Officio Member Dennis Hegberg Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION NOTICE OF MOTION AND FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND MOTION OF PETITIONERS TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES AND OAKGREEN FARMS. INC. CHAPTER 414 TO ALL PARTIES: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 17th day of April,1998 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Blvd. East, St. Paul, Mn. 55108, Petitioners David R. Screaton Partnership and Oakgreen Farms, Inc. will move the Minnesota Municipal Board for the following relief: 1. Setting a time and place for-an additional hearing on the above captioned petition as authorized by Rule 6000.3000 to consider additional evidence including a. the letter from the Metropolitan Council to the City of Lake Elmo dated March 2, 1998 requiring that a plan be submitted for MUSA extension or in the alternative the property be zoned for one unit per 40 acres. b. Letters from residents in the subject area to disprove the allegation contained in the Conclusion of the Joint Memorandum and Argument of Baytown and Lake Elmo that 19 of the 21 area residents signed petitions asking that the subject area be annexed to Lake Elmo, a false allegation which was not supported by the record but which may have misled the Board in the decision making process. c. A recent proposal by Presbyterian Homes for an an assisted living campus to be located on the 120 acres in the City of Oak Park Heights which was referred to at the hearing as the "Haase propety" and is the only land within the City of Oak Park Heights available for residential development. The proposal when approved will exhaust the residential land in Oak Park Heights and makes it even more crucial that the land in the subject area be available for residential development wihtin the City of Oak Park Heights. 2. Delaying the final vote on this matter until the vacant position on the Minnesota Municipal Board has been filled thereby allowing a full board to vote on this important issue. 3. For such other or further relief as the Board deems appropriate. Dated this 3rd day of April, 1998 John S. McDonald (70063) LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioners David R. Screaton Partnership and Oakgreen Farms,Inc. 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Telephone: (612) 777-6960 • Metropolitan 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 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. 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 Filth 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 5340 Stillwater Blvd. North STILLWATER, MINNESOTA • 55082 March 22, 1998 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: OAK PARK- BAYTOWN ANNEXATION: COMPROMISE SUGGESTION Dear MUNICIPAL BOARD MEMBERS: I reside in the Oak Park Annexation area,and am very unhappy with the preliminary decision that would put my property in Lake Elmo. I listened to the tape of the February 18 hearing, and noted that the Board felt that it was important to Iisten to those of us that reside here. I agree that the opinions of the residents are important, and I suggest that the best compromise would be to allow those residents who wish to go to OAK PARK to do so, and those preferring LAKE ELMO to do so. I'm including a map of the residential areas that shows how we residents feel this area should be divided. Perhaps this map could serve as a compromise solution to a very difficult problem. The areas highlighted in pink are those that would prefer Oak Park Heights. Those wanting to go to Oak Park Heights are contiguous to Oak Park Heights, and those prefering Lake Elmo are contiguous to Lake Elmo. Only the pastor and members of St. John's Lutheran Church did not voice a preference for either community.. Sincerely, Be Smith • • fY ,„ ICJ h 207 ' 3 11., .7:, 1 .. .. ..'. , }3 ,.: .; ii. ..., , , "A , •,..,_; ___= rt L'M . . '. 't-•ii 4, ''. ,,t-„i 1 .„ ...1 , __. ,0,.. n • :•,i-• .z. ;•,, .-',,-- 6 ?! z r' . x . ` dye r- '.4',:. - • 1,..: ; ..-i. Cl) ee K N.,71 r) �7 1* Fn y�0 i ,- l• tl f 7 �' y o ° " r li ➢1 i,I nrrgvi n u� a n f F D � ��/ :� -4.4i �' •.HRH Cf tfq I . mo I 1 +,vim "/ 'f s - • IY { I r • - u. j I I�'to t7 < 1) ----::'--- _yy - i z .. o • vv•i o z i 'I_ . I ml 1 • 1.' J m p v :u. p• •Y I I ,I I • O cn 1 f III I . fi1.• g It 1 • v , •• ,.j _ I I ii / "1 U, v I -1 i n o �r 0p Y I I 1 .V\� �\1 I I ,�� _ I §/ t»I 1 I••'' – 1 S �, x J ' 6 z-. . I .. 1• .i) { .1_ Z I N I 1 . ,, p § co. . 1 1(1 � I I I I 1 i I I r.i— _ :_41,-frinA 1 . _ _ __.\,__,. --,Tv , tA 1 M1 4. ...--.4 ...- 1 1°-.1 V- at'-' -t______I_I-I'l `..rcjiirtii1F-- C! ' i IA-- \-- ------ I I . ill, ..------Z. ),.___\.. 11/ 4..,..j ii, 11• - •/' -7:7.= • 5340 Stillwater Boulevard North • STILLWATER,MN 55082 • MARCH 22,1998 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd East St. Paul,MN 55108 RE: OAK PARK HEIGHTS-BAYTOWN ANNEXATION Dear Members of the Municipal Board: Rive in the Oak Park Heights annexation area, and I definitely would prefer to be annexed to OAK PARK HEIGHTS, not Lake Elmo. Baytown Attorney Magnuson says that 19 residents in this area want to go to Lake Elmo. That is very odd, since I can only find 8 residents who want to go to Lake Elmo. I prefer Oak Park Heights, as do many of my neighbors Also, my neighbor,Pastor Malchow and his wife and two children, have remained neutral on this issue, so Mr. Magnuson's count is greatly exaggerated The last three speakers at the November public hearing who were counted as part of the 19, were in fact township officials or their spouses, and NOT residents of the annexation area. Sincerely, , /1104W John Holm ROBERT D. AEISOA 12055 SS' STREET NORTH STIIIWRTER. MA 55082 Match 23. 1998 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD SUITE 225 BANDANA SQUARE 1021 BANDANA BLVD. EAST ST.PAUL, MN 5510 Dear Commissioners of the Municipal Board: PLEASE SAY NO TO LAKE ELMO! I am a resident of the Oak Park Heights Annexation area, and I definitely want to go to OAK PARK HEIGHTS, NOT LAKE ELMO. Mr. Magnuson erroneously counted me as one of the 19 residents who wanted to go into Lake Elmo. This is false,and I am very angry to be misrepresented in that way. Sincerely, 1,6,14 -0/91 c)/lettit) Robert D.Nelson • CARRIAGE HOMES INC March 23, 1998 Ms.Christine Scotillo Executive Director MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd.Fait St.Paul,MN 55108 RE: ANNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS As the potential buyer/developer of the 100 acres in the annexation area south of 55th Street,I implore you to reconsider your decision,and annex these acres to Oak Park Heights. Since the 120 acres of Haase property has now been sold to the Presbyterian Homes,the above 100 acres are the only available land in the area for a residential housing community.. The land is uniquely suited for residential bousing because of its proximity to roads, stores,transportation etc.. I have always developed land in an environmentally sensitive manner,and I pride myself on being a good P Y � P Y g g steward of the land. There is an enormous demand for sewered residential land. For the benefit of the community, please allow this land to be annexed to Oak Park Heights. Sincerely, John Arkell • President • • 324 SOUTH MAIN • STILLWATER, MN • 55082 PHONE: 612-439-2414 • FAX: 612-439-3254 LEE/SCREAT8N 711 MANNING AVBWUE NORTH LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042 March 24, 1998 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. EaP.t St . Pau? , MN 551O8 RE: OAK PARK/BAYTOWN ANNEXATION Dear Minnesota Municipal Board Members: We have received a letter from Metropolitan Council stating that they will not a} \ ow the cluster typp zoning that Lake Elmo has proposed for our property. MY husband and I own 50 acres in the annexation area which on February 18, 1998, you tentatively decided would be annexed to Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo had proposed cluster nousing at 9 houses per 20 acres . On March 2, 1998, Metropolitan Council vetoed that zoning. Enclosed a copy of their letter statino their position . Clearly, Lake Elmo cannot fulfill \ ts promises. Under these circumstances, annexation to Lake Elmo imposes severe hardship on us. IN LIGHT OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL DECISION, I 'M ASKING THAT YOU RECONSIDER YOUR DECISION, AND ANNEX THE LAND SOUTH OF 55TH STREET TO OAK PARK HEIGHTS . Sincerely, Sarah L , Lee LAW OFFICES OF Eekberg, Lammers, Briggs. Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 01835 Norther. Avenue Lyle J. Echberg Sttllwdter. Minnesota 55082 David K. Snyder ,James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Urosh Piletieh* Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Marl: J. Vierling* 1944-199G Gregory G. Galler♦ Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 ( r *Qualified Neural Arbitrator Fs Mediator Thomas J. Weidner* Q ♦ uaf;f;ed Neniral ArbArator Susan D. Olson April 7, 1998 *Certified Real Estate Specialist Mr. Thomas Melena City Administrator PPR - 8 City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street North J P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown Annexation Dear Tom: Enclosed herewith please find copy of correspondence and motion submitted by David R. Screaton Partnership and Oakgreen Farms, Inc . to reopen the evidentiary hear' . in this matter. Please review these documents and give me a with any questions or comments you might have . Yours ruly, Ma k J. Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure LAWSON, MARSHALL, MCDONALD & GALOWITZ. P.A. C PY 0 LAWYERS RAYMONO O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH JOHN SCOTT MC ONALD LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 5504a TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ TELEPHONE: (612) 777-6960 ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH OF COUNSEL ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (61 2) 777-8937 ROOERICK A. LAWSON April 3, 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 herewith is a Motion regarding reopening the evidentiary hearing in this matter to accept new evidence. We request the opportunity to have oral argument on this motion. The motion is being served on all other parties. 7A%-71,,,,,_,..4/1 John S. McDonald • cc: Jean Matross Jerry Filla Mark Vierling David Magnuson • A-5821/Oak Park BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA COPYPaul B. Double Chair Andrew D. Hultgren Vice Chair David Engstrom Ex-Officio Member Dennis Hegberg Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION NOTICE OF MOTION AND FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND MOTION OF PETITIONERS TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS DAVID R. SCREATON PARTNERSHIP PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES AND OAKGREEN FARMS, INC. CHAPTER 414 TO ALL PARTIES: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on the 17th day of April,1998 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of the Minnesota Municipal Board, Suite 225 Bandana Square, 1021 Bandana Blvd. East, St. Paul, Mn. 55108, Petitioners David R. Screaton Partnership and Oakgreen Farms, Inc. will move the Minnesota Municipal Board for the following relief: 1. Setting a time and place for an additional hearing on the above captioned petition as authorized by Rule 6000.3000 to consider additional evidence including a. the letter from the Metropolitan Council to the City of Lake Elmo dated March 2, 1998 requiring that a plan be submitted for MUSA extension or in the alternative the property be zoned for one unit per 40 acres. • b. Letters from residents in the subject area to disprove the allegation contained in the Conclusion of the Joint Memorandum and Argument of Baytown and Lake Elmo that 19 of the 21 area residents signed petitions asking that the subject area be annexed to Lake Elmo, a false allegation which was not supported by the record but which may have misled the Board in the decision making process. c. A recent proposal by Presbyterian Homes for an an assisted living campus to be located on the 120 acres in the City of Oak Park Heights which was referred to at the hearing as the "Haase propety" and is the only land within the City of Oak Park Heights available for residential development. The proposal when approved will exhaust the residential land in Oak Park Heights and makes it even more crucial that the land in the subject area be available for residential development wihtin the City of Oak Park Heights. 2. Delaying the final vote on this matter until the vacant position on the Minnesota Municipal Board has been filled thereby allowing a full board to vote on this important issue. 3. For such other or further relief as the Board deems appropriate. Dated this 3rd day of April, 1998 John S. McDonald (70063) LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ, P.A. Attorneys for Petitioners David R. Screaton Partnership and Oakgreen Farms, Inc. 3880 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Telephone: 61_ p ( ) 777-6960 • Metropolitan 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 proposed MUSA expansion. b) Any lands that are not included in a ivfUSA 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, illi 1 Thomas McElveen, Deputy Director Community Development Division ' 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul.MInnemota 55101.1634 (6121291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/IT?291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Employer 5340 Stillwater Blvd. North STILLWATER, MINNESOTA • 55082 Starch 22, 1998 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: OAK PARK-BAYTOWN ANNEXATION: COMPROMISE SUGGESTION Dear MUNICIPAL BOARD MEMBERS: I reside in the Oak Park Annexation area, and am very unhappy with the preliminary decision that would put my property in Lake Elmo. I listened to the tape of the February 18 hearing, and noted that the Board felt that it was important to listen to those of us that reside here. I agree that the opinions of the residents are important, and I suggest that the best compromise would be to allow those residents who wish to go to OAK PARK to do so,and those preferring LAKE ELMO to do so. I'm including a map of the residential areas that shows how we residents feel this area should be divided. Perhaps this map could serve as a compromise solution to a very difficult problem. The areas highlighted in pink are those that would prefer Oak Park Heights. Those wanting to go to Oak Park Heights are contiguous to Oak Park Heights, and those prefering Lake Elmo are contiguous-to Lake Elmo. Only the pastor and members of St. John's Lutheran Church did not voice a preference for either community.. Sincerely, Awai Be Smith , ..14.'e ,,,,,,.. 1 Ilt 1 .. 1 i ' -L-1-;.-I___ i:-..,- • -1, ., • ko.....„....,,...:::- 1 ,\,„ , ,, ...... ... ..c.,., ..," I IR CI t"I• \ _-, - °I' it. ___ ...____ etpil 4 .... .......- ...., .... i•■ ..-------.- 1-- ---/■-1-1 --------k)—\ • 1_ r 1 I i Ill I 1 ‘6t7 - I -i---141 .. .,1 'CO g z --St 4s ti is, 11 Iv .....x Is ----- 11 .-- cz.: •' ...., '1 it. 1 ).) ,,,, •......., 1 v) 6 i - ,,.. 1.1 -... , 5,2 ....--) 1 ' 11 .....r"..r......., ...„..„11 \ ).,../, , , 1 ,4„.. , - ..I - - — —, it , 11) ^ 60. , 13 1 to Lt. 9 : ,51 *%'••••• ' I . . -----------1/1 & . • ta)-* I ... cC, ' cil . ' *+■ I yq 5 I - 1 § I ''% " I - • to ' ' I {— • —....„---1-1 >• L., --— I I I - ------- . -- I,/,' 1.) ..1 S.) 6 • 1 4%*,' . i'Al*•••■•,-• i \s,1/4.. •_ .1•---1 It' "...,...., • (I, ......-, ) , T . 10, SW 4,0 V t '.... (1) t ••• I ,.. ....—D 21 ■ ,0.3 - 'n- -• i'',. ' -- --.. -- ' • -41;Z ',4,.--t...,.... ; ,si: :.'• I-Ic,. 3 -... ---. ....-...._ pZ Itry4t-i.,,,":.,..'';I:. =:T.%*"...■ _8 ,i-141 Y4VILii'---- '1..--4'''''4.'s ''' *1;‘,..''7> 4 to m - 7--.------•,-.444 ----_,„,.. 0 z < ,-- - 1 '--. ''- • • lk--•41 f : '- ' 'I) :t,''0:' =% ,:4". vk -.--- 4 • , 1 .41_ ... 1 .. . , 44 -- t-, . ' ,.4.,_ . . 1,..: - ,-..- 4*".,-. `"-(1,, u-) • i. 4. co zy, ."..!..„..-4.,.1., -',.. .'- -1 , ...., -,1 - , cn w ti- 2 e*,..-, . - - ..:- - - -i • — -- --. ,„ ... ,i4 , p'Cr-11 - . C■ 2 0 qi4- 1 I -; ' , , 1 = :C. 'U. I 1 ' tit-,,," e4 r,If i • .. .• ' 4. .1'1- ' L) ' 1 ' ' ti'':- _19 ---' 4. • 1° ' '2-4 1t i•-• t : '' • • t..il -'34f, ,,,• (-3 .. .1 - ao i,-, .,• _,,,Ay:: , ;.• -' - I I( on al Q. IA; . ,4 -, .. -- r_ .. : ..t.„1 .„...1r . . ,t), ,.;,,.,..... ., , •• ,, I .. 11 ;; - I , I , ' t. : 41 4j. i i I • l' ;— :' —"Ze." '4.':•*4.:‘,. * , , ' ' ' ■'- — 0 F?: ■ 1 • ". til: t • o VE3 r4 t:,I.t --"*.,74,—, ,..., • . _-;.,- ...su,...„_„4 .."...41 ,,.. _.,..—..,...--..:1-----.--,-*0--,.....- ,-..,t, -,-..=_.- 04 mg ....,1=1. 4.41,..100.1« ---' •. .. • ...- = ccs Z . .. . • ..-: • • 5340 Stillwater Boulevard North STILLWATER,MN 55082 • MARCH 22,1998 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd East St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: OAK PARK HEIGHTS-BAYTOWN ANNEXATION Dear Members of the Municipal Board: I live in the Oak Park Heights annexation area, and I definitely would prefer to be annexed to OAK PARK HEIGHTS, not Lake Elmo. Baytown Attorney Magnuson says that 19 residents in this area want to go to t Lake Elmo. That is very odd, since I can only find 8 residents who want to go to _ Lake Elmo. I prefer Oak Park Heights, as do many of my neighbors Also, my neighbor,Pastor Malchow and his wife and two children, have remained neutral on this issue, so Mr. Magnuson's count is greatly exaggerated The last three speakers at the November public hearing who were counted as part of the 19, were in fact township officials or their spouses, and NOT residents of the annexation area. Sincerely, • # /10-e'w1 John Holm • ROBERT D. RELSOn 12055 55" STREET RORTN ST1UWRTER. (110 55082 Match 23. 1948 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD SUITE 225 BANDANA SQUARE 1021 BANDANA BLVD. EAST ST. PAUL,MN 5510 Dear Commissioners of the Municipal Board: PLEASE SAY NO TO LAKE ELMO! I am a resident of the Oak Park Heights Annexation area, and I definitely want to go to OAK PARK HEIGHTS, NOT LAKE ELMO. Mr. Magnuson erroneously counted me as one of the 19 residents who wanted to go into Lake Elmo. This is false,and I am very angry to be misrepresented in that way. Sincerely, /61141-'151 yl j4j)t Robert D.Nelson II CARRIAGE HOMES INC • • March 23,1998 Ms.Christine ScotilIo Executive Director MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. East St.Paul,MN 55108 RE: AiNiNEXATION OF LAND TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS As the potential buyer/developer of the 100 acres in the annexation area south of 55* Street, I implore you to reconsider your decision,and annex these acres to Oak Park Heights. Since the 120 acres of Haase property has now been sold to the Presbyterian Homes,the above 100 acres are the only available land in the area for a residential housing community.. The land is uniquely suited for residential bousing because of its proximity to roads, stores,transportation etc.. I have always developed land in an environmentally sensitive manner,and I pride myself on being a good steward of the land. There is an enormous demand for sewered residential land. For the benefit of the community; please allow this land to be annexed to Oak.Park Heights. Sincerely, John Arkell President 324 SOUTH MAIN • STILLWATER, MN • 55082 PHONE: 612-439-2414 • FAY: 612-439-3254 LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Eckberg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 David K. Snyder James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Urosh Piletich* Robert G. Briggs. FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Mark J. Vierling* Gregory G. Gaper. Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 (I�JdMe .aJG) Thomas mas J. Weidner* *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator�?Mediator March 30 1998 *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Susan D. Olson r *Certified Real Estate Specialist Mr. Thomas Melena City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown Annexation Dear Tom: I am enclosing for your information copy of a letter dated March 23 , 1998 from Attorney John S . McDonald and also correspondence dated March 25, 1998 from Attorn- - erome P. Filla, both directed to the Minnesota Municipal Bo- . . P1=-se review this correspondence and if you have any que ions or omments, please let me know. Your very uly, M_rk J. Vier . - . MJV/sdb Enclosure CoPY• LAWSON, MARSHALL, McDONALD & GALOWITZ. P.A. LAWYERS RAYMOND O. MARSHALL 3880 LAVERNE AVENUE NORTH JOHN SCOTT McOONALO LAKE ELMO. MINNESOTA 55042 TRACEY ANN GALOWITZ ELIZABETH A. RALEIGH TELEPHONE: (613) 777-6960 OF COUNSEL ANNE GREENWOOD BROWN FACSIMILE: (612) 777.8937 RODERICK A. LAWSON March 23, 1998 State of Minnesota V py Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, MN 55108 RE: Oak Park- Baytown Annexation-MMB Docket No.A-5821 Ladies and Gentlemen I am writing this letter as attorney for Oakgreen Farms, Inc. and David R. Screaton Partnership, two of the Petitioner's in the above captioned proceeding, concerning several issues we would like the Board to consider at its final vote on Petition A-5821 which is scheduled for April 3, 1998. There has been a significant development in this matter since the hearing on February 18, 1998. Attached hereto are letters from Metropolitan Council directed to the City Administrators of Oak Park Heights and Lake Elmo. The Metropolitan Council requires Lake Elmo to submit a plan for MUSA extension within the next five years or, in the alternative,to zone the property for a rural density of no more than one unit per 40 acres. The obvious purpose of that zoning is to allow for extension of sewer into the property in the future. This means that the planned use of the property within the City of Lake Elmo as described at the hearing will not be allowed by the Metropolitan Council. The fact that Metro Council is insisting that the area either be provided with sewer service or zoned in a manner to allow for extension of sewer service in the future is a strong factor in favor of annexing that roe into the City of Oak Park Heights which has the g g property tt•Y ty g ability to extend those services. While Lake Elmo would undoubtedly be happy to zone this property as one unit per 40 acres in perpetuity that policy defeats the purpose of the regional plan and is not a reasonable use for the ro e P P rty The second issue we want to address is certain statements made during the deliberation hearing on February 18, 1998 by Commissioner Hultgren. There were several times during the III proceeding when Commissioner Hultgren stated that he was very concerned about the wishes of the residents of the subject area and that those residents had clearly and overwhelmingly evidenced their desire to have the subject property be part of Lake Elmo as opposed to Oak Park Heights. Clearly it was the perception of at least Commissioner Hultgren that a substantial Municipal Board Page 2 March 9, 1998 - majority of the residents of the area favored annexation of the property to Lake Elmo. The reason we are attempting to address this prior to your final vote is that the record of the proceedings did not contain evidence supporting that conclusion. As set forth at pages 2 and 3 of the Petitioners' Memorandum in this matter, there was no testimony from subject area residents in support of annexing the subject area to Lake Elmo. Furthermore, only two residents of the subject area gave public comment in support of annexing the subject area to Lake Elmo. On the other hand, Betty Smith who was a longtime resident of the area testified in support of annexing the property to Oak Park Heights and Bernie Nass who was another longtime resident of the area gave public comment in support of annexing the subject property to Oak Park Heights. Even if testimony of the residents is not weighed more heavily than public comment, the division was still 2 to 2 in terms of area residents who appeared at the hearing in any manner. This analysis does not even take into consideration the testimony of the commercial lot owners which was heavily in favor of annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights. Although we are puzzled by the source of the perception that a strong majority of the residents of the area supported the annexation of the subject area to Lake Elmo, we suspect that it arises from the public comment given by some Baytown residents that weren't residents of the subject area. Part of the problem with accepting public comment without opportunity for cross examination is that people living miles away from the subject area(e.g. the husband of the Town Clerk) are not distinguished from people living in the area itself. Furthermore, viewing only the residential property lying south of 55th Street, there was only one resident of that area that either gave comment or testimony about their wishes. That resident was Betty Smith who testified that she favored annexation of the property to Oak Park Heights. Residents of four households in the area lying north of 55th St. and west of Kern Center apparently signed a Petition on July 25, 1997 requesting Baytown Township to pursue an Orderly Annexation Agreement with Lake Elmo.That petition is the only suggestion in the record that more than two residents of the proposed annexation area favored annexation to Lake Elmo. The signatures on the Petition are not verified and no one knows what the people were told prior to execution. It defies logic that the petition could be given more weight than the testimony and comment at the hearing especially in light of the instructions given at the pre-hearing conference which indicated that testimony would be weighed most heavily. There were many discussions and negotiations between the communities and the residents between July 25, 1997 and the date of the hearing. It should not be assumed that all signers of the Petition still favored annexation to Lake Elmo by the time of the hearing and it needs to be noted that several of the Petition signers were not residents of the subject area. Furthermore all of the residents except Walter Gleason live in the area north of 55th St. and west of Kern Center. The Screaton and Smith properties lie south of 55th St. and the Screatons and Ms. Smith have Municipal Board Page 3 March 9, 1998 petitioned for annexation to Oak Park Heights. Between them they own more than 90%of the land within the subject area which lies south of 55th St. The second major concern expressed by Commissioner Hultgren was the impact of the drainage from the subject area on certain residential developments around Cloverdale and McDonald lakes in Baytown Township. Although it was mentioned in Petitioner's brief it bears repeating that the drainage issue was addressed in the report of the Valley Branch Watershed District engineer. He indicated that the water levels of those lakes would not be increased by development of the subject area if annexed to Oak Park Heights. Valley Branch Watershed District is a separate entity and is not aligned with Oak Park Heights or Lake Elmo. The VBWD engineer is unbiased and in the best position to evaluate the drainage issue. In summary the two main reasons cited by Commissioner for allowing the property within the subject area lying south of 55th St. to go to Lake Elmo are not reasonably supported by the record. As to the planning for the area it appears that the Metropolitan Council will require this area to be served by municipal sewer or preserved for future extension of municipal sewer. Lake Elmo will not be in a position to serve the property with municipal sewer or water within the forseeable future. Lake Elmo's proposed land use for the area cannot be implemented We respectfully request that the Board reconsider its previous vote and allow at least the portion of the subject area lying south of 55th St. along with the commercial property to be annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights. Sincerely, LL1 / John S. McDonald Enclosure: C D,9vc !nj1-5 ,,41.54-,., Tc.z2 y ( /I/)- /11'14.4 1/i c,G I iiv g It Metropolitan Council C 0\ 1 y Working for the Region. Planning for the Future imilmommimmommosimMONINI 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(M 3) 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 proposed MUSA expansion. b) Any Iands 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- [418. Sincerely, -!� Thomas McElveen, Deputy Director Community Development Division 230 East F-Ifth Street St. Paul. Mlnaesota 53101 16:34 (612129(-6359 Fax 291-6550 TOO/TTY 291.0904 Metro info Lane 229-3780 An Equal Opportweuy Employer Metropolitan Council ; D y Working for the Region. Planning for the Future March 2, 1998 City Administrator • City of Oak Park Heights 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 13, 1998, the Minnesota Municipal Board (IvL IB) 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 v1cElveen, Deputy Director Community Development Division 230 East Filth Street St. Paul.Minnesota 5510 1-1634 (612)291.6359 Fax 291-6530 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Macro Info Line 229-3780 An Equal Opportunity Empioxpr • Warren E.Peterson PETERSON, Suite 100 Jerome P Filla >0 East Fifth Street Daniel Witt Fram r A /� St. Paul,MN 55101-I 107 Glenn A.Bergman F' j [ �1 V 1 BER M - 16121 211-8055 John Michael Miller Michael T.Oberle 16121 228-1753 facsimile Kenneth A.Amdahl Steven H.Bruns` Paul W. Fahning Timothy P Russell Esther E.McGinnis Melvin I.Silver,Of Counsel Direct Dial 14290-6907 March 25, 1998 Christine M. Scotillo py Executive Director 0 Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Blvd. E. St . Paul, MN 55108 BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL 603-6762 RE: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Property Description Issue Dear Christine : I have reviewed my notes of the Municipal Board Meeting which was held on 2/18/98 and have spoken to Lake Elmo Council Members Hunt and Delapp who were also present at the meeting. The following is our recollection of the action taken by the Municipal Board in regard to the property description of the area to be annexed to Oak Park Heights : 1 . The Board indicated that the Kern Center should be annexed to Oak Park Heights . 2 . The Board clarified that all of the platted lots in both the Kern Center and Kern Center Second Addition should be annexed to Oak Park Heights . 3 . There was some additional discussion about the car dealership at the southwest corner of Highways 36 and 5 which was not located on a platted lot in either Kern Center or Kern Center Second Addition. 4 . Mr. Magnuson was directed to prepare a legal description which would include the Kern Center, Kern Center Second Addition, and the car dealership. Celebrating our 25riry • J,s—_,LLLLt, �r�ii«r•,ar� r Christine M. Scotillo March 25, 1998 Page 2 During the earlier hearings before the Municipal Board, it was pointed out that there is a ravine which separates the platted lots of the Kern Center Developments from the area west of the Kern Center Developments . Although it is not engineeringly impossible to extend the sanitary sewer to the area west of the Kern Center Developments, it would be difficult to financially justify the project . All of the land west of the platted lots in Kern Center Developments is more naturally suitable for non-commercial development . This area is also presently zoned for a non- commercial use. The City of Lake Elmo respectfully requests the Municipal Board to abide by its preliminary decision regarding the annexation of the Kern Center, Kern Center Second Addition, and the area of the car dealership to the City of Oak Park Heights . Very truly yours, A01 -•me/�. Filla JPF:bap cc: Mary Kueffner David T. Magnson, Esq. Mark Vierling, Esq. Scott McDonald, Esq. Jeanne K. Matross, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, Minnesota 50$2 Lyle J. Eekberg ttwdter, innesota 5 David K. Snyder James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Urosh Piletioh* Robert G. Briggs* FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Mark J. Vierling* Gregory G. Gallen* Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 (I(1944-1990 *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator CI Mediator Thomas J. Weidner* *Q -I f][�p 8 ualified Neutral Arbitrator Susan D. Olson March 24, 19 9 *Certified Real Estate Specialist i ti MAR 251998 `E`} =1 Mr. Thomas Melena Via Fax City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re : Oak Park Heights/Baytown Township Annexation Dear Tom: Enclosed please find a copy of a memo which I received from the Minnesota Municipal Board regarding the above-referenced matter. Please give me a call if you have - questions or comments . Yours ve :r . Vierling MJV/sdb Enclosure An Equal Opportunity Employer /sci ; Phone: (612)603-6757 Apt fe;... , Fax: (612)603-6762 : =A= 1 Twin Cities TDD: (612)297-5353 e : e Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 '''' ..4g , STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul,Minnesota 55108 Core MEMORANDUM TO: Parties of Record FROM: Christine M. Scotillo, Executive DirectorejU DATE: March 19, 1998 RE: A-5821 Oak Park Heights Property Description Issue The Minnesota Municipal Board has received conflicting property descriptions of the reduced portion of the subject area proposed for annexation to Oak Park Heights . Specifically, I refer to Mr . Magnuson' s letters of February 19, 1998 and March 10, 1998 ; and to Mr. Vierling' s letter of March 6, 1998 , with which you all were copied. The Municipal Board will be addressing this issue on April 3, 1998, prior to their final deliberation in the above-entitled matter. If you would like to comment briefly by letter and have not done so already, please submit your response to our office by Thursday, March 26, 1998 . Your comments will be sent to the Board along with the draft order for their review. If you have any questions, please feel free to call . 03/24/98 15:56 ECKBERG LRW 4 4390574 N0.521 D03 An Equal Opportunity Employer ,/ `' Phone:(612)603-6757 Fax:(612)603-6762 r Twin Cities TOD:(612)297-5353 k, Greater MN TDD: 1-800-627-3529 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 MEMORANDUM • TO: Parties of Record FROM: Christine M. Scotillo, Executive Directors, DATE: March 19, 1998 RE: A-5621 Oak Park Heights Property Description Issue The Minnesota Municipal Board has received conflicting property descriptions of the reduced portion of the subject area proposed for annexation to Oak Park Heights . Specifically, I refer to Mr. Magnuson's letters of February 19, 1998 and March 10, 1998; and to Mr. Vierling' s letter of March 6, 1998 , with which you all were copied. The Municipal Board will be addressing this issue on April 3, 1998, prior to their final deliberation in the above-entitled matter. If you would like to comment briefly by letter and have not done so already, please submit your response to our office by Thursday, March 26, 1998 . Your comments will be sent to the Board along with the draft order for their review. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. 1. 03/24/98 15:56 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.521 D02 LAW OFFICES OF Eckberg. Lammers. Briggs. Wolff Fl Vierling, P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avcnv.a Lyle J. Eal(lierg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 David K. $syder James P. Lammers (612) 439-2878 tiros), Pileliebt Robcrt G. Briggs*. FAX(612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Marls J. Vierling* (1tJ14-1996) Gregory G, Go}lare Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 cQr.l,Radt3est.el Arbi+rator&Mediator Thomas J. Weidacr* eQaeliGed Ncetral Arbitrator S1184. D. Oleo. March 24, 1998 trC.,;r; d Real Estate Spee:oliet Mr. Thomas Melena Via Pax City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North P.Q. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re: Oak Park Heights/Baytown Township Annexation Dear Tom: Enclosed please find a copy of a memo which I received from the Minnesota Municipal Board regarding the above-referenced matter. Please give me a call if you hav- - questions or comments. Yours ve . Vier1ing MJV/sdb Enclosure r Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future O March 2, 1998 )1) [E © {E OWE , City Administrator 5 1998 City of Oak Park Heights _ L % 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, iliF Thomas McElveen, Deputy Director O 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 fr Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future March 2, 1998 III 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 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. 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 0 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul.Minnesota 55 10 1-1634 (612)291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TVY 291-0904 Metro info Line 229-3780 Art Equal Opportunity Employer © . OWE LAW OFFICES OF D Eckberg. Lammers. Briggs. Wolff (4 Vierling. P L.l 91998 • 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. Ecl<berg Stillwater. Minnesota 55082 David K. Snyder James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Urosh Pileticltt Robert G. Briggs*. FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Mark J. Vierling* Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 ) Gregory G. Gallen. (1�J d1-t��G*Qual.ftet Neutral Arbitrator F1 Mediator T 1 homas J. Weidner* *Quathfiod Neutral Arbitrator Susan D. Olson March 6 , 1998 *Certified Real Estate Speeial.st Ms . Christine Scotillo or 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: - • 111 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 withits northern--point terminating in the right-of-way of Highway 36 and its southern IIIpoint terminating on 55th Street. Ms . Christine Scotillo March 6, 1998 411 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 411 Scott McDonald Jeanne Matross, Metropolitan Council General Counsel 411 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. III Enclosure 15 1 . ` CITY OF T'Si r • OAK PARK HEIGHTS 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007 Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 .. i , TO: Mayor and Council EMO FROM: Thomas Melena, City Administrator DATE: February 20, 1998 SUBJECT: Preliminary Ruling From the Municipal Board On Wednesday of this week, the panel empowered by the Municipal Board to address the annexation request by the City of Oak Park Heights met and deliberated for over four hours on a possible outcome for the annexation of the properties at the corner of Hwy. 15 and Hwy. 36. After four hours of deliberation,the panel on a three to one vote indicated that they would be willing to annex to the City of Oak Park Heights the commercial property only. That property is also known as the Kern Center property and would,by their description,be the property on the. east side of the ravine down to 55th Street and then over to the east to the current boundaries of Oak Park-Heights. The rest of the property would be annexed to the City of Lake Elmo and be served by their municipal operations. Some thoughts and considerations for us.`;First of all the group did feel that the City of Oak Park Heights could best serve the commercial business park area with our municipal services. Very _ specifically,these services"bein the sewer and water capability. At the same time,they seemed to be reluctant to have the residential area automatically incorporated into Oak Park Heights versus Lake Elmo.` Part of this reluctance seems to be that the residential development nature of Lake Elmo appears to be more as the large lot development,whereas the City of Oak Park Heights has more of the standard size developments. I did find it quite interesting to hear that the neighborhood closed to the high school was looked at as a concentrated and intensely developed area. Obviously when you look at a map and compare that neighborhood to the five acre lot size just to the south of the high school and if you are not familiar with the way that looks on a map you can have a mis-impression that it is a very highly concentrated neighborhood. I think there is a chance that if we go to the Municipal Board again, we need to be prepared to address this issue and at the same time be very up front and open with the Board and at the same time have a report that clearly presents our point on these issues. The actions of the panel empowered by the Municipal Board will be finalized on April 3rd at the same time this board has indicated that they will recommend that the tax structure for the area to be annexed have a six year transition term so that there will be a way that business involved in the annexation to address their tax payments over a longer period of time. Tree City U.S.A. 'p .... ..,. ' .... .- - rik 11 i. , . . . , • ,,,,, , , . . ..„....,,,,.„.,_ •• .. 1 n — =11 •=_—=.7.7.- % •,,, ,1 I I 1 I MI % • 1 . I 1 t i • I I I I i 1 —•1-•.- -1 cno • 1 • \ g i 1111..\.„...,... 1 \'•-..„11 .,.-i I \ I S....r4.....1 — ---)-:1-11"....e.,4.• — t N 401 I 1 - # ..."';'13 l') 13 w3 .1.-141111111144HN'' - I 3 I .. tp. co I. : ---■ 31 .-2,4 Ilipp, 0 4,0,i7 Cj, .:- •--..-\`-- 1 --‘\7 i t-,., 'S 1 1, 1 . 4 __-• , ,.. S lift' I __.__-•--- —— • I K 00 ...- .- li 1 + i . '■13 1111111 11 (4 -, Or t I i 14441111111k0 ski% li.2s.31z..,. , i zo i %NI. / . i 2.3°3 . 1 5 031 I 1.3 J... 1 •=1 . • ' \ I I • I 1 IR I 2 •— ... —..j—,,,,, C 9 I oz (-) g Ci - ....._...-.0. i * 8 . . - s T-, C8 ei / -f- 1---3 1 8 I o Q 0 P 60/111111111111"1111 11. 1 1 > 0 -4 c). I I rnm 111111111111111 — — lilleli I 1111 'WINO .4.01111 . --.. co illf allINWA*11 is 111.1111410* .. re ■ 014 0 T q I I I I I .' - " .' VI.10 • O. 21 z \ N x : Sil il I illi I I I IWO re x r--- I o 2 mz, -3, a 0. 8 g drij 1&11111117:4111t.' VP -6 40 17•V Enclosure 22 CITY OF , OAK PARK HEIGHTS ' 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007.Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 MEMO To: Mayor and Council From: Thomas M. Melena, City Administrator Subject: BaytownlOakgreen Avenue Properties Annexation Public Hearing Discussion Date: March 6, 1998 At the request of the Mayor, we would like to set a Public Hearing date to discuss the possibility of the Baytown/Oakgreen Avenue properties annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights. The issue is significant enough to the city that both the Mayor and I feel that this deserves public input and dialogue and to have that conversation with the neighborhood as well as any interested citizens: With that in mind,we would suggest that this could be set for the meeting of March 24th. If you have any questions or comments please let me know. :? _ Tree City LAW OFFICES OF Ecicberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wolff & Vierling. P.L.L.P. 1835 Northwestern Avenue Lyle J. ECltberg Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 David K. Snyder James F. Lammers (612) 439-2878 Urosh Piletio6* Robert G. Briggs** FAX (612) 439-2923 Paul A. Wolff Mark J. Vierling* Gregory G. Gallen* Direct Dial No. : (612) 351-2118 (1�J44-I�J�J6) Thomas J. Weidner* *Qualified Neutral Arbitrator& Mediator Qualified Neutral Arbitrator Susan D. Olson March 12 , 1998 *Certified Real Estate Specialist a�� � Mr. David T. Magnuson MAR 13 1998 �+ Via Fax and Mail Attorney at Law 333 North Main Street P.O. Box 438 ##` Stillwater, Minnesota 55Q Re : Baytown Township O Re : Annexation Area Re : Issuance of Building Permits Dear Mr. Magnuson: It has come to the attention of the members of the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights that persons either have or will be applying to Baytown Township as it affects requests for building permits in the area that has been granted to the City of Oak Park Heights by the Minnesota Municipal Board. Obviously, that property will be annexed to the City as soon as the Municipal Board completes its paperwork in this matter, which we expect to occur shortly. We would request that Baytown Township refrain from issuing building permits in that area or, at a minimum, consult with the City of Oak Park Heights and its Building Department on issues raised by such applications before any permits be granted. Clearly, city zoning and building regulations will extend to that property shortly and it is appropriate that the City be involved in any new project proposed to take place within the area. Your prompt attention to this matter and communication with the Baytown Town Board members would be appreciated. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb cc : Thomas Melena, City Administrator, City of Oak Park Heights 03/11/98 14:19 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 NO.393 5101 MAGNUSON LAW FIRM LICENSED IN MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN THE DESCH OFFICE BUILDING 333 NoRTH MAIN Suet•SUITE u202•P.O.Boat 438•ST1LLwATBR.MN 55082 TELEPHONE:(612)439-9464•TELECOP lR:(612)434-5641 DAVID T.1VIAGNOSON March 10, 1998 RICHARD D.ALLEN • Ms. Christine M. Scotillo Executive Director • Minnesota Municipal Board Suite 225 Bandana Square 1021 Bandana Boulevard East St.Paul,MN 55108 Re: Legal Description for Oak Park Heights/Baytown/Lake Elmo proceedings Dear Christine: I received a copy of Mark Vierling's letter to you dated March 6, 1998. I do not agree that the intention of the Municipal Board was to order anything other to the City of Oak Park Heights than the property platted as Kern Center. The additional property owned by Mr.Burberl contains wetlands and a drainage area and would be unsuitable for urban commercial development. I enclose a copy of the ariel photograph of the subject area showing the location of the pond and downstream drainage ditch. The boundary of Kern Center is actually on the top of a ridge and is a logical place to set the boundary between Lake Elmo and Oak Park Heights since it is a prominent geographic feature that would be easily recognizable. Further,the property was not platted as part of Kern Center since it is of different character and not suitable for urban development because of the typography, slope and difficulty with access. We think it is important that the Municipal Board include only that property platted as Kern Center in their order annexing property to Oak Park Heights. Respectfully submitted, David T.Magna, n Baytown Township Attorney DTM/ds Enclosure • cc:, Jerry Filla,Lake Elmo City Attorney Scott McDonald . Mark Vierling,Oak Park Heights City Attorney Jean Matros 03/11/9S 14:19 ECKBERG LAW 4 4390574 N0.393 102 _...ti :.'.`-'7:.....7� w ,. ..cat r ' ✓ 2�'+:y�.l" la W+♦{�' >^'* • ' 1 •: / `101 •R' , ` uV 7 t -L�.Y�'.r ,r ".I:;y; Wi• t+• � } 2 •, ,, !' j ,J •,,,5 p.Li 5 ' r-a•.4r7r I'.r "A1"{'. r, r r J• ..' r •,.ry ,:....a. ---77't;•;,-•.. •:i�z ar. J�� l .p i A¢ , �•wr• .- _R:r .�. SZ w. i V r J' v " 1 Y �• ': w 1y J1 7: F .+1 t 1 ,`C1; 9 ^` ' ,., .. + .,-• ;.4 , ci +�,. ny \r ,,. :ry : .r a 1 i;I l; y' •° Y 4 ' ''''• 1 I i n • �, t P: ' q 1 r .A .j a' t . ,; R r'�' : ••• • ' ' ' v P � A C t oMO�k VOrC FfolgMs" � >• ----, ,''! :•';''' • i:, ,�' ^ yr'`�yM(ii II' ,h' .y ,� r.� , .•C. �� (a lr. , :ads y,F�4 \. a,r i �7 1� Subject Site ,� ;� � �;�.k � "w •A.,. ,Y, � I•' ;fir �� , i r,.� � ; �- '•�,�x�C; k�..-�1�'� :I i , 'p��, ,` •� i -. IA v.h i ��, l.,',, 7,:' t�r"•7c�' v09'i,.iy'.� :�•r'., ' -. e t r ,~f^✓ f 'rq 1•• 4 r ` 'tf ; 'Y` ':', '. . YN' , .14 VI. • j :� ! • C'^' �(k t t T .+.. .l• 1 k 4. .!—' trt •) yyd-r y 7; t• ., •fir- + ` h ^. ;: ; die ,• ''''''':(:...'• • r i c ' ,rte f '.p, y,•`d� fF �t 1r1 SL .• +td ! ^t !%11,'• r,.. J•Ni: ,f :' nt r r /..4.,,,,•;,!':,.44,;::,,� • t '� �5 ',� r-.er •-.t Y.i.?....., ZS..ry 1.. 1 r.+,v�_ v' ,�a }•it,.):-,,-:. ro��_ rr•t° . .I....a`n ". y,,,_, ^ ;, r 'r.r ,, I' Sri trre. . ,,-! 'i.•,�r! 1 v1�y 10ri11' 7•� rp'n^ �!•"`e • -t• K' .._ 1 r'� r ; �,, + ; wa�,. ":'..7 i !Y �; � f Air Photograph r , '- , 1 j ° � of Study Area F ' � ;� _ , ,, ,ti , r 1 1 kit t , _ ' ,4 `S'y �y '...-, ,. m�aashio -NI' • L WASMviGro COUNTY SURVEYOR'S `" �;. � . i , + ,� µ STLLWRR.MMa6OTA ,br •:?.,...„...., �,..�. � a l ,f • �''i �`_ � 57�'1'C a`Ee o _mo ti �t V';j� '' ■ P I,AENE in HWWNCTN c�. _ r RI-GI g¢; 0 AVE al WAN OR " - A,," 4 z Q 1 �� ISLE vE 1,,. 1.„,,,, AN •� aIW AVE�y. � CO : x`>@' w ', /I/71 ,... F1'"r'1 N AGV AMAGN - '° 1 I\ )JAMACA z�a AVE © i A "rt` 'T t 1 —`� p € "'JANET AVE 1 - AVE N = , NN AYE N Et R ~ N o k y w �` z �N y p a i t © r— AMP A c = v 1-7--------;AV ? Y Y - / o 4 5 Jon -,,,,,.4 k�P £ l J. I N ix R E r"' i � aKEIVW AVE_N�/j ^ y? z / / N NIMEMO AVE N KNOR0 A N 1 *'� ;� KIRKWODD AVE N $ x $ "''1 \ }* ONOIKE AVE 1 a $ { +`' ;' �� ,-NaA X "iii Y LAKE ELMO 'SE N y - i _ ,TMG - m N I \ .. 41? LAVER ECTN- � I a I�z G . Utt�C r a z mom, dw z { U LEGION SAYE s N LEGION AVE N 1111/rn .. L:rN ® ri+. I 4 ?r g (/ F M'Nu_ AVE e ® ` �CC eAl' AL 2N �' I v.•H3'Y F I".(� J bF ? ,. _ o`N x O mac'',e 1 - MDg4s i m Eo y`h'-+NDEy' VE N O i - { � h`N i�^� �—^�` f k i I . Pvex 9a Mir.r T'g emu`^ J[�"' - - �� N Hf� T9(� Yy ?y Si��11.EWB �.. 'A _ PLL 2 IS ~ ✓" -. TM CT rHy,T i I VA . ® HEAL AVEG N .... ^ : EIK.� £ { T r& '.I NM VEM \ S G'�� - Apr q$} 0, N. y'1 q, 4 N,GREsT ., - N� EAGI NO E tlO•b 'L�O.'[�y �e I¢ v NO Cp v.:rY M 3� NORTRRlO E -.�}� E 2 rJN HOP: z AVE . gt�e rt`5 EO a /V r-E f _~ S �. 2 V NOVAK AVE A1 NIDVGTRM _ - Y S' '.'1 nr C © ...DEEM AVE N la tl „y, ,� I ; nL°ED OAADREEN AVE N = x �� ` -1� r'' ? AtlN tl ., r r _ a - I I """III GRE <a • <. /� y 0.4/SAVEN ill __ - SiS � C N� sI �J 0CA EM1 a 9 l > 9C - m' „._ t. L �_ (1 OMAHA 11.r.O ..\ i !-c ;N. ? { SW ENE''EN AE N AVEN rn J- r j ` T 5 Ea I \i 1 W Nr.. E V OMAHA A c a 'OGPPE Rl,� - 2I �' 5 R�, RD s es-0 e ' '�? �re ,—.4,"--=z OVEk� z Y V;;;16,_____________________....._ F 3 I /N1 _ iv la ,% c --rt p O N ■ R' zi^ ..!' 1 Yi PAL.,. ” -- r,„,,,o A"AMO' e I~ *_ - h �' -� qp� K 7 IR � A w z z V - a -� rm. f y I u m s 1 �/-- :j \ 4. --I ® R 1. 4 1' = 29 a I �/ N 4, v,a. 1 Croix River---. . i O�: TCR.OU TEL 3 N `�.-- NN_s„,_ /tii _f-" ST CRC))X COUNTY SC fUNOSNORES no N3,el..°1*r.," - / - 2—� \ // Cr) r.". —_�\ .'�..., ��_- /(N ice' -rr' ��'�1� O i / ‘_ _ I Z // ' -ice �I i g * y ml o \ .� rr, Z is „ _ _ 4 I } �^a 1 t yT ' City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(65 1)439-4439.Fax(651)439-0574 March 25, 2008 Representative Margaret Anderson Kelliher 463 State Office Building 100 Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative: ') The City of Oak Park Heights would like to recommend to the Annexation aon fttee'". that contested case boundary adjustments between cities be allowed when.he issue the extension of water and sewer with in the MUSA line. ' Most metropolitan cities are well award of the Metropolitan Council 2030 blueprint a d are actively planning for the growth in population and utility and roadway systems.There YP 9 g P P are circumstances however where communities have declined or refused to plan and additionally where communities are incapable of economically serving certain properties within their borders.In those instances if the communities cannot work out cooperative solutions they should not be barred from using a detachment/annexation remedy to resolve the need. For example,in 1997,the City of Oak Park Heights sought annexation of lands in Baytown Township,the resulting order form the MMB placed the developed area in Oak Park Heights and the rest of then vacant land within the MUSA line into the City of Lake Elmo. This ruling split one owner's property into each community:the office in Oak Park Heights and the compost piles in Lake Elmo. All access to and from that property is from Oak Park Heights. Now several land owners in the undeveloped area would like to have sewer to develop the land to its highest and best use. The property is located adjacent to Highway 36 and is currently zoned for large lot residential even thought residential utilization of the land is not desirable from a planning, use or economic standpoint. The county road from the north dead ends at this property, and sanitary sewer availability from Lake Elmo may never be a possibility. At the request of the property owner the City Council of Oak Park Heights proposed to meet with the City Council of Lake Elmo in the fall of 2006. As of this date the City of Lake Elmo has declined to meet. The City of Oak Park Heights would like to meet to see if an orderly annexation agreement could be reached.With sewer,we could resolve the development differences between the Cities competing comprehensive plans for the area .County Road 15 (now dead ended) could be extended from the north and continued to connect to 58th street in Oak Park Heights allowing traffic flow from the north to the south on County Road 15 without traffic going onto highway 36 as it currently does. Page 15 of 22 Years ago, several current land owners purchased property in the Baytown Township within the MUSA line with the reasonable expectation that their land would have sewer and water for development. Currently the City of Lake Elmo has not begun to extend sewer from 1-94 to this land six miles away.The property owner is caught between a market that sees no value in residential development along a four lane trunk highway and a commercial development community that has no interest as municipal utilities are unavailable. If cities are expected to meet the 2030 Blueprint goals these types of lots need access to utilities and transportation systems to make their use viable in today's marketplace,it is difficult to understand why we as policy makers would bar the door to annexation from City to City where one community clearly has the capacity to serve the parcel and the other does not. Sincerely, Eric Johnson City Administrator cc: Representative Julie Bunn Senator Kathy Saltzman Representative Debra Hilstrom Page 16 of 22 City Council Meeting Minutes September 13, 2006 Page 4 of 5 D. Request for Annexation Councilmember McComber reported that this request was brought to the Council a few years ago and the Lake Elmo council was not in favor of allowing the annexation. Councilmember McComber added that she is not opposed to meeting with them again. Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember McComber,moved to receive the letter and acknowledge receipt via correspondence to the property owners and Lake Elmo. Carried 5 —0. Councilmember McComber, seconded by Councilmember Swenson, moved to direct the City Administrator to contact Lake Elmo and the - property owners to schedule a joint worksession at the Oak Park Heights City Hall. Carried 4— 1, Councilmember Swenson opposed. E. Adopt the 2007-2011 Anticipated Capital Improvements Program • City Administrator Johnson reported that new language in state law concerning park dedication requires that the City must adopt the Capital Improvements Program as part of the budgeting process. Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember McComber, moved to approve the 2007- 2011 Anticipated Capital Improvements Program. Carried 5 — 0. F. Adopt Resolution Approving 2007 Proposed Budget and Proposed Levies Mayor Beaudet reported that the proposed budget represents an increase of $27 on the city's portion of the property taxes on a home valued at $250,000. Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember Swenson, moved to adopt the Resolution as drafted to approve the 2007 General Fund Proposed Budget and Proposed General Fund Tax Levy. Roll call vote taken. Carried 4 — 1, Councilmember Doerr opposed. G. Set Date and Time for Truth in Taxation Hearings Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember McComber, moved to approve the staff recommendation for setting the truth in taxation hearings for Monday, December 4, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. with Tuesday, December 12, 2006 a 6:45 p.m. for the continuation hearing, if necessary. Carried 5 —0. • A. y �i fix• -'fie yam... City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 September 20,2006 To: Mr.Robert Buberl Mr.Thomas Bidon Mr.Bernard Nass C/O: Mr.Bernard Nass 5651 Manning Ave.N. Stillwater,MN 55082 RE:Request for Annexation. Dear Mr.Nass. The City Council is in receipt of your request for annexation into the City of Oak Park Heights,per your letter dated September 5th and received by the City on September 8th,2006.Pursuant to that request,the City Council had requested a meeting with the City Council of Lake Elmo to be held at the City Hall on Tuesday,September 26th,2006 at 6pm to discuss this request. However,it is our understanding that the City Council of Lake Elmo has declined to meet on this matter,but has left the door open for staff to discuss this matter further. The City Council in the near future will discuss how it wishes to proceed and will inform you of its intentions. pi.: : :��w if you have any questions. ,.--re , / ' is ohns n Ci Ad -mistrator '► : City Council Members!/ Mark Vierling City Attorney Page 3 of 25 Oak Park Heights Request for Council Action Meeting Date September 13th, 2006 Time Required: 5 Minutes Agenda Item Title: Request For Annexation Agenda Placement New Business Originating Department/Reques Eric, o' : son,City Administrator Requester's Signature / Action Requested Discussion. Background/Justification(Please indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public bodies have advised): On Friday, I received the attached letter from the three listed landowners, requesting annexation into the City of Oak Park Heights. The City Council should have some preliminary discussion of this matter and provide some direction to staff on initial responses if any. The Council may also wish to consider holding a work session on this manner. Cx eke,/ J E /LZ' G,) -/ Page 40 of 56 • September 5, 2006 Dear: City of Oak Park Heights Mayor, Council and Staff, We the following land owners(Robert Buberl,Thomas Bidon, and Bernard Nass)wish to have our properties annexed into the City of Oak Park Heights. We have requested to the City of Lake Elmo to have our properties rezoned for the benefit of the people to development the property for the highest and best use. The City of Lake Elmo has denied our requests for rezoning and to provide the public with the highest and best use for the property. We request the City of Oak Park Heights to take action to have our properties annexed • into your city. We the land owners will pay all the cities costs associated for the annexation process. We look forward to working with the city on the annexation process. Thank you, Landowners �1 61€ x��. 1 ,. cc: City of Lake Elmo Mayor, Council and Staff • Page 41 of 56 oak park heights mn- Google Maps Page 1 of 1 • • G o 1 -)8.te Address Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 • • '9' C o - fi3 m i4 Ca , 55, , � c `�:' euersL:, 2ndStN 1e 'kel, :app e eoocl t-tif1aotf C Ul) = ; „t f $ `4 QJ . `ml a1a c'c''''' ' 315 2,. fimt+SI v 60th St N Q7.6 q., I., Ora li tr ttti 5c,;ctri III L N 'J. rdt,nta., --K.,, .v III :- 1'v 53id 5i N i_. .7 I:7 S� !!4 •rn d7 S ri tij r .• •-r = ©2006 00.006-'Map,data©2006 NAVTEQP4, 11r s':of Use III http:O vq o8$lpom/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=oak+park+heights+mn&ie=UTFB&z=15&11=... 9/6/2006 • A 6 s\ •f d it f� s,- 1 t t t r Yt L - 4 ti • •�r r t _ �; ^ 's ;: c; _�' - , '#- , a q4 s i�� ..{ { `�'.''VV xl _ .z N a - .- . � . ... ,. ,,.....1 .1. c i.";":'4",:v.../. 1/ 4.,"'"'s•A 14. • ?er• - f,,-1,,,,,'.„:., ..,...;!,..--, r„„ -..s...„.. --17:,,,,, 4.,:,.- ,,.::--.7 Aii",.--,,,:,:' ":,4,./- - ,,-,i'"4.,-2. .. ''.4-....!`,,,...x... ' - v. .t...,,:.::;' i. 1...,....y,i,r . '''k,=;`.'„-. ,'.. -4t4166:''. . '''''''''' '''s, ..ti./,'4'. -:- '•--:f;--;:; . ."—..';'..;:::1; l' '' i '' 'f".fei'-';'''3-':P. - '—:::: :1, ? ;y� �ft. l< .`` j� S., 'r r '.4‘‘::;-"':''''7 i�� t a;:k '+�F a . `i..•,..,. 5•: � 'ii.,.:. �T . _�y5 �t• f. y .� "�' • . 'f Y1a t.. 't ; f A O ♦ M. .. ,,� 4 t 'r� •7 •- �:1� $.a /'.. +1 l• t �` x�-�" j� 4 ycsy 4� 4 i iK m1 •F 4 s - 4( 'i. c f • x a• •: i y ( 1 1 f , ( (T �e r 1� lS t . alllttteell (. A.�i _i.,.,f 3 -td - f a lw� t:'ap r r ..'s ,.:,'. .-...-.--,.•. ' �.f�-r>p .' jcs�",r t rpP A„ ., ,"°' ; i: ; �' ay 5..� ,1!i, . k :,a it .5- . : : ', i t� 'h' 5 t �' ; f .f;[�'.1y}� t t,'.Eli Fy :f ` 7kyy eY ap "i. -' ;d a.7 ` 1 A,••`g } tft, V u t 7�Y! �t. 1.: K !1:jiji`+F� e e �t ., �Nr .C." '',3.IV. V`°n« :7,r,, 5 4 ie F .. } 'iy, .y �7 _ ,"• } +4. �i`.,\i s l 9..i� �°` E c Sr��F:� •}• .•�rN ,,. 5 �, f >.a . � a :�r�e 7....' r i. h. F 7 y.i � ):.° �i lq� �n� � `� �a�Z"" �......7.4,...-7.C+L .d�� r e, 9l b!. a 'r�a.•Aty' 4 �_r• t F4 i� r t _ + b!- ... }yam ' .�•• r+ 4 ,,',1•.,,, 4 �,`.yr fyr �, t - 6 it� " "d:4 ! r4i': ��r ' d.t �Y, t !� F} yam. �-�, �.- -.-„E r_., . ,,; , ��a �� � ��`. tf i � �.�� ;X � p. �iK-7��iYS ,fi I :�`�$�`.a,.<• �1 ! '„:x�ife` 1•4 1 / j° x tF' € ,� .y' .°RRte� . •i ,,,,,) r' , • y�.F �► `e{�� � �F�-i��i�'� r}i �� �� ��"!�• `. ��• s F --.4. ° ••••••.f fj I.,. !II, .+v< a,• x e t ;NI): .• a1,p A ,.,,,T-7_ r ,- ;-,-, yy/L�`•• `.. • ' f• + 55- _� ;�1 `, { ti;. r wtY�T r r.4 is m Sj. .. m, k,,,..4.4 �t N. •' .� - } d x4G , r; •y 'f' S s it ,n:„^ , � z s, +Y 2 t_ 4 7' r. S i.:Ct 1Z`t y '` # ti. i r'',` i''rr; ti{ `5 `at.. r "'fi s � _ �� ,•CT' '1 '1 . ~ f s s.,...., s ,.. .,.....:" "wfY -`; 1 ' C. k a~ .n. »->r.i ,--,:e..-- r { j �. r. -' Oak Park Heights • Request for Council Action Meeting Date September 13,2006 Agenda Item Title: Adopt the"2007-2011 Anticipated Capital Improvements"Program Time Required: 3 Minutes Agenda Placement: New Business Originating Department/R-•ue- or Ic Johnson,City Administrator Requester's Signature Action Requested Adopt t "2007-2011 Anticipated Capital Improvements"Program Background/Justification ease indicate any previous action, financial implications including budget m, information and recomrdations). The 2007-20,11 Anticipated Capital Improvements document was presented to Council for review at the August 15, 2006 budget worksession. Several items have been incorporated into the 2006 Budget with several items are being funded for completion in future years. However,future worksessions and specific council actions will be required to identify funding sources for major utility or other • significant projects. Staff recommends approval of the Capital Improvements Program as presented. li • Page 44 of 56 City Council Meeting Minutes September 24, 2002 Page 9 of 10 Chuck Siedow and Steve Continenza of DDD,LLC commented on current tenants and parking lot use. Discussion was held concerning tenant use and how that affects parking requirements. Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember Byrne,moved to adopt the Resolution approving the PUD amendment with the addition of a condition drafted by the City Attorney addressing parking requirements related to tenant use. Roll call vote taken. Carried 5 —0. L. Amending Ordinance 201 Mayor Beaudet explained that the proposed amendment would be to ensure that the budget would come to the Council with appropriate surplus and reserves. Discussion held. Councilmembers Byrne and McComber stated that they would prefer this be in a policy rather than in an ordinance. . VII. Old Business. A. Outside/Fenced Storage Area Public Works Director Johnson presented several options for an outdoor storage area for police and public works use. Police Chief Swanson reported that the was contacted by the Stillwater Police Chief regarding the City's interest in a joint effort for creating a police department storage building utilized by both departments. Councilmember Swenson, seconded by McComber,moved to authorize the Police Chief to work with the Stillwater Police Chief to develop a cost estimate for construction of a building on City owned property. Carried 5 —0. B. Request for Petition to Detach from Lake Elmo and Annex to Oak Park Heights. Mayor Beaudet, seconded by Councilmember McComber,moved to accept the request for withdrawal of the request. Carried 5—0. C. Garbage Subsidy Councilmember Doerr presented figures prepared by the Finance Director illustrating several different scenarios involving partial and complete discontinuation of the garbage subsidy. EttV LuvLn 2,4 OAK P A R K HE IGI ITS 0 40,1, v.,,. ,... M. IVlemo . . ,-( " 1 To: Mayor and Council � C1 / Li w , av From:Thomas M. Melena, City Administrator Date: 08/20/99 Re: Adoption of Annexation Policy City Attorney Mark Vierling will have updated information on the Annexation Policy to be distributed at Tuesday's City Council meeting. . If you have any questions, please let me know. 0 •Page 1 Point Paper ENCLOSURE 3 0 Oak Park Heights Annexation/Consolidation Policy These criteria for annexation or consolidation are an attempt to ensure a fair deal to all parties so that one group of citizens does not benefit at the expense of the other. At the same time, the City would have in place a public policy known to all on this important issue/policy. 1. In the event of consolidation, the creation of a rural taxing/service district-Under the laws of the State of Minnesota,the two parties may agree to the establishment of a rural taxing and service district. That taxing and service district would benefit undeveloped lands in the township and initially continue with the present level of services and the present taxing as well as the present zoning. Instead of doing a mass rezoning of the area and averaging the total tax rate,thereby lowering the city's taxes and raising township taxes,the city would find it beneficial to keep separate service and taxing districts. An example of this is the Red Wing and Burnside Township consolidation of the early 1970's. The separate service/tax districts still continues to this day with the two separate taxing jurisdictions. Part of the rationale is, if the area does not need extra services, why charge them for extra services? The result, Township taxes stay the same as do City taxes,with neither area abusing the other. 2. In the event of consolidation, create a Transition Area-There are certain areas outside of any community that may, in the next 20 years,become more urbanized in nature. They may develop either as multi-family, single-family/urban or industrial/commercial areas. This needs to be spelled out so that only these areas would go into transition and would have the potential for developing into a higher density. It should also be guaranteed that the only time that those areas would develop is if the landowners themselves approach the community and ask for the zoning changes. These changes would have to go through the normal rezoning process and, at the same time, would guarantee that the developers would pay all costs of utility services to their areas. This would be the only way that the development could happen. 3. In the event of consolidation- Governance -By state law,the cities have the capability of expanding their City Councils to seven members. If there were to be a consolidation by contract, the parties would provide for proportional representation based on population along with an effort to transition the city to a ward system. At the same time,their Planning Commission would be expanding to seven members with an appointment of at least two members from the former township area. Additionally,the Park Commission would be expanded to seven members with the appointment of at least two members from the former township area. Another issue would be the name of the finalized community. To give a transition time for people that live in the community, a combination name would be used to provide a transition time so a decision could be made as to what the city would like and time for the name to be accepted. 4. Annexation-Except as may be needed for location of utility infrastructure the City of Oak Park Heights will not independently petition or initiate for annexation of property outside of the City limits. Annexation must be requested by property owners in the area in question. All costs of said petition and annexation request must be borne by the petitioner(s). 5. Detachment/Attachment-The City of Oak Park Heights will not initiate actions for detachment/attachment unless we are first petitioned by the affected land owner. As part of the petition,the land owner must first demonstrate efforts to work with the city in which they currently exist. Only after those actions have failed will the City of Oak Park Heights consider a petition from the property owner. Once the petition has • been accepted,the City would only act as a supporter and recipient of the property/project in questions. The land owner would be the prime petitioner/proponent for the detachment/attachment to the appropriate state or regional agencies. The property owner requesting the action must pay all City costs associated with the request. • - P URE 3 0 Point Paper Oak Park Heights Annexation/Consolidation Policy These criteria for annexation or consolidation are an attempt to ensure a fair deal • to all parties so that one group of citizens does not benefit at the expense of the other. At the same time, the City would have in place a public policy known to all on this important issue/policy. 1. In the event of consolidation, the creation of a rural taxing/service district-Under the laws of the State of Minnesota,the two parties may agree to the establishment of a rural taxing and service district. That taxing and service district would benefit undeveloped lands in the township and initially continue with the present level of services and the present taxing as well as the present zoning. Instead of doing a mass rezoning of the area and averaging the total tax rate, thereby lowering the city's taxes and raising township taxes, the city would find it beneficial to keep separate service and taxing districts. An example of this is the Red Wing and Burnside Township consolidation of the early 1970's. The separate service/tax districts still continues to this day with the two separate taxing jurisdictions. Part of the rationale is, if the area does not need extra services,why charge them for extra services? The result, Township taxes stay the same as do City taxes, with neither area abusing the other. 2. In the event of consolidation, create a Transition Area-There are certain areas outside of any community that may, in the next 20 years, become more urbanized in nature. They may develop either as multi-family, single-family/urban or industrial/commercial areas. This needs to be spelled out so that only these areas would go into transition and would have the potential for developing into a higher density. It • should also be guaranteed that the only time that those areas would develop is if the landowners themselves approach the community and ask for the zoning changes. These changes would have to go through the normal rezoning process and, at the same time, would guarantee that the developers would pay all costs of utility services to their areas. This would be the only way that the development could happen. 3. In the event of consolidation- Governance -By state law, the cities have the capability of expanding their City Councils to seven members. If there were to be a consolidation by contract, the parties would provide for proportional representation based on population along with an effort to transition the city to a ward system. At the same time, their Planning Commission would be expanding to seven members with an appointment of at least two members from the former township area. Additionally,the Park Commission would be expanded to seven members with the appointment of at least two members from the former township area. Another issue would be the name of the finalized community. To give a transition time for eo le that live in the community,p p munity, a combination name would be used to provide a transition time so a decision could be made as to what the city would like and time for the name to be accepted. 4. Annexation- Except as may be needed for location of utility infrastructure the City of Oak Park Heights will not independently petition or initiate for annexation of property outside of the City limits. Annexation must be requested by property owners in . the area in question. All costs of said petition and annexation request must be borne by the petitioner(s). t.g u v LAW OFFICES OF ^ 5 1999 2 1999 Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs, Wont. & vierling, t, .L. . F. 1835 Northwestern Avenue James t . Lammers Stillwater. Minnesota :')508 Lyle .J. Ecic6erQ Robert G. Briggs*. (651) -139-2878 Mark ..1. \ierlinc�* Paul A. �1�0111 FAX (651) 439-292:3 `` (1911-1996) �/'�• Gregory G. Geller. *((uati tied \cutral Arlailrafor El`lcdialnr Thomas J..('�Weidner* Direct Dial No. : (651) 351-2118 •Qaa(;Grd Neutral Arbitrator D. Olson* *Certified Real Eytale Spccial; David K. Snyder August 24, 1999 *Qaalified Neutral Mediator Irosh Pileti0h* Mr. Thomas Melena City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North P.O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re : Annexation Policy/Merger Proposals Affecting Restructuring of City Government Dear Mr. Melena: As I did indicate to you previously among other issues that I have outstanding with the proposed annexation policy, one of the more troublesome is the proposal contained within the policy that should there be a merger of Baytown Township with the City of Oak Park Heights, the City Council Board would be extended to seven persons, with two of the positions committed to representation from what is now Baytown Township. As previously noted, this raises questions of the constitutional parameters and requirements affecting one man, one vote and proportionment of representatives on the City Council from the various geographical sections of the electorate. In the United States, the people obviously govern themselves through their elected representatives and each citizen has an inalienable and constitutional right to full and effective participation in the political process . Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 , 565 (1964) . Since most of citizens can only achieve this right by electing legislators and other officials to represent their needs, full and effective representation requires that each person/citizen have an equally effective voice in the election. If districts of widely unequal population elected an equal number of representatives, the voting power of each citizen in the larger constituencies is debased and the citizens in those districts have • Mr. Thomas Melena August 24, 1999 Page 2 a smaller share of representation than those do in the smaller communities . New York City Board of Estimate v. Morris, 49 U.S. 688, 693-694 (1989) . Thus, elective systems must strive to make each citizen' s voice by way of vote proportionally equal . This principal is embodied in the phrase "one person, one vote. " The above-referenced cases stand also for the principal that equal protection guarantees that the constitution extend not only to congressional district plans but also to state legislative districting and local government apportionment . "Whenever a state or local government decides to select persons by popular election to perform governmental functions, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires that each qualified voter must be given an equally opportunity to participate in that election, and when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, that as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionately equal numbers of officials . " Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, 397 U. S. 50, 56 (1970) . It is my impression that a seven person City Council, with two of those spots dedicated to Baytown Township, may result in a malapportionment of the voting districts . Questions would also be raised with regard to the re-establishment of the remaining ainin g five positions within the existing City of Oak Park Heights to make sure that the one person, one vote requirement would also be met there as well . Knowing the actual amount of deviation from equality may be helpful in light of the Supreme Court' s leniency from minor inequities toward municipal governments, but nonetheless the principles will have to be followed. If it is determined that an inequality is substantial, a reapportionment would be required. The existing City Council compliment of five councilpersons is currently elected at large. The City is a statutory city which does not provide for a ward system for election of councilpersons at the present time and it may be that a merger agreement as approved by the State through that process may allow the City to deviate from what is the current statutory process . This issue, of course, will have to be researched further through those authorities . • LAW OFFICES OF 4:EC 1 T �`� 2 5 1999 Eckberg. Lammrs . Briggs, VV oi11 & Vierling, • 1835 �'orthwestern Ai enue Stillwater. ,kinnesota 55082 �ames F. Lammers Lvle •). Ecicherg Robert G. 13ricgs*• (051) 139-2878 Paul A. Wolff Marl( .l. V ierluiQ* FAX (031) /39-2923 G G. (-Jailer* (19 1-1-»96) Ire�ory Thomas ..1. Weidner* Direct Dial No (651) 351-2118 *��".'L1�<•d \<•a,ral .\r6i,ra,<„ (1 Mediator .Qnl;Crd tiea,ral .\rki,rawr Susan D. 015On• *Certified Real Estate Specialist David K. Snyder August 24 , 1999 II/Qualified Neutral Mediator Gosh P;letich* Mr. Thomas Melena City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North P .O. Box 2007 Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Re : Annexation Policy/Merger Proposals Affecting Restructuring of City Government Dear Mr. Melena: • As I did indicate to you previously among other issues that I have outstanding with the proposed annexation policy, one of the more troublesome is the proposal contained within the policy that should there be a merger of Baytown Township with the City of Oak Park Heights, the City Council Board would be extended to seven persons, with two of the positions committed to representation from what is now Baytown Township. As previously noted, this raises questions of the constitutional parameters and requirements affecting one man, one vote and proportionment of representatives on the City Council from the various geographical sections of the electorate . In the United States, the people obviously govern themselves through their elected representatives and each citizen has an inalienable and constitutional right to full and effective participation in the political process . Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , 565 (1964) . Since most of citizens can only achieve this right by electing legislators and other officials to represent their needs, full and effective representation requires that each person/citizen have an equally effective voice in the election. If districts of widely unequal population elected an equal number of representatives, the voting power of each citizen in the larger constituencies is debased and the citizens in those districts have • Mr. Thomas Melena August 24, 1999 Page 3 At this point in time, however, I believe it would be imprudent to represent to Baytown Township p y n To nship or the public that the City would commit to an expansion of a seven member board with two councilpersons dedicated to representing w _ he current Baytown Township for all time. Your Mark J. Vierling MJV/sdb -'` -� , OAK PARK HEIGHTS • Memo % = (? }2 4,,,,, /, , rs u 0 To: Mayor and Council 0° From:Thomas M. Melena, Administrator Date: 07/23/99 Re: Annexation Information I was always taught that politics is the art of compromise. At the same time, I was always taught that good public policy should take precedence over pohtics. During the recent campaign for the possible consolidation of Lake Elmo and 1 0 Baytown, the City of Oak Park Heights purposely stayed out of the discussion of the issue. We did not pursue public comment. We did not take a P osition on the policy question to be answered by those voters. Yet time after time, Oak Park Heights was labeled as the reason for the need for consolidation. Even as late as the editorial, which is attached, the City of Oak Park Heights was still labeled as one of the reasons for the vote and, in fact, with the rejection of the vote, the question is being asked whether this will now force annexation to our community. Because of the statements that have been made and the questions that are being asked, I believe it is worthwhile to present to the City Council the "deal as it should have been." We are currently aware of plans by neighboring communities, not Oak Park Heights, to do major annexations of property within Baytown Township. We are also aware that within those communities, they are looking at the annexation of the Baytown properties as a way to stabilize their tax rate and, in fact, as was the case during the orderly annexation process and election, they are looking at lowering their tax rate and raising Baytown's tax rate. From a good, sound public policy standpoint that is wrong. As a result, I 0 • Page 1 think it is time for our community to tY p oint out w hat the deal should have been and to point out that there are mechanisms for those deals and that Baytown should be aware of those mechanisms so that in the future, they have a better handle, a better understanding and a better position to negotiate either for orderly annexation and/or consolidation with other neighboring communities. With the document that is attached, you have a simple one and one-half page policy statement that is saying this is what should be offered by any neighboring community to the residents in Baytown Township. You should also realize that if the City of Oak Park Heights were ever approached, this should also be the parameter in which we would operate. There is a statement from the Federalist paper that says, "The purpose of government is justice." I know a great many of us would prefer to show that local government is cost effective, is capable of reducing taxes again and again and that we can cut better deals for the local citizens that we currently represent. Those are all laudable goals however, those goals should not be at the expense of residents in other government entities. As a result, to level the playing field, I believe the attached policy document deserves your consideration. Thank you very much. If you have any further questions or comments, please • let me know. • •Page 2 • idgnatestCOl�anc Friday.July x,1999 _ 9-4713 ore. blonds. The mar; • Page q cel h Gazed reserve. eP one number for confer. • • / b . • P a t atom 0!1 o n an annexation? f/ t tons o � ara• _. On Jun e 15, the voters of Baytown clear that they don't want Township Time will tell, but ant to become k made it o_ofT Time Park many of them Part°f Lake Elmo. o Heights,if the ni may well become B correct. The premise, stapremise d of the Township Board �, ;Asg committee by the consolidation Baytown land ' is that the neighboring steek If that happens,dough annexation, cities will seek the matter. the citizenry Baytown reside will also pay much less higher =propem'taxes to O also :to Lake Eaxe t Bayport,ak Park Heights PaY much higher n the than they would have • The Baytown supervisors given the current lion did so out Op who support' upported tax Picture. form of a sense of des the consolida_ ' ' • - - govern desperation. "not fare fgov in attempts more user friendly t—does Also, well P to fend off does accommodate Council is annexation. 'Coverage Also, the the expected under TheHesleyJe .Area. Places such xpected growth of pressure to can Legion Au preserved has Lake E the Metropolitan ��Youforthe develo Plenty of Open space,-and Baytown that have out the Years you preserved pl pressure in ' will certainly in the projections years to co Y feel the ins Paper,with r are revised dew me, unless the ings, ar. °changes its philosophy. downward or the growth The consolidation Met Council Gorka about SO peons from o t togethr by a collecti about and Baytown share communities,noted on of open space and . are a common desire to retain Lake Ju a 3p�i e you EImo's Old Village.rural character, ' the ' with the-exception You w Either Ption ofLake Pazk listening to the framers of the consolidation Michael Monroe an tithe point across plan didn't Music on the Waterf :danger of the voters:simply didn't believe get out on an p n opened to annexation and develo the hear excellent music Another possibility is that PmeII' is all that real, Monroe opened 'their current low taxes they don't care; to For the record,low and let come what they want all ages at 7p.m.With ex d' Bayport does me w may, hair floating in the bre expansion into the tow have plans that show of the river, stated back in Febru township, but Councilman Monroe aII Jlm Kosmo rY essence of what noF.desire to implement that the current City eco-folk." With a Sc 6 ?ens like the s element them. Kosmo s ty Council has intelligent lyrics and mall size of their city, said Bayport cite- Plet who Sings.eats,it A why he has been called poet who sings." In sons ra„n:»a._f Point Paper To Be Fair,What the Deal Should Be With the outcome of the merger elections, it appears that there will not be a merger between the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township. After review, I believe • there are three criteria that the parties should have considered for any possibility of a consolidation and/or annexation effort with Baytown Township. These criteria ensure a fair deal to all parties so that one group of citizens do not benefit at the expense of the other. 1. Ensure a rural taxing/service district- Under the laws of the State of Minnesota, the two parties could agree to the establishment of a rural taxing and service district. That taxing and service district could continue with the present level of services and the present taxing as well as the present rural housing type of zoning. Instead of doing a mass rezoning of the area and averaging the total tax rate,thereby lowering the city's s taxes and raising township taxes, communities have found it beneficial to keep two separate service and taxing districts. An example of this is the Red Wing and Burnside Township consolidation of the early 1970's. The separate service/tax districts still continues to this day with the two separate taxing jurisdictions. Part of the rationale is, if the area does not need extra services, why charge them for extra services? The result, Township taxes stay the same as do City taxes, with neither area abusing the other. 2. Ensure a Transition Area- There are certain areas outside of any community that may, in the next 20 years, become more urbanized in nature. They would develop either as multi-family, single-family/urban or industrial/commercial areas. This needs to be spelled out so that only these areas would go into transition and would have the potential for developing into a higher density. It should also be guaranteed that • the only time that those areas would develop is if the land owners themselves approach the community and ask for the zoning changes. These changes would have to go through the normal rezoning process and, at the same time, would guarantee that the developers would pay all costs of utility services to their areas. That would be the only way that the development could happen. 3. Governance - By state law, the cities have the capability of expanding their City Councils to seven members. If there were to be a consolidation by contract, the parties could guarantee that at least two members would come from the township. If more members run from the township and beat all other candidates, there would be an option having more than two township members. However, at least there would be a guarantee of two out of the seven members on the City Council coming from the former township area. At the same time, their Planning Commission could be expanding to seven members with the same guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Lastly,the Park Commission could be expanded to seven members with the guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Last but not least would be the name of the finalized community. Many cities have found it very worthwhile to do a combination name. Past examples of this are when the Village of Edina and the Village of Morningside consolidated, they became Edina- Morningside with a caveat that within the next five years, the combined City Council would determine a final name for the community. This then gives a transition time for people that live in the community as to what name they would like and time for the name to be accepted. The purpose of this point paper is just to lie out thoughts for any future possible consolidation efforts by Lake Elmo or Bayport so that there is a level playing field for all and to have the township treated fairly. It is worthwhile to let other people know the real possible parameters that are appropriate for any consolidation. The township ought to • expect good,valid, open negotiations that make both political and financial sense. That deal ought to be the same whether it is from Lake Elmo or from Bayport. It is just not good public policy to unfairly take advantage of a tax-spreading situation, nor to take advantage of a community identity situation or to take advantage of a governance issue within a community. The purpose of this document is not to recommend nor endorse any consolidation effort, but just to indicate what should be on the table. If you have any further questions or comments,please let me know. N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH • MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: July 22, 1999 RE: Oak Park Heights -Annexation Study FILE NO: 798.04 I have researched the annexation history for the City of Oak Park Heights through files in our office and the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB). A copy of the findings for the MMB actions related to Oak Park Heights is attached. For many of the annexations in the 1970s and 1980s, our files do not contain maps, or property descriptions of the areas involved. Additionally, the MMB does not have easy access to its files for copies of the annexation orders and maps. As a result, the graphic, as attached, only includes those annexations where a map or description was available for reference. pc: Kris Danielson 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2 - 5 9 5 - 9 6 3 6 FAX 6 1 2 - 595 - 9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM 0 co , 0 CU CO = 2 p_. 't a) O Q. N O C .c O c a. a. c a)a Y O a) 2 u) -- c I aa) 5 53 a) o 0 ..--. .c CO V) I a) C ca U a- v o 0 U a) a) co h a a a M m a) a) (0 CO CO U a) a a)) c c �, w a) a) a) Cl) c o U c ~ CO C c c C a) a o O O a a O 0 0 0 C > U (f) Z co v .... > > U O O 0 O co d. a) O O co N CO Cr) Q N x O co � a a ,— � M M N co Cb r e— N- 1` V) tO e- O e- W O N U) Z CD CD 0) C N N e- a) a) o) " 1- a) Z c c c I- Z Q O O O 0 O Z ci Z m O O O 5, Z O C7 0 Z a s Q. a a) a) c a s a c a) Q `W i= ° W Q Q Q x Cl. Z C.) 0 a) a s c. a) U a = Q 8 2 L W L ° ca 0 ° a a a o c . z C • L 7 o I v -a Z a v =a a -a a a a . -a L L. L t._ L L. L L L L. a N z o 0 O } o Z o 0 0 0 - 0 o o o o Z al J a 0 o W U Q U N (a 0 0 Z 0 U U N CU N CO•:1" N CO CU CU CO N 111 CU CU CU 5 0 u) O d' Cam. C.. N C`• N N N r• C'. N co N Cam. C.. C') C•. C.. Cs. N C`. C.. r 0 U) = CO 3 I- t) = m c cti Y C) 3 ri vCO N ° 19 ca v ¢ ¢ m 0 e r N - ..0 r L C L L L L .0 .0 L a) N a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) p_) a) a) a) 2 d' 2 = = ° a) a) m a) a) a) a) '5 1 2 = 2 2 2 2 2 = - a Y L. x Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Ca (`a 2 co ca as Ca CO co co co (`a co co a. o CL a. 3 a. a. a. a C... Q. Cl. CL CL a_ CL Y al cti CO>, Y _ Y(0 CU t13 CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CD Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y O m 0 (!) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "-' N _ M O NN- O cc CO 14-) Cc - p CN N-- CV C 1 C < 0 ems- (N C) e~- e~- CO (N 0 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a• a a a -c c a) a • v- = >, a. a) m E L = Y 0 cn 0 CO > rn a N C C 0 N- N °. -a 0 C) v c a ca CD U O ct a) N I 0 I C) 1 Q v) O) a) -a a) a) r- CD N C*) 0 CO N U) �O O N Cl) C N v C C II U O 0 0 0 CD CO p V �r N- O- 0 N -a CO r- 'a Q `''" t!) co 0) co : M O 0 N N--- cV ` .O a) in O ~ Cr) CU 'D •O CD 0) 0) 0) 0) Z -0-c 2 5 c 5 •y •5 c a Cl) a c a O a(is¢ 3 ^ C L C o O Q C3 < < < C) CD c m a) a� Cl) m v` • -vv .. 73 -a V V V 0 0 0 a. a 0 0 0 0 0 CO CD C 0 0 aCU CU c al C.) l < (`• 8 c,.• r• 0.• (.0 N 0 •• C . c•• cam• CA 0) C•• c}' C■• N. N. Cc) Co U) U) U) U) Cl) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 �. i Y ` . i Q a a co i C3.. a.a. a CYO CCD cu v CU (U CD CD 0 0 0 O O O O O 0)0 cv CV �1 N N O O CV c?CV CO OD CO 0) V N- CO N a a a ¢ a a a a .. 0 , • • i . I Limi•■■iw..... -- -- 1110111.111■111111-0,411MNINJWitigMe 1"111111 --'"1.111.111111.1111111111119 q 11) x ■P 'nwilmo ----- -_._•,,.. V 4 = .4 -.141iliwiiiir .44q, .44''.=' =II Mg ,i10. 1 111 0 a 0 ir 0 cl.cn 0 / 8 gr..,OMNI . a r 0 P1■1 •1 kIti, F4 I . 4' ‘ (t) > .. 1 NMI 4449411111 D , r- 0:11111/11syar x.. i. -E, ., • ; /1 ,, V s , 100 0 di‘AtA1N _. ...01.1, _ ,1h,,, Nj rff-Al '''.*, 9 in 1114......... --— ger -ri ): ,A t 1 r- P ■■-111."1715111111 IF ''''''' 400 OITItiilliWI Oi , :' 4; a .%110111 Aisk■ ____ qb __ 11111 11,1 1114 I i 11 .40 64 dig 1 la SVA,#■-■Taill In 1 1 'op! I a- ,,tep . .1 : ,,, ,,,,, , , , , • 0 i 0 . rall 11,INI.,-111■4111 ,,, , , A:, _1,:, , ;,' ),t, , N N Illigigiti _... ,.. _,. -a m 4444'4 10))1P-1441; -i. .-.:. .:'31,':::i ; 1 1, V ■ ki '' 1 A 6 II ii ... . . 111 0 1111" 1111.■ - :,-: ,',,,_::..,iii li! , i;,1, him m 0 • 0 x = x x fu 0 fu rd -4 03 1114.. :I ___31v 1 ' 1 r.... 0. •-. r... 0 n• 0 Z Q ' 0 iii % 1 ' ' mission num. I (4, b Oak -- iii, ,41 . ‘ ' ; a •,I ., PIPIIIPI al l 'D 'ilt.ii 1, I 111\--TATIN ' te iiiii ;i - Olt . 0.71 wimp -0‘ 6- , mow .... --6... ,.._ , -) • _t F. Nab_),401, 1 '11''rIH111117111:11.1.1411r11111111:111111,farlimmillimigit111111111111.111; -- Il• 114111,P- - 4.4.11,471 v id 1 ' gtm in nos, a• Ii ; I r 111 11 ii III . __ . , .11/11, , ..,-fir II L A ,,__ _ I--- ..._,) stgra IIIII 4 1,- Inli fT.() E— in —Zi I V 10 t\ , mi ..gb *sr — 1.116" , 4* xito4T-di 11111r:in rathi -mo _ a . > 0 > 1 .,,,, rAis .,......,,,......,._- ,,dr...._,... .8„ Iiii i__N_Ii.._ a . . . ,) 0 0 '-o- (7, Er 3 \\2 To. Imo 0 , x . . ., „ , ..... . _. 5 0 0 111341.-----•ti ii ) d! nal 1 03 = a z \-111-1 Irdi. 0 > co o 2 Now.Meg 01°Ilal/MIMI. 11111%411/11 WIP/011111011/4 M i 41 ' . MO 11C' : 1171.111.. Ilig° 714 Doo 0 (:, JkV\ \G ■P■ % 0 o:Ir.' i) ■• Sfs*V mi.". 111111.&110:6111filird :m.:14494:18,4:111.0 1,1111111111M111111.1 ILifttlizieriklitallbri et lin Us . NiTri dill EN mi i 111 74 E:.=:= iii,Elf raz-im . lip AIM #4.%t° -SPIER 1.--111.1 cl, . . -- °-----. --0 --- _ in III '! [ iell \7 0.D c3 1 1111111V_I VII„ ilMill .. ..•1 \ci Cal ... 1 6, I , . Wall 1 IN ' am - HU ■ ii tp a 104,1 1 1•111C gulf NE , :- aril • ' roill —II ff 112 r gm i_Liii _____ _ . . pji II s , , u. " _ 0 --1 - 1 1...,... c 1 ka i _ _ ..... 0., 1 I I allitu 83 Ilan un rAkS I I• III 01111 ____ 0 • ' 0 I °ill,•II' II:III ki° i d;Irv- "' 1 ii„,,„1:4-..a . .. .Iva it E. ...tifi triel;..,:::7 r i .1.11117....".....7:1:„.1! 1 i'i +z I 1;- .0. k laril-vg14 1.1 II Ilk- ...iilit# illic-------.t!-------1..4111.1 11.11,111101110 IA 2 klik Ji " _7 °F°MR RiflT Li 1111 ...n.---- • " -'-"N\ or ■Ili id,jillorinimai rill kr;lilt mum.p. r>1 nnt-''''■-i.l:'............s._:........,__wi ..i ":"--0 kNN 1,...... -1 1 0 I: 11111111,1_ 'Nip. 7,..N.SMONib.,011 2, I La niii a IN.1" up IIIIP •Ils.'• - ."'":■■04".-I. 0 4a illoraptio al rawa03_71.00 ro-----;--- idLp",--10c ..-• I o 03 Ott iii . __ _ _ ill loth don Off ?3 ca 0 aD = lifi I lla I a 00 illtliTliffil MUM 61111111111 rm-ifillaum.niutim nu., 1.1 ii I zr 1 11 I I 1 I 11111111111 P. 111111 11 1111 111111111111 1111111111111[1111111111111 I I PI1140 III HI [ I I Ti. 1 Ng lifFiti iik',".0',. 0 ...x din I/MI.111111j 11,1111"11111 III I MI III' lall A-,i on' III ilii1 lijiii, :„"1„1 lucid 40111 11.11111 , ,,-, 4 co 0 co !inn' I) II QV lir 11 1 VI 111 1" 11 17 11111 1111 111r 1 111111111 Mil 111111111111110111111111111111111111"" 1 1 1 1 1111 1111 11 1111 II 11111 111111 11: 11 11 III 11 11111 1111,1 I III I 'Ki II If III 111111'n11111111011, 1 0 I IIIH I I I Il VII I I IIM III III II_ 1 ....,..7., 1,..1.„0 ii II ii ... q ,, ' Pr ,.."k•,G,',4.2- '4,,'' c i, > 1 11111IIIMfl i i i 1 I 1 1 11111111111111111 I I I I III II II (U ili Him---", tilrgrOpriTV--"' w n inieudill rem II I i [1. 1 HI UM]111--g Ilk Imi,u 7 .....t lit -a su M faun _ 1 1,1, 1,mil 1 III ri4 vol 1,‘,0 vi . „itto utv.„imv,.,, oitiMIRIYI t !I ... .,, 011" ' I1I, igi[Es] 1 i iv %v. 0 #,■,, 0 ,qi,il i.1 0 ,,....- ••• : ' ',r' 4, ,.1, A : 4,A, M su 41'',/, 40 if-11i1 lull-110H 11 i ii 4,r,W,\Vitt...... \\% v% 1,1%1 V,.!=1,-- - to rt 4611111.11 1111 l't‘ r dm 010\ AO.0\ id .441 -"... :t ''' ' , ■ir,,■LY)r,it t.e&A ' 1., , 7 0 SPA' 11111:-..41,1--, -Twirl 111,11-Elinlin faVAP4m,Ist,‘ , % oe'" .-' a , - 1 'f' , ■ „cloktyt, ; , . . , :, 0 11 41111014;"ilil!Till- A I i . 1 a og Li 00/00•01111 ' '''' ''''' ;''''''+' :4',.::,' !II‘,•,,,„ 3 M , , I ' '. -; '''',■ ' ..qt ',i4:.' ' 4t1 'LT i,„ n Fir Point Paper Oak Park Heights Annexation/Consolidation Policy These criteria for annexation or consolidation are an attempt to ensure a fair deal • to all parties so that one group of citizens does not benefit at the expense of the other. At the same time, the City would have in place a public policy known to all on this important issue/policy. 1. In the event of consolidation, create a rural taxing/service district - Under the laws of the State of Minnesota,the two parties may agree to the establishment of a rural taxing and service district. That taxing and service district would continue with the present level of services and the present taxing as well as the present rural housing type of zoning. Instead of doing a mass rezoning of the area and averaging the total tax rate, thereby lowering the city's taxes and raising township taxes,the city would find it beneficial to keep two separate service and taxing districts. An example of this is the Red Wing and Burnside Township consolidation of the early 1970's. The separate service/tax districts still continues to this day with the two separate taxing jurisdictions. Part of the rationale is, if the area does not need extra services, why charge them for extra services? The result, Township taxes stay the same as do City taxes, with neither area abusing the other. 2. In the event of consolidation, create a Transition Area- There are certain areas outside of any community that may, in the next 20 years, become more urbanized in nature. They may develop either as multi-family, single-family/urban or industrial/commercial areas. This needs to be spelled out so that only these areas would go into transition and would have the potential for developing into a higher density. It • should also be guaranteed that the only time that those areas would develop is if the landowners themselves approach the community and ask for the zoning changes. These changes would have to go through the normal rezoning process and, at the same time, would guarantee that the developers would pay all costs of utility services to their areas. This would be the only way that the development could happen. 3. In the event of consolidation - Governance - By state law, the cities have the capability of expanding their City Councils to seven members. If there were to be a consolidation by contract,the parties would guarantee that at least two members would come from the township. If more members run from the township and beat all other candidates, there would be an option having more than two township members. However, there would be a guarantee of two out of the seven members on the City Council coming from the former township area. At the same time, their Planning Commission would be expanding to seven members with the same guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Additionally, the Park Commission would be expanded to seven members with the guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Another issue would be the name of the finalized community. To give a transition time for people that live in the community, a combination name would be used to provide a transition time so a decision could be made as to what the city would like and time for the name to be accepted. • 4. Annexation. The City of Oak Park Heights will not independently petition or initiate for annexation of property outside of the City limits. All property for annexation must be requested by the property owner of the area in question. All costs of said petition and annexation request must be borne by the petitioner. 5. Detachment/Attachment. The City of Oak Park Heights will not initiate actions for detachment/attachment unless we are first petitioned by the affected land owner. As part of the petition,the land owner must first demonstrate efforts to work with the city in which they currently exist. Only after those actions have failed will the City of • Oak Park Heights accept a petition from the property owner. Once the petition has been accepted,the City would only act as a supporter and recipient of the property/project in questions. The land owner would be the prime petitioner/proponent for the detachment/attachment to the appropriate state or regional agencies. All City costs associated with the request must be paid by the property owner requesting the action. • a OAK PARK HEIGHTS .1e.7 Iviemo � = To: Mayor and Council From:Thomas M. Melena, Administrator Date: 07/23/99 Re: Annexation Information I was always taught that politics is the art of compromise. At the same time, I was always taught that good public policy should take precedence over politics. During the recent campaign for the possible consolidation of Lake Elmo and • Baytown, the City of Oak Park Heights purposely stayed out of the discussion of the issue. We did not pursue public comment. We did not take a position on _ the policy question to be answered by those voters. Yet time after time, Oak Park Heights was labeled as the reason for the need for consolidation. Even as late as the editorial, which is attached, the City of Oak Park Heights was still labeled as one of the reasons for the vote and, in fact, with the rejection of the vote, the question is being asked whether this will now force annexation to our community. Because of the statements that have been made and the questions that are being asked, I believe it is worthwhile to present to the City Council the "deal as it should have been." We are currently aware of plans by neighboring communities, not Oak Park Heights, to do major annexations of property within Baytown Township. We are also aware that within those communities, they are looking at the annexation of the Baytown properties as a way to stabilize their tax rate and, in fact, as was the case during the orderly annexation process and election, they are looking at lowering their tax rate and raising Baytown's tax rate. From a good, sound public policy standpoint that is wrong. As a result, I •Page 1 think it is time for our community to point out what the deal should have been and to point out that there are mechanisms for those deals and that Baytown should be aware of those mechanisms so that in the future, they have a better handle, a better understanding and a better position to negotiate either for orderly annexation and/or consolidation with other neighboring communities. With the document that is attached, you have a simple one and one-half page policy statement that is saying this is what should be offered by any neighboring community to the residents in Baytown Township. You should also realize that if the City of Oak Parr Heights were ever approached, this should also be the parameter in which we would operate. There is a statement from the Federalist paper that says, "The purpose of government is justice." I know a great many of us would prefer to show that local government is cost effective, is capable of reducing taxes again and again and that we can cut better deals for the local citizens that we currently represent. Those are all laudable goals however, those goals should not be at the expense of residents in other government entities. As a result, to level the playing field, I believe the attached policy document deserves your consideration. Thank you very much. If you have any further questions or comments, please • let me know. • •Page 2 .curora guest column . fax it. 439-4 3 anc • Friday,July 2,1999 Page q words. br SP telephone number for con e a 1 t r 1 i • ti -17t4 P 91.001 7 ■ �n : ea a�ns :consoliga,ion ran an an annexation? On Ju June 15, the voters clear that they of Baytown To Time`t y don't want to become Township Elm . will tell, but many part of Lake Elmot oofOakparkHeights fifths°f them may well become oriect• premise of Township Part The p1emise, stated by the n Board g comnuttee, is that Y the consolidation steer- aytown land the neighborin If that happens, annexation• g cities will seek PPens, the citizenry `the matter. Baytown residents will have much less s {pro a nts g P taxes will say m rh' xes t also to Oak Park Heights hts pay much higher to Lake Elmo or Bayport g than the Thee to , given the c they would have ;don Baytown supervisors who anent tax picture. did so out of ho supported the consolida- nonn of so ou of a sense desperation. The township ® # i are g well in ahem though more user friendly �� P + Also, the Metropolitan to fend off annexation. Coverage a accommodate P°litan Council is under TheHesley_le Area. the expected gro�,th of the Pressure to can Legion qc Places such as Metropolitan ve thanksYouforthe plenty of o ens Y n that have out the years you dreser P pace, will certainly in the a pment pressure in years to co the feel the in s paper,with' projections are revised yea me,unless the g 'activities,ar changes its philosophy. award or the growth Met Council The consolidation plan, not Gorka aboutSOpe1Spns from 'put together.by a collection of Elmo m both comrnunities,noted and Baytown share a common that Lake What were you open space and rural character,with desire tore June 30? ' Old Village the-exception f Lake P If you w Either ark listening to the the framers of Michael Monroe an tithe point the across a framers or the consolidation e voters:simply plan didn't Music on the Waterf danger of Ply dida t believe the out on an wonderfu annexation and develo hear excellent music Another nnexati pmeiit is all that real. Monroe opened :"their current low taxes is that they don't care; P nod tc For the record, Bayport let come what a all ages at 7 Y want p.m.Witt expansion YPOrt d08S may. hair floating in the bre � pansion into the township, have plans of the river"Monroe stated back in February but Councilor that show very rY essence of wha • , stated to implement that the current City an •Jmi Kosoro eco-folk." With a sc fens plement them Kosmo s • ty Council has intelligent lyrics and like the small size of their ci said Bayport citi- plot who sings.ears,it �' why he has been called poet who sings." In songs magi... _f; Point Paper To Be Fair,What the Deal Should Be With the outcome of the merger elections, it appears that there will not be a merger between the City of Lake Elmo and Baytown Township. After review,I believe • there are three criteria that the parties should have considered for any possibility of a consolidation and/or annexation effort with Baytown Township. These criteria ensure a fair deal to all parties so that one group of citizens do not benefit at the expense of the other. 1. Ensure a rural taxing/service district - Under the laws of the State of Minnesota, the two parties could agree to the establishment of a rural taxing and service district. That taxing and service district could continue with the present level of services and the present taxing as well as the present rural housing type of zoning. Instead of doing a mass rezoning of the area and averaging the total tax rate,thereby lowering the city's taxes and raising township taxes, many communities have found it beneficial to keep two separate service and taxing districts. An example of this is the Red Wing and Burnside Township consolidation of the early 1970's. The separate service/tax districts still continues to this day with the two separate taxing jurisdictions. Part of the rationale is, if the area does not need extra services, why charge them for extra services? The result, Township taxes stay the same as do City taxes, with neither area abusing the other. 2. Ensure a Transition Area- There are certain areas outside of any community that may, in the next 20 years, become more urbanized in nature. They would develop either as multi-family, single-family/urban or industrial/commercial areas. This needs to be spelled out so that only these areas would go into transition and would have the potential for developing into a higher density. It should also be guaranteed that 411 the only time that those areas would develop is if the land owners themselves approach the community and ask for the zoning changes. These changes would have to go through the normal rezoning process and, at the same time, would guarantee that the developers would pay all costs of utility services to their areas. That would be the only way that the development could happen. 3. Governance -By state law, the cities have the capability of expanding their City Councils to seven members. If there were to be a consolidation by contract, the p arties could guarantee that at least two members hers would come from the township. If more members run from the township and beat all other candidates,there would be an option having more than two township members. However, at least there would be a guarantee of two out of the seven members on the City Council coming from the former township area. At the same time,their Planning Commission could be expanding to seven members with the same guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Lastly,the Park Commission could be expanded to seven members with the guarantee of at least two members from the former township area. Last but not least would be the name of the finalized community. Many cities have found it very worthwhile to do a combination name. Past examples of this are when the Village of Edina and the Village of Morningside consolidated,they became Edina- , Morningside with a caveat that within the next five years, the combined City Council would determine a final name for the community. This then gives a transition time for people that live in the community as to what name they would like and time for the name to be accepted. • The purpose of this point paper is just to lie out thoughts for any future possible consolidation efforts by Lake Elmo or Bayport so that there is a level playing field for all and to have the township treated fairly. It is worthwhile to let other people know the real possible parameters that are appropriate for any consolidation. The township ought to 41/ expect good,valid, open negotiations that make both political and fmancial sense. That deal ought to be the same whether it is from Lake Elmo or from Bayport. It is just not good public policy to unfairly take advantage of a tax-spreading situation,nor to take advantage of a community identity situation or to take advantage of a governance issue within a community. The purpose of this document is not to recommend nor endorse any consolidation effort,but just to indicate what should be on the table. If you have any further questions or comments,please let me know. • • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH • MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Melena FROM: Scott Richards DATE: July 22, 1999 RE: Oak Park Heights -Annexation Study FILE NO: 798.04 I have researched the annexation history for the City of Oak Park Heights through files in our office and the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB). A copy of the findings for the MMB • actions related to Oak Park Heights is attached. For many of the annexations in the 1970s and 1980s, our files do not contain maps, or property descriptions of the areas involved. Additionally, the MMB does not have easy access to its files for copies of the annexation orders and maps. As a result, the graphic, as attached, only includes those annexations where a map or description was available for reference. pc: Kris Danielson 410 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 612 - 595 - 9636 FAX 612 - 595 - 9837 E-MAIL NAC @WINTERNET.COM • ., 0 L 0 Iii ^ M ': O CO �' .-. a u) .r 0 c a "c a) a DI O '- co L p O M Q.. a a) .0 Y C.- O N 2 0 a) CU c O O I N 7 N o L Cu L V) a) C cu U �_ .a o . .� E > m Q CU ti a) i i a N a) CO I� -0 -0 '0 -0 I C j r U) co a) Lo m a i i m �j CO 0 0 C ti `O' C C C N 'O c 0 _ O O "0 0 0 U 0 0 C- Lo Z co O a) a) U O O -Co O a) a a) 0 0 a) N M M - a \ co co Q. a 0 N. N. -- co r CA co O a a N CO - - N Q N - - Q Q v- 1- C\ CM N Cr) N- ti ti 0 0 \ 0 Cu w 00 to rn N 0 1:3) 0) 0) 0) N N N- 0) 0) 0) d' N 0)C .0>_ O O c c c O c E z o 0 Z Z C 0 C 0 I- 0 Q 00 H 0 00 Z Q I- L s L a CD CD C 0_ a a C CD a O Z 0 a a g a. 2 c c CD a a 0. a) 0 W - o W Q Q Q Q O 0 Q Q Q 0 C Q z= Q U m N Cl) N N P c c L L L 0 L c Y o o = -0 -0 -2a Z -2 g � DD 0 O z Q 0 0 O O W O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 Q CL v) w J z z Q 0 G W re 0 Q CU 0 V I- 0 0 C) G (N al CCU cCU d' al CU CCU C CU Cu w CU CU CU Ce 0 0. C.. CC) (`• 0. C%, C`., 0, 0, re C • 1- LO 0 d' C`• C`. N 0. Cam. Cam. r. Cam. 0. C`• v- co N C`• N CO- 0. N 0.. 0. 0. N 0 O 0) 0 0. 1— Q H N = m C 3 _ co v co o a 0) co Q <m co N L L L L .0 L L .0 L L L L 0) N 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) C7) 0) 0) = 'T = = = = = = = = 2 = = 2 Q L 1 Y Y Y '''.1... Y 'S". Y Y Y Y Y L L � L L L L L L L L L CO CU +- CU CU Cu CU CU CU CU CO CU CO CO a 0 a 3 p_ a. CL a a a a a CL a a >, ,C _ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Cu Co CU = CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU CU Cu O m 0c# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E CD •M O •I N C ) 01 0N O a) co O N M 0 N N 0 r 00 N r r r a s o 0 0 o a ¢ a a a• . • N - a a) F, O N o O co N Z Y c O CO-- O 45 ' N CO> co 7 C t N o .D o .f C O CU Cl) al U C c () CU N 0 O N Z 2 N O oo C) N CO 13 1 13 •D ' N O � _ a) N a) N Ch v 0 -o• ' O 6 O C C N > 0 O U O as U N .O CO r- Q "' l) co 4) co O N M od N c4 N 13 O C 't7 (N N Cr) N '� C CU C m C C C O - e" o Z -a 5 c 5 5 5 C a_ Cl) C1 C Q O. Q C Q C C O < 0 < < < (II V C 0 0 N N U) U) N • 1 V V N C 0 0 0 ao_ 0 0 0 0 0 CU K d C CU CU CU CU C C O O< N N ; C-. 0 O. C.". N C: 0) C•• (\. r- CO M V) U) (/) (/) co U) V) Cl) L L C C C C C C Q) 0) 0) a) 0) O CD O) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I C C IU CL a. CU a 0- a a a CU al CU C CU CU CU C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • N 't CO N CO N 0) V' CO CO N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q • • • • Q to _ X11%/►�-11111111�i�j:1:∎:1:■�11®�_ `__ 1,1-111111'-- -- :$„ Figlie --..alir i o Ii 1 i 1 31. u) 0 0 II% Ilimw I i ._,,,,- 0- ,9:_. is hap fillj 1� ' " w D s i " ‘11111111roc*-z-iii,,*/Ac.:-.-, 1 O ��� g � ilk�Fi; a ,'���� • �/ 6 " t Y 3 s!iii Itoil.,„,16,........g, .„si iIi1UIJ1' e,,• , '' II!• _-4.10.41,410/151,4)4A0-41 is!: .,, ..', ,-.. ',. -..., ,:„. •,,,.,; , ,:., 1., ‘, lo Jill - ,.., Illk winid 41 r‘ill,,ar-ij‘ ■ Mr 4' ''' . '''' '''' ' '' '1111' V/111111/0111 Allgral __ � . __ filltill i.•m 11 4110igrairibld (,i�� y F ; �, ���1 I, 11 ao Z 4►I '�40011M�� s�,,,h' k�L! ! 10 ,�.1 , I t°�+ IscY�5r F"yllt ^ 1' t, �/ • BIT rist#7.12111111tor4i 1 I� Z o Ili cz P1!" w � .,.D � �° r wait*#401,-, X11■��1►���� .� .._,.. iii ���_� , _ ® r �iII11II o* Fo' g g 1111\ .. . a) =3 ' 0 . r,i '1!!IiI : J „,,,„r,,n-o a o . .sir ® It--1111-----ailliwito a o. n o. o ° ��; � , 111 5 g o ■ ►�a .t– ..� ►I■-' w IL\tlirI: O i::�::■■-1111111%� -- – �/illlll �� ” m IA p o O I.■-I;-■sri.�' 1 IIIIIIIa op ,,` I'II ■ • 1 �■■ 11111111■� r ��(a o ~ Q �• r :%I�4t II■Il� _� ,141=�"ISI■U G C■I�I��IUt� lu..a■i ._o �■•1111 iil�4 O I�,1 f�1=i�'1�tutt�■� Il � �'•r�j� r�i�° .1�7��I 41 �1.tuuuuu._ ,• �r � _. • ` �_ � ::p��:—�Iii;I ,rail-111-1.•�• • '' a 1111 HU n. .I•.� 111� ILI ��; �■ ■1■n nun i''I� Iii1�1= 1I o ° • �ilsfslif�%Ilu■ +n���.' , II PI � V�i����■1�O, "">S •y =■�■i X111 z 1[ 0° +N r ► ■!II��-� ��It11�.1■■ ■11. -177.- iiir ■■ ■nn�.I�■lu ��Iv—il I�. 1 il $■■I��i IiE■IIII 1111 Illt� %:A .,, � , lam p1111I1_Ni111/1!ari,p ip' �„ �-:orI�■I/u■iol■1111 EN r ,. 7�4 A r� �1i i1�N al ii1111�1®�::11►'�1 o w X11. .1M1" - - / .. ■1■pi ,,, �� .0;1,17, f/1 .0 �� �� ak; C I _ Iui11111118Ilu_1111'1 mm ® ' ; iikr o N 1111 111111111111 111111111111■n1111111111 !!!!!!!on nun IIII }IIII 111111 IIIIIIIJIrnisi mill 1!n igi 11 num MN 111111_IIIIII,111111 mm tit ., ' }+ iiii IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII_IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIlIIIIIl!1111111 1111111 111111 111111 ■111 111111 1111111 Nor.'''''" l_1∎∎llllllll!!1...-�1!!al 1 .� CO 111 a 111111111111111111112111111111111111111111 I 1� � , ,�2 v� �`�' ' C CO 1111 IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 111111 111111 1111111 111111 IIIIIIIIIIII 111111 1111111 n1i�u 111nii�II ln r , 1 !kh k' t5: ti co IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111 11111111111111 1111111 1111111 11111'1 Iillil 111111 111111 1111111 p1111 111111 i,.•11•r ' / ,r M ' X11-- 11 u1.111 thilii111111111IIIIIIt�I y a xl y rs# O IIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111(IIIIIIIIIIII!!1111 111111 1111111 IIIIIIII 1111111 1�II111 II._-111 111111!ylii!liilllllllllllllllllll I / '°I� It �, � F'+ �at� ' '� D 1111 111111111111 II11111111I IIII II I11111111111111111L1111.111111 1111111 11111111 111111 111111 1111111 111111 1111111111111 11111111j1!U� ! ? + U F ar 111 111111111111111111111111_1111111111111111111111111nn Ilia Iui11 um. 1'"1\\11\11 111111 �I11�t \0111IUW11JILnn; m = 1111 1 111111111,11 111111111111 11111111111111111 111111111111 OWt 111 Ott .0 11111' '" ur- r 1911A11 11: 111.•; n•1t0111\ X111 %� w ...,� ...::101 01111 :nu• Q11111111 „_" hw w 1111111111 111 1 11!11 IUII 1111111 Inn'' `1110 \,1111 0 0, \i�111\o tt• „,Y.,.,,-r,',0:- S' t ` F r s X /In'�11111111 IILI Il1t111111 I III\1t�11\1�1 1\\1\11 Q����11'1\U\111111 1\11\11„�1i V0011 .:,. �I i C' li'N!Illlll (IIIIIIIIIIII(IIIIIIIIIIII X11\11,�11��� 1p111 1\1111 111111•` t4 k l F p11 t 0 '= �iti�,t'11ii:!111 mum IIIIIIIIIIII X1111111111100%10 ►VQ11111\1 jl�' / �?, �” � �"� O � ' L'r►�.1■: .xu111_�.a11 Ertl■�',''� III Q "'�tj� t ,,-,,,�,�i'i'.'•,'Lium1 111111 °'11Ww• /� ' ., ' � pal '. ,i_ Ilii!!g1;:1(IIIIIIIIIIII►1111 01111114007, ' # ,' k 1` ri t , , J1■�q �111�1 II r Jp, „ v « $`k ..r 1\71. LTt�r �� 1011�1'1'� o ∎1 nu1aiiIIIMI1p11111111�1,110. oallsOf a ,. 3 r 1 lWii/ E< s I•�� b n 0, ,,, l v Fi - J.,� 3M its.,„;” ,n ,:t,:t;�i ;1,,.'!_tts;n 1 °�, �- `i 1 MAY 20, 1998 ' 5:30 P.M. Civil Air Patrol Hangar MEETING W/ OAIC PARK OFFICIALS AND BAYTOWN RESIDENTS(Oakgreen Ave. No.) IMPACTED BY AN ORDERLY ANNEXATION PROPOSAL FROM OAK PARK HEIGHTS BAYTOWN: Supervisors Nichols& Nelsen; Clerk St. Claire; eight residents. OAK PARK: Admin. Melena; Mayor Schaaf Council. Member Beaudet. Supervisor Nichols opened the meeting and asked that the residents fed free to ask questions of Baytown and Oak Park officials and to let everyone know of their concerns with the proposed orderly annexation deal offered. OPH Admin. Melena stated that his city wants to see a flexible orderly annexation agreement with tax increases to the municipal rate spread over six years and no forced hookups to city sewer and water unless there is a system failure or the land is sold for another use than residential OPH expects that Oakgreen will be reconstructed by 2001 - 2002 and utilities will be extended. Supervisor Nelsen asked if the homes will be spared or demolished with the road upgrades and Mr.Melena stated that depending on the road design, some homes will go. .However, if OPH rezones the area immediately after the orderly annexation to commercial, the displaced residents will "come out okay'. OPH will establish a central business district to the west of Oakgreen as 58th Street goes through and land values will increase. There will also be office and light retail zoning, as well as some park land to the southwest and linear park trails through the area. Presbyterian Homes will develop a large complex west of Oakgreen. Mrs. Nordine, a Baytown resident, wanted specific areas identified for development and Mr.Melena reassured her that no homes will be removed when 58th Street is extended beginning in late August or early September. The road plan will skirt wetlands to the south of the planned development area and will try to keep trees intact for the River Hills neighborhood. Mrs. Splittstoesser, another town resident, asked about the timing of MN DOT improve- ments for Oakgreen south from Highway 36 and was told by Mr.Melena that no people are removed from homes until construction begins. Mrs. Nordine wanted to know about specific tax increases and Mr.Melena and Mayor Schaaf estimated that resident's taxes on a $100,000 home would go up about$35 in Oak Park. Al Palmer, Baytown resident, asked if OPH will contribute to sewer and water costs. Mr. Melena stated that Oak Park does not pay for initial costs and only fifty percent of rebuilds. However, Mr.Melena explained that assessments can be spread over fifteen years. Mr. Palmer asked about his father's land with over five hundred feet of frontage and expressed fear over the assessments. Mr. Melena said that OPH could put some of the costs into a `systems charge' so he does not pay an unfair share for the rest of the . _ benefiting area. Mayor Schaaf and Mr. Melena urged citizens to not sell immediately, but to wait until Washington County wants to condemn and citizens will get more money for land searches, relocation costs, etc. because Washington County will only take the land that they need and not necessarily one's entire parcel. Dick Jorgenson, Baytown resident, stated that he will end up on the southwest corner of 58th St. as it tees into Oakgreen Ave., and he wanted to know the value for him sitting at an intersection. Mayor Schaaf reminded him that,"OPH will rezone the area to commercial,and you can sell and make money. With over five hundred jobs alone with the Presbyterian Homes complex and all the traffic going by, someone will want to buy your land? Mr. Melena seconded that statement and said that if the orderly annexation goes through, they will amend their comp. plan and rezone the area immediately. Mr. Jorgenson asked why 58th ended up being pushed south. Mr.'Melena stated that the powerlines forced the issue for sound development and the River Hills residents wanted a 150 foot buffer between homes and 58th St.. OPH hopes to see a"neo traditional' development like a Georgetown or a Boston Commons in the area west of Oakgreen and also a theater and retail complex with a Kohl's or a Sears as well. Mr. Melena mentioned that almost all of the Haase land has been optioned. Mayor Schaaf stated that Washington County needs to be pressured to upgrade and take over Oakgreen/Northbrook. Resident, Dick Jorgenson, lamented that the Oakgreen Avenue residents an basically Oak Park, right now, right? . &UAL: Notes from P.L.St.Claire Clerk • •